GOP extremist says those with pre existing conditions may need to move

[easyt65]

'Winning', Obamacare Style:



Last major insurer in Iowa likely to exit Obamacare exchange - Hot Air

"One of the last remaining health insurers on the Iowa Obamacare exchange is warning it may pull out next year. If it does, tens of thousands of people would be left with no insurer offering subsidized health plans in their area."



Oh, wait...the snowflakes are saying Obamacare is NOT collapsing...

 

[Lewdog]

Most insurance companies make a good deal of money. I don't see why the government doesn't just cut out the middle man and create their own insurance instead of paying premiums to companies for Medicaid and Medicare. It would seem they would save money that way...

 

[The Irish Ram]

GOP extremist says those with pre existing conditions may need to move

To where? Are they curing cancer on the moon now? How about "regulating" the insurance companies, and heavily fine hospitals and doctors and pharmacies for fraudulent medicare claims, instead of ravaging our health care. Our care was just fine.
A family of 4 pays 17,000 dollars a year for insurance now. That will increase to $34,000. in 3 years. The government has turned our care into a tax.
We need to insist that our government target insurance companies and hospitals that charge $100.00 for an aspirin.
Pharmaceuticals for keeping the price of medications at unobtainable reach. And pharmacies that charge the government $1,400. for a $14.00 prescription.
The verbiage, per-existing conditions, should not exist. Cancer return patients should be treated in the same manner as they were the first time they were treated.

 

[SYTFE]

I'm getting really sick and tired of these goddamn conservatives. They're a cancer.

EXTREMISTS are the cancer....on things like this the moderates need to meet.....the Tuesday Group and unfortunately a VERY small group in the democrats like Manchin,Dent,Heitkamp etc. need to get together and make a damn deal with President Trump.

Do you support a single payer system?

 

[JakeStarkey]

So your claim is that no Republicans ever insisted that the pre-existing conditions protections of Obamacare would be continued in the GOP replacement? Really? Dang.

No, propaganda-spreading snowflake. I am saying the majority of Republicans I have heard. have insisted on that being one of the main pieces kept.

That's new. Good though that you guys can change.

 

[JakeStarkey]

GOP extremist says those with pre existing conditions may need to move

To where? Are they curing cancer on the moon now? How about "regulating" the insurance companies, and heavily fine hospitals and doctors and pharmacies for fraudulent medicare claims, instead of ravaging our health care. Our care was just fine.
A family of 4 pays 17,000 dollars a year for insurance now. That will increase to $34,000. in 3 years. The government has turned our care into a tax.
We need to insist that our government target insurance companies and hospitals that charge $100.00 for an aspirin.
Pharmaceuticals for keeping the price of medications at unobtainable reach. And pharmacies that charge the government $1,400. for a $14.00 prescription.
The verbiage, per-existing conditions, should not exist. Cancer return patients should be treated in the same manner as they were the first time they were treated.

Hear, hear.

 

[kwc57]

This is what the GOP has become.

You mean like the DNC when they were in this position?

 

[AntonToo]

From everything I have read so far, keeping Pre-existing conditions in any health care plan is one of the key pieces being insisted upon by the vast majority of Republicans.

One thing I can not see ANY politician being able to regulate or dictate onto a private business, like an insurance company is this:

You have to cover pre-existing conditions AND you must make it 'affordable'. Is the govt dictating to an insurance company they must fulfill BOTH requirements, even if doing so causes them to lose money.

(That has to be where subsidies for insurance companies comes in, right - to prevent that from happening...because no one is going to provide a service when it causes them to lose money.)

?
Nobody ever required insurance companies to run at a loss or charge specific price. The only thing ACA regulated was that insurance companies profits were not to exceed 10% of their healthcare payouts.

 

[Preacher]

I'm getting really sick and tired of these goddamn conservatives. They're a cancer.

EXTREMISTS are the cancer....on things like this the moderates need to meet.....the Tuesday Group and unfortunately a VERY small group in the democrats like Manchin,Dent,Heitkamp etc. need to get together and make a damn deal with President Trump.

Do you support a single payer system?

Yes. Doubt it will happen here though and not willing to give up both houses of congress to get it passed....its important but immigration and gun rights are more important. I think single payer will happen eventually on its own. GOP extremists will have to maneuver towards it or become a very small party in the reddest of red places.

 

[AntonToo]

At least the GOP's proposal puts $138 Billion towards the $200 Billion dollar ACA HOLE for pre-existing conditions. That's a lot of money to replace a collapsing system that was sworn not to cost a dime and that would pay for itself.

Total bullshit - ACA requires pre-existing condition coverage so THERE IS NO HOLE.

