What's in the Healthcare Bill for You?

I disagree with the "Let's not talk about it" suggestion. Part of community comes from getting to know each other in different contexts. If the, um, spirited political discussion is not your bag, just don't follow that (this) thread.

I also disagree with the assessment that the thread was intended to inflame or divide. (For the nonce, we'll skip the question of why libs "just want to raise awareness" while conservatives "are divisive and polarizing." I'll save that for another thread. ) I think the OP -- was that Rooster? -- has passionate feelings about the issue, which does indeed intersect greatly with the themes of this board.

dieselgal wrote:... that a majority of uninsured could already have insurance but they choose not to pay for it and spend their money elsewhere. ...

Dear Lord, I pray you NEVER face the situation that far too many people face. Their employer does not offer insurance. They may or may not have a pre-existing condition. They are the "working poor" to are working as hard as they can but can not afford insurance. PLEASE think before you wish to decrease the "surplus population".

We've had friends to left abusive husbands ... only to find they could not afford ANY type of insurance.

Go down to any of the free health clinics and see how many of those people are too lazy to have a job. Almost ALL of them are working but can not afford insurance.

As others have pointed out, there is NO WAY that I could obtain insurance if I loose my job. I have OSA, CSA, Hypertension, Diabetes (Type 2) and Sporadic OPCA. It is likely even Bill Gates could not afford such insurance! It just would not be available. Certainly not if I loose my job.

PLEASE look at the facts before posting something like this. Sure there are some people who scam the system. Just ask all those CEOs who need to have US bail out their companies and they walk away with Millions (approaching BILLIONS) of dollars as a reward. That always happens. But way, way too many of the people who need insurance simple can not afford it - even when working full time.

John, what makes you think I haven't or don't face the problems you mention. Believe me I have and do face all the problems people have mentioned in this thread. I took the job I have right now strictly for the insurance benefits because as a overweight middle age woman I couldn't get decent insurance.
However, that doesn't mean that I think government medical is the way to go or that this piece of garbage they are shoving down the throats of America is the right thing to do. I think it is WRONG and a power grab by this oh so transparent administration. It won't affect them after all, they all get the best of care from the best of Dr's and WE pay for it.

dieselgal wrote:The part about "THE BILL" that I don't like is that it isn't necessary. If they really wanted to make sure people had coverage they could mandate the existing insurers have to cover people equally without regard to pre-existing conditions. They DON"T have to take control of 1/6 of this countries money to be able to do it. There is no need to destroy 75 percent of something to supposedly help 15%.

Deiselgal, I think you have been given erroneous information about the plan. The bill doesn't do those things. The Senate agreed with you, and adopted a bill that mostly leaves the employer-based part of the current system alone. Generally speaking, full-time workers who are offered coverage by their employer will not be eligible for any government subsidy to buy individual policies on the insurance exchanges that the bill establishes. There are some minor exceptions; for example, if your insurance costs you more than 9.8 percent of your salary, you can switch to the exchange. But for the most part, the reforms affect those who can't get insurance through their work. The Congressional budget office estimates that when the plan is fully in place, about 160 million workers will continue to get employer coverage. The net movement away from employer coverage will only be 4 million. There is a specific guarantee, section 1251(a)(1), that says,

Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act.

I don't think it is possible to merely require that insurers have to cover people equally without regard to pre-existing conditions. The requirement that people carry insurance and that insurers cover preexisting conditions go hand in hand. If you just had the second of these, everyone could wait until they got sick to buy insurance. It would be like letting people buy fire insurance after the fire had started. That really would wreck the existing system.

dieselgal wrote:Add this to the fact that we will be further taxed to cover illegal aliens , we have a recipe for collapse of this country.

This is absolutely not the case. I personally think that this is a mistake, but the bill doesn't allow illegal aliens buy individual health insurance policies on the exchanges, even if they pay full price with their own money. It definitely doesn't subsidize them. Section 1312(f)(3) says,

If an individual is not, or is not reasonably expected to be for the entire period for which enrollment is sought, a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States, the individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health plan in the individual market that is offered through an Exchange.

dieselgal wrote:John, what makes you think I haven't or don't face the problems you mention. Believe me I have and do face all the problems people have mentioned in this thread. I took the job I have right now strictly for the insurance benefits because as a overweight middle age woman I couldn't get decent insurance.
However, that doesn't mean that I think government medical is the way to go or that this piece of garbage they are shoving down the throats of America is the right thing to do. I think it is WRONG and a power grab by this oh so transparent administration. It won't affect them after all, they all get the best of care from the best of Dr's and WE pay for it.

It is quite possible (and I maintain it is very likely) that this bill is going to make both healthcare and health insurance more expensive and less efficient, be a drag on innovation, and definitely will increase taxes. All of this will take a chunk out of economic growth. When that happens, it is the poor who suffer the most.

We need reform, but not what is in this bill.

BTW, I make no apologies for starting this thread and I have made no posts with personal attacks just as most (but not all) of you have made no personal attacks.

rooster wrote:... We need reform, ...

We agree on a great deal. I just decided that I would rather see SOME change rather than NO change. It might prove disasterous. But it needs to happen. And I admit, I may regret it. But I won't regret standing by the side just saying "No!" Inaction is not acceptable.

rooster wrote:... BTW, I make no apologies for starting this thread and I have made no posts with personal attacks just as most (but not all) of you have made no personal attacks.

And you have my sincere thanks that you started the conversation and continue to try to help all of us keep the tone civil. Only through civil discourse can we see a broader picture. Trying to understand the complexities of the healthcare system - even with input from various news organizations - is not possible. Only when we listen to the experiences and insights of one another can we gain a sense of the issues at hand. We may not agree. However, trying understanding one another we can (and should) work toward a common ground.

Enough is enough, all that is going to happen is we are all going to get screwed.
What ever comes of the health bill was decided behind closed doors months ago it's a total scam.
Look at the last election every one I talk to says that they didn't vote for "BO" the only reason he got elected was because every body listened to Oprah.
I'm out of here.

Here is an exerpt from something I was just now reading:

"People complain that there are too many lawyers, and that's probably true, but poor people do not have enough lawyers," Mr. Pincus said.

So let's get Obama and Congress involved, create a National Legal Care plan, and spread all the lawyers around evenly.

Patrick A wrote:Enough is enough, all that is going to happen is we are all going to get screwed.
What ever comes of the health bill was decided behind closed doors months ago it's a total scam.
Look at the last election every one I talk to says that they didn't vote for "BO" the only reason he got elected was because every body listened to Oprah.
I'm out of here.

Are you serious? You really think she persuaded the country into a landslide. Why didn't she do that in 2004 or 2000.
I tend to think a large portion of the country just wanted a different direction than the last 8 years. IE Bush had a low approval rating for an extended period of time.
and if Obama matches that level they will do it again.

I agree. A large portion of the country DID want a different direction than the previous 8 years under BushBaby, Cheney and Rummy.

And, unfortunately, while I may not like all that the Democrats are up to, I don't see the Republicans changing their stripes at all. They appear to be behaving petulantly, pettily, spitefully and are offering no positive suggestions of their own.

I'm ready for a strong third party!!!

rooster wrote:
So let's get Obama and Congress involved, create a National Legal Care plan, and spread all the lawyers around evenly.

After all, legal representation is a RIGHT! Along with cell phones and cable TV...

I see another case where that wonderful Canadian government health care just doesn't "deliver the goods" - http://www.sleepguide.com/forum/topics/ ... -christmas

But fortunately the evil, greedy, obscene-profit-making business community stepped in to save the day.

The owner of a local car dealership, who wished to remain anonymous, committed $500 and vowed to use his connection in the local business community to rally enough support to purchase the monitor.

Went to my Cardiologist yesterday to have my ICD checked. They had pamphlets in front which said:
December 1, 2009

Dear Patients,

We would like to make you aware of drastic federal cuts that will begin to compromise your cardiac care in January. These cuts are completely separate from those included in healthcare reform. They have already been finalized by CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) and will go into effect on January 1st unless patients, doctors, and legislators act soon.
Reimbursement for most of the services we provide will be cut up to 40% next year, and these cuts are just the first round of four planned for the next four years.
Cardiology practices simply cannot absorb these devastating cuts. If these cuts remain in place, we will need to reduce our staff (meaning less service and longer delays) and we may be forced to refer you to the hospital for many of the services you currently receive here.
Co-payments for services rendered at the hospital are typically around 20% of the cost of the service. This means a dramatic increase in your out-of-pocket costs.
These cuts will also ironically increase overall spending by Medicare because hospitals are usually paid 3 times what doctor’s offices are paid for the exact same tests. And since total Medicare spending is slated for reduction, this will inevitably lead to rationing of your health care. Until rationing begins, hospitals will earn more while you and Medicare pay more.
Please visit http://www.guardingheartsalliance.org to learn more about these cuts. You can click on the “Take Action” link to send a message to your senators and representatives. Better yet, you can contact them directly. Please voice your opinion today.


Sincerely,

CiresWrossed wrote: Are we comfortable with health insurance being managed in a market oriented environment.

It's never been tried.

Health insurance is so heavily regulated that in every state there are one or two big companies that dominate the market.

There are only a few choices in policies and you cannot get one tailored to your needs because state regulations dictate what the insurance companies put in the policies.

You cannot buy insurance from out of state.

It is not a market orientation when the supplier cannot decide what to offer and the buyer cannot choose what to pay purchase. It's a government orientation.

rooster wrote:

CiresWrossed wrote: Are we comfortable with health insurance being managed in a market oriented environment.

It's never been tried.

Health insurance is so heavily regulated that in every state there are one or two big companies that dominate the market.

There are only a few choices in policies and you cannot get one tailored to your needs because state regulations dictate what the insurance companies put in the policies.

You cannot buy insurance from out of state.

It is not a market orientation when the supplier cannot decide what to offer and the buyer cannot choose what to pay purchase. It's a government orientation.

Wow, talk about a delayed reaction. I had to go back to the December 26th post to figure out why and what you were responding to.

It is my understanding that health insurance was first introduced in the early depression era 1930's as a non-profit system to help hospitals recover their costs. It was unregulated then.

It was not until health insurance became a vehicle of profit for doctors and hosptials that the AMA lobbied government to step in to regulate (on their profit motivated behalf of course).

Perhaps profiting on the market for ill fates of patient/victims requires regulation from one greed or another?

Remember what happened to those AIG insurance fellows? They got rewarded by being deregulated to dominate the market and the government had no choice but to give them their choice of 6 and 7 figure bonuses. Maybe we need to try that again?