Still wondering why only 2000 of the 4 million eligible for the high risk pool are bothering with it

[eridani]

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/71974
Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan — Out of Reach
By: Niland Friday September 17, 2010 5:38 pm

I don’t think the site has addressed this in a while, but the new Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan has been rolled out across the country now, and the more I look into it, the more I think this is emblematic of everything that was wrong with Obama’s health care reform bill. Remember, this is the temporary high risk pool to act as a holdover until the exchanges kick in in 2014. I had high hopes for this, as my Mother is a 61 year old widow who has low income but is too young for Medicare and who we (my brother and I) have been paying $1,000+/mo for Anthem Blue Cross individual market insurance for the last three years to keep her insured. I thought the new high risk plan was going to be standardized with a 4-1 age ratio and also “affordable” for people who cannot get affordable coverage in the individual market. I looked up the rates for California where she lives, and her premium will be $799/mo with no subsidy under the new plan . Meanwhile, the premium for a child under 15 is $142/mo…how is that 4-1? How is that even remotely affordable?

Instead of imposing a unified structure with standardized rates, the bill gave extreme leeway for each State to set up its own program using private contractors guided only by very loose language regarding premiums and coverage structure. This has resulted in some states charging $600/mo for 60+ and areas of California charging $800 or more.

I’m so dejected at this point. I had such high hopes for this program and I feel like I’ve been kicked in the stomach. I cheered this bill, telling my brother, “help is on the way,” and soon we will be able to get coverage at a more reasonable rate compared to the way Anthem was ripping us off. We just can’t afford to pay $800+ per month in health insurance when we are already completely financially supporting our Mother. You mean to tell me that all this bill is going to save us for the next 4 years is 200 bucks a month? That we still have to pay 800/mo not including cost sharing? My Mom doesn’t even have a super-serious preexisting condition – she doesn’t have cancer, hasn’t had any debilitating illnesses. She is a smoker who gets episodic panic attacks.

I know there are lots of horror stories worse than this, but this type of disappointment is going to keep happening as each new element of this bill is rolled out. When 2014 hits and the means-tested subsidized rates are still going to be unaffordable for anyone but the poorest of the poor, the bill’s popularity will continue to tank.

And they wonder why there is an enthusiasm gap!

[BzaDem]

1. This post makes the common fallacy here of comparing HCR to some utopia, rather than the status quo

If you actually compare it to the status quo, you would find that the high risk pool rates are MUCH lower than the rates on the private market. So while that may be unaffordable for some, it is still much cheaper than a similar plan on the open market.

"When 2014 hits and the means-tested subsidized rates are still going to be unaffordable for anyone but the poorest of the poor"

That is complete and utter bullshit. People making 400% of the poverty level will pay no more than 9.5% of their income, and people making less than 400% will pay even less of a percentage of their income (down to 2.5% for those making around 135% of the poverty level, and free medicaid for those making 133% or lower).

[dsc]

3. actually they do compare numbers

1000 vs 799. It saves about 20% which is something but frankly I can see why they would be disappointed. But even the 4 to 1 would have been over 600.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. Strawman. People aren't comparing it to "utopia"

They're pointing out that $799 a month is beyond the reach of most people in this economy, even if it is MUCH lower than rates on the private market.

And someone making 400% FPL will pay no more than 9.5% of their income on the premium. They'll still face an additional 9% maximum in out of pocket costs. http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

Out-of-Pocket Costs

The maximum out-of-pocket costs the person/family will be responsible for in 2014 (not including the premium) is $4,167. Whether a person or family reaches this maximum level will depend on the amount of health care services they use. Currently, about one in four people use no health care services in any given year. The guaranteed plan for the person/family will have an actuarial value of 70%. This means that for all enrollees in a typical population, the plan will pay for 70% of expenses in total for covered benefits, with enrollees responsible for the rest. Specific provisions like deductibles and copayments may vary from plan to plan, and out-of-pocket costs for any given individual or family will depend on their health care expenses. Preventive services will be covered with no cost sharing required.

[BzaDem]

8. If it is much lower than the rates on the private market, then I don't see how the bill wasn't worth

passing.

"They'll still face an additional 9% maximum in out of pocket costs."

As opposed to today, when premiums could be 20-30% of one's premium or higher, with them STILL having to pay out of pocket costs.

