Republicans want to end pre-exisiting conditions (PECS)

[Penelope]

Rep. Elissa Slotkin Defends Bill to Protect People with Pre-Existing Conditions

For a true pre-existing condition bill there should be no underwriting, just age and male or female.

 

[depotoo]

Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) called out Democrats for the dubious naming of the “Protecting Americans with Pre-Existing Conditions Act of 2019.”

The congressman claimed that the legislation actually has nothing to do with protecting the health insurance access of Americans with pre-existing conditions, but was given the name just to harm Republicans who vote against the legislation.

Crenshaw Hits Dems for Using 'Dishonest' Pre-Existing Conditions Bill to Bash Republicans Voting Against It

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Ending pre-existing conditions would be nothing short of miraculous. How could one oppose it?

If you mean coverage for pre-existing conditions, they don't.

 

[progressive hunter]

Rep. Elissa Slotkin Defends Bill to Protect People with Pre-Existing Conditions

For a true pre-existing condition bill there should be no underwriting, just age and male or female.

well since its not withing their constitutional authority its the right thing to do,,,

 

[depotoo]

WATCH: Dan Crenshaw exposes diabolical Dem motive behind bill meant to trick Americans into believing lie

WATCH: Dan Crenshaw exposes diabolical Dem motive behind bill meant to trick Americans into believing lie

Let's read the text, it's not that long: "Beginning April 1, 2019, the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of the Treasury may not take any action to implement, enforce, or otherwise give effect to the guidance entitled 'State Relief and Empowerment Waivers,' and the Secretaries may not promulgate any substantially similar guidance or rule."

OK, from the text you can tell that has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions. So what does this have to do with? What they're referring to are 1332 waivers. What are 1332 waivers? These are basically innovation waivers allowed under the ACA. A lot of states have used them so far...they use them for reinsurance programs because what we found out was that reinsurance programs are a much more efficient way to protect people with pre-existing conditions.


According to Crenshaw, Democrats titled the bill to give the false impression it is about protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions when, in reality, the bill is about protecting Obamacare.

"This is the height of political cynicism. Democrats are trying to get people to think that we, as Republicans, are voting against this because they're trying to get people to think that we're against protection for pre-existing conditions. That's not true at all," Crenshaw explained. "We're against bad policy.And this is both bad policy and political cynicism."

"It's a lie, it's dishonest, and it's really sad to see," he continued. "We are not voting against protecting pre-existing conditions."

 

[depotoo]

Another case of falling for the lies that are spewed.

 

[Crepitus]

WATCH: Dan Crenshaw exposes diabolical Dem motive behind bill meant to trick Americans into believing lie

WATCH: Dan Crenshaw exposes diabolical Dem motive behind bill meant to trick Americans into believing lie

Let's read the text, it's not that long: "Beginning April 1, 2019, the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of the Treasury may not take any action to implement, enforce, or otherwise give effect to the guidance entitled 'State Relief and Empowerment Waivers,' and the Secretaries may not promulgate any substantially similar guidance or rule."

OK, from the text you can tell that has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions. So what does this have to do with? What they're referring to are 1332 waivers. What are 1332 waivers? These are basically innovation waivers allowed under the ACA. A lot of states have used them so far...they use them for reinsurance programs because what we found out was that reinsurance programs are a much more efficient way to protect people with pre-existing conditions.


According to Crenshaw, Democrats titled the bill to give the false impression it is about protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions when, in reality, the bill is about protecting Obamacare.

"This is the height of political cynicism. Democrats are trying to get people to think that we, as Republicans, are voting against this because they're trying to get people to think that we're against protection for pre-existing conditions. That's not true at all," Crenshaw explained. "We're against bad policy.And this is both bad policy and political cynicism."

"It's a lie, it's dishonest, and it's really sad to see," he continued. "We are not voting against protecting pre-existing conditions."

Nope. It is restricting the ability of states to underwrite pre-existing conditions. It is about ending coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Creshaw lied and you bought it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

OK, from the text you can tell that has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions. So what does this have to do with? What they're referring to are 1332 waivers. What are 1332 waivers? These are basically innovation waivers allowed under the ACA. A lot of states have used them so far...they use them for reinsurance programs because what we found out was that reinsurance programs are a much more efficient way to protect people with pre-existing conditions.

OK, so having a much more efficient way to protect people with pre-existing conditions has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions. Got it. Thanks so much.

 

[dblack]

The idea that insurance should cover pre-existing illness is utterly irrational. I sincerely hope that Republicans have the courage and leadership ability to explain this to voters - to show them that what they think they want makes no sense and will actually make things worse. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The idea that insurance should cover pre-existing illness is utterly irrational.

True. Privately insuring pre-existing illness makes exactly as much sense as privately insuring existing illness, employers offering any such coverage as well. None whatsoever. Problem is you can't just pick and choose the stuff that only helps the rich who, of course, don't really need any of it anyway. They're rich!

 

[dblack]

The idea that insurance should cover pre-existing illness is utterly irrational.

