Trump declares rules on pre-existing illnesses ‘safe,’

[Common]

Wont see or hear this in the news media


Trump declares rules on pre-existing illnesses 'safe,' despite anti-Obamacare lawsuit. President Trump declared protections for pre-existing illnesses "safe", despite a lawsuit his administration is waging to have them thrown out. "Pre-existing conditions are safe," Trump said during a rally in Wheeling, W.Va. "Just remember that." Trump did not mention the anti-Obamacare lawsuit during his speech, but other officials have said that they believe in protections for the conditions in a manner other than Obamacare. Republicans in Congress have insisted they believe the protections should be maintained, but Democrats say that the replacement plans they crafted did not go as far as Obamacare. "I will always fight for and protect patients with pre-existing conditions," Trump said. "Some people think that's not a Republican thing to do. I don't care. And I'll tell you what, all of the Republicans are coming into that position now. All of them. And we'll do it the right way too."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...macare-lawsuit

[Lummy]

I don't see that he was speaking specifically in context of Obamacare.

[Abby08]

Hmm....I don't know, I think it's kinda chicken $#@!, to force insurance companies to pay for conditions that people had, before they bought the insurance.

Automobile insurance doesn't work that way, Geico, for instance, isn't going to pay for an accident you had, before you bought the policy.

Maybe, could be why insurance premiums are so high and, why procedures cost so much.

[Captdon]

Automobile insurance doesn't work that way, Geico, for instance, isn't going to pay for an accident you had, before you bought the policy.

Some people are not able to get insurance otherwise. If the government can regulate the industry this the part that I support the most.

Geico might not pay for accidents but that's never true. They will sell your insurance at a price e little higher. Health insurance providers just drop you.

[Captain Obvious]

What's the point of having insurance if it doesn't cover anything?

Seriously, if someone gets a catastrophic illness their life is over at least financially if they're not able to get coverage and I get that was part of the ACA's plan that everyone should have insurance so that the pre-existing clause wouldn't be gamed by people who just only get insurance if something happens (and that gaming still happens regardless of the ACA's regs).

But, nobody focuses on costs. The ACA was supposed to lower costs and they've skyrocketed under the plan (slowed down recently I know but still ridiculously advancing). In this society cost control will never be a serious issue.

And I take this from a provider's standpoint since that's my world. If a patient has no insurance and needs expensive medical care they still for the most part get it but providers bear the cost - not insurance companies and that is the inequality that I have a hard time with.

[Dr. Who]

Hmm....I don't know, I think it's kinda chicken $#@!, to force insurance companies to pay for conditions that people had, before they bought the insurance.

Automobile insurance doesn't work that way, Geico, for instance, isn't going to pay for an accident you had, before you bought the policy.

Maybe, could be why insurance premiums are so high and, why procedures cost so much.

That's because the very notion of health 'insurance' (save for topping up benefits) is nonsense. There really is no such thing as lack of pre-existing conditions, because we are not manufactured products. If everyone was DNA screened, everyone has some kind of built-in defect. We all die of something or several things. Person A may well have extreme DNA factors for heart disease, but obtains insurance before those defects present themselves. Person B may have those factors show up earlier. A gets insurance, B doesn't. In that situation in property insurance (which is the comparison that you are making), A wouldn't be covered for heart disease either, because a manufacturer or installer would be responsible for such defects. People cannot sue their makers for defects, which would happen in property insurance, so the comparison fails.

Other than accident insurance, there is nothing 'insured' by health insurance that would be insured under any other form of insurance - not contagious disease, not heart attacks, not cancer, not childbirth - nothing. Other than accident insurance, and death(life) insurance, there is no insurance that is comparative to basic property insurance. Does your auto policy insure you for rust or wear, tear and deterioration of your engine? No, it doesn't, but that is what health insurance covers.

Either society values keeping people alive and healthy because death and illness among its productive members diminishes its ability to be successful and produce enough healthy people to form the next generation or it only cares about planning for today.

[Tahuyaman]

Wont see or hear this in the news media


Trump declares rules on pre-existing illnesses 'safe,' despite anti-Obamacare lawsuit. President Trump declared protections for pre-existing illnesses "safe", despite a lawsuit his administration is waging to have them thrown out. "Pre-existing conditions are safe," Trump said during a rally in Wheeling, W.Va. "Just remember that." Trump did not mention the anti-Obamacare lawsuit during his speech, but other officials have said that they believe in protections for the conditions in a manner other than Obamacare. Republicans in Congress have insisted they believe the protections should be maintained, but Democrats say that the replacement plans they crafted did not go as far as Obamacare. "I will always fight for and protect patients with pre-existing conditions," Trump said. "Some people think that's not a Republican thing to do. I don't care. And I'll tell you what, all of the Republicans are coming into that position now. All of them. And we'll do it the right way too."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...macare-lawsuit

Of course it won't receive much attention if any at all. It's contrary to the agenda the media is promoting as it pertains to Trump.