Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, October 31, 2019

U.S. Senate Democrats failed on Wednesday to overturn a Trump administration policy that allows states to ignore certain requirements of the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions, very importantly."
-- President Trump, May 9, 2019


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-31 12:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Trump's smoke-and-mirrors 2020 health care strategy
www.axios.com

...President Trump may be telling voters everything that they want to hear when it comes to health care, but much of it isn't true.

Why it matters: Trump is claiming victories he hasn't achieved and making promises he's not prepared to live up to, all on an immensely personal subject that voters consistently rank as one of the most important issues of 2020.

Trump's most demonstrably false claim is that, as he put it in May, "we will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions."

- The Trump administration is currently urging the courts to strike down the Affordable Care Act, including its protections for pre-existing conditions. ...


#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-31 01:09 PM | Reply

"GOP Senate fails to kill pre existing condition protections"

Is that a correct summary of what happened?

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-31 01:11 PM | Reply

You're right Lamp. It should be... GOP proceeds full speed ahead on killing pre-existing conditions.

Senate democrats failed to stop it.

#4 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-10-31 02:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The whole point was forcing Republicans to vote for the bad policy they champion. Now they need to use the vote in incessant ads. They should be carpet bombing airwaves with ads showing republicans promising the public they will protect pre-existing conditions while voting nearly unanimously to end those protections.

#5 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-01 06:17 AM | Reply

Republicans are just filth. There is no defense for their scorched Earth policies that leave people without healthcare which will actually deal with their ailments. I hope Y'all experience cancer in your lives. It will cause you to reflect on the decisions you've made in your lives which destroyed the lives of others. Hope you're proud. America sickens me more every day.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-01 06:28 AM | Reply

How nice. You can eat, drink and be merry with no regard to the damaging effects on your health.
You can save big on insurance by not buying any until you get sick.

#7 | Posted by Ray at 2019-11-01 08:34 AM | Reply

Or you can pay for insurance for years and have them drop you when you get health issues then use your pre-existing condition to never have to insure you again.

#8 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-11-01 08:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Tao

Unfortunately you are caught in the crossfire.

By trying to make health care more affordable, they drove up demand and made it more expensive.

By instituting price controls they caused shortages.

In this age of crony capitalism, the insurance companies and government regulators are joined at the hip. They take care of each other.

Your best chance is to educate yourself on natural cures on sites like mercola.com.

#9 | Posted by Ray at 2019-11-01 09:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Gotta laugh at how the left just defines certain insurance plans as "junk". People who purchase these plans don't think they are "junk" and that's what matters.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-01 09:24 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Gotta laugh at how the party of "law and order" and "respect for the constitution" no longer gives a ---- about the Take Care Clause and thinks the Presodent should be allowed to ignore laws that Congress has chosen not to repeal.

#11 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-01 09:34 AM | Reply

Gotta laugh at how the left just defines certain insurance plans as "junk". People who purchase these plans don't think they are "junk" and that's what matters.

#10 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-01 09:24 AM | FLAG:

Until they get sick and find out they're not covered and owe $200,000.

#12 | Posted by cbob at 2019-11-01 09:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Gotta laugh at how the party of "law and order" and "respect for the constitution" no longer gives a ---- about the Take Care Clause and thinks the Presodent should be allowed to ignore laws that Congress has chosen not to repeal.

#11 | POSTED BY JOE

I just wandered on this thread and am about to go on the road for a few hours for work....

The question for me is whether these parameters are clearly spelled out in ACA itself, or were they written by HHS under Sebelious.

If it's the former, your point is completely valid. If these parameters were written by HHS then they can be changed. This is the problem with government by bureaucracy - "rules" that have a major effect on millions can be changed on a whim.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-01 09:54 AM | Reply

Until they get sick and find out they're not covered and owe $200,000.

#12 | POSTED BY CBOB

Some people actually research these plans and come to the conclusion that they are a good value for themselves and given the lower cost the associated risk is worth it.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-01 09:55 AM | Reply

Exactly what is junk about them? I see the references to pre-existing conditions but most people never understood that provision in the first place, so I'm left to believe most folks still don't understand it now.

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-01 10:05 AM | Reply

#15 How is someone's understanding of a plan in any way related to whether or not it is junk? Or were those two separate thoughts in one paragraph?

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-01 10:13 AM | Reply

slate.com

The Affordable Care Act was designed, in large part, to ban cruddy health insurance. Before the law was passed, shoppers often tried to save money on their coverage by purchasing plans with meager benefits that didn't help much if they got sick with cancer or needed an expensive prescription or were badly injured in a car wreck. Obamacare sought to end that by requiring health plans to cover a standard package of services, no matter who bought them.

The Trump administration is now bringing cruddy back. In yet another aggressive move to undermine the Affordable Care Act, it issued a new regulation on Wednesday that will make it easier for companies to sell inexpensive insurance plans that are not required to offer basic benefits and can discriminate against Americans with pre-existing conditions.

#17 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-11-01 10:17 AM | Reply

Some people actually research these plans and come to the conclusion that they are a good value for themselves and given the lower cost the associated risk is worth it.

#14 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-01 09:55 AM | REPLY | FLAG

I'm sure some do. But I'm sure many others, especially those strapped for cash, just see the lower up-front cost and go with that. There's nothing worse than insurance surprises.

Personally, I like having as broad a selection as possible. There has to be a way to go the public option route that would provide basic coverage, like original Medicare, but leaving the private market intact for people to choose more or less coverage. Am I naive on that?

#18 | Posted by cbob at 2019-11-01 10:28 AM | Reply

Some people actually research these plans and come to the conclusion that they are a good value for themselves and given the lower cost the associated risk is worth it.

While i question what percentage of people that actually is, this argument ignores the fact that when these people get hurt or sick and their plan doesn't cover their care, they are still seeking out care, most likely not paying for it, and imposing increased costs on everyone else.

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-01 10:38 AM | Reply

Some people actually research these plans and come to the conclusion that they are a good value for themselves and given the lower cost the associated risk is worth it.
#14 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-01 09:55 AM | REPLY |

They only do that because they know they cannot be refused for emergency care and the hospitals don't lose any money because they get every penny back by overcharging the rest of us. They are gambling with our money.

#20 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-01 10:50 AM | Reply

-How is someone's understanding of a plan in any way related to whether or not it is junk?

well, if I know what it covers and what it doesn't cover and I'm okay with that.....then it's not a bad thing, IMO.

But if I'm unaware of exclusions, limitations, etc. and I fall victim to that....then that IS a bad thing, IMO.

It's being asserted these plans are terrible...fine. But where they are lacking and how it's NOT being communicated to the policyholders...that's the real issue, IMO.

And I'm sure that's the real issue....the -------- selling these policies and not clearly informing folks of their pitfalls....and that's hard to regulate.

So, I'm not defending these plans....just asking for a clarification of why and how they are "junk". That's all.

#21 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-01 10:54 AM | Reply

"the -------- selling these policies and not clearly informing folks of their pitfalls....and that's hard to regulate."

Only recently.

Thanks, Trump!

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-01 10:58 AM | Reply

"they cannot be refused for emergency care and the hospitals don't lose any money because they get every penny back by overcharging the rest of us. They are gambling with our money."

Ahhh, finally! Someone who actually understands the equation.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-01 11:00 AM | Reply

-Only recently.

what do you mean?

Ever read or saw "The Rainmaker" by John Grisham?

Insurance companies and agents have been bad boys for a long time and state and federal laws have allowed it.

are you really trying to assert this became a problem because of Trump?

#24 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-01 11:01 AM | Reply

I'm not defending these plans....just asking for a clarification of why and how they are "junk".

It's pretty well detailed in Laura's link. But I still don't think whether someone understands the risks has any relation to whether the policy is junk. If it's junk it's junk, whether i can read or not.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-01 11:03 AM | Reply

-If it's junk it's junk, whether i can read or not.

if that's true then it's also true that it's not junk just because a politician says it's junk.

It needs to be judged as junk by someone who can read it.

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-01 11:07 AM | Reply

These plans scare the advocates of folks using the exchanges. They are fearful the healthiest will run from the exchanges and to these plans....like them and never return to the exchange.

They are taking short term policies and extending their life to 36 months.

It's not armageddon. Taking out drugs, mental health, and maternity for the appropriate folks doesn't bother me if it's disclosed.

#27 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-01 11:17 AM | Reply

if that's true then it's also true that it's not junk just because a politician says it's junk.

I like how you say "if" that's true, as if there's some possibility that someone knowing something is junk or not has any bearing on whether it is, in fact, junk.

If i buy a POS car, but know nothing about cars, it's still a POS car.

