Go Back   Gossip Rocks Forum > World News and Issues > Politics and Issues > U.S. Politics and Issues


Login to remove all ads!
Old November 5th, 2009, 10:05 AM   #1 (permalink)
celeb_2006
Elite Member
 
celeb_2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9,622
Default Democrats' plan to help 'uninsurables' questioned

Democrats' plan to help 'uninsurables' questioned - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – You're afraid your cancer is back, and a health insurance company just turned you down. Under the health care bills in Congress, you could apply for coverage through a new high-risk pool that President Barack Obama promises would immediately start serving patients with pre-existing medical problems. Wait a second. Read the fine print. You may have to be uninsured for six months to qualify.
"If you are a cancer patient and have cancer now, you can't wait six months to go into a plan because your condition can go from bad to death," said Stephen Finan, a policy expert with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. He called the waiting period in the Senate bill "unacceptable."
Advocates for people with serious health problems, as well as some insurance experts, are raising questions about one of the most important upfront benefits in the Democratic health care legislation: a high-risk pool for the medically uninsurable.
Obama proposed the pool in his September health care speech to Congress. Intended to serve the most vulnerable as a temporary fail-safe, it would stay in place until 2013. That's when insurance companies would be banned from denying coverage because of medical problems. Government subsidies to make coverage more affordable for millions of uninsured would also start that year.
Now, concerns are being raised about the design of the high-risk pools. In addition to the six-month wait, there's a more fundamental issue — whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough. The money would be used to help people in poor health pay premiums.
Obama credits his Republican presidential rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, for the risk-pools idea. But when the GOP candidate proposed it in 2008, the estimated cost was $7 billion to $10 billion a year.
The six-month wait is in the health care bill the Senate Finance Committee approved last month. To qualify for the pool, patients must be turned down for coverage because of a pre-existing condition and uninsured for at least six months.
"If you are somebody with cancer or a heart condition who needs immediate coverage and immediate treatment, that's not very helpful," said Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University health policy professor.
Senate Finance staffers say the restriction is meant to prevent people switching from more expensive coverage to take advantage of government assistance.
But the House health care bill unveiled last week by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., doesn't include a waiting period. Instead, it would require insurance plans who "dump" seriously ill patients to repay the federal pool. "The House provision will provide immediate relief for people with high-risk conditions who have no alternative for coverage," said Finan.
It may be easier to fix the waiting period than the financing.
Both the House and the Senate Finance bills set aside $5 billion for the pools.
"It doesn't seem like it's near enough money," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was a top domestic policy adviser for McCain. The McCain campaign ultimately concluded it could take as much as $20 billion a year to properly run risk pools, he said. The White House says McCain's proposal was more elaborate and not directly comparable to Obama's.
If the Democrats' risk pool starts running out of money, the government may have to start a waiting list, raise premiums or take other unpopular measures. Congress could be asked for a bailout.
Several independent experts say concerns about the financing are valid.
"It would seem that ($5 billion) is going to be small relative to the need," said Thomas Buchmueller, a University of Michigan business professor.
Some 30 states now have risk pools for those who can't get health insurance on the private market, covering about 200,000 people at a cost of around $1 billion a year.

"This is clearly not going to be enough money to cover everybody," said Pollitz.
Insurance expert John Bertko, a visiting scholar at the Brookings Institution, said it may be possible to stretch the $5 billion, but there's a small margin for error.
Bertko said his "back of the envelope" math suggests there are about 1 million uninsured Americans in poor health, or five times the number currently covered by state high-risk pools. If all of them signed up for the new federal pool, it would burn through the $5 billion in a year.
However, people eligible for government benefits often fail to sign up. And if only one-third were to enroll, the budget could work. That's cutting it close. "No doubt about that," said Bertko.
celeb_2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2009, 02:32 AM   #2 (permalink)
Grimmlok
Elite Member
 
Grimmlok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
Posts: 45,168
Default

That's nice. Guess what ladies?

Unless you were raped, or were a victim of incest, abortion will not be covered under any public option health plan. The poor and the uninsured, who no doubt need it most, won't be able to get it.

Welcome to the back-door dismantling of Roe V Wade.

You can thank the republicans for inserting that amendment, and you can thank the democrats for allowing it.

read here:Democrats Clear Impasse Blocking Health Care Vote
__________________
"I can't help it if their ego suffers bystander trauma from my vivisection of their argument"
Grimmlok is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2009, 02:18 PM   #3 (permalink)
stella blue
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 252
Default

You say that like it's covered under most insurance plans now. I'm insured but if I want an abortion, I have to pay for it myself.
stella blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2009, 09:43 PM   #4 (permalink)
MontanaMama
Elite Member
 
MontanaMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,957
Default

Abortion isn't currently covered under any private or public plan. Frankly, I'm ok with that, unless it is medically indicated or pregnancy is due to rape (incest is rape in my book). It's an elective procedure. So long as access to abortion isn't restricted...but we're still on that slippery slope.

Proving that I have the least exciting social life known to man, I am watching the health care debate tonight. The level of rank stupidity and hypocrisy is astounding.

The right is foaming at the mouth about "creation of a health bureaucracy"...Boehner is howling about how the health care bill will kill jobs, but screeching about how it will great "tens of thousands of government jobs." Boehner then went on to say that we already have healthcare oversight - doctors and medical personnel. Good think I'm not drinking tonight, I'd be throwing things at the tv.

I think the actual vote will actually start soon IF Boehner would just shut up and realize how many times he has contradicted himself in a 10 minute diatribe.

ETA: Yippee for Rep. Dingle who FINALLY stated the obvious. Governement will stand between the health insurers and the American public.

ETA2: Well the Dems don't have a ton of juice, just enough to pass...needed 218 of their 258 votes to pass and got 219...off to find the lone Repub that bucked the system...it was a new rep. from Louisianna.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugdoll View Post
If i hear one more personal attack, i will type while drunk, then you can cry!

Last edited by MontanaMama : November 7th, 2009 at 11:12 PM.
MontanaMama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2009, 02:38 AM   #5 (permalink)
zebracakes
Silver Member
 
zebracakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 398
Default

I agree about abortion being an elective procedure. While I'm very grateful that the choice exists, it is still a choice. In the majority of cases it is not going to be essential to my health to obtain an abortion. You also have to factor in that low income women can already get free or low cost birth control and the morning after pill. Anyone willing to take responsibility for themselves can avoid pregnancy. I would much rather see costs kept down than to cover every medical procedure under the sun, especially ones that are totally a person's choice. Where would you draw the line? Would you cover my boob job too? After all, I'm very depressed about my flat chest. I think you should cover that too.
zebracakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2009, 02:48 AM   #6 (permalink)
Rayvin400
Bronze Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 26
Default

This all seems like decent news. But, I'm still skeptical. So, in my case, what happens if a company will insure me, but won't cover anything to do with my pre-existing condition?
Rayvin400 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2009, 03:00 AM   #7 (permalink)
Grimmlok
Elite Member
 
Grimmlok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
Posts: 45,168
Default

Yes, a boob job and an abortion are identical.

*rubs temples*
__________________
"I can't help it if their ego suffers bystander trauma from my vivisection of their argument"
Grimmlok is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2009, 03:06 AM   #8 (permalink)
visitor42
Elite Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,650
Default

In an ideal world, abortion would be covered. But it's not covered now, and this bill does more good than harm.
visitor42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2009, 03:28 AM   #9 (permalink)
Grimmlok
Elite Member
 
Grimmlok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
Posts: 45,168
Default

This bill is an industry give away that penalizes people for not having insurance with fines.
__________________
"I can't help it if their ego suffers bystander trauma from my vivisection of their argument"
Grimmlok is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2009, 07:52 AM   #10 (permalink)
cupcake
Elite Member
 
cupcake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: st pete florida
Posts: 2,450
Default

or jail! I watched live C Span last night. Wow, there is some real crap in that bill.
__________________
My grace is sufficient for you, for my my strength is made perfect in weakness...I love you dad!
Rip Mom
cupcake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2009, 06:55 PM   #11 (permalink)
nana55
Elite Member
 
nana55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: dreaming about being on a lake in Ontario
Posts: 3,852
Default

For God's sake an abortion isn't that expensive compared to medical needs. A hospital stay, a surgery, those are completely out of reach right now. Let's stop with the abortion thing and get health care for the majority of Americans. This country is obsessed with abortions. I'm certainly not against them, I helped my sister obtain one and a young friend. They were able to afford them. They are not that expensive.
__________________
If I can't be a good example, then let me be a horrible warning.
nana55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2009, 07:55 PM   #12 (permalink)
cupcake
Elite Member
 
cupcake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: st pete florida
Posts: 2,450
Default

I think an abortion is about $300
__________________
My grace is sufficient for you, for my my strength is made perfect in weakness...I love you dad!
Rip Mom
cupcake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2009, 10:25 PM   #13 (permalink)
stella blue
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
Yes, a boob job and an abortion are identical.

*rubs temples*
According to my insurance provider, they are, at least coverage wise.

Anyway, it's a red herring. It was a line item that some were using as an excuse to kill the whole bill and it was settled (to some degree anyway) by amendment.

I can't say I'm thrilled with the bill, especially since I'll admit to not having read the whole damn thing, but I'm encouraged that reform has enough momentum to at least make it through the House.

I still want someone to tell me why seniors are entitled to health care when the rest of us aren't. For all the inefficiencies in Medicare that are brought up, no one seems willing to give it up and shop around on the "free market". I'm not saying I disagree with the program, but I'm tired of olds on the dole pitching a fit about reforming health coverage for the masses.
stella blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2009, 05:01 PM   #14 (permalink)
Cali
Elite Member
 
Cali's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: citizen of the world
Posts: 4,219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by celeb_2006 View Post
To qualify for the pool, patients must be turned down for coverage because of a pre-existing condition and uninsured for at least six months.
That troubles me because it provides a loop-hole. What if you weren't turned down because of a pre-existing condition, but for some other health insurance lingo? Like the babies who were in the news recently for being denied coverage due to their weight. And the people who cancelled their policy because they couldn't afford it, and then were denied new coverage because they were uninsured? That happens a lot.

The optimist in me says that you have to view this in the scope of the whole proposal. The bill is supposed to bring down the cost of insurance plans so hopefully if you CAN get insurance it won't be bloody expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayvin400 View Post
This all seems like decent news. But, I'm still skeptical. So, in my case, what happens if a company will insure me, but won't cover anything to do with my pre-existing condition?
In theory, that won't happen because they'll have to cover it.

But you raise a good point: if the health care bill makes it illegal to turn down someone for a pre-existing condition, then how can anyone qualify for the high-risk pool?

Maybe the bill doesn't do that? I need to read up on the current version.
__________________
'These folks are whack!' -the Palinator
Cali is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2009, 05:10 PM   #15 (permalink)
sputnik
Elite Member
 
sputnik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: fellow traveller
Posts: 19,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zebracakes View Post
I agree about abortion being an elective procedure. While I'm very grateful that the choice exists, it is still a choice. In the majority of cases it is not going to be essential to my health to obtain an abortion. You also have to factor in that low income women can already get free or low cost birth control and the morning after pill. Anyone willing to take responsibility for themselves can avoid pregnancy. I would much rather see costs kept down than to cover every medical procedure under the sun, especially ones that are totally a person's choice. Where would you draw the line? Would you cover my boob job too? After all, I'm very depressed about my flat chest. I think you should cover that too.
a lot of insurance companies cover viagra but not birth control. how is that anything other than elective?
i'd rather birth control, the morning after pill and abortions be covered. they are far more 'necessary' than viagra.
__________________
ni dieu ni maître

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/toutlereste/fuckinghipster.jpg

*Don't you know there ain't no Devil, there's just God when he's drunk*
sputnik is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Moderate Democrats cool to government-run health plan celeb_2006 U.S. Politics and Issues 4 October 28th, 2009 06:56 PM
Democrats consider bypassing G.O.P. on health care plan viggofan U.S. Politics and Issues 2 April 22nd, 2009 06:44 PM
Plan for Superdelegate 'Mini Convention' seeks to end Democrats' internal warfare ingi U.S. Politics and Issues 0 March 23rd, 2008 07:34 PM
Democrats reject Gen. Petraeus' Iraq plan, attempt to persuade Republicans Laurent U.S. Politics and Issues 1 September 12th, 2007 07:56 PM
Democrats: Bush drug plan corrupt, confusing, favors drug companies over patients Grimmlok U.S. Politics and Issues 0 January 30th, 2006 12:36 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8
Design by JP33