Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Senate Blocks Democrat Attempt to Reinstate ObamaCare Rules Trump Eliminated

    Senate Blocks Democrat Attempt to Reinstate ObamaCare Rules Trump Eliminated

    “Senators voted 43-52 on the resolution” with only Susan Collins (R-ME) voting with Democrats

    Just days after taking office, President Trump signed an Executive Order returning power over health care and insurance to the states.  Although Congressional Republicans clearly have no intention of repealing ObamaCare, Trump went on to further weaken the disastrous health insurance scheme of his predecessor.

    Democrats are not happy. They attempted on Wednesday to roll back a Trump administration rule that permits states to ignore sections of ObamaCare and to loosen requirements on health insurance that increased costs on individuals and businesses within the states.

    The Senate blocked their effort, with only one Republican, Sen. Susan Collins (ME), voting with the Democrats to reinstate the crushing ObamaCare rules.

    The Hill reports:

    The Senate on Wednesday rejected a Democratic effort to roll back a Trump administration rule that allows states to ignore parts of ObamaCare.

    Senators voted 43-52 on the resolution, falling short of the simple majority needed to pass the chamber.

    Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote for the resolution.

    Democrats wanted to overturn a Trump administration rule that makes it easier for states to opt out of certain ObamaCare requirements and prioritize cheaper, less-inclusive plans than ones offered under ObamaCare.

    Pre-existing conditions are a political and fiscal quagmire for both Democrats and Republicans because there is no way to force insurance companies to cover these without raising costs down the line and across the board.

    Ultimately, though, Democrats are trying to keep ObamaCare in the spotlight leading into the 2020 presidential election.  They believe health care is a winning issue for them, and Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Wednesday accused Democrats of playing politics.

    The Hill continues:

    Members of the party have termed the plans “junk insurance” because companies can refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

    . . . .  Republicans and the Trump administration have repeatedly said they will continue to protect people with preexisting conditions, while simultaneously advocating for ways to end ObamaCare.

    A federal circuit court in New Orleans is expected to rule in the coming days or weeks on an administration-backed lawsuit to overturn the entire health care law.

    But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) knocked Democrats on Wednesday, arguing they were playing politics.

    “Democrats’ resolution has zero chance of becoming law. This is just another political messaging exercise with no path to making an impact,” McConnell said.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Imagine what could have done with the trillions of dollars wasted on setting up ObamaCare. The gov could paid the additional cost to cover pre-existing conditions on standard policies. They could have provided very low cost policies for catastrophic.

    Too bad the goal was to pass the gazillions around to cronies instead of providing healthcare.

      txvet2 in reply to elle. | November 1, 2019 at 11:35 am

      The harsh truth is that you can’t insure “preexisting conditions” and stay in business. It’s should be obvious that if that is somehow made mandatory, that people will just not bother to buy insurance at all until they have a “preexisting condition”. It’s NOT insurance, it’s welfare.

        gibbie in reply to txvet2. | November 1, 2019 at 12:37 pm

        Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful contribution.

        elle in reply to txvet2. | November 1, 2019 at 12:58 pm

        You could if the government paid the premium for the pre-existing conditions as a rider attached to the person’s paid health insurance AND the government provided county hospitals for the uninsured.

        How would that work? Because we are ALREADY paying trillions for the uninsured. People who can afford insurance will want to have private insurance because county hospitals, like all socialist projects, are not desirable places to be.

        It would allow the free market to flourish and would take care of everyone. We do it now, we just pay a lot more for it.

          txvet2 in reply to elle. | November 1, 2019 at 1:31 pm

          It’s always a bit of a comedown to see people who generally profess their fondness for capitalism, i.e. free markets, boost their own favorite little bit of socialism. Some sort of program to help people who fall through the cracks like Snopercod and his wife is appropriate and worthwhile strictly on humanitarian grounds. But it’s not insurance.

          As for your “county hospitals”, they exist in a lot of places where other facilities are generally unavailable. From what I’ve seen, which isn’t much, they aren’t any worse than any other government health care facilities, like VA. Once again, it’s odd to see an apparent non-leftist advocating for a socialist solution to a problem caused mostly by government. As you point out, we’re already spending vast amounts for healthcare for people who can’t or won’t provide their own. That (along with the very concept of “health insurance” and overbearing government regulation) is one of the primary drivers of the exploding cost of health care. There’s nothing that drives up usage like making it free.

            elle in reply to txvet2. | November 1, 2019 at 3:13 pm

            what? Socialist solution? Really? Is paying for roads and common defense socialist too? We aren’t going to leave people to die on the streets after traffic accidents or lie in the gutter with some communicable disease if they can’t pay. We have NEVER been that. Not ever.

