By Rika Christensen on April 26, 2017 10:38 am ·
If you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare currently protects you from being turned down for insurance on the basis of that condition. Republicans want to take that away because insuring sick people just eats too much profit, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right anyway. The latest iteration of their ridiculous healthcare plan will allow states to decide whether insurers have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, because of course it does, but it also contains a brand-new amendment that’s patently disgusting.

It carves an exemption out for members of Congress and their staffs. Insurers would still be required to provide coverage for them regardless of pre-existing conditions. Vox confirmed it last night:

“A spokesperson for Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) who authored this amendment confirmed this was the case: members of Congress and their staff would get the guarantee of keeping these Obamacare regulations.”

But don’t Republicans hate Obamacare? Well, their relationship with Obamacare is actually considerably more complex than we tend to give it credit for. Contrary to popular belief, we taxpayers don’t subsidize Congress’ health insurance the way many people think. In fact, we never did. Until 2013, they were covered under the Federal Employee Health Benefits program, which is a health insurance marketplace where they (and every other federal employee) purchase health insurance with all the same bull**** as everyone else, and have their premiums taken out of their paychecks.

The Office of Personnel Management contributes to each employee’s premium, but where private sector employers cover an average of 83 percent of their employees’ premiums (or 72 percent for family plans), OPM covers 72 to 75 percent, whichever is less depending on a variety of factors, across the board.

In 2013, all of Congress was kicked off of FEHB thanks to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). He proposed an amendment to the ACA that would require all members of Congress to purchase health insurance through the exchanges, and for their staffs under the small business provision.

So that’s what they’ve been doing for health insurance for the last four years. Where their own lives are concerned, Obamacare’s popular provisions are good things. Where the rest of the country is concerned, though, well, we all know how they feel about the rest of us. The prohibition on denying insurance due to pre-existing conditions is one of the most popular provisions and they want to gut it.

For everyone but themselves.

Can they get any more obvious about where their true priorities lie?

"If you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare currently protects you from being turned down for insurance on the basis of that condition. Republicans want to take that away because insuring sick people just eats too much profit, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right anyway."

You CANNOT cover people with $ multi-thousand a month in healthcare costs for LESS than what they cost. You SHOULDN'T force a company to insure ANYONE at a loss.

Let me explain it in a way you may understand and relate to...

You're at Publix shopping...you fill up your cart and get in line to pay. By coincidence...there's a lady in front of you with the SAME stuff in her cart! She gets rung up...She pays $53. It's your turn...your bill comes to $106. You're livid! WHY is your bill so much higher? The cashier informs you that the first lady was "poor" and that is all she could afford for food...you're rich and you must subsidize her by paying your share and hers.

THAT is what insurance for preexisting conditions does too...they "use" $5,000 a month in services, only pay $1,000 in insurance premiums, and WE get to cover the rest with higher premiums. ALL those raises to insurance premiums you've been hearing about...that is to cover the poor who cost more than they pay.

Originally Posted by Guest

"If you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare currently protects you from being turned down for insurance on the basis of that condition. Republicans want to take that away because insuring sick people just eats too much profit, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right anyway."

You CANNOT cover people with $ multi-thousand a month in healthcare costs for LESS than what they cost. You SHOULDN'T force a company to insure ANYONE at a loss.

Let me explain it in a way you may understand and relate to...

You're at Publix shopping...you fill up your cart and get in line to pay. By coincidence...there's a lady in front of you with the SAME stuff in her cart! She gets rung up...She pays $53. It's your turn...your bill comes to $106. You're livid! WHY is your bill so much higher? The cashier informs you that the first lady was "poor" and that is all she could afford for food...you're rich and you must subsidize her by paying your share and hers.

THAT is what insurance for preexisting conditions does too...they "use" $5,000 a month in services, only pay $1,000 in insurance premiums, and WE get to cover the rest with higher premiums. ALL those raises to insurance premiums you've been hearing about...that is to cover the poor who cost more than they pay.

That's a good way of explaining it.

First of all, Speaker Ryan, Sen Leader McConnell and President Trump have all stated that they wanted to keep the pre-existing conditions in their plan. Whatever Rika Christensen is talking about is not that plan.

Secondly, no one has been granted anything. Even if any of this is true, this is one amendment to a bill written by one congressman. The bill still has to be marked up, voted on and sent to the Senate. A lot can happen in the process.

Thirdly, Rika Christensen is an ultra liberal actress who writes (or makes stuff up) about republicans and conservatives, she feels that problems can be solved by groups of people that don't think alike, (as long as none of them have conservative ideas).

You and your old friends will be SOL when it comes to pre-existing conditions and lifetime cap if the Republican health care gets passed. Of course, your children and grandchildren will also be big time losers, too.

Originally Posted by Guest

You and your old friends will be SOL when it comes to pre-existing conditions and lifetime cap if the Republican health care gets passed. Of course, your children and grandchildren will also be big time losers, too.

