You “skewered” nothing.
Kendra Anthrope
11

“You “skewered” nothing.”

The idea was advanced that the House bill ends pre-existing conditions. That’s false, as shown. I am not responsible for your inability to add one and one and get two.

In fact, you repeated right-wing propaganda that was explicitly designed to make people think, “don’t worry, the atrocious bill they just passed isn’t that atrocious!”

“In fact”, I didn’t address the bill as a whole at all, which goes to your lack of reading comprehension. I addressed a single item in the bill which was under discussion.

In virtually every state in which a “high risk pool” has been established, it hasn’t worked because it’s remained underfunded.

Irrelevant. The POINT is that that the worst case scenario, which is that a individual who (a) lives in a state which is granted a waiver, and (b) has a pre-existing condition, and © allows their insurance to lapse, MAY (d) have to pay a 30% premium for (e) ONE year, IFF (e) there is no high risk pool available to them that’s (g) a better deal.

The argument seems to be, “hey, they can waive out, but they won’t!”

No, that’s not the argument.

It seems quite clear to me that you don’t actually know what is in this bill beyond partisan claptrap set forth in a few Lowry articles, yet you fancy yourself an expert. That’s pretty sad.

Feel free to point out, from the text of the bill, where either myself or Lowry is wrong. If you’re so absolutely positive that my understanding is incorrect, that means that you must have conclusive proof that I am wrong, eh? So, let’s see it.

I’ll await your response. Quote from the bill itself, please, so we can get around this issue of poisoned wells.

And your response to the other person’s observation that this will cut almost a trillion from medicaid? “Well there are always winners and losers!” That is not a response.

Correct; it is not a response. I should have said what I was thinking, which was “because I am pointing out the error in the writer’s assumption, don’t make the mistake of thinking that I am defending the entire bill as written.”

That response is applicable to you as well, since you are making the same error as he.

Oh, wait. I DID say that. You just didn’t read my entire post. Silly you. :-)

Not only that, but the way they have the reimbursements set up (the tax credits), they have cut them so drastically that one cannot reasonably expect them to cover any legitimate plan.

I actually agree with that part, which is why I expect (and hope) that the Senate puts in more money.

They cap out at $4k; that’s simply not enough. Moreover, they’ve tied those credits to age rather than need, such that those who show a financial need for more credits won’t get them, while an older individual can get the full $4k regardless of how wealthy he or she is. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Actually, it makes quite a bit of sense, in that 80% of the health care expenditures for the 27–65 age group are going to be paid for by the oldest 20% of that group. But you and I are in agreement that more has to be done, and that there are a few holes in the bill (you need BOTH age-related and needs related tax credits, AND more money into the Medicare portion, in my view) that need addressing.

Part of the real problem here is that (a) most Americans are covered by insurance through their employer, and (b) thus, have no idea what they would pay for insurance if they had to go to the open market to find it. An individual in their late 20’s with no congenital conditions is going to pay in the general neighborhood of $2000–$2500 a year for health insurance; that premium increases rather quickly with age, and a pre-Medicare person in their 60’s is probably going to pay roughly $16K for decent coverage.

So yes, a few hundred to 4K per year doesn’t do much for anyone. We’re on the same page on this issue.

I could go on and on about how wrong you are and how terrible this bill is.

You could, but you would again be advertising your erroneous assumption that because I pointed out the fake news in the pre-existing condition situation, I must be a supporter of the entire bill as is.

I would suggest you might not want to advertise your mistake in such an obvious way.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.