Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ending ObamaCare, Part One
The Wall Street Journal ^ | May 4, 2017

Posted on 05/04/2017 11:53:58 PM PDT by Helicondelta

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: vette6387

Is this deal anything like the bills they passed under Maobama? I think this deal is only marginally better than Obamacare. So anyone who is demoralized by this puny effort and speaks out, such as Rand Paul (who is a DOCTOR) is a “queer”. Uh huh.


21 posted on 05/05/2017 7:20:48 AM PDT by alstewartfan ("She got caught between the shadows and the booze." from Marion by Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

And so your solution would be what? Be a Rand Paul and make sure that nothing gets done at all because of the “diversity of opinion” in the GOP makes a “truly conservative solution” unattainable? If that’s the case, the RATs will hang Obamacare’s “failure” around the necks of the Republicans and they will make it stick. While it is indeed sad to see the makeup of the GOP today collectively, “we” voted for this group of worthless a$$holes whom we now deride for not “doing their jobs.” In point of fact, they are “doing” what they think the majority of their constituents want because that will keep them in office. And to them, personally, I think all they care about is themselves, just like the RATs.


22 posted on 05/05/2017 7:33:04 AM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan
“Is this deal anything like the bills they passed under Maobama? I think this deal is only marginally better than Obamacare. So anyone who is demoralized by this puny effort and speaks out, such as Rand Paul (who is a DOCTOR) is a “queer”. Uh huh.”

I guess I have to explain context to you. I didn't say Rand Paul WAS A QUEER, I said that he and one other likeminded Senator could QUEER THE DEAL! Capiche? As for Rand Paul being a doctor, perhaps in another life, now he's pretty much a full-time politician like his father who was also a doctor.

23 posted on 05/05/2017 8:23:59 AM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

Ron Paul is a full-blown kook.
Rand Paul inherited SOME sanity from his mom apparently, but SHE fell for Ron, so you can’t be too sure.
P.S. Never, in my circles, have I heard the term “queering” without it implying something about sexuality.


24 posted on 05/05/2017 10:01:00 AM PDT by alstewartfan ("She got caught between the shadows and the booze." from Marion by Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Helicondelta

I have gained some respect for Mitch McConnell.

He’s stronger and more effective than Paul Ryan. That’s for damn sure.


25 posted on 05/05/2017 10:05:07 AM PDT by Conserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

In a sense, I believe this is worse than nothing, though the black and white bill is slightly better than what we have. Thus far, the GOP is celebrating while the Democrats are screaming that millions will die.
Republicans are failing to make the case with the brain-dead public that this bill is an improvement, and thus they will be hung with incessant sob stories about how Junior died needlessly, thanks to the conscienceless Republicans. Truth will matter not.If this bill ultimately passes, every tragedy will fall upon Republicans’ heads. Face it; most Democrat voters are either misinformed, stupid or dead! Yes, the graveyard has been given ammunition by the GOP.


26 posted on 05/05/2017 10:08:10 AM PDT by alstewartfan ("She got caught between the shadows and the booze." from Marion by Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Helicondelta
Republicans will be blamed for that collapse whether or not they pass repeal and replace.

Only by leftists who would never vote R anyway. This includes obviously 95% of journalists, including those at the WSJ.

Rational people will know the cause of the mess is the Democrats.

27 posted on 05/05/2017 11:22:53 AM PDT by T Ruth (Mohammedanism shall be defeated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helicondelta
That status quo is deteriorating as this week’s decision by Aetna to withdraw from Virginia’s health exchanges shows. Republicans will be blamed for that collapse whether or not they pass repeal and replace.

No, Democrats are to blame for another Obamacare Exchange Failure. Fake News Blame Game by the 'reporter' here.

28 posted on 05/05/2017 12:20:26 PM PDT by CptnObvious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

Maybe this will help:

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/queer

look under usage as a VERB! In this context, the word QUEER has NOTHING to do with BEING GAY!


29 posted on 05/05/2017 1:26:23 PM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: A strike

‘Repeal and replace’ equals no repeal.


30 posted on 05/05/2017 2:46:35 PM PDT by A strike (Madison Avenue is racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

question: How is this plan handling people with pre-existing conditions? I have “progressive” relatives on FaceBook who are going nuts, saying anybody who supports this legislation is just mean.


31 posted on 05/05/2017 8:43:44 PM PDT by married21 ( As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Saveourcountry
Please advise. Am I wrong?

Nope. They actually prefer the Court take the blame for most of their agenda.

Freepers have been wondering since the beginning why they don't require an actual filibuster. They both want to reserve powers not remembering what Harry did when he needed to.

32 posted on 05/06/2017 9:07:18 AM PDT by itsahoot (As long as there is money to be divided, there will be division.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

I’d bet my last dollar that I am not the only one who interpreted your remark as I did. Hey, I learned something. That’s good! lol


33 posted on 05/06/2017 10:37:37 AM PDT by alstewartfan ("She got caught between the shadows and the booze." from Marion by Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: married21
Here are some factual (i.e., no media spin) item-by-item explanations of the bill that has passed the House:

https://benefitslink.com/src/legislation/AHCA-Section-by-Section-Summary.pdf

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44785.pdf

Specific to pre-existing conditions, there appear to be two interconnected provisions:

  1. A 12-month surcharge equal to 30% of the premium for anyone who buys insurance after a coverage gap of 63 days (whether or not they have any pre-existing condition);
    and
  2. States are permitted to adopt an alternative to that "coverage gap surcharge" which may (not "must") allow insurers to set premiums based on "health status rating". The alternative must include a "high risk pool" which provides payments to health insurance issuers to help with high-cost medical claims of certain individuals.
Note that the both of these provisions apply only if the person has had a gap in insurance coverage. If the individual maintains continuous coverage, there's no increased premium, and no apparent exclusion for any pre-existing condition.

Some history:

Prior to ACA, employer policies - but not individual policies - were required to cover pre-existing conditions if there was no gap in coverage. If there was a gap, employers could exclude the pre-existing condition for some period of time (but not forever). Individual policies could exclude the pre-existing condition, or jack up the premiums (with no limit on that increase).

ACA required all policies to cover of all pre-existing conditions, period, but imposed a penalty if the individual did not maintain coverage. The goal was to ensure continuous coverage -- but the penalties were too low to force individuals to choose to buy insurance, so it was easy for individuals to "game the system", and buy coverage only when they needed it (i.e., they already had a diagnoses -- a "pre-existing condition".)

The new proposal imposes a hefty surcharge, for a limited period of time, if there's a break in coverage -- but it doesn't appear to touch the ACA requirement that any pre-existing conditions be covered starting on day one.

(Good source for lots of articles about ACA/AHCA/health coverage in general: https://benefitslink.com/news)

34 posted on 05/07/2017 5:12:25 AM PDT by RusynMama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson