Pre-Existing Not Covered Till 2014

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whoops-ObamaCare-doesnt-cover-pre-existing-conditions-after-all-89007962.html

ObamaCare will not protect children with pre-existing health conditions from being denied health coverage – not until 2014. This despite endless talking points and promises to the contrary, the Associated Press reports:

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday…

Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That’s the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

Obama’s public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward.

He hasn’t just “conveyed the impression.” He’s said it outright, repeatedly. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., was saying it on television as recently as three hours ago. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, while criticizing ObamaCare, was saying this morning that he’s still glad it would allow his diabetic son to get insurance if he lost his job.

Sorry, but not so fast.

This, as Vice President Biden might say, is a big f***ing deal. It means that in their rush to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare on Christmas Eve, Democrats disarmed one of their main talking points in defense of the legislation for the rest of this year.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whoops-ObamaCare-doesnt-cover-pre-existing-conditions-after-all-89007962.html#ixzz0j79lmu4X

2

I heard about this this morning.

Absolutely classic monumental incompetence. This is what happens when dozens if not hundreds of special interest activists throw all their socialist ideas into a pot and shake well without taking the time to ask each other what the others contributed.

Not even to mention that it is now proven beyond any doubt that these idiots, including the “president” DID NOT even read the most sweeping piece of legislation in the last 50 years before singing the damn thing into law for 300 million people.

Frickin tragically hilarious LOL!!! Like I said a few weeks ago. It’s one thing to have a bunch of commies at the helm, but these clods aren’t even good at it.

3

Well, that’s because the bill was only 2900 pages long when clearly it needed to be more like 3900.

4

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, that’s because the bill was only 2900 pages long when clearly it needed to be more like 3900.[/quote]

Doesn’t matter how long it is, none of them know how to read. But I bet they know how to count money.

5

FOX is reporting now that Baucus just admitted that well it does look like some people making under 250 grand will see tax increases.

6

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FOX is reporting now that Baucus just admitted that well it does look like some people making under 250 grand will see tax increases.[/quote]

Considering how many times the contrary was stated, I’d say this is worse than “Read my lips. No new taxes.”

7

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FOX is reporting now that Baucus just admitted that well it does look like some people making under 250 grand will see tax increases.[/quote]
Like, maybe everybody?

8

Not to mention being the one who really pays the new taxes placed on medical supplies and put on pharmaceutical companies.

But don’cha know, that’s how to make health care less expensive: add the cost of heavy new taxes to it.

Then of course there’s the fact that no matter what one’s income, one will be paying more due to the higher amounts of embedded tax in EVERYTHING one buys, due to tax increases on the companies manufacturing and retailing the products, not to mention their higher health care costs.

9

Krauthammer is predicting a national sales/VAT tax within a couple years which will raise the cost of living for every single breathing human being, oh wait even non breathing ones, in this country.

The VAT tax was already floated last year.

10

I cannot believe you are implying that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the vast majority of Democrat politicians in Congress are tax-and-spend liberals.

You must have just been listening to hate speech from one of those awful hate radio shows. There is no way the facts could have led you to such a conclusion.

11

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Krauthammer is predicting a national sales/VAT tax within a couple years which will raise the cost of living for every single breathing human being, oh wait even non breathing ones, in this country.

The VAT tax was already floated last year.[/quote]

Well said Tirib, they are following the European model with this. I am sure the following statement will make Michael Moore cream himself, since he was such a huge fan of France…

In France, it is the most important source of state finance, accounting for nearly 50% of state revenues.[1]

  1. “Les recettes fiscales” (in french). Le budget et les comptes de lâ??Ã?tat. Minister of the Economy, Industry and Employment (France). 30 October 2009. http://www.performance-publique.gouv.fr/le-budget-et-les-comptes-de-letat/approfondir/les-recettes/les-recettes-fiscales.html. “la TVA représente 125,4 milliards dâ??euros, soit 49,7 % des recettes fiscales nettes de lâ??Ã?tat.”

Sorry I am unable to translate all that, but I am quoting the source. They might go for a tax/fee/surcharge along the same principles as the VAT tax.

12

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FOX is reporting now that Baucus just admitted that well it does look like some people making under 250 grand will see tax increases.[/quote]
Like, maybe everybody?[/quote]

Something tells me the people who don’t currently pay income taxes will continue not paying income taxes.

13

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

FOX is reporting now that Baucus just admitted that well it does look like some people making under 250 grand will see tax increases.[/quote]

While it was always obvious this would be the case, this contradiction will be huge, even as compared to the (hundreds of?) others.

14

I’m beginning to hold out some hope that as this voluminous monstrosity continues to come to light there may actually be the hoped for backlash.

15

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FOX is reporting now that Baucus just admitted that well it does look like some people making under 250 grand will see tax increases.[/quote]
Like, maybe everybody?[/quote]

Something tells me the people who don’t currently pay income taxes will continue not paying income taxes.[/quote]

They will be my new heroes, and I hope more jump on the bandwagon.