2018 elections, ACA, and pre-existing medical conditions.

Robo said:
There is no authority in the Constitution for a federal healthcare system, operated by the feds. Therefore the ACA is unconstitutional as is every other federal program not authorized by the Constitution. Amendment 10 to our Constitution leaves the healthcare issue solely in the domain of the States and the people. Wanta know why healthcare in America sucks? It's because the federal government is involved in it up to their eyebrows. Healthcare in America was the best and most affordable on earth before the feds bleeped it up!

Show me the politician that can explain how covering pre-existing conditions can be covered without raising cost and a politician that can do it with a straight face, and I'll show you a professional lying bastard.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Nordberg said:
The preamble covers that perfectly. Of course the fact that all the other industrialized countries do it makes us an outlier. Don't you think the wealthiest nation in the world should take care of the citizens? Countries like Taiwan got universal coverage. They came to America before they instituted it as an example of what not to do.
Click to expand...

:lolup:Another reason one cannot argue with morons. :laugh:
 
Robo said:
There is no authority in the Constitution for a federal healthcare system, operated by the feds. Therefore the ACA is unconstitutional as is every other federal program not authorized by the Constitution. Amendment 10 to our Constitution leaves the healthcare issue solely in the domain of the States and the people. Wanta know why healthcare in America sucks? It's because the federal government is involved in it up to their eyebrows. Healthcare in America was the best and most affordable on earth before the feds bleeped it up!

Show me the politician that can explain how covering pre-existing conditions can be covered without raising cost and a politician that can do it with a straight face, and I'll show you a professional lying bastard.
Click to expand...

General welfare clause. Article 1, Section 8.
 
domer76 said:
General welfare clause. Article 1, Section 8.
Click to expand...

General welfare doesn't mean someone else should be forced to provide you what you won't provide yourself. That's an excuse by those of you that refuse to provide it to yourselves.
 
Nordberg said:
The preamble covers that perfectly. Of course the fact that all the other industrialized countries do it makes us an outlier. Don't you think the wealthiest nation in the world should take care of the citizens? Countries like Taiwan got universal coverage. They came to America before they instituted it as an example of what not to do.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the preamble even implies that authority.

I think that those of you who claim to care for those without coverage should voluntarily pay for it on the behalf of those for whom you claim to care. Don't you think if YOU support something YOU should pay for it?
 
floridafan said:
You live in a world of lies and make-believe.
Click to expand...

You're the one that thinks the government should force one group of people to subsidize healthcare for another group unwilling to provide it for themselves. When are you going to voluntarily pay for the premiums for those that won't provide for themselves?
 
The Repubs have been taking shots at repealing pre-existing conditions since Obama passed the ACA. Now that it is polling badly, the Repugs not only say they are for pre-existing conditions, but the Dems will take it away. Is there anyone dumb enough to buy that? It ia a baltant, flat out lie. In short, Repub politics.
 
Nordberg said:
The Repubs have been taking shots at repealing pre-existing conditions since Obama passed the ACA. Now that it is polling badly, the Repugs not only say they are for pre-existing conditions, but the Dems will take it away. Is there anyone dumb enough to buy that? It ia a baltant, flat out lie. In short, Repub politics.
Click to expand...

That is one of the reasons the voters will turn out the Pubs from the house majority
 
PostmodernProphet said:
unless they don't repeal the protection for pre-existing conditions........gosh, that was easy........
Click to expand...
PostmodernProphet, Republicans no longer dare openly opposing the Affordable Care Act, (federal RomneyCare), but the White House does whatever it can to undermine it, (with whatever assistance Congressional Republicans are able to provide). Republicans are seeking to reduce the effectiveness of ACA to the extent that it would be unsustainable.
Supposn said:
2018 elections, ACA, and pre-existing medical conditions.

This Tuesday we’ll learn to what extent voters’ perceptions of the Affordable Care Act have already changed. Republican candidates are fearful and they’re promising to “protect” the prohibition of ACA insurers to increase prices of applicants due to their pre-existing medical conditions. This is occurring while Republican attorney generals are opposing the federal government's right to enforce those same prohibitions. ... If the Republicans efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act should ever succeed, USA would inevitably later adopt a more substantial federal healthcare policy. That later created policy would more likely be federal universal single payer medical insurance. Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...
 
Robo said:
... Show me the politician that can explain how covering pre-existing conditions can be covered without raising cost and a politician that can do it with a straight face, and I'll show you a professional lying bastard.
Click to expand...
Robo, if the insured population proportionally reflect the proportion of younger and healthier within our nation's population, the per capita expenditures for medical expenses would be more manageable.

I never suggested that prohibiting increased prices based upon an individual’s previous medical conditions is not of some additional expense to the insurer, but if Republicans would cease obstructing and permit our nation’s insurance plans to thrive, then due to the greater proportion of our younger and healthier population segments, the increase of per capita expense would be less problematic. It would be of particularly net benefit to those currently inadequatley insured or are uninsured. That would be of net economic and social benefit to our entire nation. Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn said:
PostmodernProphet, ...I do contend that if we expanded Medicare eligibility to all ages, further reduced patience out-of-pocket costs, increased unrealistic Medicaid income caps, and reduced all of the other restrictions for Medicaid qualifications, that would be superior to our existing ACA policy.

The consequences due to such changes would be of no aggregate increase of net costs to any USA legal resident and their dependents that are now covered by adequate medical insurance and do not earn incomes exceeding USA’s median annual income; (net costs due to such changes of our federal healthcare policy include full considerations for their direct and indirect taxes they pay, and their share of any increased government debt due to the policy).
Click to expand...
 
Supposn said:
the White House does whatever it can to undermine it, (with whatever assistance Congressional Republicans are able to provide). Republicans are seeking to reduce the effectiveness of ACA to the extent that it would be unsustainable.
Click to expand...

that's why we love them.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top