Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, October 16, 2020

The vast majority -- nearly eight in 10 -- of Americans don't want to the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act's pre-existing conditions protections, according to a KFF poll.

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.

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump will lay out his vision for health care in the coming two weeks, the White House claims, after blowing through a number of self-imposed deadlines to produce a long-promised plan to replace the Affordable Care Act.

"The President in the next week or so will be laying out his vision for health care. Some of that has already been put out there -- telemedicine and lowering the cost of drugs ... and protecting pre-existing conditions. But the President will be laying out some additional health care steps in the coming, I would say, two weeks," White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said on Tuesday when asked if the President's health care plan exists.

The above was posted Sept 22, glad I didn't hold my breath waiting for the President to follow through on one of his statements.

#1 | Posted by mattm at 2020-10-16 05:16 PM | Reply

"The above was posted Sept 22"

Before that, it was promised by the end of August.

At this point, I think it's slated to occur right after Infrastructure Week.

#2 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-16 05:26 PM | Reply

If I recall way back it was going to be an easy fix the first month of his presidency, particularly since he had a Republican House at the time.

#3 | Posted by mattm at 2020-10-16 08:37 PM | Reply

If I recall way back it was going to be an easy fix the first month of his presidency, particularly since he had a Republican House at the time.

#4 | Posted by mattm at 2020-10-16 08:37 PM | Reply

But nobody knew that healthcare was complicated.

#5 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-10-16 10:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

""The President in the next week or so will be laying out his vision for health care."

He already has shown us his vision for healthcare in America. It's a blank page with nothing on it. He has n ideas or thoughts nor do you. What I think will happen is that President Biden will just reverse the EOs made by Trump and our Congress will welectively reverse the actions of the McConnell conspiracy. Then we'll add enough new members to the court to negate all of Trump's appointments and the nation will be better served and F the Republican Party forever. McConnell is a comical charicature of a human being. He will be the basis for evil charicatures for decades. He is a disgusting charicature that people will revile for decades. We could not invent a character as evil as he is. Were I him, I'd just shoot myself in the head. Disgusting waste of protoplasm, he is disease. And some of you actually support that piece of flesh eating bacte4ria? Y'all are sick.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2020-10-17 07:01 AM | Reply

He has n ideas or thoughts nor do you.

What did any of us say to warrant that blanket condemnation?

#7 | Posted by mattm at 2020-10-17 12:23 PM | Reply

If the new supreme court finds a way to eviscerate the current health care law, we will be left with a public option for all as the only legal alternative. Republicans will have screwed themselves hard. Why would I buy private insurance if there is an option that costs way less?

#8 | Posted by dibblda at 2020-10-17 02:31 PM | Reply

------' A skippy, bring on the public insurance. Private insurance is a rip-off of biblical proportions. We need an NHS,why do only foreigners get to have nice things while we Americans are left with the tender mercies of the "free market", LOL!

#9 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-17 11:23 PM | Reply

Because both parties are owned by the private insurers and subsequently they call the shots. That won't change until our voting habits change and sadly I don't see that happening anytime soon because too many people have been hoodwinked into believing it's the only way.

#10 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-10-18 12:02 AM | Reply

@#10 ... Because both parties are owned by the private insurers and subsequently they call the shots. ...

Yes and no.

Yeah, both parties have obligations to well-financed donors.

But I might proffer that not all well-financed donors are as antagonistic towards working folk as your comment might suggest.

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-18 12:24 AM | Reply

Anybody who thinks they want coverage for pre-existing conditions had better get off their butts and vote against every R they can.

#12 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2020-10-18 01:12 PM | Reply

Being a woman was considered a "pre existing condition" pre Obamacare.

You would think that women knew this and haven't forgotten this.

You would realize you were dead wrong if you actually listened to a female Trumptilian speak.


#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-18 01:25 PM | Reply

8 in 10 Americans don't know there were pre-existing conditions in place before Obamacare.

Oh, and pregnancy hadn't been a pre-existing condition for years prior to Obamacare.

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-18 01:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

What protections do you want?

Do you want to be able to go without health insurance for a long time, wait until you're diagnosed with cancer, then be able to secure health insurance immediately after being informed you'll need hundreds of thousands of $$$ to stay alive?

And those are the terms you want the private health insurance to deal with, price accordingly for, and cover?

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-18 01:37 PM | Reply

"8 in 10 Americans don't know there were pre-existing conditions in place before Obamacare. "

So 8 in 10 didn't know they were being ripped off before

Oh, and pregnancy hadn't been a pre-existing condition for years prior to Obamacare.
#14 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Oh Malarkey!! Are you trying to rewrite history??

Women could be turned down if they were pregnant and were charged higher fees even if covered. It was that way forever. Until Obama.

Both women and men were treated unfairly in different ways. Prior to the ACA.

Women were especially affected because health conditions women frequently experienced were considered pre-existing conditions.

You know this is true. Why lie about it?

Prior to the ACA, about 29.4 million women under age 65 had a pre-existing condition, compared to 22.8 million men under age 65.

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-18 01:54 PM | Reply

Do you want to be able to go without health insurance for a long time, wait until you're diagnosed with cancer, then be able to secure health insurance immediately after being informed you'll need hundreds of thousands of $$$ to stay alive?
And those are the terms you want the private health insurance to deal with, price accordingly for, and cover?

#15 | POSTED BY EBERLY

The only people who seem to think that that should happen are righties.

Why else would you think the individual mandate was a bad idea?

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2020-10-18 01:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"The only people who seem to think that that should happen are righties. Why else would you think the individual mandate was a bad idea?"

Every time experts have gathered to address the question, and leave politics out, they've agreed on the same thing: an individual mandate is the only way the equation works.

Back when it was at the Heritage Foundation, and then Romney care, the Republican talking point was all about "personal responsibility".

But when President Blackenstein agreed, that was all Republicans needed to call the answer, the problem.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-18 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"pregnancy hadn't been a pre-existing condition for years prior to Obamacare. "

In what country?
www.healthinsurance.org

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-18 02:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Do you want to be able to go without health insurance for a long time, wait until you're diagnosed with cancer, then be able to secure health insurance immediately after being informed you'll need hundreds of thousands of $$$ to stay alive?
#15 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Sure, why not? Sounds like I'd be saving hundreds of dollars every month. Families would save over a thousand every month.

And those are the terms you want the private health insurance to deal with, price accordingly for, and cover?
#15 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Why should their failed business model be my problem? Capitalism is said to be working when bad ideas fail!

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-18 03:29 PM | Reply

"Women could be turned down if they were pregnant and were charged higher fees even if covered. It was that way forever. Until Obama."

not on group plans. Individual plans where maternity could be added or not? Yes, I believe it was considered a preexisting condition.

#21 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-18 03:36 PM | Reply

19

Going to pretend individual health insurance is the only way to buy it?

#22 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-18 03:40 PM | Reply

"The only people who seem to think that that should happen are righties."

LOL

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-18 03:41 PM | Reply

Health care is not to be bought and sold. It is to be provided. It is a human right. If you disagree, F*** you

#24 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-10-18 03:41 PM | Reply

Who in their right mind wants private insurance?

Bring on the socialized medicine. The private sector had driven American healthcare prices to absurd heights while underperforming on outcomes. It's a obviously a failed model without massive governmental backstopping.

Time for a gale of creative destruction to blow it away.

#25 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-18 03:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Every time experts have gathered to address the question, and leave politics out, they've agreed on the same thing: an individual mandate is the only way the equation works."

Of course. But most Americans don't understand that

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-18 03:47 PM | Reply

"Health care is not to be bought and sold. It is to be provided. It is a human right. If you disagree, F*** you"

Well, ACA is all about health care being bought or sold.

So, you're saying "f*** you" to some people I suspect you don't think you're saying it to.

#27 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-18 03:50 PM | Reply

That's why Bernie called for UNIVERSAL coverage. Mandated by law with optional add ons for the wealthy. Universal means everybody covered from birth to death. No exceptions. Even illegals.

Let the billionaires find a way to pay for it.

Taxes are my solution. High taxes on financial transactions and capital gains and high estate taxes when the oligarchs die.

A VAT to gaurantee that everyone had skin in the game would be good too.

Nationalizing the pharmaceutical companies would lower prices on drugs significantly as well.

#28 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-18 03:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Eberly is an insurance schill,what a wankus.

#29 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-18 03:59 PM | Reply

Re: #28

When the noxious ACB gets appointed to the Supremish Court and strikes down Obamacare, it will be an opportunity for Biden to put through Medicare for All. Just depends on how bought out the Dems are. Remember Joe Lieberman, who should have been vice president to Gore? F*** Lieberman

#30 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-10-18 04:00 PM | Reply

But when we finally pass universal healthcare, our state-of-the-art universities will suddenly become less innovative, because innovation is entirely driven by profit *sarcasm

#31 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-10-18 04:02 PM | Reply

" Nationalizing the pharmaceutical companies would lower prices on drugs significantly as well."

