The Top Ten Immediate Benefits You'll Get When Health Care Reform Passes

[babylonsister]

X-post from GD/P at DUer's request.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-b-larson/he-top-ten-immediate-bene_b_501748.html

The Top Ten Immediate Benefits You'll Get When Health Care Reform Passes
Rep. John B. Larson
Chairman of the Democratic Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives
Posted: March 16, 2010 07:50 PM



As soon as health care passes, the American people will see immediate benefits. The legislation will:

* Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;

* Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;

* Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;

* Lower seniors prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;

* Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;

* Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;

* Require plans to cover an enrollee's dependent children until age 26;

* Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;

* Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;

* Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.

By enacting these provisions right away, and others over time, we will be able to lower costs for everyone and give all Americans and small businesses more control over their health care choices.


Edit to add link to where this info came from, found at dkos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/17/92241/8321

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill46.pdf

[SoCalNative]

1. * Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans

Why are only CHILDREN covered for this?

That is not an immediate benefit for everyone.

[MineralMan]

3. Those are just the immediate benefits.

The rest kick in later. To do it all immediately would be rather expensive. A gradual approach to phasing this in was the decision. Of course, once this passes, changes can be made at any time.

[NYC_SKP]

5. You type faster than me. I was typing a rebuttal to your reply, which I knew was inevitable...

Should we not serve children then until we can get a bill for everyone?

Maybe the 15th Amendment was a mistake. Why give African Americans the right to vote and leave out women?

The 19th Amendment came along later to do that.

I suppose we could have waited.

We would have waited 50 years. 1870 vs 1920.

[SoCalNative]

10. "Should we not serve children then until we can get a bill for everyone?"

Those of us who do not have and will never have children really couldn't care less

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I don't have them, and I care

:hi:

I am happy about that. As well as the fact that insurance will stay with kids until 26

Oh wait, I should not care.

:-)

[NYC_SKP]

12. +1.

I'm also happy to pay taxes for schools for children who I don't have!

:P

[MellowDem]

15. Well that makes absolutely no sense...

at best, and comes across as "cold" (and that's an understatement) at worst. There are a lot of rich Republicans who don't personally know or care about poor people and they could really care less. Children are people as well, and I would hope that all progressives would care very much about them, considering that they are much more vulnerable on average and have had little choice in the matter.

[Raineyb]

21. It also comes across as callous when someone with a preexisting condition

is told that they have to wait four years because they're not as important as the children. I suppose if someone dies waiting for the opportunity to see a doctor it's only a tragedy if the person is 18? That sounds like the argument you're making.

[MellowDem]

25. Not at all...

It's nothing new that children generally come first in society because they are vulnerable. I think ANYONE that is told they have to wait because of a pre-existing condition should feel damn angry about it. But I'd rather have me get rejected and a child accepted than have us all rejected. I don't think it's fair, of course it's not. But it's better than the status quo right now. It's not the kid's fault that our system sucks and that I'm getting the shaft, and I don't feel assholish enough to wish the same shit on children as what adults have to deal with in this country.

[Raineyb]

32. The people with pre-existing conditions are vulnerable too.

And you basically told them to fuck off. So yeah you did come across as an asshole. And it's not the fault of the person with the pre-existing conditions that this system is a fucking mess but you certainly are willing to "fix" it at their expense. And they are one of the groups who need it most.

Bloody callous was the nice way of putting it. Damn assholish would have been more apt.

[MellowDem]

41. No I didn't...

you have severe reading comprehensions. I don't understand why the fuck anyone would be MAD that children are getting healthcare. I understand being MAD that not everyone gets healtcare, but GLAD about children getting it. Saying you don't care about children getting healthcare is the definition of asshole, so you might want to remove the foot from your mouth. I really don't see how it makes a person any different from saying they don't care about anyone but themselves getting healthcare.

[Raineyb]

43. Yes you did and there's not a goddamn thing wrong with my reading

comprehension skills. (I even managed to understand the grammatical monstrosity that is your post) I'm MAD as hell that we're not covering people. And I'm fucking tired of being told that because I'm no longer a child my health doesn't fucking matter. Your argument is that the children are vulnerable. No one is arguing that they aren't but for you to pretend that those with preexisting conditions are not vulnerable and in need of being looked after is callous bullshit and I'm tired of it. It is NOT acceptable for you to blow off the needs of these people because they're not children. It is NOT acceptable for you to blow off their concerns when they voice it.

And I did NOT say that I don't care about children and even if I had there's no bloody law against not liking children. That said, anyone who says I said I don't care about children is a goddamn liar.

EVERYONE has a right to health care and there's a hell of a lot of people who are rather flip with other people's health. THAT number includes you.

And I would suggest you get a tutor to brush up on your reading skills. You obviously are not literate.

[MellowDem]

44. I never said...

that because you are no longer a child your health doesn't matter. Once again, you have zero reading comprehension. You are accusing me of being flip about other people's health. All I have said is that I'm glad at least children with pre-existing conditions can get health care since it's better than neither adults or children with those conditions to not get it. I also said I still think it's unfair. Where you get your false accusations from I have no idea. All I know is that you have a long history of false accusations.

Can you point out in my post where anything you say about my opinion is actually true?

I was referring to the post I responded to about the "not caring about children", not you, but was referring to your seeming defense of that post by attacking me with false accusations with the "foot in mouth" comment.

If you can't (once again) prove your false accusations, I won't be surprised.

As for my literacy, I was just tired and in a hurry for work.

[Raineyb]

46. I see no reason why anyone should be forced to sacrifice themselves and be expected not to complain

about it. Not everyone likes kids and I don't expect them to pretend otherwise. Nor do I think they should have to pretend otherwise.

And yes I know you say that they the right to be angry. But that doesn't really vibe with your next line when you get mad at the idea that someone might not be so glad to be forced to wait another four years before they can actually get health insurance. (Putting aside the fact that health insurance doesn't equal health care.)

You really expect someone who knows that the inability to get health care quite literally might be the difference between life and death to cheer because you've covered children and not them? And then you expect them no to be pissed about it or is it that you know they'll be pissed about it but it makes you uncomfortable to be told in explicit language what your brush off means? No one wants to be told that their lives aren't valued which is basically what you did to the poster. And I don't begrudge him his anger about it. Hell, I'm fucking pissed about it. Meanwhile your answer is to say "I understand you're angry because you're not being covered now STFU and celebrate." Really? That's what you to say? And you wonder why I called your response assholish?

You really think that people can't read between the lines?

[MellowDem]

52. I'm not telling anyone to STFU...

I myself am still angry that the bill won't cover everyone with pre-existing positions till 2014. I understand people complaining and being mad about it. However, to complain about the fact that some people are getting covered immediatly on the basis that you don't care about that group of people doesn't make any sense to me. I agree it's unfair, but I still would rather have children covered than no one at all. And saying that because one doesn't have children one couldn't care less about them is a rather callous statement to me. Part of being progressive is caring for everyone, even those you don't know.

If you want to see examples of people "not liking" certain groups of people and not pretending otherwise, you can just look at the Tea Party.

[Raineyb]

54. YOu're equating people who don't like children to fucking racist as hell teabaggers?

I'm fucking done with you. Go start a cheer or something.

[apocalypsehow]

24. "Those of us who do not have and will never have children really couldn't care less"

Wow. That crude, self-centered reply certainly doesn't sound like the words of a progressive or liberal to me.

I can imagine that attitude extrapolated back to the fifteenth amendment:

Those of us who are not and never will be African-American couldn't care less.

Or back to the 19th amendment:

Those of us who are not and never will be female couldn't care less.

Wow. Just wow. :thumbsdown:

[Raineyb]

18. Because if you're an adult they don't give a shit. Just fork over your tax dollars and don't demand

anything.

That seems to be the attitude toward adults especially those who have no children.

[midnight]

19. So children who's parents are sick have to wait a few years longer. I don't get it?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

31. we're being sold an insurance policy and not health care

this bill will only put money in the pockets of insurance cos.

[NYC_SKP]

2. K and R, and...

Looking forward to the counterpoints, like "pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans"???

What about the rest of us???

And I'll say this again.

Maybe the 15th Amendment was a mistake. Why give African Americans the right to vote and leave out women?

The 19th Amendment came along later to do that.

I suppose we could have waited.

We would have waited 50 years. 1870 vs 1920.

:patriot:

:kick:

[ixion]

4. Apparently "immediate" means four years from now

imagine that. :eyes:

[NYC_SKP]

6. Kill the Bill then. Surely that will speed things up considerably. nt

[ixion]

36. Yes, kill it, and then implement REAL reform

which this bill most certainly isn't.

[NYC_SKP]

40. With the same congress, not likely.

[babylonsister]

8. Since you can't provide a link to your assertion, I hope you peruse

this...then get back to me.

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill46.pdf

[ixion]

35. There's plenty of documentation on this

Nothing starts kicking in "immediately" in any sense of the word. It's years down the line, and even then there are ample loopholes so that the consumer/taxpayer still gets the short end of the stick.

[babylonsister]

37. Haha. Lame. And no, these aren't years down the road, these

kick in once the bill is signed.

[ixion]

39. Yeah, sorta like all that 'change' once Obama got elected

Some day people will learn that the government is full of sh*t.

[Child_Of_Isis]

7. so....

is this the tax part of the bill that Repubs are screaming about?

* Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage

Now where is the hand out & socialist part? Every time I hear one of the locals mention the bill it's all about "my taxes", "handouts" & "socialism".

I am sooooo confused.

[Beartracks]

13. Heard Boortz is still calling it...

... nationalized health care. I suppose if the hospitals and clinics were all going to be owned and operated by the Federal government, and all the docs, nurses, and medical staff were going to be employees of the Federal government, then he might be correct. But as it is, he isn't.
-----------------------------

[jtuck004]

17. Be careful. - Obama says it's not practical...

And, like the Republicans, he calls it government-run

Portion of Transcript

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/03/transcript_of_president_obamas.html

"You know, if you think about the debate around health care reform, there were some who wanted to scrap the system of private insurance and replace it with government-run care.

And, look, that works in a number of places, but I did not see that being practical to help right away for people who really need it.

And on the other end of the spectrum, and this is what a lot of the Republicans are saying right now, there are those who simply believe that the answer is to unleash the insurance industry, to deregulate them further, provide them less oversight and fewer rules. "

and here -

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-health-insurance-reform-arcadia-university

Portion of Transcript

"Think about it along the spectrum of how we could approach health care. On one side of the spectrum there were those at the beginning of this process who wanted to scrap our system of private insurance and replace it with a government-run health care system, like they have in some other countries. (Applause.) Look, it works in places like Canada, but I didn’t think it was going to be practical or realistic to do it here."

You people who wanted some kind of public plan just don't understand - it's impractical.

Btw - when you try to make changes in the future, get ready to hear these clips over, and over, and over...

[Roland99]

9. And who's going to be able to afford premiums for those pre-existing conditions???

Insurance companies can charge, from last I read, at least 100% of the lowest-cost policy. Since they're raising premiums up now to raise the floor, the ceiling will be all that much higher (and unreachable)

[Raineyb]

20. Shh! Don't mention that. It doesn't fit with the narrative and makes people uncomfortable. n/t

[Scurrilous]

14. K & R

:thumbsup:

[apocalypsehow]

16. I hope everyone takes the time to let this OP sink in: REAL improvements helping REAL people.

That's what we're talking about if this bill passes.

Kick, Rec.

[Raineyb]

22. REAL people are NOT being helped as well. I don't think it's inappropriate to point that out. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

26. No one is claiming it's "inappropriate" to point to what can be improved. But that's not what most

of the opposition to HCR on the DU forums has been about: instead, it's about pointing out where the bill falls short and using that as an excuse to join the Republicans in killing it.

For most of us on the progressive side of the Democratic ledger, that is simply not acceptable.

[Raineyb]

33. Then stop acting like it.

I don't think it's at all progressive to tell people who need health care the most that they have to suck it up and hope they don't die before it'll be their turn to get health care. And it certainly doesn't help for you to crow about what's supposedly so great about this bill while deliberately ignoring those it will harm. It is not progressive to deny people access to health care and it's not progressive to force people to pay for the "privilege" of being uninsured. And it's definitely not progressive to pass reform and set it up in a way to keep people who most need it waiting while telling them that it's for the greater good. I'm sure that anyone who dies while waiting will appreciate that their forced sacrifice somehow made it better for someone else especially when we know damn well we can and ought to do better. And it's not only not progressive but it's god damned callous to brush off people's concerns about not being able to take care of their conditions. All of which I've seen done in the name of this monstrosity they're calling health care reform which is neither about health care nor is it really reform.

[midnight]

23. The list is helpful. I will look forward to moving through this appeal process.

I went through one for four years. I wonder how they are going to :Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;

[Yo_Mama]

27. This is very misleading

First, this is about the Senate plan, which of course has a lot to do with the House plan, but there will be differences.

Second, insurance companies can and will charge for all these "immediate" benefits.

So this new law will immediately drive up the cost of insurance without helping anyone to pay for it, and yes, those who are falling off the Good Ship Insured now will get another shove toward the railing. Unfortunately, because of the economy people are losing coverage at an astonishing rate.

And then there are provision like the elimination of lifetime caps and annual caps, WHICH ONLY APPLY TO NEW PLANS after six months. So if you currently have a cap, you'll still have one. Same thing for dependent children, etc, rescission, etc. All the real reforms are in Title 1, Subtitle C, and take effect in 2014. So they can charge you anything until then, and there is no teeth at all in the provision for review of premiums.

The best source for information about the Senate plan (which is supposed to be modified in the current round) is here:
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

We don't know what changes will be in the House version, and the CBO scoring is not back.

The high-risk coverage pool (Subtitle B in Title 1) is a particularly cruel joke. Not only must an individual be not covered for six months (and have a pre-existing condition), only 5 billion of federal funding is provided, and the states (or a non-profit) have to apply for it. The states have to cover every eligible person. This means that a lot of states won't participate because they simply can't. Plus, it only has to cover 65% of the allowed costs. Ask anyone who is currently in a state high-risk program what they are paying for what kind of coverage. Oh, yeah, and the plan can charge a 4-1 age rating premium. Oooooh, baby, that is going to be so affordable.... 5 billion over years is nothing. We spend over 300 billion on Medicaid each year.

People are going to be very angry when they discover what IS in this bill. And they will discover it, because the need is great.

[apocalypsehow]

28. No, it's not: your very carefully-crafted reply, full of nuances and a load of "ifs" is.

Please try again.

[TomCADem]

29. K &R - Thanks for some substance, rather than another thread about process...

Sometimes, DU reminds me of the Fox News interview of Obama, where folks want to focus on partliamentary process, rather than on the fact that HCR will have immediate benefits for millions of Americans.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. only prohibits pre-existing conditions for children???

the insurance cos must be lovvving that.

[Political Heretic]

34. "restrictive" annual limits where "restrictive" has no definition in the bill - decided by insurance

[dccrossman]

38. CNN's version of the list, FWIW

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/16/health.care.immediate/index.html

[kath]

42. "access to insurance" does not mean access to CARE.

as has been explained here over and over and over again.

Being forced to buy a policy that you can't afford to use is just total fuckin' bullshit.
Harvard study says that the bill will do NOTHING to decrease medical bankruptcies (a concept that doesn't even exist in the rest of thd developed world)

[Scurrilous]

45. Kick

:kick:

[ScreamingMeemie]

47. Sorry I don't see any benefits for me...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7953209

"High Risk Insurance Pool" AKA "High Cost-Low Coverage Bunk"

[Raineyb]

48. They don't give a shit. Didn't you get the memo? You're over 18 so your life isn't as

valued. Especially if you hadn't the chance to breed yet.

[boppers]

49. Do you have coverage already?

I don't, and depending on the cost, I'd go for it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

50. I did. My husband died, I couldn't continue $2400/mo COBRA...

I "thought" I could get a private plan but my preexisting condition (even though I take-took- my medications, was compliant and in good health)kept me from being able to. I was offered Texas High Risk Pool Insurance. The options available to me for little coverage (a we'll save you if you're really dying but the deductibles are gonna be high) were anywhere from 900-1050/month. So no, I don't have coverage and I won't have coverage under private insurers, under Texas, under this country. Anyone who thinks this is a "good" thing, is looking at it cross eyed.

[boppers]

51. HOLY CRAP.

That's expensive.... I have a pre-existing, too, but no way am I paying $900 a month for it.

[JohnWxy]

53. good post.

Would have recommended but didn't see this till outside recommend period.