• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who will protect people with pre-existing conditions?

Who will protect people with pre-existing conditions?

  • Total voters
    65
Greenbeard

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
20,229
Reaction score
21,622
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
A bold claim this week!

the-pre-existing-condition-trick.jpg


Let's examine the balance of evidence.

Democrats​
Republicans​
  • Passed Affordable Care Act, which protects people with pre-existing conditions
  • Uniformly voted against the Affordable Care Act, which protects people with pre-existing conditions
  • Voted 70 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, stripping people of pre-existing condition protections
  • Currently in court arguing that pre-existing condition protections in the ACA should be thrown out
  • Issuing regulations making it easier to sell plans that exclude people with pre-existing conditions

This is a tough one. Who to trust?

giphy.gif
 
Greenbeard said:
A bold claim this week!

the-pre-existing-condition-trick.jpg


Let's examine the balance of evidence.

Democrats​
Republicans​
  • Passed Affordable Care Act, which protects people with pre-existing conditions
  • Uniformly voted against the Affordable Care Act, which protects people with pre-existing conditions
  • Voted 70 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, stripping people of pre-existing condition protections
  • Currently in court arguing that pre-existing condition protections in the ACA should be thrown out
  • Issuing regulations making it easier to sell plans that exclude people with pre-existing conditions

This is a tough one. Who to trust?

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

tell me why someone should be able to not buy insurance until they have a problem and then demand the insurance company cover that pre-existing problem
 
President Trump will. Question answered.
 
TurtleDude said:
tell me why someone should be able to not buy insurance until they have a problem and then demand the insurance company cover that pre-existing problem
Click to expand...

would you like fire insurance on that house?.no thanks don't want it.

uhhh, "hello insurance company" ..i am looking to get fire insurance on my house which burnt down.;)
 
TurtleDude said:
tell me why someone should be able to not buy insurance until they have a problem and then demand the insurance company cover that pre-existing problem
Click to expand...

Thank you! I miss the days when Republicans would just openly ridicule the idea of protecting sick people. Kudos for the marvelous Throwback Thursday.

Watching them now pretend on the campaign trail they're champions of protecting those with pre-existing conditions just feels dirty, doesn't it?
 
Master PO said:
would you like fire insurance on that house?.no thanks don't want it.

uhhh, "hello insurance company" ..i am looking to get fire insurance on my house which burnt down.;)
Click to expand...

the collectivists seem not to understand how insurance works. If the only people who bought insurance were ones who made claims, the insurance premiums would have to be hundreds of thousands of dollars. what makes insurance works is that most people who buy it never make major claims.
 
Greenbeard said:
Thank you! I miss the days when Republicans would just openly ridicule the idea of protecting sick people. Kudos for the marvelous Throwback Thursday.

Watching them now pretend on the campaign trail they're champions of protecting those with pre-existing conditions just feels dirty, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


Lets suppose you are forty years old-never had a major medical issue so you don't have any reason to buy insurance.You spend the money on cars and partying, while your peers are buying medical insurance even though none of them have really needed it either. then your doctor has some bad news-you have been diagnosed with ALS-an incurable slow killer that normally hits people around 40 years of age. SO you try to buy insurance. The annual care for someone with ALS (that usually takes 2-3 years to kill) is well over 100,000 dollars a year.

Does the insurance company have the duty to cover your illness or should they turn you down because you didn't bother to buy insurance before you were stricken?
 
TurtleDude said:
the collectivists seem not to understand how insurance works. If the only people who bought insurance were ones who made claims, the insurance premiums would have to be hundreds of thousands of dollars. what makes insurance works is that most people who buy it never make major claims.
Click to expand...

Right on, got to vote GOP so they can strip those pre-existing condition protections like they've been trying to do for years.

If only they would cop to it on the campaign trail! Weirdly enough they're campaigning on the collectivist position. :shrug:
 
Why argue about it?

In the end they will cover pre-existing conditions but........they will charge a fortune for that coverage.
 
TurtleDude said:
Lets suppose you are forty years old-never had a major medical issue so you don't have any reason to buy insurance.You spend the money on cars and partying, while your peers are buying medical insurance even though none of them have really needed it either. then your doctor has some bad news-you have been diagnosed with ALS-an incurable slow killer that normally hits people around 40 years of age. SO you try to buy insurance. The annual care for someone with ALS (that usually takes 2-3 years to kill) is well over 100,000 dollars a year.

Does the insurance company have the duty to cover your illness or should they turn you down because you didn't bother to buy insurance before you were stricken?
Click to expand...

this question is to hard to answer, you better go a little lower. but still expect an emotional answer

question:..if the answer is they dont have the money to afford insurance, then how do they buy it with pre-existing conditions?
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
Lets suppose you are forty years old-never had a major medical issue so you don't have any reason to buy insurance.?
Click to expand...

Of course this person has a reason to buy insurance, our tax law encourages personal responsib--oh wait, somebody got rid of that.

You're right, the GOP has created a very odd situation.
 
TurtleDude said:
tell me why someone should be able to not buy insurance until they have a problem and then demand the insurance company cover that pre-existing problem
Click to expand...

