Posted on 11/30/2010 9:56:46 AM PST by roses of sharon
House Majority Leader-designate Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Monday that Republicans will not be seeking to completely scrap the healthcare reform law.
Cantor said there are certain elements of current law that will be included in the GOP plan, which he said will move simultaneously with a repeal measure through the House.
Provisions that Republicans will seek to retain include the barring of insurance companies from refusing coverage to patients with a pre-existing condition and allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance plans until age 26.
Speaking to more than 100 students at a town hall event at American University in Washington. D.C., Cantor responded to a question from a young woman who suffered from a chronic health condition by telling her, "We want to keep the pre-existing condition clause."
Cantor also told the woman that under the GOP plan, she should be able stay either "on a parent's health insurance" or be offered "another, equally affordable solution.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
A tax deduction of 150% for each dollar of premium would do wonders. There are ways to get more coverage without forcing people to take out coverage.
It is an easy choice!
Why didn’t Cantor tell the truth to this college student?
It was a perfect moment to teach them about their country and it’s constitution.
It is a pathology within the Republican Party, and they are lead by fear, and fear alone.
But it ultimately stops with us...the Republican officeholders simply reflect us...and our fears of the MSM and the Democrats.
There was a great sign at one of the DC rallies. It said “We came unarmed... this time!”
The warning didn’t take, or was ignored.
When in the Course of human events...
What you don't understand is that comes at a cost for other people when you require insurance companies to do that. That is part of the problem: States have lots of Cadillac requirements on insurance companies (must cover lots of things) which makes the costs of insurance go up in those states. When the federal government does it too, it makes costs go up for everyone in every state. Let the insurance companies offer what they want and you can buy what you want. If you want to have your kid covered until 26, they will have a plan for that and you and only you will have to pay extra for it. Government mandates and regulations on insurance companies drive up health care costs, including insurance costs.
Voting only legitimatizes corruption.
Have a good afternoon!
So much for the November election spine.
They are folding already.
[Bambam must have reminded them this morning that ‘he still won the big one’.]
The GOP promise had expiry date - almost a month after the election. Its back to business as usual in Washington.
I said people need to have an incentive to purchase coverage before they get the pre-ex condition. I understand the ramifications fully if people can take out coverage after coming down with a sickness or accident.
Insurance is for future events—not pre-exising conditions.
I remember the days when a newborn baby had to be enrolled and accepted for coverage...and the baby could be declined. How would you like to be parents of a newborn and be subject to $100,000's of thousands of cost because the baby was born with a severe medical problem? It would suck and it happened..a lot. Laws made many years ago prohibit this. Carriers have to accept a newborn no matter what the health conditionas are (not the same as the 18 year old clause).
This whole pre-ex is more complicated than you make it appear. It's not all cut and dried.
So you support tax-dollar funded premiums for all?
You support taxing people more heavily if they do not have coverage.
And, you still have not solved the problem of post-facto coverage BECAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL STILL HAVE TO PAY OUT MONEY NOT COVERED BY PREMIUMS.
You claim to have been in the industry for years, but you don’t seem to understand that preexisting coverage limits are there to protect the insurance companies from having to pay out huge sums of money that they cannot recoup through premiums?
Every one hates insurance companies like they hate the taxman.
Sorry to break it to you but the pre-existing ban will stick. People want to stick it to the insurance companies.
It’s going to take three more tough elections for us to get our majority in the majority.
Republicans want socialism lite.
The thinking is if they get rid of the most objectionable parts of Obamacare, they can claim credit for the rest of it.
Now you can see why people have so little regard for the word of politicians. At least used car salesmen sell what’s on offer.
He did not, a sure sign that Republicans will NEVER be able to campaign that way again, now that Obamacare has passed.
Got it.
Thank God we're not all Republicans.
It's time to campaign as AMERICANS.
Then I forsee a huge number of insurers out of business, or premiums out of sight.
People are stupid. Politicians expecially so.
No one cares as long as they feel good.
Eric Cantor could have used the moment to teach the young woman a lesson about freedom: if you want pre-existing conditions banned, you have to face fewer choices in getting insured or the government has to insure you.
Pandering doesn’t increase my respect for the Republican leadership.
RE: “cantor has always been a rino, now he’s the head rino”
****************
As I write this, Limbaugh’s head is exploding on the radio == he is SO infuriated!
If ever it was THIRD PARTY TIME, this is it.
I want a deduction just like the home mortgage deduction.
You support taxing people more heavily if they do not have coverage.
No I never said that. It would be their choice not to take out coverage..just like no one is forced to buy a home but the ones who do get the home mortgage tax deduction.
And, you still have not solved the problem of post-facto coverage BECAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL STILL HAVE TO PAY OUT MONEY NOT COVERED BY PREMIUMS.
Yes that is a problem.
You claim to have been in the industry for years, but you don’t seem to understand that preexisting coverage limits are there to protect the insurance companies from having to pay out huge sums of money that they cannot recoup through premiums?
As I said in post #67?? Insurance companies are still paying for these people with PE conditions because the hospitals have to bill them more to make up for the unsiured who just walk away from their bill. Just as if you had a retail store and every 3rd person came in to shoplift. You would have to charge the paying customers more to make up for the loss. Same thing happens in insurance.
Also better to get these PE people under medical care to treat their condition when it is minor versus them having no coverage and paying big $$ for end of life treatment because they are going to end up in the hospital anyway. A $15 a month diabetes drug is better than paying huge money for amputations or hospital care.
I don't have the answers but it's not all cut and dried that many think it is. It s a very complicated problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.