True. Privately insuring pre-existing illness makes exactly as much sense as privately insuring existing illness, employers offering any such coverage as well. None whatsoever. Problem is you can't just pick and choose the stuff that only helps the rich who, of course, don't really need any of it anyway. They're rich!

It seems like you put some thought into this, but I read it three times and could make no sense out of it. Can you clarify or rephrase this post?

 

[deanrd]

Under Obamacare there’s a 20/80% rule. 20% of the money skimmed off of policies go to healthcare companies and 80% has to be used to take care of patients.

Republicans say that’s terrible. That should be the exact opposite. 20% that is skimmed off policies should go to taking care of customers and 80% should go to the healthcare companies because CEOs make millions of dollars and it takes a lot of policies to cover big salaries.

 

[deanrd]

The idea that insurance should cover pre-existing illness is utterly irrational.

True. Privately insuring pre-existing illness makes exactly as much sense as privately insuring existing illness, employers offering any such coverage as well. None whatsoever. Problem is you can't just pick and choose the stuff that only helps the rich who, of course, don't really need any of it anyway. They're rich!

It seems like you put some thought into this, but I read it three times and could make no sense out of it. Can you clarify or rephrase this post?

They don’t understand that you could make anything pre-existing. You could say you had a splinter in your hand and you can’t be covered with healthcare because you had a pre-existing condition.

 

[dblack]

The idea that insurance should cover pre-existing illness is utterly irrational.

True. Privately insuring pre-existing illness makes exactly as much sense as privately insuring existing illness, employers offering any such coverage as well. None whatsoever. Problem is you can't just pick and choose the stuff that only helps the rich who, of course, don't really need any of it anyway. They're rich!

It seems like you put some thought into this, but I read it three times and could make no sense out of it. Can you clarify or rephrase this post?

They don’t understand that you could make anything pre-existing. You could say you had a splinter in your hand and you can’t be covered with healthcare because you had a pre-existing condition.

WTF are you talking about??? Pre-existing conditions are illnesses or health problems you have before buying insurance. You don't really even seem to comprehend the topic of your thread.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sure.
True. Privately insuring pre-existing illness makes no sense.
Privately insuring existing illness makes no sense.
Employers offering private health care insurance schemes makes no sense.
None of our current setup makes any sense except to those wishing to profit from waste and misery.
Plus private insurance is always set up to help those most who need it the least.
Minimal health care should be a right.
We provide it to the elderly and disabled to large extent already.
Why pick on the young and workers?

 

[Grumblenuts]

The idea that insurance should cover pre-existing illness is utterly irrational.

True. Privately insuring pre-existing illness makes exactly as much sense as privately insuring existing illness, employers offering any such coverage as well. None whatsoever. Problem is you can't just pick and choose the stuff that only helps the rich who, of course, don't really need any of it anyway. They're rich!

It seems like you put some thought into this, but I read it three times and could make no sense out of it. Can you clarify or rephrase this post?

They don’t understand that you could make anything pre-existing. You could say you had a splinter in your hand and you can’t be covered with healthcare because you had a pre-existing condition.

Yeah, I know

Problem is, most of the Democratic Party reps don't really want to resolve the problem either. They're bought just like most of the Republican ones.

 

[dblack]

Sure.
True. Privately insuring pre-existing illness makes no sense.
Privately insuring existing illness makes no sense.
Employers offering private health care insurance schemes makes no sense.
None of our current setup makes any sense except to those wishing to profit from waste and misery.
Plus private insurance is always set up to help those most who need it the least.

Thanks you for the clarification. I agree with all of the above statements.

Minimal health care should be a right.

And then you dive off the deep end into stupidity.

Let's start with the basics - what does it mean to you to say that "xxx should be a right"?

To me, saying something should be a right means it should be protected from laws limiting said activity (Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc...). Clearly you have something else in mind. Are you saying that others should be required to provide you with health care? Who should be required to provide you with this health care? How much health care are they required to provide?

 

[Grumblenuts]

WTF are you talking about??? Pre-existing conditions are illnesses or health problems you have before buying insurance.

How does it make sense to first tell them you're sick so they can deny your coverage? If you need help you don't get any. If you don't need it, fine!

 

[dblack]

WTF are you talking about??? Pre-existing conditions are illnesses or health problems you have before buying insurance.

How does it make sense to first tell them you're sick so they can deny your coverage?

Huh??

If you need help you don't get any. If you don't need it, fine!

Yep, that's how insurance works. It's a way for people to protect their savings from bankruptcy. If you don't have a savings, you don't need insurance - you need more money.

Big labor and socialists have tried to confuse the issue by promoting employer-provided, group "insurance", which isn't really insurance at all, but instead employer provided health care. I don't really get why they thought it was a good idea to make people dependent on their employers for health care.

 

[Grumblenuts]

what does it mean to you to say that "xxx should be a right"?

To me, saying something should be a right means it should be protected from laws limiting said activity (Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc...). Clearly you have something else in mind.

Nope. A right to minimal health care. Freedom to remain reasonably healthy in order to be as self-sufficient and productive as possible. Protected from laws limiting care to only new health issues, for example.. or getting adequate coverage only by working for certain employers in certain capacities.

Freedom to work wherever one can find work. Which could be considered a freedom of association.