Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   The CARE Act: GOP proposed replacement for Obamacare that gets rid of the part they hate   (thehill.com) divider line 331
    More: Interesting, GOP, obamacare, individual mandate, CARE Act  
•       •       •

6574 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jan 2014 at 5:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



331 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-27 04:03:06 PM  
Congratulations! It's taken five years, but you've actually put forth a plan to replace Obamacare with something besides "Uh, tort reform and letting all insurance companies run out of Delaware." Now let's go into the details of why your plan sucks.

The CARE Act would prohibit insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but unlike ObamaCare, a person would have to have proof of "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance.

Man, fark you.
 
2014-01-27 04:09:20 PM  

Bloody William: The CARE Act would prohibit insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but unlike ObamaCare, a person would have to have proof of "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance.

Man, fark you.


So it prohibits people from being discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions, unless of course you were previously discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition, in which case insurers are allowed to continue to discriminate against you because of your pre-existing condition due to the fact that you've spent quite a while being discriminated against because of your pre-existing condition. Gosh, that sounds kind of awesome.
 
2014-01-27 04:10:18 PM  
Obama should sign this.  It would destroy the Republican party for a generation at least.
 
2014-01-27 04:13:32 PM  

Bloody William: The CARE Act would prohibit insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but unlike ObamaCare, a person would have to have proof of "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance.


So if you lose your job, you're just farked?

I guess this makes sense to them- when you go from lobbyist to congress with a seamless transition, you don't have to worry about losing coverage.
 
2014-01-27 04:13:55 PM  

Bloody William: The CARE Act would prohibit insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but unlike ObamaCare, a person would have to have proof of "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance.

Man, fark you.


So... you can't lose coverage because you got sick which is good.  But you can't get coverage if you have been sick, which is sorta the reason that, historically medical bills have been the leading cause of bankruptcies and foreclosures, so there goes that.

But hey, at least it is, no kidding "something" and it isn't head-in-the-sand ignorant.
 
2014-01-27 04:15:24 PM  
Are they still pushing their hare brained plan to let insurers sell across state lines?  Because that worked so well with the credit card companies.
 
2014-01-27 04:19:50 PM  

Bloody William: Congratulations! It's taken five years, but you've actually put forth a plan to replace Obamacare with something besides "Uh, tort reform and letting all insurance companies run out of Delaware." Now let's go into the details of why your plan sucks.

The CARE Act would prohibit insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but unlike ObamaCare, a person would have to have proof of "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance.

Man, fark you.


The old freedom from slavery if you can show that you were not a slave gambit.
 
2014-01-27 04:22:32 PM  

exick: Bloody William: The CARE Act would prohibit insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but unlike ObamaCare, a person would have to have proof of "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance.

Man, fark you.

So it prohibits people from being discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions, unless of course you were previously discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition, in which case insurers are allowed to continue to discriminate against you because of your pre-existing condition due to the fact that you've spent quite a while being discriminated against because of your pre-existing condition. Gosh, that sounds kind of awesome.


There is something interesting here.  If people fear this proposed Bill has a chance, it might just give a huge push for people to get insurance now.  They might have just inadvertently allowed Obamacare to be even more then ever possibly could have been expected.

That would be farking hilarious (and par for the GOP course).
 
2014-01-27 04:25:20 PM  
One thing I've learned from "Clear Skies" and "No Child Left Behind" is that GOP-sponsored bills do the exact opposite of what they say. Therefor, if the GOP calls something the "CARE Act," it means they will rape you in the ass, charge you an ass-readjustment fee, then split that fee with the insurance companies.

*clicks link*

Oh will you look at that.
 
2014-01-27 04:27:40 PM  
So you're guaranteed to be eligible to buy insurance as long as you have insurance already. But if there is a point in time where you're uninsured, then you may not be able to be insured ever again.

Uh...yeah. Good plan.

Republicans are proof that God hates us.
 
2014-01-27 04:28:48 PM  

Lando Lincoln: So you're guaranteed to be eligible to buy insurance as long as you have insurance already. But if there is a point in time where you're uninsured, then you may not be able to be insured ever again.

Uh...yeah. Good plan.

Republicans are proof that God hates us.


Hey, it makes denying coverage for a premature condition illegal! Unless you were denied for having a premature condition in the past.

...man, when I say it like that, it sounds even more bureaucratic and evil than before.
 
2014-01-27 04:30:11 PM  
But a portion of ObamaCare that limits insurers to charging three times more for older patients would be changed so that insurers can charge older patients up to five times more.

insurers can charge older patients up to five times more.

insurers can charge older patients up to five times more.
 
2014-01-27 04:30:15 PM  
The part they hate being people who aren't wealthy being able to afford medical care
 
2014-01-27 04:31:38 PM  
Calling this the GOP proposing an alternative to Obamacare is like calling an exasperated husband's lament of, "Well why don't I just burn the f*cking house down and we won't have to deal with the leaky faucets anymore, would that make you happy," an alternative to calling a plumber.
 
2014-01-27 04:33:00 PM  
I'm assuming CARE is an acronym for Callously Ass Rape Everyone?
 
2014-01-27 04:34:11 PM  
But a portion of ObamaCare that limits insurers to charging three times more for older patients would be changed so that insurers can charge older patients up to five times more.


Aside from someone making money off old people paying more who could possibly look at that and think it was a good idea.

The CARE Act would prohibit insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but unlike ObamaCare, a person would have to have proof of "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance.

Uh, isn't that exactly how it was before the ACA?
 
2014-01-27 04:34:15 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: Calling this the GOP proposing an alternative to Obamacare is like calling an exasperated husband's lament of, "Well why don't I just burn the f*cking house down and we won't have to deal with the leaky faucets anymore, would that make you happy," an alternative to calling a plumber.


Let's be fair. Their past plans of tort reform and removing interstate regulations on insurance providers was "Well why don't I just burn the farking house down?" This is "Here is my Powerpoint presentation on exactly which burners I'll leave on and which oily rags I'll keep on the counter and near frayed power cables."
 
2014-01-27 04:36:51 PM  
Americans deserve a real alternative...

Yeah, it's called 'single-payer'
 
2014-01-27 04:37:36 PM  

James!: insurers can charge older patients up to five times more.


BRB, have to go tell my dad.
 
2014-01-27 04:38:13 PM  
Just so we have this locked down:

 Tom Coburn who the media and conservatives assure is THE deficit hawk of all deficit hawks, the one they hold up as a shining gold standard of "fiscal conservatism"; THAT Tom Corburn, is proposing an alternative to Obamacare that keeps all of the expensive and popular provisions, the ones that supposedly imperil our free market system,  but does away completely witht he mechanism that pays for them?

Is that what that article just said?
 
2014-01-27 04:39:12 PM  

Magorn: Just so we have this locked down:

 Tom Coburn who the media and conservatives assure is THE deficit hawk of all deficit hawks, the one they hold up as a shining gold standard of "fiscal conservatism"; THAT Tom Corburn, is proposing an alternative to Obamacare that keeps all of the expensive and popular provisions, the ones that supposedly imperil our free market system,  but does away completely witht he mechanism that pays for them?

Is that what that article just said?


Yes, but that's okay, because it also does away with any mechanisms that would get people health care.
 
2014-01-27 04:40:13 PM  

James!: But a portion of ObamaCare that limits insurers to charging three times more for older patients would be changed so that insurers can charge older patients up to five times more.

insurers can charge older patients up to five times more.

insurers can charge older patients up to five times more.


Don't forget the mandate was the payoff for the insurance companies. So they are going to make a campaign issue out of taking money away from health insurance companies. Awesome plan in an election year! I say go for it. It's not like health ins companies have deep pockets or a very strong lobbying organization. I don't think AARP will say anything about raising rates on older people either. No worries.
 
2014-01-27 04:40:55 PM  
the part they hate

the black part?
 
2014-01-27 04:46:06 PM  
Raise rates on seniors, take insurance away from millions of people who now have it for the first time in years.

That's a bang up plan, GOP!
 
2014-01-27 04:46:55 PM  

Bloody William: Bareefer Obonghit: Calling this the GOP proposing an alternative to Obamacare is like calling an exasperated husband's lament of, "Well why don't I just burn the f*cking house down and we won't have to deal with the leaky faucets anymore, would that make you happy," an alternative to calling a plumber.

Let's be fair. Their past plans of tort reform and removing interstate regulations on insurance providers was "Well why don't I just burn the farking house down?" This is "Here is my Powerpoint presentation on exactly which burners I'll leave on and which oily rags I'll keep on the counter and near frayed power cables."


"And on this next slide you'll see the part of my plan where I pin it on the black guy next door."
 
2014-01-27 04:49:08 PM  

mediablitz: Raise rates on seniors, take insurance away from millions of people who now have it for the first time in years.

That's a bang up plan, GOP!


they thought they were polling too well with old people.
 
2014-01-27 04:58:07 PM  
Now that 3 million people have signed up for ObamaCare coverage, Republicans in both chambers of Congress are focused on showing voters that they have a plan for helping people obtain insurance coverage once the law is wiped from the books.

Now that more people have obtained insurance because of this law, Republicans are trying to get more people insurance by eliminating this law? In what f*cking universe does the conservative Republican mind exist, because that doesn't make any goddamn sense in this one.
 
