Do any of the Anti-Health Insurance Reform folks here actually have a Pre-existing condition??

I seriously doubt it.

It's really easy to trash something when you are not depending on it to save your life.

are against health care reform in general.

:thumbsup:

if you don't, then why would you deny the millions who do coverage by fighting this Bill?

let us know how much this coverage is costing you.

A policy saying you are "covered" is not worth the paper it is written on if they can raise their rates to whatever they want. And they can. They simply will be locked into a cost-plus profit formula that has no limits on their costs.

Unless you meet the slender height/weight charts, getting insurance in the individual market is close to impossible.

Here is a PDF with some Height/Weight charts for various insurance companies that will trigger them declining to underwrite you.

http://echealthinsurance.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Height-and-Weight-Charts-All-References-Combined.pdf

Any and everything is a preexisting condition and once you hit 35, I don't care how healthy you are, you are a walking preexisting condition.

And yes, I do have a preexisting condition.

People with preexisting conditions have to wait/pray for the year 2014 (assuming the next President/Congress doesn't repeal it).

Read the bill.

A temporary 'high risk' pool is not the same as requiring all the private plans in this country to stop discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. The 'high risk' pool option is a state level catastrophic plan with a lot of out of pocket expense.
Also, the bill only allocates $5 Billion for all the high risk pools across all the states between now and 2014. I'm not sure that is going to be nearly enough.

And come on. Both the Dems and Repubs keep talking about how eliminating discrimination against pre-existing conditions is something they both agree on and could pass tomorrow--And then they make it not effective until 2014.

Getting old.

Being in our mid-fifties, this bill ensures that we will continue to have a hard time finding work.

Whenever I have applied for work, I am never called for work. At one point, I was told to my face by the woman overseeing the hiring process "I probably should not tell you this, but since you are over 55, you would make our insuance premiums sky rocket should we hire you."

This legislation does not address this aspect of the lives of those in this age group. Other than to let those of us over 55 continue to remain without work, and to pay our own premiums, sky high at that, should we run our own business and make enough to be eliminated from the County run Medical program.


PS If someone here at Du is in that class of people that this bill might help, I really, truly understand that the tremendous necessity of having health insurance might make you back yourself into a corner and accept this bill.

...Because the group plan has a few people in the plan with quite-high medical costs that drives up the premiums for everybody.

I have no way of knowing if he company would be real bastards if my medical costs started to escalate.

But you could be reaching the wrong conclusion about the bill's effects.

Perhaps modifications will be made, or some aspect of the 2,000 plus pages will actually ensure that we Americans count and will be cared for.

I am hoping, just not holding my breath.

I have been hypothyroid for 33 years. Those are sufficient pre-existing conditions to keep me out of the affordable insurance pool. Also, I'm 61 years of age.

My current net annual income is about $20,000. I am self-employed, so I have no employer to help foot the bill. Just what do you think I would be able to "afford" in the way of health insurance?

As I have said previously, I am very fortunate that the medications to treat my "conditions" are inexpensive and I have a doctor who keeps his fees reasonable for my annual visit. I am not able to change doctors so I drive 70 miles -- one way -- to the doctor I saw before I moved four years ago. Lab fees are so far affordable, but they come out of my pocket, too.

I'm four years away from Medicare, and more than likely none of this "reform" will kick in until right around the same time. So I really don't have a horse in this race, do I. Am I supposed to just STFU and not fight for what I think is right?


TG

I'm anxious to see the "affordable" rates in the high risk pool that is supposed to be available in 2010. If it's actually affordable to the average person as opposed to the average millionaire, I'll gladly eat crow.

under the new bill.

Had to fight the insurance companies to get the treatment. Am completely healthy now, but there is no way I can afford private insurance now. As much as everyone complains about their premiums, I would be so happy to pay a group rate plan which didn't discriminate on preexisting conditions.

This bill will help me out so much.

the bill that is wearing the label "Health Care Reform" right now, will do nothing to improve my inability to afford the treatments which I need in order to stay alive.

If you want to know specifics PM me- Being mandated to purchase "insurance" from a for-profit entity will hurt me more than help me. I had pretty much already made the decision to let nature take it's course before this legislation became more than a 'someday' plan. I will not leave my children destitute as a result of my health issues, and if I am forced to 'buy' insurance I may have to face the choice of speeding up the inevitable.

I know I'm not the only person in a situation like this. Despite my situation, it's important to say that I still respect and admire President Obama. It's the ...legislation for the sake of legislation.... the mentality that accepting 'anything' (despite what the clear majority of American Citizens WANT ie. A STRONG PUBLIC OPTION) is a 'victory', is preferable to 'nothing' personally disappoints me. I intend to continue to support Pres. Obama. This country doesn't revolve around "me" nor should it.

blu~

I have Bipolar Disorder and OCD. It's very manageable, but I've stayed with the same insurance company since diagnosis because I'm afraid of switching. And, not only that, my father has diabetes, is without insurance and can't get it. He's against the bill too.

The reason I'm against this current bill is because it's fiscally irresponsible. Every time I hear Obama say "reduces the deficit in this decade, and the next!" I cringe. It only saves money in this decade on the deficit because there's 10 years of taxes and only 6 years of service. It saves money in the next decade because health care costs go up so much, so many people are paying penalties for not having it, and the taxes on insurance with rising costs will be so much more, that's how they save money in the 2nd decade.

And, I've tried to address this issue on DU before without much response. But, those Medicare cuts are astonishing. Another thing I cringe when I hear is Harry Reid saying those cuts "preserve Medicare for another 10 years." Yeah, if you cut how much money your spending on Medicare so drastically, then the government can afford to fund it longer. I read the CMS report on the health care bill. It basically says the level of cuts proposed to Medicare are not possible.

Now, if I believed the "now or never" mantra many on DU propagate, I would be much more inclined to support the bill. But, I don't believe that. Health care reform is now inevitable. When Clinton failed in '93-'94 with it, there wasn't nearly the mass support for it. Hell, McCain ran on a platform of health care reform. His plan was awful, and it was a big reason he lost, but he did have a plan because it was necessary to run for president in the modern environment. George H W Bush did not run on a platform of health care reform in '92. These days, it's going to happen one way or another. I'm just surprised at how awful the bill is that very well may be passed.

And, if I believed that to provide universal coverage, the fiscal irresponsibility displaed in this bill were in any way necessary... If it were true that universal coverage simply costs that much, I would also be much more inclined to be for this bill. But, this degree of fiscal irresponsibility is in no way necessary. Senator Ron Wyden's Healthy Americans Act is proof of that. To read some quick articles which explain the Healthy Americans Act, go here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-healthy-americans-act_b_301962.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-wyden---bennett-healt_b_293117.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/a-plan-for-universal-cove_b_309513.html

I find this thread very interesting. It helps me understand what you pro-bill guys are thinking. I've thought about doing a thread, "if you're for this bill, do you consider it fiscally responsible?". I'm suspecting many who are for the bill don't care that's it's not fiscally responsible or think along the lines of "if you can spend that much on Afghanistan and Iraq, hell, you can spend that much on this country providing health care!".

But, I don't think the average DU member is savvy when it comes to how bad off this country is with regards to the debt situation. I don't think they have any idea how much we owe the Chinese and what that's gonna do to our economy. Obama has made it clear that his next major effort is going to become reducing the deficit. But, there's only so much room to do that. If he tries to do that with political slogans that have questionable basis in facts like he did with health care, it's really not gonna work. There's only so much room to reduce the deficit. But, when Obama starts harking on the deficit, I think DU will become much more savvy as to how important the deficit is.

you might need a heart transplant

I think most would choose a job.

I don't think you realize how bad the deficit problem is. If I weren't so lazy I'd go find a link for you about the committee Senator Conrad is forming, trying to fast-lane proposal through Congress trying to reduce the deficit.

I was watching Greenspan on C-Span tell Conrad that "based on a reasonable set of assumptions our deficit could be become over a 100 trillion in the next five years." I don't remember the exact numbers. But, our favorite Senator, Lieberman was chairing the committee where they were linking the whole thing to unemployment and what's gonna happen with that.

I know, this post isn't very specific. But, just go ask somebody who lost their job in this recession we still haven't recovered from. The economy is more than just "saving some cash". It's how people make a living.

a doctor to care for them. Doctors may not drop current patients, but they will not accept new patients even when old ones eventually pass away. New Medicaid patients will face the same problem.

Either those cuts will not be made or more and more Medicare and Medicaid qualified patients will go to the emergency room where they must be treated.

I myself have a pre-existiing condition and I will be 59 when the Obama bill takes effect. I have only been able to get temp work, and little of it, for the past four years, and I see little hope of getting something permanent with employer-sponsored health care again. I will not be able to afford even the reduced payment plans for those making 300% or less of the poverty level, at least not here in the DC area where I have the best chance of getting temp work.

I still don't understand why costs for procedures like MRI scans are so much cheaper in Canada and Western Europe. Until we can figure that out, then I don't see any way that we are going to have health care that is affordable, public option or not.

For me, this bill does not mandate truly affordable coverage and will cost incredible amounts of money when all is said and done. I cannot help but conclude that this is much ado about nothing. We would be better served if Obama would cut his ties to Wall Street and the health providers and insurance companies, get out of Iraq,go with Joe Biden's plan in Afghanistan and spend some money to figure out why our health care is so expensive to begin with.

:rofl:

That's a new low, even for you!

I guess that's a pre-existing condition.

poor bill now or try to get one better.

My guess is that, aside for those who do not care what the bill includes (either because they think only one solution is acceptable or on the contrary are only interested by a victory), the difference is between those who believes that the bill can be improved quickly and those who think that it cannot.

This bill is a fig leaf. It's not real health care reform. And the big insurance companies made sure that they would be able to price people with preexisting conditions out of the market so that in effect those people still won't be able to get insurance unless they're rich.

but I'll pay the penalty for not buying "insurance" instead of being gouged involuntarily to donate to the poor widdle insurance co. CEO welfare fund. My rates would be sky-high--I make in the high 30K. I don't want the worthless "product" I'm now being FORCED to buy. I wish they would make jail an option--I guess they knew too many would choose that, and then they'd have to give them "free" health care there, as well as meals and so on. I heard the penalty might be 2.5% of income. I guess I can afford that.

on edit: oh, and by the way, why don't you just stuff a sock in it? you're transparent.

not even the Europeans get that.

your demands are irrational.

and you're a fool to blindly accept it.

can't you read--there's no regulation, no way to prevent them from raising rates, no way to prevent them from saying, you're a fraud because you didn't tell us about your "pre-existing condition" of a vaginal infection in 1981, so we're raising your rates to an astronomical amount until you must sell your home to keep up.

who's the fool?

once burned, twice shy--and if you don't think you haven't been burned, you DO have a pre-existing condition for which no amount of "insurance" is going to help you. Anybody who thinks this bill is for the benefit of consumers is going to be in for a rude shock.

I suspect that this is going to sound better and better to a lot of people with no dependents.

opinion of many. It has some good things in it. It will help some people.

But many people believe it will harm us all in the long run.

It is insulting and juvenile to characterize those who want real reform vs. the installation of some caps and the like as being anti-reform. They are the ones who want reform of the system. This bill doesn't do that. It is a bill. But it is not a reform bill.

It doesn't reform the system. It adds provisions to the existing system. There's a difference.

Yes...it's possible that this bill would help me in some way down the line, but I still think it would harm me in other ways.

We do not ALL fall in line behind a bill just because they offer us a pony. Some are looking for reform and cost containment and the repeal of the price fixing provision that's been in place for decades.

Because we want reform. Just not the one contained in the Senate bill. Your label is unfair.

No one here opposes real reform and you fucking know it. Divisive, nasty, post. And that is the kind I see in favor of taking anything and calling it reform. Mean, lacking in reason, dripping with ill intent and showing no respect for others or for the issue.
If you had a point to make, you would just make it, for the truth can stand unadorned and still be the truth. That which requires this style of promotion can not endure inspection, so it gets gussied up in drama and hyperbole.

Unless you are under 18.

Spina Bifida. I'm looking at the big picture. This is a give-away to insurance companies with very little regulation. I guarantee they already know how to game the restrictions!!

due to several preexisting conditions. I am also 15 l-o-n-g years away from Medicare.

And I am 100% against any bill that sells me into the arms private insurance industry. :hi:

whether through massive taxes like in Europe or through premiums?

you have to contribute something.

I would happiily pay premiums/taxes into a government plan that was highly regulated for cost control and fairness -- I am a fan of the Canadian system. Medicare for all would be a good start, but it does not offer the 100% coverage we need.

would you be happy with such an increase?

And it is none of your business what it is.

You have no shame.

Seems many here would be okay with paying the mandates if there was a stronger public option. However, the name calling on here that has to go along with that point makes me wonder about DU lately. No wonder I stayed away lately. Ick.

I do.

and one reason is because almost everyone in my family has a pre-existing condition. I have a sister who is delaying retirement only because as a cancer survivor, she cannot buy private insurance. If either bill passes, she'll retire early. If neither does, she has to work until she is Medicare eligible. I have Graves disease. I can only buy a high deductible, high co-pay policy and each year in December I hold my breath hoping I'll be renewed.

My parish runs a free health clinic where I volunteer. Most of the people we serve will be provided coverage through the expansion of Medicaid. That will dramatically improve their quality of life. I talked to one older woman who said that she would feel so much better about herself if she could see her own doctor in the daytime instead of lining up for a free clinic two nights a month to manage her hypertension and diabetes. Another told me that while she was glad our clinic was there to help her, it really hurt her to have to depend on charity care.

I wonder if the people on this board trashing these reform measures have ever been in a free clinic as a patient or a volunteer.