The text of the bill that lets states opt out of essential benefits and charge more for preexisting conditions is the McArthur amendment; I will let you look that up yourself, but interestingly, the House has removed the text of that Amendment from its website.
Be that as it may, you just granted my original point, which was that under certain circumstances, a higher rate for pre-existing conditions could be charged (for a year) but you still couldn’t be denied. Thank you very much.
The two have nothing to do with each other; this is a complete non sequitur. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to tie the amount of subsidies for coverage to solely age as opposed to ability to pay. None.
It makes perfect mathematical sense, all other things being equal, to provide a larger subsidy to the people who will have the larger bill to pay.
That said, what you;re griping about is that it offends a different sensibility, that those who have a the ability to pay more should pay more. If I was not clear in my previous post, let me make it clear: I have no problem with means testing anything. In fact, I would like to solve part of the long term fiscal imbalances of Social Security and Medicare by means testing THOSE programs as well.
On average, older people are wealthier as they have had more time to accumulate wealth.
On average, that’s so, but older people didn’t get paid much back then. If you’re 60 today, you started your career in around 1980; in that year, the median income was 19K, meaning you were making less than that.
It was kind of hard to put away more than a few hundred bucks a year back then. I should know, I lived it. :-(
That said, you will recall that I previously agreed with you that ability to pay should be also considered. Let’s not go to war because I agree with you only 80% instead of 100%. I like the idea of a means tested subsidy along with an age adjustment.
Once again, in your haste to denigrate “fake news” — incorrectly — you have failed to understand the bill, how it works, and how it would impact people, particularly those with preexisting conditions.
The only failure here is that you’ve failed to explain how anything I said previously was incorrect. If you want to prove me wrong, then prove me wrong; but all you’re doing is throwing a bunch of shit up against the wall and thinking that those big brown stains prove something.
So, let’s make it simple:
Is it possible for a person in a waiver state to be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition? Yes or no. (That’s DENIED. Being asked to pay more is not DENIED.)
If yes, just link me to the place where it says so. The internet is forever. If the Amendment you want isn’t where you think it’s supposed to be, use archive.org.
If no, then saying that it’s it COULD happen, which was the assumption made in the article that began this thread, is fake news.