America’s Chris Wallace Problem |

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
No, but this one is asserted by more that just dems.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t make it any less a partisan judgment by Wallace.
LeafByNiggle said:
I linked to the full text of the executive order. If you think it has any force of law, please cite the passage where it says there are any penalties if an insurance company chooses to exclude pre-existing conditions from coverage.
Click to expand...
That’s a lawyerly thing to assess. Lots of statutes and regulations don’t contain penalties within them. Other statutes or regulations often govern whether a particular section carries penalties.
LeafByNiggle said:
Well, if Trump’s answer was “I signed an executive order” that would not be an answer to the question of what is your plan for health care. Not your promise or your goal or your hopes and dreams, but your plan. That is a fair question to ask someone who is working hard to invalidate the one law we do have that requires coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...
If that was Trump’s answer, it was his answer. It was not Wallace’s place to reject the answer, negatively characterize what Trump did do and push for a different answer. He was supposed to be a moderator, not a partisan. But as a long time anti-Trumper he was a partisan. Why the Repubs agreed to him as a moderator is a mystery to me.

But that’s particularly true because Wallace was just plain wrong. There is quite a bit in the executive order that provides substantive benefit to people. There was no need to provide a range of punishments because virtually all of the order directs government entities, not individuals.

If Wallace knew anything about the executive order, he misrepresented it grievously. Having read the order, it is difficult for me to believe he was not being deliberately misleading. He’s a worse partisan than I gave him credit for.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
And exactly what did it direct government entities to do that would have the effect of preventing an insurance company from excluding pre-existing conditions from their coverage?
Click to expand...
I’m not a legal scholar. But I never said it did. It does appear there were some orders to various departments to cover some kinds of illnesses like renal disease, AIDS and Covid, seemingly without cost. But an across-the-board cover for preexisting, I don’t see. I do see that the number who really need that coverage is quite small; much smaller than the Obama/Biden administraiton claimed. I recall Trump suggesting that providing funding for state forced insurance might cover the actual need. I have personally thought that for a long time, well before Trump ran for president. They ended up turning the whole system on its head and costing a lot of money for a handful of people, and additionally instituted an entirely new welfare plan.
 
Last edited:

Mainstream media treats Biden running for the Presidency like a Make-A-Wish kid running for a touchdown​

’ - Adam Carolla
 
I don’t like Chris Wallace, either. I think he’s arrogant and condescending.
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
That’s the point of insurance. You hope that the people who actually need to apply for benefits is quite small.
Click to expand...
Why do insurers advertise for customers, then?
Click to expand...
Questions do not make very convincing arguments. Can you restate your argument in the form of a declarative sentence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top