Republican Senate Candidate: People With Pre-Existing Conditions Were Better Off Before Obamacare
Republicans are still running on an anti-Obamcare platform even though the health care law is working, most especially for those with a pre-existing condition.
“Many people were happy with their coverage under the high-risk pool, before it was eliminated,” Cotton said. “They should have been allowed to keep that choice.”
Mark Pryor, the Democratic incumbent, fired back, saying his personal experience proved otherwise. “I am a cancer survivor,” he said. “I have been in the high-risk pool. I have lived there. It is no place for any Arkansan to be. If we go back to the high-risk pool, it’s like throwing sick people to the wolves.”
Pryor noted, “People in Arkansas with pre-existing conditions were routinely denied access to coverage,” before Obamacare. “They were one medical emergency away from bankruptcy. The insurance companies had all the power. I think that it would be a mistake to go back to those days.”
Pryor said Cotton had“no answer” for what would happen to such people were the nation to “start over” on health care reform — which Cotton has repeatedly advocated.
Cotton has called for repealing Obamacare while offering no alternative.
Cotton tried to tie Pryor to Obama, a toxic name in the deep red state. Pryor responded,“Oh Lord, I voted against the party line so many times, I’m always getting criticized by my Democrats.”
Image: AP
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
28 responses to Republican Senate Candidate: People With Pre-Existing Conditions Were Better Off Before Obamacare
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Larry Schmitt October 15th, 2014 at 12:51
So even though Pryor knows what he’s talking about on health insurance, all his opponent has to do is mention Obama, and it may be enough for him to lose. As in North Carolina, the voters deserve the representation they get.
Larry Schmitt October 15th, 2014 at 12:51
So even though Pryor knows what he’s talking about on health insurance, all his opponent has to do is mention Obama, and it may be enough for him to lose. As in North Carolina, the voters deserve the representation they get.
rg9rts October 15th, 2014 at 12:52
He does realize that his pre-existing condition is that he is brain dead
rg9rts October 15th, 2014 at 12:52
He does realize that his pre-existing condition is that he is brain dead
EnuffBull October 15th, 2014 at 12:55
No, sir. NOT ONE PERSON with a preexisting condition wishes for the good ol’ days.
EnuffBull October 15th, 2014 at 12:55
No, sir. NOT ONE PERSON with a preexisting condition wishes for the good ol’ days.
tiredoftea October 15th, 2014 at 13:22
Yes, Arkansas, one of the poorest, most unhealthy and reddest of states was doing just fine before all this healthcare nonsense came along.
tiredoftea October 15th, 2014 at 13:22
Yes, Arkansas, one of the poorest, most unhealthy and reddest of states was doing just fine before all this healthcare nonsense came along.
forpeace October 15th, 2014 at 13:30
This doesn’t surprise me at all. I do remember during his 2012 campaign, Rick Santorum told to mother of cancer survivor “sick to blame for pre-existing conditions, should be charged more.”
Tom Cotton is one of those candidates brought to U.S. Congress with the support from Koch Brothers and Tea Party in 2012 election. He is pro-life, opposes stem-cell research, no family planning assistance that includes abortion, voted YES on prioritizing spending in case debt limit is reached, support DOMA and traditional marriage, voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, opposes federal grants for education reforms.
It is even more interesting that on August 2013, Tom Cotton voted against the student loan legislation in Congress while acknowledging that Tom Cotton himself had been the recipient of federally-backed Stafford loans while attending Harvard Law School, in another words, denying students the same opportunities he received.
Tom Cotton also claimed that “Terrorists collaborating with Mexican drug cartels to infiltrate Arkansas!” – Tom Cotton, who is running for Senate in Arkansas told a tele-town-hall meeting that the Islamic State is actively working with Mexican drug cartels who are looking to expand into the terrorism business — and that the groups, working in tandem, could infiltrate the country and attack people in Arkansas. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/10/07/tom-cotton-terrorists-collaborating-with-mexican-drug-cartels-to-infiltrate-arkansas/
forpeace October 15th, 2014 at 13:30
This doesn’t surprise me at all. These people keep lying like there are no facts.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or “Obamacare.” The law also requires insurance companies to cover all applicants within new minimum standards and offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or sex.
Tom Cotton is one of those candidates brought to U.S. Congress with the support from Koch Brothers and Tea Party in 2012 election. He is pro-life, opposes stem-cell research, no family planning assistance that includes abortion, voted YES on prioritizing spending in case debt limit is reached, support DOMA and traditional marriage, voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, opposes federal grants for education reforms.
It is even more interesting that on August 2013, Tom Cotton voted against the student loan legislation in Congress while acknowledging that Tom Cotton himself had been the recipient of federally-backed Stafford loans while attending Harvard Law School, in another words, denying students the same opportunities he received.
