Alabama congressman: “People who lead good lives” don’t have preexisting conditions

[GMDino]

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/02/alabama-congressman-people-who-lead-good-lives-dont-have-preexisting-conditions/

Quote:President Donald Trump may be desperate to score a legislative win with Trumpcare 2.0, but if members of his own party keep coming across as insensitive to the needs of the less fortunate, that will be increasingly difficult for him to do.


Take Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama, who during an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Monday claimed that “people who lead good lives” don’t have to worry about dealing with pre-existing conditions — like a stroke, or heart problems or birth defects.



As Brooks told Tapper: “My understanding is that (the new proposal) will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool. That helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy. And right now, those are the people — who’ve done things the right way — that are seeing their costs skyrocketing.”


Brooks is a member of the House Freedom Caucus, which played a critical role in torpedoing Trump’s previous attempt at repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. Like many other members of the caucus, Brooks has expressed a willingness to support Trumpcare 2.0 because it will allow individual states to waive health care mandates that cover individuals with pre-existing conditions. He is also said to be “seriously considering” a run for the Senate in the near future.
 
Perhaps realizing that his previous comments sounded insensitive, Brooks did try to backpedal later in the interview. “In fairness, a lot of these people with pre-existing conditions, they have those conditions through no fault of their own,” the Alabama congressman told Tapper. “And I think our society, under those circumstances, needs to help. The challenge though is that it’s a tough balancing act between the higher cost of these mandates which denies people coverage because they can’t afford their health insurance policies . . . and having enough coverage to help those people truly in need.”

[Benton]

Largely I agree with him.

If you eat right, exercise, don't smoke, don't have unprotected sex, your chance of having health related problems goes down. Some people are going to get sick regardless, it's genetics. But even some of them can change that time table by living a healthier life.

Edit to add: I wish more people would be insensitive (at least as much so as that lawmaker) when it comes to getting people to wake up about their healthcare. If you're 500 lbs, smoke, sit on your butt all day and drink a six pack, I don't have a ton desire to pay for your heart cath.

[Au165]

(05-03-2017, 02:02 PM)Benton Wrote: Largely I agree with him.

If you eat right, exercise, don't smoke, don't have unprotected sex, your chance of having health related problems goes down. Some people are going to get sick regardless, it's genetics. But even some of them can change that time table by living a healthier life.

I saw a study recently that said something like 60% of all cancers are because of genetics. It went on to explain that while lifestyle choices and such can account for 30% (number may be off a little) the rest is basically bad genetics and shitty luck. People act like cancer is a new phenomenon caused by things we have created over the years, but they have found cancer in bodies from hundreds of years ago we simply didn't have the ability to diagnose it at the time.

With that all being said, I think the capitalist side of me says those who cause costs to go up should be responsible of more costs, but the human in me says that healthcare should be the one bastion of compassion that should be immune from pure capitalism.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-03-2017, 02:02 PM)Benton Wrote: Largely I agree with him.

If you eat right, exercise, don't smoke, don't have unprotected sex, your chance of having health related problems goes down. Some people are going to get sick regardless, it's genetics. But even some of them can change that time table by living a healthier life.

Edit to add: I wish more people would be insensitive (at least as much so as that lawmaker) when it comes to getting people to wake up about their healthcare. If you're 500 lbs, smoke, sit on your butt all day and drink a six pack, I don't have a ton desire to pay for your heart cath.

My son was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was 4 yrs old.  He is 16 now, a pretty good kid that doesn't smoke, drink or do drugs (nor do I see becoming interested in any of that.)  And he is going to have a life time of health issues.  period.  I think he deserves to have access to adequate health care without bankrupting him when he is an adult.  We Americans spend more on prescriptions and health care than any other nation and not with better results either.  IMO we really do need to look at universal health care.  But I admit It will be hard convincing people who fear that would be the first step towards communism.

[*bfine32*]

Is this where he supposedly said People who lead good lives don't have preexisting conditions:

Quote:As Brooks told Tapper: “My understanding is that (the new proposal) will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool. That helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy. And right now, those are the people — who’ve done things the right way — that are seeing their costs skyrocketing.”

If so I interpret this quote as something different that the OP and perhaps the good people at Salon did.

He is saying that currently folks are seeing no financial incentives for taking care of themselves. I've always suggested discounts should be tied to gym membership, ect....

[Benton]

(05-03-2017, 02:11 PM)Au165 Wrote: I saw a study recently that said something like 60% of all cancers are because of genetics. It went on to explain that while lifestyle choices and such can account for 30% (number may be off a little) the rest is basically bad genetics and shitty luck. People act like cancer is a new phenomenon caused by things we have created over the years, but they have found cancer in bodies from hundreds of years ago we simply didn't have the ability to diagnose it at the time.

With that all being said, I think the capitalist side of me says those who cause costs to go up should be responsible of more costs, but the human in me says that healthcare should be the one bastion of compassion that should be immune from pure capitalism.

For the most part, those who live higher risk do pay more. Smokers (heart disease, cancer, emphasyma, etc) pay hefty taxes. Drinkers pay more. It's not always broken down that those dollars go to healthcare, but some do.

[Benton]

(05-03-2017, 03:47 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: My son was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was 4 yrs old.  He is 16 now, a pretty good kid that doesn't smoke, drink or do drugs (nor do I see becoming interested in any of that.)  And he is going to have a life time of health issues.  period.  I think he deserves to have access to adequate health care without bankrupting him when he is an adult.  We Americans spend more on prescriptions and health care than any other nation and not with better results either.  IMO we really do need to look at universal health care.  But I admit It will be hard convincing people who fear that would be the first step towards communism.

Yours sons (and my uncle who died two years ago from renal failure associated with childhood diabetes) situation isn't what I think the lawmaker was referring to. I think he was saying people who take some risks are more likely to develop some health problema.

I'm a proponent of some type of insurance coop.

[Au165]

(05-03-2017, 04:49 PM)Benton Wrote: For the most part, those who live higher risk do pay more. Smokers (heart disease, cancer, emphasyma, etc) pay hefty taxes. Drinkers pay more. It's not always broken down that those dollars go to healthcare, but some do.

I am okay in this aspect, just not when it comes down to the ability to pay to save ones life.

[Dill]

(05-03-2017, 05:06 PM)Benton Wrote: Yours sons (and my uncle who died two years ago from renal failure associated with childhood diabetes) situation isn't what I think the lawmaker was referring to. I think he was saying people who take some risks are more likely to develop some health problema.

I'm a proponent of some type of insurance coop.

My daughter developed leukemia when she was 4 1/2 years old. She was cured in a German hospital. Now she is 35 years old. A brush with cancer like that is what insurers have labeled a "pre-existing condition" for decades. Jimmy Kimmel's son's heart valve condition would be another example.  If your parents and your brother died of cancer, that would put you, for insurers, in a higher risk pool no matter how great your life-style choices were.

If the good Representative from Alabama wants us talking about how life-style choices create a pre-existing conditions, I think it is to moralize medical issues to the point enough people feel comfortable moving back to the old system, which excluded those with pre-existing conditions or charged them prohibitively high premiums. "Personal responsibility"=greater profitability if people can be blamed for their conditions. People who don't have pre-existing conditions--or none that they know of yet--then come to see those with pre-existing conditions as the "problem"--not the Freedom Caucus and insurance companies.

This could be a new variation on the cookie joke: An insurance company CEO, a healthy client, and a client with a pre-existing condition are all sitting around a table upon which sits a dish with 12 cookies. The CEO grabs 11 cookies, then leans over to the healthy client and whispers "Watch out! that sickie wants half your cookie."

By the way, German insurance, for middle and lower income earners, is coop--perhaps one reason why healthcare there is half the cost per capita and just as good. How is it that they cover everyone for everything--even smokers--without seeing their costs "skyrocket"?

[Benton]

(05-03-2017, 05:55 PM)Dill Wrote: My daughter developed leukemia when she was 4 1/2 years old. She was cured in a German hospital. Now she is 35 years old. A brush with cancer like that is what insurers have labeled a "pre-existing condition" for decades. Jimmy Kimmel's son's heart valve condition would be another example.  If your parents and your brother died of cancer, that would put you, for insurers, in a higher risk pool no matter how great your life-style choices were.

If the good Representative from Alabama wants us talking about how life-style choices create a pre-existing conditions, I think it is to moralize medical issues to the point enough people feel comfortable moving back to the old system, which excluded those with pre-existing conditions or charged them prohibitively high premiums. "Personal responsibility"=greater profitability if people can be blamed for their conditions. People who don't have pre-existing conditions--or none that they know of yet--then come to see those with pre-existing conditions as the "problem"--not the Freedom Caucus and insurance companies.

This could be a new variation on the cookie joke: An insurance company CEO, a healthy client, and a client with a pre-existing condition are all sitting around a table upon which sits a dish with 12 cookies. The CEO grabs 11 cookies, then leans over to the healthy client and whispers "Watch out! that sickie wants half your cookie."

By the way, German insurance, for middle and lower income earners, is coop--perhaps one reason why healthcare there is half the cost per capita and just as good. How is it that they cover everyone for everything--even smokers--without seeing their costs "skyrocket"?

I think a coop would fix a lot of our problems. Or at least step in that direction without totally abandoning insurance and medical providers' free market right to possibly make you give up everything you have or die. If people still wanted to take advantage of that model-- as lawmakers assure us they will -- them they can. For those that want cheaper coverage, they can coop.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-03-2017, 02:02 PM)Benton Wrote: Largely I agree with him.

If you eat right, exercise, don't smoke, don't have unprotected sex, your chance of having health related problems goes down. Some people are going to get sick regardless, it's genetics. But even some of them can change that time table by living a healthier life.

Edit to add: I wish more people would be insensitive (at least as much so as that lawmaker) when it comes to getting people to wake up about their healthcare. If you're 500 lbs, smoke, sit on your butt all day and drink a six pack, I don't have a ton desire to pay for your heart cath.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/new_study_finds_that_most_cancer_mutations_are_due_to_random_dna_copying_mistakes

According to this study, Approximately 2/3rds of all cancers aren't related to hereditary, life style, or environmental factors. Just good people livin' the right way who get ****** as part of god's plan through no fault of their own.

[Dill]

(05-03-2017, 06:06 PM)Benton Wrote: I think a coop would fix a lot of our problems. Or at least step in that direction without totally abandoning insurance and medical providers' free market right to possibly make you give up everything you have or die. If people still wanted to take advantage of that model-- as lawmakers assure us they will -- them they can. For those that want cheaper coverage, they can coop.

I am not up on current health care debates. But I have heard little mention of coops. People always talk as if one-payer and free market are the only options.  And coops offer some variation.

If I remember correctly, in Germany (as of 5 years ago) anyone making over 50,000 Euros could opt out of insurance--though all manner of private insurance like ours is available. People making less than 50,000, however, are mandated to buy. But I remember at least two different levels of coop. When we began making more money we had to go up a level.

No medical bankruptcies there.

Another feature I long for is that we never had to fill out forms. Doctors just sent in the bills. You didn't have to pay and then let insurance decide whether to reimburse.  The only exception was when my daughter spent nights in the hospital (back in the 80s). We were charged 5 Marks per night--about $2.50, depending on the exchange rate.

[Benton]

(05-03-2017, 06:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/new_study_finds_that_most_cancer_mutations_are_due_to_random_dna_copying_mistakes

According to this study, Approximately 2/3rds of all cancers aren't related to hereditary, life style, or environmental factors. Just good people livin' the right way who get ***** as part of god's plan through no fault of their own.

Yeah, that flies in the face of a half century of research. Could be accurate, but it's going to take more than one study for me to think cancer is just bad luck. And it's anecdotal, but I love near the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant. Cancer rates there are something like 3 out of every 5 workers. The likelihood that that many random people went to work for the same employer is insane.

(05-03-2017, 07:30 PM)Dill Wrote: I am not up on current health care debates. But I have heard little mention of coops. People always talk as if one-payer and free market are the only options.  And coops offer some variation.

If I remember correctly, in Germany (as of 5 years ago) anyone making over 50,000 Euros could opt out of insurance--though all manner of private insurance like ours is available. People making less than 50,000, however, are mandated to buy. But I remember at least two different levels of coop. When we began making more money we had to go up a level.

No medical bankruptcies there.

Another feature I long for is that we never had to fill out forms. Doctors just sent in the bills. You didn't have to pay and then let insurance decide whether to reimburse.  The only exception was when my daughter spent nights in the hospital (back in the 80s). We were charged 5 Marks per night--about $2.50, depending on the exchange rate.

Coops can take a lot of forms. I think ideally private companies should try to get business as opposed to setting what their profit margin should be and working out from there.

[Benton]

(05-03-2017, 06:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/new_study_finds_that_most_cancer_mutations_are_due_to_random_dna_copying_mistakes

According to this study, Approximately 2/3rds of all cancers aren't related to hereditary, life style, or environmental factors. Just good people livin' the right way who get ***** as part of god's plan through no fault of their own.

Yeah, that flies in the face of a half century of research. Could be accurate, but it's going to take more than one study for me to think cancer is just bad luck. And it's anecdotal, but I love near the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant. Cancer rates there are something like 3 out of every 5 workers. The likelihood that that many random people went to work for the same employer is insane.

(05-03-2017, 07:30 PM)Dill Wrote: I am not up on current health care debates. But I have heard little mention of coops. People always talk as if one-payer and free market are the only options.  And coops offer some variation.

If I remember correctly, in Germany (as of 5 years ago) anyone making over 50,000 Euros could opt out of insurance--though all manner of private insurance like ours is available. People making less than 50,000, however, are mandated to buy. But I remember at least two different levels of coop. When we began making more money we had to go up a level.

No medical bankruptcies there.

Another feature I long for is that we never had to fill out forms. Doctors just sent in the bills. You didn't have to pay and then let insurance decide whether to reimburse.  The only exception was when my daughter spent nights in the hospital (back in the 80s). We were charged 5 Marks per night--about $2.50, depending on the exchange rate.

Coops can take a lot of forms. I think ideally private companies should try to get business as opposed to setting what their profit margin should be and working out from there.

[Benton]

(05-03-2017, 06:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/new_study_finds_that_most_cancer_mutations_are_due_to_random_dna_copying_mistakes

According to this study, Approximately 2/3rds of all cancers aren't related to hereditary, life style, or environmental factors. Just good people livin' the right way who get ***** as part of god's plan through no fault of their own.

Yeah, that flies in the face of a half century of research. Could be accurate, but it's going to take more than one study for me to think cancer is just bad luck. And it's anecdotal, but I love near the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant. Cancer rates there are something like 3 out of every 5 workers. The likelihood that that many random people went to work for the same employer is insane.

(05-03-2017, 07:30 PM)Dill Wrote: I am not up on current health care debates. But I have heard little mention of coops. People always talk as if one-payer and free market are the only options.  And coops offer some variation.

If I remember correctly, in Germany (as of 5 years ago) anyone making over 50,000 Euros could opt out of insurance--though all manner of private insurance like ours is available. People making less than 50,000, however, are mandated to buy. But I remember at least two different levels of coop. When we began making more money we had to go up a level.

No medical bankruptcies there.

Another feature I long for is that we never had to fill out forms. Doctors just sent in the bills. You didn't have to pay and then let insurance decide whether to reimburse.  The only exception was when my daughter spent nights in the hospital (back in the 80s). We were charged 5 Marks per night--about $2.50, depending on the exchange rate.

Coops can take a lot of forms. I think ideally private companies should try to get business as opposed to setting what their profit margin should be and working out from there.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-03-2017, 05:06 PM)Benton Wrote: Yours sons (and my uncle who died two years ago from renal failure associated with childhood diabetes) situation isn't what I think the lawmaker was referring to. I think he was saying people who take some risks are more likely to develop some health problema.

