Heaven forbid they stay in power. If not, all these sudden overnight converts to protecting coverage for pre-existing conditions will “come home,” back to screwing people so they can give more comfort to the already comfortable.

That while I wish her recovery, she was willing to allow others to die because of her idealogy. However, now that she is affected, she is a fan.
I hope she realizes that her vote can literally save her own life as well as the lives of others.

If it only affects "those people" then get rid of the safety net!!!

Fuck her and her kind.

Something is only a problem when it happens to them, otherwise, to them, everyone else is a parasite

They're so blind and they don't even realize it. I hope this woman's message gets through to a few of them.

they will follow through after the election.

But trumpers, probably not so much.

Hey, America, do you really trust the corporate-covering, money-grubbing GOP to protect your right to affordable health care? Think about it. Seriously.

which by definition means they voted to take away protections for those with pre-existing conditions. Repubs are such fucking hypocrites and the people who vote for them are idiots.

Having the benefit does not mean there has to be an ACA.

It was possible to add the pre-existing condition benefit as a law, without the ACA. The one does not require the other. So it's not quite accurate to say that's a reason for keeping the ACA. It is a critical benefit provided by the ACA, but a benefit that is not dependent on the ACA. If you get the difference.

I support the ACA, but I wanted to point out that this argument isn't quite right, since it implies the ACA was necessary to get this pre-existing benefit.

Not that the Repubs have any notion of repealing the ACA and keeping the pre-existing conditions provision. Their plan will ALWAYS be: allow ins cos to sell across state lines (they already can, but have to abide by state laws...so what they mean is no longer having to abide by state laws), no pre-existing condition requirement, ability to charge whatever rates they want for whatever groups of people they want. In other words, the way it was before, except ins cos no longer have to abide by state laws.

The ACA WAS required to get this benefit, for almost everyone. Only a few states treated PE-Cs as the ACA does== doesn't screen for them-- and the others refused to do that.

State legislatures have shown themselves happy to allow the sham policies which cover nothing and cost everything, and we know that.

I would never be able to get decent insurance without the ACA. I know that, because I was in that situation.
Practically, it DOES require the ACA, because the states will not do what is presumably possible. They simply won't. And if they do require those with PE-Cs to be treated the same as everyone else, the insurance companies will just leave that state and focus on the states where the legislature isn't so citizen-friendly.

We know it has to be all or nothing. The ACA can be improved, but it can't be repealed without the vast majority of us losing the security of real insurance no matter what. We are, after all, most of us anyway, going to end up with some excluded condition (and to a great extent, simply being a woman, or simply being over 45, is a PE-C).
Or a family member-- the "lifetime cap" applied to the entire family often enough. One child with a few years of cancer treatment-- the cap was reached, the others in the family also lost their insurance.

Those problems weren't going to go away without the ACA. They will come back if the ACA is repealed. The GOP simply cannot be trusted, and neither, frankly, can most state legislatures. This is a national problem and needs federal solutions.

I was making the point that requiring pre-existing conditions does not need a whole health care act to do it. A national provision (not relying on states) is all that was needed.

Not saying a whole health care act isn't a good thing, but I was making the point that pre-existing conditions isn't a valid argument for the ACA, since it's not dependent on the ACA.

Millions of Americans were very unhappy with the ACA. They WERE able to get decent insurance at a somewhat reasonable cost, until the ACA was passed. But we all know that millions were and are very happy with it, and were not able to get decent insurance for low cost until the ACA was passed. We only hear about the latter.

Don't forget that some were charged TRIPLE PREMIUMS...not based on risk, but because of their age. Even if they were healthy, did all the right things, whatever income level. We don't hear the stories of those people much. Only the ones who got the benefit of those triple premiums.

The ACA insurance for me was unaffordable w/o a subsidy. Although I lived a healthy lifestyle, didn't eat pizza or junk food, walked every day, did other exercises, did yoga, kept my weight down, made sure I didn't get diabetes. Insurance was out of reach for me...because I was being charged to pay for someone else's insurance. Ironically, someone else 10 years younger, who did eat pizza and junk food, did get diabetes, never exercised...that person could get better insurance than I could. Okay, fine. But the kicker was...I had to pay for that other person's insurance. And that other person's insurance was better than I could afford for myself.

Medicare does not work that way. Medicare spreads the risk. The ACA did something more than that, and it was unfair.

Don't get me wrong. I was and am a big supporter of the ACA. But I'm just saying...it is a false argument to claim that we need the ACA to have pre-existing conditions covered. That's just not so. It can be done by a provision all its own, on a national level.

"It was right that MY people were allowed here, but let's not let the rest of them in." It might be a different benefit, but it's the same thinking.

tRump's slogan needs to tell it as it is: "ME First", not "America First". That would be way more accurate.

But when explained to them and called "The Affordable Care Act" they think it's just great!

... when they renamed the ACA as "Obamacare." That was the beginning of the hate-train.

he's a one issue voter - Blue as usual. Heathcare, healthcare, healthcare!

He's had 7 stents put in his heart by Cleveland Clinic. He is going to sign up for ACA on Nov 1st because he was laid off his job after 34.5 yrs and he's scared. His Cobra payments are 900 a month. He had knee surgery on Thursday and thankfully, he's met his deductible and copay out of pocket limits this year so it should be covered. He's worried about next year though and hopes that without any income, he will qualify for medicaid. He's only 56. He got a severance payout. He was promised life long insurance after 30 yrs but his company sold his division in 2016 so he lost all that. He's fucked without the ACA.

Does that mean you didn’t vote, or you voted for someone else? If you voted for someone else, would you share why? And why you didn’t vote for a Dem when you know Dems would like for everyone to have health care and you had a preexisting condition? Inquiring minds would like to know. Thanks.

I linked a post from a board I frequent because I thought it was interesting. I've been voting for Democrats my entire adult life.

person’s reasoning processes were! Peace.

I don't know anything about that person, but it seems she has the realization that Repukes won't help her and Dems will. At least that is my hope. I'll check the thread again and post updates.

She was 64, and her only hope was living long enough to get Medicare. She lost. It was devastating for her family and friends== all the bake sales and charity dinners in the world couldn't raise enough money for her.

That doesn't have to happen today.