Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:18 AM
kpete (39,108 posts)
Romney Confirms He Will Deny Insurance To Millions With Pre-Existing Conditions If Obamacare Is StruLast edited Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:20 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Source: Think Progress
Romney Confirms He Will Deny Insurance To Millions With Pre-Existing Conditions If Obamacare Is Struck Down By Igor Volsky on Jun 12, 2012 at 11:03 am
Mitt Romney confirmed on Tuesday that he would allow insurers to deny coverage to millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare later this month. During a speech at Con-Air Industries in Orlando, Florida, the former Massachusetts governor said that Americans who have not been “continuously insured” would not be protected from discrimination if they suffer from pre-existing conditions: ROMNEY: So let’s say someone has been continuously insured and they develop a serious condition. And let’s say they lose their jobs or they change jobs or they move and go to a different place, I don’t want them to be denied insurance because they have some pre-existing conditions. So we’re going to have to make sure that the law that we replace Obamacare with, ensures that people who have a pre-existing condition, who have been insured in the past, are able to get insurance in the future so they don’t have to worry about that condition keeping them from getting the kind of health care they deserve. Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/12/498156/romney-confirms-he-will-deny-insurance-to-millions-with-pre-existing-conditions-if-obamacare-is-struck-down/
|
36 replies, 7612 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| kpete | Jun 2012 | OP | |
| jpbollma | Jun 2012 | #1 | |
| snappyturtle | Jun 2012 | #2 | |
| WingDinger | Jun 2012 | #7 | |
| SharonAnn | Jun 2012 | #33 | |
| still_one | Jun 2012 | #3 | |
| Live and Learn | Jun 2012 | #6 | |
| still_one | Jun 2012 | #9 | |
| coalition_unwilling | Jun 2012 | #19 | |
| grantcart | Jun 2012 | #8 | |
| still_one | Jun 2012 | #10 | |
| chelsea0011 | Jun 2012 | #14 | |
| no_hypocrisy | Jun 2012 | #4 | |
| Voice for Peace | Jun 2012 | #18 | |
| tomkoop | Jun 2012 | #5 | |
| flamingdem | Jun 2012 | #25 | |
| KurtNYC | Jun 2012 | #11 | |
| SoutherDem | Jun 2012 | #12 | |
| MADem | Jun 2012 | #13 | |
| coalition_unwilling | Jun 2012 | #22 | |
| Nancy Waterman | Jun 2012 | #24 | |
| MADem | Jun 2012 | #26 | |
| firenewt | Jun 2012 | #34 | |
| Angry Dragon | Jun 2012 | #15 | |
| siligut | Jun 2012 | #16 | |
| sakabatou | Jun 2012 | #17 | |
| bayareaboy | Jun 2012 | #20 | |
| Raven | Jun 2012 | #21 | |
| Iliyah | Jun 2012 | #23 | |
| FlaGranny | Jun 2012 | #27 | |
| and-justice-for-all | Jun 2012 | #28 | |
| berni_mccoy | Jun 2012 | #29 | |
| kiranon | Jun 2012 | #30 | |
| Swede Atlanta | Jun 2012 | #31 | |
| era veteran | Jun 2012 | #32 | |
| tilsammans | Jun 2012 | #35 | |
| Canuckistanian | Jun 2012 | #36 |
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:21 AM
jpbollma (552 posts)
1. So People Who Couldn't Afford To Be Insured and Had a Pre-Existing Condition
|
are just shit out of luck? I guess he meant it when he said he was not concerned about the very poor.
|
Response to jpbollma (Reply #1)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:24 AM
snappyturtle (11,967 posts)
2. Yep...that's the way I read it too. He's a homegrown terrorist in my book. nt
Response to jpbollma (Reply #1)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:30 AM
WingDinger (3,690 posts)
7. No, silly. Dont you know that ER's are free? All you have to do is make it to the front door.
|
Just dont ever make another buck, or have any chronic condition. That is how they see us. We were CHOSEN by God to pass, if we have no resources, and develop a disease.
Indeed, we are supposed to become impoverished if we fall ill. You are suppposed to live a spartan existence if you are not lucky. Luck being defined in Calvinist terms. All the moral people have the bucks to pay for healthcare. By definition. Look for an exemption floated, to allow ER's to turn away the undocumented. Or deport immed. This set of REthug aims, is why they crammed thru bankruptcy reform. |
Response to jpbollma (Reply #1)
Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:03 AM
SharonAnn (9,698 posts)
33. It's not just "affording" it, it's even being able to "obtain" it at any price.
|
Some companies simply deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. Period!
