Single-payer health care plan dies in Senate

[Morgeruat]

Originally Posted by Papa Schlumpf Still wondering why the fillibuster option exists in the first place...

You do realize that he was making them read the bill... Didn't Obama's "transparency in government" initiative that he told the people he would bring in with him, didn't it say bills would be posted online for 5 days before any votes so that the citizens could see what all's in them... They've been trying to avoid doing that every time anything remotely controversial has come up.

Originally Posted by John Conyers, House of Representatives “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Rep. John Conyers. “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

I say again, the "filibuster" was reading the bill. Because most of the Democrats on the "for" side, hadn't. Regardless of WHAT side of the issue you're on, you should know what you're putting your name on before you sign it or oppose it. I had the same complaint with the Patriot Act, and the Stimulus bill. They were pushed through so fast nobody actually READ them, and when a bill is cooked up by lobbyists and industry insiders, and NOT representatives, it's going to be far worse than anything a congressman can dream up.

And the ones that HAD read the bill, Like Mary Landrew(sp), were bought off ($300 million dollars for her state), or threatened (Ben Nelson of Nebraska who was threatened with having the Strategic Command airbase shut down in the next round of BRAC closings), or made deals that twisted the purpose (Lieberman killing Medicair expansion, while the bill reduces funding for Medicair). Not that it mattered what they voted on, once it had been approved in the Senate it would have gone to a joint House/Senate delegation to come up with a new document "ironing out the differences", ie writing whatever the hell they wanted, and then sending that to the President to sign.

[Morgeruat]

Originally Posted by ElfBane How can you be *forced* to buy healthcare? What if you live on...like $12k a year (it CAN be done!) or less? If the health insurance is $300 a month,,,then that's 25% of your income... and makes it even harder to live. The "good Samaritan" system we have now is better than the *reform* !!!! BO is turning into a racketeer. I was duped by that "yes we can" crap,,, and voted for a Machine Politician who's all blow and no go !

I've got friends who live on less than 12k a year, and my parents raised 8 kids on about that much, so yeah, it can be done, it's not comfortable, nor flashy, but you can survive on it.

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior You're not forced if you live below your means. There is an income bracket that would be mandated to have health insurance, the same way you are mandated to have car insurance if you can afford a car. But people on Section 8, low income, struggling families etc. would be exempt and originally, would get it for free if they wanted it - which is nice. And yes, Cerek, it's a Christmas miracle that we agree.

I've read this comparison to car insurance a lot, and while both do say insurance, they are not the same. For example, in my life I've had, or been involved in 6 car accidents. I have had one healthcare crisis. I know people that have had neither, as I'm sure we all do. The thing is, insuring against having an accident in your car, despite how I might feel about mandated insurance, is logical. Mandating insurance for health care does not address health care. It adresses somebody's wallet. Of course they are going to refuse expanding Medicare, as they are already cutting what it pays, at least on prescription coverage. There's no sense in expanding and cutting a program. They know they have to take money from somewhere, and Medicare is getting cut. I know this for a fact. I'm on Medicare, and have already received my letter informing me that my prescription costs are going to double.

[Morgeruat]

Originally Posted by robertthebard I've read this comparison to car insurance a lot, and while both do say insurance, they are not the same. For example, in my life I've had, or been involved in 6 car accidents. I have had one healthcare crisis. I know people that have had neither, as I'm sure we all do. The thing is, insuring against having an accident in your car, despite how I might feel about mandated insurance, is logical. Mandating insurance for health care does not address health care. It adresses somebody's wallet. Of course they are going to refuse expanding Medicare, as they are already cutting what it pays, at least on prescription coverage. There's no sense in expanding and cutting a program. They know they have to take money from somewhere, and Medicare is getting cut. I know this for a fact. I'm on Medicare, and have already received my letter informing me that my prescription costs are going to double.

Another difference between car insurance? You can go online, pick and choose your coverage, what you want/need coverage for, what amounts, etc, and you can pick from hundreds of insurers across the US to find the best deal or best coverage you want/need. (I also find it amusing that because of the things Medicare DOESN'T cover, it would be illegal if it was a private company)

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Morgeruat Another difference between car insurance? You can go online, pick and choose your coverage, what you want/need coverage for, what amounts, etc, and you can pick from hundreds of insurers across the US to find the best deal or best coverage you want/need. (I also find it amusing that because of the things Medicare DOESN'T cover, it would be illegal if it was a private company)

Agreed. The government keeps insisting we need competition for the commercial insurance industry, but the competition already exists in the market if they would allow health carriers to offer coverage across state lines and compete on a national level. It may not completely cure all the existing problems, but it would certainly improve the coverage and rates offered by the commercial industry.

[SpiritWarrior]

The problem is current health insurance is a business, not a service. Every single health insurer wants to NOT PAY for you for getting sick or getting hurt. They do not have your physical health in mind, they have their financial health in mind. As long as that is the case, they will keep coming up with new and creative ways to point out the small print or simply say "No" when you need them. This isn't right when it comes to letting people die because legally, they aren covered.

Yes, maybe competition through state lines will help. Much like cell phone carriers, text messages were charged per text when they first arrived, but as rival companies sprouted up, they had to have enticing offers, and so, as a result, most plans include unlimited or hundreds of free texts. Beforehand they were like 10c per text! Still, this would be only a part of the many issues.

[Morgeruat]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior The problem is current health insurance is a business, not a service. Every single health insurer wants to NOT PAY for you for getting sick or getting hurt. They do not have your physical health in mind, they have their financial health in mind. As long as that is the case, they will keep coming up with new and creative ways to point out the small print or simply say "No" when you need them. This isn't right when it comes to letting people die because legally, they aren covered. Yes, maybe competition through state lines will help. Much like cell phone carriers, text messages were charged per text when they first arrived, but as rival companies sprouted up, they had to have enticing offers, and so, as a result, most plans include unlimited or hundreds of free texts. Beforehand they were like 10c per text! Still, this would be only a part of the many issues.

Agreed, years ago I heard of a guy in Alaska, friend of a friend type thing while I was in the military, who started up a property insurance company, everything went great, they had quite a sizable coverage area, then an earthquake hit the area doing a fairly large amount of damage, before a claim had been filed, he was filing for bankruptcy, locked the doors and walked away with years worth of premiums as profit he never have to give back. The story ended there and I sincerely hope those people were taken care of and the owner facing severe legal repercussions, but faced with paying out claims, the owner closed his doors rather than pay out.

[Chewbacca]

One interesting effect of mandatory insurance in MA turned out to be a shortage of doctors in some places. No word yet if it has bankrupt the State. Cost keeps going up dramaticly though.

Our premiums on a COBRA plan this year were $1100 per month for a family of 3, double the previous year. I canceled that **** so fast once we got back on an employer -funded plan it wasn't even funny. Then bills started showing up for he costs the insurance co. decided to just not cover, seemingly arbritarily. A total scam they got going. Screwed us coming and going!

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca One interesting effect of mandatory insurance in MA turned out to be a shortage of doctors in some places. No word yet if it has bankrupt the State. Cost keeps going up dramaticly though.

Any idea why the mandatory insurance caused a shortage of doctors in some places?

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Our premiums on a COBRA plan this year were $1100 per month for a family of 3, double the previous year. I canceled that **** so fast once we got back on an employer -funded plan it wasn't even funny. Then bills started showing up for he costs the insurance co. decided to just not cover, seemingly arbritarily. A total scam they got going. Screwed us coming and going!

Cobra premiums are very expensive. I had to pay them myself for 18 months until my Cobra term expired. That was not easy to do since I haven't had steady paycheck for the last two years.

As for the employer-insurance not covering some costs, you can call your plan administrator to find out exactly what is and is not covered. Since it is provided by your employer, it has to be a group policy, which means they cannot deny coverage of a cost or procedure to one policyholder unless they deny it to ALL policyholders. It also means they cannot exclude a condition that only pertains to 1 or 2 individual clients.

My Crohn's disease is the perfect example. It is almost impossible for me to get an individual health policy with my history of the disease. However, with a group policy, the insurance carrier cannot deny MY medical expenses unless the policy specifically excludes coverage for Crohn's disease. Most group policies do NOT exclude chronic illnesses (even cancer). That's why people get insurance through their employer.

Now the policy I had through from my last job did exclude medical supplies associated with an ostomy. That's aggravating, but the cost of supplies is minimal compared to the medical expenses of surgeries and stays in the hospital, which the policy did cover. So the "small" costs of my condition weren't covered, but the "big" costs were.

If you have any recurring expenses for supplies, drugs, regular tests, etc., you can call the plan administrator ahead of time to find out if they are covered or not.

[robertthebard]

If all they want to address is insurance, which seems to be the case, then yeah, they could lift the restrictions in place that prohibit competition. However, I really wish they'd quit referring to it as Health Care Reform, since they aren't even working on Health Care.