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

Skip to comments.

Unlike ObamaCare, The GOP Health Bill Wasn't Built On Lies And False Promises
Investor's Business Daily ^ | 5/5/2017 | Staff

Posted on 05/06/2017 5:29:37 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer

Health Reform: While everyone is busy picking apart the flaws of the Republican ObamaCare replacement bill, one inconvenient truth is being overlooked: ObamaCare itself has been a colossal disaster.

Remember how ObamaCare was sold to the public: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. It will lower premiums by $2,500, increase choice and competition, make health care affordable, create jobs, cut the deficit.

None of those promises came true. In 2013, millions discovered that the "keep your plan" promise was a lie — PolitiFact gave it the "Lie of the Year" award — when they started getting cancellation notices from their insurers. The Obama administration scrambled to minimize the political fallout by letting some keep those plans.

While Obama repeatedly promised a premium cut thanks to improved efficiency in the health care system, the opposite occurred. Workplace premiums for family plans jumped 9.4% the year after ObamaCare became law, and rose $4,767 from 2009 to 2006. ObamaCare premiums are going up at double-digit rates.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 115th; aca; ahca; demlies; fake; fakenews; obamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 last
To: semimojo
>>That's because the "uninsurables" comprise only about 1% of the insured.<<

Correction:

The "uninsurables" comprise only about 1% of the individual market.

61 posted on 05/06/2017 1:01:00 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (The fear of stark justice sends hot urine down their thighs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
And of course, the government Officials are EXEMPT.

I understood congress did not exempt themselves...

Am I wrong ?

62 posted on 05/06/2017 1:03:48 PM PDT by Popman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer

And that’s why it’s not going to be passed. It’s like they didn’t learn anything from CAFE standards, always have some happy bunny crap in the first 2 years and back load the ugly stuff to the next administration. It’s like they didn’t even read the law they’re trying to repeal.


63 posted on 05/06/2017 1:11:43 PM PDT by discostu (Stand up and be counted, for what you are about to receive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IBD editorial writer

OK, let’s all make sure we understand what a “per-existing” condition is. A per-existing condition is one for which the insured first received treatment when he was not insured. He chose not to be insured and up pops his cancer diagnosis. If he had been insured, it would not have been a per-existing condition. and, virtually all employer plans assume responsibility for illnesses which were diagnosed when the prior insurance was in force.


64 posted on 05/06/2017 1:22:52 PM PDT by anton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
The "uninsurables" comprise only about 1% of the individual market.

You sure about that?

The estimates I've see of people with pre-existing conditions range from 25% to 50%. This KFF study has it at 27%.

If anything I'd expect the incidence of 'uninsurables' to be at least as high in the individual market as in the general population, simply because some of them couldn't get insurance.

65 posted on 05/06/2017 1:42:09 PM PDT by semimojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: sargon

You’re a liar. Lots of FReepers dismiss others as “Never Trumpers” whenever they question anything he’s said or done. These people reject any thoughtful evaluation of President Trump, demanding that they pledge total and unquestioning allegiance to him.

My “constructive criticism” to the President: Do what you promised. Repeal Obamacare. Build the wall. Cut regulation. Cut taxes. Promote energy exploration/generation. Indict Hillary. And so on.


66 posted on 05/06/2017 2:02:39 PM PDT by Theo (FReeping since 1998 ... drain the swamp.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: semimojo
The estimates I've see of people with pre-existing conditions range from 25% to 50%. This KFF study has it at 27%.

The debate about HRP, pre-x, insurablilty apply mainly to the individual market (not employed, self-employed etc)

If anything I'd expect the incidence of 'uninsurables' to be at least as high in the individual market as in the general population

Many of those in the general population are in the workforce, and obtain benefits from the employer, pre-x and all. Large groups generally have the characteristic mandate called "guaranteed issue" they may well have most of those "pre-existing conditions" but as far as the carriers are concerned, if they are healthy enough to work, they are healthy enough to insure.

Using that same logic, those not employed, and seeking coverage in the individual market may well be uninsurable.

There's a way around this for the carriers. In Maine, we have a 12 month "preexisting condition exclusion".

Title 24-A: MAINE INSURANCE CODE
Chapter 36: CONTINUITY OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
§2850-A

B. "Preexisting condition exclusion," with respect to coverage, means a limitation or exclusion of benefits relating to a condition based on the fact or perception that the condition was present, or that the person was at particularized risk of developing the condition, before the date of enrollment for coverage, whether or not any medical advice, diagnosis, care or treatment was recommended or received before that date. [2001, c. 258, Pt. E, §9 (NEW).] [ 2001, c. 258, Pt. E, §9 (RPR) .]

2. Limitation. An individual, group or blanket contract issued by an insurer may not impose a preexisting condition exclusion except as provided in this subsection. A preexisting condition exclusion may not exceed 12 months from the date of enrollment, including the waiting period, if any. For purposes of this subsection, "waiting period" includes any period between the time a substantially complete application for an individual or small group health plan is filed and the time the coverage takes effect.

__________________________________________________________________

In other words, they are insurable except for the pre-x, unless it's nothing serious, they can then be fully covered, to be decided by the carrier.

Another thing getting lost in the fray is the deliberate confusion of terms in that they are trying to cross-identify those with a minor pre-x, with those uninsurables who have an incurable or terminal illnesses.

Even so, should someone be enrolled in an HRP and later be deemed insurable (cured, condition goes away or is maintained with medication etc) they can continue to apply for regular coverage until they qualify.

Also, this whole debate pretty much applies to first time individual market applicants. Otherwise, carriers generally tend to honor each other's pre-x exclusions.

67 posted on 05/06/2017 2:25:45 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (The fear of stark justice sends hot urine down their thighs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Theo
You're a liar.

No, You're a liar.

See how that works?

I don't know a single Freeper who hasn't disagreed with the President on something, and said so.

In any event, thanks for demonstrating your knee-jerk incivility...

68 posted on 05/06/2017 2:36:30 PM PDT by sargon (greed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
In Maine, we have a 12 month "preexisting condition exclusion".

Sounds similar to the ERISA requirements for group plans.

Otherwise, carriers generally tend to honor each other's pre-x exclusions.

In the group market because they have to. In the individual market? No way in hell (pre-ACA).

69 posted on 05/06/2017 7:26:18 PM PDT by semimojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: sargon

70 posted on 05/06/2017 8:43:07 PM PDT by Ray76 (DRAIN THE SWAMP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

71 posted on 05/06/2017 9:14:23 PM PDT by sargon (greed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: sargon

I was being kind when I indicated you wear rose-colored glasses. In reality you are blind. Blind to Congress’ chicanery.

Everything is awesome when you’re part of the team, right?

The “team” is sandbagging Trump. People who point that out are not “never Trumppers”.


72 posted on 05/06/2017 9:17:14 PM PDT by Ray76 (DRAIN THE SWAMP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Kazan
>> There aren't 217 conservatives in House and 50 in the Senate. That is the reality that has to be dealt with. <<

Gosh, I thought we "had to" vote for RINOs because they are "with us when it counts".

73 posted on 05/07/2017 6:51:01 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Twenty of them defected.

Of course, throwing a hissy fit and letting Dems win is what saddled the nation with Obamacare to begin with.

74 posted on 05/07/2017 7:10:54 PM PDT by Kazan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 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