No.

But it brings up a salient point. The Kaiser Family Foundation, on whose information you've based your claim, is an oft quoted source on these matters. Unfortunately, it is about as trustworthy a source as the National Enquirer. Which is to say it is occasionally right, and often FOS.

Here are the numbers by insurance category (From Kaiser BTW):
Employer 49%
Medicaid 19%
Medicare 14%
Other Public 2%
Uninsured 9%
Non-Group (including ACA Exchanges) 7%

So, as the 25% of people with preconditions would be applied to some of the 7% in non-group insurance, and a fraction of the Medicaid pool, 4% actually seems a quite generous estimation.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by gthog61

Irving, TX

Member since Nov 2009

71001 posts

Posted on 9/21/17 at 5:39 am to NC_Tigah

The Kaiser Family Foundation are the biggest pro-obamacare hacks there are, except maybe aarp because they make money off it.

Covering pre-existing conditions is not "insurance", it is welfare.

Insurance mitigates risk. It does not pay for something you already have.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Tyrusrex

Member since Jul 2011

907 posts

Posted on 9/21/17 at 6:07 am to NC_Tigah

quote:
Here are the numbers by insurance category (From Kaiser BTW):
Employer 49%
Medicaid 19%
Medicare 14%
Other Public 2%
Uninsured 9%
Non-Group (including ACA Exchanges) 7%

So lets say that 25% of the entire population has something that can be classified as a precondition. You're assuming that the only people hat would be affected would be the people in the NOn Group 7%. But that's not he case. If Graham-Cassidy passes, States will be able to define who they want to cover, as everything is going to be changed from Medicaid/Medicare to State Block Grants. So potentially, this number could be 51% and only the 49% already who have employer insurance would be unaffected. And god forbid if you lose your job or decide you want to change your career.

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board