What can HCR do for you?...Would you rather be poorer and alive or financially better off and dead?

[JohnWxy]

ProSense posted a very good, helpful comment about how the HCR bill would help someone making $10 per hour, with a link to a subsidy calculator:
A $10 per hour employee will benefit tremendously from this bill

The question was raised on that thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7940136&mesg_id=7941520">Oh really, how will I benefit? -which linked to the post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7940916&mesg_id=7940916

...which presented the situation of a person making $10 per hour, who would be mandated to buy his employers insurance plan. The person indicates he has a pre-esixtion condition.

Since the post said he "will be mandated to buy his employers insurance plan" I conclude that he has no insurance now. If you have a pre-existing condition and have no insurance now, how will the HCR bill help you?

Consider that:

Since you have a pre-existing condition:

1. Without HCR YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET ANY INSURANCE.

2. You're care for this condition would only be obtained by going into the emergency room at your local hospital.

Now, you will not be getting care for your pre-existing condition in an emergency room UNTIL YOU ARE IN A CRITICAL STATE(requiring immediate intervention). So what care you will be able to obtain will only come in the LATEST STAGES OF YOUR CONDITION.

Do I need I point out your prognosis if you put off care till the later stages of your condition?

Now, this doesn't fit into the calculator that ProSense provided a link to but it is, none-the-less, worth some consideration. Wouldn't you say?

I hate to be blunt, but which position would you rather be in: poorer but alive, or richer and dead(sooner) - possibly after much suffering.

Think about it.

[demmiblue]

1. The font... it is big.

:P

[laughingliberal]

2. Let's see...living in a box on the street with a minimal amount of health care perhaps available or

just let nature take it's course and die with a roof over my head. Sorry, there are fates worse than death and me and a lot of other people are faced with some of them.

[JohnWxy]

7. and the status quo will consign rapidly growing numbers to getting poorer with less Health care

... or going without insurance and relying upon a very minimal amount of health care perhaps available at the emergency room. But, on the 'up' side, at least they won't suffer as long ...just more!

[zbdent]

9. yes, but there also is the distinct possibility of "letting nature take its course"

and you dying in a cardboard box because your hospital bills forced you to sell the roof over your head, and naturally, you ended up in the streets, still sick and dying ...

[griffi94]

3. here i'll be blunt

you seem to be confusing insurance with medical treatment. yes you have insurance because hcr makes you insurable with a pre-existing condition. what are your copays and deductables. for somebody making $10 or hell even $15 an hour a $2000 deductable might as well be $20,000.
so which position would you rather be in. keep your couple of hundred dollars a month you spend on premiums since you can't afford to see a doctor even with the insurance. or pay for insurance you can't afford to use.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enrique]

6. I'm concerned people still won't be able to get insurance

even with the subsidies, even with the rule about pre-existing conditions, I'm concerned insurance companies will still manage to find a way to screw us.

I forsee future democratic presidential primaries with all the candidates saying oh look at this, look what the insurance companies are doing, we have to do something about this!

[Oregone]

11. Theyll get it if they want it. Affording to use it is another matter

[griffi94]

14. of course insurance companies are going to screw us

i ask again about the deductable. insurance is not medical care, it's insurance.
years ago i was working at a cabinet shop making $11 an hour. my employer offered insurance and to tell you the truth i don't remember exactly what the premiums were, but it wouldn't have mattered anyway as the deductable was $2500 and i wouldn't have made enough money to see a doctor even with insurance, so even if the damned premium was $25 dollars a month why would i spend that just to say i had insurance when i still couldn't afford to see a doctor.

[Oregone]

8. Its actually an interesting question, and not black and white

If insurance becomes mandatory and the per capita expenditures continue to rise, it will be reflected in the cost of everything (even if you get health care subsidies), as well as wages (moving costs around in a shell game doesn't make them go away). It is possible that even if you afford health care, and even if you afford access fees, you may not have any disposable income leftover (and subsequently, social mobility). What a bleak world...one without social mobility. Knowing you will grind your entire life, and your children as well, with a ceiling above your head that will never move. What kind of life is that? ITs already bad enough in America

If insurance does become compulsory, and its most certainly not egalitarian, then it has every potential to eat away at the disposable income of the lower classes, leaving them between a rock and a hardplace (but alive). Its indentured servitude, instituted by the government, essentially.

The other alternative (status quo) does hurt people's social mobility (which is a false dichotomy, being that people who want to kill the bill from the left want more comprehensive reform, and you do not automatically "die"). Just look at the health related bankruptcies to know this. But, it also allows some exceptions to rise (myself included). From my own situation, as a self-employed business man, had I purchased health care when I entered the workforce, I would never of had enough money to buy my first home (with a reasonable down payment) or enough money to put aside to immigrate to a single-payer country. Im definitely an exception to the rule for this, and I decided to take my chances to promote my social mobility (I would of bought it in a heartbeat if it was affordable and wouldn't of strangled my ability to move up or save). It was the smartest thing I did, despite some ER visits and self-operations (not everyone is so lucky, but not everyone instantly dies).

Regardless, those who are not in favor of this reform (some for the social effects that I talked about), do not want to never have reform period. And they know you do not instantly die. Its almost as if you are creating a straw man to argue against, and its a bit dishonest.

The reality is that there is no one single answer for everyone. Well...actually there is now, because your government is going to decide for you, and their solution is to force you into an unfair private system

[girl gone mad]

29. My heart goes out to the young people who will be screwed over by this reform.

Paying out of pocket for health care saved me tens of thousands of dollars in my 20s and it contributed to the financial security I had to start a business. If the insurance products available to me over that decade had made good economic sense, I would have purchased one of them. I was certainly more cautious in the activities I participated in, I chose a car with lots of airbags and I ate nutritious foods and exercised - in short did everything I could to stay healthy since I knew the costs of my care were all on my own shoulders. A catastrophic illness would have bankrupted me WITH OR WITHOUT insurance so that argument doesn't hold water.

Young people already face a very tough job market and many are burdened with high levels of debt from college. Now we are essentially transferring much of the costs of older generations health care onto them, and of course the system they are getting will be anything but egalitarian.

[JohnWxy]

43. let's make this Obama's "Waterloo"...right?

Do nothing until it all goes off a cliff. Yeah, that's a plan. According to the Republican "Katrina" management philosophy.. nothing like a disaster to focus your attention.


I prefer to do something before the disaster hits.

[Oregone]

50. Another Strawman

[JohnWxy]

69. WHat the fuck do the Republican's offer? do nothing.

[Naturalist111]

90. There is much to health insurance

you do not know. All policies are not equal. There are some that would not have cost you much at all in a catastrophic claim.

[Edweird]

10. Well, since single payer would cost about 1/3 of this crap, I choose 'healthy and well off'.

[Oregone]

13. Aha. Someone else who saw the false dichotomy here

[Edweird]

20. They are spinning themselves silly trying to convince everyone that 'everyone loves this bill'

If everyone DID, in fact, "love this bill", there would be no point in the endless (and increasingly psychotic) shilling - not that there's really any point either way.

BTW, I recall an interaction we had quite a while ago where my response was along the lines of: "well if love Canada so much why don't you marry it" - ok that wasn't EXACTLY what I said, but whatever.
Well, since things are STILL going to hell in a handbasket, I may eventually end up in your neck of the woods. I don't the cold so BC is the only place I could imagine living - plus I am a mountain bike idiot and having the north shore and whistler right there would be a dream come true.

So, to make a long post even longer - you were right.

[readmoreoften]

12. Health insurance isn't health care. The false dilemma you present is patronizing and disgusting.

To most in the working class the question is:

1) Afford food and clothes, go without healthcare.
2) Risk hunger, risk losing one's home, have health insurance, mostly go without health care, and only owe tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills in case of catastrophe.

The real question is: why is this bullshit false dilemma the only option? What stops us from being able to live as well as Europeans, Australians, Cubans, and Venezuelans. The answer? Our political system being unable to keep plutocrats in check.

[laughingliberal]

17. Uniquely American!!! nt

[griffi94]

18. i wonder what the percentage

of people is who have health insurance and are still wiped out by medical expenses.
i don't remember the number. i read in a thread here a day or so ago that the majority of bankruptcies caused by medical expenses happened to people who did in fact have insurance.
the deductables were either way too large or the cap was too low.

[JohnWxy]

21. 62% (2007) of personal bankruptcies due to medical expenses. 78% of filers HAD INSURANCE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x524530#524539

[Cleobulus]

27. So that's the plan for the working class? To file bankruptcy? n/t

[kenny blankenship]

30. He seems to be making a powerful argument against forcing you to buy this shit-

maybe it's his way of conceding?

There's still a lot we don't know about their language and how their minds work.

[Cleobulus]

32. Basically his argument is if you make 10 bucks an hour, and need medical care...

eating is apparently optional, or shelter, take your pick.

[JohnWxy]

36. Let's hear the Repubican plan.... die yourg? add 3 million to the insured?

Give me a better option and get it past the Corporate Lobbyist party you are shilling for.

[laughingliberal]

49. I don't know but the Democratic plan that is about to pass is

Die young after giving a lot of money to the insurance companies and not being able to afford your out of pocket expenses to get any actual care.

Or

Die young after giving a lot of money to an insurance company and scraping up the out of pocket expenses and going bankrupt and then hitting the annual cap for your 'condition,' and trying to wait til the next calendar year begins to finish your treatments.

[JohnWxy]

80. Out-of-pocket expenses: Tax credits also subsidize cost sharing on a sliding scale.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7950272&mesg_id=7964762

also:

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Media/pdf/111/HCare/2010_AFFORDABILITY.pdf">making coverage affordable

Tax Credits: Effective 2014, sliding scale tax credits are provided to individuals and families up to 400 percent of poverty that are not otherwise provided coverage through Medicaid, employer sponsored insurance, or other acceptable coverage. That means the credits phase out completely for an individual with $43,320 in income and a family of four with $88,200 in income.
��
Limits on Premiums: The sliding‐scale credits limit individual family spending on premiums for the essential benefit package to no more than 2.0 percent of income for those with the lowest income and phasing up to no more than 9.5 percent of income for those at 400 percent of poverty.
��
Out‐of‐pocket expenses: The credits also subsidize cost sharing on a sliding‐scale basis, phasing out at 400 percent of poverty, to ensure that covered benefits are accessible when care is needed.

[JohnWxy]

60. Out-of-pocket expenses: Tax credits also subsidize cost sharing on a sliding scale.

Tax credits for Out-of-Pocket expenses too.



http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/AFFORDABILITY.pdf


PREMIUM ASSISTANCE TAX CREDITS
��
Tax Credits: Effective 2014, sliding scale tax credits are provided to individuals and families up to 400 percent of poverty that are not otherwise provided coverage through Medicaid, employer sponsored insurance, or other acceptable coverage. That means the credits phase out completely for an individual with $43,320 in income and a family of four with $88,200 in income.
��
Limits on Premiums: The sliding‐scale credits limit individual family spending on premiums for the essential benefit package to no more than 2.0 percent of income for those with the lowest income and phasing up to no more than 9.5 percent of income for those at 400 percent of poverty.
��
Out‐of‐pocket expenses: The credits also subsidize cost sharing on a sliding‐scale basis, phasing out at 400 percent of poverty, to ensure that covered benefits are accessible when care is needed.

[JohnWxy]

62. Reconciliation bill improves affordability (esp for families between 133% and 400% of poverty level)

http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/KEYIMPROVEMENTS.pdf


RECONCILIATION BILL MAKES KEY IMPROVEMENTS
~~
~~
Improves Affordability, making health insurance more affordable for low‐income and moderate‐income families. All families between 133% and 400% of poverty would have lower health care costs (total of premiums and cost‐sharing) than under the Senate bill.

[Recoverin_Republican]

34. That's what the CURRENT 'system' is doing to people with very 'good' incomes. and it will get worse.

Is this plan as good as the second coming of Christ? No. But try to get an something better past the insurance companies and their lobbyists - the GOP.

.....By the way. What's your solution? The Republican one..do nothing??? LET'S HEAR YOUR SOLUTION AND YOUR PLAN FOR GETTING IT PASSED... WITH THE CORPORATE LOBBYIST PARTY FIGHTING EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.


Anthem Blue Cross increasing rates 39% (23% in 11 of 14 states). If we see premiums go up just 15% per year, in 3 years premiums will be 50% higher than they are today. How many employers will have to drop group coverage then? How many people will be able to afford insurance then?

[Cleobulus]

38. There is nothing in this bill to prevent rates from rising, the Insurance companies...

just have to justify it first. And again, the bill does very little to mitigate the out of pocket costs for those covered by insurance.

[JohnWxy]

39. Let's hear your solution. I want to hear this. Got a solution or just trying to kill anything the

Democrats come up with?

[Cleobulus]

44. A single payer system would be much more effective...

in not only addressing the concerns I have but also in lowering costs for everyone. Let's be clear, this bill has good parts, such as expanding medicaid, and bad parts, with mandates and relying on private insurance for the vast majority of American's health care. Whether, on balance, the bill is all good or all bad isn't the point, the point is that there are going to be many Americans it will not help, their needs have to be addressed sometime, I would prefer it to be sooner rather than later.

[JohnWxy]

46. There are a lot of things I would prefer too. but you've got to get it passed the GOP.

The GOP said 'single payer' was "off the table" ..categorically! Is it do-able?

[kenny blankenship]

48. There you go again substituting "Republican" for Democrat!

[JohnWxy]

74. yeah, Republicans who to a man are fighting this are relieved of any responsibility, right?

having caused the Credit Catastrophe and brought about this REPUBLILCAN DYSTOPIA now they are willing to cause a collapse of the health insurance industry to see Obama and Dems fail.

WHO NEED'S AL KAIDA WHEN YOU'VE GOT THE GOP.

[Cleobulus]

51. What I would like is a bill that can't be used as political football...

after it is implemented. This bill is so weak and so complicated, I shudder to think of what the Republicans are going to do to it to make it even weaker whenever they get back in power. A single payer system, implemented now, would be less vulnerable to such partisan squabbles, look at what happens in other countries with NHS or UHS systems, even the conservatives support it, and why? Because its political suicide to oppose it. You cannot say the same for the current HRC bill. That's a major reason why I want us to try to implement a Single Payer system before most of this bill goes into affect, while Democrats still hold at least a semblance of power in the country.

[laughingliberal]

52. I do feel I need to point out we are passing this bill without the GOP. nt

[JohnWxy]

75. Do i need to point out that I was responding to Cleo's mentioning the "single payer" approach.

[kenny blankenship]

47. It's kind of hard for the solution to be heard when certain Democrats ARREST proponents of it

won't speak to leading figures who represent it, and won't even talk to their old family doctor who endorses it.

But that's what being the leading party in receiving insurance industry "contributions" will do to ya.
Kinda makes you their lobbyist and front man, rather than the Republicans.

[laughingliberal]

53. +1000 nt

[frylock]

42. no shit sherlock..

now, how is this shit bill going to change that? it WON'T!

[JohnWxy]

63. Oh, but it does. ..it's elementary, my dear Watson. See what the Kaiser Family Foundation says:

It all has to do with competition, or rather the lack of it, in the medical insurance industry.

Currently there is little to no competition between insurance companies (they like it that way).

The way insurers improve their bottom-line is by cutting costs by denying coverage to people based on pre-existing conditions and by dropping people for getting sick too often. When you prohibit denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions (and establish a larger national insurance market) insurers will start competing in terms of price and quality of product. They will compete for policy holders by trying to offer better coverage at a better price. The smaller insurance companies will try to gain market share at the expense of the larger insurers by offering comparable coverage at a lower price. Their competitors will respond by matching or beating their price or offering better coverage. The insurers who offer more of what people want at a better price than competitors will attract more customers (note without pre-existing conditions people can move around from one insurer to another looking for a better plan.).

Now, with the insurance exchanges, even though these are for people who can't get group coverage through their employers ... these will have an impact on the whole insurance market. If an insurer is pricing a plan through the exchange at a given price he will have to be consistent in his costing of the plan on the exchange and on the group market (recognizing and allowing for the fact that there are cost differentials between selling group coverage and the individual coverage plans.).


Here is what the Kaiser Family Foundation says about Insurance Exchanges as a part of Health Care reform:

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7908.pdf

A number of recent health care reform plans call for the creation of a health insurance “exchange,“ a new entity
intended to create a more organized and competitive market for health insurance by offering a choice of plans,
establishing common rules regarding the offering and pricing of insurance, and providing information to help
consumers better understand the options available to them.
~~
~~

This brief explains the purpose and function of exchanges, how they would relate to greater regulation of the
insurance market, and some of the key questions likely to be addressed by any health reform proposal that calls
for the creation of exchanges.

Purpose and Function of an Exchange

In the context of a health reform plan aiming for a substantial expansion in the number of people insured and
universal access to affordable coverage, there are a number of functions envisioned for exchanges, including:

1. Offering consumers a choice of health plans and focusing competition on price. Exchanges offer enrollees
a choice of private health insurance plans, and some proposals also envision including a public, Medicare like
plan. Covered services and cost sharing (i.e., deductibles, coinsurance or copayments, and out-of pocket
limits) would be organized or standardized in ways that make comparisons across plans easier for
consumers. The aim is to focus competition among plans on the price of coverage and minimize the tendency
for plans to vary benefits in order to attract healthier than average enrollees.

~~
~~

5. Reforming the insurance market. Another function of an exchange is to facilitate changes in the rules
governing how insurers sell coverage. In most states today, people buying insurance in the non-group market
can be denied coverage or charged a higher premium based on a pre-existing health condition. Health
insurers are required by federal law to offer health insurance to any small business, but premiums in most
states can vary within prescribed limits based on the health status of workers. Many health reform proposals
would require insurers to accept all applicants without consideration of the applicant’s health, and would
further prohibit or significantly limit premium variation related to health status. Although these types of
changes can be implemented simply by changing insurance laws and do not necessarily require the creation
of exchanges, some argue that exchanges can make these insurance market reforms more effective by
monitoring marketing practices and administering a uniform system for enrolling in a health insurance plan.

~~
~~

Key Questions (continued)

5. What benefits should be offered in an exchange?
From the perspective of encouraging competition
over price, fully standardized benefits are
preferred, making comparisons across plans
as simple as possible for consumers. However,
a uniform benefits package could discourage
innovation by plans and limit choice for consumers
wanting to purchase less or more coverage.
Benefits and cost sharing could alternatively be
standardized in tiers (e.g. low, medium, and high
option plans). In addition, plans could be allowed
to vary benefits and cost sharing so long as the
actuarial value— that is, the average level of
coverage provided to enrollees—meets a defined
threshold and plan variation does not discriminate
against the very sick. This approach complicates
choices for consumers, however, and may require
greater oversight by the exchange or a regulatory
agency.

NOte that the insurance companies employ people who's job it is to go through medical records and find a pre-existing condition to deny coverage. If you prohibit denial of coverage based on pre-existing condition .. there are people and hours of work which are no longer needed. When there is pressure to reduce costs to remain competitive... here is a place an insurer could find costs to be cut.

In France they have private insurance companies .. but they are regulated. The administrative burden for Health insurance companies in France is about 4%. In the U.S. right now it's about 21%.


One doctors group (Qliance) says about 40 cents of every dollar of health care cost (through insurance) is to cover the administrative costs of claims processing (and fighting for payment, part of the time) by the doctors offices and the insurance companies ( ). That's right 40% of your medical costs for handling claims. Now a competitive marketplace will lead to some degree of standardization of insurance plans (most people will choose similar coverage packages - given effective price competition this will lead to more offerings at better prices of that coverage which the greater number of people want.). This will create conditions leading to greater standardization/simplification of billing procedures (for each insurer). With an Insurance Exchange, the situation exists for the community (i.e. us.) to push for standardization of billing procedures/practices across insurers. This would lead to significant savings in administrative time/costs for doctors and hospitals and insurance companies.


The health care reform bill is all about bringing the forces of a competitive market-place to bear on the cost of obtaining health care.

[Cleobulus]

65. Competition only has a limited affect on pricing in Health Insurance...

The cheapest way to cover people would be to have a large risk pool, the problem is the size of the risk pool is fixed, and only changes slowly, so doesn't reflect market changes. The more competition you have, the smaller the risk pool for each of those competitors, and hence, the higher prices become.

[JohnWxy]

66. The size of risk pool not fixed. Currently it's divided up into 50 states. If market was national

(which the Republicans say they are for "competition across state lines" is their way of putting it) your available pool increases on the average 50 times.

YOur tautology that increased competition necessarily leads HIGHER prices (due to smaller market share for each provider) is a beautiful case of nonsense by illogical extension, which depends upon unconstrained growth in the number of providers. In a competitive marketplace providers won't remain in the market-place unless they can compete on price and product quality. Investment in capital equipment in insurance industry is low compared to say manufacturing. THerefore Break-Even is low. Their is also plenty of room to cut in administrative costs (no gain in time (i.e. cost) spent looking for pre-existing conditions).


AMA Study Shows Competition Disappearing in the Health Insurance Industry

Feb. 23, 2010

CHICAGO – Competition in the health insurance industry is disappearing with more markets across the country dominated by one or two insurers, according to the American Medical Association’s newly released edition of Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets.

In 24 of the 43 states reported in the new AMA report, the two largest insurers had a combined market share of 70 percent or more. Last year, just 18 of 42 states had two insurers with a combined market share of 70 percent or more.

“The near total collapse of competitive and dynamic health insurance markets has not helped patients,” said AMA President J. James Rohack, M.D. “As demonstrated by proposed rate hikes in California and other states, health insurers have not shown greater efficiency and lower health care costs. Instead, patient premiums, deductibles and co-payments have soared without an increase in benefits in these increasingly consolidated markets.”

As the MA reort shows, there is virtually NO competition in the Health Insurance industry. Taking the market place to a national scale from a state scale will increase the competitive market size 50 times.

[Cleobulus]

73. So basically you are hoping for a private monopoly to form from this HCR bill?

Or, possibly a duopoly? You aren't helping your argument in calling my argument illogical when you took it to its logical extreme and claim it will lower prices in a private insurance system.

[JohnWxy]

76. Why do Conservatives have to put words in your mouth? - to try to make a non-point.

YOu are making even greater nonsense than before. A national market 50 times bigger than the state markets the insurance market is split up into now, will accomodate perhaps MORE competitors than there are now in the market. They still would have market shares on average bigger than they have when splitting into 50 pieces (some of which are much smaller than 1/50th of the whole national market).

I can't pull you out of your own personally crafted alternate reality where there is no competition because ALL the players necessarily consolidate into ONE. If that's what happens in your little world, so be it. But in the reality the rest of us occupy that isn't going to happen (certainly it won't happen if we don't want it to. .... Unless of course, the remaining few oligarchy paid the GOP enough ot fool the GOP suckers into thinking that paying exorbitant prices was "the American way" ..{b} but that's what happening right now!).


THe AMA study (and one done a few years ago by the GAO) shows we do NOT HAVE COMPETITION NOW. The idea is to create the circumstance which will produce competition.

[Cleobulus]

83. you are the one arguing for a captalistic system, hence the conservative...

I'm a socialist, thank you very much, and you better remember that.

[JohnWxy]

89. I don't believe in any system. I am only interested in what works best. & you better remember THAT

No magic 'system' is going to provide an answer.

[JohnWxy]

77. Conservatives seem to always need to mis-state the other guys argument. I guess it's cuzz they do

not have an argument (a logical, legitimate argument) of their own.

