Pre-existing conditions

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
Yes, the phrase "full and complete" is totally ambiguous. What type of lunatic would understand that to mean that it would be a comprehensive plan. "Full and complete" is nearly as ambiguous as the phrase "in 2 weeks."

There are dozens of possible health care plans that would be full and complete without being Medicare for All. The ACA would be the most obvious example
There were/are 10s of millions of uninsured after the ACA was fully implemented. See...the definition of full and complete depends on what you perceive.

Are you really arguing that Trump isn’t ambiguous about his use of language?

Most reporters questions after Trump makes a statement is “what do you mean by that?”.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
1,631
Points
113
There were/are 10s of millions of uninsured after the ACA was fully implemented. See...the definition of full and complete depends on what you perceive.

Are you really arguing that Trump isn’t ambiguous about his use of language?

Most reporters questions after Trump makes a statement is “what do you mean by that?”.
No, I agree, Trump says ridiculous nonsense all the time. And many times, as in this instance, you defend that nonsense and say that it's going to come true two weeks later.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
No, I agree, Trump says ridiculous nonsense all the time. And many times, as in this instance, you defend that nonsense and say that it's going to come true two weeks later.
He’s going to do something. I doubt it will be “full and complete” and that will have you TDSers flipping out.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,316
Reaction score
3,564
Points
113
Where is the part about “replacing the ACA”? Like I said, what is “full and complete”? It could be a full and complete guarantee of parts, like pre-existing conditions. The only full and complete plan possible would be Medicare for all. If he said full and complete tax reduction would you expect zero federal taxes?
You're flailing. He said what he said. He lied. We know he lied. You know he lied. You pathetically pretzel instead of just admitting that.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,316
Reaction score
3,564
Points
113
He’s going to do something. I doubt it will be “full and complete” and that will have you TDSers flipping out.
He may issue some meaningless BS executive order. It will in no way remotely be what he said two weeks ago and you have defended like a fool.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
32,164
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Sad thing is nearly all pre-existing conditions are optional and the result of poor lifestyle decisions.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
It’s an Executive Order. Obama signed a (illegal) DACA EO and the Supreme Court gave it credence by not simply allowing the Trump Administration to nullify it, so Trump can play that game too.

It will change the narrative. Instead of goofs like howie repeating that Trump is against “pre-existing conditions”, Trump will have an EO that supports them. The only way for Democrats to counter his support would be to legally challenge his EO.
Soon to be done.

And for waiving the payroll tax, evictions, freezing student loan payment requirements, etc.

🤣😂🤣😂

Thanks Justice Roberts...your decision gave President Trump the same powers as President Obama.

I guess you didn’t think that one through.

The Dems now don’t have the issue of pre-existing conditions to claim Trump wants to do away with. Or...they could take Trump to court to overrule that. 🤣😂
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,316
Reaction score
3,564
Points
113
Soon to be done.

And for waiving the payroll tax, evictions, freezing student loan payment requirements, etc.

🤣😂🤣😂

Thanks Justice Roberts...your decision gave President Trump the same powers as President Obama.

I guess you didn’t think that one through.

The Dems now don’t have the issue of pre-existing conditions to claim Trump wants to do away with. Or...they could take Trump to court to overrule that. 🤣😂
Lick, lick. Lick, lick. Trump issues an EO ordering insurance companies to do something that the ACA already does. Everyone with a brain is laughing at him. You're lapping eagerly.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
Lick, lick. Lick, lick. Trump issues an EO ordering insurance companies to do something that the ACA already does. Everyone with a brain is laughing at him. You're lapping eagerly.
If the SCOTUS rules the ACA unconstitutional, you’ll be screaming “pre-existing conditions!”. With the EO, there’s no point. Unless Dems take Trump’s EO to the SCOTUS to strike it down.

You’re not smart.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,316
Reaction score
3,564
Points
113
If the SCOTUS rules the ACA unconstitutional, you’ll be screaming “pre-existing conditions!”. With the EO, there’s no point. Unless Dems take Trump’s EO to the SCOTUS to strike it down.

You’re not smart.
He's lying {as usual) saying this "has never been done before". It's pathetic. The fact that he "needs" to do this because he's simultaneously trying to gut the ACA is a joke.

If the ACA is gutted, this EO is meaningless. Companies will simply charge rates on those with pre-existing conditions that are so high they can't keep it. They will still lose their coverage. You know this and are playing dumb to defend your hero.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
32,164
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Should people with pre-existing conditions be incentivized to cure themselves or should you continue with a deeply compromised quality of life? Are you capable of living a good life? Do you enjoy being a suitable COVID host?
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
1,631
Points
113
Soon to be done.

And for waiving the payroll tax, evictions, freezing student loan payment requirements, etc.

🤣😂🤣😂

Thanks Justice Roberts...your decision gave President Trump the same powers as President Obama.

I guess you didn’t think that one through.

The Dems now don’t have the issue of pre-existing conditions to claim Trump wants to do away with. Or...they could take Trump to court to overrule that. 🤣😂
Except the insurance companies would then be able to charge you $200,000 per month premiums
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
607
Reaction score
280
Points
63
Except the insurance companies would then be able to charge you $200,000 per month premiums
Why should pre existing conditions be covered by insurance companies. I can’t call State Farm after a car accident and say I want insurance to cover the accident. Most states already had a market place set up to cover high risk groups. Wisconsin had a HRISP. They covered people with obesity and diabetes. Once the ACA came around that program was gutted.
 

Panthadad2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
2,709
Reaction score
762
Points
113
The ACA/Obamacare had a noble cause (affordable insurance to uninsured and with pre-existing conditions) but the actual mechanism for how it works is terrible. I've long said, the only people who like getting insurance on the exchanges are those who are desperate or don't have to buy it (90%+of the population).

The vast majority of people in the U.S. are on employer group health plans or Medicare. They barely felt the impact of the ACA as it changed little for those consumers. The ACA exchanges are just an abstract political arguing point for them.

However, it's not an abstract concept for about 20-30 million Americans in the individual insurance market; mainly very small business, self employed, independent contractors, farmers, and such who now buy on the ACA exchanges.

The individual market used to be healthy and affordable prior to the ACA as it was comprised of mainly healthy working-aged people and families; similar to most employer plans. Then, the ACA forced the people with pre-existing conditions into that individual market which exploded premium costs the first two to three years.

The original assumption was that there would be enough young healthy people on the exchanges to offset the pre-existing costs. That never happened. Young people saw the high costs and high deductibles, said to hell with it and opted out. The opt-out fines, which were rarely paid, were much lower. The result is all of us small business and self-employed people with families have shitty ass Obamacare exchange insurance.

Honestly, at this point, all I want is decent insurance. Figure out a way to help pay for those with pre-existing conditions and low income without screwing up the individual market. Public option, state run private plans, competing across state lines....I don't care. Just do it.
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,426
Reaction score
1,164
Points
113
Should people with pre-existing conditions be incentivized to cure themselves or should you continue with a deeply compromised quality of life? Are you capable of living a good life? Do you enjoy being a suitable COVID host?
You are a heartless bastard.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
He's lying {as usual) saying this "has never been done before". It's pathetic. The fact that he "needs" to do this because he's simultaneously trying to gut the ACA is a joke.

If the ACA is gutted, this EO is meaningless. Companies will simply charge rates on those with pre-existing conditions that are so high they can't keep it. They will still lose their coverage. You know this and are playing dumb to defend your hero.
You know this before seeing the EO?

From the guy that says elect Joe Biden and a Democrat majority in the Senate, they won’t do most of what they say they’ll do, so don’t worry.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
Interesting than none of the lefties are complaining about the unconstitutionality of what Trump is doing. Probably b/c they know what Obama did with DACA was unconstitutional as well, but they just can’t bring themselves to say it.

I don’t believe this is how our founders wished the government to run, but when the SCOTUS let’s Obama get away with it, they have to live with any other president doing the same.

Apply the law consistently and they wouldn’t have a problem.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
45,316
Reaction score
3,564
Points
113
Interesting than none of the lefties are complaining about the unconstitutionality of what Trump is doing. Probably b/c they know what Obama did with DACA was unconstitutional as well, but they just can’t bring themselves to say it.

I don’t believe this is how our founders wished the government to run, but when the SCOTUS let’s Obama get away with it, they have to live with any other president doing the same.

Apply the law consistently and they wouldn’t have a problem.
What Trump is doing is likely unconstitutional. Some of Obama's EO's were too. We also know that he's lying about it, because he did last night. "It's never been done before" is a lie. Plus he lies almost every time he opens his mouth, but you know that.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
1,631
Points
113
Why should pre existing conditions be covered by insurance companies. I can’t call State Farm after a car accident and say I want insurance to cover the accident. Most states already had a market place set up to cover high risk groups. Wisconsin had a HRISP. They covered people with obesity and diabetes. Once the ACA came around that program was gutted.
You should explain that to Mr Full and Complete Healthcare Law, Donald Trump
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
What Trump is doing is likely unconstitutional. Some of Obama's EO's were too. We also know that he's lying about it, because he did last night. "It's never been done before" is a lie. Plus he lies almost every time he opens his mouth, but you know that.
I believe he’s talking about WHAT he’s doing it for. That’s not a lie.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
607
Reaction score
280
Points
63
You should explain that to Mr Full and Complete Healthcare Law, Donald Trump
I don’t understand, the high risk marketplace was removed in 2014 when the ACA was implemented. Answer the question, why should an insurance company cover pre existing conditions of people. No other insurance in the world would cover an issue that occurred prior to insurance being purchased.
 

Panthadad2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
2,709
Reaction score
762
Points
113
I don’t understand, the high risk marketplace was removed in 2014 when the ACA was implemented. Answer the question, why should an insurance company cover pre existing conditions of people. No other insurance in the world would cover an issue that occurred prior to insurance being purchased.
Two points:

Regarding the former high risk marketplace, it's my understanding that it was a hellish process to get accepted. Those with pre-existing conditions had to prove they couldn't get insurance elsewhere and had a six month waiting period (I think). Once they got it, it was decent. In Minnesota, rates were capped at ~15% above a comparable healthy person's insurance which is pretty good - probably much less then current Obamacare exchange insurance. Most, but not all, states had similar plans.

Regarding the insurance companies...I don't feel sorry them. They pass along the pre-existing costs to whatever risk pool the unhealthy are buying from. That's why the Obamacare exchange insurance is so expensive now.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
607
Reaction score
280
Points
63
Two points:

Regarding the former high risk marketplace, it's my understanding that it was a hellish process to get accepted. Those with pre-existing conditions had to prove they couldn't get insurance elsewhere and had a six month waiting period (I think). Once they got it, it was decent. In Minnesota, rates were capped at ~15% above a comparable healthy person's insurance which is pretty good - probably much less then current Obamacare exchange insurance. Most, but not all, states had similar plans.

Regarding the insurance companies...I don't feel sorry them. They pass along the pre-existing costs to whatever risk pool the unhealthy are buying from. That's why the Obamacare exchange insurance is so expensive now.
I had it in Wisconsin and it was a very easy process to get in. Rates were good. They were higher than when the ACA came out , but of course they were not being subsidized by the government.

As bad as private insurance is, I don’t see why people think a country of 330 million people could have strictly government run health care. Just remember it would be run by the same people that could pass a stupid stimulus bill to just extend unemployment benefits. They wanted billions of dollars for pet projects. The last thing I want is some government employee showing up at my house saying we’ve done the cost benefit analysis and you don’t get the surgery cause it’s too risky. Enjoy the last year of your life.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
6,460
Reaction score
1,099
Points
113
As bad as private insurance is, I don’t see why people think a country of 330 million people could have strictly government run health care.
Of those countries with universal health care, quite a number do employ private health insurance (possibly more than those with single payor). There are substantial differences, though. The insurance companies are tightly regulated, the compensation of their top executives is far more limited, and doctors are much more regulated as to how much they can charge. If doctors do operate outside of the insurance networks for all or certain procedures, they are required to tell patients how much they will charge upfront.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
I had it in Wisconsin and it was a very easy process to get in. Rates were good. They were higher than when the ACA came out , but of course they were not being subsidized by the government.

As bad as private insurance is, I don’t see why people think a country of 330 million people could have strictly government run health care. Just remember it would be run by the same people that could pass a stupid stimulus bill to just extend unemployment benefits. They wanted billions of dollars for pet projects. The last thing I want is some government employee showing up at my house saying we’ve done the cost benefit analysis and you don’t get the surgery cause it’s too risky. Enjoy the last year of your life.
I don’t think they will extend you that courtesy. You might get a letter saying ‘request declined’.
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
21,157
Reaction score
839
Points
113
I had it in Wisconsin and it was a very easy process to get in. Rates were good. They were higher than when the ACA came out , but of course they were not being subsidized by the government.

As bad as private insurance is, I don’t see why people think a country of 330 million people could have strictly government run health care. Just remember it would be run by the same people that could pass a stupid stimulus bill to just extend unemployment benefits. They wanted billions of dollars for pet projects. The last thing I want is some government employee showing up at my house saying we’ve done the cost benefit analysis and you don’t get the surgery cause it’s too risky. Enjoy the last year of your life.
Do you have examples of that happening?
 
Top Bottom