Republican Leaders Undercut Trump AG’s Bid to End Pre-Existing Conditions Coverage

By and | June 13, 2018

  • June 13, 2018 at 7:53 am
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 13

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • June 13, 2018 at 12:32 pm
      Ron says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 19
      Thumb down 3

      There is no free market solution for pre-existing conditions that is not cost prohibitive.

      Most coastal property owners or male teen drivers will not file claims every year. Most people with pre-existing conditions will.

      • June 13, 2018 at 1:44 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 14

        You have no insight into the novel ideas being discussed. You deny the possibility of cost controls and cost redux. So, there is no value in discussing novel ideas with closed minded people like you.

        • June 13, 2018 at 2:39 pm
          Agent says:
          Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 15

          Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • June 13, 2018 at 3:12 pm
            sal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 2

            Polar, poor Agent thinks Orlando is in Broward county and that anyone who graduated college in 1989 is a millennial. Need I say more?

        • June 13, 2018 at 2:54 pm
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 1

          OK Yogi, I’ll bite.

          What are these cost controls and redux you speak of that still provide quality care for pre-existing conditions.

          We have been asking you for these HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS since before President Trump was elected and still, nothing.

          • June 14, 2018 at 2:04 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            Removing maternity coverage as a default coverage for men ages 18-35, allowing them to buy a catastrophic high deductible plan and pay far lower cost without added bells and whistles during those ages, saving tens of thousands of dollars which then ensure they don’t lose pre existing conditions with a coverage lapse.

            In other words: Trumps signature to allow the purchase of “junk” plans. Trump has had plans, and has talked about them.

            Are we really going the route where you say republicans have presented no solutions, and I show you all the plans again?

            I’ve done it upwards of 100 times, literally, since 2009. I showed several plans you didn’t even know existed, and then you blamed republicans for not getting them well known, when really it is the reporters bias which does that, and yes, there is a liberal bias. Ergo over 90% negative news coverage of Trump, and no positive outlook to date still despite the successes.

          • June 14, 2018 at 2:35 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            bob,

            You are so naive and gullible.

          • June 14, 2018 at 4:08 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            @Ron; I still do not have authorization to discuss the cost controls. But bob pointed out a cost control method by including only EC = Essential Coverages in the new, free market policy forms. It is much more involved than that, but I don’t time and permission to post it. Look for it on a website in the future. The website is a well-known one, but must remain secret for now. But, ‘EC’ is a part of it.

          • June 15, 2018 at 10:53 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Yogi,

            Who is stopping you from presenting YOUR proposals?

          • June 15, 2018 at 4:51 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            “Are we really going the route where you say republicans have presented no solutions, and I show you all the plans again?
            I’ve done it upwards of 100 times, literally, since 2009. I showed several plans you didn’t even know existed, and then you blamed republicans for not getting them well known, when really it is the reporters bias which does that, and yes, there is a liberal bias. Ergo over 90% negative news coverage of Trump, and no positive outlook to date still despite the successes.”

            We really are going there, aren’t we Ron? All I have to say is: Called it. The proposals exist. They do what I’ve said, and mentioned, to keep catastrophic plans purchased to keep pre existing conditions from being excluded when someone needs coverage, while giving them lower costs when they don’t. That is a cost controlling measure for getting pre existing coverage. Other items go along with it. There are not simply no plans, there are ones you keep ignoring.

            “Yogi,
            Who is stopping you from presenting YOUR proposals?”

            The 95% bad news reporting and knee jerks to condemn and refuse to report positively on Trump, for one, but for two: The proposals are out there. You’re refusing to acknowledge it until media does, and they won’t.

            Already during Obama I showed you plans you had no idea existed. The answer to why? Media didn’t want you to.

          • June 18, 2018 at 8:06 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            bob,

            Still not reading my posts?

            At what point in my post did I reference Republicans? I want the details of Yogi’s personal proposal that he has been touting.

            Grow up and learn reading comprehension, please.

  • June 13, 2018 at 1:50 pm
    cassandra says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 20
    Thumb down 5

    gee, I thought the “free market” for health insurance was what we had before ACA. It brutalized the prexers if it covered them at all. The mass of the general public believes all citizens have a right to have decent healthcare and/or access to it. the rightist idealogues and oligarchs are swimming against the tide, but since they have the money to buy congress nothing will change until the populace stands up en masse and demands change. While the news media concentrates on Trump’s or Giuliani’ latest buffoonery, we common folk are losing rights right and left, no pun intended. Be all that as it may, the utter cruelty of the emasculating of the ACA stands out as a true horror.