And i agree that a politician labeling it junk doesn't make it junk. But i can look at a policy that doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, pregnancy, mental health, prescription drugs, transplants, chemo, recreational accidents, nursing services, hospital room and board, and spends as little as 10 cents per premium dollar on care, and conclude it is junk all on my own.

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-01 11:18 AM | Reply

"It needs to be judged as junk by someone who can read it."

I disagree. If it's junk, it's junk.

"why and how they are "junk"."

The mental concept of insurance is it covers everything from medium-bad to catastrophic. If anything goes wrong in a big way, you're covered.

These are exactly the opposite plans: if anything goes wrong, they cap out.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-01 11:19 AM | Reply

"-Only recently."

what do you mean?

Trump is allowing these plans, right? They were easier to regulate under Obamacare, right? Recently.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-01 11:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#10 | Posted by JeffJ

I mean if you are fine with plans where you pay in thousands a year and have thousands if not tens of thousands out of pocket when something happens, ok.

But they don't encourage wellness (which decreases costs) or cover anything. I have seen some of these plans they are talking about. They are a joke and people think they have coverage in the event of something significant but the out of pocket will still bankrupt many. With many of these plans if you get something like cancer you could be looking at 10s of thousands out of pocket and the Practitioners will want that up front. Good luck with that. Or they force you down a stupid path of treatment that not only racks up dollars as you go but makes the chances of a successful outcome slim to none. It happened to my cousin about 15 years ago when he was diagnosed with a very treatable form of Leukemia. The junk health insurance plan his company had wouldn't accept the Doctor's treatment plan. It wasn't even new it was considered mainstream best practices treatment. Instead for coverage they forced them to try cheap and proven significantly less effective older treatments. In the end he died and they killed him in his Doctor's opinion. He couldn't afford the 10's of thousands up front out of pocket so he died.

#31 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-11-01 01:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#31 That is insane. I'm sorry to hear about your cousin. In a country with this level of wealth it is not right for that to happen to anybody.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-01 01:38 PM | Reply

This is purely anecdotal and it's not meant to make a point, just that it's kind of interesting.

Two years out of college I got a new co-worker. The company I worked for at the time had a policy that you had to be employed for 90 days before health insurance benefits kick in. So, this guy was on the fence. He was 25 years old and in good health. Should he just roll the dice for 90 days? He opted to purchase a cheap healthcare plan that he'd cancel. One morning he doesn't show up for work. After about 3 hours he calls. He was at the hospital. He was playing softball the night before and he shattered his hip trying to field a routine ground ball. He had no idea how it happened; it just happened. His hospital bill was $25k and his insurance covered all of it. He definitely made the right decision.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-01 01:45 PM | Reply

He definitely made the right decision.

Over having no insurance at all? Definitely.

But the odds of him having an accident not covered by his cheap policy were higher than if he had one in compliance with the ACA. The cheap policy being the "right" decision was pure luck; a gamble that paid off.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-01 01:53 PM | Reply

-I disagree. If it's junk, it's junk.

says who? An elected politician with a political ax to grind?

-Recently.

So, is it "recently" or "only recently"?

I responded to you because you used the latter.

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-01 03:11 PM | Reply

-I mean if you are fine with plans where you pay in thousands a year and have thousands if not tens of thousands out of pocket when something happens, ok.

There are lots of plans like that Obamacare approves of.

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-01 03:13 PM | Reply

#36

Not really. I think the highest deductible I saw last year was 7500 and that was also the out of pocket max so worst case would have been 18,300 including premiums.

Now for a family the deductible was 15000 on that plan so yes if 2 people on the plan hit the max it would have been "tens of thousands" but that was worst case on the marketplace last year. Haven't looked yet this year so I'll see on Sunday.

As far as "junk" plans go I agree that it is mostly junk because of insurers trying to hide the exclusions. The nice thing with Obamacare plans is you didn't have to worry about being an insurance attorney to understand what you were getting. Thanks to MS I have basically become an unlicensed insurance attorney so for me I'm not worried about falling into one of those traps but I know plenty of folks who easily could.

#37 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-11-01 03:38 PM | Reply

"Not really. I think the highest deductible I saw last year was 7500 and that was also the out of pocket max so worst case would have been 18,300 including premiums."

I think what you are referencing is what Pete is referencing.

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-01 03:45 PM | Reply

It should be illegal to sell the junk plan because some people will buy them by mistake.

Also, it is wrong to sell someone fake medicine.

#39 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-02 10:41 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort