Can someone explain something to me about this "covering millions" in the health care bill

[Robyn66]

Maybe I don't understand this correctly, which is why I am asking. But I keep hearing members of congress patting each other on the back talking about how they are covering millions of uninsured Americans when aren't they just putting a gun to the head of people who can't already afford to buy their own health insurance with mandates?

I don't understand how mandates are progress or any kind of accomplishment. There is no public option or single payer or medicaid for all so what are these people who already have a tough time going to do? Just go to jail? I am up to my ears in debt, if I suddenly had to shell out 700.00 a month for health care insurance I just couldn't do it. But on paper we make decent money. How is this not just another huge burden on the American people?

Am I understanding this correctly?

This isn't to be snarky or anything I honestly don't understand what there is to be so excited about.

[kestrel91316]

1. Individual mandate without robust public option = gun to head. Correct.

[Mari333]

2. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7242143

they are full of shit.

[dflprincess]

3. And "covering" millions does not mean millions more will have access to care

If all they can afford to buy is a policy with high out of pockets expenses they still won't be able to afford to see their doctor.

[DJ13]

4. And Obama can say that you're getting a lot, but

also saying that it "covers everyone," as if there's a big new benefit is a big stretch. Nothing will have changed on that count except changing the law to force people to buy private insurance if they don't get it from their employer. I guess you can call that progressive, but that doesn't make it so. In fact, mandating that all people pay money to a private interest isn't even conservative, free market or otherwise. It's some kind of weird corporatism that's very hard to square with the common good philosophy that Democrats supposedly espouse.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/best-we-can-do-by-digby-jim-vandehei.html

[WeDidIt]

5. "Covering millions" = PAy For Fucked Up Health Insurance or you break federal law.

[daleanime]

6. Yes you are...

and no your not crazy, the government is:wtf:

[TwilightGardener]

7. If the reforms work the way they're supposed to, the mandates to

either get coverage from an employer or purchase individual plans would be coupled with subsidies to help pay for those policies. And supposedly premiums/costs would be lowered or kept the same because even though the insurance system will now be opened to sick (expensive liability) people, the forced enrollment of healthy young (cheap, profitable) people will enlarge the pool and absorb that. That's how it's supposed to work, I have no idea if it will.

[Vincardog]

8. The conservaDems are patting themselves on the back for getting us to elect them to FORCE US TO BUY

CRAPPY unregulated "insurance".
You are correct this is a gun to our head.
Thank Obama Emanuel and Lieberman

[yodoobo]

9. Everyone is going to have to pay their share to get universal coverage

I don't know why everyone seemed to think that the healthcare fairy was on the way.

When everyone pays their fair share, then it will be affordable for everyone.

Conversely, if some people refuse to pay, they are denying this right to others by reducing the funding pool.

In terms of your example of $700, sometimes we have to rearrange our priorities in a just society. If you make a good income then its your responsibility to yourself and everyone else.

Will it be a burden? Well yes but its nothing new. Its ALREADY a huge burden to all of America. This plan simply evens the burden out in a fair way.

[Robyn66]

12. So if it comes down to mortgage or health insurance its ok

to lose your home because your situation falls outside the range of subsidies? And to top it off you add fines and possible jail in to the mix? How is that an improvement over what is happening to people now?

[yodoobo]

17. If its that tight then there are programs to assist

Healthcare subsidies and there are many programs in place for loan modifications.

Its true though. Its going to be an adjustment for everyone. But who expected anything different?

[Hello_Kitty]

46. OMFG. You are a riot.

The lion's share of subsidies will go to families with children and the working poor. Which is good for them but people like the OP, with incomes that look good on paper, will not be given subsidies and will take on a huge new debt that makes them unable to pay other ones. I know people who make $60k a year who barely get by because they have massive student loans or other kinds of debt.

[FormerDittoHead]

51. If you make $60k a year, you're "rich" and can afford another $800 a month...

There are a lot of people who don't HAVE houses.

Be thankful for what you have, and vote for Obama, 2012!

The alternative is Palin! So DONATE TO OBAMA TODAY!

:sarcasm:

[Hello_Kitty]

53. Seriously.

It's one thing to be anti-rich, but when the Democrats start attacking the middle class, we are going to be destroyed. And telling a middle class person that a new bill of $700 a month is fair and just is simply outrageous.

[FormerDittoHead]

55. That's why this is going to be a disaster.

I can't wait to hear what a "Cadillac" health insurance plan is, and that it's taxable.

That we ALREADY pay more per capita than any other country, if there is ANY *WAY* that we (or anyone who isn't making more than $200,000) are going to pay more for insurance, means this bill is TOXIC, both economically and politically.

[daleanime]

13. No one is trying to skip their 'fair share'...

but how many more billionaire CEO's do we need?

