Posted on 03/23/2017 4:05:02 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer
If the Republican's ObamaCare replacement plan ends up looking an awful lot like ObamaCare, here's one reason why: Prominent conservatives have already conceded defeat.
In his latest column, Charles Krauthammer declared that "For all its catastrophic flaws, ObamaCare changed expectations. Does any Republican propose returning to a time when you can be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?"
Another well-known conservative commentator, George Will, wrote almost exactly the same thing in his column that just posted.
"It is unknowable whether Barack Obama produced an American consensus in favor of a government obligation to guarantee universal access to health insurance, or whether the debate surrounding the ACA merely catalyzed a gradually forming consensus," he wrote. "In any case, today's debate about replacing the ACA is occurring in the context of that consensus."
"Changed expectations"? "An American consensus"? After ObamaCare has been in effect for less than 39 months?
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
The EXEMPT believe they can lie whenever they want,
and about this malicious attempt to make the
gov’t control healthcare:
Pres. Trump and Ryan are LIARS.
They ran on REPEAL, and kept THEMSELVES EXEMPT
and made ObamaCARE ===> TrumpCARE.
FOOLS and traitors, all.
I would argue that there have always been several Republican plans that differed but agreed on several main conditions.
Pre existing conditions would be taken care of. The tax exemption for premiums would be extended to those not employer covered. Children to 26 would be covered by parents plan. All these were to be included in what ever came about.
Conservatives ?
Check your premises: They are not Conservatives.
“Does any Republican propose returning to a time when you can be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?”
Krauthammer and George Will both live in Washington, DC. They live in a bubble. That statement gives you a clue as to how they think.
No one has ever denied insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. What these people did previously, was pay for it by being placed in a high risk pool. The same way bad auto drivers are now. That’s what we had before and need to have again.
Krauthammer and Will are both democrat hacks pretending to be conservatives. They should be handed over to ISIS and beheaded. Televise it for the world to see.
conservatives are a small minority in congress. they are a minority in the republican side of congress. their options are
1) Keep congress from doing anything (unless Ryan/Trump work with Ds)
2) Negotiate for as much as they can get from the majority Rs and let the Rs “repeal and replace” as Rs promised for 3 elections even if the replacement isn’t very good.
As a rule, I’m for congress NOT getting anything done. But in this case I’m for negotiating hard and hopefully getting commitments for more power in the tax reform bill. I don’t know anyway to trust Ryan/McConnell to honor those commitments though.
I agree...that was my understanding also.
I keep hearing about how wonderful it is to keep your kids covered on your insurance until they are 26. But I have no earthly idea what the big deal is. 1] how widespread is it? and 2] They are covered, so what? There is no real difference if they are covered under their own policy or their parents except for increased premiums to the insurance co.
Preexistings: The vast majority get their insurance through their employers and, for the most part, preexisting is waived as a new hire. Heck I work for a real small business and even we do that. Again: I am not sure just how many people are truly affected.
No waiting to try to buy insurance when you are sick would be an issue but its just wrong to think you should be chained to a job because you have a condition, lets say type2 Diabetes. It makes little sense that if you change employers, your medications are no longer covered and you cannot get covered treatments for some waiting period. [Portability]
The issues I can’t get past are the fees for not having insurance: those would be way more than the present penalty/tax and the lack choice in your coverage: I do not want need or desire to cover either pregnancy, birth control NOR Viagra. [And especially abortions!!] But I do not see that the present bill offers relief for that. Could be wrong.
I just hope the Freedom Caucus stands firm and insists on a clean repeal. Worry about replace later...if at all.
But thats just me...a proud deplorable meanie....
Krauthammer and Will conservative? It is to laugh.
PS: Blog pimping is so unattractive.
These are not true conservatives. They are politicians that “speak conservative” and are just lap dogs to the donor with the biggest check.
they are issues politicians NOT SOLUTION politicians.
I expect more blog pimping by anti trump trolls with fake conservative stories. Stories designed to fool low IQ voters who have no clue how parliamentary procedure works.
(iow sausage making)
If people weren't denied insurance in the open market then why did they need a high risk pool? And what about the 25 states that didn't establish them before Obamacare? Will they be required to do so under Trumpcare?
Yoohoo, Charlie. I do.
ML/NJ
This is only the first step. People should chill.
Because they understand that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.