            Send the immigrants, homeless, foster care, indigent, drug addicts, mentally ill and those out of work to the county hospital and even if it does look like the VA then you and I will still be willing to pay for insurance so we don’t have to wait six months to just be seen and then wait 3 years from tomorrow to get surgery done by a team of residents with green oozing out from behind their ears. Especially since the insurance will cost more like fire or auto than the thousands it is today.

            Capitalism in it’s pure state has kids working in sweat shops. Socialism in it’s pure state has kids eating of garbage bins. The solution is to come up with something that works. The art of the deal, as they say.

            We can fix it easily. It’s just that the lobbyists and corrupt-o-crats get in the way.

            txvet2 in reply to txvet2. | November 1, 2019 at 4:04 pm

            Defense is a constitutional requirement, and infrastructure can be considered “promoting the general welfare”. Your healthcare, whether you like it or not, is a personal responsibility. My family never had health insurance. In fact the concept hadn’t been invented yet. We still got medical care as needed, but we didn’t hit the Doc’s office for sniffles.
            Unfortunately, despite your implied disclaimer, the rest of your comment is just an extended defense of your socialized medicine “solution”, and not a very good one either, with your admission that those you would condemn to government healthcare (for which you conveniently ignore the cost and financing – a la Liz Warren) would be effectively denied the care that you think should be provided by your “county hospitals”.

            “”We aren’t going to leave people to die on the streets after traffic accidents or lie in the gutter with some communicable disease if they can’t pay.””

            This is emotional idiocy, as is this: “Capitalism in it’s pure state has kids working in sweat shops”.

            elle in reply to txvet2. | November 1, 2019 at 4:17 pm

            You seem like you are more interested in getting on a soapbox than you are finding solutions to providing affordable health care for all. And you are a giant hypocrite too, since you are txvet2 and have either VA or tricare to watch YOUR back…how is that not like a county hospital?

            You have no solutions. You just want everyone to buck-up buttercup and pull their own weight. Too bad there are homeless, addicted, indigent, mentally ill, foster care, stupid people, and people down on their luck. F’ them, right? It’s all their own fault.

            Go to church dude.

            txvet2 in reply to txvet2. | November 1, 2019 at 4:53 pm

            As expected, another emotional rant. I have Medicare. I’ve never submitted a claim. I have something called “Tricare for Life”. I’ve never used it, and most places don’t take it anyway. The only government hospitals left in SA are either VA, or Ft Sam, and they’re 30 or so miles away and I can’t get care there anyway. Ft Sam is too crowded and I’m bottom priority for VA. I’ve had somewhere in the neighborhood of 70K of medical/dental expenses over the past 20 years. I’ve paid them out of pocket. I’ve already disposed of your proposed “solution” – or rather, you admitted yourself that it wouldn’t solve the problem. I don’t pretend to have a solution to 50 years of socialist interference in the health care system that would have any chance of getting through Congress, but then neither would yours.

            elle in reply to txvet2. | November 1, 2019 at 6:15 pm

            Thank you for making my point that people who can afford it won’t use the socialized health care if there are private options available. Do you begrudge your brothers in arms using them since taxpayers have to pay for it?

            Must be nice to have the money to pay out of pocket when you have Tricare for life and medicare. No need for you to get in line. Good for you.

            I don’t want to live in the world you are suggesting. Sounds like a crappy 3rd world country to me – or worse, San Francisco. Maybe you’re okay with stepping over the the homeless, the sick and the drug addicted and wiping their s^^^ of your shoes. I’m happy to set up safety nets for those who truly need them if for no other reason than the society benefits as a whole.

            I think you need to go to church so you can learn the joy of giving.

            gibbie in reply to txvet2. | November 1, 2019 at 6:34 pm

            txvet2: Impatience with the messiness of ordinary human existence is the mark of the true totalitarian.

            elle in reply to txvet2. | November 1, 2019 at 6:42 pm

            oooh…gibbie hit you where it hopefully hurt. Clearly you are a self-starter and have done well for yourself. So what you need to do now, at your wise old age, is this:
            1. Sign up to serve at the homeless shelter
            2. Donate to the women’s shelter
            3. Go into the low income area and volunteer to be a mentor

            4…..go to church and learn to love your neighbor so you can MAGA

    LibraryGryffon | November 1, 2019 at 11:07 am

    Covering the costs of medical education would probably also help.

    It doesnt matter how good your insurance if there aren’t enough doctors. Back in the 80s when I moved to CT I was covered by my parents high end BCBS plan. I couldn’t find an OB/Gyn within 30 miles who was taking new patients. Thankfully I was able to find a Gyn, which was all I needed, but I would have been in real trouble if I’d gotten pregnant.

    “Insurance” for pre-existing conditions is like life insurance for the dead. It makes no economic sense.

      UJ in reply to txvet2. | November 1, 2019 at 12:00 pm

      Precisely. It isn’t “insurance” if everyone is covered no matter what.

        elle in reply to UJ. | November 1, 2019 at 1:18 pm

        It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. It can be a mix. County Hospitals (socialized medicine) will not stop people who can afford it from purchasing insurance for private care.

        We can still require those opting not to purchase to be responsible for services if they choose not to purchase insurance. Much like you don’t have to buy collision or fire insurance, it’s just worth it to do so. But the government could assist like they do for flood or earthquake.

        It wouldn’t be that hard if the greedy people got out of the way.

          txvet2 in reply to elle. | November 1, 2019 at 3:15 pm

          I think a big part of the problem we’re having even discussing this subject is the concept of insurance itself. Insurance is (and used to be described as) a collective. That is, a lot of people put in money against future need, and those who actually are or become in need take the money out. Anybody who’s studied actual economics from a political and historical aspect can tell you off the top of their head what that’s called – and it isn’t a “free market”. That doesn’t mean I have a problem with it as long as it’s voluntary, but it does have an inflationary effect on the health care system.

          Lausyl in reply to elle. | November 1, 2019 at 10:50 pm

          There is a moral hazard there. If a healthy working person knows that the government is going to bail him out if he has a heat attack or is diagnosed with cancer down the line; he might decide the payment on a new Lincoln Navigator is a higher priority than health insurance.

          The examples you cite have moral hazards as well. Flood insurance is the worst. Government flood insurance subsidizes people building on flood plains. If those people had to pay actual insurance costs; they would never build there.

      snopercod in reply to txvet2. | November 1, 2019 at 1:09 pm

      I think we need to clarify the term “pre-existing”. Obviously, if you have stage 4 pancreatic cancer, that’s a pre-existing condition and nobody in their right mind would sell you cancer insurance. But that kind of situation where a person has already developed a disease is not what we’re really talking about. Insurance companies play the odds (which is only good business of course) and deny insurance to people who are more likely to develop some condition in the future. Smokers, for example are more likely to develop a range of diseases, but haven’t developed them yet. If you’re overweight, you may be more likely to develop a number of problems in the future, so they won’t sell you insurance at all. If you have been diagnosed with Type II Diabetes, for example, you can forget about getting health insurance at any cost. Fibromyalgia is another of the many disqualifying conditions that insurance companies won’t touch. (These examples all refer to pre-Obamacare insurance, of course. Now they HAVE to sell you “insurance” regardless.)

      What I would like to see is customized individual insurance with the coverage and price based upon the actual risk. If you’re a smoker, for example, why couldn’t they sell you a policy that would exclude coverage for lung cancer, COPD, heart attack, and stroke, but cover you for everything else? If you have Type II Diabetes which is under control, why couldn’t insurance companies sell you insurance at increased cost to account for the additional risk?

        txvet2 in reply to snopercod. | November 1, 2019 at 1:39 pm

        “What I would like to see is customized individual insurance with the coverage and price based upon the actual risk.”

        That used to be the way it was done. Healthy people used to pay less, because they were less of a risk. That’s what makes insurance work – the many pay premiums to pay for the health care of the few – but when government gets involved under the rubric of “fairness”, everything gets distorted – and more expensive.

    The triumph of ideology over common sense. While Obamacare is popular with the extreme leftist base, it has been an electoral loser for Democrats since the moment it passed.

    But they LIKE it, so they keep pushing it.

    In a way, it’s just like the “Resistance.” Hillary lost, but they didn’t want her to lose. So they continue the campaign using the dirtiest tactics they know.

    I believe and pray this will also be a massive electoral loser for them.

      txvet2 in reply to irv. | November 1, 2019 at 1:54 pm

      The problem is that people are always afraid of change. They’ll put up with horrible programs like Obamacare because they think that whatever replaces it will be even worse – and frequently they’re right. Look what the Dems are proposing now. OTOH, returning to a free market based system will involve a great deal of pain and expense also, caused by straightening out all of the distortions to the system caused by Obamacare (and Medicare, and Medicaide, etc).

    Obamacare eventually priced me out of my very good BC/BS policy that I’d had since the early 2000’s

    $1200 deductible, 100% of everything after. Even $4 generic meds

    Premium went from $350/m0 in 2008 to $1624/mo in 2018

    Now, in that time, I’ve developed more than one “pre-existing condition”. Arterial issues, stroke, kidney disease

    At 63, I’m forced to just gamble and hope I make it to Medicare age. But, if Democrats sweep 2020, even that will be in jeopardy.

      murkyv in reply to murkyv. | November 1, 2019 at 9:56 pm

      Yes, I understand that the actuaries are going to see my medical history and adjust upward, but some of these problems started before the ACA was passed but I never saw 20%/yr increases until after passage

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend