- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 20,231
- Reaction score
- 21,633
- Location
- Cambridge, MA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
In its brief, also filed on June 7, the Justice Department abandoned its customary role of defending laws passed by Congress and took the side of Texas, agreeing that the mandate is now unconstitutional. The Trump administration also argued that the ACA’s guaranteed issue and community rating requirement, which ban insurers from denying coverage or charging people more based on their health, can only work in tandem with the mandate and must also be invalidated. The rest of the ACA can function without the mandate, the brief says, and should be retained.
The move was designed by newly empowered Democrats to put Republicans on the record voting for or against protecting Obamacare and its safeguards for those with pre-existing conditions. The GOP has for years fought against the law, with House Republicans voting in 2017 for repeal.
Wednesday's vote was 235 to 192, with three Republicans supporting the measure.
Um, but, I believe it’s going to be terminated, whether it be through the Texas case, which is going through the court system as a victory right now, because of, you know, the various elements of that case, you would think it would have to be terminated. But a deal will be made for good health care in this country. That’s one of the things I’ll be doing.
Last summer the Trump administration took the position that a Texas court should strike down the parts of the ACA that protect people with pre-existing conditions (the rest of the law could stay, they argued, only those protections should be thrown out).
In the meantime, the Dems built their entire midterm message around defending those with pre-existing conditions ("With midterms approaching, Democrats go all-in on health care, pre-existing conditions ").
GOP candidates, including those pushing that very lawsuit to strip people of pre-existing condition protections, were forced to pivot into lying about their own positions ("Republicans trumpet pre-existing condition protections despite votes to repeal Obamacare".)
It largely didn't work. The Dems ended up winning back the House by nine points in the highest turnout midterm in the era of universal suffrage. The bloodbath would like have been worse for the GOP without a little help from their friend in Texas, who kept his powder dry and the lawsuit out of the headlines until after the election, opting instead to drop his bomb during open enrollment (""Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act").
The GOP, it seems, wasn't chastened by its electoral loss. It failed its first test on protecting those with pre-existing conditions during an early vote last month in the newly Dem-led House:
And where's Trump on the issue? Based on his interview with the NYT last week, still rooting against those with pre-existing conditions:
There you have it. Dumping pre-existing condition protections would be a great "victory" for the GOP. Not so much for the American people.
Looks like this fight will be on the ballot again in 2020.
Last summer the Trump administration took the position that a Texas court should strike down the parts of the ACA that protect people with pre-existing conditions (the rest of the law could stay, they argued, only those protections should be thrown out).
In the meantime, the Dems built their entire midterm message around defending those with pre-existing conditions ("With midterms approaching, Democrats go all-in on health care, pre-existing conditions ").
GOP candidates, including those pushing that very lawsuit to strip people of pre-existing condition protections, were forced to pivot into lying about their own positions ("Republicans trumpet pre-existing condition protections despite votes to repeal Obamacare".)
It largely didn't work. The Dems ended up winning back the House by nine points in the highest turnout midterm in the era of universal suffrage. The bloodbath would like have been worse for the GOP without a little help from their friend in Texas, who kept his powder dry and the lawsuit out of the headlines until after the election, opting instead to drop his bomb during open enrollment (""Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act").
The GOP, it seems, wasn't chastened by its electoral loss. It failed its first test on protecting those with pre-existing conditions during an early vote last month in the newly Dem-led House:
And where's Trump on the issue? Based on his interview with the NYT last week, still rooting against those with pre-existing conditions:
There you have it. Dumping pre-existing condition protections would be a great "victory" for the GOP. Not so much for the American people.
Looks like this fight will be on the ballot again in 2020.
It would be great if those with pre-existing conditions have their own personal health insurance and those without pre-existing conditions have their own insurance.
It is unfair to mix these groups of people into the same pool, and unfair for healthy individuals to pay for those that have pre-existing conditions. My solution would be simple but fair. Allow healthy individuals to be insured privateley and the other people to be insured through a federal program where we can syphon funds from medicare, medicaid, and social security into the high risk pool. The federal program can also take in donations.
Almost everything is a pre-existing condition, like having a vagina or having knee pain once. What is and isn't is completely arbitrary, and having a system where the first time you get some condition you're automatically uninsurable is completely ridiculous and inhumane. As long as you support having a backwards healthcare system like the US has, you're going to continue to pay the highest premiums in the world for an ever decreasing standard of care already being beaten by over a dozen nations.
Listen, those with pre-existing conditions should have insurance, however it should be through high-risk pools where healthy people have to pay for it.
Pre-existing condition protections still in the GOP's crosshairs
You can't point to one single functioning example of a healthcare system that operates anything even remotely similar to what you advocate for. I can point to dozens of countries successfully implementing what I suggest for much less than we're paying at ranked higher in quality of care. No, kicking people out of our healthcare system for arbitrary reasons is not a good idea.
I do not want to pay gastric bypass surgery for someone that eats unhealthy, or pay drug treatment for an addict. These are all self-inflicting costs. Kicking people out for their own failed life decisions seems fair.
Then drop out of the insurance market all together. Save your own money and pay for everything out of pocket. That is the only way to not have to pay for anybody else, stop using insurance. Large numbers of people pooling risk and paying for each other is kind of the entire point of insurance.
Last summer the Trump administration took the position that a Texas court should strike down the parts of the ACA that protect people with pre-existing conditions (the rest of the law could stay, they argued, only those protections should be thrown out).
In the meantime, the Dems built their entire midterm message around defending those with pre-existing conditions ("With midterms approaching, Democrats go all-in on health care, pre-existing conditions ").
GOP candidates, including those pushing that very lawsuit to strip people of pre-existing condition protections, were forced to pivot into lying about their own positions ("Republicans trumpet pre-existing condition protections despite votes to repeal Obamacare".)
It largely didn't work. The Dems ended up winning back the House by nine points in the highest turnout midterm in the era of universal suffrage. The bloodbath would like have been worse for the GOP without a little help from their friend in Texas, who kept his powder dry and the lawsuit out of the headlines until after the election, opting instead to drop his bomb during open enrollment (""Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act").
The GOP, it seems, wasn't chastened by its electoral loss. It failed its first test on protecting those with pre-existing conditions during an early vote last month in the newly Dem-led House:
And where's Trump on the issue? Based on his interview with the NYT last week, still rooting against those with pre-existing conditions:
There you have it. Dumping pre-existing condition protections would be a great "victory" for the GOP. Not so much for the American people.
Looks like this fight will be on the ballot again in 2020.
That's the point. Many people want people to like me to be forced to pay for health insurance. They want to treat health insurance like taxes, or entitlement spendings where the only way to avoid paying for this is to not work at all.
I not only find that unfair, I find it unconstitutional.
Do you think someone should be able to go to the doctor without insurance and discover they have an illness that is more expensive than carrying insurance and then go buy a policy and have that treatment covered by the insurer?Last summer the Trump administration took the position that a Texas court should strike down the parts of the ACA that protect people with pre-existing conditions (the rest of the law could stay, they argued, only those protections should be thrown out).
In the meantime, the Dems built their entire midterm message around defending those with pre-existing conditions ("With midterms approaching, Democrats go all-in on health care, pre-existing conditions ").
GOP candidates, including those pushing that very lawsuit to strip people of pre-existing condition protections, were forced to pivot into lying about their own positions ("Republicans trumpet pre-existing condition protections despite votes to repeal Obamacare".)
It largely didn't work. The Dems ended up winning back the House by nine points in the highest turnout midterm in the era of universal suffrage. The bloodbath would like have been worse for the GOP without a little help from their friend in Texas, who kept his powder dry and the lawsuit out of the headlines until after the election, opting instead to drop his bomb during open enrollment (""Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act").
The GOP, it seems, wasn't chastened by its electoral loss. It failed its first test on protecting those with pre-existing conditions during an early vote last month in the newly Dem-led House:
And where's Trump on the issue? Based on his interview with the NYT last week, still rooting against those with pre-existing conditions:
There you have it. Dumping pre-existing condition protections would be a great "victory" for the GOP. Not so much for the American people.
Looks like this fight will be on the ballot again in 2020.
It also opens the door to justifying the gov implement new laws to regulate what it deems as high risk behavior and incorporating more sin taxes on people. That is the bigger unspoken danger associated to what the left is advocating.I do not want to pay gastric bypass surgery for someone that eats unhealthy, or pay drug treatment for an addict. These are all self-inflicting costs. Kicking people out for their own failed life decisions seems fair.
