“I think there’s been a lot of talk about individuals losing health coverage. That is not our goal nor is it our desire nor is it our plan,” Price said at the hearing.
Ooooh, so close!
"I think there's been a lot of talk about individuals losing health coverage. That is not our goal nor is it our desire nor is it our plan, nor will it under any circumstance be the final outcome." Price said at the hearing.GOP: Everybody will get health coverage. It may cost 1000s of $$ due to tax cuts. Also, you get what you pay for, even if its a lemon.
The quote in this headline may have been made. HOWEVER, under repeated questioning, Price used the word access many times. We know what that means - you have healthcare IF you can afford whatever the insurance companies decide to charge. Patty Murray also got him to admit that his (Price’s) plan would eliminate the coverage for young adults up to age 26, not guarantee coverage of prescription drugs and create additional restrictions for those with pre-existing conditions. Please don’t let him be confirmed.
Is this that “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” moment that they’ll deny ever happened?
Yeah, that’s really the kicker here, isn’t it?
People will get “coverage.” Period. If the only “coverage” that’s offered is a junk insurance plan, that’s your problem. If you can’t afford to get health insurance that actually covers health conditions, that’s your problem.
@byteme No, this ins’t the same situation because all they’re doing is using a very general word that they can come back to people and say, “We gave you COVERAGE. That’s all we said we were going to do.”
“…so long as I get to do as much insider trading as I want.”
Q: What do you call a doctor turned legislator with a narrow political agenda? A: Dangerous
Seems fairly obvious that their entire plan is to gut the meaning of “insurance” so that people will be allowed to buy crappy insurance that will fail them if they need it by calling it “choice.” So they can claim that everyone is covered, knowing that people won’t know they’re not covered until it’s too late.
And the sad truth is that conservatives still live in the 1800’s and think of fancy healthcare as a luxury and not a necessity of a modern society. These are the same people who insist that poor people aren’t poor if they can afford a basic cell phone or microwave, since those used to be luxury items decades ago. It’s like they think they’ve got time in a bottle and refuse to open it up to see that it’s empty.
This guy is as slippery as a snake. And as trustworthy as a poisonous snake. People will not get the same coverage or protection as they are presently getting under ACA. Those with pre-existing conditions will not receive the benefits of the ACA. Seniors will not get the same benefits they are receiving under ACA. Children age 21-26 will not get the same benefits they are receiving under ACA.
This guy is not worthy of confirmation. He also should be fully investigated by the Independent Ethics Office for his wheeling and dealing with his stock purchases ( with inside information ?) that have enriched him at the expense of the public. In sum, this Price is not right for the job.
“I think there’s been a lot of talk about individuals losing health
coverage. That is not our goal nor is it our desire nor is it our plan,”
Price said at the hearing.
But if it happens anyway, well, what are you gonna do?
And it only cost 500% more than you are paying now.
I think this is the point at which Dems and people in general should alter their opposition to the Rethugs. Because, from what I’m hearing, they’re changing their wording and it’s significant. It’s important to not only attack these monsters who feel that no health insurance is acceptable but also that really sh*tty junk insurance is acceptable as well.
The first question should be: will these insurance plans have yearly or lifetime limits?
If they do, it’s not real insurance.
Indeed. That’s one of the more annoying things about Republicans, that if they push a policy that clearly hurts people, they’ll insist that they’re not responsible since it wasn’t their intent to hurt anyone. So if they want to defend their religion by discriminating against gays and forcing women to have children they can’t afford and don’t want, it’s not their fault since they’re only defending religion and aren’t responsible for any other repercussions. It’s the Bart Simpson strategy of fighting, where he’s just swinging his arms while walking towards you and it’s not his fault if you happen to get hurt.
But sorry guys, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. It’s not enough to look at your motivations. You’ve got to look at the end result. And sure, ends don’t always justify the means, but in their case, all they focus on is the means and don’t give a crap about the ends, and then don’t understand why anyone tries to hold them responsible for what they’ve done.
“We believe that it’s absolutely imperative that individuals that have health coverage be able to keep health coverage and move hopefully to greater choices and opportunities for them to gain the kind of coverage they want for themselves and for their families.”
An outright lie. Most people’s current coverage, even those who get it through their employer, have directly or indirectly benefited from the ACA. Things like the prior medical condition coverage, rural hospital funding, requiring businesses with >50 employees to provide coverage, etc., are part of the bill AND THE GOP VOTED AGAINST IT.
“That’s not our plan . . .” Hmm given that there is no plan not even the hint of a plan not sure how we are supposed to believe you
You may not be able to afford it but then that’s not the GOP’s problem.
Ding!Ding!Ding!Ding!Ding!
If it quacks like a quack, walks like a quack…it’s a quack.