Poll of the Day > Trumps signs EO

(+) Yeah! (+)

Protecting individuals with preexisting conditions.

https://www.wbtv.com/2020/09/24/president-trump-signs-executive-order-pre-existing-conditions-charlotte/

"He is just using this as another distraction" - Nancy Pelosi.

He's distracting from being a bastard by not being a bastard lol
---

The order, according to the White House, is first attempt in American history to make it the policy of the United States to protect those with pre-existing conditions as part of the presidents newly announced America First Healthcare Plan.

Oo

Overlooking the new healthcare plan for a second, the problem with measures designed to "protect" people with pre-existing conditions is that it fundamentally undermines the entire insurance industry because it allows people to only get insurance after they have a problem. Can you imagine buying insurance *after* you wreck your car and expecting that car crash to be covered? It goes against the whole notion of insurance. There are very practical reasons behind these policies. Which isn't to say that people shouldn't be able to get policies, just that they logically would need to cost more (at least at the start) as an offset.

Then there's a bunch of other stuff in his plan, including that it'll cost "60% less than the ACA" where I'm not even sure what that's actually supposed to mean. Are all plans going to cost 60% less? If so, how?


---

Zeus posted...

Oo

Overlooking the new healthcare plan for a second, the problem with measures designed to "protect" people with pre-existing conditions is that it fundamentally undermines the entire insurance industry because it allows people to only get insurance after they have a problem. Can you imagine buying insurance *after* you wreck your car and expecting that car crash to be covered? It goes against the whole notion of insurance. There are very practical reasons behind these policies. Which isn't to say that people shouldn't be able to get policies, just that they logically would need to cost more (at least at the start) as an offset.

Then there's a bunch of other stuff in his plan, including that it'll cost "60% less than the ACA" where I'm not even sure what that's actually supposed to mean. Are all plans going to cost 60% less? If so, how?

hey my house is on fire, I need to buy homeowners insurance!

look at zeus finally questioning the logic behind something trump did

it's cute

---

Already some people pay more for healthcare.

---

Zeus posted...

Overlooking the new healthcare plan for a second, the problem with measures designed to "protect" people with pre-existing conditions is that it fundamentally undermines the entire insurance industry because it allows people to only get insurance after they have a problem. Can you imagine buying insurance *after* you wreck your car and expecting that car crash to be covered? It goes against the whole notion of insurance.

Man, it's almost like health care is a really poor fit for the insurance model. Who knew?

likehelly posted...

look at zeus finally questioning the logic behind something trump did

it's cute

Surprisingly little evidence of cognitive dissonance, too. I guess he'd already made up his mind that he hates socialized health care more than he loves Trump.

---

Thanks, Obama!

The meme actually fits for something someone else did this time, because the ACA already fucking does this

Americans already have preexisting conditions covered because of the ACA

---

Mead posted...

Americans already have preexisting conditions covered because of the ACA

Hey man, after four years, Trump finally "did" something for the American people.
Why you gotten ruin this moment for Republicans with your facts and logic?

Zeus posted...

Oo

Overlooking the new healthcare plan for a second, the problem with measures designed to "protect" people with pre-existing conditions is that it fundamentally undermines the entire insurance industry because it allows people to only get insurance after they have a problem. Can you imagine buying insurance *after* you wreck your car and expecting that car crash to be covered? It goes against the whole notion of insurance. There are very practical reasons behind these policies. Which isn't to say that people shouldn't be able to get policies, just that they logically would need to cost more (at least at the start) as an offset.

Then there's a bunch of other stuff in his plan, including that it'll cost "60% less than the ACA" where I'm not even sure what that's actually supposed to mean. Are all plans going to cost 60% less? If so, how?

Congratulations. You just reasoned yourself back to the rationale for the individual mandate.

---

Zeus posted...

Oo

Overlooking the new healthcare plan for a second, the problem with measures designed to "protect" people with pre-existing conditions is that it fundamentally undermines the entire insurance industry because it allows people to only get insurance after they have a problem. Can you imagine buying insurance *after* you wreck your car and expecting that car crash to be covered? It goes against the whole notion of insurance. There are very practical reasons behind these policies. Which isn't to say that people shouldn't be able to get policies, just that they logically would need to cost more (at least at the start) as an offset.

BeerOnTap posted...

hey my house is on fire, I need to buy homeowners insurance!

That's how little human life is worth to you? It's worth as much as a car or a house, both things that can be replaced?

