Pledge To America!Follow

I find it amusing that they promise to read all the bills put before Congress.

(I mean, it's pretty obvious that they weren't before, but still. They didn't have to come out and admit it.)

Nothing really groundbreaking or revolutionary in there. A bunch of vague promises, some hinky looking charts designed to look scarier than they are and general belly-aching

You've just described the rhetoric that's won every election in the history of democracy.

Very deep. Not much of a conversation starter though.

Ya, at least one won because women could vote.

With a name like this, I expect to be allowed to paddle every Republican while making them wear a duck costume and neon-green ladies' undergarments.

After a week of this, they will then be allowed to do kegstands.

Very deep. Not much of a conversation starter though.

Not deep, just boring. Like the topic. What's the conversation supposed to be about, exactly? Shall we discuss these points of rhetoric being vapid, shallow, focus group generated, empty platitudes? They are. Shall we discuss if they will be wildly effective on a stupid lazy electorate that's voted for going on 300 years now to increase services while lowering taxes? They will be.

What sort of discussion was the topic really supposed to generate? Are going to play "let's pretend" and speculate about how different governing will be if legislators read the bills lobbyists write and direct them to vote for?

Haven't had a thread about my ***** for awhile.

Just sayin', guys.

The Republicans weren't reading them either, but that's not such a big deal.

I like to research a topic before I write on it.

This happened today:

"Starting now, insurance companies will no longer be permitted to exclude children because of pre-existing health conditions, which the White House said could enable 72,000 uninsured to gain coverage. Insurers also will be prohibited from imposing lifetime limits on benefits.

The law will now forbid insurers to drop sick and costly customers after discovering technical mistakes on applications. It requires that they offer coverage to children under 26 on their parents’ policies.

It establishes a menu of preventive procedures, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, that must be covered without co-payments. And it allows consumers who join a new plan to keep their own doctors and to appeal insurance company reimbursement decisions to a third party."

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/health/policy/23careintro.html?ref=us

Although it is easy to find similar information from other sources.

And the pledge asks to overturn most of this when they say:

"We offer a plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care with common-sense solutions focused on lowering costs and protecting American jobs.We will enact real medical liability reform; allow Americans to purchase health coverage across state lines; empower small businesses with greater purchasing power; and create new incentives to save for future health needs. We will protect the doctor-patient relationship, and ensure that those with pre-existing
conditions gain access to the coverage they need.We will permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and
codify the Hyde Amendment."

I guess they could say they are do that last line from the plan above: to keep their own doctors? Although instead of saying that they say this:

"Strengthen the Doctor-Patient Relationship:We will repeal President Obama’s government takeover of health care and replace it with common-sense reforms focused on strengthening the doctor-patient relationship."

Yes, so common sense that they will not tell us what they are. Awesome!

Next up:

You might think they are going to allow access for people with pre-existing conditions. Since they say they are:

"Ensure Access For Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions:"

But then you read after the colon and get this:

"Health care should be accessible for all, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses. We will expand state high-risk pools, reinsurance programs and reduce the cost of coverage. We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, eliminate annual and lifetime spending caps, and prevent insurers from dropping your coverage just because you get sick. We will incentivize states to develop innovative programs that lower premiums and reduce the number of uninsured Americans."

Emphasis mine.

The most lenient possible reading* of this is that if your kid has a pre-existing condition they can choose that coverage as an adult. I would be happier if they said that. Anyhow, it seems ironic that their other solution is to expand state high-risk pools.

If you have a pre-existing condition:

Democrats: you can buy any insurance you want.

Republicans: if you have insurance, you can keep it. If not, we are going to expand state high-risk pools, so maybe you will get coverage that way.

Pregnancy, for example, is a pre-existing condition.


Edit: * I am under no illusion that this is what any actual bill passed by Republicans will include. It is the most possible, but probably totally delusional reading. More likely, if your kid has a pre-existing condition, they will not keep coverage since their new, adult policy is a different one then your policy. Thus they would go to the state run high risk pools. Which will "expand".

Edited, Sep 23rd 2010 10:51am by yossarian