So, if you couldn't obtain (or couldn't afford) insurance that covered a pre-existing condition, then you will never be able to get it. Sort of like saying "We've discriminated against you in the past so that gives us the right to continue doing it." |
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:25 AM
still_one (31,403 posts)
3. What am I not seeing. Isn't he saying replace it with another law that would not deny that?
|
Last edited Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:26 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Either way no one says the insurance companies won't charge such high rates that those with pre-existing conditions could not afford it
|
Response to still_one (Reply #3)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:30 AM
Live and Learn (1,540 posts)
6. From the article:
|
"While the Affordable Care Act would prevent insurers from denying coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition beginning in 2014, Romney’s provision is far more limited — and would only protect Americans who already have coverage."
|
Response to Live and Learn (Reply #6)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:34 AM
still_one (31,403 posts)
9. Thanks. yup, so those who have been "blacklisted" will continue to be blacklisted. What an jerk
|
romney is
I certainly hope that people understand this, and do not read it superficially like I did initially |
Response to still_one (Reply #9)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:24 PM
coalition_unwilling (14,180 posts)
19. Make that 'an evil jerk' and I'm on board - n/t
Response to still_one (Reply #3)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:32 AM
grantcart (38,880 posts)
8. only if they are continuously insured
|
That means that if someone has insurance and wants to get another insurance, perhaps because they are moving to another employer, then they could not be denied. The benefit of this is that it allows people to move to new jobs without having to be worried about not getting insurance. The downside of this is that the 50 million uninsured people are not continuously insured and will be permanently fucked. Also it allows him to say something that seems like it fixes the problem when it does nothing. Finally the guy who has been continuously insured but works for a company that Bain takes over and cashiers out of existence and then looks for work for a year and then gets a job would not be covered. Just more bull shit from the master. |
Response to grantcart (Reply #8)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:37 AM
still_one (31,403 posts)
10. Yes, it was just explained to me. Not only an unethical proposal, but an expensive one, since those
|
without insurance will be charged the most
|
Response to still_one (Reply #3)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:44 AM
chelsea0011 (8,242 posts)
14. and it would be another law that have to pass Congress
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:26 AM
no_hypocrisy (25,340 posts)
4. New Romney Slogan: Vote For Me and Die
Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #4)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:14 PM
Voice for Peace (8,510 posts)
18. ! ! ! ! !
|
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:29 AM
tomkoop (55 posts)
5. you aint got money you aint shit
Response to tomkoop (Reply #5)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:53 PM
flamingdem (23,276 posts)
25. Is that the Romney campaigns latest bumper sticker?
|
nt
|
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:38 AM
KurtNYC (12,195 posts)
11. How can he "confirm" anything at this point ?
|
He is the grandfather of Obama-care and in the years since Romney-care he has taken every position there can be on health care.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75039.html Why are they pretending he is credible now? |
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:40 AM
SoutherDem (2,151 posts)
12. What I find ironic is that Romney is so out of touch with the average American
|
even when he tries to make something sound good he doesn't understand he is really saying screw the poor. I am sure he felt "here this is going to show I care" he doesn't understand many can't stay continuously insured because of the cost and many insurance companies if they will insure you charge a giant premium.
|
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:41 AM
MADem (87,192 posts)
13. Well, gee...let the word go forth! This guy is an asshole!
|
Look at who he's lining up against him...by his own words we shall know him!
Firemen! That's just the tip of the doggone iceberg, too! |
Response to MADem (Reply #13)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:28 PM
coalition_unwilling (14,180 posts)
22. That last quote would put any decent Ourobouros to shame :) - n/t
Response to MADem (Reply #13)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:43 PM
Nancy Waterman (6,208 posts)
24. You left out
|
Women
Blacks Hispanics Gays supporters of public schools (he wants to voucherize the whole system) |
Response to Nancy Waterman (Reply #24)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 01:17 PM
MADem (87,192 posts)
26. I was just gittin' started! Additions to the list are more than welcomed!! nt
Response to MADem (Reply #13)
Wed Jun 13, 2012, 03:20 PM
firenewt (257 posts)
34. That ain't no iceberg, it's a shitberg. The difference is only 5% of a shitberg is above water.
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:44 AM
Angry Dragon (24,073 posts)
15. Willard is an ass, liar and fraud
|
It has been reported that his father, George, has left his grave to kick his son's ass
|
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:00 PM
siligut (11,478 posts)
16. Insurance companies want healthy participants
|
That way they get to keep most of the money. This is just one of the ways they do it.
|
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:12 PM
sakabatou (29,244 posts)
17. "Eat cake, bitches!"
