The idea was advanced that the House bill ends pre-existing conditions.
Kady M.
41

The text of the bill that lets states opt out of essential benefits and charge more for preexisting conditions is the McArthur amendment; I will let you look that up yourself, but interestingly, the House has removed the text of that Amendment from its website.

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.

The two have nothing to do with each other; this is a complete non sequitur. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to tie the amount of subsidies for coverage to solely age as opposed to ability to pay. None. The problem you are making is a categorical one; one average, older people are wealthier as they have had more time to accumulate wealth. On the whole, they will thus pay more to support the program. That does not mean that individually, subsidies should be tied to a person’s age. This is simply nonsensical.

What’s more, the portion of the bill regarding subsidies/reimbursements is directly related to people with preexisting coverage, as the McArthur amendment still applies to these individuals, and they’d thus be even more unable to pay once they are left in a state that is permitted to charge more per the waiver. You cannot untangle the two. So no, you were not just addressing one narrow part of the bill; all of these parts are interrelated.

Once again, in your haste to denigrate “fake news” — incorrectly — you have failed to understand the bill, how it works, and how it would impact people, particularly those with preexisting conditions.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

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