2014-01-27 05:01:18 PM  
God, it's like watching the GOP wrestle with the healthcare issue is like watching Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes!

There basic plan is, get rid of the mandate: which pays for it and keep the cost low. So to make up the shortfall, they will allow to charge Seniors five times, and throw the sick to the wolves!

This is there ultimate plan?

/have numerous pre existing
/getting older by the day.
 
2014-01-27 05:08:40 PM  

Bloody William: a person would have to have proof of "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance

James!: insurers can charge older patients up to five times more.


So, the GOP are whoring out for the insurance industry even more?
Shocked; shocked, I say.
 
2014-01-27 05:16:35 PM  
Aren't most ObamaCare sign ups so far just old people getting medicaid?
 
2014-01-27 05:19:46 PM  

Headso: The CARE Act would prohibit insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but unlike ObamaCare, a person would have to have proof of "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance.

Uh, isn't that exactly how it was before the ACA?


No, before Obamacare insurers could discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, regardless of whether they had health insurance or not.  So, for example, if someone had cancer (or a bad back, or prostate problems, or an ingrown toenail or anything else than an insurance company decided made them a bad risk), then lost their job and was therefore ineligible to continue on their employer's health plan, when they went to look for new insurance coverage they would discover that nobody would sell them a policy.

So the Republicans' plan is a better situation than pre-Obamacare, though with far lower patient/consumer protection than the Obamacare system.  The bigger problem is that, given the fact that the entire purpose of any system of insurance is to spread risk, the whole system really only works (to the extent it works at all) if everyone is required to have insurance, because without the mandate, the best risks (i.e., younger people) will opt out and only the worst risks (older, sicker people) will be in the pool of insureds.  Insurers have to base their rates on the level of risk they insure, so leaving the good risks out of the pool increases the pool's average risk level and increases the rates everyone who does opt in has to pay for the coverage.  Which means fewer people could afford to buy it, resulting in a death spiral that collapses the system (especially if they leave in a requirement for accepting pre-existing conditions).  Which, of course, is exactly what they want.
 
2014-01-27 05:21:42 PM  
And most restrictions on how insurers set their premiums-say, prohibiting them from charging women more than men-would vanish.

Link

lol rebranding
 
2014-01-27 05:37:06 PM  

abb3w: Bloody William: a person would have to have proof of "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance
James!: insurers can charge older patients up to five times more.

So, the GOP are whoring out for the insurance industry even more?
Shocked; shocked, I say.


The "continuous coverage" thing might make some amount of logical sense to those who really believed in the "personal responsibility" mantra the Republicans spout (but largely ignore in actions), if, and only if, the individual mandate had been in place for a while, and it stays in place.  If the law required everyone to have insurance, and if someone ignored that mandate at their peril, then I can see how it might be appealing to some to say "tough shiat" to someone who decided to rush out and buy their very first insurance policy the day after they were diagnosed with cancer, just as you can't decide not to buy insurance for your house but then call up State Farm and try to buy a homeowner's policy on the house when there's a wildfire in the area that's just reached your property line.

Obviously, that isn't the case here--there have been many people who unwillingly haven't had "continuous coverage" because they had a pre-existing condition of some kind and then lost their insurance, and prior to Obamacare going into effect no insurance company would sell them a policy even though they had repeatedly tried to buy one.
 
2014-01-27 05:39:30 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: And most restrictions on how insurers set their premiums-say, prohibiting them from charging women more than men-would vanish.

Link

lol rebranding


And we can assume abortion and birth control won't be covered, ever, on any plan. I'd be shocked if they didn't try to outlaw birth control with their "act".
 
2014-01-27 05:48:12 PM  

serpent_sky: Dusk-You-n-Me: And most restrictions on how insurers set their premiums-say, prohibiting them from charging women more than men-would vanish.

Link

lol rebranding

And we can assume abortion and birth control won't be covered, ever, on any plan. I'd be shocked if they didn't try to outlaw birth control with their "act".


Hey, as long as boner pills are covered...
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-01-27 05:49:22 PM  

Bloody William: Congratulations! It's taken five years, but you've actually put forth a plan to replace Obamacare with something besides "Uh, tort reform and letting all insurance companies run out of Delaware." Now let's go into the details of why your plan sucks.

The CARE Act would prohibit insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but unlike ObamaCare, a person would have to have proof of "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance.



Sadly, the politicians attempting block insurees with pre-existing conditions, all have health insurance which allows pre-existing conditions.
 
2014-01-27 05:50:40 PM  
This one?

www.mindhuestudio.com
 
2014-01-27 05:53:04 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: And most restrictions on how insurers set their premiums-say, prohibiting them from charging women more than men-would vanish.

