Quick poll, just to see where the mood is: How many here want the health-care bill to pass?

That is, do you want the House to pass the current health-care bill, with the understanding that reconciliation will follow?

It won't help me. It will make my medical treatment more expensive. But it is our piece of shit and we need to pass it. Then we need to take responsibility for passing it and explain to the working poor why we fought so hard to make their medical treatment less affordable.

Why mandate something you know is a piece of crap, simply because it was 'your' idea?

Especially knowing full well that it's going to come back and bite you in the ass.

I just don't get it.

I have three choices
1. Support the working people of America and stay true to a real progressive agenda.
2. Support the democrats and our corporate masters that pay for democratic campaigns.
3. Support the GOP and their corporate masters that pay for GOP campaigns.

Since I am not a Green party member, I support the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party and their corporate masters have decided that this shitty bill is "as good as we can get".

I am a single payer fan myself. Too bad the Democratic party is so invested in corporatism..

Once we kick the door open then we can change more.

There are alot of people who are going to be forced to buy health insurance that aren't gonna like this much. There are folks that will get a subsidy only to find out what insurance isn't gonna pay for, who are going to be pissed. Of course, some folks will get the donut hole closed, they'll probably be happy. In the long run it won't change much about the spiraling cost of health care so I can't really care one way or another if it passes. There will be pissed off voters if it does, there will be pissed off voters if it doesn't.

As another fully insured citizen that cannot afford medical treatment, I know for profit health insurance does not equal affordable medical treatment..

Judging from the talking points they're using here to counter criticism, I predict they'll encounter a lot of hangups and doors slammed in their faces.

you believe it will, I am a Nigerian Prince who just needs your PIN number to make you rich.

For the first time in 60 years get something done about health care.

it simply provides a massive new revenue stream for Insurance companies, and turns them into quasi-federal agencies.

It outlaws denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions. That is HUGE. It means that if you get sick after years and years of paying the insurance companies while you're healthy, they can't welsh on the bet by dropping you now that you're sick. They can't jack up the premiums based on it, either. This will keep people from going broke trying not to die.

It's not single-payer, but it is a huge step forward.

there are ample loopholes for them to skirt that.

A law with loopholes is no law at all.

Primarily, there is a built-in catch-22:
a) If you don't claim an illness, they can sue you for fraud.
b) If you do claim an illness, sure, they're forced to offer you insurance, but there's nothing from stopping them from pricing you out of their policy.

Effectively, this changes nothing, save for mandating that people pay more for crappy, over-priced products.

And insurance in no way, shape or form equals health care.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7840854

It's called a 'search' icon, learn to use it.

Firstly, what you linked is an opinion piece written by a member of a lobbying group.
Secondly, the opinion piece doesn't cite any piece of the legislation, it just uses snark to be dismissive of a ban on rescissions.

Care to try again?

Without specifically defining what they are. That's a loophole you can drive a truck through and they will exploit it to the hilt.

They don't unless they want it as a pretext to either gouge a "customer" or to get rid of one they don't want to cover.

The exchanges are yet another spin off of people to cover. The largest pool we can have in this country is the 300 million people who live here under one payer who can use their clout to negotiate prices. But we're not doing that, this bill doesn't do that either. And there is nothing in the language that forces insurance companies to offer people with preexisting conditions (a phrase that other countries don't use btw because one's current or past health history is of no import when they cover everyone regardless of condition. Preexisting conditions is a ruse to weed out people that the insurance companies don't want to cover because they only make their money by paying out as little as possible) without deliberately pricing them out. This bill is worse than the status quo. They're not even covering preexisting conditions for 4 years and in the meantime they'll be shunted off to "high risk" pools which will no doubt contains even worse insurance products with high deductibles, co-pays and no doubt riders that won't cover their condition in the first place. But they'll have insurance right? They won't be able to USE it but they'll have a card.

If I can't afford insurance it doesn't cost me anything to be uninsured. Now with this crap bill I'll still be unable to afford insurance but it'll cost me money to be too poor to pay for it. And I STILL won't have access to health care. Some improvement.

Oh, you mean the insurance bill, if it includes some decent form of PO or is stripped of the mandate then it may be worth passing.

Fuckin' nutty, eh?

they know exactly what they're doing, which is what makes it all the more infuriating.

the tea-baggers will find the streets pretty crowded:mad:

it's so damned transparent it is ludicrous.

they pass it as it is, like they did NAFTA, and say they will fix it later.

FAT CHANCE.

we are seeing what NAFTA did to this country.

now , if they pass this without a PO, they will be giving the republicans just the ammunition they need.

I just dont care anymore. let the masses rise up and get mad when they are forced to supplement the huge insurance moguls.


Congress, on the other hand, will be cashing their insurance lobbyist checks very soon.

they are well paid off.

Too depressed to care anymore. :beer: I think I'll be getting my drunk on...

that your right on the $$$$:scared:

by it's self not a bad thing, but to put a mandate in it and say that fixes our health care problems is just dishonest. All it's intended to do is cement insurance companies permanently in to the debate in this country.

I just can't look at this bill, which as you put it "permanently cements" insurance companies into the equation, as anything but massive corporate welfare. The few people who are helped by this could be far better helped at far less cost by simply providing them with health care (sans the profit).

We'll not have a sustainable health care system for quite some time. Too bad we passed up this chance.

and sound judgment. Let's hope this isn't the end.

It is depressing

It may not be perfect and will need some follow up work (Obama never said that this would be the absolute end of health care reform but rather only the beginning) but there is a lot in this bill that NEEDS to be made into law and it will help a lot of people finally afford health insurance. Also, I think that, as much as people don't want to see private insurance perpetuated, I still maintain that it will either pressure the insurance industry to reform or lead to its eventual extinction because I do not honestly believe that people will stand for a bad product/outcome that they will be forced to pay for.

medical treatment on the other hand..

is it not? Otherwise, then what it is there for, exactly? WHAT and HOW MUCH you get covered, of course, depends on the plan but, presumably, people will be getting some of their medical expenses covered by their private insurance plans. At least, theoretically, having some insurance will be better for everybody than uninsured persons having to wait until they are so sick that they have to go to the ER and incur massive, bankruptcy-inducing medical expenses (or pass along the buck to other people).

Theory, however, won't pay the deductibles, co-pays, and other 'add on' expenses that will continue to put actual health care out of reach for many people. (and yes, I have read the bills).

It's sort of like the difference between being unemployed and underemployed. Forcing people to buy coverage that they can't afford to use is no different than the government not bothering to calculate the number of underemployed people who live in desperate situations with virtually no recourse for aid or assistance - because they are, officially, employed.

Once everyone has 'coverage' it will be oh, so easy for the government and those who are not struggling to pretend that the problem has gone away, because, officially, people have insurance.


And I have to add: you may not mean it the way it sounds, but your statement seems to point to what you find important; not having YOUR cost bumped up because of the uninsured. This 'reform' will help that, I suppose, so I can see why you support it.

We can only talk now about what we think might (or might not- as the case may be) happen, however I don't agree with you that it won't make a difference nor that it will be that easy for the government to pretend that the problem has been solved. As long as there are people struggling with getting the health care (or access thereto), the issue will remain in the public eye IMHO.
This is truly the most that has ever happened in regards to government action on health care but I don't honestly believe that anybody expects this to be the end-all of reform. Obama certainly doesn't and he'll have the bully pulpit for the next 2 years (if not longer) and I don't see him ignoring this issue for the rest of his Presidency.
Once this gets passed and particularly once it is fully implemented, there will be no going back to where we are now despite what the Republicans are presumably going to be campaigning on- and it will be better for a lot of people IMHO but there will undoubtedly still need to be some improvements made to it. The good news is that once we've done *something*, it will be easier to do *something* again.
As for the last part of your post, I appreciate that you reserved me the benefit of doubt in regards to what I was intending to say about the uninsured but the fact of the matter is that people whom are uninsured whom utilize medical services DO increase the costs of everybody else. This isn't to say that I *blame* anybody for not having insurance, particularly when it's currently legal for insurers to deny people coverage and the government doesn't provide any assistance with health care coverage unless you're a child (whose parents meet the eligibility guidelines), aged, blind, or disabled. However, as a practical matter, wouldn't it be better to have insurance than to not have insurance- particularly if people previously uninsured (or uninsurable) will get help from the government via this legislation???

and it would be nice if it all works out as you hope. I'm more of a cynic, I suppose.

Collectively, we have the attention span of gnats (and that may be an insult to gnats), so I am not convinced that the issue will stay on a front burner. If President Obama holds the bully pulpit after the passage of the bill, good for him - but I think it is far more likely that he, his administration, and certainly the Congress will - after entirely too many hours of glad-handing, back-slapping, photo ops, and gag-inducing rhetoric about 'historic change' - will quickly move on to other issues.

I'm one of those uninsured and uninsurables - so my perspective on this is perhaps a bit different from your own. The government's 'help' is only going to force me into a worse financial situation and only to help offset the potential cost that my treatment might have on others. In and of itself, that's not a bad thing and I'm not suggesting it is . . . but like everyone else (particularly those who are currently insured and most likely to bring up the 'the uninsured increase costs of everybody else' argument) I would like to think that I would derive some benefit beyond helping lower your cost of care. Unfortunately, that won't be the case. I'll pay my premium (subsidized) and still won't be able to pay for care. The plans amount to little more than 'catastrophic' coverage - something I'm sure I'll appreciate if I ever need it. In the meantime, I'll not have any more access to the 'regular' sort of care that I'm much more likely to need. So, no - practically I'm not sure it is a benefit to ME to be forced to buy insurance, when the insurance I'm buying is primarily a means of insuring others against higher cost.

I have health insurance through my employer that I pay a pretty good amount of money for and neither my wife or I ever go to the doctor unless we have no choice. We pay a couple grand per year for the insurance and then have a couple grand more for the deductible and then the copay IF we manage to meet that. I don't know about anyone else but I don't have a few thousand dollars sitting around just waiting for me to need it for health care. My wife lost her job over a year ago and while we can survive on my income alone it sure doesn't leave much money for anything that isn't necessary.

Access to/affordability of Health Care in this country is the real problem IMHO but isn't the increased coverage going to help address the access/affordability issue?

of the Teapartiers, Boner, Canter, McConnell, Hatch, Gramps, Pence, Ryan, Vitter, Craig (well, maybe not Craig)

so your taking glee at pissing off a bunch of idiots comes at a very high price.

You'd think they'd be creamin in their pants over it

so they can (lamely) try and claim to be "anti-big-government", all the while being all about big-government.

:argh:

The Republicans got virtually everything they wanted over the last year of concessions from Obama, but WITHOUT assuming ANY Political Risk. Almost everything "Democratic" has been stripped from the bill.

Mandates + NO Public Option + 500Billion de-funding of Medicare + Anti-LABOR tax INCREASE + massive transfer of Public Money to Private Hands = Republican Health Insurance SCAM.

NOW, ALL they have to do is sit back and say, "YEP. We OPPOSED it"
"The Democrats RAISED your Premiums and shoved it down your throats" as Premiums continue to rise, and 45 MILLION unhappy Americans are herded into the "Exchange Pens" and forced to buy worthless insurance they can't afford to use.

The Republicans have played this PERFECTLY!
Say HELLO to a Blood Bath in 2010/2012.

But they want to win in 2010 and in 2012 and they know their stupid base only have to see the letter 'D' to set them off. So, they refuse to vote for it, probably because they knew it would pass anyway.

This bill is Romney Care. Republicans are simply letting Democrats do the dirty work of passing it. They both work for Corporate America, but Republicans could NEVER have passed this bill, Democrats and Independents would kicked them out of office in the next election.

So, it's the Dem's turn to bail out the crooks who run our government. Republicans had finally lost credibility (they got the wars and destruction of rights done) even with their own base. It was time to bring in the 'good cop'.

I have no more faith in this system. Not until the people get angry enough to do something about changing it. But with people in both parties viewing politics as a football game, where all that matters is that their team wins, it isn't going to happen this time. Maybe another round of Republican policies will be the final straw, or maybe this bill if it passes will do it. All I know is nothing is working for the people, but Billionaires are happy with their employees who have delivered and continue to do so.

$20 million dollars buys a lot of clout in DC. And that is what Obama got from the Insurance Industry.

I do not want it to pass in it's current form. Right now it is just a HUGE gift to the insurance company's. There is nothing in this current legislation to prevent insurance company's from raising premiums through the roof to pay for the people who cannot afford coverage.

I hear people saying "The government will subsidize those who cannot afford coverage." Who, exactly, is the government? Last I checked, thats you and me. And to be honest, right now our credit card is maxed out.

Rep. Alan Grayson has put forth a proposal to make Medicare available to anyone who wants in. Medicare is SINGLE PAYER healthcare insurance and it does work.

In 2007 we paid $2.2 TRILLION to provide coverage to 300 million Americans, and guess what? We are told it wasn't enough, because 46 million Americans didn't have coverage.

Don't you worry though, this bill will pass. IMHO it's a HUGE mistake. But then again, I thought Part "D" was a HUGE mistake also, but the Pharmaceutical industry Disagree's, as will the Healthcare Insurance Industry, when this legislation becomes law.

Why institutionalize them for another generation?

when it was a good bill. They should have pushed it through with the public option and without the mandate penalties. This has turned into a bloody mess and I blame the dems for caving in to all the Repub (and conservative dems) demands when plenty of people knew full well they were never going to let it pass anyway. If we had just passed the original damn bill, everyone would have won.

Now, I honestly don't know the answer. Yes, the bill will help some but with a mandate and penalties, it will also hurt others. Without the public option, it won't help the people who really needed it most. Can we fix it later? Hell, we haven't even gotten it passed yet, why does anyone have confidence we'll really be able to fix it later? Will it really help people if, without a public option, they can't afford insurance? I know it's good for some but I worry about how badly it will hurt others...

and avoid all that town-hall idiocy. C'est la vie, as they say.

but I will say that opposition to this health-care bill has made for some really, really strange bed fellows. Some of the most progressive voices on DU are on the same side as the Republicans in the House -- for entirely different reasons of course, a fact that cannot be emphasized enough -- but it's still just bizarre, innit? It's tough for me to say kill this bill and start over when freakin' Eric Cantor is saying the same thing.

Like you say, there are entirely different reasons, none of which can be presented when the choice is yea or nay.

Don't get me started on the foibles of the two-party system. In your typical, workaday, European-style multiparty system, our Democrats would be flanked to the left by the Greens, the Socialists, the Democratic Socialists, the Communists, et al.

I'm just saying that my opposition to this bill doesn't carry any extra baggage of "Oh noes, I'm on the same side as the Republicans!"

No PO
No Price Controls
Plus a Mandate to Buy

100% CRAP

Add a PO or price controls then you have something worth talking about.

as it stands now is to give the insurance companies free reign to continue to exclude people with pre-existing conditions, to terminate people whose care costs too much, to change the terms of insurance with no outside regulation whatsoever, and to continue the policy of "capitated" care whereby when a person hits a certain lifetime figure in health care costs, their coverage ends.

As I understand it, the current Senate bill 1) prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage on account of pre-existing conditions 2) prohibits them from dropping a person who requires expensive treatment 3) puts into place the first ever federal regulations on rate setting and 4) prohibits the sort of lifetime spending limits commonly in place today.

To stay with the pre-existing condition clause for a bit (and as a person with a disability this is close to my heart), prohibiting insurers from using pre-existing conditions to deny coverage without some sort of mandate would force premiums up for everybody. Without a mandate people who are temporarily able-bodied or relatively healthy will simply wait until they have an accident or illness, and then purchase coverage. It's like saying someone whose house just flooded can buy flood insurance after the flood, and expect to be reimbursed for damages. Insurance only works when people who don't need it at the moment subsidize those who do. Without a mandate, we can't get rid of the pre-existing conditions exclusion.

Personally, I support single-payer, but know that politically it will never happen. Next best would be either a public option or Medicare/Medicaid buy-in. This I think is entirely possible. If the House passes the Senate bill, it automatically goes to the president to sign, and all the provisions above (plus subsidies to help poorer people buy insurance) go into affect. The House can then pass a public option bill, which, when it goes to the Senate, can then be passed through reconciliation, requiring only 50 votes (Biden breaks the tie). Or the Senate passes a bill first, and then the House signs on. We know we have the votes in both chambers to do this, and the momentum is now in our favor. But without passing the current Senate bill first, there is simply no way anything else--including a public option--will ever get done.

Democrats are going to be blamed no matter what they do. If this bill passes and there is no public option, and costs rise, they'll be blamed. If this goes down to defeat, and premiums go up (as they are now) and more people lose coverage (as they are now) and people continue to be denied because of pre-existing conditions (as they are now), people will blame the Democrats for having a majority and doing nothing to fix these problems.

And so I'm reluctantly supporting this bill, and have and will ask my Congressman to vote for it. I'm also continuing to push for a public option and/or Medicare/Medicaid buy in as followup.

None of the great social health reforms, from Workers Compensation (done by the states) to Social Security to Medicare/Medicaid, were done easily, and all had to be revisited in the years and decades that followed. If, for instance, Social Security had been voted down in 1935 because it did nothing for families with disabled children, or people born with or who acquired their disabilities before age 21, there would have been nothing to amend to correct these shortcomings. Furthermore, once people saw that all the conservative prophecies of doom ("Social Security is a Bolshevik plot," "Medicare means the end of freedom in America" etc. etc.) are bogus, they actually grew to like the programs and were more willing to see further reforms. Again, had the original bills been rejected outright, none of that would have happened.

It ain't pretty, but given our current system I genuinely believe this is the best we can do. And given recent Supreme Court decisions and the current media environment, if anything it will be MORE difficult in years to come to do anything on health care at all. So, for all of the reasons cited above, I voted yes in your poll.

Best wishes to all.

It's been explained many times around here, but there are loop holes a-plenty to deny folks who have pre-existing conditions. Furthermore, even then they can be placed in categories that allow them to be charged significantly more than normal.

Your arguments are superfluous in the grand scheme of things.

Your argument rests upon the logical fallacy that the only other choice is to "do nothing". There are a multitude of choices at this point.

Name ONE. (but it has to be able to pass both the House and Senate)

1) you could take Rahm's approach and break this down into subsections and pass them in pieces.

2) You could get the Senate to agree to modifications in advance

3) You could respond to the letter supported by at least 45 senators for a public option.

4) You could call the GOP bluff and add the tort reform.

How many more you want?

Fine. I wasn't asking for minutiae over process.

There are more choices than this bill or nothing, whether you like any of them or not.

They are saying 'single payer' or 'robust public option' or NOTHING.

And YOU know it. You're skirting the real issue - how do you satisfy people who are never satisfied?

There is single payer, there is a public option (which can be broken down into several versions from "exchanges" to "medicare for all") and then of course there is the "do none of it" crowd. But none of this avoids the fact that YOU are the one that presented the choices as "this bill or nothing". Those are hardly all the choices around, or even being suggested.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

for this information. I was aware of this, but it's always nice to have the exact reference.

Best wishes.

It's so broad as to include even minor mistakes and ommissions.

do you see this wide definition of fraud? I did a search for "fraud" through the entire bill and very quickly found:

the section referred to above, plus;

authorization for the federal government to screen health insurance companies for previous instances of fraud so as to deny them federal monies;

authorization for HHS to share data about fraudulant insurers with SSA and other federal agencies, the better to weed them out;

authorization for the Dept. of Justice to do investigations and bring action against insurance companies that commit fraud;

enhancement of protections for whistleblowers reporting fraud;

enhancement of the ability of whistleblowers and others suing insurance companies in instances of fraud to collect money;

provision for agencies within the federal government to track fraud allegations and investigations to determine patterns of fraud by particular insurance companies;

authority for the government to stop payments to fraudulant insurers, and to insurance companies under investigation for fraud;

and so on.

Please point out the precise portion of the bill defining "fraud" that troubles you so.

Thank you, and best wishes.

"except that this section shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage."

If ins. co's use this to dump people w/ pre-existing conditions, they are in direct violation of federal law and can be prosecuted. Just because some scumbags may try to abuse this doesn't mean it's a loophole any more than it would if a scumbag murderer abuses the self defense exceptions to laws against murder. A murder is still guilty of murder regardless if he claims self defense when it's not true. An insurance company will be in direct violation of federal law if they drop people for fraud that doesn't exist.

If you want to trust them to deal honestly, go ahead. I think it is pretty clear that they want the ability to reject folks as needed. Why else would they need such a broad definition of fraud? Remember, technically they have to insure "everybody". They didn't ask for a provision that allowed them to jack up the rates of people in this category, the asked to be able to rescind their insurance. They use the kind of broad definition I describe NOW. What would possibly make you think they wouldn't continue to do so for exactly the same reasons?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The part I quoted from the bill?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I posted an excerpt detailing what could bring about cancelation under this bill. Maybe you missed it in the "cross fire" around here.

As for the "white and black" part, I'm still not sure to what you are referring.

That companies can cancel policies for unreported pre-existing conditions?
That companies cancel policies today for "pre-existing" conditions that were oversights on the part of the insured (unrelated to their core medical conditions).
That the insurance lobby requested this addition?
That I don't trust insurance companies not to leverage these loop holes?

You are playing nonsensical games.

The bill very clearly makes it illegal to drop or refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions and it very clearly stops rescissions.

The section that you refer to as a "loophole" is actually a provision that PREVENTS rescissions. Black=white to you.

Just because a murderer tries to abuse the exception for self defense in a law against muder, doesn't make self defense a loophole.

In your delusional world, laws against murder would be pro-murder laws because of the self defense exceptions.

If an ins. co. trys to drop you for fraud and you have not committed fraud, they will be in clear violation of the law. PERIOD.

the part I quoted, added at the request of the insurance industry, actually allows rescissions. Yes it is a larger part of the section preventing them, but this was added to allow them.

I strongly suspect that murders weren't the ones asking congressmen to add in exceptions for self defense. On the other hand, this exception was requested by the very people who would most benefit from it, i.e. the insurance companies.

If I fill out their forms incorrectly, THEY can represent that as fraud and cancel my policy. What will be my recourse? A regulatory agency? I can petition to have it over turned, we'll get back to you in 6 months. They didn't ask for this because it would put them at risk of being convicted of fraud.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you leave off information the deem important, or incorrectly fill out the form and they deem it to be intentional, they can drop you. They do it right now without this law.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's not a lie because you say so.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm still not sure why you think the section that allows them to deny coverage based upon fraud or misleading statements PREVENTS them from canceling your coverage.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This exception is an addition to the bill and it was represented as an addition requested by the insurance companies. Furthermore, it is one of the reasons they use now for terminating policies of people who develop serious conditions.

Now, if they requested it, and they currently use it for that purpose, why would one not presume they would continue to do so? Is it really any sort of stretch to imagine that they will have an aggressive definition of fraud or intent? (and I thought the current version listed this as "intentional misrepresentation"). Really, that in the core is the concern here. That they will deem intent with a very low standard of justification. And contesting it will be difficult and lengthy. Are we to suppose that they will have any more trouble than the banks did claiming that the CDS weren't insurance and that they didn't need to be regulated?

If they have to insure everyone, why would they care so much about recinding coverage for ommissions or mistatements? At the worst they'd merely want some sort of retro-active charge. Or is it that they WON'T have to actually "insure everyone" because they'll be able to force off the most expensive to the side. Remember, the insured are only subject to the mandate if they can get it at certain functions of their income. Otherwise, they are allowed to go without insurance without penalty.

"Sec. 2704. Prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions or other discrimination based on health status. No group health plan or insurer offering group or individual coverage may impose any pre-existing condition exclusion or discriminate against those who have been sick in the past."

That is a VERY clear, lock solid prohibition against discrimination for pre-existing conditions.

What you refer to as a "loophole" is found here:

"Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions. Prohibits all plans from rescinding coverage except in instances of fraud or misrepresentation."

The exception for fraud in this section is no more a "loophole" than exceptions for self defense in laws against murder.

If ins. co's try to use this exception to drop people with pre-existing conditions, the will very clearly be in violation of Federal Law and subject to prosecution.

They will work very hard to classify as much as they can as fraud or material misrepresentation. They do it now. This legislation will rely upon the regulatory agencies to "police" them and to force them to keep customers. None of that is a lie.

"Sec. 2704. Prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions or other discrimination based on health status. No group health plan or insurer offering group or individual coverage may impose any pre-existing condition exclusion or discriminate against those who have been sick in the past."

That is a VERY clear, lock solid prohibition against discrimination for pre-existing conditions.

What you refer to as a "loophole" is found here:

"Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions. Prohibits all plans from rescinding coverage except in instances of fraud or misrepresentation."

The exception for fraud in this section is no more a "loophole" than exceptions for self defense in laws against murder.

If ins. co's try to use this exception to drop people with pre-existing conditions, the will very clearly be in violation of Federal Law and subject to prosecution.

Just repeating your position isn't supporting it. Your assertions don't make my points "lies".

"Sec. 2704. Prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions or other discrimination based on health status. No group health plan or insurer offering group or individual coverage may impose any pre-existing condition exclusion or discriminate against those who have been sick in the past."

That is a VERY clear, lock solid prohibition against discrimination for pre-existing conditions.

What you refer to as a "loophole" is found here:

"Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions. Prohibits all plans from rescinding coverage except in instances of fraud or misrepresentation."

The exception for fraud in this section is no more a "loophole" than exceptions for self defense in laws against murder.

If ins. co's try to use this exception to drop people with pre-existing conditions, the will very clearly be in violation of Federal Law and subject to prosecution.

And they say irony is dead.

you quote the section I do and call them lies.

Duh.

by your measure, insurance companies would never try to leverage the law to their advantage and to the consumers disadvantage. They'd never interpret the language of this bill to their own benefit. There is no way they would reject consumers and take advantage of the system to confuse and obfuscate what they are doing. And of course if they even dare try it, the cracker jack regulators would be right on top of it.

Is that basically your claim? They don't even use this excuse right now to cancel policies?

Exactly who will determine this fraud? When your policy is canceled, to whom does one appeal? And what are the penalties? While the appeal is being made, who pays the bills?

Clear? The only thing that's clear is how much one is fined if they don't buy mandated insurance. THAT'S clearly spelled out.

Talk to anyone who has to rely upon this kind of regulatory language. Stealing patents is illegal too, try to take one of those to court.

Duh. That's how federal law works.

If they are found to have canceled a policy for innaccurate information on an insurance application, what will be the penalty? How will that person be covered? Will the coverage continue until the trial is completed? Who brings the case? What will be the standard of proof for "intent"?

I ask because right now they are canceling plans for these same basic reasons and it can take years to sort it out, if one can afford the lawyers.

And this will be the same Executive branch and courts that have been handling the banking industry right? Not to mention torture.

Penalties are part of law. They establish what the possible range of consequences there can be. They can do this by classifying it as a felony (of various classes), as a "civil" penalty, or they can handle it as a regulatory violation. They can even create whole new penalties. The fact that the bill is relatively silent on this issue suggests the intend to treat it as the last version. It will only rise to a level of criminal fraud when a large pattern is established.

Get back to me when the pattern of mortgage fraud is established and charged.

Courts decide penalties. Legislation CAN, but it's not necessary.

And they've been getting narrower over the years, which is where 3 strikes laws and mandatory minimums come from. There is usually some variation that is at the discretion of the judge, but as I said, that's been getting narrower over the years. But until penalties are established the judge can do nothing. Now, as I say, this can be done by something as simple as "classifying" a particular law as a "third class felony" or some other indication. They already have guidelines for those. Or, they can give specific instruction on what can, and cannot, be done.

Penalites can range from fines to criminal prosecution to civil penalties and judgments. They don't necessarily need to be included in legislation, in fact they often aren't originally.

They don't have to be EXPLICITLY, but unless they give the courts the authority to apply penalties of some sort, the courts can't act. Yes, occasionally penalties are determined in later legislation. But that is sort of my point. There is no COMMITMENT in this bill to penaltites or process for canceling policies over fraud, but very SPECIFIC penalties for not buying a mandated plan.

What that tells me is that enforcement of these provisions will be weak at best and nonexistent at worse. That's why the insurance industry requested these additions. They know that, I know that, and you are making excuse for the insurance lobby. Your trust of them is astounding.

Duh.

You're clueless, yet you spout off anyway. Seriously, I will now only mock you as you have no understanding of how law works, but you spout off ignorantly about it anyway.

Oh, and here's a court in action and there's not even a Fed law on the books yet:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35910173/ns/health-health_care/

Insurer targeted HIV patients to drop coverage
Fortis, now Assurant, ordered to pay $10 million for revoking policy

Please, show me the legislation that told the court to decide thusly. :rofl:

of "fraud." It's an exemption protecting insurers (and businesses that offer group insurance to their employees) from people who have deliberately defrauded them or are attempting to defraud them. Which means, as I understand it, that if an insurer bounces someone off a policy, it has to be because of "fraud" or "intentonal mispresentation"--otherwise they're penalized under the bill.

Again, rejecting this bill will mean that insurers will continue to be able to end your coverage or refuse you coverage, no questions asked, for any reason or no reason whatsoever, at their whim. Under the bill an insurer has to demonstrate "fraud" or "intentional misrepresentation." It's a far higher standard. And if insurers do try to abuse this as a loophole, there is at least some legal remedy to try to stop them, and to punish them for it. Right now, we've got nada.

In fact, the more I read or re-read the various parts of the bill, the more I'm finding to like about it. I like the "money follows the person" provision that the disability rights movement has been trying to get passed for decades. Again, it's not perfect (it's a demonstration project, not a full bore program) but it's a definite step in the right direction. I also like the additional funding for community services, and the expansion of Medicaid eligibility. And having to track down all the instances where "fraud" comes up in the bill has impressed me with how many ways this bill seeks to keep insurers in line.

Right now the only options we have are passing this bill and then pushing for public option/Medicaid buy-in under reconciliation, or nothing at all. The possibility that any separate bill of this magnitude will make it through all the various committees anytime in the next year is very low--I'd say nill. And given that Republicans are likely to pick up seats in both House and Senate (the administration party almost always loses seats in the first off-year election after taking office) it's definitely not going to happen after 2010.

I still vote yes.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Always great to get a lengthy, well-thought-out reply to one's OP. :hi:

I wonder, is it "free reign" or "free rein"? I'm thinking now the latter, in which case I screwed up.

In any event, I've given this issue some thought, and though there's lots I wish would have been done differently (I think the Obama White House did a terrible job framing this debate), given where we are here and now, as I said I think it's best that this bill get passed by the House, and we then do everything we can to support a public option/medicare buy-in in the House and Senate.

Best wishes to you and yours.

strangle hold on the American people.

That they have free reign now doesn't not mean they will not have it when the bill passes. When was the last time this administration sided with the people over their corporate sponsors?

This may be the best the Democrats can do but that doesn't make it a net gain for the people that will be stuck paying for insurance they can't afford to use.

This is not health care reform.

"When was the last time this administration sided with the people over their corporate sponsors?"--I'm not sure when the LAST time was, but I'd count passage of the Lily Lebetter Fair Pay Act and extension of S-CHIP as two instances of siding with "the people" over corporate interests. Unless, that is, you think corporate America has some vested interest in being forced to pay women equal pay for equal work, and extending Medicaid benefits to working class children.

If that's your best argument--that this administration has a history of siding against "the people" and therefore any bill it supports must inherently be a sell-out, it's not very convincing.

As for whether or not this bill will be a net gain for "the people that will be stuck paying for insurance that they can't afford to use"--that's impossible for me to say. I do know there are millions of people denied health insurance because of pre-existing conditions, or who have been dropped by insurers because of an illness or injury, or who have exhausted their benefits under capitated plans, who most likely will benefit from this bill. And even for those in situations such as you describe, if you develop an injury or illess that requires hundreds of thousands of dollars of care--a spinal cord injury, for instance, or multiple sclerosis--isn't having to find the wherewithal to pay a $2K co-pay easier than somehow finding $150K overnight?

And, as I said in my original post, under this bill insurance companies will not have "free reign." In fact, for the first time in history, they will be covered by federal law to prevent them from committing some of the worst abuses they commit now with impunity each second of every day. So you think it would be better to leave the situation as is, with no federal oversight whatsoever? How does that do anything to deal with any of the worst excesses?

I would of course prefer single-payer, and feel we absolutely need some form of a public option/Medicare buy in to supplement this bill. The only way I see that happening in the foreseeable future is A) pass this bill and then B) work for the public option/Medicare buy-in through Senate reconciliation. If you can show us an alternative plan that gets there in a way that gives relief to people in the next couple of decades, please share this with us. But given how difficult it's been to get even this far, I doubt you'll be able to do it. Which is why I still vote "yes."

"When was the last time this administration sided with the people over their corporate sponsors?"--I'm not sure when the LAST time was, but I'd count passage of the Lily Lebetter Fair Pay Act and extension of S-CHIP as two instances of siding with "the people" over corporate interests.

I see these references alot, but let us remember that BOTH of those acts preceded this administration by a couple of years. The Democratic house basically "repassed" legislation that was passed during the Bush administration but vetoed. In the case of S-CHIP, with more democratic ideas than not. The bill that was championed by Obama has been more GOP than democrat. One could say that of several bills this administration has initiated. Torture photo classification, healthcare reform, and the bank bailout come to mind. Even the stimulus package was more House of Representatives than White House. Really, Obama has set up his first year, from Warren to the Healthcare bill, as something to the right of Bill Clinton.

Now, he has several years left, even possibly a second term. But in the first year there is very little to point to in the way of White House created legislation that can be considered particularly left leaning or progressive much less populist or blue collar biased.

Really, in the end, the issue isn't one of whether he has "met the left halfway" or even "willing to work with the left". The most he can claim is to have occasionally stayed out of the way.

If the bill does not pass, the repukes will slam us for not getting it done.

If the bill passes, and proves itself to be the piece of crap it is, the repukes will slam us for putting such crap up.

I have ZERO faith that reconcilliation will 'fix' anything.

We had an opportunity to pass health care reform. Instead, we FOUGHT for this POS.

than in whether the bill, on its face, should be passed, regardless of political outcome for Democrats or Republicans.

If nothing changes, and the bill doesn't pass, healthcare will be affordable only to the wealthy.

If the bill passes, the industry's top legal and financial minds - those who make the REAL decisions in the health insurance industry - will quickly find their way around every provision in it that might possibly cost them profits, whereupon costs will continue to rise and healthcare will only be affordable tot he wealthy.

Is there a provision in the bill that demands that policies purchased with government subsidies be purchased from not-for-profit companies? WHY NOT?

We are screwed.

will pass in the Senate immediately via reconciliation AND if work continues to get a public option. Even then, I'm just sick about the enshrining of for-profit health insurance companies for years and years and years to come. It makes no sense. Health insurance companies make money by denying care. As for the 85% that must go to delivering health care to consumers (fka "patients"), I'm betting all kinds of things can be weaseled into that. Training sessions in Boca anyone?

;)

big insurance is paying a million bucks to hold a "class."

I have Medicare via SSDI. I would like to keep Windsor Medicare Extra free of charge that includes prescription drug plan, basic vision care including a pair of glasses no more than $150.00 per year, basic dental care, and several other extras. I will lose this if I understand correctly.

I pay all of these for 96.00 per month (Arkansas) out of my SSDI checks. It is different in every state. So will this bill mean that I will lose Medicare Extra and, then have to pay $173.00 extra for something like BlueCross BlueShield insurance company to supply Medicare like my Mom does plus she has to pay 53.00 for Plan D (pharma) in addition to her 96.00 Medicare per month? I'd have 322.00 taken out of my SSDI instead of 96.00.

This bill may be good for some and not so for others. We shall see. I am concerned because there is NO PUBLIC OPTION.

on edit: I voted for "It's not that simple, SteppingRazor"

This bill ensures that we won't get real health care reform for a very long time, as it sets up the for-profit insurance industry as the official conduit for all care. Good luck disentangling them later.

This bill practically makes insurance companies part of the constitution or something. If Obama thinks single payer is hard in the current environment, it'll look like a cake walk compared to after all of this is institutionalized. The various regulatory efforts that it will create will be dependent upon the very existence of insurance companies to be effective.

I want nationalized health care.

DUer DemocratSinceBirth made a good point, if nothing else, we need to deny the republicans a victory on this issue.

I am on board if it causes the GOP to lose at this point. They deserve it.

I would vote yes after first trying to get some assurances. Because it has been so long and the Party needs some achievements. Any help people can get short term is a positive. Long term is the big problem.

I want those without health care to have it asap.

I do not want an insurance co. health care bill.

This whole thing has made me sick - as in, sick that the public option was off the table to start.

...which has led me to a place where I think Democrats are part of the problem, still, when I had hoped they would formulate solutions.

I'll try. This bill is the result of a one-year, lip-service clusterf-k. I absolutely believe there was no attempt on the part of our elected reps to give us anything in the way of reform. All they were looking for was a way to cover their as from the lack of fulfillment of their promises on the campaign trial.

It's like the old wrestling we used to watch on the teevee. Everyone knew it was fixed but gotta keep up appearances.

So then we come to the point we are today... the repubs are probably the honest ones in the equation. They are opposed and they really don't care if you know how stupid their arguments are.

The dems are in favor when there's a mike in their face but opposed when they get to the cloakroom. There the only question becomes, how do I hide it from my dem constituency and with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge, show I'm only going along attitude with their repub constituency?

So the dems grab any excuse they can to cover their as. 60 votes... gang of 6... Bipartisanship...

Coming round to the corporations...they care only about money. If they have to accept a bill, gotta make dam sure there's something in it for them.

And once this thing passes, everyone will wash their hands and go along their way, never to be spoken of again. Just like the Gramm bill more than 10 years ago.

but do you have to be one to see that mandating the purchase of a bad product with the promise of future reform is a bad idea? Maybe I've bought too many used cars to buy this argument. Oh, well.

Nancy and Harry have one shot at this. To include the PO "after the fact" will be damned near impossible.

After all, the WHOLE GOP opposition to the bill stems from fears that the government will "take over health care".

Paradoxically, they're correct. Once people see the OBVIOUS advantages of a TRULY non-profit health care scheme, no matter how skimpy and threadbare, they'll DEMAND that it be expanded.

This isn't health care reform as it's being voted on. It's a gift to health care industries, much as Medicare 'Part D' was.

I think Gibbs should retract his statements of optimism that it'll be passed next week.

That will only GUARANTEE a PO-less bill.

It's not the bill that I wanted (Single Payer), and apparently we won't even get a Public Option out of it. HOWEVER, there are many things that it will improve. Right now, for me, in addition to eliminating discrimination over pre-existing conditions it mandates an independant review of appeals. As it is right now insurance companies judge appeals, until the third stage of the process - at that point the patient has the option to pay for an independant review, costing 5 to 10 thousand dollars.

by corporations and banksters and the uber-rich in every other aspect... Why put health care in their hands, too?

All this will be is handing them another HUGE aspect of our lives to screw up.

It will put this country into further debt and break the bank. Maybe by then a new Congress will realize that they really do have to fix it the second time around.

I don't think this poll is representative of all Americans (the clear majority want a public option, or want it killed). That said... thanks for asking: it is interesting to see how those within a biased online community will respond here.

I am not sure if it might even be worse if it doesn't pass.