• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Trump’s claim that he ‘saved’ pre-ex conditions ‘part fantasy, part delusion’

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by tulc, Jan 15, 2020.

  1. tulc

    tulc loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

    +14,870
    Christian
    Married
    Trump’s pre-ex claim ‘part fantasty, part delusion'
    tulc(this is President Trumps 110th pants on fire) :wave:
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. HTacianas

    HTacianas Well-Known Member

    +5,156
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
  3. tulc

    tulc loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

    +14,870
    Christian
    Married
    I guess that depends on if you have proof of where the article is wrong? If you have proof it would be interesting to see the links. :wave:
    tulc(always likes to see proof for things)
     
  4. HTacianas

    HTacianas Well-Known Member

    +5,156
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    They go on and on about preexisting conditions but then only mention Obamacare. A repeal of Obamacare doesn't mean an end to coverage for preexisting conditions. Just as a repeal of Obamacare doesn't mean an end to coverage for reconstructive surgery in the case of mastectomy.

    Even though I oppose any requirement for coverage for preexisting conditions. That's like buying car insurance after you've been in an accident.
     
  5. tulc

    tulc loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

    +14,870
    Christian
    Married
    So...that would be a "No, I don't have any links to show the things in the article are wrong."?
    tulc(is just making sure he has HTacianas post right) :wave:
     
  6. HTacianas

    HTacianas Well-Known Member

    +5,156
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    HTacianas likes to see tulc post links to articles that don't posit fallacies. But tulc rarely does that.
     
  7. tulc

    tulc loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

    +14,870
    Christian
    Married
    NICE! I don't think I've ever seen anyone use the word "posit" in a post before! :oldthumbsup:
    tulc(will raise a cup in HTacianas honor!) :coffee:
     
  8. JackRT

    JackRT OOPS!!! Supporter

    +13,931
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    That is the way I see things as well so it must be true! :rolleyes: Trump has told so many lies that he is now getting confused and is contradicting himself.
     
  9. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +4,010
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi HT,

    Uhhhh, you are aware of what the ACA is, right? It is in the ACA that insurance companies are required to discount pre-existing conditions as a reason for withholding medical care insurance. Yes, if the ACA is repealed or reversed, it does absolutely mean that there will be no law on any books of federal law that stop any medical care insurance company from refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

    If you have such a law that will stand in effect if the ACA is repealed, I also would like a reference to that law. You can just send a link to the law.

    BTW, while I understand your analogy, I'm not sure our human bodies and the medical care needed for them is a fair analogy to a car that has already been in an accident. But, if it works for you to say that our bodies and lives are no more important than a hunk of sheet metal...go for it!

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  10. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +10,657
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    It's my understanding that not all states required covering reconstructive surgery and there still isn't any state law that says they must.
    Well, if for some reason you have to change jobs you lose that group coverage that did cover a pre-existing condition and if your next job doesn't have group insurance, you're flat out of luck without the ACA rules. Your state may have a plan to help you but it will be so expensive you can't afford it.

    I have had personal experience with this. I was eight years without health ins. from 2003 because I couldn't afford a combined state program that cost over $1,000 a month. I stayed on COBRA as long as I could at only $550.00 a month.

    If the ACA ends people will be right back in the same situation that I was but they may not be as fortunate as I was, they may actually lose their home, go bankrupt, or even die.
     
  11. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,687
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    The real reason Trump's backers don't like coverage for pre-existing conditions is that it allows a worker to seek a better job without losing his insurance. Otherwise, the employee is locked into the job he has, and the employer knows it.

    Some CEOs were denouncing it as a way for "lazy" workers to leave their jobs.
     
  12. jgarden

    jgarden Senior Veteran

    +1,855
    Methodist
    Trump’s claim that he ‘saved’ pre-ex conditions ‘part fantasy, part delusion’

    While Obamacare may have gotten off to a "rocky" start, the polls must be telling Trump and congressional Republicans that like Medicare, universal healthcare has gained widespread acceptance in America and is an idea whose time has come!

    The Republicans have had ample time to make good on this President's boast that he would introduce a better, cheaper healthcare system - like most of his other promises, it was all smoke and mirrors!

    The
    emergence of Bennie Sanders and now Elizabeth Warren as viable presidential candidates is an indicator as to just how far the political center has shifted to the left within the last decade and that if the Republicans want to forestall universal medicare for all, 2020 may be their last chance to produce a credible, private sector alternative!
     
  13. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,687
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    They care too much about their power and money to do what's necessary to save the private system. I'd prefer a private system, but since Obama, no one seems to be willing to do anything to save it.
     
  14. grasping the after wind

    grasping the after wind That's grasping after the wind

    +3,748
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Others
    From my perspective, the goal of Obamacare was to destroy any hope of saving a private system. Setting up a situation in which private insurance could not help but become a failure. This immediately followed by the insistence on a false dichotomy in which the only other option to Obamacare is complete government control of the health care system aka single payer. So the two options that are given are 1) be forced to buy at an extremely high price private insurance that covers what the government insists it cover whether that meets the individual's needs or not 2) be forced to pay an extremely high tax for publicly funded program that covers what the government insists it cover whether that meets the individual's needs or not. I suggest that there may be other options that might be preferable.
     
  15. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,687
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Odd then, that he rejected a single-pay system when he could have had it.

    The system was broken and only served the insurance companies. Costs were skyrocketing. Since the republicans declined to do anything, someone had to. Notice, that when Trump was elected and republicans got control of Congress they had the opportunity to fix it, and they refused to do it.

    Obamacare was a workable system; Trump has done what he could to sabotage it, but Americans won't let him repeal it.
     
  16. grasping the after wind

    grasping the after wind That's grasping after the wind

    +3,748
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Others
    If by "he" you mean EX President Obama, that option was never open to him. He did not reject it. Seeing the real world political situation, he understood how much could be done and told his supporters to wait because the nation was not yet ready for it. IMO Obamacare was designed with the intention of making the nation ready for it.

    A late Senator that voted to repeal it numerous times previously was the one that would not let it be repealed , perhaps out of personal animus for another politician perhaps because he never really wanted it repealed idk. The previous system is irrelevant to what can be done in the future. The point is that there are more ways than two to approach a problem. I, for one, would not feel secure within a system where someone like Donald Trump or Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnel had so much control over my health care options as they would if the government was in complete control of that system. I prefer a system in which I am in complete control of my health care options.
     
  17. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,687
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Barbarian observes:
    Odd then, that he rejected a single-pay system when he could have had it.

    He had control of Congress. He could have had it, if he chose to do thast.

    Sounds like a testable belief. Show us some checkable facts. (prediction: we won't see any)
     
  18. grasping the after wind

    grasping the after wind That's grasping after the wind

    +3,748
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Others
    His political party was in control of the Congress not Obama. He barely got Obamacare through and that was seen by insurance companies and their lobbyists as a wonderful thing for them. Do you think that having that sector and its money and influence in complete opposition to something rather than in support would not turn one vote cast for Obamacare to one vote cast against single payer?

    Obama statements on single-payer have changed a bit

    "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."

    Doesn't sound like he rejected single payer to me. Seems like he understands the political situation and is telling his supporters to wait "we may not get there immediately". So when they take the WH , the Senate and the House does he propose single payer? No Obamacare. Why? Perhaps it is because we may not be able to get there immediately?
     
  19. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,687
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    They hate the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions, and were furious when Obama told them that they couldn't classify advertising as "patient services." You've been badly misled about that.

    Yep. He used to be in favor of private insurance, (which is what I told you). He's now convinced that single-payer is better.
     
  20. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +4,010
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi GTAW,

    You responded to another's post:
    I don't see how you see it that way. Private insurance is still doing very well under the present ACA. They are still making a boatload of money. They raised whatever rates needed to be raised in order to care for those with pre-existing conditions. I'm curious as to exactly what part of the ACA you find as some sort of attempt to 'destroy any hope of saving a private system'. You can check the balance sheets of any of the major insurers and they're all doing quite well now some 10 years after ACA was made the law of the land.

    If you've got the time and the inclination, I'd like to hear what specific requirements of the ACA are hurting private insurance.

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
Loading...