The hole would be 100% a result of THIS legislation.

If Republicans really want to use government to subsidize insurance pools then that can be done just fine with ACA fully intact...but of course that's not what they are interested in. Their interest is to sustain bullshit campaign promises they made for stupid politico reasons in the first place.

 

[debbiedowner]

The sad thing is this battle over health care for Americans has become a personal / political battle between 2 parties with the American people and doing what is best for THEM being totally forgotten about / ignored..again.

It looks to me like it's become a political battle only with one party.

 

[Lewdog]

From everything I have read so far, keeping Pre-existing conditions in any health care plan is one of the key pieces being insisted upon by the vast majority of Republicans.

One thing I can not see ANY politician being able to regulate or dictate onto a private business, like an insurance company is this:

You have to cover pre-existing conditions AND you must make it 'affordable'. Is the govt dictating to an insurance company they must fulfill BOTH requirements, even if doing so causes them to lose money.

(That has to be where subsidies for insurance companies comes in, right - to prevent that from happening...because no one is going to provide a service when it causes them to lose money.)

?
Nobody ever required insurance companies to run at a loss or charge specific price. The only thing ACA regulated was that insurance companies profits were not to exceed 10% of their healthcare payouts.

Didn't the ACA also help insurance companies by putting caps on the costs providers could charge for procedures?

 

[xotoxi]

From everything I have read so far, keeping Pre-existing conditions in any health care plan is one of the key pieces being insisted upon by the vast majority of Republicans.

One thing I can not see ANY politician being able to regulate or dictate onto a private business, like an insurance company is this:

You have to cover pre-existing conditions AND you must make it 'affordable'. Is the govt dictating to an insurance company they must fulfill BOTH requirements, even if doing so causes them to lose money.

(That has to be where subsidies for insurance companies comes in, right - to prevent that from happening...because no one is going to provide a service when it causes them to lose money.)

The government has dictated that hospitals provide care for anyone who comes into their Emergency Room, regardless of their ability to pay. Most hospitals are private businesses, and they take a loss on these patients.

Why shouldn't government do the same for insurance companies?

 

[NYcarbineer]

'Winning', Obamacare Style:



Last major insurer in Iowa likely to exit Obamacare exchange - Hot Air

"One of the last remaining health insurers on the Iowa Obamacare exchange is warning it may pull out next year. If it does, tens of thousands of people would be left with no insurer offering subsidized health plans in their area."



Oh, wait...the snowflakes are saying Obamacare is NOT collapsing...

The easy solution to that is to bring in the public option, then no state will ever have to go without an insurer on the exchange.

 

[NYcarbineer]

From everything I have read so far, keeping Pre-existing conditions in any health care plan is one of the key pieces being insisted upon by the vast majority of Republicans.

One thing I can not see ANY politician being able to regulate or dictate onto a private business, like an insurance company is this:

You have to cover pre-existing conditions AND you must make it 'affordable'. Is the govt dictating to an insurance company they must fulfill BOTH requirements, even if doing so causes them to lose money.

(That has to be where subsidies for insurance companies comes in, right - to prevent that from happening...because no one is going to provide a service when it causes them to lose money.)

The government has dictated that hospitals provide care for anyone who comes into their Emergency Room, regardless of their ability to pay. Most hospitals are private businesses, and they take a loss on these patients.

Why shouldn't government do the same for insurance companies?

Put all the people with pre-existing conditions that the insurers don't want to provide with affordable coverage into a government healthcare program,

and then tax all the private insurance companies for the cost of running that program.

 

[xotoxi]

From everything I have read so far, keeping Pre-existing conditions in any health care plan is one of the key pieces being insisted upon by the vast majority of Republicans.

One thing I can not see ANY politician being able to regulate or dictate onto a private business, like an insurance company is this:

You have to cover pre-existing conditions AND you must make it 'affordable'. Is the govt dictating to an insurance company they must fulfill BOTH requirements, even if doing so causes them to lose money.

(That has to be where subsidies for insurance companies comes in, right - to prevent that from happening...because no one is going to provide a service when it causes them to lose money.)

The government has dictated that hospitals provide care for anyone who comes into their Emergency Room, regardless of their ability to pay. Most hospitals are private businesses, and they take a loss on these patients.

Why shouldn't government do the same for insurance companies?

Put all the people with pre-existing conditions that the insurers don't want to provide with affordable coverage into a government healthcare program,

and then tax all the private insurance companies for the cost of running that program.

That sounds like a plan.

 

[AntonToo]

From everything I have read so far, keeping Pre-existing conditions in any health care plan is one of the key pieces being insisted upon by the vast majority of Republicans.