I'm a proponent of some type of insurance coop.

(05-03-2017, 05:55 PM)Dill Wrote: My daughter developed leukemia when she was 4 1/2 years old. She was cured in a German hospital. Now she is 35 years old. A brush with cancer like that is what insurers have labeled a "pre-existing condition" for decades. Jimmy Kimmel's son's heart valve condition would be another example.  If your parents and your brother died of cancer, that would put you, for insurers, in a higher risk pool no matter how great your life-style choices were.

If the good Representative from Alabama wants us talking about how life-style choices create a pre-existing conditions, I think it is to moralize medical issues to the point enough people feel comfortable moving back to the old system, which excluded those with pre-existing conditions or charged them prohibitively high premiums. "Personal responsibility"=greater profitability if people can be blamed for their conditions. People who don't have pre-existing conditions--or none that they know of yet--then come to see those with pre-existing conditions as the "problem"--not the Freedom Caucus and insurance companies.

This could be a new variation on the cookie joke: An insurance company CEO, a healthy client, and a client with a pre-existing condition are all sitting around a table upon which sits a dish with 12 cookies. The CEO grabs 11 cookies, then leans over to the healthy client and whispers "Watch out! that sickie wants half your cookie."

By the way, German insurance, for middle and lower income earners, is coop--perhaps one reason why healthcare there is half the cost per capita and just as good. How is it that they cover everyone for everything--even smokers--without seeing their costs "skyrocket"?

(05-03-2017, 06:06 PM)Benton Wrote: I think a coop would fix a lot of our problems. Or at least step in that direction without totally abandoning insurance and medical providers' free market right to possibly make you give up everything you have or die. If people still wanted to take advantage of that model-- as lawmakers assure us they will -- them they can. For those that want cheaper coverage, they can coop.

(05-03-2017, 10:45 PM)Benton Wrote: Yeah, that flies in the face of a half century of research. Could be accurate, but it's going to take more than one study for me to think cancer is just bad luck. And it's anecdotal, but I love near the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant. Cancer rates there are something like 3 out of every 5 workers. The likelihood that that many random people went to work for the same employer is insane.


Coops can take a lot of forms. I think ideally private companies should try to get business as opposed to setting what their profit margin should be and working out from there.

(05-03-2017, 10:45 PM)Benton Wrote: Yeah, that flies in the face of a half century of research. Could be accurate, but it's going to take more than one study for me to think cancer is just bad luck. And it's anecdotal, but I love near the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant. Cancer rates there are something like 3 out of every 5 workers. The likelihood that that many random people went to work for the same employer is insane.


Coops can take a lot of forms. I think ideally private companies should try to get business as opposed to setting what their profit margin should be and working out from there.

Sorry I hate when I don't know something that I feel like I should know...but what the hell is a coop? 

[GMDino]

I think the honorable congressman just fell into the over simplification trap.

Like "legitimate rape" for example.

People who live a "good life" don't get sick as much can be a statement that is backed up with some evidence.  It's also incredibly dumb to use it as an argument in the health care debate.  

But it is a simple statement that simple people will get behind.  I guarantee that over 50% of his constituents think he meant God will take care of them so they don't need no gubment interference! 

[*michaelsean*]

(05-04-2017, 07:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: I think the honorable congressman just fell into the over simplification trap.

Like "legitimate rape" for example.

People who live a "good life" don't get sick as much can be a statement that is backed up with some evidence.  It's also incredibly dumb to use it as an argument in the health care debate.  

But it is a simple statement that simple people will get behind. I guarantee that over 50% of his constituents think he meant God will take care of them so they don't need no gubment interference! 

They would only think that if they saw the "quote" in the title, and not what he actually said.  

[GMDino]

(05-04-2017, 10:15 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They would only think that if they saw the "quote" in the title, and not what he actually said.  

Like I said....

We are talking about the bible belt.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-04-2017, 10:18 AM)GMDino Wrote: Like I said....

We are talking about the bible belt.

True, and if they read the title they may have thought that, but what he actually said comes nowhere near that.