• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump: Biden would 'destroy' Obamacare's protections for pre-existing conditions

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
trump backed the american health act in 2017. Didn't that act give insurance companies the ability to price people with preexisting conditions out of the market? it seems clear where he stands on insuring people with preexisting conditions.
 
fskimospy said:
Whether or not he WANTS to remove protections for pre-existing conditions he is litigating in a way that will do exactly that.

As far as the law being written that way, clearly not. This is exactly the absolutely bonkers interpretation of the Constitution that Texas is trying to use. SCOTUS will almost certainly not rule in their favor if for no other reason it would send the US legal system spiraling into insanity.

As for having one without the other, you most certainly can as evidenced by the last two years. In case you weren't aware of how utterly insane the right wing argument is here, let me break it down, and this is not exaggerated. It is legitimately this lawless.

1) If the government says you must get insurance or else it will punish you with fines, this is constitutional because the fines are a tax.

2) If the government says you must get insurance or else it will do nothing, this is unconstitutional because the nothing the government will do to you represents an unconstitutional burden.

3) If the mandate to get insurance on penalty of nothing no longer exists the entire ACA must be invalidated because clearly Congress did not intend the law to exist without the nonexistent penalty. They apparently did not intend this despite explicitly passing a law that did exactly that.

Yeah, that's the side Trump's on. Lol.
Click to expand...

OK. I guess we'll agree this is another subject Trump says two differing things on. He has stated several times he supports keeping pre-existing conditions. So meh.
 
zzyzxroad said:
trump backed the american health act in 2017. Didn't that act give insurance companies the ability to price people with preexisting conditions out of the market? it seems clear where he stands on insuring people with preexisting conditions.
Click to expand...
Yes, he has repeatedly attempted to destroy the ACA’s protections for pre-existing conditions. Repeatedly.

I mean he lies and says he isn’t even as he does but it’s unclear to me why we need to pretend to believe him.
 
zzyzxroad said:
trump backed the american health act in 2017. Didn't that act give insurance companies the ability to price people with preexisting conditions out of the market? it seems clear where he stands on insuring people with preexisting conditions.
Click to expand...

No. It gave insurance companies the ability to charge older people higher premiums than younger ones (read: higher risk vs lower risk). The bill specifically kept pre-existing conditions in.
 
blackangst1 said:
OK. I guess we'll agree this is another subject Trump says two differing things on. He has stated several times he supports keeping pre-existing conditions. So meh.
Click to expand...
No, we will agree this is something Trump lies about, haha.

When someone says they want to do one thing and then acts repeatedly to do the opposite the response is not that they say different things about it, it’s that they’re a liar.

Imagine finding you wife in bed with other men repeatedly and she keeps saying she wants nothing more than to be faithful to you. Lol.
 
fskimospy said:
Yes, he has repeatedly attempted to destroy the ACA’s protections for pre-existing conditions. Repeatedly.

I mean he lies and says he isn’t even as he does but it’s unclear to me why we need to pretend to believe him.
Click to expand...

Kinda like "you can keep your doctor". At least Biden, Harris, and Bernie even said they couldnt make that promise under a public plan.
 
blackangst1 said:
No. It gave insurance companies the ability to charge older people higher premiums than younger ones (read: higher risk vs lower risk). The bill specifically kept pre-existing conditions in.
Click to expand...

It gave insurance companies the ability to charge people more for pre-existing conditions, regardless of age.
 
blackangst1 said:
No. It gave insurance companies the ability to charge older people higher premiums than younger ones (read: higher risk vs lower risk). The bill specifically kept pre-existing conditions in.
Click to expand...
No, what it did was attack the public insurance markets from a number of different directions from lower subsidies to a partial repeal of community rating, to increased ability to remove expensive essential benefits, to removing the individual mandate.

Collectively these served the deliberate purpose of pushing healthy people out of those markets so they would become unaffordable and die. Why would they be unaffordable? Because only people with pre-existing conditions would be in them.
 
In re: "You can keep your doctor."

Technically not a lie. Nothing in the ACA dictated that insurers drop providers. In fact, the network adequacy provisions were intended to ensure that providers weren't dropped from networks.

Insurers reacted to several of the ACA's provisions that expanded coverage by dramatically narrowing networks in an attempt to control costs. The NAIC and state regulators essentially let them do it, refusing to properly interpret and enforce network adequacy for several years.

But from the perspective of "Does the ACA allow you to keep your doctor?" the answer was 100% "Yes."
 
blackangst1 said:
Kinda like "you can keep your doctor". At least Biden, Harris, and Bernie even said they couldnt make that promise under a public plan.
Click to expand...

That statement is a FUCKING LYING PIECE OF BULLSHIT.

I kept my doctor after Obamacare.
My dad kept his doctor after Obamacare.
My mom kept hers.
My neighbors kept theirs.

My only inconvenience in the past 15 years medically is my dentist retired so now I go to his daughter instead!
 
hal2kilo said:
I still don't understand why Biden considers debating with someone who's debate tactic, if you can call it one, Is just to lie about everything, all the time.
Click to expand...
Well, Trump lies because his mind is so muddled it's a million times easier to make up something that if someone else takes without a critical thought will win him an argument. He's unable to argue anything verifiably. Like Mark Twain said, "if you always tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." But Trump doesn't remember much, not enough to even tell the truth, so he just makes everything up on the fly. He really is quite a jumble between the ears.
 
Jhhnn said:
He's actually correct. He just didn't mention that older people with pre-existing conditions would be priced out of the market.
Click to expand...
I just did a quick look and I believe you are wrong. Are you sure the the insurance companies wouldn't be able to price regardless of age?
 
In re: the American Health Care Act of 2017

It did keep exclusions on pre-existing conditions.

It did change the existing age curve. Currently federal law dictates that premiums be based on the age of the insured such that the highest premium charged at age 65 be no more than 3 times the lowest premium charged at age 21. Between those two ages states can either use the federal age curve, which defines the premium multiplier used at every age, or propose their own age curve. I'm not aware off hand of any state using their own age curve. The AHCA would have expanded the age curve range from 3:1 to 5:1.

It also would have done a bunch of other things not within the scope of the current discussion.
 
sactoking said:
In re: the American Health Care Act of 2017

It did keep exclusions on pre-existing conditions.

It did change the existing age curve. Currently federal law dictates that premiums be based on the age of the insured such that the highest premium charged at age 65 be no more than 3 times the lowest premium charged at age 21. Between those two ages states can either use the federal age curve, which defines the premium multiplier used at every age, or propose their own age curve. I'm not aware off hand of any state using their own age curve. The AHCA would have expanded the age curve range from 3:1 to 5:1.

It also would have done a bunch of other things not within the scope of the current discussion.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a section that allowed states to file a waiver and bypass the age curve? Basically allow insurance companies to price however they wanted?
 
zzyzxroad said:
Wasn't there a section that allowed states to file a waiver and bypass the age curve? Basically allow insurance companies to price however they wanted?
Click to expand...
Sorry, yes. The original version in March 2017 was expanding the age curve to 5:1. It was amended in May of 2017 to also allow waivers to bypass the age curve.
 
sactoking said:
Sorry, yes. The original version in March 2017 was expanding the age curve to 5:1. It was amended in May of 2017 to also allow waivers to bypass the age curve.
Click to expand...
the ironic thing is, if it had passed the red states would have all been lining up to get their waivers in. Hopefully trump's backing on that POS comes up in the debates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top