[yodoobo]

15. Oh I disagree with that

I've seen quite a few people upset that they are going to have to pay anything.

[daleanime]

31. We must be looking in different places...

I haven't seen anyone refusing to pay for health care, however I know that I'm not the only one upset with the idea of running everyone's health care dollars through 'private' insurance.

[Hello_Kitty]

48. Usually it's because they disagree with being forced to purchase something

From a private company with no government alternative and no real controls on the cost of it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Yes, BUT if we don't put a choker collar on the insurance companies

then they'll just treat everyone as a captive audience and gouge like crazy. The current bill allows them to gouge people with pre-existing conditions and those over 50, and what's to prevent them from raising the prices for everyone (as they have all along) just to get all those yummy government subsidies?

I have NO faith whatsoever in American insurance companies. They have proved themselves to be unworthy of anything except contempt--and I live in Minnesota, supposedly a "good" state for insurance.

[leftstreet]

18. What is my 'fair share' of the bank bailouts? The Afghan escalation?

Someone get me a calculator.

I'd like to transfer those payments to healthcare coverage

[yodoobo]

25. Those two items are borrowed money

Its not as if you can take that money and spend it elsewhere. That money won't be earned for a few more generations.

[OneGrassRoot]

19. I really don't see anything fair about it....

I'm not directing the following to you personally, but the subject matter in general. :)

It's a mandate for health INSURANCE; without a public option, those of us currently uninsured and who can't afford even another $100/month expense, still can't get health CARE. Paying into a corrupt system and not being able to get benefit, as the expenses are still intact that preclude us from being part of the system as it is (copays, fees on top of premiums), doesn't seem fair at all in this day and age.

I do believe many people -- and pretty much everyone in DC -- don't recognize the struggle millions and millions go through to survive week to week. I have Internet connection because I'm self-employed and it's part of performing my job. I'm grateful to have a roof over our head, food on the table and utilities turned on. Beyond that, I don't go out. At all. And I don't know what vacation is, so it's not like I live an extravagant lifestyle whatsoever. I exist. It's what I've done for 15 years.

And I do so paycheck to paycheck.

The disconnect many have to this reality is astonishing at times.

[yodoobo]

24. People say the same exact thing about taxes

But if everyone refused to pay then our system of government would collapse.

If we truly want healthcare for all, then we'll all have to pay for it. For ourselves and each other.

I think that everyone seemed to believe that the "other guy" was going to buy their healthcare insurance.

Now that reality is here, people are angry that -THEY- are the "other guy"

[OneGrassRoot]

29. My bone of contention once again is the "insurance" versus the "care"

part of this equation.

I wouldn't be upset if the public option were part of the equation with mandates. Mandates without the public option is where my concern comes into play.

If I couldn't afford a vehicle (which, btw, around here is a must, as we don't have public transportation...before anyone throws that at me), I wouldn't be required to get car insurance.

In this scenario, I'll be paying into something that I still can't make use of and incurring tremendous financial stress in the process.

Yes, that last sentence can be applied to taxes in general and many different aspects of what is taxed, but the removal of a public option -- or the real hope for one via the Medicare expansion -- is very upsetting.

That's my personal concern.

[BzaDem]

36. The insurance plans in the exchange will be MANDATED to provide a certain level of care.

They will all have to cover essential health expenses, and some beyond that. Most will have an actuarial value of 70-80% or higher.

The idea that you are going to pay a huge amount and not get anything in return is demagoguery of the highest order. Yes, insurance companies currently have horrible practices of denying care, but almost all those practices will be banned by this bill, and even WITH those practices TODAY most people who buy health insurance get health care out of it.

If you are going to distinguish between health insurance and health care, you should talk in specifics about how health insurance will supposedly not cover health care under the regulations in this proposed bill. You shouldn't make blanket statements like "insurance doesn't mean care."

[OneGrassRoot]

40. I think that's a matter of opinion....

not to mention whether or not the level of care is truly of benefit.

"even WITH those practices TODAY most people who buy health insurance get health care out of it."

I'm not speaking of this bill necessarily with regard to this subject, but the insurance industry -- not only health insurance -- in general.

They take premiums and work their damnedest NOT to cover claims. I don't believe that is in dispute as a blanket statement.

There are a litany of abuses we all know about, including how the majority of those filing bankruptcy due to medical expenses HAVE insurance yet cannot afford actual care without incurring tremendous financial distress.

I'm not trying to be argumentative with you and I would love it if it were different. And, perhaps this bill WILL control these abuses, without providing loopholes for the insurance industry. That would be a very, very positive thing.

[Kitty Herder]

33. People are angry that they'll be forced to buy crap.

And then they'll still have to pay copays, deductibles, etc. And those costs keep rising. What they'll be paying for is insurance, not necessarily health care.

I think most people understand that they would have to pay into a government health plan if such were on offer. But they'd also have a reasonable expectation that they would derive some benefit from it, that they wouldn't go bankrupt because of an illness or accident. People who have insurance still cannot afford health care.

[Vinnie From Indy]

26. I know one priority that won't change in this new, just society!

That will be the priority that the upper management at these health insurance companies will still get their tens of millions of dollars a year in compensation packages. I guess that burden for the family deciding whether to feed the kids or go to jail will be evened out a bit as well.

[yodoobo]

27. That aspect will NEVER change

The rich will always screw the poor.

Always have. Always will.

I have as big of a problem with it as anyone else, but I'm not going to let a never changing aspect of all societies get in the way of getting healthcare everyone.

[Mari333]

28. The WAR FAIRY is getting everything it wants

but fuck the american citizen.

[FlaGranny]

37. That's just crazy.

Everyone was willing to pay more taxes for a single payer plan so that everyone would could be covered. You'd have to be pretty dumb to think that anything was coming free. There aren't many dumb people on this board.

What we're going to get is an insurance industry golden egg. Everyone will have to buy the private industry's coverage at THEIR rates - 50% more if you've got ANY preexisting condition, 4 times more if you're a little older. 700 dollars for a young person turns into 2800 dollars a month if you're 55. $2800 a month - 33,600 a YEAR? And on top of that a fine if you don't have the money for it? That's nothing but putting a huge tax on Americans for the benefit of insurance companies.

Please, don't make me laugh (or cry, as it seems you're not the only one who thinks we, as a country, can afford this travesty). If you've got ANY money, buy some insurance company stock. You'll get rich in no time.

[JVS]

42. IF WE COULD AFFORD INSURANCE WE'D HAVE IT ALREADY

If we can't, leave us the fuck alone!

[Hello_Kitty]

49. Thank you. eom

[Hello_Kitty]

45. "sometimes we have to rearrange our priorities in a just society"

What an AWESOME talking point! :sarcasm:


You really support charging debt-strapped middle class people 700 FUCKING DOLLARS A MONTH for mandatory crap-ass insurance? BTW, does the phrase "consumer-spending based economy" mean anything to you? 70% of our GDP. Those dollars you want to mandate into the coffers of insurance vultures are dollars that won't be going into the economy to buy things.

[timeforpeace]

10. By jove, I think you've got it. Since it's politics you can't call it a lie.

[Vinca]

11. They have some sort of delusion that the subsidies will actually

make health insurance affordable. The only problem is there are no controls on what big insurance can charge. You might qualify for a 50% subsidy and still be on the hook for $15 or $20,000 by the time this kicks in.

[Kitty Herder]

30. So true.

[Hello_Kitty]

50. And don't seem to understand that a lot of people won't qualify for subsidies.

People who make "too much" for subsidies but are crushed under mortgage, credit card, and student loan debt will be destroyed by this. You better believe there will be a lot of people choosing the fine over the insurance because the fine is cheaper. And I'm sure those people are going to be soooooo eager to reelect the Dems in 2010 and 2012.

[Unvanguard]

16. You (like many other DU critics of the bill) are confusing two separate aspects.

Millions of uninsured Americans are covered not because of the mandate, but for two other reasons. First, the hundreds of billions of dollars the health care will cost are going to subsidize premiums for low-income families. Second, the restrictions on discrimination by insurance companies will help ensure that people who have pre-existing conditions can get covered.

The mandate is the necessary complement to the second aspect: if insurance companies cannot discriminate, then people can neglect to buy health insurance until they get sick, which means that the whole notion of shared risk collapses. Only sick people will have health insurance, so only they will bear the costs of sickness: the only way to avoid financial ruin will be "don't get sick", which is not a reasonable health care policy.

The "public option" is actually a red herring in all of this. The original idea was a good one, but it got so gutted that it was basically irrelevant even before it was killed. The fact remains, however, that this bill does a great deal to improve the distribution of health care costs among Americans, in a way that will both protect families from economic ruin and save lives.

[sinkingfeeling]

20. +100

[OneGrassRoot]

21. I would sincerely like your thoughts about this concern:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7242484&mesg_id=7242787

:hi:

[sinkingfeeling]

34. If you/ your family of 4 makes less than $88,200 a year, you will receive governement help

to pay for the insurance. You will also pay less (up to 2/3s less) for co-payments that are standard for insurance policies.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-comparison.html?hp#tab=4


According to the House Bill: There's a table here, but it can't be copied/pasted without getting messed up which shows the max % of your income that can go to premiums based on income to poverty level.


http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summary.html

Affordability credits. Provides financial assistance for premiums and cost sharing for individuals and families with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). Affordability credits are offered on a sliding scale such that premiums range from 1.5 percent of income at the lowest tier to 12 percent at 400 percent FPL. Provides additional assistance for households with incomes up to 400 percent FPL by limiting cost-sharing to 3 percent of plan costs at the lowest tier rising to 30 percent of plan costs at 350-400 percent of FPL. Specific out-of-pocket maximums are added to protect individuals at each income tier.
Eligibility. Affordability credits are available to American citizens and legal residents whose employers do not offer coverage or whose share of employer-sponsored health insurance costs more than 12 percent of their family income. Those eligible for other government health care programs, such as Medicare or Medicaid, cannot receive affordability credits. Establishes a mechanism by which the Commissioner must verify that individuals are citizens or legal immigrants in order to receive affordability credits.
Caps out-of-pocket spending and

[FlaGranny]

38. Yup, and where are those subsidies

going to come from and where are they going? They're coming from taxpayers and going to insurance companies. And what, pray tell, are those insurance companies going to be allowed to charge for their policies. How much of a copay will be required, how much out of pocket. So you're an insurance consumer, you have to pay more than you can afford for a policy, so the government subsidizes you with part of your own tax money, you can't afford to go to the doctor because of the copays and out of pocket limits, you get little health care until you really get sick, and insurance companies rake it in. You don't think the parasites know how to suck blood?

[el_bryanto]

41. Well yes, but baring Single Payer, parasites were going to be part of the landscape

anyway. Do you think that Parasites would forget how to suck blood if the weak restricted public option had been part of the bill?

Bryant

[FlaGranny]

43. No they wouldn't forget

but they'd get a little competition at least. They are nothing but parasites on the system - PERIOD. We need single payer and aren't going to get it or anything else that the insurance companies don't want. We're screwed and I'm pissed.

[OneGrassRoot]

22. Dupe

[Robyn66]

23. I don't consider my self a critic, I don't understand

everything in the bill enough to be a critic which is why I am asking the questions.

One thing I am happy about is the protection of people with pre-existing conditions. I just feel like I am seeing more spin than substance from the congress people who are now pushing the bill and saying how great it is. That is why I am hoping those of you more versed in these things than I am for some help.

[FlaGranny]

39. Yes, you might be happy about

the preexisting condition coverage, but realize that your monthly premium would increase by 50% to get it. Put it together. If you're over 50 they can charge you 4 times the amount of someone under 50. If you've got a preexisting condition they can charge you 50% more. Say the premium for your policy was $500 a month x 4 because you're over 50 = $2000 a month, times 50% = $3000 a month. Can you afford $3000 a month and the out-of-pocket limit AND the copays? The way the bill is written that is the possible/probable scenario. I'm not sure if the insurance companies would be allowed to add the 50% onto the 4 times higher premium (you know they're going to try), but even so, $2000 a month plus out-of-pocket is more than most people can afford. So you'll get a subsidy if you qualify and taxpayers foot the bill. NICE - for insurance companies.

[walldude]

54. The bill is not finished yet... Do you think with all the compromises

made so far that the insurance companies are going to let the pre-existing condition clause stay in there? Really? Not going to happen. By the time this is done there will be nothing left. Every time someone tells me just to wait it'll get better it gets worse.

[Generator]

32. I feel sorry for people

I really do. Propaganda on the Democratic side is even better than any fascist stuff.

Health insurance is not the same thing as health care.

MORE COVERED. But does that mean they are getting health care?

And the pre-existing sham. If you can't afford to pay 300% more than a person that isn't sick-you are still denied by the affect of not being able to afford the premium. Howard Dean just said the truth. I brought this up a couple months ago in cheerleader land-and their answer was I don't know.

Well when those big Obama/Democratic defenders with a pre existing condition find out they still can't afford insurance I will feel sorry for them anyway.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/15/the-senate-bill-is-designed-to-make-your-health-insurance-worse/

But to be fair, I didn't know how bad it was either until I did some reading. It's beyond bad.

[eridani]

35. You are correct. Conflating "coverage" with CARE is bullshit n/t

[QC]

44. Next: end homelessness by mandating that homeless people rent apartments!

Is that pragmatic or what?

[mdmc]

47. I am currently covered, yet cannot afford treatment

I would have better health treatment if I was on medicaid..
I think millions will be put on medicaid (so my co-pays will go up to cover them)..

Oh well, whatever it takes to give Obama a victory..

[walldude]

52. You have it exactly.

They are selling you a bag of poop and claiming it's chocolate. And just wait, there is no final bill yet. You haven't seen anything yet. The sheep will tell you that Obama is going to pull out all the stops when the two bills get merged and get a public option in there, but the fact is the insurance companies are controlling this bill and they are going to kill the pre-existing condition clause and there will be nothing left but extortion. Watch and see.