Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

theglammistress

(355 posts)

5. This seems significant...

Reply to Paula Sims (Original post)

Wed May 3, 2017, 11:15 PM

May 2017

I've thought the GOP claim on covering pre-existing conditions was a fraud all along. Looks like I was right:

Andy Slavitt‏Verified account
@ASlavitt

The number of times the words "pre-existing conditions" are used in the bill . . . Is ZERO.

Link to tweet

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Serious question - how is pre-existing defined? [View all] Paula Sims May 2017 OP

It is however the person on the phone at the time declares it... angstlessk May 2017 #1

See: Moving the goalposts ck4829 May 2017 #2

I think it's more a question of "what is a condition?" Sparkly May 2017 #3

Pre ACA it was no limited to the prior 5 years. Ms. Toad May 2017 #4

This seems significant... theglammistress May 2017 #5

I have had letters from insurance copanies duncang May 2017 #6

Any condition requiring higher insurance premiums than normal Cicada May 2017 #7