Question for conservatives: Do you actually believe the GOP on pre-existing conditions?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Poll: Are GOP candidates being genuine over their stance on pre-existing conditions?

  • I'm lefty (i.e. Bernie Sanders) or centrist (i.e. Hillary Clinton) and I think they're truthful

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • I'm lefty (i.e. Bernie Sanders) or centrist (i.e. Hillary Clinton) and I think they're lying

    Votes: 37 92.5%
  • I'm a conservative and i think they're telling the truth

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm a conservative and I think they're lying

    Votes: 1 2.5%

  • Total voters
    40

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
Crickets from the right in this thread, so predictable. Com'on guys, defend your leaders !
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Didn't McConnell just say they would be gutting Medicare next?

He said it was the Dems' problem, that we'll have to go along with him to salvage the fiscal integrity of the govt.

What we really need to do is raise taxes at the tippy top & to ask for more from America's most affluent. We need more socialism, not less. It's the only choice we have to preserve the whole idea of a broad & prosperous middle class.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,582
2,817
136
He said it was the Dems' problem, that we'll have to go along with him to salvage the fiscal integrity of the govt.

What we really need to do is raise taxes at the tippy top & to ask for more from America's most affluent. We need more socialism, not less. It's the only choice we have to preserve the whole idea of a broad & prosperous middle class.
I thought he said "We're going to cut Medicare and Social Security but we have to wait until the Democrats get the House so we can blame it on them."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I thought he said "We're going to cut Medicare and Social Security but we have to wait until the Democrats get the House so we can blame it on them."

Our points of view are obviously compatible. Yeh, sure, he'll give it Hell with a Dem HOR but I think he'll get nowhere. Even a govt shutdown won't faze Dems. It's a sure loser in the court of public opinion, anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
He said it was the Dems' problem, that we'll have to go along with him to salvage the fiscal integrity of the govt.

What we really need to do is raise taxes at the tippy top & to ask for more from America's most affluent. We need more socialism, not less. It's the only choice we have to preserve the whole idea of a broad & prosperous middle class.

I agree, but this is where I worry Dems haven't done enough messaging around ownership of the deficit, but they've elevated healthcare successfully.

I think Dems need to hold the line on HC and tax cuts for the middle class. Don't give in on any grand bargain giveaways to Rs and let them claim some sort of fiscal prudence.

They are in charge. They passed the budget busting tax cuts for billionaires, they own the debt.

Don't give away anyone's retirement to fix their problem. I'd they want to fix the debt, reverse the useless Trump tax giveaways.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
They have also, at times, proposed a reversion to the old employer-based rules wherein you only get protection if you can show uninterrupted coverage. Once the coverage lapses your preexisting protection vanishes.

That's better but really only sensical if the state seamlessly takes over for the patient's care immediately upon discharge of their insurance. From a cost-benefit analysis, we'd probably be best off within our healthcare system doing things this way, but of course "seamlessly" is far from reality, so patients in the gap between disability/Medicare/Medicaid coverage end up utilizing healthcare in the highest cost way (emergency room and acute care hospitalization) while getting sicker and sicker and costing much more to the state to cover their care than it would have costed to do so up front. But from a numbers game perspective, it's always easy to show that not covering a person saves money. Well, it saves you money if you're the one paying for their care directly. Except hospitals find ways to pad the costs of providing care to well insured patients to cover their losses on (badly) caring for uninsured or underinsured patients, and certain institutions rely on public funding through block grants, University affiliation, charitable organizations, etc.

In the end, we have America. Because we everyone is trying to save money providing healthcare, we end up spending more on it than anyone else and getting no better and in some cases worse outcomes for it.