CLANG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:34 AM
Original message |
RAW STORY: Dems dropping preexisting condition ban? |
endless october
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:36 AM
Response to Original message |
1. careful, nausea might be a pre-existing condition. |
|
this congress is almost worthless.
they have a huge majority in both houses; more than Bush ever had. and they're making the bill worse? unreal.
|
Brickbat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:36 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Waiting to feel any modicum of surprise ... waiting .... hmmm..... |
berni_mccoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:37 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Raw Story reports a Blogger's Concern on a NY Times plausible outcomes. hmmm. |
WeDidIt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. Not to mention the fact tha Plouffe's statements were about what happens immediately |
|
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 11:43 AM by WeDidIt
Children cannot be denied coverage due to PECs immediately upon the bill being signed.
Adult bans on denying coverage over PECs takes effect 1/1/14.
That's the Senate version, and no, the dates cannot be altered by reconciliation, nor can a ban on PECs be taken up via reconciliation.
|
jpak
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
20. "Some say" that Democrats are dumping the preexisting ban. |
|
Same tactics used by FAUX News.
and suckers believe every word of it.
yup
|
Mass
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:37 AM
Response to Original message |
4. If true, they can forget my support, but careful. Plouffe talks about immediate |
|
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 11:38 AM by Mass
suppressions. The Senate bill gets rid of preexisting conditions for adults in 2014 and has high risk pools in between. It may be what this is about.
We need to be careful, but not jump the gun.
|
Teaser
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:39 AM
Response to Original message |
5. this is why you can't break up the bill |
|
you can't ban denial of pre-existing conditions without a mandate. So no mandate, no pre-ex protections.
So, the solution, is to pass.the.damn.bill.
|
robinlynne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
11. why cant you ban denial of pre exisiting cond w/out a mandate? |
|
Most of Europe and Canada have no denial for pre-existing, and NO mandate.
|
CTyankee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
16. Their mandate is their taxation. We have mandated Medicare thru taxes. |
|
I do think tho that in places with private, nonprofit (and heavily regulated) health insurance, like Switzerland and the Netherlands, you are required to get insurance. They also have generous safety net coverage for those too poor to get the insurance.
|
robinlynne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
17. I think the whole concept of insurance does not exist. you are not required |
|
to do anything. If you get sick, you go to the doctor or hospital. it is free. that is that. end of story. WEll you also get in home care, medicines, and more for free. you pay taxes. Insurance is the betting on whether or not you will get sick. We do not need insurance. We need health care. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
|
Teaser
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
18. if there were no mandate, but still was a ban on pre-ex condition exclusion |
|
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 07:37 PM by Teaser
think about what the logical course of action for a given human is...
You don't buy insurance until you get sick. Just stay uninsured. Get sick, go and buy insurance.
So, what happens to the insurance company? Because you haven't been paying into the system, they don't have money to defray the cost of your treatment. So they raise prices for everyone across the board. Which then discourages more people from signing up until they get sick. Which then leads to more prices increases...
See the problem?
|
CTyankee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
21. I sure do see the problem! We need single payer, universal health care! |
|
I hope you do too.
This is ridiculous. Our system doesn't and cannot work. What is the matter with us that we don't have a leader who just says "ENOUGH!" and gets it DONE!!!
|
Teaser
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
24. of course we need single payer |
|
but given that we're not going to get it, I can tolerate the system in the bill. It's a half assed way to do things, but it is marginally functional, which beats the current system. Given time, with community rating, for profit insurers will become nothing more than heavily regulated health utilities.
Which is still an inferior approach to single payer, but it is workable, and has been implemented in other countries.
|
closeupready
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:39 AM
Response to Original message |
6. No compromise is too compromising - try them! |
Bullet1987
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:43 AM
Response to Original message |
8. I'm hoping they're not stupid enough to drop it |
Kurt_and_Hunter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message |
9. The story is bullshit so don't waste your nausea on the specific claims |
|
There is no discussion anywhere of dropping the pre-existing condition ban (except as a by-product of dropping the whole thing)
The OP article plays on the fact that most people didn't realize that the ban for adults doesn't kick in for four years.
That is its own problem, but not the same problem as that fancifully "deduced" in the article.
|
BzaDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message |
10. It is impossible to ban discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions without a mandate. |
|
If you do, premiums will go up to the actual cost of treating someone with a pre-existing condition (possibly several thousand/month).
The only reason there is talk of dropping this is because they might not be able to get a mandate/subsidies through.
|
Bluenorthwest
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
12. Of course it is possible to have a mandate without allowing |
|
profit to be part of the deal, as other Democracies do when they mandate that their citizens purchase insurance. Also, the premiums can be capped, as they are in other nations. So maybe the problem is not the mandates, but the mandated profit, making people contribute to the profit of private companies, under the force of law, is not necessary for any reason. Let's just be clear about that. You do not have to agree that we should do it that way, but that is how all of our 'peer nations' do it. In fact, it is usually a crime to profit from these basic health care policies. So there's that.
|
Nikki Stone1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
14. Without the mandate, the bill is meaningless. It becomes a suggestion to get health insurance. |
|
The mandate will be kept. No matter what.
|
change_notfinetuning
(750 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 11:54 AM
Response to Original message |
13. This administration believes in CONpromises, not COMpromises. It's the |
|
anti-promise mentality that sees everything as negotiable. Surrender might be a better word.
Whatever the promise, you can kiss it goodbye. Their strength is weakness.
Any hope of Obama getting it? If you think so, I hear Bernie Madoff has a new venture you might wanna get in on.
|
Javaman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 03:36 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Living: is a pre-existing condition. nt |
Faygo Kid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 07:41 PM
Response to Original message |
19. If this is dropped, that's it for my support. This is non-negotiable. |
|
What the hell are people 50-64 supposed to do? None will be insured. They can't do this and expect support. Period. I have gone along with almost anything to get something passed, but not this one.
|
Irish_shark
(133 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
22. Relax. You're not being a pragmatic realist n/t |
thatsrightimirish
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-25-10 08:37 PM
Response to Original message |
23. sort of like how karl rove was indicted? |
|
hopefully this too isn't true
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 04:31 AM
Response to Original message |