Furthermore, most people are not going to pay the full out of pocket costs every year. You do not pay all of the out of pocket costs, and then start getting benefits. You get 70-90% (depending on your plan) for each service, and you pay the remainder (up until you have paid the out of pocket max). So if you are paying the out of pocket max, you have used 3-10 times as much care as if you didn't.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. If you don't have the money it doesn't matter.

Giving a broke person a coupon to buy something still doesn't put money in their pocket.

[pattmarty]

80. Exactly right. Point is that it wasn't a "liberal" plan. This is similar...........

........to the Republican proposal in 1993 in response to the Clinton plan. Or put another way, a larger version of "Romneycare". A "little better" is still shit to an awful lot of people. Medicare in stages would have been a LOT simpler and a FUCK OF A LOT cheaper. We got fucked.

[hobbit709]

37. If you ain't got it you ain't got it.

If you fall in that inbetween category of above the poverty but not enough left over after other expenses, then you are SOL.

The only reason I get medical care at all is the VA, without that I'd probably be dead by now. I have several "pre-existing conditions." I make too much and have too many assets to get any relief from the wonderful state of TX, but I don't even make enough to cover my expenses, so I have to draw money out of my IRA to cover and hope I can hang on long enough to get SS in 2012. And then I'll have to wait until 2015 to get Medicare.

If we had actual HealthCARE reform instead of what we got,I and a lot of other people would be a lot happier.

you can put as much lipstick on that pig as you want but it's still a pig.

[Better Believe It]

57. The point is few people can afford it. It clearly doesn't help much or in most cases at all.

Of course, we can ignore little facts like that.

[laughingliberal]

67. I'd be surprised if any of the states' high risk pools have 90% actuarial value. nt

I could be wrong about that but considering the 'bronze plan' meets the requirement for the mandate and it doesn't cover 70%, I'd be really surprised if any of the states have coverage like that in their high risk pools.

[CoffeeCat]

7. I'm wondering this...

Thank you for the information. It is good to see concrete numbers.

So, for example--$18,000 for a family of four is poverty level. So, if 400 percent above $18k is $72k. That means
a family of four making 72k will pay 9.5 percent or about $7,000 annually for healthcare. That's about $600 per
month.

Is my math correct?

If these people are uninsured, this would be a new expense. $72k gross income is about $4,400 monthly take home. $600
is a pretty big chunk. I agree that this may be a good deal--but really, will people pay this much? Will they
buy into a system that requires them to give up $600 per month?

Most people live paycheck to paycheck. Most people have very little saved. Several hundred dollars is a big
hit. These people would have to find room in their budget to do without $600 dollars that they were previously
using for other things--or saving.

I'm interested in your thoughts and I thank you for the info you provided in your post. My math may be
off, but I tried! :)

[BzaDem]

11. You are correct that a family of 4 making 72k will be paying about 600/month.

However, you are comparing 600/month to nothing/month. I don't think that's the best comparison. People consume healthcare, and healthcare costs money. The question is really

1) How much are they paying now?

2) How does that compare to 600/month?

3) If 600/month is higher, is that a problem?

For 1, it really depends. If they already have insurance from their employer, none of this applies to them. If they already have insurance from the individual market, they are likely paying much more than 600/month (probably double that or more). So this plan would be a huge boon to them.

If they are uninsured now, it depends on how much care they are consuming. Without insurance, care can be very expensive. Doctors appointments can be hundreds of dollars each. That can run up the tab quite high for a family of 4. 600/month might be a much better deal than all of the care they currently receive out of pocket.

Or, perhaps they don't consume much care at all. They might be a really young, healthy family of 4, who is uninsured because they don't use much care.

But in that case, don't we WANT them to be paying more? The only reason any universal or near universal healthcare system works, is because young, healthy people pay INTO the system to subsidize the older and the sicker. The more young/healthy people pay into the system, the lower the costs can be for the older and sicker. In single payer countries, the additional taxes for a family making 72k/year are typically at LEAST 600/month.

If you didn't have young and healthy people paying into the system, then you would have to charge older and/or sicker people MUCH more money (maybe even 10 times more, or even more than that). The only way you can charge everyone the same regardless of pre-existing conditions (or to keep age premium variation within a factor of 3) is to make sure young and healthy people pay into the system.

