Posted on 03/25/2019 7:30:14 PM PDT by Aquamarine
The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday announced that it is siding with a district court ruling that found the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.
The move is an escalation of the Trump administration's legal battle against the health care law.
The DOJ previously argued in court that the law's pre-existing condition protections should be struck down. Now, the administration argues the entire law should be invalidated......
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
We need to come up with a medical plan to run against the democrats socialist plans... Adding in that your comment to the mix would be hitting two birds with one stone. Keep that thought... we can help our fellow citizens and NOT create costly dependency. CapitalismCare...
“It all boils down to this, coverage for preexisting conditions is, by definition, NOT insurance!!”
That is a red herring argument or no argument at all. The coverage for pre-existing conditions is a benefit of the plan, just like eyeglasses every two years might be part of a vision insurance plan whether or not your vision is bad when you sign up. Insurance of all kinds includes analogous benefits, such as crop insurance purchased when the weather is already turning bad (ok). Is the health club membership included with my medical insurance technically “insurance”? Probably not, but who cares? It is an extended benefit which the insurer chooses to offer.
The Republicans better figure out to do it if they want the issue because mandating that health insurance plans cover preexisting conditions is what people want.
THAT fact has got to be TRUMPeted non-stop from now til the election!
Self-interest motivates most people, and the Dims constant violin playing for the illegals will be drowned out by their base’s outrage if they think illegals are “stealing” their government bennies!
At least you recognized it as a semantic argument. If people want to cover preexisting conditions okay but don’t call it insurance. Insurance is protection against what MAY happen in the future, not what is already going on before you shop for a policy. I suppose I may be just overly cranky in my old age but I am sick of the current practice of flinging words around and expecting others to figure out what was intended but not actually written or said. My rant is not aimed at you, as I said, you at least recognized it as a semantic argument, most don’t seem to have a clue.
“That is a red herring argument or no argument at all.”
You may call it no argument at all and be correct I suppose, I thought it was clearly a statement about the meaning of a word and nothing more. I sincerely believe that the lack of precision in language causes far more problems than most people ever suspect. You can write policies that cover preexisting conditions but I still say that it does not meet the definition of insurance.
0WetFartStain Hussein is what I call him.
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.