Republicans want to end pre-exisiting conditions (PECS)

[Grumblenuts]

Insurance, properly defined, is for the unforseen....It's not meant to be a cost shift for those too foolhardy to plan ahead.

Given "insurance is for the unforeseen"... costs of care for pre-existing health conditions are, of course, largely unforeseen. Conversely, costs to care for new health problems that crop up can be largely predicted based on medical history and current health. Thus pertinent actuarial tables, bonehead.

The costs are known...They're fucking expensive...And you lazy looters don't want to plan ahead...You want to wait until it's too late and then shift the burden for your foolhardiness onto everyone else.

Need some cheese for that whine?

 

[Oddball]

Insurance, properly defined, is for the unforseen....It's not meant to be a cost shift for those too foolhardy to plan ahead.

Given "insurance is for the unforeseen"... costs of care for pre-existing health conditions are, of course, largely unforeseen. Conversely, costs to care for new health problems that crop up can be largely predicted based on medical history and current health. Thus pertinent actuarial tables, bonehead.

The costs are known...They're fucking expensive...And you lazy looters don't want to plan ahead...You want to wait until it's too late and then shift the burden for your foolhardiness onto everyone else.

Need some cheese for that whine?

No, I need a modern-day Pinochet.

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[Oddball]

 

[dblack]

... costs of care for pre-existing health conditions are, of course, largely unforeseen.

See if you can figure out why this statement seems so stupid to people with brains.

 

[Grumblenuts]

... costs of care for pre-existing health conditions are, of course, largely unforeseen.

See if you can figure out why this statement seems so stupid to people with brains.

Because the people you imagine having brains are stupid. Of course, in reality, you and I can only speak for ourselves. So, in the final analysis, it's a very roundabout way of admitting you're too stupid to understand that pre-existing conditions connote ongoing costs that will vary unpredictably just as the costs of developing new conditions vary unpredictably, especially when the pie is being pointlessly segregated into smaller and smaller pieces for billionaire fun and profit. The rest of us end up paying for it all one way or another. Why not do the smart thing for a change? The one that also makes the bulk of people happier overall? Single payer / Medicare for all.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Clearly, you imagine some moral dilemma between pre-existing condition coverage and none. Morals have nothing to do with it. Plenty of evidence for that right here. Not a single coherent case for a moral test presented yet.. If you're really so cock sure of yourselves,.. Hey, no time like the present to get busy concocting one.. Else,.. quit the charade.

 

[dblack]

Why not do the smart thing for a change? The one that also makes the bulk of people happier overall? Single payer / Medicare for all.

Because I don't want Donald Trump (or others like him) making health care decisions for my family. Because I don't want every single election to be a referendum on whether Grandma lives or dies.

The political divide in this country is beyond ugly. Everything government does is tainted by the bitterly opposed, left/right pissing match. Whatever one side does, the other sabotages. I don't want to see health care mired in that kind of mess. We have too much government meddling with health care now - a big part of the problem. If anything that meddling should be reduced and certainly not expanded.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

For a true pre-existing condition bill there should be no underwriting,

It wouldn't be insurance, why would you need underwriting?

 

[dblack]

Clearly, you imagine some moral dilemma between pre-existing condition coverage and none. Morals have nothing to do with it. Plenty of evidence for that right here. Not a single coherent case for a moral test presented yet.. If you're really so cock sure of yourselves,.. Hey, no time like the present to get busy concocting one.. Else,.. quit the charade.

Huh? What are you going on about now? I agree that morals have nothing to do with it. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why not do the smart thing for a change? The one that also makes the bulk of people happier overall? Single payer / Medicare for all.

Because I don't want Donald Trump (or others like him) making health care decisions for my family. Because I don't want every single election to be a referendum on whether Grandma lives or dies.

The political divide in this country is beyond ugly. Everything government does is tainted by the bitterly opposed, left/right pissing match. Whatever one side does, the other sabotages. I don't want to see health care mired in that kind of mess. We have too much government meddling with health care now - a big part of the problem. If anything that meddling should be reduced and certainly not expanded.

I can respect that. I see Grandma's prospects improving as a result, not getting worse.

 

[dblack]

The political divide in this country is beyond ugly. Everything government does is tainted by the bitterly opposed, left/right pissing match. Whatever one side does, the other sabotages. I don't want to see health care mired in that kind of mess. We have too much government meddling with health care now - a big part of the problem. If anything that meddling should be reduced and certainly not expanded.

I can respect that. I see Grandma's prospects improving as a result, not getting worse.

Regardless of who gets elected?

 

[Grumblenuts]

The political divide in this country is beyond ugly. Everything government does is tainted by the bitterly opposed, left/right pissing match. Whatever one side does, the other sabotages. I don't want to see health care mired in that kind of mess. We have too much government meddling with health care now - a big part of the problem. If anything that meddling should be reduced and certainly not expanded.

I can respect that. I see Grandma's prospects improving as a result, not getting worse.

Regardless of who gets elected?

Yes.

 

[dblack]

The political divide in this country is beyond ugly. Everything government does is tainted by the bitterly opposed, left/right pissing match. Whatever one side does, the other sabotages. I don't want to see health care mired in that kind of mess. We have too much government meddling with health care now - a big part of the problem. If anything that meddling should be reduced and certainly not expanded.

I can respect that. I see Grandma's prospects improving as a result, not getting worse.

Regardless of who gets elected?

Yes.

"Dr. Trump will see you now..."

 

[Grumblenuts]

Clearly, you imagine some moral dilemma between pre-existing condition coverage and none. Morals have nothing to do with it. Plenty of evidence for that right here. Not a single coherent case for a moral test presented yet.. If you're really so cock sure of yourselves,.. Hey, no time like the present to get busy concocting one.. Else,.. quit the charade.

Huh? What are you going on about now? I agree that morals have nothing to do with it. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Good. Not aimed at nor applicable to you then.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Dr. Trump will see you now..."

"Dr Hillary... "

 

[dblack]

"Dr. Trump will see you now..."

"Dr Hillary... "

Nightmare scenario either way.

 

[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.

For a true pre-existing condition bill there should be no underwriting,

It wouldn't be insurance, why would you need underwriting?

That is the way it was before "THE ACA".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

For a true pre-existing condition bill there should be no underwriting,

It wouldn't be insurance, why would you need underwriting?

That is the way it was before "THE ACA".

Wrong. There was underwriting before the ACA.

 

[Lysistrata]

Republicans don't want to end pre-existing conditions. They simply want to end people who have them.