re: Why does the healthcare debate essentially revolve around like 4% of Americans?

quote:

---

with the exception of a fraction of medicaid patients, the affected group is a portion of the 7%.

---

Anyone with a pre-existing condition (estimated as half of the population) is affected.

Anyone with an employer-provided plan, due to the potential elimination of EHBs, is affected.

Why are you lying?

quote:

---

Anyone with a pre-existing condition (estimated as half of the population) is affected.

---

Is it your contention that people with high blood pressure, people who are overweight, people who have high cholesterol etc should not pay higher premiums for the same insurance than people who are more healthy? Because of that "half of the population" that's the majority of them.

quote:

---

Republican "plan" just ignores the people with priorly identified issues

---

This is bullshite. From my understanding this is how this problem is being dealt with.

They are keeping most of the ACA taxes. These taxes will be block granted back to the states WITH STRINGS ATTACHED. The "strings"...cover the "uncoverable"...those with pre-existing conditions/the elderly/the chronically ill. States will create a high risk pool or grant subsidies to cover these people. If they don't they get no $$$.

You will get total buy in on this. 50 out of 50 states will get this done.

I just don't understand why we call it "insurance" when we're talking about pre-existing conditions.

I happen to be perfectly OK with the government attempting to solve the gap for people who, through no fault of their own, cannot acquire insurance and therefore, pay for conditions they already have.

But, I do have a problem with rolling everyone else into the system.

To me, call it what it is. Straight up welfare. I don't use the term in a derogatory manner. It just IS welfare.

The government is already in the welfare business and for better or worse, knows how to implement welfare.

So. Let the rest of us buy insurance in a COMPLETLEY free market and next to that, have a govt medical welfare program.

To those who say, "well, one day it could be YOU", yes, you're correct. And, just like on day I COULD be laid off and require unemployment compensation from the govt and maybe even welfare, but the government doesn't interfere with my looking for a job, that's how we should handle health care.

To answer the OP. The REASON is that the moron left has zero interest in medical welfare because they want those who need it to get the same access Bill Gates gets.

THAT shifts it entirely from being about health care to being purely about wealth redistribution with health care as the cover.

quote:

---

Nothing but lies and propaganda.

---

Up to half of the country has a pre-existing condition

Again, your profound ignorance on this subject, and unwillingness to educate yourself, is a character trait you share with many on this board.

quote:

---

Obama says half of Americans have a pre-existing condition

---

Is not the same thing as half the population actually having a per-existing condition.

Obama said a lot of things. He said we could keep our insurance if we liked it. He said premiums would fall by $2,500 per family. Both were bold faced lies.

Obama says. Lol. No need to read further. Nice try.

Your lies don't really require a response any longer. Propagandist sleeze ball.

quote:

---

I just don't understand why we call it "insurance" when we're talking about pre-existing conditions.

---

I concur with everything you said/are saying. Just to throw that out there.

quote:

---

You do realize that 4% of Americans is about 13 million people? Also that people are rarely alone but are in families. So often, those 13 million have parents, sons, and daughters willing to go bankrupt for them, so you have to multiply that number by 2 or 3 to see the total number affected.

---

quote:

---

Let's see what you think when it's your parent or child who is sick.

---

quote:

---

...because 50% of the population are governed by their emotions rather than rational thought. So, the argument is effective.

---

Checks out....

That she would use politifact as a source is all one needs to know about her bias and lunacy.