[Hello_Kitty]

39. Where do you get your notions about what people pay in single payer countries?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070206032130/www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html

According to the Medical Services Plan in British Columbia, the premium for the average family is $108 per month. That's a helluva lot less than $4K. Also, notice that single people making low incomes have their premiums subsidized. A person making $20K in Canada at the time the chart was put out (roughly $17K in U.S. currency at that time) would only pay $10.80 a month for their premium. And national and provincial tax rates in Canada are comparable to ours. The highest marginal tax rate in Canada is 29%.

Countries with single payer (or comparable) systems spend half as much per capita as we do and get better outcomes. This new HCR law does some good things but will not bring us anywhere near parity with all the countries that have figured out how to do it better.

[laughingliberal]

68. They just count on everyone sucking down the kool aid the RW & MSM serves up about teh soshulists.

Doesn't work as well on us as it does the teabaggers, though.

[pattmarty]

81. AND CHEAPER.

[bl968]

93. They consume health care lol

People consume health care when they can afford it. When they can't they go without for years and years, even if they really need it. In the mean time health care conditions are ignored until they are too bad to ignore any more and the sad thing is that's usually after it's too late to do anything about it.

[Skittles]

9. WHO FUCKING CARES?

if before and after rates are both UNAFFORDABLE, what DIFFERENCE does it make?

[BzaDem]

12. It matters because there is a group of people that can afford the latter and not the former.

And the high risk pool helps those people.

None of this matters after 2014, since the high risk pool is only a bridge between the old system and this new system (which will we affordable for tens of millions of more people).

[Skittles]

15. A GROUP of people?

yes - PEOPLE WITH THE FINANCIAL MEANS to afford OVERPRICED BULLSHIT "insurance"

and WHY do we have to wait YEARS for the so-called "REAL BENEFITS" to take place? IT'S BULLSHIT and fucking INSULTING.

[BzaDem]

18. Another argument that because the best we could do is 2014, we should instead pass nothing

and wait another generation instead, to pass a much more watered down bill.

Gotcha.

:rofl:

Your posts are hilarious.

[Skittles]

21. NICE ANSWER

oh wait, NOT an answer....and NOT SURPRISING

[amandabeech]

45. There was a lot of hoopla about this high risk pool and how it was

going to help a lot of people.

FYI, in Virginia, for a 55 year old person like me, it's $600+ a shitty policy with $2,600 deductible and about 30-35% coinsurance after that. It's the Fed plan there.

Maryland is subsidizing its pool, so it is about $365 for much better coverage. I can afford that and will be applying. The only problem is that housing is much, much cheaper in VA and the taxes are lower.

The District of Columbia does not have any plan information available, and probably won't for some time given its overall record for ineffective government.

I'm going to have to put up with roommates in order to afford to live in MD, which always cause me enough stress to greatly exacerbate my physical conditions--decent coverage for counseling just isn't available, in order to be covered for everything else.

If the hype to reality ratio over the high risk pool approximates the hype to reality ratio for the real health reform program that goes into effect in 2014, I expect more than a few folks will have a rude awakening. Dems will be blamed uniformly.

FYI, check out the Kaiser health foundation's site. They give some approximate info for 2014. By their numbers, I will need to pay over $500 for subsidized health care then so long as I don't make over about $44,000. If I make over that, my private individual insurance will be over $900 a month. That's a lot of take home. Fortunately or unfortunately, $900 will exceed the maximum percentage of my income that I can be forced to pay for health care, so I'll get a waiver, but no insurance. Any very high dedutible policy that might be able to afford will not be available for me or anyone after 2014, as far as I can see. You seem to be knowledgable, so correct me if I am wrong.

At my age of 55 with my resume chopped to bits by a couple of bad decisions 15 years ago and many, many events completely outside my control, I believe that I will be very lucky to find employment with decent health care in the next four years, particularly when Obama cuts the federal workforce here on top of whatever happens to the military.

There are a surprising number of people in my circumstance, and that many more who are our friends or relatives. We are formerly middle class and vote early and often.

If an alternative arises that can help me stay well and get my life together appears, I will vote for that alternative and I won't be caring about party the way I have since I first voted in 1973.

[Usrename]

53. Here, have a shit sandwich.

You may not think it's very appetizing, but hey, it's the best I do for you.

[glitch]

55. Yuk it up. nt

:thumbsdown:

[sendero]

92. The best..

.... that a corrupt president in the pocket of big business could do. I'm sure that is what you meant to say.

Or maybe he isn't corrupt, just FUCKING INCOMPETENT. Same end result so who cares.

