Once again politicians battered by misinformation!

[healthmyths]

In the wake of Congressional Republicans’ failure to drum up support for their health plan last month, the White House is negotiating to put repeal of the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, back on the table. While the previous proposal would have already driven up health care costs and stripped millions of coverage, the new proposal is rumored to include provisions that would undo protections for the more than 130 million Americans who have a pre-existing health condition.
Source: Number of Americans with Pre-Existing Conditions by Congressional District - Center for American Progress

Now who runs American Progress????

Now for the FACTS about "pre-existing conditions"!!!

Again...AmericanProgress says 130 million have pre-existing conditions.
BUT how many of these 130 million have:
Employer insurance, non-group,Medicaid,Medicare,Other:
Total percent with some form of insurance.91%!
So that leaves supposedly 9% in 2015 per this source:
Health Insurance Coverage of the Total Population

9% of 130 million is: less then 12 million! NOT 130 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!

So once again our politicians are voting on something that is truly inconsequential.
When in reality here is what the insurance industry has said about "pre-existing conditions"...

The nation’s four largest for-profit health insurers denied coverage to more than 651,000 people over a three-year period, citing pre-existing conditions, according to an analysis of insurer data detailed in a Congressional investigation.
So that is per year less then 218,000 people that were denied!
Between Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint, that averages out to a denial of coverage for one out of every seven applicants, according to an Energy and Commerce Committee memo about the investigation.
Insurers Denied Health Coverage to 1 in 7 People, Citing Pre-Existing Conditions - ProPublica

 

[JakeStarkey]

The principle, not the number, is what matters. If the number is fewer than thought, even better, less costly, and encourage even more the passing of the bill.

 

[healthmyths]

The principle, not the number, is what matters. If the number is fewer than thought, even better, less costly, and encourage even more the passing of the bill.

The "principle", "pre-existing conditions" is a problem therefore we need to cover it is wrong.
It becomes a problem if phony numbers are used to convince people there is a problem.
Just like ACA was passed with phony numbers. THERE NEVER WERE 46 million uninsured Americans which was the number used to convince
Congress.
Here again for the umpteenth time!
Please prove to me that these numbers were ever wrong!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The principle is correct, and healthmyth's argumentation is faulty on the face of it.

 

[busybee01]

The principle, not the number, is what matters. If the number is fewer than thought, even better, less costly, and encourage even more the passing of the bill.

The "principle", "pre-existing conditions" is a problem therefore we need to cover it is wrong.
It becomes a problem if phony numbers are used to convince people there is a problem.
Just like ACA was passed with phony numbers. THERE NEVER WERE 46 million uninsured Americans which was the number used to convince
Congress.
Here again for the umpteenth time!
Please prove to me that these numbers were ever wrong!

View attachment 124736

People will lose their insurance under the House bill. You don't need the CBO to tell you that. Low income people who use the subsidies will lose their insurance because it is unaffordable. Also relaxing community ratings will drive up people's premiums to unaffordable levels. Yet that seems to be all right with Republicans.

 

[healthmyths]

The principle is correct, and healthmyth's argumentation is faulty on the fact of it.

What is "faulty" about gross misrepresentation of "130 million Americans with Pre-existing conditions as American for Progress site hyperbolizes?
The fact is less then 200,000 people a year have pre-existing conditions...not 130 million!

 

[healthmyths]

The principle, not the number, is what matters. If the number is fewer than thought, even better, less costly, and encourage even more the passing of the bill.

The "principle", "pre-existing conditions" is a problem therefore we need to cover it is wrong.
It becomes a problem if phony numbers are used to convince people there is a problem.
Just like ACA was passed with phony numbers. THERE NEVER WERE 46 million uninsured Americans which was the number used to convince
Congress.
Here again for the umpteenth time!
Please prove to me that these numbers were ever wrong!

View attachment 124736

People will lose their insurance under the House bill. You don't need the CBO to tell you that. Low income people who use the subsidies will lose their insurance because it is unaffordable. Also relaxing community ratings will drive up people's premiums to unaffordable levels. Yet that seems to be all right with Republicans.

How do you know?
The latest enrollment data for Medicaid and private plans show that the number of Americans with coverage increased by 8.5 million during the first half of 2014. However, 6.1 million of that number were new Medicaid enrollees, with private-market enrollment increasing by 2.4 million individuals.
In other words, 71 percent of the total coverage gain came from Obamacare expanding Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age adults.
The Truth Behind Obamacare Numbers

When you consider 14 million were eligible BEFORE Obamacare but due to ineptness on part of Obama's administration they weren't enrolled.
So MOST of ACA enrollees were already eligible so what was the NEED for Obamacare?

 

[The Original Tree]

The whole idea of Obamacare is built on lies on top of lies. It is a Progressive Globalist Agenda being pushed on us, and nothing more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The gross representation in this OP comes from the argumentation of HM.

• Under the new Republican health care bill, being a woman is essentially a pre-existing condition
  Quartz59 minutes ago
  After withdrawing the first version of its American Health Care Act (AHCA) in March, the Republican Party brought an updated version to a vote in the US House of Representatives today ...
  
  
• The US House of Representatives has voted to make cancer patients pay up to $140,000 a year for “insurance”
  Quartz59 minutes ago
  Approximately six weeks after failing to garner enough support for the American Health Care Act (AHCA), Republicans pushed a newly revised version of the bill through the US House ...
  
  

 

[healthmyths]

The gross representation in this OP comes from the argumentation of HM.

• Under the new Republican health care bill, being a woman is essentially a pre-existing condition
  Quartz59 minutes ago
  After withdrawing the first version of its American Health Care Act (AHCA) in March, the Republican Party brought an updated version to a vote in the US House of Representatives today ...
  
  
• The US House of Representatives has voted to make cancer patients pay up to $140,000 a year for “insurance”
  Quartz59 minutes ago
  Approximately six weeks after failing to garner enough support for the American Health Care Act (AHCA), Republicans pushed a newly revised version of the bill through the US House ...
  

??????

 

[PoliticalChic]

The whole idea of Obamacare is built on lies on top of lies. It is a Progressive Globalist Agenda being pushed on us, and nothing more.

Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.

Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately.)
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.