There are many things in this bill that I don't like and some things I do. Like a lot of you I felt the old system was broken and unsustainable, but I don't think they passed the best possible fix. I think being able to shop across state lines (a McCain idea) should have been included. I also think we as a country should eliminate fee per service and pay doctors and nurses salaries at hospitals - high salaries because of what they do and the cost of education and you want to retain the best, but salaries.
To me, this was the best part of the bill:
INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS: Starting this year, insurers would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions, and from canceling policies because someone gets sick. Parents would be able to keep older kids on their coverage up to age 26. A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion goes into high gear. Major consumer safeguards would also take effect in 2014. Insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. Insurers could not charge women more.
Personally I don't trust insurance companies any more than I would trust a credit card bank, a tobacco company or OJ's defense attorneys.
There were some other really good parts of the bill too - Bernie Sanders' amendment to open over 10,000 new community health clinics was a wonderful addition, for instance.
And since OJ's defense attorneys got him acquitted, I think I'd want Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck on my team any day.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
There are many things in this bill that I don't like and some things I do. Like a lot of you I felt the old system was broken and unsustainable, but I don't think they passed the best possible fix. I think being able to shop across state lines (a McCain idea) should have been included. I also think we as a country should eliminate fee per service and pay doctors and nurses salaries at hospitals - high salaries because of what they do and the cost of education and you want to retain the best, but salaries.
To me, this was the best part of the bill:
INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS: Starting this year, insurers would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions, and from canceling policies because someone gets sick. Parents would be able to keep older kids on their coverage up to age 26. A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion goes into high gear. Major consumer safeguards would also take effect in 2014. Insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. Insurers could not charge women more.
Personally I don't trust insurance companies any more than I would trust a credit card bank, a tobacco company or OJ's defense attorneys.
There were some other really good parts of the bill too - Bernie Sanders' amendment to open over 10,000 new community health clinics was a wonderful addition, for instance.
And since OJ's defense attorneys got him acquitted, I think I'd want Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck on my team any day.
hahaha - doesn't mean I have to trust them though!
I'm fairly down the middle, so I look at this thing like I see a lot of things, some good some bad.
I have a beef with insurance companies that consistently override my doctor and try to call my son's asthma "pre-existing" and deny coverage until we write a letter asking please and then they magically reverse course and cover.
so how is everyone's day going?? you know, with this being the first day of the end of the country and all since it was destroyed last night....i have to say, mine is the same as usual...
hahaha - doesn't mean I have to trust them though!
I'm fairly down the middle, so I look at this thing like I see a lot of things, some good some bad.
I have a beef with insurance companies that consistently override my doctor and try to call my son's asthma "pre-existing" and deny coverage until we write a letter asking please and then they magically reverse course and cover.
I'm borderline socialist and I agree with you there. These insurance companies are the REAL death panels.
(An aside about Barry Scheck though - he runs the extraordinary Innocence Project.)
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
This from a more recent poll, taken by CBS during Sunday's vote:
As has been the case throughout the health care debate, more Americans think the reform bill will hurt them (35 percent) than say it will help them personally (20 percent).
Again, I'm not saying neccesarily I'm against the bill. I don't really know how I feel. But, judging by the polls, MOST Americans are, and that could hurt the Democrats in the November elections. Especially those serving in more conservative districts.
Without getting into this whole debate about polls and sources, I just want to point out that this question was about how the individual being polled would personally be affected, not whether they support the bill.
I also know (based on my job - I train our employees on new IT solutions) that people HATE change and will hate this bill just because it is change.
Please note that I am not accusing anyone here of doing that. Since this seems to be one of the few reasonably discussed threads on AMT and I think most of us are pretty well informed.
But I know from direct experience that people put up a fight and resist change even if it is for their better.
I wonder how that accounts for some of the polls. Fear of change (any change, good or bad) sends people into a panic sometimes.
I even had some people cry in class because we were replacing their 20 year old legacy piece of shit system with something new.
This from a more recent poll, taken by CBS during Sunday's vote:
As has been the case throughout the health care debate, more Americans think the reform bill will hurt them (35 percent) than say it will help them personally (20 percent).
Again, I'm not saying neccesarily I'm against the bill. I don't really know how I feel. But, judging by the polls, MOST Americans are, and that could hurt the Democrats in the November elections. Especially those serving in more conservative districts.
Without getting into this whole debate about polls and sources, I just want to point out that this question was about how the individual being polled would personally be affected, not whether they support the bill.
The first poll I cited on this thread was a Rasmussen about whether Americans supported, specifically, the health care plan. Same result.
The poll you are referencing was meant to be just corollary evidence supporting my point.
I don't think it's even up for debate that most polls, however they are worded, show the majority of Americans do not support the health care bill. Yet. Even President Obama knows this.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I also know (based on my job - I train our employees on new IT solutions) that people HATE change and will hate this bill just because it is change.
Please note that I am not accusing anyone here of doing that. Since this seems to be one of the few reasonably discussed threads on AMT and I think most of us are pretty well informed.
But I know from direct experience that people put up a fight and resist change even if it is for their better.
I wonder how that accounts for some of the polls. Fear of change (any change, good or bad) sends people into a panic sometimes.
I even had some people cry in class because we were replacing their 20 year old legacy piece of shit system with something new.
This is probably true. Please note I'm not trying to ascertain the reasons WHY people might be against the bill. Just that the majority do appear to be against it, and this likely to hurt the congressmen who voted for it when they are up for re-election. Really, it's just common sense.
I don't think anybody who follows politics for a living expects the Democracts to gain seats or even break even the next election cycle.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I'm a bit ignorant about this and I admit that. I've sort of taken a break from the politics part of life in order to save my sanity. So I haven't tuned in enough as I probably should have regarding this topic. I've just put my trust in certain people who I very much believe won't let me down. Those people are against this bill so in a lazy roundabout way so am I. But that's the basic idea of a republic anyway isn't it? So I feel okay about it.
One question I have is this - Doesn't this bill require people to have their own health insurance coverage with penalties if they do not? Kind of like living without health insurance is the new driving without car insurance?
Nobody here is letting poor people die. If you need surgery and can't pay, you go to the hospital and get it anyway. The tab is essentially picked up by everybody else.
So if the tax payers are already paying for poor people to have required surgery (which is expensive) why not just pay for that person to have some free check-ups (which are much cheaper) so maybe they don't get to a point where they need expensive emergency surgery?
There are free clinics where people can go for free or low cost check ups and healthcare. However, most walk into an emergency room where they cannot be turned away for not having coverage.
In my experience, these clinics exist more in theory than in practice, which is why people have to wait until their condition worsens and/or go to an emergency room.
Edit to add for slightofjeff: Those who don't qualify for coverage such as Medicaid are billed, harassed, and sent to collections. The only way they don't have to pay for their surgery is if they die first.
I'd like to see some specific examples. You cannot be denied medical attention for lack of coverage. It is against the law. If you are poor, you can be on medicaid. There are free clinics and discounted clinics for those who can't afford anything else.
The system definitely needs to be reformed, no doubt ... but there are already MANY, MANY social programs in place to help people who can't otherwise afford it.
Also, not even close to being a debate.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
In my experience, these clinics exist more in theory than in practice, which is why people have to wait until their condition worsens and/or go to an emergency room.
Edit to add for slightofjeff: Those who don't qualify for coverage such as Medicaid are billed, harassed, and sent to collections. The only way they don't have to pay for their surgery is if they die first.
In my experience, you can pretty much set up any kind of payment plan with the hospital. Pay them $20 a month, and they'll get off your back. You might be paying $20 a month until the day you die, but you won't be submitted to collections.
I think the American "people who died because they didn't have health coverage" stories are akin to the stories in other Universal Health Care countries about "people who died because they sat on a waiting list for surgery."
I'm sure it happens, but not as often as the people telling such stories want to have you believe. You can find isolated incidents to make a case for anything.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Well, I still believe the government has no business making my iPhones or my cars, I leave those to the free market.
However, the things that are part of the commons - our air, water, roads, bridges, airwaves, fire, police, postal services... and yes, even healthcare... should be regulated or given to government. Government is "We The People", right?
I'd like to see some specific examples. You cannot be denied medical attention for lack of coverage. It is against the law. If you are poor, you can be on medicaid. There are free clinics and discounted clinics for those who can't afford anything else.
The system definitely needs to be reformed, no doubt ... but there are already MANY, MANY social programs in place to help people who can't otherwise afford it.
Also, not even close to being a debate.
You cannot be denied (hopefully) lifesaving medical attention. You can be denied the preventative care that would have kept you from needing lifesaving medical attention to begin with. Medicaid is primarily for pregnant women and children, not for adult men and non-pregnant women. Care to point me in the direction of these free clinics to which everyone has access? Have you ever tried to access these social programs of which you speak? It's not as easy as you seem to think. This is just a myth that middle-class and wealthy people choose to believe to make themselves feel better about supporting such a dichotomous system. Denial is not the answer.
I'd like to see some specific examples. You cannot be denied medical attention for lack of coverage. It is against the law. If you are poor, you can be on medicaid. There are free clinics and discounted clinics for those who can't afford anything else.
The system definitely needs to be reformed, no doubt ... but there are already MANY, MANY social programs in place to help people who can't otherwise afford it.
Also, not even close to being a debate.
Why don't you read the CNN article I posted before coming back with questions that could have been answered had you looked at it?
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
In my experience, these clinics exist more in theory than in practice, which is why people have to wait until their condition worsens and/or go to an emergency room.
Edit to add for slightofjeff: Those who don't qualify for coverage such as Medicaid are billed, harassed, and sent to collections. The only way they don't have to pay for their surgery is if they die first.
In my experience, you can pretty much set up any kind of payment plan with the hospital. Pay them $20 a month, and they'll get off your back. You might be paying $20 a month until the day you die, but you won't be submitted to collections.
I think the American "people who died because they didn't have health coverage" stories are akin to the stories in other Universal Health Care countries about "people who died because they sat on a waiting list for surgery."
I'm sure it happens, but not as often as the people telling such stories want to have you believe. You can find isolated incidents to make a case for anything.
Washington
The House of Representatives passed the health care reform bill Sunday night with a 219-to-212 vote. With the Senate already having passed the bill on Christmas Eve, it now stands ready for President Obama to sign into law, perhaps as early as Tuesday.
Many challenges remain, though. Attorneys general in 12 states have said they will challenges the constitutionality of the health care bill. Moreover, Democrats still want to make changes to the final bill after the fact.
The House has already passed this package of fixes – which would rein on some of the special deals made with Senators last year. Now the Senate must pass the same package of fixes before Mr. Obama can sign them into law. To do that the Senate ill have to turn to the contentious and time-consuming process of reconciliation.
But the outlines of the bill are now clear. Here is the Monitor's comprehensive look at what is in the health care bill and how it might affect you:
who must buy insurance:
By Peter Grier, / Staff writer / March 19, 2010
Washington
Confused about the healthcare reform effort? Don’t worry – you’re not alone. By the time it comes up for a final vote this weekend, health legislation will be twice as long, and half as intelligible, as Tolstoy’s masterwork “War and Peace.” And news coverage of healthcare reform has focused as much, or more, on political wrangling than on substance.
Skip to next paragraph
Related Stories
Opinion: Can Obama force you to buy health insurance?
Blog: CBO score says healthcare will cost $940 billion. What will it cost you?
Health care reform bill 101: What's a health 'exchange'?
Health care reform bill 101: Who gets subsidized insurance?
So we’re going to try to describe what’s in the healthcare reform bill in plain English.
That’s not easy. For one thing, the bill is full of sentences that begin “For the purposes of subparagraph 6(b)....” For another, healthcare reform would be the most sweeping change in US domestic policy in a generation. It’s big, and it’s complicated.
But here’s a key thing to remember: There is a simple concept at the center of this rambling, Rube Goldbergian machine. Democratic healthcare reform would expand insurance coverage in America by requiring people to obtain it.
That’s right. The healthcare reform bill would mandate that most US citizens and legal residents purchase “minimal essential coverage” for themselves and their dependents. They can get this either through their employer, or, if their employer doesn’t offer health insurance, they can buy it through new marketplaces that will sell policies to individuals.
Those marketplaces would be called “exchanges.” We’ll talk more about them in a later story. (We’ll also cover subsidies for health insurance, when it all would take effect, how it would be paid for, and what it means for businesses.)
Are there penalties if you don't buy insurance?
If you ignore this mandate and don’t get health insurance, you’ll have to pay a tax penalty to the federal government, beginning in 2014. This fine starts fairly small, but by the time it is fully phased in, in 2016, it is substantial.
An insurance-less person would have to pony up whichever is greater: $695 for each uninsured family member, up to a maximum of $2,085; or 2.5 percent of household income.
There are exceptions. Certain people with religious objections would not have to get health insurance. Nor would American Indians, illegal immigrants, or people in prison.
Why the requirement?
Why is Congress doing this? It’s a pretty obvious way to expand coverage, for one thing. Also, it will help bring in a flood of new customers for health insurance firms, including healthy young people who might not need much healthcare.
For insurance firms, those new customers could balance out the losses they might incur if they can no longer deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions. (Yes, that’s another change the bill makes.)
And remember, many people will not be buying this coverage purely on their own. Uncle Sam will be helping them. The bookend to the individual mandate is federal subsidies for insurance purchases, which reach deep into the middle class. We’ll talk about those next.
who gets subsidized insurance:
By Peter Grier, / Staff writer / March 20, 2010
Washington
What’s in the healthcare bill? An individual mandate, for one thing.
Skip to next paragraph
Related Stories
Health care reform bill 101: Who must buy insurance?
Health care reform bill 101: What's a health 'exchange'?
Health care reform bill 101: How long will reform take?
Health care reform bill 101: Who will pay for reform?
Yes, the legislation now in Congress would require most people in the US to buy health insurance. That’s the main way it would expand coverage by upward of 32 million people.
We told you about that in the first installment of our attempt to describe bill provisions in plain English. (Our next installments cover the timetable for rolling out reforms, how they would be paid for, and what they mean for businesses.)
But there’s a carrot that goes along with this stick: subsidies. Uncle Sam would help many lower- and middle-income Americans purchase their health coverage.
What's the formula for aid?
Let’s start with people who are unemployed, self-employed, or work for businesses that don’t offer insurance. Beginning in 2014 (that’s right, this is four years away), these people would be able to shop for coverage in new “health exchanges,” a sort of online bazaar in which insurers would hawk different kinds of plans. We’ll talk more about how these malls might work in our next story.
Congressional budget experts figure that about 25 million people will shop for coverage in these exchanges. That’s a pretty big market. Of these, about 19 million are likely to be eligible for financial aid.
The cutoff level would be an income of four times the federal poverty level. For one person, that’s about $44,000 a year. For a family of four, the comparable figure is about $88,000.
Subsidies would be figured on a sliding scale, with those who make less getting a bigger boost and those nearer the top getting a smaller one.
The formula is pretty complicated. Basically, though, people who make three or four times the poverty level would get enough federal money so that they would not have to pay more than about 10 percent of their income for a decent health insurance package.
People who make less would have to pay a smaller slice of their income for coverage. For instance, individuals who make about $14,000, and four-person families with incomes of about $29,000, would not have to pay more than 3 to 4 percent of their incomes for insurance.
And those who make even less – under 133 percent of the federal poverty level – would be able to enroll in a newly expanded Medicaid program.
The federal subsidy would go straight to the insurer. It would look like a discount on the policy to the customer.
Anyone else who qualifies?
But what if you work for an employer who does offer health insurance? You’re not shopping for policies on the individual market. At least, not yet. Can you still get a subsidy?
Excellent questions. Glad you asked.
Yes, if you make less money than the poverty cutoff level, you would still be eligible for aid. The federal government will in essence guarantee that you do not have to pay more than 9.8 percent of your income for your share of health insurance costs.
There’s something of a catch there, however. The main way the feds would ensure this is to steer you, too, into this new exchange. Your employer would give you a voucher equal to the amount of money it contributes to your policy. Then you’d dive in there and shop for plans with all the self-employed people.
(Unsurprisingly, the Congressional Budget Office numbers indicate it does not expect that many people will do this. Only about 1 million.)
The Department of Health and Human Services would be the umpire making calls as to who would and would not get subsidies. The bill, if enacted, would set up a process for appealing HHS decisions.
We’re thinking the bill, if enacted, also would make HHS one very busy place.
I'd like to see some specific examples. You cannot be denied medical attention for lack of coverage. It is against the law. If you are poor, you can be on medicaid. There are free clinics and discounted clinics for those who can't afford anything else.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Tracy Pierce, 37, lived a full life. He grew up with family and faith. He went to a Catholic school, got married, had a son, and he even had the car of his dreams. It was the perfect life.
"He's been strong. He has," his wife, Julie Pierce, said.
Two years ago, Tracy Pierce's life changed dramatically when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
"I have no treatment. Three months has gone by and I haven't had any treatment," Tracy Pierce told KMBC's Jim Flink in May 2005.
When Flink talked to Tracy Pierce, his cancer was attacking his body. Despite being fully insured, every treatment his doctors sought for him was denied by his insurance provider. First-Health Coventry deemed the treatments were either not a medical necessity or experimental.
"I don't know what else to do but just wait," Tracy Pierce said last May.
As he waited, his doctors appealed again and again, including a 27-page appeal spelling out that Tracy Pierce would die without care. Coventry dismissed each request.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
I can't get into the debates today (been debating this for 10 years, and until we get a single payer system, I'll keep on going, but I'll rest on this victory for now)... but I just want to express my dissapointment with my own rep, Stephen Lynch, who was the only U.S. Rep from Massachusetts who voted against this bill. He was also the only rep from Mass who voted FOR the Iraq War in 2003... another inexcusable vote. He has been unchallenged on the last few ballots, so I've been forced to vote for "NONE OF THE ABOVE". Given the demographics of my district (I'm deep within Scott Brown country here), he'll probably remain popular, but will never have my support.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Tracy Pierce, 37, lived a full life. He grew up with family and faith. He went to a Catholic school, got married, had a son, and he even had the car of his dreams. It was the perfect life.
"He's been strong. He has," his wife, Julie Pierce, said.
Two years ago, Tracy Pierce's life changed dramatically when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
"I have no treatment. Three months has gone by and I haven't had any treatment," Tracy Pierce told KMBC's Jim Flink in May 2005.
When Flink talked to Tracy Pierce, his cancer was attacking his body. Despite being fully insured, every treatment his doctors sought for him was denied by his insurance provider. First-Health Coventry deemed the treatments were either not a medical necessity or experimental.
"I don't know what else to do but just wait," Tracy Pierce said last May.
As he waited, his doctors appealed again and again, including a 27-page appeal spelling out that Tracy Pierce would die without care. Coventry dismissed each request.
I find this interesting since one of the points I always hear made about why a for profit insurance system is so much better is because a profit based competitive system leads to more innovation and discovery. Yet where is the innovation if the insurance companies won't do any procedure that they define as "experimental"?
You cannot be denied (hopefully) lifesaving medical attention. You can be denied the preventative care that would have kept you from needing lifesaving medical attention to begin with. Medicaid is primarily for pregnant women and children, not for adult men and non-pregnant women. Care to point me in the direction of these free clinics to which everyone has access? Have you ever tried to access these social programs of which you speak? It's not as easy as you seem to think. This is just a myth that middle-class and wealthy people choose to believe to make themselves feel better about supporting such a dichotomous system. Denial is not the answer.
If you'll go back and check my posts ... I'm not arguing that reform wasn't/isn't needed ... I'm on your side. You don't need to sell me.
My initial contribution to this thread was to tell one of our foreign friends, whose only exposure to the US health care system was apparently a Michael Moore documentary, that we don't really have poor people dying on every street corner here. I was just trying to make sure the problem was stated accurately, and not hyperbolically.
That's it. That's all I was trying to say. Outside of that, you don't need to convince me of the need for reform.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Comments
1. When everyone has access to healthcare.
2. When the health outcomes in the U.S. aren't shameful compared to most of the rest of the developed world.
There were some other really good parts of the bill too - Bernie Sanders' amendment to open over 10,000 new community health clinics was a wonderful addition, for instance.
And since OJ's defense attorneys got him acquitted, I think I'd want Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck on my team any day.
hahaha - doesn't mean I have to trust them though!
I'm fairly down the middle, so I look at this thing like I see a lot of things, some good some bad.
I have a beef with insurance companies that consistently override my doctor and try to call my son's asthma "pre-existing" and deny coverage until we write a letter asking please and then they magically reverse course and cover.
BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
HTFD-6/27/08
ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
OKC-11/16/13
SEA-12/6/13
TUL-10/8/14
So far so good.
I'm borderline socialist and I agree with you there. These insurance companies are the REAL death panels.
(An aside about Barry Scheck though - he runs the extraordinary Innocence Project.)
Without getting into this whole debate about polls and sources, I just want to point out that this question was about how the individual being polled would personally be affected, not whether they support the bill.
Please note that I am not accusing anyone here of doing that. Since this seems to be one of the few reasonably discussed threads on AMT and I think most of us are pretty well informed.
But I know from direct experience that people put up a fight and resist change even if it is for their better.
I wonder how that accounts for some of the polls. Fear of change (any change, good or bad) sends people into a panic sometimes.
I even had some people cry in class because we were replacing their 20 year old legacy piece of shit system with something new.
BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
HTFD-6/27/08
ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
OKC-11/16/13
SEA-12/6/13
TUL-10/8/14
3. When healthcare is considered a RIGHT, and not a privilege.
4. When healthcare is no longer a for profit industry.
/end socialist rant
The first poll I cited on this thread was a Rasmussen about whether Americans supported, specifically, the health care plan. Same result.
The poll you are referencing was meant to be just corollary evidence supporting my point.
I don't think it's even up for debate that most polls, however they are worded, show the majority of Americans do not support the health care bill. Yet. Even President Obama knows this.
for the least they could possibly do
That's debatable.
This is probably true. Please note I'm not trying to ascertain the reasons WHY people might be against the bill. Just that the majority do appear to be against it, and this likely to hurt the congressmen who voted for it when they are up for re-election. Really, it's just common sense.
I don't think anybody who follows politics for a living expects the Democracts to gain seats or even break even the next election cycle.
for the least they could possibly do
One question I have is this - Doesn't this bill require people to have their own health insurance coverage with penalties if they do not? Kind of like living without health insurance is the new driving without car insurance?
45,000 die every year for lack of health insurance.
Not even close to being a debate.
In my experience, these clinics exist more in theory than in practice, which is why people have to wait until their condition worsens and/or go to an emergency room.
Edit to add for slightofjeff: Those who don't qualify for coverage such as Medicaid are billed, harassed, and sent to collections. The only way they don't have to pay for their surgery is if they die first.
Borderline?
Thanks!
I'd like to see some specific examples. You cannot be denied medical attention for lack of coverage. It is against the law. If you are poor, you can be on medicaid. There are free clinics and discounted clinics for those who can't afford anything else.
The system definitely needs to be reformed, no doubt ... but there are already MANY, MANY social programs in place to help people who can't otherwise afford it.
Also, not even close to being a debate.
for the least they could possibly do
In my experience, you can pretty much set up any kind of payment plan with the hospital. Pay them $20 a month, and they'll get off your back. You might be paying $20 a month until the day you die, but you won't be submitted to collections.
I think the American "people who died because they didn't have health coverage" stories are akin to the stories in other Universal Health Care countries about "people who died because they sat on a waiting list for surgery."
I'm sure it happens, but not as often as the people telling such stories want to have you believe. You can find isolated incidents to make a case for anything.
for the least they could possibly do
Well, I still believe the government has no business making my iPhones or my cars, I leave those to the free market.
However, the things that are part of the commons - our air, water, roads, bridges, airwaves, fire, police, postal services... and yes, even healthcare... should be regulated or given to government. Government is "We The People", right?
Anytime.
You cannot be denied (hopefully) lifesaving medical attention. You can be denied the preventative care that would have kept you from needing lifesaving medical attention to begin with. Medicaid is primarily for pregnant women and children, not for adult men and non-pregnant women. Care to point me in the direction of these free clinics to which everyone has access? Have you ever tried to access these social programs of which you speak? It's not as easy as you seem to think. This is just a myth that middle-class and wealthy people choose to believe to make themselves feel better about supporting such a dichotomous system. Denial is not the answer.
Why don't you read the CNN article I posted before coming back with questions that could have been answered had you looked at it?
What if you don't have $20/month to spare?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... ans-to-you
By Peter Grier, Staff writer / March 22, 2010
Washington
The House of Representatives passed the health care reform bill Sunday night with a 219-to-212 vote. With the Senate already having passed the bill on Christmas Eve, it now stands ready for President Obama to sign into law, perhaps as early as Tuesday.
Many challenges remain, though. Attorneys general in 12 states have said they will challenges the constitutionality of the health care bill. Moreover, Democrats still want to make changes to the final bill after the fact.
The House has already passed this package of fixes – which would rein on some of the special deals made with Senators last year. Now the Senate must pass the same package of fixes before Mr. Obama can sign them into law. To do that the Senate ill have to turn to the contentious and time-consuming process of reconciliation.
But the outlines of the bill are now clear. Here is the Monitor's comprehensive look at what is in the health care bill and how it might affect you:
Part 1: Who must buy insurance?
Part 2: Who gets subsidized insurance?
Part 3: What's a health 'exchange'?
Part 4: How long will reform take?
Part 5: Who will pay for reform?
Part 6: What will it mean for business?
By Peter Grier, / Staff writer / March 19, 2010
Washington
Confused about the healthcare reform effort? Don’t worry – you’re not alone. By the time it comes up for a final vote this weekend, health legislation will be twice as long, and half as intelligible, as Tolstoy’s masterwork “War and Peace.” And news coverage of healthcare reform has focused as much, or more, on political wrangling than on substance.
Skip to next paragraph
Related Stories
Opinion: Can Obama force you to buy health insurance?
Blog: CBO score says healthcare will cost $940 billion. What will it cost you?
Health care reform bill 101: What's a health 'exchange'?
Health care reform bill 101: Who gets subsidized insurance?
So we’re going to try to describe what’s in the healthcare reform bill in plain English.
That’s not easy. For one thing, the bill is full of sentences that begin “For the purposes of subparagraph 6(b)....” For another, healthcare reform would be the most sweeping change in US domestic policy in a generation. It’s big, and it’s complicated.
But here’s a key thing to remember: There is a simple concept at the center of this rambling, Rube Goldbergian machine. Democratic healthcare reform would expand insurance coverage in America by requiring people to obtain it.
That’s right. The healthcare reform bill would mandate that most US citizens and legal residents purchase “minimal essential coverage” for themselves and their dependents. They can get this either through their employer, or, if their employer doesn’t offer health insurance, they can buy it through new marketplaces that will sell policies to individuals.
Those marketplaces would be called “exchanges.” We’ll talk more about them in a later story. (We’ll also cover subsidies for health insurance, when it all would take effect, how it would be paid for, and what it means for businesses.)
Are there penalties if you don't buy insurance?
If you ignore this mandate and don’t get health insurance, you’ll have to pay a tax penalty to the federal government, beginning in 2014. This fine starts fairly small, but by the time it is fully phased in, in 2016, it is substantial.
An insurance-less person would have to pony up whichever is greater: $695 for each uninsured family member, up to a maximum of $2,085; or 2.5 percent of household income.
There are exceptions. Certain people with religious objections would not have to get health insurance. Nor would American Indians, illegal immigrants, or people in prison.
Why the requirement?
Why is Congress doing this? It’s a pretty obvious way to expand coverage, for one thing. Also, it will help bring in a flood of new customers for health insurance firms, including healthy young people who might not need much healthcare.
For insurance firms, those new customers could balance out the losses they might incur if they can no longer deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions. (Yes, that’s another change the bill makes.)
And remember, many people will not be buying this coverage purely on their own. Uncle Sam will be helping them. The bookend to the individual mandate is federal subsidies for insurance purchases, which reach deep into the middle class. We’ll talk about those next.
By Peter Grier, / Staff writer / March 20, 2010
Washington
What’s in the healthcare bill? An individual mandate, for one thing.
Skip to next paragraph
Related Stories
Health care reform bill 101: Who must buy insurance?
Health care reform bill 101: What's a health 'exchange'?
Health care reform bill 101: How long will reform take?
Health care reform bill 101: Who will pay for reform?
Yes, the legislation now in Congress would require most people in the US to buy health insurance. That’s the main way it would expand coverage by upward of 32 million people.
We told you about that in the first installment of our attempt to describe bill provisions in plain English. (Our next installments cover the timetable for rolling out reforms, how they would be paid for, and what they mean for businesses.)
But there’s a carrot that goes along with this stick: subsidies. Uncle Sam would help many lower- and middle-income Americans purchase their health coverage.
What's the formula for aid?
Let’s start with people who are unemployed, self-employed, or work for businesses that don’t offer insurance. Beginning in 2014 (that’s right, this is four years away), these people would be able to shop for coverage in new “health exchanges,” a sort of online bazaar in which insurers would hawk different kinds of plans. We’ll talk more about how these malls might work in our next story.
Congressional budget experts figure that about 25 million people will shop for coverage in these exchanges. That’s a pretty big market. Of these, about 19 million are likely to be eligible for financial aid.
The cutoff level would be an income of four times the federal poverty level. For one person, that’s about $44,000 a year. For a family of four, the comparable figure is about $88,000.
Subsidies would be figured on a sliding scale, with those who make less getting a bigger boost and those nearer the top getting a smaller one.
The formula is pretty complicated. Basically, though, people who make three or four times the poverty level would get enough federal money so that they would not have to pay more than about 10 percent of their income for a decent health insurance package.
People who make less would have to pay a smaller slice of their income for coverage. For instance, individuals who make about $14,000, and four-person families with incomes of about $29,000, would not have to pay more than 3 to 4 percent of their incomes for insurance.
And those who make even less – under 133 percent of the federal poverty level – would be able to enroll in a newly expanded Medicaid program.
The federal subsidy would go straight to the insurer. It would look like a discount on the policy to the customer.
Anyone else who qualifies?
But what if you work for an employer who does offer health insurance? You’re not shopping for policies on the individual market. At least, not yet. Can you still get a subsidy?
Excellent questions. Glad you asked.
Yes, if you make less money than the poverty cutoff level, you would still be eligible for aid. The federal government will in essence guarantee that you do not have to pay more than 9.8 percent of your income for your share of health insurance costs.
There’s something of a catch there, however. The main way the feds would ensure this is to steer you, too, into this new exchange. Your employer would give you a voucher equal to the amount of money it contributes to your policy. Then you’d dive in there and shop for plans with all the self-employed people.
(Unsurprisingly, the Congressional Budget Office numbers indicate it does not expect that many people will do this. Only about 1 million.)
The Department of Health and Human Services would be the umpire making calls as to who would and would not get subsidies. The bill, if enacted, would set up a process for appealing HHS decisions.
We’re thinking the bill, if enacted, also would make HHS one very busy place.
Als
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Tracy Pierce, 37, lived a full life. He grew up with family and faith. He went to a Catholic school, got married, had a son, and he even had the car of his dreams. It was the perfect life.
"He's been strong. He has," his wife, Julie Pierce, said.
Two years ago, Tracy Pierce's life changed dramatically when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
"I have no treatment. Three months has gone by and I haven't had any treatment," Tracy Pierce told KMBC's Jim Flink in May 2005.
When Flink talked to Tracy Pierce, his cancer was attacking his body. Despite being fully insured, every treatment his doctors sought for him was denied by his insurance provider. First-Health Coventry deemed the treatments were either not a medical necessity or experimental.
"I don't know what else to do but just wait," Tracy Pierce said last May.
As he waited, his doctors appealed again and again, including a 27-page appeal spelling out that Tracy Pierce would die without care. Coventry dismissed each request.
I find this interesting since one of the points I always hear made about why a for profit insurance system is so much better is because a profit based competitive system leads to more innovation and discovery. Yet where is the innovation if the insurance companies won't do any procedure that they define as "experimental"?
If you'll go back and check my posts ... I'm not arguing that reform wasn't/isn't needed ... I'm on your side. You don't need to sell me.
My initial contribution to this thread was to tell one of our foreign friends, whose only exposure to the US health care system was apparently a Michael Moore documentary, that we don't really have poor people dying on every street corner here. I was just trying to make sure the problem was stated accurately, and not hyperbolically.
That's it. That's all I was trying to say. Outside of that, you don't need to convince me of the need for reform.
for the least they could possibly do