Rush Limbaugh: 'Pre-Existing Condition Coverage is Not Insurance; It's Welfare'

[Freeper]

DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Tue Nov-09-10 01:16 AM
Original message
Rush Limbaugh: 'Pre-Existing Condition Coverage is Not Insurance; It's Welfare'
   
Has anyone said today what a piece of sheeyit Rush Limbaugh is?

Yes, he really said that. He really, truly did, and it's a BFD. digby writes:

Although it sounds ridiculous, Rush is in the process of making his followers believe that the pre-existing condition provision in the health care reforms is something bad and shameful. The reason he's doing this, of course, is because this is the most popular piece of the bill and the one on which the rest of it hinges. If they can divide people on that, the repeal of the plan will be much easier.

Absolutely 100% on the money. The rest of the Affordable Care Act, along with any other proposal for reform like single payer or a public option hinges on one single provision: No exclusion for pre-existing conditions. So the Corpulent One knows that the only way to marshall support for complete repeal is to erode support for covering people with pre-existing conditions.

It drives me crazy now just as it did during the whole debate that there wasn't more focus on effective dates. Waiting until January 1, 2014 for the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions was risky and opens a window for a long, sustained attack. Whether they had passed Medicare for All, a robust public option as part of the overall bill, none of that, or all of that, the heart of the debate is over people who have pre-existing conditions, which are defined by insurers and have been broadened more and more over time. This is only one of many salvos which will be thrown over and over and over again.

digby, again:

People thought it was insane for Rush to say that he wanted the president to fail. But he held the line and made the GOP come crawling for even suggesting that he was wrong. And the party just became more and more radical. They don't see health care reform as sacred and they will feel absolutely no remorse about destroying it.

Listen & More:
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rush-limbaugh-pre-exis...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9518090

Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Tue Nov-09-10 02:43 AM
Response to Original message
10. What if it is?
   
How is that bad? The government is obliged to provide welfare. The Constitution says so. Welfare is not a dirty word.

This my friends is why we call them DUmmies.
Somehow I bet this moron thinks when the second amendment says people it really means the state.

pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Tue Nov-09-10 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Unfortunately, welfare is a dirty word to much of the population.
   
Perhaps even to the majority. Rethugs have often used welfare-terror to win votes.

How unreasonable that we expect people to work for their survival.

Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Tue Nov-09-10 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. You are right and that's my point.
   
Just like socialist and liberal. People know for certain that these things are evil but they can't explain why if their lives depend on it. Propaganda has been so pervasive, we often have to use synonyms to discuss them.

You just don't listen when we explain why socialism is evil.
You can't grasp how socialism takes away freedoms and hinders any progress.
If the US had been a socialist country we still would be using horse and buggies.

KT2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Tue Nov-09-10 03:18 AM
Response to Original message
14. Huckabee spoke against
   
requiring coverage of pre-exisitng conditions too. He said it was like offering fire insurance after the house burns.
This appears to be something the RW wants eliminated.
What sick people.

No we just believe there are other ways to do this without bankrupting the insurance industry.

ejpoeta Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Tue Nov-09-10 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. i really love when people who claim to be christians who believe in jesus
   
go around saying this bullshit. from my memory jesus would want us to help the less fortunate and help each other. whatever you do to the least of us you do to me sort of stuff.

Jesus was talking about reaching in to your own pocket to help the needy not, reaching in other people's pocket.

[Carl]

The problem these idiots have is that they simply know everything inn their minds but don`t know a damn thing about anything in real life.

They seem to think insurance (and government) has all kinds of money to at demand be given to or used for them.
Unlike the government which can print or borrow,with consequences,insurance can only pay based on the principle it takes in more then it pays out.
That is called a pool and it has to be a certain size in proportion to amount of liability taken on.

That is the main reason there has always been waiting periods.
Otherwise what is the point of having insurance,you simply buy a policy (DUmmies would demand a cheap one) and then let it pay the costs and say goodbye.

Of course in no time there is no insurance but what do they care,they feel entitled to have at no cost everything we are willing to work for and protect.

[Freeper]

The problem these idiots have is that they simply know everything inn their minds but don`t know a damn thing about anything in real life.

They seem to think insurance (and government) has all kinds of money to at demand be given to or used for them.
Unlike the government which can print or borrow,with consequences,insurance can only pay based on the principle it takes in more then it pays out.
That is called a pool and it has to be a certain size in proportion to amount of liability taken on.

That is the main reason there has always been waiting periods.
Otherwise what is the point of having insurance,you simply buy a policy (DUmmies would demand a cheap one) and then let it pay the costs and say goodbye.

Of course in no time there is no insurance but what do they care,they feel entitled to have at no cost everything we are willing to work for and protect.

What they don't understand is, everything they complain about from insurance companies will be the same complaints they will have about govt care.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Dear lurkers,

I know you people aren't keen on reading the US Constitution because it seems to allow Christians to teach creationism more than it allows Muslims to beat their wives but here is the exact text of the preamble, presented to you verbatim:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Please note that the verb attached to "welfare" is "promote". That's a passive verb. In fact, its pretty much the only passive verb.

Contrast this with its requirement to provide (active) for the common defence [sic] and secure (active) the blessings of liberty.

You cannot lift one clause, change its predicate and ignore the rest. You cannot change the passive "promote" into the active "provide" and all the while making the blessings of liberty ever-increasingly insecure with your encroachments and if you keep your domestic tranquility will be in doubt.

They seem to think insurance (and government) has all kinds of money to at demand be given to or used for them...

The only reason a $13 trillion dollar economy isn't providing $25 trillion dollars in social benefits is because you just aren't taxing people high enough![/DUmode]

[dandi]

Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Tue Nov-09-10 02:43 AM
Response to Original message
10. What if it is?
   
How is that bad? The government is obliged to provide welfare. The Constitution says so. Welfare is not a dirty word.

This DUmbass is my personal nominee for the DUmbass of the year if not the stupidest assclown on the planet.

[true_blood]

Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Tue Nov-09-10 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. You are right and that's my point.
Just like socialist and liberal. People know for certain that these things are evil but they can't explain why if their lives depend on it. Propaganda has been so pervasive, we often have to use synonyms to discuss them.

I would like to say, thank you Lasher. You just admitted yourself that socialism and liberalism is evil. Maybe you're not stupid as the rest of the DUmmies?
Naww,...I doubt it.

[IassaFTots]

This DUmbass is my personal nominee for the DUmbass of the year if not the stupidest assclown on the planet.

Yup.  I don't know if it can get any DUmmer.  And I don't know if I could take it if it did. 

[Randy]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare


wel·fare
   /ˈwɛlˌfɛər/ Show Spelled[wel-fair] Show IPA
–noun
1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.

2. welfare work.

3. financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.

4.( initial capital letter ) Informal . a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, esp. those unable to work.

I'll bet my US citizenship the COTUS is referring to #1 not #3, besides the bolded part of #4 is the part all DUmmies ignore.

[vlad335]

No we just believe there are other ways to do this without bankrupting the insurance industry.

That is the ultimate plan from the beginning. Once the evil insurance companies are out of the way, who would be left to take over?