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:25 PM
bayareaboy (585 posts)
20. Once again Mittens is blowing smoke ...
|
He must be very confused by running for President, his staff is without a clue, and his party can't walk and chew grits at the same time. What happens if the Supremes don't throw out everything, suppose they just do the mandate? he would have to go through the House and senate to have anything taken out, right? More Pontificating by Mr Mitt. Does he really think that can come up with this Horseshit? You will notice I use lots of question marks. I think we all due with this guy? |
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:28 PM
Raven (11,064 posts)
21. Here's the real question:
|
What does "cotinuously" mean? Does it mean that you've been insured from birth? Does it mean that if you had a week's break in insurance you can't be covered? Believe me, as a lawyer I know, the insurance companies will split the hairs and Romney knows that.
|
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:30 PM
Iliyah (2,501 posts)
23. But you still have people
|
who will vote for him regardless because they hate Pres O. Voting against their own interest and blame it on Pres O for the BS that will follow if the lying gopper wins. These voters deserve what they get, BUT I DO NOT.
You had Jeb Bush blaming Pres O for the insane reaction of the GOP. Pres O made the GOP go crazy? Nah, its the blantant harted from the right towards to the left, moderate and centrist. One party rule is the GOPPERS eye on the prize. Going to another country and trash (written) the President of the US? Issa constant war on everything Pres O? Citizens United the path to the destruction of democracy. |
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 01:19 PM
FlaGranny (8,081 posts)
27. Isn't that how it has always been?
|
I remember before I was old enough for Medicare, I could always get insurance (with a pre-existing condition) if I had previously been insured. There was a certain amount of days you had to reapply, then it was tough luck. Of course, if you're on the insurance market for the first time and you have a pre-existing condition - you'd be completely out of luck.
|
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 02:05 PM
and-justice-for-all (14,763 posts)
28. What a vile bastard...nt
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 03:27 PM
berni_mccoy (17,512 posts)
29. We MUST NOT let him win.
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 03:58 PM
kiranon (1,417 posts)
30. Will need insurance from time of conception.
|
Last edited Tue Jun 12, 2012, 03:59 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Otherwise, if born with any health issues, baby will be uninsurable because of "pre existing condition(s)". Sounds like the definition of evil to me. Also, Romney's ideas are backing into the discussion on when life begins since insurance usually attaches at the time of birth. Guess we will need a rider on health insurance policies for lives in uteri or for embryos saved for future use. It would be a nightmare to administer such a program. For example, insurance companies could require genetic testing to make sure baby is the child of the insured to make sure child is not from some other father who does not have insurance to cover fetus/child. Fetus fraud looms on the horizon.
|
Response to kpete (Original post)
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 06:54 PM
Swede Atlanta (2,335 posts)
31. More and more he is revealing how truly vile and evil he really is......
|
We've seen the stories about harassing the gay boy, the nearly blind teacher, posing as a state trooper, strapping Seamus to the roof of the car, laying off thousands of employees, etc.
But here we see the real Romney. Parse his words, as long as someone had had insurance (with no lapse of coverage - read as as long as they were paying homage to the fat-cat insurance companies) he would not allow the insurance company to deny coverage. What about those that had had a job with insurance, couldn't afford COBRA (which is very, very expensive), was without work for a year and finally got back on their feet enough to seek health insurance. He would allow them to be denied? What is his logic? What is the difference between the person with a pre-existing condition that has had continuous coverage and one that hasn't? What difference does it make other than they weren't enriching the insurance company for the time they were not insured. He is quite a tool this one. Unfortunately I'm afraid the Murkan sheeples aren't smart enough to figure this out. |
Response to kpete (Original post)
Wed Jun 13, 2012, 06:36 AM
era veteran (4,055 posts)
32. A drive by "Your an asshole" for Mitt
Response to kpete (Original post)
Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:11 AM
Canuckistanian (42,278 posts)
36. And people applauded at the end of this speech?
|
I guess no one in that room had ever been denied coverage at any time.
Fascinating. |