If protection for people with pre-existing conditions gets removed, I hope both of you lose your insurance because you lose your job or some shit and then get horribly sick. Then you'll be begging for protection for pre-existing conditions and see why it's so important for millions of people.

And what about people who were born with medical problems? Do they deserve to die or live in agony just because an astronomically wealthy corporation can't profit off their medical care?

Didn't he already do this a couple months ago?

Also ACA already exists.

---

---

captpackrat posted...

I had the tshirt as a child.

---

papercup posted...

Didn't he already do this a couple months ago?

Also ACA already exists.

Trump's lawyers are in court already trying to end ACA; so this is Trump's way of saying "See, while I take coverage for pre-existing conditions away with one hand by getting ACA thrown out by the courts, I'll grant you peons a small boon through an executive order which carries no authority, or in other words a 'lip service' action so that he doesn't have to hear the cries and wails of agony as people die on the steps of the White House.

All of these recent headlines related executive orders are just An election year attempt to get more votes while the orders themselves are most likely not even going to have and type of legal effect. (Depends on which ones Im trying to be general so one specific order isnt my point).

i dont care who you support in the upcoming general election, if you dont see that you are blind.

its actually a smart marketing ploy on the part of the trump administration, however given that 99.9999% of this country has already made up their minds due to the events of 2020 I dont think its going to gain or lose him votes in any major way, just add fuel to his already supporters or fuel to those not voting for hims further justification for the decisions they already made.

---

likehelly posted...

look at zeus finally questioning the logic behind something trump did

it's cute

Overlooking that I do that all the time, it's literally the same objection I raised to Obama doing it. (Because, unlike others on this board, my criticisms tend to be very consistent regardless of who's doing it.)

adjl posted...

Man, it's almost like health care is a really poor fit for the insurance model. Who knew?

Except it really isn't, since ANY kind of insurance would have the same problem if people tried to fundamentally break the insurance model to fit people who didn't bother buying insurance. Therefore it's not specific to health insurance, but literally true of ALL insurance.

And, on a fundamental level, all of the major insurances are necessary unless the government is just providing you with everything.

adjl posted...

Surprisingly little evidence of cognitive dissonance, too. I guess he'd already made up his mind that he hates socialized health care more than he loves Trump.

Again: Overlooking that I do that all the time, it's literally the same objection I raised to Obama doing it. (Because, unlike others on this board, my criticisms tend to be very consistent regardless of who's doing it.)

Which comes with being a centrist as opposed to a partisan hack or extremist.

Clench281 posted...

Congratulations. You just reasoned yourself back to the rationale for the individual mandate.

Except it doesn't, since the individual mandate neither goes to the insurers themselves or is enough to actually defray the costs. You can directly compare that to mandatory liability insurance on cars, where car ownership requires buying a plan in almost every state (and some states require more than just liability)... although even then you have people driving around without liability insurance, which is illegal.

CaptainStrong posted...

If protection for people with pre-existing conditions gets removed, I hope both of you lose your insurance because you lose your job or some shit and then get horribly sick. Then you'll be begging for protection for pre-existing conditions and see why it's so important for millions of people.

Which underscores how fucking horrible you are. And when I haven't had employer-backed healthcare, I've bought healthcare elsewhere. My solution has never been, "Gee, think how much money I could save by not buying insurance!" It's like any other kind of insurance, while you can technically get by without it if nothing happens, you're absolutely fucking screwed if something does (possibly excluding renters insurance, although renters insurance is so fucking cheap that it's stupid not to buy it... and I'm sure that you'd defend everybody who chooses not to buy it and feel that they're entitled to have it anyway).

CaptainStrong posted...

And what about people who were born with medical problems? Do they deserve to die or live in agony just because an astronomically wealthy corporation can't profit off their medical care?

Is this an absurd hypothetical where a children somehow wouldn't be covered by their parents' insurance plan? Or just their parents not having insurance then waiting to buy it until their kid has a problem?

---

CaptainStrong posted...

If protection for people with pre-existing conditions gets removed

here's the thing, that was never in any danger from being removed.

until trump took office and started his campaign to remove the ACA, which covered pre-existing conditions.

all trump did, was contradict himself.

---

wtf dolan drumpf cant do that!

---

Zeus posted...

Overlooking that I do that all the time, it's literally the same objection I raised to Obama doing it. (Because, unlike others on this board, my criticisms tend to be very consistent regardless of who's doing it.)

Except it really isn't, since ANY kind of insurance would have the same problem if people tried to fundamentally break the insurance model to fit people who didn't bother buying insurance. Therefore it's not specific to health insurance, but literally true of ALL insurance.

And, on a fundamental level, all of the major insurances are necessary unless the government is just providing you with everything.

Again: Overlooking that I do that all the time, it's literally the same objection I raised to Obama doing it. (Because, unlike others on this board, my criticisms tend to be very consistent regardless of who's doing it.)

Which comes with being a centrist as opposed to a partisan hack or extremist.

Except it doesn't, since the individual mandate neither goes to the insurers themselves or is enough to actually defray the costs. You can directly compare that to mandatory liability insurance on cars, where car ownership requires buying a plan in almost every state (and some states require more than just liability)... although even then you have people driving around without liability insurance, which is illegal.

Which underscores how fucking horrible you are. And when I haven't had employer-backed healthcare, I've bought healthcare elsewhere. My solution has never been, "Gee, think how much money I could save by not buying insurance!" It's like any other kind of insurance, while you can technically get by without it if nothing happens, you're absolutely fucking screwed if something does (possibly excluding renters insurance, although renters insurance is so fucking cheap that it's stupid not to buy it... and I'm sure that you'd defend everybody who chooses not to buy it and feel that they're entitled to have it anyway).

Is this an absurd hypothetical where a children somehow wouldn't be covered by their parents' insurance plan? Or just their parents not having insurance then waiting to buy it until their kid has a problem?

You do realize people age, right? Obamacare lets people stay on their parents health insurance until 26. Under your ideal world, they would be fucking dead once they reach 26. Fuck you and everyone who is against universal healthcare

Zeus posted...

Except it doesn't, since the individual mandate neither goes to the insurers themselves or is enough to actually defray the costs. You can directly compare that to mandatory liability insurance on cars, where car ownership requires buying a plan in almost every state (and some states require more than just liability)... although even then you have people driving around without liability insurance, which is illegal.

And yet the fine for being caught driving without liability insurance still modifies behavior of the population, increasing the number of people who acquire insurance.

Are you going to argue that states shouldn't require liability coverage just because some people won't do it?

Nothing should be illegal, because some people will still commit crime!

---

He also wants to do an EO to eliminate diversity training as well. He's pulling out all the stops and he's also hinted that if he loses, he won't leave the WH quietly.

---

BUMPED2002 posted...

and he's also hinted that if he loses, he won't leave the WH quietly.

he's saying that because democrats said they wouldn't concede if they lose

BUMPED2002 posted... He also wants to do an EO to eliminate diversity training as well.

noice


---

Obamacare protects those with pre-existing conditions.

---

Judgmenl posted...

Obamacare protects those with pre-existing conditions.

But see, Trump's going to end Obamacare and then graciously give us back (some of) those rights.

Just like how next week he's going to revoke the First Amendment and issue an executive order allowing freedom of speech (but not of the press or of assembly, let's not get crazy now), so he can put out a campaign ad about how "you have free speech thanks to me"

It'd be every bit as legitimate as claiming he "protected pre-existing conditions" in an ad

Wanded posted...

he's saying that because democrats said they wouldn't concede if they lose

Thats literally the opposite of the truth dude. Come on.

---

Judgmenl posted...

Obamacare protects those with pre-existing conditions.

Yes but all the aca did was mandate everyone buy private health insurance from a select set of providers, lowering competition and driving up premiums.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/22/yes-it-was-the-affordable-care-act-that-increased-premiums/#69d3976711d2
I voted for Obama twice and even I can tell you the aca is far from ideal.

hungrymike posted...

I voted for Obama twice and even I can tell you the aca is far from ideal.

no one believes that statement, ok?

---

captpackrat posted...

Saw this in Disney - I think in 3D. Don't remember much about it other than I watched it there.

ClarkDuke posted...

no one believes that statement, ok?

Its true if u believe it or not.

CaptainStrong posted...

That's how little human life is worth to you?

Human life is only worth it to conservatives if it makes them money. Or if it's the lives of unborn children.

---

hungrymike posted...

Its true if u believe it or not.

sure, and zues, is a left leaning centrist, and not a russian operative, ok?

---

ClarkDuke posted...

sure, and zues, is a left leaning centrist, and not a russian operative, ok?

Have u heard of the #walk away movement? I was Democrat from the time I registered in high school all the way through college. Voted for Obama twice. I believe in gay marriage and a woman's right to choose, and I thought the Republicans were the racist. It wasn't until living with two educators that I realized the hypocrisy of the Democrats and they were the real racist with their bigotry of low expectations. With their constant power points on white fragility and white guilt and implicit bias and oppressor vs. Oppressed rhetoric, they were the ones constantly focusing on race while Republicans Focused on character.

likehelly posted...

look at zeus finally questioning the logic behind something trump did

it's cute

Trump did something humane, that's why.

---

CaptainStrong posted...

Oh yeah cuz its so fucking affordable on the private market. Fuck off with that nonsense dude.You've been really fucking fortunate if you could afford that shit. Most people arent as privileged as you fucking are.

lolwut? Go fuck off with your nonsense. It was more affordable on the private market until the ACA fucked over the plans, at which point government subsidies offset the new increases for poorer Americans. However, more importantly, more people get insurance from their employer than the private market anyway. And that's not a matter of being "fortunate," it's a matter of working hard and having the smallest modicum of ambition.

CaptainStrong posted...

You do realize people age, right? Obamacare lets people stay on their parents health insurance until 26. Under your ideal world, they would be fucking dead once they reach 26. Fuck you and everyone who is against universal healthcare

...you do realize people can get jobs as adults, right? Just because you haven't worked doesn't mean that isn't the societal norm. And for people with conditions too severe to work, there literally already were a multitude of programs protecting them, so none of your half-baked excuses fly.

Clench281 posted...

And yet the fine for being caught driving without liability insurance still modifies behavior of the population, increasing the number of people who acquire insurance.

It's not so much a fine as it is you can be arrested for it, however it still hasn't done much to actually curb the behavior in many areas. And the point of that was the money goes directly to the insurer AND it's something required as part of the sale of a car, rather than a mandate which collects it for the government. The way that liability insurance is handled makes sense, whereas the ACA does not.

Clench281 posted...

Are you going to argue that states shouldn't require liability coverage just because some people won't do it?

Are you going to argue that the government should provide universal car insurance because people still drive around without it?

Yellow posted...

Trump did something humane, that's why.

Zeus posted...

Overlooking that I do that all the time, it's literally the same objection I raised to Obama doing it. (Because, unlike others on this board, my criticisms tend to be very consistent regardless of who's doing it.)

---

hungrymike posted...

Have u heard of the #walk away movement? I was Democrat from the time I registered in high school all the way through college. Voted for Obama twice. I believe in gay marriage and a woman's right to choose, and I thought the Republicans were the racist. It wasn't until living with two educators that I realized the hypocrisy of the Democrats and they were the real racist with their bigotry of low expectations. With their constant power points on white fragility and white guilt and implicit bias and oppressor vs. Oppressed rhetoric, they were the ones constantly focusing on race while Republicans Focused on character.

Convince me, a gay married man, why I should support a party whose platform includes the abolishment of gay marriage.

---

hungrymike posted...

Have u heard of the #walk away movement? I was Democrat from the time I registered in high school all the way through college. Voted for Obama twice. I believe in gay marriage and a woman's right to choose, and I thought the Republicans were the racist. It wasn't until living with two educators that I realized the hypocrisy of the Democrats and they were the real racist with their bigotry of low expectations. With their constant power points on white fragility and white guilt and implicit bias and oppressor vs. Oppressed rhetoric, they were the ones constantly focusing on race while Republicans Focused on character.

https://imgur.com/K3cXgvN


---

Zeus posted...

Except it really isn't, since ANY kind of insurance would have the same problem if people tried to fundamentally break the insurance model to fit people who didn't bother buying insurance. Therefore it's not specific to health insurance, but literally true of ALL insurance.

I never suggested it was specific to health insurance. You are correct that, fundamentally, the insurance model doesn't work well if insurers aren't able to refuse to sell policies to high-risk clients, since the entire model revolves around ensuring that the cost of paying out on policies doesn't exceed the income from those that don't need it. If you can't do that, you simply can't sustain a company.

The reason health care is a poor fit for insurance is because of what happens when people can't get it. If you can't get car insurance because you've gotten into too many accidents, you just don't drive. If you can't get flood insurance because it rains too much, you can move somewhere drier. If you can't get health insurance because you have a history of heart problems, you can either go bankrupt paying for it yourself, or you can die the next time a cat jumps out at you. That's not exactly a reasonable alternative.

Yes, there are things one can do to cut down on their medical expenses and make themselves more insurable. Eating well, exercising, not smoking... Pre-existing conditions, however, generally aren't something anyone can do anything about. Presuming you don't want those people to just die destitute for their uncontrollable bad luck (which a great many opponents of nationalized health care do), your options are either to protect people with said conditions from being denied insurance (which fundamentally breaks the concept of insurance), or move to a non-profit model that is supported by fungible assets (most commonly taxes).

---

Clench281 posted...

Convince me, a gay married man, why I should support a party whose platform includes the abolishment of gay marriage.

I'm really curious how you're going to sell this. Please explain the thought process.

---

Clench281 posted...

Convince me, a gay married man, why I should support a party whose platform includes the abolishment of gay marriage.

Show me one dispariging remark trump has made towards gay people.

He has also done a lot of good for that community including trying to decriminalize gay marriage in places that don't allow it
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/08/20/donald-trump-lgbtq-lgbt-gay-rights-republican-equality-column/5605491002/

hungrymike posted...

Show me one dispariging remark trump has made towards gay people.

He has also done a lot of good for that community including trying to decriminalize gay marriage in places that don't allow it

the man asked you a question, so just answer it, or admit you can't, ok?

---

The Republican platform literally includes the desire to overturn settled supreme court rulings and to define marriage as exclusively man and woman.

This is a fact.

Now defend it to me.

---

Clench281 posted...

The Republican platform literally includes the desire to overturn settled supreme court rulings and to define marriage as exclusively man and woman.

This is a fact.

Now defend it to me.

I can't defend the party to you because I don't support one party or the other. I'm an independent. I vote for individuals not parties. Not all republicans support defining marriage as one man one woman. Some do some don't. As far as I know trump hasn't said he denounces gay marriage. If I'm mistaken please point me to information that would tell me as such.

Zeus posted...

Can you imagine buying insurance *after* you wreck your car and expecting that car crash to be covered?

not sure but I think a problem with that analogy is that vehicle insurance is only for 1-time incidents, whereas health insurance can cover chronic conditions. there's not a lot of difference between getting insurance before or after you're diagnosed with a life-long illness. (I do wonder how it can be profitable for an insurance company to *ever* gain in that situation either way though.)

---

hungrymike posted...

I can't defend the party to you because I don't support one party or the other. I'm an independent. I vote for individuals not parties. Not all republicans support defining marriage as one man one woman. Some do some don't. As far as I know trump hasn't said he denounces gay marriage. If I'm mistaken please point me to information that would tell me as such.

He denounced the supreme court decision on obergefell v hodges when it happened. He has stated his willingness to nominate conservative supreme court justices who would overturn obergefell v hodges. He has stated that states should have the right to ban gay marriage (or implied that the default state should be that gays can't marry unless states pass laws that allow it).

---

Clench281 posted...

He denounced the supreme court decision on obergefell v hodges when it happened. He has stated his willingness to nominate conservative supreme court justices who would overturn obergefell v hodges. He has stated that states should have the right to ban gay marriage (or implied that the default state should be that gays can't marry unless states pass laws that allow it).

He said when asked about gay marriage that its a settled issue and that he's ok with it. He also appointed no less than two gay judges to federal positions. Mary Rowley and Patrick bumatay.

...So your big selling point is that I, as a gay married man, should have no hesitation voting for someone who has displayed a mixed/negative attitude towards gay marriage, including statements that suggest he is open to overturning it?

You really just pulled out the equivalent of "He has a black friend, so he can't be racist" defense? Girl. First, Mary <b>Rowland</b> (Rowley?? where'd you get that?) was not 'chosen' by Trump. There's a deal in Illinois where the Democratic party gets the to put forth one person to be nominated for every three the Republican party does. He begrudgingly kept his end of the deal. Bumatay himself may not hold negative views of gay marriage currently (he is himself married), though it's undeniable that he used to be opposed, having previously authored pieces arguing that gay marriage is harmful to society, and is vehemently opposed to spaces designated for cultural or minority groups.

But again. I'm not going to agree that him choosing to nominate one gay judge who is highly conservative in every other respect is evidence that he's an ally to gay marriage.


---

Clench281 posted...

...So your big selling point is that I, as a gay married man, should have no hesitation voting for someone who has displayed a mixed/negative attitude towards gay marriage, including statements that suggest he is open to overturning it

Even obama and biden have said they oppose gay marriage. Peoples positions change. Trump said it's a settled issue and is ok with the way it is.