That's fine by me but the left is demanding the opposite. They are demanding we all must have coverage and insurance companies must cover everythingThen drop out of the insurance market all together. Save your own money and pay for everything out of pocket. That is the only way to not have to pay for anybody else, stop using insurance. Large numbers of people pooling risk and paying for each other is kind of the entire point of insurance.
It would be great if those with pre-existing conditions have their own personal health insurance and those without pre-existing conditions have their own insurance.
It is unfair to mix these groups of people into the same pool, and unfair for healthy individuals to pay for those that have pre-existing conditions. My solution would be simple but fair. Allow healthy individuals to be insured privateley and the other people to be insured through a federal program where we can syphon funds from medicare, medicaid, and social security into the high risk pool. The federal program can also take in donations.
Do you think someone should be able to go to the doctor without insurance and discover they have an illness that is more expensive than carrying insurance and then go buy a policy and have that treatment covered by the insurer?
In a given year, 80% of the population accounts for 18% of the nation's health expenses. The other 20% accounts for the remaining 82% of costs.
There's no way to have a health system where the 80% isn't disproportionately paying for the 20%. The 20% isn't simply going to come up with the $3 trillion needed to pay their bills by themselves. Schemes to segment the risk pool to try and get the 80% off the hook for the 20% can't succeed without gutting the American health system while bankrupting millions of Americans in the process. And guess what? People bounce between the 80% and the 20% from year-to-year.
It would be great if those with pre-existing conditions have their own personal health insurance and those without pre-existing conditions have their own insurance.
It is unfair to mix these groups of people into the same pool, and unfair for healthy individuals to pay for those that have pre-existing conditions. My solution would be simple but fair. Allow healthy individuals to be insured privateley and the other people to be insured through a federal program where we can syphon funds from medicare, medicaid, and social security into the high risk pool. The federal program can also take in donations.
I do not want to pay gastric bypass surgery for someone that eats unhealthy, or pay drug treatment for an addict. These are all self-inflicting costs. Kicking people out for their own failed life decisions seems fair.
Last summer the Trump administration took the position that a Texas court should strike down the parts of the ACA that protect people with pre-existing conditions (the rest of the law could stay, they argued, only those protections should be thrown out).
In the meantime, the Dems built their entire midterm message around defending those with pre-existing conditions ("With midterms approaching, Democrats go all-in on health care, pre-existing conditions ").
GOP candidates, including those pushing that very lawsuit to strip people of pre-existing condition protections, were forced to pivot into lying about their own positions ("Republicans trumpet pre-existing condition protections despite votes to repeal Obamacare".)
It largely didn't work. The Dems ended up winning back the House by nine points in the highest turnout midterm in the era of universal suffrage. The bloodbath would like have been worse for the GOP without a little help from their friend in Texas, who kept his powder dry and the lawsuit out of the headlines until after the election, opting instead to drop his bomb during open enrollment (""Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act").
The GOP, it seems, wasn't chastened by its electoral loss. It failed its first test on protecting those with pre-existing conditions during an early vote last month in the newly Dem-led House:
And where's Trump on the issue? Based on his interview with the NYT last week, still rooting against those with pre-existing conditions:
There you have it. Dumping pre-existing condition protections would be a great "victory" for the GOP. Not so much for the American people.
Looks like this fight will be on the ballot again in 2020.
Democrats are big on providing free stuff and enlarged benefits for Americans, particularly those ignorant Americans who see democrats as American heroes for promoting free stuff. However, it seems there are few, even among republicans, who have a single clue as to how all these free benefits are going to be paid for without bankrupting the US economy and putting everyone in the poor house like Venezuelans reeling from socialism experimentation.
In a given year, 80% of the population accounts for 18% of the nation's health expenses. The other 20% accounts for the remaining 82% of costs.
There's no way to have a health system where the 80% isn't disproportionately paying for the 20%. The 20% isn't simply going to come up with the $3 trillion needed to pay their bills by themselves. Schemes to segment the risk pool to try and get the 80% off the hook for the 20% can't succeed without gutting the American health system while bankrupting millions of Americans in the process. And guess what? People bounce between the 80% and the 20% from year-to-year.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?