[bl968]

94. Real health care for everyone not bandaid reform.

Actually we should have waited because it wouldn't have been but a couple of years before rising health costs forced people to force Washington to actually deal with the situation instead of making a bandaid handout to the Insurance industry which is still raking people over the coals even after "reform" was passed. Just read the current news headlines. The average person will still not be able to afford these costs even after this "reform". Some Democrats suffer from a Republican like syndrome where if they can afford it, they think everyone else should be able too as well. Some of us actually don't make $50,000-$60,000 a year. Some people have to account for money on the twenty-fifty dollar level after their current expenses are paid out.

[Missy Vixen]

24. Have I told you today that I wuv you?

I know you'll be scheduling me for an asskicking for that, but hell, I'll take it like a woman.

:hug:

Thank you for hearing the people that can't afford this, "subsidies" or not.

[Hello_Kitty]

40. Because it was important to help affluent white people right away.

Pretty much everything that kicks in right away helps that group. Everyone else can wait.

[Better Believe It]

58. Yes. They have been counted. Six people.

[Chulanowa]

72. I see you've found CAPS LOCK!

Now may I introduce you to italics, bold text, and underline? You can even combine all three for the triforce!!!

Don't limit yourself when trying to express vehemency and outrage on the internet! Use variety to keep your unbelievable fury sharp!

[LWolf]

46. Some "utopia."

Utopia would be a place where nobody ever needed health care, and where every living thing automatically had the shelter, sustenance, etc. needed for a full, healthy, comfortable, happy life.

No one has demanded utopia, and criticisms of the health insurance bill have nothing to do with utopia.

A health care system that doesn't bankrupt people, that gets care to the people who need it, is not utopia. It's reality. It exists in many nations outside the U.S. today, and it is certainly not new.

[liberation]

61. LOL... Complaining about fallacy using a massive strawman to do so

And they say irony was dead...

Edit to add: After reading your posts in this thread, I guess it is not really a matter of irony, but projection. Good leadership and legislation are self evident, when you have to go out of your way to misrepresent other people's opinion with arguments that basically come down to request they stop "believing their own lying eyes"... you guys need to start reconsidering some things. Not that I am holding my breath, but holy intellectual dishonesty Batman!

Some of us have people in our own families who are severely and adversely affected by the health care system in this country, from both human and economic standpoints, and the current interim legislation nor the legislation kicking years down the road does diddly squat to address some of the massive shit platters some people are forced to deal with because corporate profit in this country, apparently is sacrosanct, whereas the lives and well being of individual citizens are not. It is easy to talk about other people's wanting proper health care reform being an "utopia" when you don't have to suffer the consequences of the hubris you are shilling for directly. All I can say is, Karma is a powerful notion... be ware of what you "want" because you may get it. One day you may end up in the high risk pool, one day you will discover that wishing so and it being so are two very different things. One day you may have to deal directly with the same system you are excusing. One day, you and people like you may end up having to deal with the ultimate consequences of your logic.

[glitch]

84. standing

:applause:

[watajob]

79. Your point is well taken.

But, if something is $10@month past your budget or $500, it's still un-affordable either way.

[DURHAM D]

2. The bill is a stinker.

Its just another reason why Democrats are going to stay home in November.

The bill should be called the Health Care Reform Just Kidding Bill.

[nbsmom]

17. Explain again why everyone should stay home in November?

Still up for grabs:
1. Economic recovery
2. Any improvement in education funding
3. Estate tax repeal
4. Long term cap gains rates
5. Other tax codes due to sunset this year
6. All the still-empty agency appointments/judicial positions

Really? Dems should give up and stay home because we didn't like how HCR turned out?

Get your thumb out of your mouth and stop pissing and moaning. There's a lot of work left to do, and you don't want to leave it to the Stupid People to get it done.

[Skittles]

23. Durham did NOT say they SHOULD stay home

Durham is saying WHY they will stay home (the HCR debacle is just ONE reason) - get some READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS

[TheWatcher]

34. Economic Recovery? You have to be joking.

if you mean an artificially manipulated Stock Market bubble and a recovery for Wall Street and The Bankers, and the most effective, relentless Propaganda campaign in history to put people like you who will buy anything to make you feel good back to sleep, then I guess you're on target.

Try pulling your head out of your ass and unstrap the Propaganda feedbag from your face.

[Hello_Kitty]

41. I'm going canvassing in an hour.

What are you doing to get Dems elected?

[Missy Vixen]

26. Oh, I'm not staying home in November

I'm going to vote for Senator Patty Murray, one of the few politicians who actually listens and acts on behalf of her constituency. Then I'm going to break my fingers off in the keyboard writing, e-mailing, and faxing anyone who will listen in Congress and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I'll be damned if we work our entire lives to give a huge chunk of our income for the next three years (hell, indefinitely,) to the bloodsucking health insurance companies.

[pnwmom]

31. Then they're stupid. It's not as if they'd have better access

to health care with the Rethugs back in charge.

[liberation]

63. When people say they don't like a shit sandwich...

... believe me, their main issue with the dish is not with the choice of bread.

[Liberty Belle]

4. I can't even afford the high-risk pool, and I just got turned down for insurance.

I'm so angry at Obama I could scream! We need SINGLE PAYER healthcare, not GOUGING of people with minor medical conditions who get turned down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:spank:

[CoffeeCat]

10. ....but I thought a big selling point of Obama's plan...

...was the health-insurance companies could no longer reject people due to pre-existing conditions.

This was touted extensively.

So, why were you rejected?

This is the stuff that needs to be examined.

I'd like to delve into this to understand what is really happening with real people.

[BzaDem]

13. That is a big selling point, but it doesn't start until 2014. The high risk pool is just a bridge

from now until 2014. Starting in 2014, people with pre-existing conditions can't be rejected and they can't be charged one penny more than people without such conditions.

[Skittles]

16. BUT

you can STILL be charged OUTRAGEOUS RATES

[BzaDem]

19. No, you actually can't. That is a complete lie. People who are sick cannot be charged ONE DIME

more than people who are not sick, starting in 2014. In fact, not even one penny more.

[Skittles]

20. HELLO

the people who are NOT SICK are paying outrageous rates, huge deductibles, increasing co-pays. HELLO!!!!!

[BzaDem]

22. They won't be in 2014, no matter how many times you say the word "HELLO" in capital letters.

People in Massachusetts overwhelmingly do not want to go back to the way it was before. 97% are insured. Deductibles/copays will be limited by actuarial value, rates will be limited by MLRs, etc.

I'm not actually posting to persuade you, since you do not accept facts and truth (and instead only accept posts that confirm your bullshit narrative). I'm just posting so others aren't misled by your bullshit.

[Skittles]

25. sure

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm

and I am DONE arguing with a fucking table leg

[BzaDem]

27. You do realize that Barney Frank (who coined the phrase arguing with a table) voted for reform?

Along with Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, and every single progressive Democrat in the entire Congress?

Perhaps they are right, and some random message board poster like you, who thinks saying "fucking" and using capital letters can contradict actual facts and truth, is wrong?

:rofl:

It is quite telling that you use a right-wing magazine like Fortune to criticize the Massachusetts plan. "The exchanges reward people for working less and earning less." Poor right wingers, who don't want people who earn less to be rewarded.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. Yea, they got strong-armed to "give Obama a victory"

I wish they'd had the courage to hold out for something better.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

42. Honey, don't waste your breath.

Your attempt was valiant but it's a lost cause. :hug: All folks like us can do is sit there and say, "Told you so" when the inevitable happens.

[glitch]

86. They won't hear it until it affects them personally. nt

[quakerboy]

95. And even then they will find a way to blame it on the

left.

[Safetykitten]

97. Which should be about two years from now in my estimation,

as the health insurance companies steamroll over the landscape, companies with the gold and platinum plans jettison their coverage, and the economy starts turning everyone into a 1099.

All the while, our guys that enacted this freakshow will be backpeddling in terror, as the health insurance companies watch with amusement.

[pnwmom]

35. What do you think employers are currently paying for their

employees health care?

What this bill will do is put people without access to employer health care on a similar footing as those who do, since the people in the government plans will be able to take advantage of large group rates, rather than individual rates. But it won't magically eliminate costs.

The huge question which will call for some very hard choices, is how we rein in costs. Modern medical technology is extremely expensive -- the CAT scans, MRI's, the radiation treatments, etc. That's why every trip to the emergency room and every over-night at the hospital is so expensive.

[Toots]

43. A lot of employers are dropping health insurance for employees.

Rising costs are just too dramatic. They were before this so called Health Care Reform passed and they still are sky rocketing as are their Profits..When 2014 finaly gets here rate will have almost doubled from what they were when this bill was passed..Employers can no longer afford it..

[pnwmom]

51. It is a very significant fraction of employer compensation costs.

Most people don't realize, since it's on top of their salaries.

[TBF]

69. It sure is - which is why we should pass a system like Canada's -

not only would it help companies (who could compete more easily with others because they wouldn't have to cover their employees anymore), but it would help actual people *gasp*

Of course we might have to tax rich folk and cut back on defense to do that, and you know the bigwigs aren't going to go for that ...

[eilen]

54. Alot of employers are just finding it easier to

drop employees period. They don't have to pay outrageous rates on healthcare nor labor overseas. This is the point I'm wondering-- At the rate we are losing full-time benefit paying middle class income jobs, who exactly will be making more than 400x the poverty rate besides the wealthy? The government will end up going bankrupt trying to keep up with healthcare costs as they seem to climb 5 x the rate of inflation (along with college education).

[hobbit709]

38. So what do you do for four years if you are sick?

I guess our only option is to die as Grayson put it.

[BzaDem]

44. What would you do if the law didn't pass? It is amazing how people who wanted the law to not pass

are now making their main objection that it isn't starting fast enough. Seriously.

2014 is later than they want, so they would prefer it NEVER were enacted.

[kenny blankenship]

49. Their objection is not that the law was passed, their objection is that the law sucks

but do go on misrepresenting their views and the law, since that seems to be your job.

[TBF]

70. You didn't answer the question. So from 2010 until 2014 what

would you have them do? Die quietly so as not to hurt the campaigning I suppose ...

[progressoid]

71. Uh, those didn't have to be the only options.

It would have been nice to have had an actual liberal Democratic version on the table instead of just having the option of nothing vs. the re-hashed version of Richard Nixon's health care reform we ended up with.

[Better Believe It]

59. What you do now. Go to an emergency room and hope for the best.

[Liberty Belle]

89. BINGO. We need COST CONTROL. Without it the rest is meaningless unless you're rich.

[Liberty Belle]

88. I was rejected for a pre-existing condition.

And told I could buy into a high-risk pool that costs more money than I have.

Specifically, I am being denied coverage because I have a paralyzed nerve and some instability in my shoulder from a car accident 12 years ago. They didn't like the fact that I see an orthopedist once every two years to find out if anyone's come up with a cure yet for old nerve damage. They are terrified of having to pay for surgery some day. They also don't want to pay for chiropractic and want me to stay away from all treatment for a year.

[nbsmom]

14. I think you should redirect that anger

Why not at the Blue Dog Dems instead, or DINOs or Joe Lieberman? Those folks are the reason we didn't end up with Medicare for all. Obama can't write the legislation and get it through both houses of Congress, any more than he could put on a wetsuit and shut off the BP line in the Gulf.

If you stayed engaged throughout the HCR process, kept in frequent contact with your elected representatives, made it clear what you expected from them, then you've got a right to be angry at the people who DIDN'T do that, and at the elected representatives who didn't craft a bill that would provide single-payor health care.

OTOH, if you didn't communicate with your elected reps and instead let those stupid free-for-all 'town halls' act as your proxy, then perhaps you're projecting onto Obama your anger and frustration at your own failure to act while it would make a difference.

My understanding about the high-risk pools was that the success/failure would be tied largely to the strength of the individual state's department of insurance. (Or in the case of California, in the strength of the state's budget -- After all, isn't CA still largely 'fronting' the money for the high risk pool, and with the way the $$$ is being squeezed in Sacramento, I can't imagine they're rushing to subsidize a richer plan for a plan that will inevitably have to pay out more and frequently... that's just my assumption.YMMV.)

[Liberty Belle]

90. Obama should have used his bully pulpit to take his case to the American people

and urge them to pressure the Liebermans of this world. If he'd tried that FIRST and eventually had to cave I could forgive it, but he didn't even try. Just rolled over and played dead. We don't need a possum president. I elected someone I thought would be a fighter for me but in the end he just sold us out like all those blue-Dog dems who don't pretend to be something else. So yes, I am very bitter at Obama and wishing now that I'd voted for hillary, who at least made healthcare reform her top priority.

[pnwmom]

32. Are you saying you got turned down by the high risk pool? n/t

[Liberty Belle]

91. No I got turned down by Blue Cross for a normal PPO plan that I wanted.

I won't apply for the high risk pool because I can't afford it and there are too many gaps.

