I don't think the Health Insurance Reform Act was a great progressive achievement.

[boston bean]

So, sue me.

[banned from Kos]

1. 2.5 million under 26 like it as they are now insured.

Many others are in the public high-risk option.

You fail.

[sarcasmo]

5. Right on, I know 6 members of my wife's family who

are still covered thanks to the 26 year old rule.

[SugarShack]

66. Obama had insurance and facilities at the table instead of doctors and patients.

The insurance companies should not be in there at all.

[surfdog]

77. Fail

Congress was at the table , as they should have

It had to go through Congress , a simple fact many seem to overlook on purpose

So the doctors tell Obama they want single-payer , wouldn't matter one bit , still can't get it through Congress

Let's say the polls show they have 100% of the American people want single-payer , we still lose because it has to go through Congress

Complain all you want but I believe the president got the best he could get through Congress

[tpsbmam]

130. Fail.

Sorry, I had to mimic your response -- I find it an obnoxious one and have never used it before, though I won't promise to never use it again!

SugarShack is absolutely correct! Obama brought lobbyists to the table and, not only didn't include single payer and other representatives as he promised he would, a few single payer advocate physicians were arrested when they attempted to hand deliver a letter to the President!

Obama did, indeed, have lobbyists at the table. Read and learn:

White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1&hp|

Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.

Note here that members of Congress were making noises about bring down drug costs and Obama squelched it because he made a deal.


Obama gives powerful drug lobby a seat at healthcare table

The pharmaceutical industry, once condemned by the president as a source of healthcare problems, has become a White House partner.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare-pharma4-2009aug04,0,711970,print.story

As a candidate for president, Barack Obama lambasted drug companies and the influence they wielded in Washington. He even ran a television ad targeting the industry's chief lobbyist, former Louisiana congressman Billy Tauzin, and the role Tauzin played in preventing Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices.

Since the election, Tauzin has morphed into the president's partner. He has been invited to the White House half a dozen times in recent months. There, he says, he eventually secured an agreement that the administration wouldn't try to overturn the very Medicare drug policy that Obama had criticized on the campaign trail.

"The White House blessed it," Tauzin said.

NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html?view=print

For months I've been reporting in The Huffington Post that President Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital lobby that he would make sure there would be no national public option in the final health reform legislation. (See here,here and here). I've been increasingly frustrated that except for an initial story last August in the New York Times, no major media outlet has picked up this important story and investigated further.

Hopefully, that's changing. On Monday, Ed Shultz interviewed New York Times Washington reporter David Kirkpatrick on his MSNBC TV show, and Kirkpatrick confirmed the existence of the deal. Shultz quoted Chip Kahn, chief lobbyist for the for-profit hospital industry on Kahn's confidence that the White House would honor the no public option deal, and Kirkpatrick responded:

"That's a lobbyist for the hospital industry and he's talking about the hospital industry's specific deal with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee and, yeah, I think the hospital industry's got a deal here. There really were only two deals, meaning quid pro quo handshake deals on both sides, one with the hospitals and the other with the drug industry. And I think what you're interested in is that in the background of these deals was the presumption, shared on behalf of the lobbyists on the one side and the White House on the other, that the public option was not going to be in the final product."

Kirkpatrick also reported in his original New York Times article that White House was standing behind the deal with the for-profit hospitals: "Not to worry, Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal".

I've backed up my assertions and those made by SugarShack. And you?

[derby378]

145. Aw, SNAP! (n/t)

[Octafish]

107. Seems like Ezekiel Emanuel set the agenda...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html

Too much health care is a problem, not a right.

[SomethingFishy]

10. And many millions of others are still not covered.

And won't be even after 2014.


Apparently "fail" is a matter of degree or opinion.

[NNN0LHI]

12. If you seen two people drowning but could only help one would you let them both drown?

[SomethingFishy]

15. No but I also wouldn't save one of them and talk about a victory..

I would be crying for the one we lost.

I especially would not talk about what a great achievement it was in front of the loved ones of the person who drowned. It's kind of cruel wouldn't you say?

[NNN0LHI]

75. I would have handled that situation differently

I would have saved one person and after I did that I would have enlisted the help of the person I had just saved and maybe with two of us out of the water now we could both begin working together to try and figure out how to save the other one.

Don

[SomethingFishy]

124. Well now you are changing the situation..

Now you are saying it's possible to save both. Your question was if I could only save one would I let them both drown. There was no option to save the other.

The fact is the Health Care reform is not much better than a foot in the door. The fact that Obama got his foot in the door is amazing, no doubt, but I wouldn't call it a "progressive achievement" it's a step towards that.

And my point stands.. to flaunt it in the face of people who are suffering is cruel.

[A Simple Game]

132. It's not President Obama's fault you didn't know you could change the rules in midstream.

Pun intended.

The problem is, too many people have drowned already. It is well past time to do something preventative. The bill as written will force most people to take out very high deductible coverage that will be worse than not having any insurance at all. It will do very little to prevent more drownings.

[Bob Wallace]

144. Those "very high deductibles"...

$2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Other_effects_on_individuals

Put that up against a $100,000 hospital bill for someone who has no insurance.

[dflprincess]

149. I notice the article you linked to doesn't say what the maximum allowable out of pocket expense is.

The deductible is what you pay before insurance kicks in at all and is not the same as max out of pocket. More of us are getting stuck with policies that have the high deductible (mine goes to $2500 this year) plus a "co-insurance" amount above that. Once I hit the deductible the "insurance" that goes into effect at 12:01 tonight will only pay 75% of any claims up $3,450 making my max out of pocket $5,950.

Strangely, the policies currently available to individuals with preexisting coniditions though HHS also have a $5,590 (single) cap for the maximum out of pocket so I'm wondering if that's the limit the law allows.

[Bob Wallace]

153. I found what you found...

A $5,950 out of pocket cap for people on the 'pre-existing' policy. That's for individuals, for families it's $11,900.

I would think that someone who had a pre-existing condition and could get no insurance, leaving them with either enormous bills or no treatment would be pretty happy about not having to pay out more than $5.5k.

I did find a statement in a Department of Health and Human Services -

"The health reform act specifies maximum out-of-pocket limits in 2014 equal to the corresponding maximums as defined in the Internal Revenue Code for high-deductible health plans. We estimate that these limits would be $6,645 for an individual and $13,290 for a family with qualified creditable coverage (including employer-sponsored health insurance)."

https://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf

I did find warnings for people to look closely at out of pocket costs when choosing a policy. Advice to consider paying more per month to protect yourself against the higher potential costs.

[dflprincess]

161. That $5950 is in addition to premiums

For a person in their mid 50s those premiums run over $400/month. If the person has a chronic condition and meets the out of pocket the $5,950 averages out to $496/month so they could be looking at nearly $900/ month in premiums and out of pocket costs.

I don't know many people who have room in their budgets for that.

The U.S. will continue to be the only country that allows medical bills to drive people to bankruptcy.

[Bob Wallace]

168. Found this...

"The maximum out-of-pocket costs the person/family will be responsible for in 2014 (not including the premium) is $6,250. "

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

A person in their mid 50s paying over $400 per month would be making a decent salary. A single 55 year old adult making $45,000 a year would have a $356/month premium. The max out of pocket would be another $521 for a total of $877. That's 23% of their income.

That would be a strain and a bigger strain for those singles making less than $45k a year, but it's much better than no help at all.

If the other parts of the PPACA can drive down the cost of health care then it may be able to increase coverage over time.

[dflprincess]

169. And a single 55 year old making $46,500 a year

is eligible for no subsidy and is looking at an annual premium of $8,495 (using the medium cost factor). That would be $707/month. Add in the out of pocket of $6,250 and they are looking at a potential annual bill of $14,745 which is nearly 32% of their income. There are people with chronic conditions that may be looking at that expense every year.

Compare that to what people in civilized countries pay through taxes for their health care and you really get a feel for how badly screwed we are.

[Bob Wallace]

171. Yep...

As many of us have repeatedly said, this is not a perfect bill.

It's a step from terrible to good. It will take more work to get it to excellent.

The 49.9 million who had no insurance in 2010 won't all be covered in a totally affordable manner, but most will be much better off than they were. A small percentage with chronic conditions may spend 30% or more of their income on insurance, but at least they will be getting treatment other than what was available in ERs and free clinics.

And hopefully we will be able to cut back significantly on the 45,000 annual deaths due to people not being able to afford treatment. I'll bet that those who have to spend 30% of their income would rather do that rather than be part of the 45,000 statistic.

One of the first fixes we may need is for those who fall into the cracks.

[A Simple Game]

156. After you pay your $500 or $600 payment per month that you can't afford,

where is the money to pay for the doctor visit or the emergency room visit? People will just do what they do now, not go to the doctor or emergency room.

So you may be right, instead of a $100 or $200 doctor visit to fix the problem, you will end up with a $100,000 hospital bill. Where is the savings for society?

If I can not afford insurance now, probably don't own a house, don't have two pennies to rub together, why would I worry about a $100,000 dollar medical bill? Sue me, see how far that gets you.

[Bob Wallace]

164. If you have a $500 to $600 a month premium under the PPACA...

You're making a sweet salary.

A 50 year old with a family of four making $50,000 per year will pay $282 per month for health insurance.

A 50 year old with a family of four making $60,000 per year will pay $411 per month for health insurance.

A 50 year old with a family of four making $70,000 per year will pay $552 per month for health insurance.

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx


The sort of person who really needs help, IMO...

A 50 year old with a family of four making $30,000 per year will receive free health care via Medicaid.

A 50 year old with a family of four making $35,000 per year will pay $116 per month for health insurance.

A 50 year old with a family of four making $40,000 per year will pay $165 per month for health insurance.

[unapatriciated]

191. Do you know what kind of health care the chronically ill get from Medicaid?

It is little or none. You get to wait months for an appointment at your local clinic. You see a different doctor each time who has little or no knowledge about your particular illness. The patient spends more time (time the clinic doctor doesn't have) informing the doctor about his illness. Blood test that should be done monthly to insure your medications are properly prescribed are done maybe twice a year if you are lucky. Just because it is free via Medicaid doesn't mean it is healthcare.

[Bob Wallace]

205. You might want to read the PPACA provisions...

Designed to improve health care in rural and low income areas.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/full.html

[unapatriciated]

210. What makes you think I haven't read this. In fact I have read every part of this very long piece....

of legislation we call HCR.
I have been involved with changing laws regarding Health Care and Insurance since the early 90's.
California enacted legislation regarding pre-existing conditions and claims in the early 90's. The Insurance Industry still abused the system and was sued by the State of California and settled for pennies of what it would have cost them since the lawsuit only covered a few years.
These are links to stories regarding denial of benefits and canceling policies wrongfully.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/insurance/2007-01-28-insurance-1a-usat_x.htm

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure23feb23,1,2568706,full.story

http://shernoff.com/news/news/william-shernoff-settles-wellpoint-rescission-case-for-woman-with-breast-cancer.html

http://www.shernoff.com/legal-news/Blue-Cross-of-California-Settles-Class-Action-Suit-Over-Policy-Cancellations.html

I was fighting my own Insurance Company for years regarding their revolving door of denials of claims (the reason I got involved in charging the law in California). I took all my files to Shernoff and he was quite impressed with what I had managed to get paid. I know you mean well but I don't think you have a clue about Health Care and the Insurance Industry. btw my son does not live in a rural area nor am I low income. Again I know you mean well but you do not have a clue about how medcaid applies and works for those adults who are chronically ill and on SSI.

[Bob Wallace]

211. ...

I spent a good deal of my career working with people who were on SSI and depended on Medical for their health care.

[unapatriciated]

215. medicaid and medical are two different animals did you even read what I wrote.

I have spent over twenty years involved in this. My son is alive today because of my involvement. My Insurance HMO doctor wanted to send him home to die and this was after a year of fighting to get him diagnosed correctly.

[Bob Wallace]

219. MediCAL...

is California MediCAID.

"Medi-Cal is California's Medicaid health care program. This program pays for a variety of medical services for children and adults with limited income and resources. Medi-Cal is supported by federal and state taxes. You can apply for Medi-Cal benefits regardless of sex, race, religion, color, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, age, disability, or veteran status. If you are found (or determined) eligible, you can get Medi-Cal as long as you continue to meet the eligibility requirements"

[unapatriciated]

221. Yes you are correct I meant medicare and medicaid are not the same.

You do not see a the same doctor on medicaid like you do with medicare (realize you were not comparing medicare to medicaid). You go to a clinic and see whomever is on call that day. Someone with a chronic illness like Dermatomyositis should be followed by a Rheumatologist this does not happen in a clinic setting.

I am quite aware of what medi-cal does and does not provide. They also do not cover all medications needed. At my son's last SSI review his case worker told him point blank that he was receiving welfare (because he only worked for a year before getting sick again) when he complained about not getting needed medical care. She also told him he should be grateful for what he gets and stop complaining. They also told him that because I paid for medications that are not covered but expensive they would count that as income for him. Like $860 is going to provide even the basics. Yes we should be very very grateful for the crumbs they throw his way.

[Bob Wallace]

222. It depends...

The rural health clinic I go to and the physician's group I used to go to treat all patients the same.

If you will read the provisions in the PPACA you will see that there are efforts to be made which are aimed at improving services, especially for the poor.

Here's one -

"Increasing Medicaid Payments for Primary Care Doctors. As Medicaid programs and providers prepare to cover more patients in 2014, the Act requires states to pay primary care physicians no less than 100% of Medicare payment rates in 2013 and 2014 for primary care services. The increase is fully funded by the federal government. Effective January 1, 2013."

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/full.html

And this one should help us all -

"Paying Physicians Based on Value Not Volume. A new provision will tie physician payments to the quality of care they provide. Physicians will see their payments modified so that those who provide higher value care will receive higher payments than those who provide lower quality care. Effective January 1, 2015."

[unapatriciated]

223. My son is not in a rural area.

He goes to the clinic that is on the list for his area. Much like an Hmo he can not go to a specialist unless he has a referral. This really has nothing to do with how much is paid to individual doctor. Like I stated before few physicians practicing in a typical clinic have even heard of his illness let alone treated it. I have read the provisions in the PPACA and do not deny there is an effort but it does not apply to those that need a specialist care.

[sandyd921]

51. Those are good things

but still doesn't make it a great achievement (as stated in the OP).

[MedicalAdmin]

59. Is that 2.5 mil in real numbers,

Or the potential for 2.5 million?

If the parents don't have insurance are they covered? If their parents can't afford the extended coverage, are they covered?

And how does it control costs or price fixing?

Help a dying man out.

[Carolina]

79. covered by insurance is NOT

the same as having health care.

How much are they really 'covered'
How precarious is the parents' employment that provides the insurance in most cases
And the biggie, for those about to hit 26, WTF then

[Leopolds Ghost]

116. They are "now insured" because Obama passed a law REQUIRING them to have health insurance.

Your Logic fail.

[Leopolds Ghost]

117. Requiring them to carry PRIVATE health insurance, mind you.

The "public options" were MATHEMATICALLY set up to succeed only if a tiny percentage of people refused to purchase private insurance.

The goal was to save the private insurance industry from bankruptcy, not to provide universal health coverage.

The Washington Monthly reported on this for years before some folks here even became aware of the HCR bill.

About what the motives were, what stage of the process the public option would be dispensed with, and the rest.

Insurance cos weren't "at the table". They WROTE the fucking bill. And lawmakers like Edwards, Romney, Gingrich and the rest prided themselves on the fact that this would "save private health insurance."

[Leopolds Ghost]

118. Insurance execs who wrote the bill said "the goal is to create a captive pool of young, low-risk"

Insurance executives spoke out saying "we should not oppose this, the goal is to create a captive pool of young, low-risk customers to offset the aging of the Baby Boomers."

That was the goal as stated by the insurance lobbyists who were at the table when this program was being written ca. 2004-2008. It was created in think tanks by center-right Democrats and a few technocrats like Romney and Gingrich spoke out in favor of it (don't forget, it was modeled after Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts.)

Do Democrats now support ending rent control in urban areas like Romney did in Massachusetts?

Many Dems support Gingrich's welfare reform because a Democrat did it, and support Clinton's Health Care reform because Obama did it.

Hillary spoke out on the campaign trail calling these uninsured, working-poor twentysomethings "deadbeats". The captive market.

This language got repeated (it was originally a Gingrich term)

Hillary's policy on HCR became law as a condition of her endorsing the Obama campaign and combining staffs to achieve party unity in 2008.

Next we'll hear mainstream liberal Democrats (heck, I know a few who) attack Occupiers as "radical" for opposing bills like NDAA and FISA, saying "I am a liberal but I believe America should be strong and secure!"

[girl gone mad]

195. I hope the young people refuse to buy into it.

It makes me sad that young people voted for Obama and had so much hope, yett he turned around and offered them up like pigs to slaughter.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

200. So, less than 1% of the population? N.T.

[jannyk]

2. Neither Do I!

[Control-Z]

3. I have two kids

who are covered because of it, until they turn 26. I love it. It has already saved me a fortune, just in my son's meds. He's 20.

[PeaceNikki]

8. This was the immediate and real benefit for us, too.

My son is also 20.

[Control-Z]

13. I also have an 18 YO daughter,

who was in the ER just 2 weeks ago. I don't know what I would do without coverage for the two of them.

[MedicalAdmin]

60. Great news for you and your kids.

However I still have no coverage, that I can afford and given that I am dying I find small comfort in this law.

[Control-Z]

62. I'm so sorry, MedicalAdmin.

I hope the best for you.

[MedicalAdmin]

64. This lawns about access to insurance,

Not access to care.

In my case, had this been discovered early my outlook would be better, but even if it was I don't have access to care.

No care = dead in this case. I have probably a few months. And as the economy and the depression gets worse and worse, my little "inconvenience" will become more wide spread. Yes more will have a policy but fewer will be able to afford to use it.

[inna]

113. what a truly screwed up country we are. This just does NOT happen anywhere else in the civilized wo

rld. The way a society treats its sick and old and disabled defines that society's morality; our score in that respect is damning.


So sorry for your tragic predicament; my heart goes out to you and I wish there was anything I could do to help. You and countless others.

[A Simple Game]

134. And the only access that poor people will have is

very high deductible insurance, effectively the same as having no insurance in most cases.

Sorry for your problems

[Bob Wallace]

146. Wrong.

The really poor, both single and married, will get Medicaid.

Those who purchase their insurance from the Exchange policies will have $2,000 individual deductions and $4,000 family deductions. Plus they will have free preventative care.

That's very different from having no insurance and no ability to pay treatment which could save your life.

[A Simple Game]

157. Sorry, I assumed the Medicaid was a given.

Still doesn't help the not so poor that can't pay the deductible. Most of them will still do without, just like now, except they will have $500 less per month because of the insurance payment.

[Bob Wallace]

167. I posted detailed numbers in another post...

I won't repeat all of them here, but I'll use just one.

Suppose you're a 50 year old with a family of four and you make $50,000 a year. Under the PPACA your premium will be $282 a month. And in a bad year you could have another $11k in out of pocket expenses, another $1,000 a month.

Now we're up to about $1,300 per month or roughly 30% of your income. That's not great, but it's not guaranteed financial ruin either.

BTW, the insurance company will be getting $28 of that $282 to run their business and pay their stockholders a profit. If we went single payer we might cut that to $14, but that wouldn't be enough to greatly bring down other expenses I suspect.

I'm not at all saying that the PPACA is a "perfect" solution. But I am willing to say that it is a major step forward toward a better way of providing health coverage. It may not save 100% of all Americans, but it should considerably cut the number who are currently getting screwed.

Elect a Democratic Congress and we can make some improvements....

[dflprincess]

170. How is an additional $1300 a month not financial ruin?

What about paying for housing, utilities, food, clothes and transportation.. What happens if your medical condition makes you unable to work for a while and you don't have disability insurance?

It may not be ruin for you but I know damn few people who can squeeze another $1300 out of their budgets.

Besides the insurance companies the other big winners in this scam will be the credit card companies as that will be the only way some people will be able to pay their medical bills.

[Bob Wallace]

172. Would $1300 a month ruin some folks?

Sure.

Some people making $50,000 a year, $4,167 a month may not be able to keep up with their mortgage and/or car payments. If they've left themselves no wiggle room in their budgets and especially if those high costs continue for years then they're going to have to make some major changes.

Not a perfect plan. It won't save everyone.

Now, explain to me how insurance companies are big winners. They just got a major cap stuck on their profits.

[dflprincess]

173. UnitedHealth Group is predicting increased growth and increased profits

in the years to come. They've been doing very well the last few years and they expect to continue to do so. Their stock has not been hurt at all by this scam. I almost wish I hadn't dumped what few shares I had because it was the one part of my 401K that would have done half way decently.

As for that $4,167/month that's before taxes, the family making $50K a year is taking home less than that. It's just too bad if you end up homeless because you didn't plan on your child getting sick or spouse getting cancer. But I guess it just sucks to be a middle or working class family in American these days doesn't it?

Our system of a "private delivery system" is also hurting other parts of the economy. How does a person buy a home or car if they have to worry that they MIGHT get sick and MIGHT need that money to pay a medical bill or the premium on the mandated insurance policy? After all, they have to leave themselves some "wiggle room".

[Bob Wallace]

174. How does a person buy a home or car...

if they have no health insurance have to worry that they MIGHT get sick and MIGHT need that money to pay a medical bill with no help?

Since not every single person will be 100% helped by this "scam" your solution is to do nothing?

[Bob Wallace]

175. You can grow and increase profits...

by increasing volume.

There are now almost 50 million uninsured Americans. Some of them will receive Medicaid, a few will dumb out and and pay the penalty, most will purchase insurance with assistance.

Let's say there will be 30 million new customers. An insurance company can make a bit less per customer but more than make that up by serving a lot more customers. It's the big box strategy.

[dflprincess]

186. In other words,

Congress and the President just handed the insurance companies millions of new victims to fleece.

This whole thing was nothing but a scam to transfer billions of public and private dollars into the pockets of another corrupt industry (whose political contributions have really paid off).

Damn few people will benefit from being required to buy a product they can't afford to use. We will continue to be the only western nation where some people die because they could not access healthcare and others go bankrupt because they tried to access it.

[Bob Wallace]

187. Victims to fleece?

For many years I had health insurance from Blue Cross. I never felt that Blue Cross was fleecing me.

I would have enjoyed lower premiums but when I ended up in intensive care for a week BC paid the bills without jerking me around.

I'm just not finding your attitude reasonable. People are now going to have insurance that they can afford. They will have a deductible and if they have a bad turn of health then they are going to have some out of pocket expenses to pay, but they will dodge the greater part of a bill that definitely would have ruined them.

Right now people get really sick and have no insurance to pay for cancer treatment, a transplant, a very expensive course of medication. They die.

With insurance they will be able to be treated. They might have a bill to pay over the next several years, but at least they will be alive to pay it.

Damn few people will benefit? 49 million people who did not have insurance are now going to have insurance. That's damn few to you?

[dflprincess]

188. "Some out of pocket expense"

You don't think "coinsurance" (or "cost sharing" as the current bill calls it ) of up to $5,950/year (more as time goes on) will keep people from seeing a doctor? Americans are going to continue to die before they should have as they continue to put off getting needed care because of the out of pocket costs. This does not happen in civilized countries with national health plans of one kind or another.

I have had reasonable experiences with non-profit insurers in Minnesota including Blue Cross MN & Health Partners - but only after we had a Commerce Commissioner & an Attorney General that made it clear they wouldn't put up with the crap insurers like to pull when it comes to paying claims and fudging their MLRs.

On the other hand, Cigna, UnitedHealth Group, and a out of state for profit Blue Cross were nightmares (until Wendell Potter went public, the change in Cigna was like night & day after all the bad press). All three routinely deny claims for items that are clearly covered and they do this because they know most people won't put up more than a token fight. It took me two months to get my 2011 insurer to pay for the annual tests that the even the Profit Protection Act covered.

I worked for UHG though not in an area directly related to healthcare - and they even tried to screw their employess on claims payments. I knew people who worked in claims, the turnover there was awfully high because most of them had consciences that didn't let them stay there long. One thing that might have shocked UHG executives is the number of its employees who believed we need a single payer plan. The was absolute hysteria from the executive floor when an "Onion" article titled "UnitedHealth Group to change tactics - may start paying some claims" started circulating through the coporate email....They expected the IT department to somehow block each an every copy of it.

As of 12:01 this morning I will be insured through UHG again. I'm not looking forward to it - especially with the craptacular plan my current employer has picked.

The for profit insurers, even the non-profits where not overseen properly, are not in business for altruistic reasons. Their executives are only interested in making money and paying themselves obscence salaries. Paying claims cuts into their profits and they will continue find ways around it and they will cook their books to cover their MLR abuses.

Bet on it

[Bob Wallace]

189. Are people going to choose to die...

In order to avoid a $500/month treatment charge?

And remember, we are not talking about people making $20k, $30k a year but people making a decent salary.

I just don't think so.

Would it be nice if we could lower the out of pocket expenses? Of course. But the only way to do that is to reduce health care costs and/or increase taxpayer input. We have new regulations going into effect which should bring health care costs down. We'll have to give them some time to see if they do or do not work.

I'm sorry that you're going though what you are experiencing, but I'm not willing to paint the PPACA with your experience prior to the legislation going into effect. Your stories of insurance companies working to deny coverage in order to increase profits do not apply to the PPACA. There is now a firewall in place to prevent that behavior.

[unapatriciated]

192. For the chronically ill Medicaid is little or no health care.

You should talk to those who are on it and you will understand that there is little health care for them.
My son is on SSI due to long term active Dermatomyosits. He is now 33 and spends months waiting for an appointment only to get a different doctor each time. Sometimes he gets lucky and the Doctor has actually heard of his illness most times not. He has to wait even longer to get a referral for a specialist or blood test. Monthly blood test are important for two reasons...
1. It lets the doctor know whether or not the disease is active
2. To adjust his medications regarding active and in-active disease.

He is lucky to get blood test twice a year. When his medications are not changed during a flare he loses muscle and he doesn't have much left to lose.

Those that have long term illnesses need to be followed on a regular basis and hopefully by the same doctor you do not get this on Medicaid.

[Bob Wallace]

206. Read the provisions of the PPACA...

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/full.html

Part of it addresses current problems with Medicaid.

[Matariki]

25. Will they be able to afford mandated coverage after they turn 26?

Will it cost 20, 25, 30% of their income?

[Ikonoklast]

38. Do you understand that there will be subsidies for premiums, based on income?

It will cost nowhere near what you are saying.

Most people have *no clue* as to how the health care act is going to work.

[Donnachaidh]

42. Too bad they didn't put in any sort of CAP for premiums in the first place

Most people praising this *act* have *no clue* what it's like to walk into an er for a sprained knee only to face bills of over 100K. Or worse.

I have a kid that is on our insurance till he is 26. But I fully expect the insurance companies to expect him to become an indentured servant to them once he is on his own. And even then I don't expect them to offer him anything affordable. Because ONE accident for him can kick the bills into the stratosphere.

This bill is a badly place bandaid, done for pr purposes. It does NOT address the fundamental problems with insurance and rampant greed by the medical industrial complex.

It turned a serious problem many americans face daily into a shiny metal can, to be kicked down the road for some other schmuck to fix.

Excuse me if I don't do cartwheels over this mess.

[SammyWinstonJack]

93. I can not believe that anyone on DU would defend that mandated bs. Blows my mind.

Forced to buy coverage from the blood sucking health insurance corporations. Land of the Free, my ass!

[Donnachaidh]

141. When the offer of coverage is so high you can't afford it -- will you still be fined?

This administration has disappointed us on so many levels it's frightening. And having a kid with a pre-X that makes him a leper in the eyes of the insurance industrial complex -- I'll believe they will cover him solo when I see it and what it is going to cost.

What's the favorite line lately -- *Thanks a pantload Obama*. Oh yeah.

[MedicalAdmin]

65. I am a contractor, and like most self employed...

Those subsidies won't be available to us. On paper we will make too much in gross income but our net is much lower than someone who is an employee.

That is an entire class of folks who will not be helped.

[TheKentuckian]

190. The subsidy is to keep premiums to 10% of gross income. Deductibles and out of pockets are another

matter and prop up the cartel to the too big to fail area.

Two grand may as well be a quarter million to many and six thousand is like lottery money.

Keep in mind medicaid is only up to 130% of poverty which is beat by having a full time job even at garbage wages. A single person working full time at $8 an hour would not be eligible. Hell, full time at minimum wage might bust it.

The if you are poor you get medicaid line is crap, if you are destitute then you might get medicaid, poor as fuck better get with the bootstraps, hope they never get sick or hurt, and be thankful for the subsides for the insurance they cannot afford to use.

The bill is designed from its foundation to prop up the cartel and maintain its viability through suicidal practices and daunting demographics with so many heading for Medicare, not to help the poor, struggling, and working folks. Any such benefit is a careful compromise to purchase that viability.

The industry wrote the bill on an old Republican framework, the intentions are not great and that welk be reflected in outcomes.

[Control-Z]

58. I can't read the future

but I do know a 26 year old adult stands a much better chance of affording it (whatever the price) than just about any 18 year old.

[Leopolds Ghost]

120. Which is why Hillary called them "deadbeats" on the campaign trail.

According to the Washington Monthly circa 2005, the purpose of the original HCR bill as drafted at the think tank stage (basically what got passed, MINUS the public option, which Dems said was essential to the success of the effort in order to provide a Matrix-style out clause for the 5% of those poor who were willing to endure public scrutiny to prove that they should not be fined for failing to carry private insurance, but should be made eligible for a means-tested public option instead) --

-- the purpose was to secure the profits of the Health Insurance Industry (which was in danger of bankruptcy when Baby Boomers retire) by creating a "captive pool" of young, healthy consumers (the "deadbeats&quot who are not currently insured because they can't afford it and are willing to take the risk (which centrist Dems in favor of state control for individuals but not corporations call "endangering others" -- by risk-taking, i.e. "the nail that stands up must get hammered down.&quot

[Bob Wallace]

147. The maximum cost?

10% of your income.

But only if you make well over the poverty level. If you make less then you get free Medicaid.

--

Here -

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

Look up the cost of insurance based on income, family size and where you live.

[phasma ex machina]

4. It turned out fairly well for Connecticut's insurance oligarchy thanks to their boy Joe Lieberman.

[ProSense]

6. Well,

"I don't think the Health Insurance Reform Act was a great progressive achievement."

...there's a lot of good things about the law, and the impact has been positive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100284280

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=89383

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100286001

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=86219

To quote Krugman:

"Guys, this is a major program to aid lower- and lower-middle-income families. How is that not a big progressive victory?"

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/numerical-notes-on-health-care-reform/

[immoderate]

7. It was a way to stay at the bottom.

--imm

[Mimosa]

36. YES! You are right.

Why do other countries do heath care differently?

[TE Lawrence]

9. It was not a great Constitutional achievement either.

[SammyWinstonJack]

94. That's for sure. But I guess that doesn't matter to a great many here.

[Schema Thing]

11. Well it demonstrably was.

"progressive achievement" denotes progress. This bill was progress on almost every front imaginable wrt the American Healthcare system.


So no one is going to sue you, but you're wrong.

[dflprincess]

39. According to Rahm Emanuel one of the biggest pluses of the Profit Protection Act is that it

keeps "the private delivery system intact". How digging the status quo in deeper can be called progress is beyond me.

We needed reform that would give us access to care - instead we got a mandate to buy the same old crap from the same old crooks with no guaranteed of care. Not only do premiums continue to rise by deductibles and maximum out of pocket limits are going up as well and those mean more people won't be able to afford medical care even as they're required to pay for "coverage".

At the very least, this bill could have included coverage for a bankruptcy lawyer because the U.S. will remain the only country that allows medical bills to drive its citizens to financial ruin.

[Schema Thing]

43. no, that's a republican (I presume?) lie.

It's not in any way shape or form "the same old crap".


All insurance will now meet many new standards that make it MUCH better than all but the very most high-end boutique insurance policies were previously. And care IS guaranteed.

Premiums will rise much slower than they have been in years previous.

Maximum out of pocket have gone way down, and are now capped. No more lifetime limits or annual limits.



Pretty much every word of your paragraph above was a false smear against democratic led legislation.

[dflprincess]

45. Access to care is not guaranteed

It will cover certain screening tests but it does not require that any follow up those tests indicate you need be covered. It can cost several thousand dollars just to find out the weird spot on the "free" screening mammogram is benign. If it isn't benign, your surgery, radiation and chemo will all be subject to out of pockets.

Emergency care from everything from an appendectomy to a heart attack will still be subject to the the out of pockets.

Care for chronic conditions (like diabetes) is still subject to copays and deductibles. As more employers go to higher deductible policies, there is a growing number of people with chronic conditions who are not getting the routine care they need and who are stretching prescriptions out trying to make them last longer because they can't afford the out of pockets. Meanwhile the insurance companies this bill protects have been posting record profits.

As out of pocket limits increase more people will find themselves either without care or in deep financial trouble because they couldn't avoid the doctor.

[inna]

110. "false smear" - pure/classic projection

[Leopolds Ghost]

121. It's NOT a Republican Lie. I was reading about this bill in the Washington Monthly at the THINK TANK

stage, when it was being drafted. That is what the drafters said (they also explicitly said that the reason Clinton's bill failed is because the insurance industry wasn't brought in to help draft it) -- before Rahm Emanuel got back into the national spotlight.

The goal was to create a "captive pool" of young, healthy recipients in order to keep the private insurance system from collapse -- and prevent a movement toward single payer, which the drafters said was the way they got insurance to participate -- by telling them that mandated private health care was the only way to forestall single payer.

The public option was to be paid for entirely by fines on private insurance-eligible citizens, by the way.

I.e. if the 20% fail to carry private insurance, they are not eligible for the public option (due to limits on subscription to the public option) and would accordingly be fined, *cough* taxed* and the fines would be used to pay for the public option for the few working class people who qualify, essentially.

That was the math, as stated by the people that wrote the bill, in the Washington Monthly. Years ago.

[A Simple Game]

136. Please do not equate health insurance with health care. They are worlds apart. n/t

[sandyd921]

52. Right you are.

Reform that only a health insurance company can truly appreciate.

[Bob Wallace]

154. Sure, insurance companies love it...

They will have to insure everyone.

They won't be able to kick people off if they get sick.

They will have to spend 80% of their intake on health services. All their operating expenses, advertising, and profits have to come out of the other 20%. (That's not as good as the ~10% that it costs to run Medicare, but it's a hell of a start.)

[Carolina]

80. Touche

Rahm said it precisely, that rat bastard tool.

[Edweird]

74. I see. So if we apply your 'logic' to the republican or libertarian platform, what do we get?

Republic:
A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the government and where offices of state are elected or chosen by elected people.[1][2] In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[3][4] The word republic is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "a public affair", and often used to describe a state using this form of government.

Liberty:
Liberty is a moral and political principle that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions. There are different conceptions of liberty, which articulate the relationship of individuals to society in different ways, including some which relate to life under a "social contract" or to existence in a "state of nature", and some which see the active exercise of freedom and rights as essential to liberty.

Attempting to subvert the progressive platform by playing simple word games is transparent as well as appallingly dishonest.

[Schema Thing]

100. Except that as I noted, we got real progressive "progress"

and you will just have to learn accept that.

[Edweird]

101. Sorry, the RW individual mandate is neither progressive nor progress.

[Bob Wallace]

166. The 'individual mandate' is not progressive...

even though it requires everyone to be insured.

But single payer in which everyone is insured is progressive.

Do I have that right?

[Edweird]

176. Insurance is NOT healthcare.

[Bob Wallace]

177. No, insurance is NOT healthcare...

Insurance is how we avoid getting ourselves into situations where we need expensive healthcare and can't afford it.

Now we've got an imperfect system in which almost everyone can obtain health care insurance.

Next job is to start cutting the cost of health care. Which is also part of the PPACA. Just read the parts about preventative services, more 'cheaper than physicians' service providers, money saving paperwork reforms, etc.

You can read about the changes as they kick in each year here...

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/about/order/byyear.html

[Edweird]

178. No, insurance is 'for profit' and profits by denying care.

Single payer, being government run, does not 'profit'.
Insurance, in no way, prevents you from needing 'expensive healthcare'. It only acts to interfere with your ability obtain the care you need.

[Bob Wallace]

179. Under the new health care legislation, the PPACA...

insurance companies cannot increase their profits by denying care. Pure and simple.

We will also have new avenues for contesting any denial of care.

Now, have you ever dealt with a non-responsive governmental agency? I certainly have. There's nothing magic about the public sector that makes them superior to a private company that needs to provide good customer service to stay in business.

UPS gives me on line tracking for every package I ship, the USPS does not even though they have a tracking system in place. I can't even go to the Post Office and get them to track a package unless it's long overdue.

Private - public, there's not clear "best solution" that I see. A public option would have somewhat lower overhead but the government might not be as aggressive about finding better ways to manage costs and might not work as hard to keep consumers happy.

I kind of like this model of putting a bunch of private providers in open competition in which they will make their profits off the number of customers they can attract as opposed to the old model of serving only the least sick and then minimizing services. And I've worked in government enough to realize that there are a lot of government employees who are just putting in their time and under little pressure to do a better job.

My recommendation is that we give this system a try and then adjust it as necessary as we go along.

[Edweird]

180. There's no justification for the existence of insurance companies.

At least not in their current incarnation. It's not a coincidence that all the European countries with high standards of living have socialized medicine.
You remind me of the Daily Show episode where Wyatt Cenak went to Sweden and tried to save them from their "socialist nightmare".

[Bob Wallace]

181. You might want to check that "all" in your claim...

We're moving from what we had (which was not working too well) to something that hopefully will work better. Like it or not, insurance companies had enough political power to keep them in business.

Now we've got a system in which hopefully insurance companies will profit by taking care of their customers. They must spend 80% of collected premiums on services. They cannot cut services and increase their profits.

And if they don't serve their customers well then they will lose customers to another company. There will be both premium price and quality of service competition between companies. If their customer count goes down so does their "sum of the twenty percents".

Might "Medicare for All" be an even better system?

Perhaps, but that option was not available in the current political environment. If this system doesn't work then we'll have a better platform from which to work on a "socialist nightmare" system. We'll have everyone insured, a better health care system, and all we'll be looking for is a cheaper way to provide care.

[Edweird]

182. Bowing to the political clout of insurance companies is NOT progressive nor progress.

Which has been my point all along. Remember: Rahm bragged about maintaining the existing system.

[Bob Wallace]

184. Absolute failure to get anything done is not progress...

Making steps toward the final goal is progress.

Some of us are pragmatic progressives. We fought for civil rights but when the Civil Rights Act was passed was the job finished. We had to keep working and we continue to work toward our goal.

[Edweird]

196. Now you've descended into rote DLC memes.

Sad.

[Bob Wallace]

208. Sorry...

If I only get my pony and don't get a sparkly saddle, new barn, SUV and trailer then Christmas is a failure.

Got it.

Sorry. I lost track of what it means to be a true progressive for a moment....

[girl gone mad]

198. "Insurance is how we avoid getting ourselves into situations where we need expensive healthcare"

In a perfect world, maybe, but definitely not in this world.

[Bob Wallace]

209. How clever of you...

To use your cleaver to corrupt my words....

----

See children, here's how it's done. You start with the original statement -

"Insurance is how we avoid getting ourselves into situations where we need expensive healthcare and can't afford it. "

And you lop off "and can't afford it. "

Then you publish ""Insurance is how we avoid getting ourselves into situations where we need expensive healthcare".

Easy, eh? You then get to jump on the other person for saying something they actually didn't say.

Remember that little trick. You can use it to screw over your playmates....

[unapatriciated]

212. What makes you think having Health Insurance will keep you from losing everything?

Who are you to go up and down this thread lecturing us on our knowledge regarding HCR ACT, the Insurance Industry and how it works. Many of us have been involved long before Obama pushed and than signed this bill. I and many others on this thread have been involved with this for decades.

[Bob Wallace]

214. Health insurance will not keep absolutely everyone...

from bottoming out.

If you have no room to adjust your budget and get hit with a bad health event and out of pocket expenses you can't pay then you may end up going bankrupt.

But, I'm guessing, that most people who did not have health insurance and will now be able to afford it, will be able to weather those bad times and pay off the out of pocket expenses over time. Or recover after bankruptcy. They will be looking at a few thousand dollars of debt, not the top of their coffin because they could not get treatment.

It's my opinion that those 30,000 Americans who now die each year because they can't afford health care would prefer to to "lose everything" rather than what they now face....

[unapatriciated]

216. lol

you live in fantasyland. A few thousand dollars of debt? try over twenty thousand the first year into over ten years of trement and that is with insurance.

[Bob Wallace]

217. Let's check facts...

"The maximum out-of-pocket costs the person/family will be responsible for in 2014 (not including the premium) is $6,250."

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

Remember, we're talking about what health insurance will be like once the PPACA is in effect. Not about how health insurance operated prior....

[Schema Thing]

14. In frickin Texas, of all places

you can already get decent insurance if you have a pre-existing condition at a rate comparable to non pre-existing condition insurance.

That's a great progressive achievement, among many others.

[dflprincess]

40. According to the information available at

https://www.pcip.gov/StatePlans.html

The only plans available in Texas are those offered by HHS (the same is true for Minnesota).

If you click on the state you can see that the rates run between $133 to $179 a month for someone 18 or under. By the time you’re 55 or older the premium cost is $426 to $472 a month. In addition, the allowable out of pocket expense is $5,960 (for in network, out of pocket is $7,000 for out of network).

So, a 55 year old person with a chronic condition who will hit that out of pocket max is looking at paying a monthly premium of at least $426 plus another $5,960 in out of pocket medical bills. That $5,960 averages out to $496 a month, add the premium to that and a person is looking at an average of $922 a month.

Hardly affordable. Hardly progressive.

[Schema Thing]

41. not very affordable for many people, myself included... but VERY VERY progressive.

It's a massive change for the better.

MASSIVE. And in two years it will be much more affordable. That's progress. That's progressive.



If I get sick now, I can get insurance, and while I'd struggle mightily to pay for it, I could do it. That was not true a year ago.

[dflprincess]

47. It's hardly progressive to expect people to pay for a product they can't afford to use

The reason the insurance crooks have been posting record profits is because so many people are stuck with these high out of pocket scams. Yet, even as they post their profits, they're still raising their rates. If you think they'll ever drop those rates, you're dreaming.

Overall this whole thing was a scam and a major step backward.

[Bob Wallace]

148. Oops...

You missed the news.

Insurance companies are now "profit limited". They have to spend 80% of what they take in on health care and take their operating/profit out of the other 20%.

That has meant that this year some insurance companies are being forced to return money to their customers because they collected more than what they provided in services.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20111219/FREE/111219887

If you think the ACA is "a scam and a major step backward" then you do not understand what has been accomplished. Give this a read...

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/full.html

Was this a perfect bill?

Of course not. We'll need to make it better over time. Part of this bill was a fix to the 50 year old Medicare bill which wasn't perfect.

You want a better bill? Give PBO a Democratic Congress next November. Send him better bills and he'll sign them.

[dflprincess]

150. As the Minnesota Attorney General found out several years ago

when he audited the non-profit insurers who were supposed to have a 15% MLR - they have ways of cooking their books. It was just their bad luck we had an AG at the time who doesn't have a great deal of love for insurers and took great delight in auditing them.

How well that 20% is enforced will depend on who is overseeing things - and whether or not the fines for violating it (if caught) will actually mean something or be low enough they'll be written off as a business cost.

If you think crooks like UnitedHealth Group won't find ways around this, you're dreaming. They didn't spend all that money buying politicians to have their profits tampered with.

[Bob Wallace]

155. Geezeeee............

In order to make the PPACA fail you have to assume that insurance companies will be able to hide criminal behavior and not have someone call them on it.

Can you not accept progress as progress?

Do you think there was a perfect bill on President Obama's desk that he refused to sign and he signed this one instead?

[dflprincess]

162. I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that insurance companies

(like Wall Street and the banks) are willing to engage in unethical and criminal behavior. There haven't been many CEOs hauled into court lately.

I fail to see how digging the status quo in deeper is any kind of progress. Our access to care will still be controled by a for profit middle man that makes money by denying that access.

[Bob Wallace]

165. At least two states...

Michigan and California have required insurance companies to give rebates.

Insurance companies will gain nothing by denying access. They cannot pocket the savings unless they are willing to engage in criminal behavior.

Will we have to monitor them? Sure.

Will we now have the ability to make them deliver services? Yes we do.

----------

December 21, 2011

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged six former executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with securities fraud on Friday for misrepresenting their holdings of high-risk mortgage loans.
The SEC is targeting three former executives of Fannie Mae (FNMA, Fortune 500), including chief executive officer Daniel Mudd, chief risk officer Enrico Dallavecchia and executive vice president of single-family mortgage business Thomas Lund.

The agency is also going after three former executives of Freddie Mac (FMCC, Fortune 500): CEO Richard Syron, executive vice president and chief business officer Patricia Cook and executive vice president for the single family guarantee business Donald Bisenius.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/16/news/companies/fannie_freddie_sec/index.htm

[unapatriciated]

213. Sorry but the Insurance Companies were more than willing to engage in "criminal" behavior.

In fact the State of California had to be forced into filling a class action suit against them regarding wrongful cancellation of policies.
I think you should read up of the many suits filed in California from the late 90's to date. The problem is they have yet to call this a criminal act. So they are not prosecuted criminally. There are no provisions in the HCR to bring criminal charges against Insurance Companies for wrongful denial of claims or rescinding policies. There is however provision to prosecute the insureds for what some would perceive as fraud.

[Bob Wallace]

218. I'm not sure that criminal action is what is best...

Companies would simply toss a junior executive to the wolves.

Better to fine them for misbehavior or to bar them from selling policies through the Exchange.

Corporations respond to 'bottom line' damage.

[provis99]

115. this plan is no different than Romneycare.

I would hardly consider Mitt Romney a progressive, and his plan was a disaster in Massachusetts, which now has the highest premiums out of any state.

[Bob Wallace]

158. Well if Massachusetts...

Kicked off all the people with pre-existing health conditions and all the people who got sick then their rates would go down.

So would their humanity rating.

And, with most of their citizens insured MA premiums are only slightly higher than several other states which let large portions of their citizens go uninsured....

[Cameron27]

70. Same for AZ

plus you have to wait a full 6 months without any health coverage at all before you can even apply for PCIP. Apparently N. Pelosi came up with an alternative plan that would've allowed immediate access, but of course that was nixed in favor of this BS plan. I'm going to apply in April, (I need biannual diagnostic mammograms that cost a lot more than routine screenings) but I'm still trying to figure out how the hell I'm going to afford to pay for the damned thing.

[dflprincess]

151. I hear ya.

I was called back for a unilateral diagnostic in Oct 2010 (this was not the first time - I've had a slightly more serious, but benign) adventure in breast health a few years ago). To be on the safe side, they wanted me back in April 2011 for a check but I skipped that because I'd been laid off and even with my COBRA I couldn't afford another diagnostic exam.

So, when I went in this Oct (working but with crappy insurance) they did a bilateral diagnostic. Everything was fine but what really irked me was that the only difference I could see between the screening exam and the diagnostic is that the radiologist reads it "while you wait" and will take any addition films s/he thinks are needed that day. It's nice to get the results right away but I don't know if it was worth the extra money.

The problem that's being ignored is that the PCIP is not cheap (depending on your age) and if you live in a state that's using the HHS plan, you're stuck with a max out of pocket of $5,950 (plus premiums).

We've been had.

[Dewey Finn]

16. And you felt compelled to share this

why?

Try this: http://twitter.com/

[tsuki]

17. I told my friend who had pre-existing conditions that

they would now be covered. She said the company just wrote riders on the policy. Said take it or leave it.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Consider yourself sued. Millions are better off now, and very few are worse off...

so by that simple, and objective, standard, it's a great achievement, progressive or not.

[girl gone mad]

20. Then why do so few believe they are better off?

It's polling lower than ever, with a majority now wanting it repealed.

[Dewey Finn]

23. 77% of Americans, by one measure,

believe in angels.

http://www.inquisitr.com/171741/77-percent-of-americans-believe-in-angels-polling/

So what point are you trying to make?

[girl gone mad]

29. I understand why people believe in angels.

There are perfectly rational explanations to explain such phenomena. Most people are raised from birth to adopt these beliefs. What's more, it's comforting. Neuroscientists have found the regions of the brain associated with spiritual and religious beliefs and the latest theories seem to point to this brain region's importance in our evolution as a socially cooperative species. In other words, we are hardwired to accept the idea of supreme beings.

Why do people believe health reform should be repealed?

[Dewey Finn]

31. Because they're ill-informed

and have short attention spans? Just a thought.

[girl gone mad]

72. I don't believe this to be the case.

Particularly when you consider that the bill was designed so that the most popular parts of the legislation would be implemented before the 2012 election and the unpopular parts would be implemented afterward. The worst is yet to come, but people already broadly dislike the changes. Why should this be the case, if millions are being helped and there is supposedly no downside?

[TreasonousBastard]

61. Very simply...

there has been far more propaganda against it than for it. I say "propaganda" because there's been little rational discussion over its effects so far.

There have been millions who have benefited, but hundreds of millions who haven't and know little or nothing about it, except what they've heard on Fox and others who hate it. As more of its benefits phase in and more people become aware of it, more will appreciate it.

No, I'm not saying it's perfect and everyone will, or should, fall in love with it, but it's better than what we had and a good first step. With all the useless slugs in Congress, it's surprising we got this much.

[Tiggeroshii]

143. a gallup in november actually had the highest number rating quality of healthcare

Also, its pretty obvious that a lot of people don't realize they are eligible for a lot of the services that. They are eligible for in the healthcarre law.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150806/rate-own-healthcare-quality-coverage-excellent.aspx

[MedicalAdmin]

63. I hope this is not how you mean your comment,

but to me it sounds like a variant on 'I have mine. Fuck you."

As I said, it's unlikely not how you meant that, but as someone his law has not helped, and which wouldn't even if I lived long enough for all of it to be enacted, it seems that many on DU are dancing on the graves of those of us for whom no help was, is, or will be forthcoming.

Yes. I'm dying of a preventable problem. How very progressive to keep those who deny treatment for living in charge of the decision making process.

Let me bend over, grab my ankles, and do the progressive shuffle. Ooooooo. Fun.

[TreasonousBastard]

73. Actually, it does nothing for me at all. I'm sorry it does nothing for you, either...

and that you need it more. In a perfect world, you would have proper care, and I wouldn't be left to the vagueries of the VA, which left me blind in one eye and misdiagnosed a few things, but did help with some others.

It's not a perfect world, though, and while we keep up the fight as best we can, some of us fall through. There's no excuse for letting anyone fall through the cracks, though, and I know enough people already who are in your situation to appreciate my dumb luck getting drafted during the Viet Nam years to get any health care at all, since I could never pay medical bills in my present circumstances and at the moment have no chance of any other coverage until Medicare kicks in.

Far from gravedancing, I do, indeed, hope for the best for you, and regret how little there is I can do.

[MedicalAdmin]

84. You have the best name.

Thank you for your reasoned and compassionate reply. And I'm sorry my reply to you wasn't of a similar quality. My emotions are not in the best state right now.

Best wishes to you.

[Uben]

19. Everyone is entitled to their opinion...

..you know, it affected a lot of people, and it affected a lot of people differently, so there is certainly going to be different views on its merits. I say we're better off with it than without it. When they passed it, it did nothing for me and my situation with health care costs. I pay $25,000/yr in premiums alone. Why? My wife survived cancer 9 yrs ago. The premiums started skyrocketing immediately. This bill did nothing to reduce my costs, but to be honest, I can afford it.
There was one way I could have benefitted from the bill. I could get on the federal high-risk program, if I would drop coverage for six months. It would just about cut my costs in half. I thought about it, but I just couldn't make myself vulnerable to financial ruin by taking that risk. So, I kept paying thru the nose, so to speak.
Then, a couple of weeks ago, my wife's cancer came back...this time, with a vengence. It's not a curable disease, but it can be treated, and quality and extension of life can be achieved. To cut to the chase, I've racked up over $60,000 in medical costs the last couple of weeks. That's just what I'm aware of at this time, it will be much much higher before we're done. What if I had taken that risk of dropping coverage for 6 months to get in the high-risk pool? I don't know the reasoning behind making that stipulation, but I'm sure it was a negotiated factor.

Anyways, I made the right decision. Another benefit I get from the bill, no cap. That's good.

[PeaceNikki]

28. Oh man...

All the best to you and your wife

[MedicalAdmin]

67. Best wishes to you and your wife.

It's heartening that you can afford that coverage and that it seems to work for you in some way.

Shouldn't everyone be able to stay alive with their families in the face of this kind of health problem? I will be leaving my family forever soon with a very similar problem as that facing your family.

I find small comfort in this law. My experience in working in a clinic and my reading of this law, combined with the knowledge that the insurance industry all but wrote the entire thing and that the price of these companies insurance went up significantly upon being made law tells me that this industry likes this law.

And that is all I need to know about it.

[Uben]

76. I'm familiar with your situation....

...and I certainly wish you the best, as well. There really is no damned reason anyone in this country has to die because they get sick. Every American should be shouting this from the rooftops and demand our leaders remedy this problem. It should be the number one issue for every American and every congressional leader. But, until they are faced with our situations, they will continue to take their money from the medical and insurance industries and they will continue to let people die needlessly.

[MedicalAdmin]

86. It is no longer in me to shout this from the rooftops.

And while I occasionally think about replacing the u with an o, that is merely my fervid imagination working with my frustration and squirting out sideways.

I have much to do and a short time to do it in.

This law, admittedly, is a step in the right direction. But my concerns about the lack of patient cost ( premium plus deductible costs) controls combined with an exception to anti trust laws as well as a working knowledge of how those criminal organizations work gave me great pause.

Did you know that the insurance companies have already lobbied for and received an administrative ruling that allows them to charge off any costs associated with denying claims ( this is phrased as any investigative work to determine the most effective treatments ) thus allowing them to account any costs associated with denying your claim as part of the 80% they are supposed to spend on CARE.

That's right, the law literally creates a loophole that allows them to write off expanding the "Dept. of NO way in hell are we going to pay." This will include more clerks to say know and more investigators to figure out a reason to say no, and more number crunchers to justify why they are saying no.

And this is my main complaint with this law. It is a reward to the very people who are the reason that the system is broken in the first place.

More will be covered and a lower percentage will be able to access care. And it will cost them more. For those of us on the fringe it will cheaper to pay the fine, and we will because even if sensible afford to pay more for the insurance we won't have the additional money to get past the copays and deducts. This will be an extra fee placed on those of us who are barely making it already.

And an increasing number of us would rather die than see our families destitute, impoverished, in debt, homeless, or all 4.

In my particular case, I would prefer to live, but I make too much on paper to qualify for aid, and not enough to afford it on my own. I am done. And it drives me crazy that others don't seem to give a shit that others are dying daily because if this and nothing is done about it. Mostly what I see here is a persistent group of posters who are, IMO, spamming any health care post with their spin on things. If I didn't know better I would suspect that muppets are posting.

I'll stop ranting now andthank you for your understanding. It's time for my morning bleed and barf session.

[Motown_Johnny]

21. Well, maybe you don't know enough about it

For one thing you didn't get the name right. It is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.


I'll agree that it is not as good as I had hoped for, but it is still a pretty good piece of legislation.


Here is a link for the timeline for the all the changes. http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/ (the change going into effect 1/1/2012 is already up on the site, I assume they are taking the weekend off).

[Mimosa]

35. Dream on.

I know older couples who are having to get divorced so a sick person can get medicaid.

[Motown_Johnny]

68. and precisely which provision in the Affordable Care Act

caused that?

[Carolina]

81. The actual name

like so much legislation is such BS.

Patient protection? What a laugh
Affordable care? What a joke

One poster, upthread, dubbed it correctly: the Profit Protection Act
And I would add: the Insurance Industry Care Act

[Motown_Johnny]

105. you have a right to your opinion

so long as you recognize that that is all it is, your opinion.


Any facts to back that up?


The "time bomb" in the legislation which detonated recently would challenge that Profit Protection accusation of yours. Insurance companies now need to spend at least 80% of the money they collect in premiums on actual patient care. If they don't then need to issue refund checks. That hardly protects profits.

[TheKentuckian]

22. Yup, pay to play features to grease the wheels for rehash from the Heritage Foundation, Dole, Newt,

and Willard enhancing the position and codifying the predatory insurance cartel as gatekeeper while minting them as a "too big to fail" including handing over a key to our treasury to the fucking vultures isn't liberal even if some of the pay to play features are a step in the right direction.

How is "reform" progressive when it leaves them with an anti-trust exemption? That isn't liberal, it isn't even American. Hell, that isn't even capitalist.

What it is, is fascist. The corrupt merger of industry and state and a few costly boons doesn't change that reality an iota. Hell, most Americans will be mandated to purchase a for profit "commodity" selected by their employers.
Since when is progress defined as mandated purchase from the company store? That is going way backward, back to the turn of the 20th century.

[inna]

27. ty; i wish i could rec your post / nt

[Cameron27]

71. +1

[SammyWinstonJack]

96. "What it is, is fascist."

Apparently that is just fine and dandy for many here.

Why is that, I wonder?

[rusty fender]

108. As long as it's a political win for their hero,

the details don't matter. See, it is an "achievement" that they can hyperlink. Then they can roll out a long list of links to show how accomplished their hero is. The "Affordable" Care Act is a jumbled, hit-and-miss mess for most Americans, but it is "historic" if the only thing you care about is the # of wins your candidate has.: :

[Matariki]

24. Just today I heard how insurance rates have steadily gone up in Massachusetts

The state with mandated insurance.

I agree with you. I think the Health Insurance Reform Act was mainly a win for insurance companies.

[sandyd921]

57. Absolutely! +1 n/t.

[kenny blankenship]

95. Highest insurance premiums in the country are in Massachusetts. That's how well it works.

For the insurance mafia.

[Raine]

26. Agree nt

[phleshdef]

30. Private health insurance companies, just in the state of Michigan alone, have to rebate 80+ million

...back to consumers this year.

That kind of stuff alone makes it a progressive achievement.

You just didn't think at all.

[subterranean]

32. I don't think I've heard anyone describe it as a great progressive achievement.

But it's an improvement over what we had before, and it may evolve into something better in the future.

[cry baby]

33. Ok. My 2 kids and 2 step kids are healthier cause they're insured where they wouldn't be...

Insured before the reform. Their ability to stay as healthy as possible is paramount in my assessment that this is a big step in making this country a healthier country.

It isn't a magic bullet, but it's a start.

[Mimosa]

34. We needed single payer. n/t

[slay]

55. +1

indeed

[Nye Bevan]

37. YES- Preventing the insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions SUCKS

It's just so unfair that the insurance companies will have to cover someone with chronic heart problems on the same terms as a healthy person.

[killbotfactory]

44. Health insurance companies don't like it, either. nt

[spanone]

46. a friend of mine got a knee replacement from President Obama

pre-existing conditions is a BIG deal

[A Simple Game]

140. Exactly, the pre-existing condition thing is a big deal.

As a 61 year old that has been laid off for a year I had my cobra payment go from 897 to 1083 starting in January. I have a heart condition(have two stents, and have had a quad bypass), have a sleep disorder, high colesterol, high blood pressure, and probably some I have forgotten.

Too bad it doesn't start until January of 2014!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[joshcryer]

48. Neither do I.

But it was more than I expected from a center-right post-partisan.

[BootinUp]

49. Ok, I agree

Lets call it what it was then, a historic progressive achievement.

[sandyd921]

50. Medicare was a true milestone

while this was little more than way overdue minor reforms of several horrendous abuses of the insurance industry like pre-existing conditions. It's the least that could be done. I'm glad for the reforms but recognize that the opportunity to make genuine reform has been blown. However in the end the current for-profit system even with these reforms is likely to implode sometime over the next decade. It really is not sustainable.

[Bob Wallace]

160. One portion of this bill...

Was a Medicare fix.

That 50 year old program was not born perfect and still isn't perfect after 50 years of tinkering with it.

Over time the new health bill will improve if we put officials in officials in office who work for us. We've got an opportunity to return control of Congress to Democrats in November.

[slay]

53. It wasn't

single-payer... now wow just imagine how awesome that could have been. but the insurance industry and private hospitals proved too strong a player in that game up in washington. it may be better than before, but no, it was not a progressive achievement at all IMO.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. But it was progress. n/t

[sandyd921]

56. The Affordable Care Act is actually less progressive

than what Richard Nixon proposed and, as we all know, is pretty much the same as Romney Care. Progressive? Not so much. Better than nothing? Yes, I'll give you that.

[Zoeisright]

69. So?

The millions of people who have been helped by it don't give a flying fuck.

[pampango]

78. I believe 90% of the Progressive Caucus voted for it, so it was a "progressive" achievement if not

a "great" one.

A "great progressive" achievement would have been a national health service as in the UK or a single payer system as in Canada. A "good" progressive achievement would have been a public option.

[Romulox]

88. LOL. nt

[99Forever]

82. I think it was a huge victory for corporations...

.. not people.

And BTW, when does that "fixing it" stuff start?

[SammyWinstonJack]

98. LOL! Settle for anything and hope it "gets fixed" down the road. LOL!

That's how it goes, always. And we fall for it.

[99Forever]

103. At least...

... some "fell for it."

Those of us with a more skeptical nature..

..not so much.

[dflprincess]

152. Right after NAFTA and NCLB get fixed. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

83. Partner and I don't have any health insurance, but we're not under 26

either.

[Better Believe It]

85. What health insurance reform? I call it the Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act

[jimlup]

87. Strongly agree... in many ways it may have been a step backwards.

I understand that many progressive congress people were forced into a corner and had no choice but to vote for it due to the very serious flaws with the then status quo but really it was not a great advancement.

Gee we ended up with the Republican plan from 17 years ago - big achievement

[unapatriciated]

194. agree and MM showed us just how sick that plan was.

Those of us who have had the pleasure of dealing with Insurance Companies regarding long term illnesses understood how little this bill would help. California had passed strong legislation very similar to this bill (without the mandates) in the early 90's. The insurance industry still found loopholes. Those with catastrophic illnesses and cadillac insurance policies still lost everything. It took the State of California years to prosecute and then they settled for pennies on the dollar (the suit only covered a few years of the Insurance Companies wrongful denial of claims). The Insurance Companies involved knew that they would still be able to keep the majority of their profits for denying claims. That is how they do and will continue to do business. Millions will continue to suffer and die due the their greed.

[Romulox]

89. It's mandatory private insurance. It is a fucking disaster. nt

[KG]

90. and you'd be correct.

it's a disaster in the making. can't wait to see what happens when millions refuse to participate...

[MedicalAdmin]

131. What will happen. They will be fined.

And that money will be used to cover the costs for some of the high risk pools.

That would be a good thing unless one considered that everyone could have been covered for less than this will cost.

The reason that we didnt get single payer was that somewhere a rich person was worried that they might have to wait to get an appointment just likethe rest of us and those people shouldn't have to wait, doncha know.

[MineralMan]

91. Neither do I, but it was something...a step.

It could have been much more, but Congress stopped that from happening. Some people benefited from what was passed, with more to come as the provisions kick in. It's not single payer, which would be the best possible solution, but it's a bit better than before.

If we all work very hard to elect the right people to Congress and our state legislatures in 2012, further progress will be made. If we do not, then it's very likely that even the small progress made with this will be taken away.

It's easy to complain about not getting what we wanted. It's harder to ensure that this progress will be just a first step. We can do it, if we have the will to.

[MedicalAdmin]

133. I agree

Now is the time to push and push hard.

[blindpig]

92. Worse, it is reactionary.

It has set in stone health care for profit, which is an abomination.

[GeorgeGist]

97. I googled 'Health Insurance Reform Act' and got nothing.

So, sue me.

Bring back 'unrecommend' for low information OPs.

[girl gone mad]

199. I think you need some Google training.

'Health Insurance Reform Act'

About 4,730,000 results (0.20 seconds)

Health Reform
www.healthreform.gov/
Health Reform. ... On March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act became law. On July 1.
Fact Sheet: The Affordable Care Act's New Patient's Bill of Rights
www.healthreform.gov/newsroom/new_patients_bill_of_rights.html

Jun 22, 2010 – A major goal of the Affordable Care Act – the health insurance reform legislation President Obama signed into law on March 23 – is to put ...
Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill ...
www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

Mar 21, 2010 – A Quick Rundown of Major Provisions in the Health Care Bill Being Voted on in the House Tonight Read more by Jill Jackson, John Nolen on ...
Health care reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States
Jump to The 2010 Federal Reform Legislation‎: ... of health insurance reform and calling on Congress ... As of 2011, the legislation remains controversial, ...
Health Reform Bill Summary: The Top 18 Immediate Effects
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../health-reform-bill-summary_n_508315...

Mar 22, 2010 – Ever since the passage of the health care reform bill in the House of Representatives on Sunday, many GOP lawmakers -- though not all of. ...
Health Reform in Action | The White House

[MjolnirTime]

99. My newborn sons would have no insurance if it weren't for AMA. Think a little harder.

And consider people other than yourself.

Is it bad just because you haven't got anything out of it yet?

[Poll_Blind]

102. Neither do I. nt

PB

[ProSense]

104. Well

I do: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100294294

[bvar22]

106. It was a step in the WRONG direction.

A Mandate to Purchase Insurance from For Profit vendors
that will receive BILLIONS in Taxpayer Subsidy Funds is REPUBLICAN Policy,
NOT in the Democratic Party tradition of FDR & LBJ.

It will have to be undone before we can take a step in the right direction.

Here is what Candidate Obama said about Mandates in 2008.
Public Option & Mandates

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[a2liberal]

109. K&R (n/t)

[jwirr]

111. As I remember it neither was Social Security when it was first introduced. The program was still

becoming what it is in the 50s when Eisenhower added farmers to the program. I agree that they made a huge mistake when they did not make it single payer - I hope we are going to fix that.

[JoePhilly]

112. Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad

[inna]

114. how do you get away with posting this lame and vicious crap?

[JoePhilly]

119. How is that viciuos?

[inna]

122. " Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad " - WTF?? for real?

[JoePhilly]

123. Its sarcasm ...

I don't think Obama is bad.

[mvd]

125. It was a step forward because it got the government more involved in health care. Was it..

a GREAT progressive achievement? Not yet. That would require at the minimum a strong public option, and preferably single payer.

[ZombieHorde]

126. I also would not call it "great,"

but I do think it is good. Lots of people will be helped, even though it is so far away from Candidate Obama's plan.

[gyroscope]

127. I have two words to describe this healthcare bill

EPIC FAIL

[rapturedbyrobots]

128. maybe that's because

it was written in the 90's by republicans.

[Cleita]

129. It wasn't progressive at all.

Including the ability for people to buy into Medicare or another public option, would have given it some progressive creds. However, because it will cover many people who couldn't get access to health care before does make it at least a remarkable achievement.

[guitar man]

135. It didn't help us

I had to give up family med coverage in spite of the bill's passage, could no longer afford it

[woo me with science]

137. Oh, it was a brilliant scam.

Last edited Sat Dec 31, 2011, 10:31 PM - Edit history (3)

Absolutely brilliant.

The mandate was the gift to the corporate donors, a magnificent gift, and it was planned all along. It was an amazing political coup and an illustration of how they play us against each other for their own profit. Think about what they accomplished. They managed to MANDATE that EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN purchase a for-profit, obscenely overpriced corporate product for the duration of their LIVES. What an absolutely stunning accomplishment.

There is no way in hell that they would have been able to sell that to the American people had they gone about it honestly. Not to Democrats, because of opposition to the corporate model, and not to Republicans, because of the government mandate. But fire up one side with the promise of universal coverage, and fire up the other side with the threat of government health care, and you can pass a faux "compromise" nobody wants....except the corporations that will rake in the dough.

I remember, just before this passed, watching some pundit on TV discussing polls showing that Democrats hated the plan, and Republicans hated the plan. His conclusion was (I am not making this up), "This must mean they are charting a good middle course."

What a brilliant scam it was.

[lib2DaBone]

138. Max Baucus and the Insurance Companies wrote the bill....

Obama sold us out on single payer and rubber stamped it. (I guess he thought no one would notice)

[ehrnst]

139. So disagreeing is suing? (nt)

[Tiggeroshii]

142. until last year, all my money was going to healthcare and i couldnt afford a lawyer

Now, id be glad to since I qualify under my parents' plan and have been able to save quite a bit of dough for a decent litigator!

Also its estimated that about 130 million people will be effected positively once the pre existing conditions clause comes into effect in 2014

[grantcart]

159. it was the largest increase of federal power in the last 50 years and one of the largest in the last

150 years.

Just like Social Security, Medicare and the Civil Rights act they all started with modest agendas and expanded later.


Canada started with a much smaller effort its first time out.


This isn't the end of health care reform but the begining, a begining people have talked about for 80 years until this President got the country to take its first significant step.

[Bob Wallace]

163. I'm confused...

I thought progressive had something to do with making progress. I didn't realize that every effort had to yield a perfect result first time out in order to be valid.

Now that I realize that unless something is perfect then it is of no worth I realize that the Civil Rights Act was a failure because it did not instantly create racial equality.

Go figure....

[Texasgal]

183. Riiight?

Geez... atleast the issue has been addressed and put out in the public!

Obama could have stood by, done nothing which would be better because nothing is ever good enough... right?

[Bob Wallace]

185. Some people don't seem to know their history...

When the US Constitution was written the country did not become a perfect paradise.

We've amended and expanded the legal system that was started in the 1700s and we'll be amending and expanding for many years to come.

Anyone think that going back to the 1788 version of our government a good idea? Backtrack on minority rights, women's right to vote, all that good stuff?

We fight for each step forward that we make. We entered this battle with three problems to solve:

1) Some 49 million Americans didn't have health insurance largely because they couldn't afford it. 30,000 Americans were dying each year because they couldn't afford treatment.

2) Some people couldn't get insurance because they had a pre-existing condition.

3) Some people were getting kicked off their policies because they were costing a lot of money to treat.

We seem to have fixed those problems. Perhaps not 100%/totally/perfectly fixed, but largely fixed. We can work more on any lingering problems once we get Democrats back in charge of passing legislation.

[joshcryer]

193. What confuses me is that so many people actually expected more.

It's just, really weird. I think Obama did far more than anyone could've reasonably expected.

[Bob Wallace]

207. Some people thought...

That PBO would wave a magic wand on the way home from his inauguration and all problems would be solved.

Perhaps they based their expectations on watching how Bush was able to act something like a monarch with the support of Congress and big money interests.

Obama has had to struggle to get things done. And, honestly, many of us on the left have not helped him, we've aided his opponents.

[vaberella]

197. I didn't even know there was a Health Insurance Reform Act...n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

201. Far too little, far too late, but clearly better than nothing.

A small number of people are a little bit better off because of it. It's clearly a non-trivial progressive achievement, but I don't think it could fairly be termed "great", especially because it used up a lot of momentum that might otherwise have been used to produce something better.

[mmonk]

202. I know it isn't.

[Skinner]

203. That's okay.

Millions of people who didn't have health care will get it, even without your approval.

[boston bean]

204. and millions who can't afford to use the insurance

won't get any healthcare. but by golly they'll be paying for something they can't use.

[unapatriciated]

220. I respectfully disagree

Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:21 AM - Edit history (1)

They will get insurance, health care not so much. Many of us have struggled with this for decades and know just how the Insurance Companies rig the game. I had top of the line Health Insurance, in a state that had very strict laws (California 1990-2003) and I still lost everything paying for my sons care. I don't mind that and would do it all again to save his life. What I really hate is to see him disabled with chronic pain because of the constant delays in treatments and denials of coverage during the critical stages of his illness. All perfectly legal games the Insurance Industry plays. There are no provisions to criminally prosecute them for these types of practices in this bill, yet there are criminal provisions to prosecute the insured if they should commit a perceived fraud.