You folks with pre-existing conditions … umm … sorry but we may not cover you afterall
OK … how many times does the SOS have to prove to you she was right on Obamacare … on everything. Other than being the first to let you know, you won’t be able to keep your Doctor, or your insurance, that one person and one government panel will determine your care, and it will not cut the budget deficit and … so much more … comes this: there’s just not enough money to cover all the folks with pre-existing conditions. Swell!From The Hill, titled “Health law risks turning away the sick …
The Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured.
Critics of the $5 billion high-risk pool program insist it will run out of money before Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the program sunsets and health plans can no longer discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.
Oh, we were hammered, we were called liars, I personally was called ignorant. Can’t say I didn’t warn you.
17 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
You mean the lefties could not see what was so plainly obvious? I doubt it. Either we are all incredibly intelligent, or they are incredibly stupid. Or they think we are. I vote for the latter.
And the "best" part is, the really "good" stuff is yet to come, after the elections, of course. Thank you, objective media!!
Here's a riddle: if a appointed death panel deems you unfit for further coverage, are you now what will be called "politically dead" as well as (eventually) clinically dead?
Well, I guess that now that the health care reform bill has passed we know what's in it, don't we? All those lefties who said that you and SOS were liars, and of course, let's not forget your personal ignorance, Jim…add to that sexist, raaaaaaaaaacist, and you're lookin' like a darned good catch for someone! rofl
I have a health care plan…Don't get sick.
I'm curious about preexisting conditions that will no longer be covered: does that include conditions people are born with? Will this include kids like my daughter's friend, Kyle (traumatic brain injury), who is still in a rehabilitation hospital in NH? What about long-term mental health patients (dangerous individuals and those who aren't) who require a residential care facility? What about kids with cancer…what happens when the company their parent works for decides it's better to just pay the per employee fine than offer insurance as a benefit anymore? I suppose that if your liver is shot and you need a transplant you're s.o.l. as I'm pretty sure even needing a new liver (or any organ for that matter) qualifies as a preexisting condition.
It looked good on paper, but they had no idea how to pay for it…So, they take from the haves to give to the have-nots and now the haves will become have-nots…Methinks that the plan is for EVERYone to be a have-not…
Works for socialist plans, but if everyone is broke, how in hell will they continue to pay for these cheesy programs?
Interesting how one takes information and twists it to his or her liking.1.Something had to be done to help those qualify with pre-existing conditions,I don't think this is a great health care plan but at least it's a start.2.Ron Pollack executive director of Families USA said"the pools were a very imperfect tool that could be implemented quickly"but were the best option available for the interim period before 2014.3.We could easily come up with the money if we weren't fighting two bs wars that were started on very tenuous data that has since been proven to be false. Even Republican Michael Steele said the Afghanistan war is unwinnable.That would free up over 944 billion and 5521 lives not counting the wounded. If we can "find" money for wars we can "find" money for health care.Why do we spend more to kill people than keep them alive??We need to get out of these wars and take care of our own backyard.
I don't believe the 2 wars were started with tenuous data…some people still remember 9/11/01, especially my oldest daughter whose birthday falls on that day. And my parents whose business (aircraft replacement parts manufacturing) was destroyed as a result of that one day. I don't think that 3,000+ people qualifies as tenuous data, and I certainly don't think that bin Laden should be relegated to the scrap heap of history without being dealt with.
Also, Obama has been president for how long, now? 18 months? I'm pretty sure that while he "inherited" those two wars (as the left likes to remind us ad nauseum) Mr. I'm-The-President certainly has the ability to end both of them whenever he chooses. And what about closing Gitmo? Thought that was the first of many first things he was going to do. And who's in power in congress? Certainly not the Republicans, so I don't think he'd have too much argument from his own peeps if he truly wanted to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Where does the 944 billion figure come from, by the way? Typically, when quoting figures, it's part of the terms of service of this site to give a link to the quoted data. If you're referring to the $940 billion for health care reform, a link to that site is this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/18/health-c…
Legislate in haste, repent at leisure. I agree: Øbamacare is imperfect. The least our "representatives" could have done is 1) read it, 2) write it themselves, 3) tell us what is in it before they voted on it (see #s 1 and 2), taken the time to do it right. Inasmuch as most of the plan is not going to take effect for years (after the election), why couldn't they spend the time doing the things listed above and at least get it "more right"?
You say "something had to be done about those with preexisting conditions", but the very point SOS is making is that the will NOT get coverage or care! And let us not forget about the "death panels", which are being revealed as de facto reality. Other countries have suffered to learn not to do what we are rushing headlong into doing (and are in the process of undoing). Is it stupidity, hubris or ignorance? Or all of the above?
As I have said before, you can have health care GOOD, INEXPENSIVE or UNIVERSAL. Pick any TWO.
I got my figures from the below link ………..which states that if the Presidents request for additional funds for both Iraq and Afghanistan the total in 2010 would be 748 billion for Iraq and 300 billion for Afghanistan for a total of 1.08 trillion…..I'm sorry for any related personal losses you have had regarding 9/11 ….my point is what have we accomplished ??? ……….very little ,besides destabilization and many ,many needless deaths .over 5000 US casualties…..I was appalled that Obama didn't end these wars ..that's what I would have done.The source for my numbers is indicated below …….We need to take care of our country first …….
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
Maybe we could begin with stopping aid to countries that hate us, and start utilizing our own energy resources so we don't have to pay Islamofascist and other dictatorial regimes for their oil. You are right: let's make the US Number 1 again by looking after Number 1 first.
How could Øbama do when the lefties claimed every single day since the invasion of Iraq that Afghanistan was the true and righteous war?
Did Øbama catch Osama bin Laden yet? I recall that the lefties continually claimed that that was Job #1.
Dims, Job #1 was closing gitmo…Still fondly remember one of Jim's shows where he did montage of Obama's list of "job #1"…too freaking much! This guy has a serious inability to focus and is trying way to hard to be the "greatest" president in history instead of remembering that slow & steady wins the race…Right now, he's about neck and neck with Jimmmmmmah Cartah (popularity-wise) and he's created his very own big-boy mess.
BTW, RR, a little isolationism would be a very educational exercise for those who criticize us (mostly in Europe) but then need us when something goes wrong…then turn around and smack us and tell Americans that we try to be the "police of the world and should mind our own business" (straight out of our French exchange student's mouth in 2001–I paraphrased to make it grammatically correct…lol).
If you think Afghanistan and Iraq are bad, you better hang on for what's going to come with No. Korea and Iran…All the naughty children misbehave on an epic level when there's a democrat in the White House…
For Øbama, Job #1 was getting his butt elected, and now, Job #1 has morphed into keeping his butt in office.
But his ability to ruin the economy is (wait for it)…… UNPRECEDENTED!
I amazed there are still people out there who think the invasion of Iraq had something/anything to do with what happened on 9-11. In America's long history, the government has often found reasons for going to war (e.g the Tonkin Incident, sinking of the battleship Maine) that are later proved to be false. 9-11 seems to be one of those justifications to act militarily when we'd rather not acknowledge the real reasons for invading Iraq. While the American people are highly moral, the American government is much more practical, with morality taking a back seat. As for practical reasons for invading Iraq: by establishing permanent bases, the US strenghtens its control in the region at a time when India and China are just beginning to compete with the West for access to oil. In defense of W. Bush, I'd say his administration reasoned, with justification, that strengthening American hegemony in the Middle East would reduce future threats to peace and stability. Given that access to oil was one of the immediate causes of war with Japan in 1941, I'd say future struggles for oil need to be anticipated and dealt with seriously. If I am correct, then we need to look at the potential threat from Iran, not in terms of its attitudes toward Israel, but how it figures in the global competition to secure access to oil.
Is it at all possible to even try to keep comment threads on topic? I try to read them, but just stop due to the drift.
Steve: In a way the digression to talk about the war is related to the question that underlies every posting on this blog, which is: Can the government be trusted to act in the best interests of the American people? Everyone agrees "no", depending upon whether your team (party) or the other guy's is in charge. I say the answer ought to be "sometimes", no matter whose team is in the White House. The failure of every partisan blog is that it lives in the fantasy that one team is evil and stupid and the other is pretty much all good. If you believe as I do that corporate interests dominate government, then you might suspect that partisan ideologues do more harm than good by dividing the electorate to the point of powerlessness.
I agree to the point that I am an unenrolled voter myself, but I think that in view of the current Democrat steamrollers in the Legislative and Executive branches, governmental paralysis or gridlock is the safest course of action. On some topics anyway.
Have you looked at the online chat lately? 😉 Talk about digressing! Or maybe it is just multitasking…..
Seriously though, Øbama gives us so many overlapping targets, it is almost impossible not to see the links and connections to his other acts of incompetence/corruption.
My "multitasking" used to be called being "scatterbrained"! 😉
_A health plan for uninsured people with pre-existing health conditions. From 200,000 to 400,000 could benefit in 2011, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The government may limit enrollment if $5 billion allocated through 2013 starts to run out, as projected.
Beginning in 2014, insurers will be required to accept all applicants, regardless of medical history.
Half right. There may be a time span where these people will not be covered before the mandate kicks in.