[rucky]

67. So do we pass HCR, as proposed, or not?

Or will it matter, either way?

That's the only question that matters right now.

[JohnWxy]

87. Your concern for those who don't have health insurance is TRULY touching...(uh-huh)

Your concern for the uninsured is truly touching.... I'm sure they would be pleased to hear that you decided they would be better off without insurance ....and dead younger (but perhaps with more change in their pocket..maybe they can "take it with them").

The fact is, for 32 million people who do not have health care now, and who will be able to get it IF this reform passes, this will be a great improvement in their lives. I wonder if you polled the 32 million without health insurance how many would say:

"Whoa, hold on there. How much is this gonna cost me. John Boehner said the Democrats are trying to take over my life. (You know John Boehner really cares for the 'little people'.) "I don't know, I think I'd rather save my money and die 20 years sooner. Yeah, that's the deal."

People who get health care (as opposed to getting emergency care at a hospital - when their disease presents itself) will live healthier longer lives than if didn't have health care insurance. Being healthier they will be out of work less because of illness and will be financially better off in the long run, for just that reason.


But there are people who want to find reasons to kill health care reform, not because they give a damn about those who don't have health insurance, but only because they want Obama and the Democrats to fail - no matter what the cost to the country.

Anyone who claims they are opposed to this bill because they care about uninsured's expenses, or abortion funding, or "Death panels killing your Grandma", when really justs want to make this "Obama's Waterloo", is dishonest, fraudulent and morally repugnant!

[Individualist]

15. Unrec

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleobulus]

19. Are you stupid, I still wouldn't get care, whether or not I have insurance...

to put it bluntly for you and your overly dramatic post, I'd still be dead, just with either a debt or less money for my family to pay for burial.

NOTE: I do NOT have any fatal condition(outside of life itself :)) I'm just using this posters theatrics for effect.

[JohnWxy]

22. you seem to think you won't need health care. you're immortal and won't develop somethng

that will need care. (you are the execption to all the rest of humanity).

THe proposition you presented IGNORES THE FACT THAT HOSPITALS AND DOCTORS ALLOW PEOPLE TO PAY OFF THEIR BILLS OVER TIME (with NO INTEREST CHARGED). YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY IMMEDIATELY IF YOU SAY YOU CANNOT. Overly dramatic indeed.

Life is a pre-existing condition, YES. That's why EVERYBODY is better off with health care. Acting like a co-pay is worth your life is MELODRAMATIC HYPERBOLE and fraudulent. To say you would deny yourself care raher than incur a medical bill you can't pay immediately is fraudulent. Given the choice of living or dieing most people prefer to live.

Don't say that avoiding having a debt to pay is worth your life. Your lieing.

[griffi94]

25. ok

so i've got the mandated insurance and i get sick. i still have no money so i'll ask the hospital to
finance my illness, interest free of course. they agree and i'm now making monthly payments to the hospital as well as the insurance co as well as still being responsible for rent clothing food utilities and all those other luxuries. and miracle of miracles i'm doing all this on $10 an hour.

this plan would be good if i could figure out a way to squat and shit money.
until then tho this bill sucks.

you're making it sound like this sorry bill and dying are the only choices.
obama had choices as he had an overwhelming mandate to provide healthcare....not cutrate insurance.

[Cleobulus]

26. Even assuming you are correct that I can get health care using some type of deferred plan.

And this is no guarantee, by the way, this is assuming the doctors, hospital, and physical therapy place are nice and let me pay later. What about when I can't, what would be my options? Even assuming the best case scenario, no demands for upfront payments on tests or the surgery. What do I have to look forward too? 5-10 years in debt for that bill alone, assuming I don't develop anything else in the meantime, which if I did, will put in me even deeper debt.

I'm not naive, what if I have to go back to the hospital again, and again owe them even more money, yes I'll be able to be stabilized in the ER for whatever deadly conditions I develop, but what about later, during follow up, will they defer payments again? Or will I have to just declare bankruptcy and be done with it?

What about future financial problems as well, what if I get laid off? Or even get another, more serious injury that prevents me from working?

A lot of what ifs, that's true, but the biggest one is the one you put forward, that the doctors and hospital will be reasonable. I've already seen an orthopedic surgeon once, years ago, he wanted me to have an MRI, and the only reason he even saw me was because I had to borrow a lot of money from my parents and that's just to SEE the guy. I just paid off that debt, it took a while but I was able to do it. I won't be that lucky next time.

[laughingliberal]

55. I have plenty of conditions which could use some care and my husband really does

but we wouldn't be able to afford the premiums and then if we did we wouldn't be able to meet our deductibles.

Everyone is better off with health care. Would be nice if someone passed a bill that provided health care. Instead we'll have a bronze policy we can't afford to use. And knowing the cheap bastards, I bet it won't be bronze at all. Just plain old, worthless piece of paper.

[kenny blankenship]

23. But you will not have died uninsured, sparing your family the shame of being related to a criminal!

To the Democratic Party you are a brownie point. A brownie point among a myriad of other brownie points. Dead, yes, broke, yes, but you had insurance: for they forced you to. You received the charity of their wisdom, and you were helped. Somewhere a Democrat gets his wings.
To the insurance corporation of your choice, you were an asset maximized. Your life and premiums made compost, a rich mulch that grew executive salaries and built shareholder value, while asking nothing in return. Your account is closed out, marked "paid in full." You were the perfect customer.

Makes you feel like you're part of a greater whole doesn't it? It's all part of the great cycle of life.

[Recoverin_Republican]

28. actually, if you want to stop denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions you must have

everyone in the risk pool. These are two sides of the same coin and required by the insurance companies.

We could get the Government out of health care entirely by stopping the compensation of hospitals and doctors for uncompensated care provided to the uninsured. but then, what would happen, would hospitals only treat you if you could pay "cash up front"?

In 2004 we (the Federal government) spent $35 billion for the care of the uninsured. Plus everybody who has insurance pays about 8% extra because of uncompensated care.

It just makes more sense to have people insured so they get timely 'treatment' rather than no treatment until trouble develops and they have to go to a hospital.

The Corportate Lobbyist Party would rather not insure these people at all (okkay, the GOP plan scored by CBO added 3 million people...big deal.. out of 46 million.)


THE UNAVOIDABLE FACT IS THAT AS INSURANCE RATES KEEP SKYROCKETING (THREE TIMES FASTER THAN WAGES) MORE PEOPLE WHO NOW HAVE INSURANCE WILL LOSE IT EITHER BECAUSE THEIR EMPLOYER CAN'T AFFORD IT, OR BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT).

HOW LUCKY DO YOU FEEL?? YOU THINK YOU WON'T BE AMONG THOSE WHO WILL LOSE THEIR INSURANCE? WELL, IF YOU DON'T LOSE YOUR INSURANCE THE INCREASING NUMBERS OF UNINSURED WILL DRIVE YOUR PREMIUMS UP EVEN MORE...SO THEN EVEN YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD INSURANCE.

ACTUALLY, AT THE RATE WE ARE GOING MANY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT IN ABOUT 10 YEARS (annual increases of 15% for ten years would have your premium 4 times higher than they are now). STILL FEELING LUCKY???

[Cleobulus]

31. You unleashed the fury with caps lock and big fonts...

question, how do you get timely treatment with insurance if the doctors, hospital, lab, etc. demand money upfront and your deduct is a couple of grand? On 10 dollars an hour, even assuming you have let's say 100 dollars a month to spare, that's still 20 months before you can even get treatment, and that's just the deduct, not total out of pocket expenses.

[JohnWxy]

37. Let's hear your solution. is it the Republlican plan.. let those who can't afford for profit

die young.

Let's hear your solution.

[Hello_Kitty]

45. Jesus Christ on a Segway.

You have yet to explain where people making $10 an hour are supposed to get the money to pay for premiums and deductibles.

[JohnWxy]

70. Out-of-pocket expenses: Tax credits also subsidize cost sharing on a sliding scale.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7950272&mesg_id=7956311

"Out‐of‐pocket expenses: The credits also subsidize cost sharing on a sliding‐scale basis, phasing out at 400 percent of poverty, to ensure that covered benefits are accessible when care is needed."


Cleobus already covered tax credits for premiums but here's a link:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Media/pdf/111/HCare/2010_AFFORDABILITY.pdf

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnWxy]

84. YOu seem to be having trouble keeping your personal attacks on the thread. I just want you to

know I have not been asking for them to be removed, as offensive as they are. I prefer you show yourself as the 'morally superior' 'caring' person you really are.

You claim to be "crying for the uninsured" and to be morally superiour to me or anybody who would support passing this HCR bill. The fact is, for 32 million people who do not have health care now, and who will be able to get it IF this reform passes, this will be a great improvement in their lives.

People who get health care (as opposed to getting emergency care at a hospital - when their disease presents itself) will live healthier longer lives than if didn't have health care insurance. Being healthier they will be out of work less because of illness and will be financially better off in the long run, for just that reason.

But many people want to find reasons to kill health care reform, not because they give a damn about those who don't have health insurance, but only because they want Obama and the Democrats to fail - no matter what the cost to the country.

For anyone to claim they are opposed to this bill because they care about uninsured's expenses, or abortion, or "Death panels killing your Grandma", when they really just want to make this "Obama's Waterloo", is dishonest, fraudulent and morally repugnant!

[kenny blankenship]

33. Welcome to the fight for Single Payer, the only rational long term solution

I have a feeling this is the beginning of an all uppercase friendship.

[girl gone mad]

41. Did they tell you all to..

use big fonts today?

[laughingliberal]

56. Lol! "Somewhere a Democrat gets his wings." nt

[JohnWxy]

86. If you polled the 32 million people who don 't have any health insurance I wonder how many of

them would say:

"Whoa now, how much is this gonna cost me? I don't know if my life is worth that? I think I'd rather save my money and die 20 years sooner. I think I'll save the money and wait until I'm sick enough to hit the emergency room. Yeah, that's the deal! (John Boehner that and I know how much he cares for the "common man".)"

The fact is, for 32 million people who do not have health care now, and who will be able to get it IF this reform passes, this will be a great improvement in their lives.

People who get health care (as opposed to getting emergency care at a hospital - when their disease presents itself) will live healthier longer lives than if they didn't have health care insurance. Being healthier they will be out of work less because of illness and will be financially better off in the long run, for just that reason.

THe uninsured will be dead sooner because the Republicans killed health care reform.

[girl gone mad]

24. #2 is complete bullshit,

and that's one of the biggest problems I have with this bill.

Plenty of people with and without pre-existing conditions have found ways to get treatment outside of the health insurance industry. My uncle, for example, gets his treatment from a clinic south of the border. My brother pays a doctor directly and the doctor has a negotiated contract for use of hospital facilities - no insurance companies necessary. This bill would FORCE all of these people to buy into a broken system when they have already found better solutions.

[walldude]

68. +1 that's me in a nutshell...

My wife and 2 of my children have pre-existing conditions. We get by now paying cash as we go and using minimal health care. I make too much to be on medicare and probably for any subsidies and if I understand what I am reading in the bill insurance companies will be able to charge people with pre's whatever the hell they want according to what they consider "risk factors".

This bill may help some people but the ones who were falling through the loophole cracks before are totally screwed now.

[Political Heretic]

79. Well said.

[JohnWxy]

82. Yeah, that's practical. Fly out of the country to get your surgery. Good way to get cancer

treatment or heart surgery. (cancer treatments requiring many visits over several months.)

Actually people are doing that in some cases, in desperaation cause they can't afford the costs here. I don't think that is a workable solution for 32 milliion people who don't have health insurance now cause they can't affored it.

YOu think somebody making $10 is going to be able to afford the air fair to India plus the cost of surgery. maybe it's good deal at $25,000 (compared to perhaps $75,000 here) but Hm-m-m-m-m, think he's got that kind of cash or can get a loan for that amount .. over what payment schedule?

[Sebastian Doyle]

35. So now it's not enough to put NoSense on ignore to block her spam

I have to add those who REPEAT her spam? :wtf:

[frylock]

40. you lost me at prosense..

i auto-unrec anything that AmateurHour has to post. and on that note...

[Oregone]

54. Some posters actually think that person has credibility

If PS can't craft an argument around a logical fallacy, they normally wont post


Oh, except for the irrelevant copy & paste (but its normally an argument to authority)

[laughingliberal]

57. +1 nt

[frylock]

58. there's maybe 6-10 posters that think she has any cred..

and half of those are probably secondary accounts.

[grahamhgreen]

59. The cheapo plan in Mass for a healthy 22 YO male is $375/mo ( more)

so even if you got that, you're still on the hook for 400% of that or $1,500/m0
And your copay and 60% deductible.....


"(d) LEVELS OF COVERAGE.—
(1) LEVEL SOF COVERAGE DEFINED.— The levels

of coverage described in this subsection are as follows:

(A) BRONZELEVEL.—A plan in the bronze

level shall provide a level of coverage that is de-

signed to provide benefits that are actuarially

equivalent to 60 percent of the full actuarial



value of the benefits provided under the plan."

By the way - the Gold level only covers 90% so you can still go broke with a major disease....

[area51]

61. Hmm, big text.

Like with ProSpin's big blue links and arrogance, you've convinced me. Not.

[JVS]

64. plonk for recycling people who earned places on my ignore list long ago

[Greyhound]

71. The post you're fronting for was thoroughly thrashed for the propagandist BS it is.

And the incessant fear-mongering from you guys just shows how bankrupt your argument is.
:thumbsdown:

[Political Heretic]

78. If cost of care bankrupts you after HCR just like before HCR it doesn't really matter does it?

[Vinca]

81. I'll get back to you when I find out the rates for the pool

that is supposed to be created for people like me with pre-existing conditions who can't afford insurance. My fear is that it will be every bit as unaffordable as the state high risk pool which is about $1,500 a month with the usual deductibles and co-pays. If it's actually affordable, I'll probably drop dead on the spot from the shock.

[Bluenorthwest]

85. Fear based messaging is an indication of many things

none of them good.

[JohnWxy]

88. yeah, like: "death panels gonna kill your grandma", ad infinitum