There's millions of people that would be without healthcare if the mandate was eradicated that prohibits the exclusion of people with pre-existing conditions to be able to be given health insurance. Children with birth defects or Juvenile diabetes, young adults diagnosed with long term illnesses like Multiple Sclerosis or some other long term illness and others diagnosed with HIV or Hepatitis C. Many of these people would simple use the emergency rooms at hospitals for their treatment, they cannot be denied care in an emergency and a lot of people would also just die from their illness without treatment.

There's a big 'but' in the Republican boast that they will keep those on insurance that have pre-existing conditions and that 'but' is at what cost? That's something people haven't considered. Yes, they may mandate that insurance companies cannot discriminate against anyone with a long term illness but the insurance company can simply say, "okay, we'll cover them, no problem, but their monthly premium is going to cost them a lot more money than someone healthy." The ACA was something Republicans fought for years, and the mandate for pre-existing is something they didn't want to see in that bill because it costs more money to insure long term illnesses. But now, oh yeah....they're all for that ACA mandate, or so they say anyway.
 
Most of us are one day away from a pre-existing condition. Think about how that might affect you.
 
Greenbeard said:
A bold claim this week!

the-pre-existing-condition-trick.jpg


Let's examine the balance of evidence.

Democrats​
Republicans​
  • Passed Affordable Care Act, which protects people with pre-existing conditions
  • Uniformly voted against the Affordable Care Act, which protects people with pre-existing conditions
  • Voted 70 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, stripping people of pre-existing condition protections
  • Currently in court arguing that pre-existing condition protections in the ACA should be thrown out
  • Issuing regulations making it easier to sell plans that exclude people with pre-existing conditions

This is a tough one. Who to trust?

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Trump will not be able to deliver on that promise. Nobody can pay the costs of government coverage of pre-existing healthcare conditions except for the hard working taxpayer, especially the young and healthy workers under the Obamacare tax plan.
 
HumblePi said:
There's millions of people that would be without healthcare if the mandate was eradicated that prohibits the exclusion of people with pre-existing conditions to be able to be given health insurance. Children with birth defects or Juvenile diabetes, young adults diagnosed with long term illnesses like Multiple Sclerosis or some other long term illness and others diagnosed with HIV or Hepatitis C. Many of these people would simple use the emergency rooms at hospitals for their treatment, they cannot be denied care in an emergency and a lot of people would also just die from their illness without treatment.

There's a big 'but' in the Republican boast that they will keep those on insurance that have pre-existing conditions and that 'but' is at what cost? That's something people haven't considered. Yes, they may mandate that insurance companies cannot discriminate against anyone with a long term illness but the insurance company can simply say, "okay, we'll cover them, no problem, but their monthly premium is going to cost them a lot more money than someone healthy." The ACA was something Republicans fought for years, and the mandate for pre-existing is something they didn't want to see in that bill because it costs more money to insure long term illnesses. But now, oh yeah....they're all for that ACA mandate, or so they say anyway.
Click to expand...

is health insurance a legitimate function of the federal government?
 
Parrish said:
Most of us are one day away from a pre-existing condition. Think about how that might affect you.
Click to expand...

if you buy insurance before that happens- no problem

I want you to explain why an insurance company can cover people who haven't paid into the pool until they need hundreds of thousands of dollars
 
Who says they haven't? Just hoping that everyone is covered.
 
Master PO said:
would you like fire insurance on that house?.no thanks don't want it.

uhhh, "hello insurance company" ..i am looking to get fire insurance on my house which burnt down.;)
Click to expand...

Exactly. Pre existing falls into two categories. Those who have always had a non insurable condition, and those who chose to be uninsured. The former may need our help. But this is welfare, not insurance. The latter made a choice. New boat vs insurance. Jump out of that airplane or not. Sometimes life decisions suck.

In order to be viable, insurance must rely on the insured group having similar risk factors. Throw in a couple insured with far higher risk, the pool risk gets skewed. That shouldn't be difficult to understand.
 
TurtleDude said:
is health insurance a legitimate function of the federal government?
Click to expand...

We're the richest country in the entire world and if we can't provide health care that's equal to the health care of a small nation like Luxemburg, then we're doing something very wrong to our citizens. The U.S.A. is ranked #37 by the World Health Organization for countries that are rated for excellence in providing health care. When countries like Iceland and Morocco are ranked higher in health care than the wealthiest country on earth, we should all be very ashamed. To answer your question, YES absolutely. Providing health care to ALL citizens is a responsibility of the United States, the richest, most progressive and technically proficient country on the planet.
 
HumblePi said:
We're the richest country in the entire world and if we can't provide health care that's equal to the health care of a small nation like Luxemburg, then we're doing something very wrong to our citizens. The U.S.A. is ranked #37 by the World Health Organization for countries that are rated for excellence in providing health care. When countries like Iceland and Morocco are ranked higher in health care than the wealthiest country on earth, we should all be very ashamed. To answer your question, YES absolutely. Providing health care to ALL citizens is a responsibility of the United States, the richest, most progressive and technically proficient country on the planet.
Click to expand...

At what cost though? And we would lose all incentive for innovation and R&D. Sorry but government run medicine is a recipe for disaster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom