Huh? What I did say was that I didn't see any difference between what my wife has (Medicare and a Supplemental Plan) and my private insurance except that her cost is less; we see some of the same Drs so there is no issue of accessibility to the Drs we want to go to. However, to your point, Medicare is less expensive than private plans, at least the obamacare plans in Sumter County (assuming no subsidy). Medicare is about $145 per month (we will eventually go to $400 per month each) and a Plan F is roughly $185 per month. My private plan is $1100 per month. Medicare and a supplemental is lower cost than my private plan. Medicare Advantage is lower cost still but typically has network restrictions that we don't experience. If someone else is paying your insurance that doesn't mean it is lower cost - it only means you aren't paying the cost directly. Perhaps you don't realize that if you select Medicare Advantage you still have to pay the Medicare premium ($145 to $400+ based on income).

An executive order for n pre existing conditions instead of a law while trying to dismantle OBama care in Supreme Court.

Sounds like double talk or another "photo op".

So, we never get to see that wonderful replacement we were promised for many years.

Allow me to add this "Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar declined to specify how the administration would guarantee these protections if the Supreme Court overturns the landmark health reform law in a case it will consider this term."

Thus no change. And no health plan as promised.

I think that's only if you're an undocumented alien. I saw a bunch of people on a podium a few months ago raise their hand saying they would make sure they were covered.

It is laughable that an Executive Order was signed today to allow pre-existing conditions even though we already have that in our current healthcare. And yet the Supreme Court is going to decide Nov 10th on whether to get rid of it. Gaslighting at its best.

Insulting at best.

Why do people continue to take the slaps in the face over and over.

And add this...."Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar declined to specify how the administration would guarantee these protections if the Supreme Court overturns the landmark health reform law in a case it will consider this term."

Like I said.....another photo op. Why is not everyone insulted by this ? This is the "beautiful" health plan we were to see 4 years ago.

Shouldn't we stop calling this INSURANCE? Insurance is basically a wager. You're putting up money and saying that you're going to get sick or that your house will burn down or you'll injure someone or damage property in an automobile incident. The insurance company is saying, "We bet you won't". If you win the bet the insurance company has to pay and if you lose the bet, you lose your money.

By demanding that insurance companies cover an event that has already happened, is a losing bet for them.

What we now have is no longer health insurance. It is basically socialized medicine being controlled by private companies.

Pre-existing conditions is something that politicians have come up with to garner vote by promising to force companies to place bets that they know they are going to lose.

I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm basically against socialized medicine, but insurance companies in collusion with providers and pharmaceutical companies have increased the cost of health care and drugs to the point where no one can afford them any longer. Now the government is going to force companies to lose money which can only lead to an increase in prices.

I don't like to think about the government taking over anything that it shouldn't but what we now have is obviously not working.

But it's not insurance. It's more like pooled health care costs.

Technically they will here the ARGUMENT Nov 10 a ruling will not be heard till after January.

Everybody wants something for nothing. "Oh but.....over in THAT country they have........" and it is free from the government. BS! Nothing is free. Try living in Europe as a middle income earner. Our lower class citizens live as well if not better than the "middle class" in other countries. The reason their middle class lives a lower lifestyle is because they pay half their earnings in some form of gov taxes. Sure, the old do OK and the low income folks do OK, but how about everyone else? The hard workers that produce end up paying the way for everyone else. Is that FAIR?
That is exactly what is going to happen here if we get gov run health care.
The President has promised that he will not allow "pre-existing" conditions to preclude anyone from obtaining reasonable healthcare insurance. As far as I can see, whether we like him or not, he has lived up to or is still attempting to succeed at all his campaign promises. I won't go further down that path or end up violating the politics rule on here. However, that is exactly what the subject of the OP is all about, so it has gone this far without being shut down.
That said, you have two choices. You can pay your own way, if you can. Or, you can allow the gov GIVE you a lower quality health care insurance, along with a lower quality standard of living when they make EVERYONE sacrifice 50%+ of their earnings. It will have no effect on the wealthy, but it really lowers the standard of living for the middle class. The lower class of non-achievers or unproductive will always end up living a middle class standard of living in this liberal America. Why? Because some folks believe that instead of the bare minimum of giveaway they should get according to their motivation and work ethic, everyone should live equally. Sorry but that NEVER EVER happens in real life. The middle class hard worker pays the way by having their families sacrificing so that the non-achievers get to live better than the hard workers. NO, I am not against welfare. I am against taking their incentive away from them to reach a higher ambition. I am against seeing those that may be lazy living it up when the middle class has to work hard and sacrifice. Instead of having everyone else sacrifice, why not just work on the small group of folks that really deserve a hand up? There is absolutely no reason why those on welfare cannot be made to earn their welfare, even if it is picking up trash, cleaning gov offices, baby sitting for those that are really working for a living, etc. I would not even discount the idea of work camps. Socialism did not work with the first settlers in America so why should it now? Remember the phrase "no work, no eat?"

Do you have Medicare? Are you happy with it? Perhaps the government should charge higher Medicare premiums to those of us that have pre-existing conditions - how would you feel about that? The truth is that most people our age have pre-existing conditions.

Please explain how the President will not allow "pre-existing" conditions to preclude anyone from obtaining reasonable healthcare insurance? He has had over 3 1/2 years to come up with the "terrific" Obamacare replacement plan that he promised during the last election. Instead we get some bulls**t executive order 5 weeks before the next election that does nothing but promises to look into protecting pre-existing conditions. Oh yes, and the President has joined a lawsuit that the Supreme Court will hear on November 10 to abolish Obamacare, and a bribe of a $200 Medicare prescription card to get the senior vote.

Not laughable unless you have ACA which many can’t afford or even get.

Insurance companies have great lobbyists, they suck career representatives Like drug addicts on drugs when money thrown in their face. If they would of just read it before passing it they would of known what they passed.


The representative’s had several changes to get healthcare right ANd the failed miserably and IMO made it worse.

I can't say private insurance is a lot better, but I can tell you when I went on Medicare, one medication that I was taking went from $0 to $45 a month. My other medication went from $90 to $395 a month. I was very surprised at this. But that has been my experience.

Please explain. Pretty much everyone should be able to get an obamacare plan unless their income is too low and forces them into Medicaid ??? If your MAGI is below $64K you will get an obamacare subsidy. I agree that the deductibles and out of pocket maximums are onerous.

Are these Part D prices?

Do you honestly believe any healthcare plan will get through congress? There is 0 chance of that.
Do you see Democrats agreeing to come to the table to create a bipartisan healthcare plan?
You can't ding the current administration about coming up with a healthcare plan when none of the democrats will help craft a viable plan.
Let's face it... both sides are dug in about pretty much everything and neither side will move. So... you can't point the finger at one side without looking in your own sandbox.

No. I'm on an Advantage Plan. So I don't pay anything for Medicare...

Actually you probably are. You probably pay the Medicare fee ( $145 to $400+ per month depending on your income). It may be deducted from SS but you are still paying it. Depending on your Medicare Advantage Plan, you may be getting a "rebate" of sorts from your Medicare Advantage Plan. That is the "probably" part.

Yes, My "payment" is less than I would be paying if I was on Medicare. I get $40 in medical supplies every quarter (I buy from Walgreens). The only negative I've found is the increase in my particular prescription costs.

Some people smoke their whole lives and live to be 90. Others eat healthy, exercise and are non-smokers and drop dead from a heart attack. All Americans should be covered by healthcare. Medicare is okay, but those of us that have it, know it isn't the best coverage there is and need to purchase a supplement. The gigantic tax reduction for corporations and the uber wealthy has added to our national debt. It could have been used for healthcare, infrastructure, schools, etc. Not all Americans are born healthy or wealthy. The middle class and poorer folks work, pay taxes without loopholes and keep corporations wealthy.

wait-a-sec: i specifically recall the president giving a speech maybe last month, maybe 2 months ago, where he clearly stated he was protecting pre-existing conditions, meaning they will be covered. i didn't see much of this anywhere except local FL tv stations. if i get time later, i'll go back & find the specific report, & try to post it up, if i'm allowed.

Federal tax revenue, as a percentage of GDP, hasn’t varied much over the last 70 years. It typically runs about 17%. In other words, the amount of revenue the Government sees is pretty much independent of changes in the tax law. Also, Corporations don’t pay taxes. Their customers pay them.

it didn't take long, but i found that news report. idk if the link will be allowed, but i will try anyway
President Trump signs Executive Order on pre-existing conditions in Charlotte

An Executive Order means nothing if The Supreme Court rules against the ACA.
While pre-existing conditions include life-threatening illnesses like cancer or chronic conditions like asthma or diabetes, insurance companies frequently consider care specific to women as a pre-existing condition and an excuse to deny health coverage. In other words, just being a woman could be considered a preexisting condition.

Read the article. This is just more smoke and mirrors. It is not a law , he can't force the insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. Also, the premium would be so high and unaffordable. WHERE'S THE SO CALLED PLAN

He has had almost 4 years to come up with a plan that is not vaporware, and has the force of law, and has given us zilch; except, "duh, who knew that health care was so complicated?"

Not just four years, It's been more like 50 years, (per Brooks & Shields, PBS News Hour, 9/25/20), or at least since Nixon was president.

Supreme Court case decision coming up right after the election could completely eliminate Obamacare ( ACA) which also removes preexisting condition protections. QUOTE=Leadbone1;1834008]Absolutely wrong. If anything there’s a bigger push right now to be sure that pre-existing conditions are covered than the other way around. Don’t know where you’re getting your information?[/QUOTE]

Current leader had the house and senate and still couldn’t come up with a viable healthcare plan.

[/QUOTE]

Pre-existing conditions are currently protected by Obamacare, and the administration has joined the Supreme Court suit to declare Obamacare unconstitutional. Don't know where you get your info from - Fox "News"?

And Obama had a majority in the House, a super majority in the Senate and was held hostage by some of his own senators for the current bill. Since the supermajority prevents a filibuster, they could have passed anything they wanted. How quickly some forget, or didn't know.

With all due respect you don’t understand how social security and Medicare work. Those small taxes you were paying were immediately being paid out to your parents and grandparents not an interest bearing account as you describe. It is called pay/go not a savings account with your name on it. Our grandchildren are paying our benefits. The term trust fund is a cruel hoax invented so politicians we elected and re-elected could spend the extra tax revenue that was collected. Like the cost of healthcare before we can fix it we need to have an honest discussion. See I’ve started by letting the secret out that Social Security trust fund is “Fake News” if you will.

It is essentially free because it does not come close to covering the actual cost or future obligations attached, its a great deal, unless you ending up being the one paying the credit card bill down the road,

Our president made that claim again just last night as he addressed his supporters at the rally in Pennsylvania. In fact, he spoke those words slowly with emphasis. Am I wrong to believe him?

Eliminating Pre's is media brainwashing.


It's just trash talk...............Repub's are just getting rid of (or parts of) Obamacare.

Exactly. Turn off your "News" source. This is all about the election. Scare tactics.

If SCOTUS rules the ACA is unconstitutional, then it is up to Congress to either fix the defect or promulgate a new law. Any other comments from politicians and partisans are nothing more than rubbish. If they did their jobs right the first time, this would not be an issue now.But this is what one party rule brought us.

Yes. Remember a month ago he held a special press conference with a "historic breakthrough" in the treatment of COVID-19? And now we know convalescent plasma hardly works at all. File this in the same category.

And should it occur, after another round of one party rule, we would be left with "bupkus"

quote from Nick Mulvaney...

"“I’m not sure where they got the authority to do it, but, I’m sure the lawyers had vetted this and the president had the executive ability to do this, but, keep in mind, any executive order is going to be fairly limited. You need legislation to do big things. If we could have fixed health care with executive orders alone, we would have done that back in 2017,” Mulvaney told FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo on “Mornings with Maria.”

Trump'''s new health care initiative '''fairly limited''': Mulvaney | Fox Business

Ever since he was a presidential candidate, the administration has been promising the American people a “terrific,” “phenomenal” and “fantastic” new health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act.

But, in the 3½ years since he set up shop in the Oval Office, he has yet to deliver. And TWO of those years, one party ran both houses and could have done whatever they wanted

No. A majority in the Senate does not mean you can do whatever you want to. For many legislative issues, you would need to have a supermajority (60 or more votes) to prevent a filibuster. The last time a party had a filibuster proof supermajority in the Senate were the democrats during Obama's first term.