I don't know how you can make a statement like that when no one has seen the bill.

I assume that you're just assuming what it will be.

Originally Posted by Guest

"If you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare currently protects you from being turned down for insurance on the basis of that condition. Republicans want to take that away because insuring sick people just eats too much profit, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right anyway."

You CANNOT cover people with $ multi-thousand a month in healthcare costs for LESS than what they cost. You SHOULDN'T force a company to insure ANYONE at a loss.

Let me explain it in a way you may understand and relate to...

You're at Publix shopping...you fill up your cart and get in line to pay. By coincidence...there's a lady in front of you with the SAME stuff in her cart! She gets rung up...She pays $53. It's your turn...your bill comes to $106. You're livid! WHY is your bill so much higher? The cashier informs you that the first lady was "poor" and that is all she could afford for food...you're rich and you must subsidize her by paying your share and hers.

THAT is what insurance for preexisting conditions does too...they "use" $5,000 a month in services, only pay $1,000 in insurance premiums, and WE get to cover the rest with higher premiums. ALL those raises to insurance premiums you've been hearing about...that is to cover the poor who cost more than they pay.

I would disagree on this comparison..... its the standard us against them argument from the Repubs. Any of us on Medicare are NOT subject to preexisting conditions as long as we pick a plan and stay with it!

Before Medicare many of us were covered by plans provided by an employer and those plans did not have preexisting conditions clauses.
However, in the PRIVATE insurance market preexisting conditions started out as reasonable like you couldn't buy insurance one month and get a knee replacement the next. However, preexisting conditions became a way for insurance company to improve their profit margins by refusing coverage for a whole host of conditions. They only wanted to insure the healthy.... reduce their risk exposure.

It got to the point of being ridiculous when this case hit the news

Newborn with Birth Defect Denied Coverage - CBS News

A newborn baby was denied coverage.....

Some insurance coverages have a lifetime maximum of say 1 million dollars which seems plenty except if you contract a life threatening condition which could wipe this sum out quickly.

Originally Posted by Guest

First of all, Speaker Ryan, Sen Leader McConnell and President Trump have all stated that they wanted to keep the pre-existing conditions in their plan. Whatever Rika Christensen is talking about is not that plan.

Secondly, no one has been granted anything. Even if any of this is true, this is one amendment to a bill written by one congressman. The bill still has to be marked up, voted on and sent to the Senate. A lot can happen in the process.

Thirdly, Rika Christensen is an ultra liberal actress who writes (or makes stuff up) about republicans and conservatives, she feels that problems can be solved by groups of people that don't think alike, (as long as none of them have conservative ideas).

Hide and watch, though. If the bill gets rejected, guess who will get the blame? President Trump, even though he wants to keep that part.

Originally Posted by Guest

I would disagree on this comparison..... its the standard us against them argument from the Repubs. Any of us on Medicare are NOT subject to preexisting conditions as long as we pick a plan and stay with it!

Before Medicare many of us were covered by plans provided by an employer and those plans did not have preexisting conditions clauses.
However, in the PRIVATE insurance market preexisting conditions started out as reasonable like you couldn't buy insurance one month and get a knee replacement the next. However, preexisting conditions became a way for insurance company to improve their profit margins by refusing coverage for a whole host of conditions. They only wanted to insure the healthy.... reduce their risk exposure.

It got to the point of being ridiculous when this case hit the news

Newborn with Birth Defect Denied Coverage - CBS News

A newborn baby was denied coverage.....

Some insurance coverages have a lifetime maximum of say 1 million dollars which seems plenty except if you contract a life threatening condition which could wipe this sum out quickly.

When my husband had his stroke after surgery (to prevent a stroke), while still working, his long term disability insurance comapny used the pre-existing excuse for denial. Reading the policy, I cannot see where ANYONE would be covered, either. It said, "If you had been seen by a doctor and had any diagnostic tests run, then you have a pre-existing condition." It did not say diagnostic tests for anything specific, just diagnostic tests. Go figure. Don't we all have diagnostic testing every time we see a doctor, even if it is just the blood work? The insurance company was UNUM and has had many lawsuits associated with their insurances. Trust me, he did not have surgery and a stroke just so he could collect one-year of LTD. That was all it would have paid because he could not return to his work, even for one day, and was terminated per company policy. If you could return for just one day, then you would not be automatically terminated.

If I could have him back the way he was before this happened to him, believe me, I would have paid THEM.

Originally Posted by Guest

When my husband had his stroke after surgery (to prevent a stroke), while still working, his long term disability insurance comapny used the pre-existing excuse for denial. Reading the policy, I cannot see where ANYONE would be covered, either. It said, "If you had been seen by a doctor and had any diagnostic tests run, then you have a pre-existing condition." It did not say diagnostic tests for anything specific, just diagnostic tests. Go figure. Don't we all have diagnostic testing every time we see a doctor, even if it is just the blood work? The insurance company was UNUM and has had many lawsuits associated with their insurances. Trust me, he did not have surgery and a stroke just so he could collect one-year of LTD. That was all it would have paid because he could not return to his work, even for one day, and was terminated per company policy. If you could return for just one day, then you would not be automatically terminated.