Link

lol rebranding


Young women consume much more medical services than young men. Making young men pay higher rates seems counter intuitive*.

*young men pay higher car insurance rates
 
2014-01-27 05:53:50 PM  
Actually, reading the thread, the plan I posted makes more sense than the one they're proposing.
 
2014-01-27 05:54:34 PM  

exick: Bloody William: The CARE Act would prohibit insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but unlike ObamaCare, a person would have to have proof of "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance.

Man, fark you.

So it prohibits people from being discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions, unless of course you were previously discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition, in which case insurers are allowed to continue to discriminate against you because of your pre-existing condition due to the fact that you've spent quite a while being discriminated against because of your pre-existing condition. Gosh, that sounds kind of awesome.


Not only that, but if you've every been laid off or "between jobs" with no insurance you could be denied coverage. If you've ever changed jobs and been without insurance while on a probationary period you could be denied coverage.
 
2014-01-27 05:55:21 PM  
Heh... fark these shameless assholes.

"Let's fark the poor and middle classes and we'll call it CARE!"
 
2014-01-27 05:56:56 PM  
So no coverage for people with pre-existing conditions unless they had coverage.  Who does that help?  Insurance companies.  Seniors can get charged up to five times more, up from three as in the ACA.  Who does that help? Insurance companies.   States can opt out of the limit on charging seniors.  Who does that help?  Insurance companies.  Fark you America, we got pockets to line.
 
2014-01-27 05:58:19 PM  

mcreadyblue: Dusk-You-n-Me: And most restrictions on how insurers set their premiums-say, prohibiting them from charging women more than men-would vanish.

Link

lol rebranding

Young women consume much more medical services than young men. Making young men pay higher rates seems counter intuitive*.

*young men pay higher car insurance rates


Why even bother with rates.  If certain people consume more medical services, those people should pay for those services.

If you never go to the doctor and don't get sick, you shouldn't have to pay anything then.


/Insurance and risk sharing are essentially socialistic policies
//in for a penny in for a pound: same rate, single payer.
 
2014-01-27 05:58:34 PM  

Bloody William: Congratulations! It's taken five years, but you've actually put forth a plan to replace Obamacare with something besides "Uh, tort reform and letting all insurance companies run out of Delaware." Now let's go into the details of why your plan sucks.

The CARE Act would prohibit insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but unlike ObamaCare, a person would have to have proof of "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance.

Man, fark you.


So basically, it just goes back to the way it was before.  For someone that was denied insurance on the basis of flat feet and 10mg Simvastatin (which I no longer have to take thanks to some weight loss), let me reiterate:

Fark you.
 
2014-01-27 06:00:32 PM  

what_now: Bloody William: The CARE Act would prohibit insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but unlike ObamaCare, a person would have to have proof of "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance.

So if you lose your job, you're just farked?

I guess this makes sense to them- when you go from lobbyist to congress with a seamless transition, you don't have to worry about losing coverage.


WTF are you on man?  Just [pay the $800 per month COBRA bill out of unemployment!  or savings...or borrow a few extra bucks from your parents righrt after they give you a business loan!  Did you learn NOTHING from RMoney?
 
2014-01-27 06:00:40 PM  
I'll be cool with making the mandate optional, if the part about hospitals accepting everyone gets repealed too. While we're at it, let's convert Medicare into a block grant for the states. I bet that solves the issue of too many Republican voters in about 5 years.
 
2014-01-27 06:01:40 PM  

keylock71: Heh... fark these shameless assholes.

"Let's fark the poor and middle classes and we'll call it CARE!"


Business as usual.  If they made beatings for the poor mandatory they'd call it the CUDDLE act. Cutting useless democratic demographics legally enabled.
 
2014-01-27 06:05:24 PM  

mcreadyblue: Young women consume much more medical services than young men.


So what?
 
2014-01-27 06:07:02 PM  

Esc7: mcreadyblue: Dusk-You-n-Me: And most restrictions on how insurers set their premiums-say, prohibiting them from charging women more than men-would vanish.

Link

lol rebranding

Young women consume much more medical services than young men. Making young men pay higher rates seems counter intuitive*.

*young men pay higher car insurance rates

Why even bother with rates.  If certain people consume more medical services, those people should pay for those services.

If you never go to the doctor and don't get sick, you shouldn't have to pay anything then.


/Insurance and risk sharing are essentially socialistic policies
//in for a penny in for a pound: same rate, single payer.


The problem with that is if you are in a car accident and the Good Samaritans on the scene steal your wallet, emergency services will just have to let you die because they will have no way if verifying you have money or insurance.
 
2014-01-27 06:07:02 PM  
And there is reason #9743 not to vote for Republicans.
 
Displayed 50 of 331 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report