One thing I can not see ANY politician being able to regulate or dictate onto a private business, like an insurance company is this:

You have to cover pre-existing conditions AND you must make it 'affordable'. Is the govt dictating to an insurance company they must fulfill BOTH requirements, even if doing so causes them to lose money.

(That has to be where subsidies for insurance companies comes in, right - to prevent that from happening...because no one is going to provide a service when it causes them to lose money.)

?
Nobody ever required insurance companies to run at a loss or charge specific price. The only thing ACA regulated was that insurance companies profits were not to exceed 10% of their healthcare payouts.

Didn't the ACA also help insurance companies by putting caps on the costs providers could charge for procedures?

Private insurance companies are free to reimburse whatever they feel like.

You are maybe thinking of ACA tightening Medicare/Medicaid re-reimbursement structure more towards paying for OUTCOMES, not procedures. Though private insurance usually trails these changes.

 

[AntonToo]

From everything I have read so far, keeping Pre-existing conditions in any health care plan is one of the key pieces being insisted upon by the vast majority of Republicans.

One thing I can not see ANY politician being able to regulate or dictate onto a private business, like an insurance company is this:

You have to cover pre-existing conditions AND you must make it 'affordable'. Is the govt dictating to an insurance company they must fulfill BOTH requirements, even if doing so causes them to lose money.

(That has to be where subsidies for insurance companies comes in, right - to prevent that from happening...because no one is going to provide a service when it causes them to lose money.)

The government has dictated that hospitals provide care for anyone who comes into their Emergency Room, regardless of their ability to pay. Most hospitals are private businesses, and they take a loss on these patients.

Why shouldn't government do the same for insurance companies?

Put all the people with pre-existing conditions that the insurers don't want to provide with affordable coverage into a government healthcare program,

and then tax all the private insurance companies for the cost of running that program.

...umm that be a more convoluted way to get exactly same care for very slightly higher price.

Right now we have Insurance passing on pre-existing coverage costs to everyone in the pool. Taking out those with pre-existing conditions and charging them for it still has them passing on pre-existing coverage costs to everyone in the pool, PLUS the inefficiency of increased passing money around.

 

[Lewdog]

From everything I have read so far, keeping Pre-existing conditions in any health care plan is one of the key pieces being insisted upon by the vast majority of Republicans.

One thing I can not see ANY politician being able to regulate or dictate onto a private business, like an insurance company is this:

You have to cover pre-existing conditions AND you must make it 'affordable'. Is the govt dictating to an insurance company they must fulfill BOTH requirements, even if doing so causes them to lose money.

(That has to be where subsidies for insurance companies comes in, right - to prevent that from happening...because no one is going to provide a service when it causes them to lose money.)

?
Nobody ever required insurance companies to run at a loss or charge specific price. The only thing ACA regulated was that insurance companies profits were not to exceed 10% of their healthcare payouts.

Didn't the ACA also help insurance companies by putting caps on the costs providers could charge for procedures?

Private insurance companies are free to reimburse whatever they feel like.

You are maybe thinking of ACA tightening Medicare/Medicaid re-reimbursement structure more towards paying for OUTCOMES, not procedures. Though private insurance usually trails these changes.

Believe me, I know firsthand that the government has cracked down on providers charging for procedures or doing them too often. The pain management doctor's office I was going to was owned by a guy that owned several in different states... he was indicted for breaking the rules and all his offices were closed down.

 

[AntonToo]

From everything I have read so far, keeping Pre-existing conditions in any health care plan is one of the key pieces being insisted upon by the vast majority of Republicans.

One thing I can not see ANY politician being able to regulate or dictate onto a private business, like an insurance company is this:

You have to cover pre-existing conditions AND you must make it 'affordable'. Is the govt dictating to an insurance company they must fulfill BOTH requirements, even if doing so causes them to lose money.

(That has to be where subsidies for insurance companies comes in, right - to prevent that from happening...because no one is going to provide a service when it causes them to lose money.)

?
Nobody ever required insurance companies to run at a loss or charge specific price. The only thing ACA regulated was that insurance companies profits were not to exceed 10% of their healthcare payouts.

Didn't the ACA also help insurance companies by putting caps on the costs providers could charge for procedures?

Private insurance companies are free to reimburse whatever they feel like.

You are maybe thinking of ACA tightening Medicare/Medicaid re-reimbursement structure more towards paying for OUTCOMES, not procedures. Though private insurance usually trails these changes.

Believe me, I know firsthand that the government has cracked down on providers charging for procedures or doing them too often. The pain management doctor's office I was going to was owned by a guy that owned several in different states... he was indicted for breaking the rules and all his offices were closed down.

But that was probably based on what he was billing Medicare/Medicaid patients.