If I could have him back the way he was before this happened to him, believe me, I would have paid THEM.

...and did YOU vote for Trump or Clinton? Hmmm?

Originally Posted by Guest

You and your old friends will be SOL when it comes to pre-existing conditions and lifetime cap if the Republican health care gets passed. Of course, your children and grandchildren will also be big time losers, too.

Yes we will...we'll have to be...or the country will be racking up $2 trillion a year in medical costs. Death panels ARE coming...they MUST come...we spend $1 trillion a year paying for people's healthcare. We can't keep doing it.

Originally Posted by Guest

I don't know how you can make a statement like that when no one has seen the bill.

I assume that you're just assuming what it will be.

The bill is already $1 trillion a year in government healthcare costs.

Originally Posted by Guest

I would disagree on this comparison..... its the standard us against them argument from the Repubs. Any of us on Medicare are NOT subject to preexisting conditions as long as we pick a plan and stay with it!

Before Medicare many of us were covered by plans provided by an employer and those plans did not have preexisting conditions clauses.
However, in the PRIVATE insurance market preexisting conditions started out as reasonable like you couldn't buy insurance one month and get a knee replacement the next. However, preexisting conditions became a way for insurance company to improve their profit margins by refusing coverage for a whole host of conditions. They only wanted to insure the healthy.... reduce their risk exposure.

It got to the point of being ridiculous when this case hit the news

Newborn with Birth Defect Denied Coverage - CBS News

A newborn baby was denied coverage.....

Some insurance coverages have a lifetime maximum of say 1 million dollars which seems plenty except if you contract a life threatening condition which could wipe this sum out quickly.

That's 960 monthly payments of over $1,000 a month. Monthly $1,000 payments from birth to 80 years old.

Healthcare is TOO EXPENSIVE to give to everyone at it's current costs.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes we will...we'll have to be...or the country will be racking up $2 trillion a year in medical costs. Death panels ARE coming...they MUST come...we spend $1 trillion a year paying for people's healthcare. We can't keep doing it.



The bill is already $1 trillion a year in government healthcare costs.



That's 960 monthly payments of over $1,000 a month. Monthly $1,000 payments from birth to 80 years old.

Healthcare is TOO EXPENSIVE to give to everyone at it's current costs.

YEAH, life is too expensive........

Originally Posted by Guest

...and did YOU vote for Trump or Clinton? Hmmm?

You can bet the farm and all the chickens on it that I damned sure didn't vote for Clinton. But since it seems so important to you, I did vote for Trump. Do I agree with him on everything? No. But a vote for anyone else, would have just been a vote for her and no way was I going to be a party to getting her elected.

It would be much easier for all of us, though, if BOTH sides would work as hard at doing what they are SUPPOSED to be doing as they are fighting every idea he puts out there. This government is designed to be a government of and for the people, not just certain people like those in Congress that put themselves above the rest of the country. Apparently, they never got the concept of teamwork.

Originally Posted by Guest

You can bet the farm and all the chickens on it that I damned sure didn't vote for Clinton. But since it seems so important to you, I did vote for Trump. Do I agree with him on everything? No. But a vote for anyone else, would have just been a vote for her and no way was I going to be a party to getting her elected.

It would be much easier for all of us, though, if BOTH sides would work as hard at doing what they are SUPPOSED to be doing as they are fighting every idea he puts out there. This government is designed to be a government of and for the people, not just certain people like those in Congress that put themselves above the rest of the country. Apparently, they never got the concept of teamwork.

Progressives just like making stuff up when it comes to Trump and the Republican Party. Unlike Nancy Pelosi , Republicans are reading what's in the bill and deciding how best to proceed.

In my view the debate is termed "health care"but it is really "insurance coverage" and is placing the carriage in front of the horse.

I say this because if you study the arguments it always returns to what is affordable and not what is the most effective and efficient manner to deliver health care. Focusing on the efficacy of health care pays dividends in reducing costs in the long run

Keep in mind only 2% of the population get their health care through Obama exchanges. Most have employer insurance coverage and/or medicare and medicaid.

Once again we are reminded of Reagan's "the scariest 9 words are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"

The elimination of a pre-existing condition as a basis to deny insurance coverage is problematic. No one would buy a new car already damaged or a house already set afire. Eliminating sound underwriting criteria is the how and why of the housing bubble and the long and deep recession that followed . However we are not speaking of property but human beings and thus there is a manner in subsidizing those in NEED BUT IN NEED TRULY.

Personal Best Regards: