Well I am not sure that conservatives do have an adequate response for chronic and preexisting conditions.
When I hear Limbaugh riff on healthcare, I cringe.
This is a man who knows nothing about how healthcare works and who doesn’t understand the absolutely wipe-out, both financial and emotional, that happens to people with illness.
what if I have a preexisting condition on my driving record...
Will you sell me auto insurance after I get into a wreck ???
Gee you Democrats are heartless !!!
Trump has made it a point to say at every stump speech that the Republican plan will cover pre existing conditions.
I completely agree, actually.
Not with you. With the criticism.
The GOP is way, way wrong if they do ANYTHING to cut coverage for pre-existing conditions.
This is also important for FReepers...
We are on average, higher in age than some. I know some have excellent coverage, but there are some who do not.
Leave it alone.
Just my view.
We should have pre-existing conditions for car insurance too. Never pay for insurance, and if you total your car sign up with Geico and say “btw, you have to replace my car after you take my first month’s premium”
How about selling me home insurance ???
I live in Pensacola and the hurricane tore up my house ...
What ??? But I have a preexisting condition !!!
I want a new house !!! I have a right to new house care or something !!!
The point of having health insurance is to have $$$ available when you get sick and are facing medical bills.
But the concept of insurance that covers a pre-existing condition just translates into someone else pay for my pre-existing condition. It’s not even really “insurance” per se.
It seems to me that insurance that would cover pre-existing issues would be astronomically high by default !
If we simply enforced our over 100 yr old, long standing ANTI TRUST LAWS, the Health care delivery system in this country would be affordable for most without Insurance. If you actually read our Anti Trust Laws you will see it is a description of our current Medical System.
The Sherman Act outlaws “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” and any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.” Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are “per se” violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.
The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.
Oh I’ll answer them on this issue all right. But they don’t want to hear it. They don’t want to hear the truth: if some medical coverage plan takes people with pre-existing conditions, it’s not insurance. It’s some kind of a socialist medical program, but it’s not insurance. Insurance is based on a gamble that people will not get sick.
Never use the enemy’s language, words, false premises, or otherwise fake rants. Never talk in the enemy’s terms.
Respond assertively and emotionally.
Republicans care about healthcare and pre-existing ailments for Americans.
Democrats hurt children’s health.
Democrats want grandma to suffer.
Its not insurance. Its (inadequate) prepayment for care.
Thats step #1 in figuring this all out.
I support catastrophic coverage. Maybe targeted at cancer or traumatic accident. It should be cheap, because you probably won’t use it. And if you decide not to buy it, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get unlucky.
Too many people want to live in a “safe” society where nothing bad ever happens to anyone. And if it does happen, you gets lots of money. That’s foolish. Bad stuff happens, and you should be proactive and take personal responsibility for handling stuff as best you can. It’s not other people’s problem. It’s your problem.
Make sure you distinguish between “health care” and “health insurance”.
No one is denied health care.
I am without insurance for the first time in my adult life and it is scary since I do have a chronic condition. It will be January before I can afford to get new policy and will be on medicare in Oct of 2019 so just trying to hold on until then. Cobra is too high and since I withdrew large amount from my 401-k my income is too high for this year until Jan to find insurance I can afford. Had this all planned differently but had to retire 6 mos sooner than expected so it’s not always that people are scamming the system.
Use State run Hugh Risk Pools. Individuals are charged more because they are higher risk and chose to remain uninsured until they needed coverage. Many states had effective High Risk programs prior to Obamacare.
She failed to mention that she and the dims exempted themselves from 0bamacare and she enjoys a gold plated tax payer funded policy.
0bamacare, good enough for you, not good enough for the dims running for reelection.
Yes. This is their most effective issue. Seems every poll puts “healthcare” as the number one issue of concern.
“Pre-exising conditions” is at the core of that.
The media compare a make-believe stingy Republican system with the present generous one.
(They wouldn’t be able to if McCain had voted as he said he would!)
First off: PEOPLE WITH PREXISTING CONDITIONS ARE ALREADY CHARGED MORE- some of them that is- like smokers.
Smokers are charged up to 50% more.
I think that is a reasonable way to limit all preexisting condition chargess. (But there must be an acturarial basis so inexpensive conditions aren’t exploited.)
The problem is not health care for people with pre-existing conditions.
The thing that’s making medical care and thereby insurance, too expensive, is the FREE medical care offered to anyone on welfare and all the illegal aliens.
It’s not the people and companies who are paying thousands of dollars a month for health insurance.
What I used to say when I sold life health and disability insurance is that you cant buy insurance for a house thats already burned down. People get that pictorial image.
Insurance is when everyone joins into a pool to wager that they wont be hurt or sick, but if something happens, everyone else in the pool will assist them. But you have to decide to join the pool and pay the premium. You cant come along later and want the others who thought ahead to care for you as if you deserve it as much as the joiners do while not paying the price.
The pre existing conditions concept is a trap PDJT has fallen into. Because it is not insurance anymore but truly universal healthcare, which will bankrupt us all.