    • June 13, 2018 at 2:44 pm
      Agent says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 14

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • June 18, 2018 at 2:13 pm
      Jax Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 2

      ACA or any other form of socialized medicine will never ever work as long as it allows people who have abused themselves their whole lives to suddenly realize that they are mortal and NOW they want insurance coverage. You can’t charge them enough (or anything) and Cassandra sure isn’t going to pay for it.
      But most liberals and progressives don’t fret cost…….someone will pay for it, right ? It just gets paid for, right ?

      You need look no further than most countries (heck, all countries) that have been practicing socialized medicine to see that it will only work (and even then modestly by the standards most Americans are accustomed to) if you increase taxes to the point of gouging. I pay for mine and my families health care – no subsidies.
      I’d love to see everyone healthy, wealthy and wise with a chicken in every pot or pot in every chicken, but it ain’t gonna happen. Obozo and his ilk shoved ACA down everyone’s throats without even knowing what they started, how it would work or how it could get paid for and as a result, it has failed miserably.

  • June 13, 2018 at 1:59 pm
    cassandra says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 1

    dear Polar…you must be having a brain freeze…no one who wants healthcare for all citizens eschews cost containment and innovation. If Mitch and his acolytes were really serious about costs and innovation, why won’t they vote to allow price negotiations for pharmaceuticals for medicare? Don’t u think that would be a good start…and allow for free market principles?

    • June 13, 2018 at 2:46 pm
      Agent says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 14

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • June 13, 2018 at 3:13 pm
        confused says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 2

        reading comprehension agent … cassandra said NOTHING about obamacare. didn’t even hint at it

        • June 14, 2018 at 7:24 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 3

          @confusinguy: Agent isn’t bound by any comment board rules you cite. Note that he is STILL ON TOPIC (ACA and its replacement). Have a nice day.

    • June 13, 2018 at 2:56 pm
      Ron says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 11
      Thumb down 2

      cassandra,

      Agent does not answer questions. Only asks them, then gets mad if you don’t answer.

      • June 14, 2018 at 2:05 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 1

        ….

        Pot, kettle. Moving on.

    • June 13, 2018 at 8:17 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 8

      Where do they have “price negotiations” for pharmaceuticals?
      In Single Payer countries.

      And what do they NOT have in Single Payer countries? High paying pharmaceutical jobs.

      Want those high-paying American jobs to go to China? Then have the government decide what to charge for pharmaceuticals. Rachel Maddow didn’t explain this to you? Chris Cuomo didn’t outline that 20 new drugs must be developed for every one success? Chris Mathews didn’t explain that new drugs run out of patent protection in only a few years, allowing for cheap generics soon after a drug is developed? Anderson Cooper didn’t opine that drug development is an extremely high risk business that can’t be run by the government unless you want more variations on aspirin and nothing else?

      • June 14, 2018 at 8:15 am
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 2

        “Chris Mathews didn’t explain that new drugs run out of patent protection in only a few years”

        20 years is only considered “a few years” now? In what world … geological epochs??

        • June 14, 2018 at 7:26 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 2

          Cite your source for patent / copyright laws. I spoke to an attorney about this issue a few years ago, so I’ll call your bluff if you dare fib.

        • June 15, 2018 at 7:37 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 3

          Again, show me where pharmaceuticals are developed? Not in Single Payer countries.

          You can whine about the free market for health products being “greedy” all you want.

          But then you have to be okay with no more breakthroughs on medicines for horrible diseases, and okay with the suffering that will continue because most new drugs will stop being developed.

          You good with that? 20 years to wait? Or forever?

          • June 18, 2018 at 8:08 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            You’re shifting the goalposts again Craig. I was responding to your domestic-specific comment of “Chris Mathews didn’t explain that new drugs run out of patent protection in only a few years”.

            That is all I’m saying. There’s 20 year patent in the US for copycat drugs regardless of where the drugs are developed. Do you disagree with that?

        • June 18, 2018 at 2:18 pm
          Jax Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 1

          Rosenblatt: if you invest decades and millions of dollars developing a product and bringing it to market then 20 years may or may not be long enough for these firms to recoup their monies. If they charge exorbitant prices (so they can recoup) the consumers raise sand. Besides, well before the 20 years expires, India, Mexico, Russia and China to name a few, are hard at work reverse engineering these products and offering them (or something that looks like them) for sale on the internet.
          Wake up before big pharma decides it ain’t worth the time and money to develop products to help you get it up. LOL>

          • June 18, 2018 at 2:29 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Nothing you said tells me I was wrong that there’s a 20 year patent in the US for copycat drugs regardless of where the drugs are developed.

            I was responding to Craig who claimed “new drugs run out of patent protection in only a few years.”

            20 years is not “only a few years.” That’s all I was trying to clarify.

    • June 14, 2018 at 4:13 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 6

      @cassandroidemocrat: You don’t have the slightest clue of what I am talking about, and make silly, childish attempts at insulting me and try to discredit my posts. I didn’t say EVERYONE. I referred to the politicians / Fed Govt. The ONLY plan that makes sense is to get the federal govt out of HI and let the HI Industry solve the problems.

  • June 13, 2018 at 3:41 pm
    FFA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 0

    I predict that no way the Pre X ‘ers get kicked to the curb.

  • June 13, 2018 at 3:52 pm
    Bklynguy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 0

    Not true, Agent. One conservative idea, developed by the Heritage Foundation, was incorporated into Obamacare; the individual mandate for all to buy insurance. Heritage developed it to answer proponents of a single payer system who alleged that private free market health insurance could not offer affordable rates to prexers. The same rates could be offered to prexers as the mandate required healthy as well as prexers to have insurance. The healthy subsidized the not-so-healthy. Now that the mandate is gone, Ron’s observations about the lack of affordable free market solutions for prexers is more cogent.

    • June 14, 2018 at 4:14 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 5

      The mandate is unconstitutional, thus THF pointed out an option that needed to be fixed before being voted on.

  • June 13, 2018 at 11:34 pm
    cassandra says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 1

    Agent…u need to make everything political, and, as usual, never speak to the topic. If u recall, mitch swore to bring nothing to the floor that the de.ms/Obama wanted There were over 2 years of committees, hearings, etc. That the GOP didn”t vote for it is their totally political choice. Get off your righty horse. The issue is how to provide affordable healthcare to the total citizenry so stop the political scat and address the issue. H0w would you do it, Agent, and make it affordable. I find it strange, you being an agent and all that that you seem to not understand spread of risk and adverse selection. that’s insurance 101 and the obvious reason to have everyone purchase insurance.And when it is your time, I want to make sure you don’t take any medicare benefits since this is most certainly a big fat lefty socialist scam. Again, the cruelty shown by Mitch, Paul and company is utterly indefensible. So, Agent, your such a smart patriot, what would u do to solve the problem?

    • June 14, 2018 at 7:29 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 7

      @cassandroidemocrat: HI is now a political issue because Democrat Socialists stuck their nose into the business. They attempted, but failed at, taking control of 1/6th of the economy through a systematic plan to implement Single Delayer, er, Single Slayer, er, Single Payer Health Care.

      • June 15, 2018 at 4:22 pm
        cassandra says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 2

        Polar,,,the alleged “free market” had decades to figure out how to deal with prexers. They simply can’t make a profit so they excluded them, or rated for pre existing that most of the populacr has (like hypertension). If you are in any way caring or compassionate, you need to admit that prexers need coverage also.

  • June 15, 2018 at 7:40 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 2

    This discussion is besides the point. Recent studies indicate the overwhelming reason that health care is so expensive isn’t insurance companies or pharmeceuticals, 90% of which are reasonably priced.

    The problem is that EVERYTHING costs more. Doctors make WAY more for the same specialty than in other countries. So do hospitals (big supporters of Obamacare).

    You want to solve health care? Face down the doctors and hospitals. Good luck.

    • June 18, 2018 at 12:28 pm
      cassandra says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      Craig, I actually agree with your last comment. However, you are wrong about the US being the primary source for new drugs. Both Germany and Japan, to mention a few, are quite active and innovative.
      As for single payor I am. as you suspect, totally in favor. I am on Medicare with a private supplement and it works well. It is efficient, responsive, informative and a Godsend to the elderly who could not attempt to pay for private insurance. Just think if the obscene salaries paid to heads of hospitals, certain doctors, health insurance and pharmaceutical moguls were put back into the system instead of in the pockets of the !% how many more fellow Americans could be confidant that they would get care and not be bankrupted securing same.
      PS…personal example of Pharma greed: I take meds for chronic condition…same rx for six years. Price was stable at about $300/mo. This last year price increased # times and is now over $800/mo. This is an old drug. Reason for increase? GREED!!!!!!!!!!

      • June 18, 2018 at 1:02 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 3

        Cassandra, we are totally against Single Payer as yet another Federal Government bureaucracy would be created and would bankrupt the country just as we are getting our economy going again. Sorry, but it isn’t going to happen.

        • June 18, 2018 at 2:05 pm
          cassandra says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 0

          Agent…of course it won’t when congressmen lose the honey money pot of lobby bucks. Also, single payor doesn’t necessarily mean govt being the payor; medicare is handled by private contractor. Unfortunately, the opposition has called single payor socialism and has people believing that Lenin and Trotsky will run it. Silly

          • June 18, 2018 at 2:21 pm
            Jax Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            cass – true and quite funny !!

  • June 18, 2018 at 3:15 pm
    Brock d'Avignon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Free-market achievement of universal comprehensive care is possible via Percentage As You Earn (%AYE) Medical Finansurance covering pre-existing conditions, insurance probabilities, and ironman suit Human Investments (HI) are extra. This makes both politician and courts a moot point.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*