Back in July I watched a PBS Newshour story about how pharmaceutical companies are going bankrupt and pulling out of antibiotics development because there isn't sufficient return on investment. Apparently anything less than $10,000 for a single course of treatment is a money loser. The problem being that these drugs are only needed for weeks or months as opposed to many other drugs like those for diabetes or high blood pressure that are normally taken for the rest of a person's life. The reporter, Paul Solman, spent time reporting on how the best solution was a bill currently before the legislature allowing companies to raise their prices in some instances up to $1M. Not once did he suggest that the obvious answer was nationalization of healthcare and drug manufacturing. The story was so one sided. He interviewed venture capitalists and seemed to be really sympathetic about their inability to not make their money back. The reporting was really bizarre. Almost like Solman was planning to submit the story for his application at FOX News. That was on PBS. PB fracking S. Stupid lib'rul media.

#32 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-10-18 04:07 PM | Reply

29

Funny. I against universal health care?

News to me.

Maybe you should figure out what you want before you tell me what I want.

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-18 04:08 PM | Reply

"Let the billionaires find a way to pay for it."

What a well thought out idea.

No.....really.

Nice.....trump voter

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-18 04:10 PM | Reply

Why don't YOU tell me what you want. Instead of constantly prevaricating and finding ways to weasel out of everything you post in some strange effort to be "edgy" and "unpredictable" when you are anything but.

#35 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-18 04:15 PM | Reply

"Well, ACA is all about health care being bought or sold."

That was the only way to prevent Senator Max Baucus from killing the Democratic coalition in support. We don't seem to remember that anymore.

#36 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-10-18 04:17 PM | Reply

"Funny. I against universal health care?

News to me.

Sounded to me in post #15 like you had never even heard of it.

#37 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-18 04:27 PM | Reply

I am sick of the lies about why We the People can't have good affordable health care in America.

Just sick of it.

And now I can't even see my therapist about it!! They aren't taking appointments.

#38 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-18 04:30 PM | Reply

-Why don't YOU tell me what you want.

I'm for universal health care for all Americans.

Including a single payer plan.

Now, we've seen no proposal for it so keep that in mind. I'd like to see it before saying for sure I'd support it.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-18 04:33 PM | Reply

In this thread: Eberly and everybody else are more in agreement than either side is willing to admit.

#40 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-10-18 04:34 PM | Reply

Fair answer. I'm proud of you. Keep up the good work.Attaboy Eberly,there's hope after all.

#41 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-18 04:37 PM | Reply

"Going to pretend individual health insurance is the only way to buy it?"

Going to pretend group health insurance is the only way to buy it?

You were wrong about pregnancy as a pre-existing condition. Just admit it, rather than dragging goalposts to a new location.

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-18 04:38 PM | Reply

I was wrong. I didn't narrow my point to group plans.

That's on me

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-18 09:37 PM | Reply

#32 There are a number of pharma corps whose majority source of revenue is sales of patent drugs which are only revenue generators because MAPD forbids the government from negotiating prices. Dig around on the financial sites and yo can find more details.

This is a classic example of how ill-advised government regulation opens a gulf between what's good for the Wall Street and what's good for the future of the business.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-18 10:56 PM | Reply

I'm for universal health care for all Americans.
Including a single payer plan.
#39 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Then why on G-d's green earth are you a Republican?
???

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-18 11:55 PM | Reply

"The only people who seem to think that that should happen are righties."
LOL

#23 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Why is that LOL?

They want to go back to no individual mandate with weak policies that can exclude you with ease (but they're cheap!) but still get the treatment they think they deserve without having paid into it for x number of years.

The right is cheering the breaking of a system that was making progress while having nothing to replace it with.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2020-10-19 09:38 AM | Reply

-Why is that LOL?

Because it's retarded.

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-19 09:41 AM | Reply

There are people on the left trying to get rid of the individual mandate? Trying to revert to the old system pre-ACA?

Or are you just uncomfortable with the fact that the GOP is pro death in every way possible?

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2020-10-19 09:49 AM | Reply

-There are people on the left trying to get rid of the individual mandate?

There are people on the left who think insurance should work this way.

You think folks on 1 side of the fence understand the complexities of Obamacare and the folks on the other don't?

That's not what separates them.

#49 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-19 12:24 PM | Reply

"You think folks on 1 side of the fence understand the complexities of Obamacare and the folks on the other don't?"

I absolutely think that.

Here's why:

"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-19 12:39 PM | Reply

You think folks on 1 side of the fence understand the complexities of Obamacare and the folks on the other don't?

Is that what I said?

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2020-10-19 04:04 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort