LogFAQs > #930709572

TheGleamEyes posted...

Because you made the false claim that STI weren't much of a problem until the Trump Administration came in, when in reality, nothing affected how STI were to be regulated following the ACA's passage up until 2016, and even then were still available.

I made the claim that this had been fixed under the Obama administration and became a problem under Trump. The Obama adminstration addressed a perceived problem by instituting a cap. The trump adminstration removed it, and the obvious problem occurred. What did I say that was false?

TheGleamEyes posted...

Which has nothing to do with the fact that STI were available for purchase even under the Obama administration.

I never made the claim that STI didn't exist under Obama. I said that this specific situation that occurred, denying someone due to preexisting conditions, had been fixed. While STI existed, regulations prevented this situation. Those regulations were reversed.

TheGleamEyes posted...

No. Nothing indicated that he was kicked off an "essential coverage" insurance plan, and instead, most likely had chosen STI due to costs as a result of ACA mandating possession of insurance or facing a fine instead (as have hundreds of thousands who choose STI over more expensive coverages that provide protections afforded by the ACA, in order to comply with the law)

It directly talks about this in the article, so you're arguing without knowing the situation at all. And again, there is no longer an individual mandate penalty, and when there was STI didn't satisfy it. I think you are arguing in bad faith and also partially in ignorance

---

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.