Avatar feed
Responses: 4
LTJG Robert M.
2
2
0
Edited >1 y ago
Wouldn’t trust CNN as much as I could load them into a USN 5’38” and shoot them to shore
(2)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Integration Officer
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
Ok LTJG, g’ahead and “soot then”
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTJG Robert M.
LTJG Robert M.
>1 y
MAJ (Join to see) - or i could "chute" them
(0)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Integration Officer
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
Hah!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Patricia Overmeyer
0
0
0
Actually this is a pretty accurate list of the pre-existing conditions that the GOP bill will not cover. This had been widely reported on other news sites, as well as you can look up the bill on the congressional websites. And since the administration is no longer challenging the court cases filed by states against ACA, it's going to be up to the courts to decide if ACA is constitutional since the individual mandate has been stripped out under the tax law just passed. If the GOP bill passes, then it may very well make the lawsuits filed by the states moot.
If ACA is found unconstitutional by the courts and/or the GOP bill passes, the the insurance companies are free to deny coverage or to charge exorbitant rates for those with pre-existing conditions. So once the service member's child is no longer covered under TRICARE for a congenital condition that was present at birth, the parents and/or the child may not be able to obtain any health care insurance due to a pre-existing condition. An example of this: all the Nam vets's children who were born with "pre-existing conditions", such as congenital heart abnormalities, cleft palates, spina bifida, etc. They can basically forget being able to obtain health care coverage or they can pay an exorbitant price for it, if they can get it.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Patricia Overmeyer
Patricia Overmeyer
>1 y
SrA John Monette - Actually while it was found to be constitutional, it was found constitutional on different grounds. The grounds that are now being argued regarding the individual mandate which has now been stripped out under the new tax law. Therefore, a new argument for the court to review. And this argument is based on the USSC ruling language regarding the tax issue, etc.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Integration Officer
0
0
0
That’s not from Faux “News”
(0)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Integration Officer
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close