Tom Cotton also claimed that “Terrorists collaborating with Mexican drug cartels to infiltrate Arkansas!” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/10/07/tom-cotton-terrorists-collaborating-with-mexican-drug-cartels-to-infiltrate-arkansas/
Carla Akins October 15th, 2014 at 14:00
Huh…excuse me?
Carla Akins October 15th, 2014 at 14:00
Huh…excuse me?
Bunya October 15th, 2014 at 14:17
““I am a cancer survivor,” he said. “I have been in the high-risk pool…”
And I’m sure you could afford top notch coverage from your insurance company. Unfortunately not everyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. But hey, keep up that talking point. I’m sure that will bring in lots of votes. Don’t forget to mention that you want to privatize social security and do away with SCHIP.
SteveD October 15th, 2014 at 15:41
Mark Pryor on Social Security
Democratic Jr Senator (AR)
Preserve trust fund; no privatization
“We must preserve and protect Social Security. I am strongly opposed to taking money out of the Social Security trust fund and investing it in the stock market. We must look for ways to strengthen Social Security without putting it at risk. In Arkansas alone, over 500,000 of our citizens receive Social Security benefits. This safety net must be maintained if we are to ensure that our seniors will have a sound income in their golden years.”
Exactly the opposite Bunya:
Opponents of SCHIP( like Pryor) recommended doing away with it because:
The amendment’s fatal flaw: It actually would leave the door open for private Social Security accounts by providing participants with the option of “pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits
1 Privatizing Social Security does nothing to extend the solvency of the program. (In reality, as long as Congress appropriates money to fund SS/Medicare, neither can go insolvent, with or without FICA taxes.)
2 Transition costs would put our Nation in greater debt by as much as $4.9 trillion. (Increases in debt are no problem for a sovereign currency issuer. The federal debt is simply securities accounts at the FRB. Who in there right mind would complain that depositors have too much money in their accounts? Come on, I mean really!)
3.Creating private accounts would mean benefit cuts for retirees, by as much as 40%. (Pure bullshit. The US is Monetarily Sovereign. Economic PRODUCTIVITY, not dollars is what will sustain SS/Medicare.)
4. More than half of all American workers today have no pension plan from their employers. It is critical that we protect this safety net. (This might actually be true.)
So stop lying Bunya.
Bunya October 15th, 2014 at 16:09
He talks a big game and does a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking, but offers no solutions. He thinks we must look for ways to strengthen Social Security without putting it at risk. Great, what does he suggest?
Opponents to SCHIP recommend doing away with it for a number of reasons, but what is the alternative? Let the poor starve until they decide to do something about it?
I’m sorry. I’m not buying anything this guy is selling.
jjwestP07 October 15th, 2014 at 16:23
Massive fraud on the part of our nation’s leaders, who have plundered every cent of the Social Security Trust Fund and the surplus that was specifically earmarked 1983 by President Regan for the retirement of the baby boomers.”future Presidents knew and took the money regardless.
Public-issue, marketable U.S. Treasury bonds are default-proof, and that is the kind of bonds that the Social Security surplus revenue was supposed to be invested in. If this had been done, Social Security would be in fine shape today.
* But, instead of using the surplus Social Security revenue to buy such bonds in the open market, the government chose to spend the money and issue IOUs to replace the spent money.*** These IOUs are non-marketable and could not be sold to anyone, even for a penny on the dollar. The government has the legal authority to declare these IOUs null and void.
arc99 October 15th, 2014 at 16:36
President Reagan was just as guilty as any of his successors of using the funds generated by the 1983 Social Security amendments. Immediately after he signed the legislation, the cash deposits went into the general fund, not a segregated social security fund.
None of the money went towards a dedicated fund, so let us not exempt President Reagan. In retrospect, the whole thing looks like a publicity stunt and a ruse to get back some of the money lost to the treasury due to his ill-advised tax cuts.
Obewon October 15th, 2014 at 16:37
Bwaaaa ha-ha! You posted a parody. Right?
Social Security & Medicare Surpluses are “Intragovernmental Holdings ($5 trillion+) 5,090,082,256,424.62” http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtOwner What did GW Bush do with Al Gore’s Social Security $970 billion “Lockbox”? That’s the first thing George & Cheney snorted during their first year.
Bunya October 15th, 2014 at 14:17
““I am a cancer survivor,” he said. “I have been in the high-risk pool…”
And I’m sure you could afford top notch coverage from your insurance company. Unfortunately not everyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. But hey, keep up that talking point. I’m sure that will bring in lots of votes. Don’t forget to mention that you want to privatize social security and do away with SCHIP.
SteveD October 15th, 2014 at 15:41
Mark Pryor on Social Security
Democratic Jr Senator (AR)
Preserve trust fund; no privatization
“We must preserve and protect Social Security. I am strongly opposed to taking money out of the Social Security trust fund and investing it in the stock market. We must look for ways to strengthen Social Security without putting it at risk. In Arkansas alone, over 500,000 of our citizens receive Social Security benefits. This safety net must be maintained if we are to ensure that our seniors will have a sound income in their golden years.”
Exactly the opposite Bunya:
Opponents of SCHIP( like Pryor) recommended doing away with it because:
The amendment’s fatal flaw: It actually would leave the door open for private Social Security accounts by providing participants with the option of “pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits
1 Privatizing Social Security does nothing to extend the solvency of the program. (In reality, as long as Congress appropriates money to fund SS/Medicare, neither can go insolvent, with or without FICA taxes.)
2 Transition costs would put our Nation in greater debt by as much as $4.9 trillion. (Increases in debt are no problem for a sovereign currency issuer. The federal debt is simply securities accounts at the FRB. Who in there right mind would complain that depositors have too much money in their accounts? Come on, I mean really!)
3.Creating private accounts would mean benefit cuts for retirees, by as much as 40%. (Pure bullshit. The US is Monetarily Sovereign. Economic PRODUCTIVITY is what will sustain SS/Medicare, not “out of circulation” IMAGINARY trust fund dollars.)
4. More than half of all American workers today have no pension plan from their employers. It is critical that we protect this safety net. (This might actually be true.)
So stop lying Bunya.
Bunya October 15th, 2014 at 16:09
He talks a big game and does a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking, but offers no solutions. He thinks we must look for ways to strengthen Social Security without putting it at risk. Great, what does he suggest?
Opponents to SCHIP recommend doing away with it for a number of reasons, but what is the alternative? Let the poor starve until they decide to do something about it?
I’m sorry. I’m not buying anything this guy is selling.
jjwestP07 October 15th, 2014 at 16:23
Massive fraud on the part of our nation’s leaders, who have plundered every cent of the Social Security Trust Fund and the surplus that was specifically earmarked 1983 by President Regan for the retirement of the baby boomers.”future Presidents knew and took the money regardless.
Public-issue, marketable U.S. Treasury bonds are default-proof, and that is the kind of bonds that the Social Security surplus revenue was supposed to be invested in. If this had been done, Social Security would be in fine shape today.
* But, instead of using the surplus Social Security revenue to buy such bonds in the open market, the government chose to spend the money and issue IOUs to replace the spent money.*** These IOUs are non-marketable and could not be sold to anyone, even for a penny on the dollar. The government has the legal authority to declare these IOUs null and void.
arc99 October 15th, 2014 at 16:36
President Reagan was just as guilty as any of his successors of using the funds generated by the 1983 Social Security amendments. Immediately after he signed the legislation, the cash deposits went into the general fund, not a segregated social security fund.
None of the money went towards a dedicated fund, so let us not exempt President Reagan. In retrospect, the whole thing looks like a publicity stunt and a ruse to get back some of the money lost to the treasury due to his ill-advised tax cuts.
Obewon October 15th, 2014 at 16:37
Bwaaaa ha-ha! You posted a parody. Right?
Social Security & Medicare Surpluses are “Intragovernmental Holdings ($5 trillion+) 5,090,082,256,424.62” http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtOwner What did GW Bush do with Al Gore’s Social Security $970 billion agreed “Lockbox”? That’s the first thing George & Cheney snorted during their first year, right?.
1. How has SS paid every retiree and disability survivor?
2. If “These IOUs are non-marketable and could not be sold to anyone, even for a penny on the dollar”?-So you’re saying T-bills, T-bonds & Treasury Securities are worthless?
3. If so then since when?
4. Why do all countries, investors, 55% of U.S. citizens and USA Corps ‘Invest’ for a measly 1-3% APR in “no risk” ‘T-bills, T-bonds & Treasury Securities’?
Roctuna October 15th, 2014 at 14:28
Just goes to show, they’ll say anything, no matter how stupid, if it’s an attack on the President.
Obewon October 15th, 2014 at 16:25
Only the wealthiest penny-pinching best interests may apply as Senator (AR) representing Wal*Mart. The four Walton heirs only pre-existing conditions are net worth of $25 B+ each that require private jets to burn cash in hopes of lowering their net income.
Roctuna October 15th, 2014 at 14:28
Just goes to show, they’ll say anything, no matter how stupid, if it’s an attack on the President.
Obewon October 15th, 2014 at 16:25
Only the wealthiest penny-pinching best interests may apply as Senator (AR) representing Wal*Mart. The four Walton heirs only pre-existing conditions are a net worth of $25 B+ each that require private jets to burn cash in hopes of lowering their net income.