Skip to comments.We need to answer their constant drum beat about preexisting medical conditions.
Posted on 10/13/2018 6:23:53 PM PDT by Bellflower
Everywhere the opposition has ads poured out about how heartless the evil, mean Republicans are. They want to take healthcare away from poor, poor people with preexisting illnesses. All they care about are big corporate insurance companies. They are dirty, and bought and payed for by them.
If you are a good and decent person with any kind of heart at all you will vote for the good and decent Democrat, who cares about people and doesn't want to kill them.
Besides, really frightening, is the possibility that you or someone you care about could be, or eventually become one of those with a preexisting health condition. If so, you can be sure those evil Republicans will heartlessly leave you and your love one to die, too.
This pops up everywhere, but I haven't heard any Republican rebuttals. Maybe they are out there, but I haven't run into them. This seems to be the opposition's main ammunition. They have next to nothing but this tear jerker. They are trying to cause people to feel that if they are decent human beings they must vote for the lovely, compassionate Democrats, who care about people over big corporate insurance companies.
OK, isn't it obvious that since this is their constant drumbeat, their main ammo against us, that we need to address this, and address it fast, completely and convincingly? We need to target people's hearts, as well as their minds. We need to fight fire with fire.
What say all of you?
I think the following about pre existing conditions:
1. It is firstly the responsibility of a person to insure himself. It is wrong to expect the general population to handle your responsibility.
2. Some simply cant prepare properly - minors, those who got cheated by their insurance company, the mentally ill are often legitimately unable to provide for themselves.
3. If caught with a pre existing condition, uninsured, a person should exhaust his resources, access the resources of willing family and friends, then access private charity (church, foundations, corporations or hospitals who will write you off, etc)
4. True emergency care should be provided at hospitals regardless of ability to pay as a condition of their license. Reasonable charges should be presented as a bill and be paid or if not treated as debt for which liens or claims against estates should be utilized. Hospital auxiliaries and etc should be utilized to help in this area.
My friend's mother was 72 and had everything wrong with her. Lungs, heart, blood sugar, everything. That last month of her life cost the tax payers over $800K. Then my friend got brain cancer - same kind as McCain - and I know those chemo/radiation/MRIs/Avastin infusions weren't cheap. 18 months of that (and of course, none of it could stop the inevitable.) But the hospital cheerfully spent money trying, and billed her insurance company very faithfully.
Simple and to the point. Excellent.
It’s not so much who I am talking about right now. It is the dem’s constant drumbeat. It needs to be answered. They are using this issue to get votes. It should be addressed for the good of what is right and reasonable.
Thats the part they are not telling the country. For years now if you had insurance through your job there was no pre existing condition limitations. If you get fired, divorced from an insurance carrying spouse or etc. and become uninsured for a period of time, then you are considered to be uninsurable because of any pre existing conditions.
So people are encouraged to have continuous coverage to avoid the pool. If you can afford the high premiums you can have insurance if youve had continuous coverage. Obamacare lied and destroyed that system.
I don’t know the story behind Makena. What are you saying about her? Sorry she died, so very sad.
Only people that you're talking about are those not covered by work, Medicaid or Medicare.
I agree and that’s part of the answer.
In some cases, that's true.
But, also there are people who...
(1) are laid-off from work and cannot afford COBRA;
(2) cannot find full-time work with benefits;
(3) haven't qualified for benefits yet during 90-day probationary job period;
(4) are insured under spouse's coverage but then divorce;
(5) and many other reasons.
All that said, requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions does drive up the cost.
IF the GOP ever plans to get rid of the pre-existing conditions requirement, they need to talk about other options.
BEFORE the pre-existing conditions requirement, there were a few options for patients who didn't qualify for gov't help:
(1) Charity Care - The hospital or doctor would work out a lower cost with the patient. (The providers might be able to deduct the cost from their taxes.)
(2) Charities - Some organizations provided lower-cost care (ex. some pro-life organizations directed to low-cost options for pregnant women).
ClearCase guy wrote: "I support catastrophic coverage."
So do I. But insurance companies won't sell it to people over a certain age. We're stuck buying the whole package. Why doesn't the GOP talk about that?
The big insurance companies supported Obama Care. Why? It is all about money.
I thought so, but the dems go on and on and on about it.
Health “Insurance” hasn’t been insurance for a long time. Insurance is to cover unexpected occurrences yet we now expect it to cover routine medical visits and other preventative maintenance. This has opened the door to untolds amount of price fixing by the medical industry where the prices charged if you’re paying cash are so unreasonable as to be laughable. This distortion in the marketplace has made it so someone with a pre-existing condition can’t afford to pay for their own medical care. If the market were capitalistic then prices would be affordable and the pre-existing condition wouldn’t be an issue, you’d just pay out of pocket to manage your diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. As it is now even the most routine condition is unaffordable to manage unless you’re covered by health “insurance”.
Agreed. Also, the GOP has to do something to ensure that people who can’t afford care can get something.
Many who derided Obama Care for having death panels, are also just fine with letting folks who can't afford current rates/medical costs suffer and/or dies just so long as it doesn't raise their own rates. Finding a balance that works is a tricky thing and it will rankle folks who are poor and get less care than others and it will rankle those who end up paying a bit more to supplement critical care for the poor....I believe Trump and his folks will come up with a viable solution that manages to do the right thing even though there will be detractors from both sides....as soon as ObamaCare is officially dead and buried....still gonna be a number on our side yowling like Toms in an alley when no female cats show up....
There’s an ad here in Pennsyltucky pushing a ‘Rat part time clergy George Scott. A couple went to buy health insurance AFTER they had a child with medical issues. When the insurance company balked at their waiting to want insurance until AFTER the problem arose, they ran to this (anti 2A) ‘Rat politician to lie about it for them.
Answer it with what? You need a plan and the GOP doesn’t have one.
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.