Health bill eliminates co-pays and deductibles for preventive care

judging by it's other remarks.

A year and a half ago I had a mammorgram come back odd. I still had decent insurance then and was able to proceed with the needle and surgical biopsies. It cost just over $6,000 to find out I didn't have cancer. Of that $6,000 I only had to pay around $800.

With the insurance I have the out of pocket would run about $2,000. If I had the plan passed by the House, it would cost between $2,000 and $2,500 out of pocket.

Not only will the insurance companies win big with this scam - but the credit card companies should do pretty well as those who do have credit find themselves charging their health care.

Or is it too late?

And if I think there is something wrong with me then I do have to pay? Something is ass backwards here

<snip>

'Dems probably should have stopped and realized since the amendment was offered by Ensign it probably wasn't motivated by "wellness" at heart.

In fact, it allows premiums to be raised from current levels, and then "discounts" would reduce the premiums to current rates. People who don't meet the insurance companies' targets could pay up to 30 percent more for coverage, roughly $4000 based on the average cost of family coverage. The amount could increase to 50 percent which is over $6,600 for a family.

There is also the problem that this is biased against people with a genetic predisposition to high blood sugar, hypertension, high cholesterol, being overweight and a host of other often hereditary conditions. It's also biased against a lower-income person working two to three jobs to pay the bills, who has to stop and chow down some fast food between jobs rather than get to the gym where he or she can't afford a membership anyway. It's even biased against communities that don't have grocery stores where they can find fresh fruits and vegetables.

So what does this all mean? Remember a central promise of healthcare reform--even the watered down version--how people with preexisting conditions weren't supposed to be denied coverage or forced to pay more for their insurance? That all sounded pretty good, right? Well, guess again.

"Incentives quickly become penalties for those who cannot meet the target," said Sue Nelson, vice president for federal advocacy at the American Heart Association (AHA). The AHA has led a coalition of more than 200 health and consumer organizations who oppose this Senate provision, including the National Organization for Women, American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, and many mental health groups. "A wellness program could consist solely of a premium surcharge based on a blood cholesterol count over 200. are significant potential unintended consequences such as burdening sicker employees and their families with significant increases in healthcare costs thereby making coverage unaffordable for those who need it the most."

Andrew Kurz, former chief financial officer of Wisconsin Blue Cross-Blue Shield, probably knows as well as anyone what the loophole means for Big Insurance.

"Wall Street demands focus on the bottom line, and insurers comply," he said. "Insurers can spot profits miles away and this is a loophole they will drive right through on Day One. As drafted, this provision will not only harm millions of Americans who will be forced to pay higher premiums. It will harm other efforts to bar insurance companies from discriminating against customers." '


<snip>


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/08-12


ProSense--please do more research. Even if something smells like a rose, it might not be one.

"Taken at face value, Senator John Ensign's amendment which was included in the final Senate healthcare bill sounds pretty decent: by meeting "wellness" standards people can receive discounts on their employer-based healthcare premiums."

I wonder if you will now be declined for misstating your wellness.

amendment. Yeah, I know about this, even posted about it elsewhere--just didn't have things connected properly. I take back anything nice I said about it above.

as it looks, little is.

The world needs more .PDFs and fewer blogs. ;)

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

I can get a free mammogram for my hundreds of dollars per month in premiums, but if I have to have cancer treatments, I still have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket.

Compare and contrast--

1. Canada--I pay taxes and a modest premium per month, and I don't pay anything, even if I do have cancer.

2. Britain--I pay taxes, and I don't pay zilch as long as I go through the NHS. If I have private insurance (cheaper than here, due to competition from the NHS), the out-of-pocket costs will still be lower.

3. Japan--I pay a monthly premium based on INCOME (not age or state of health), a 30% copay for routine care, and nothing for catastrophic care.

4. Germany--I buy private insurance, but there are no deductibles, and copays are limited to a small amount per year.

there are packs of starving would-be insurance executives roving the streets and pulling down tourists.