I will probably be forced into the dreaded HMO (and hope I stay healthy until 2014) unless I can persuade Blue Cross to overturn its decision.

I ahve put some pressure on them (nothing that it's such a coincidence that I'm a journalist researching health insurance company abuses, and that this could make a strong example for my story)

[chowder66]

60. I understand...but I don't blame Obama

I too was turned down. I got on the California major-risk insurance plan which you have to wait for an opening for. At first I was paying 365 a month and now it is over 400 and that is without the latest increase. I will most likely be dropping it soon. Can't afford it any longer and will just pay out of pocket (ask for discounts) and use the free clinic until something changes.

This started prior to Obama being elected and I was pissed then...at the Insurance companies and this pre-existing language crap. I would like to see a national healthcare system in this country one day and the sooner the better but I am not holding my breath (mainly because it may cause another pre-existing condition). Another thing that chaps my hide is that if progress is made by people with pre-existing conditions or the issue is resolved, we get no reduction aka credit for that.

This administration is trying and they made some progress, it IS helping some people, not me or you but others. I'm glad for that and I see that there is more work to do.

[Skittles]

6. um, because it SUCKS ?

[laughingliberal]

28. K & R nt

[pnwmom]

29. The reason the costs for insurance vary by state is probably

because the average costs of health care vary state by state.

Also, you don't mention how deductibles and co-pays differ between your mother's current plan and the pool plan. Are they the same or different?

Another point to think about is that no one can be dropped from the pool just because they get sick -- or have their rates doubled or tripled. If your mother were to develop a costly illness under her old Anthem plan, however, her rates could have been raised or she could have been dropped from coverage completely.

[pnwmom]

30. Where did you get the 4,000 number? Do you have a link? n/t

[leftstreet]

33. K&R

[Vinca]

47. I read that in New Hampshire a whopping 12 people signed up

during the first month. I know I checked it out on day one and nearly fainted. There's no way anyone of average income who is older can afford it. End of story.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/provisions/preexisting/states/nh.html

[madville]

48. Know several people in the same boat

This what we are stuck with and it will be interesting to see the fallout when HCR kicks in fully, it will help a few and piss off many because it will still be out of reach unless you qualify for a subsidy, good luck being able to afford to actually use it though.

Could your mom quit smoking? That would probably be several hundred dollars a month saved and benefit her health, something you all could do on your end anyway maybe.

[TexasObserver]

50. Because it's not that useful.

What could go wrong with letting the for-profit health care interests guide the process?

Oh, everything.

[TransitJohn]

52. Nobody's blamed the mom for smoking yet???

Jeez, DU, get with it. We have a reputation to uphold.

[TBF]

73. I was waiting for that too ...

We have the same situation with my mom, who has increasing asthma costs. My sister lives with her, quit smoking using those new electronic cigarettes, and is encouraging her. We'll see how it works ... but after 50 years I'm not too hopeful.

Still my brother & I pick up the deductible when she falls in the doughnut hole. She has medicare, and works part-time in fast food for extra funds. Her social security check is about $600/month after the medicare deduction.

People are scraping by - nobody earning $600-$800/month is going to be able to afford these increasing premiums, and that's assuming social security stays intact.

[bc3000]

56. No cost controls. Many of us have been saying it from the beginning.

Health care reform should have been about making health care affordable, not just about paying more of the extremely unfair costs through taxes.

[scentopine]

62. The centrists argue - if we prevent CEOs from gouging us for health care

then there will be no incentive for us not to be sick. The free market will determine the value of the common man.

The centrists and right wingers say - it is stick and carrot.

If you don't work harder so that your money can go to the health care CEO and his family, you are lazy and not worthy of health care. That is the stick.

The carrot is... um, there is no carrot. Just work harder for less pay and give it all the banking CEO, the health care CEO or the defense contractor CEO.

CEOs are strip mining us like we are just a resource to feed their families.

It won't end as long as the right wing is at the helm of both parties. Only the rich have any real representation in Washington.

It is class warfare and we are being crushed while CEOs are rolling in our hard earned money.

[Grinchie]

65. The rich don't grow their own food...

It is below them to understand the process, so they outsource it that people that do know how to grow food.

But, their will come a day when Food is "Not Food", but just something that fills your stomach for a while. We are already on the verge of a Food calamity so great that it boggles the mind, and the rich are just as oblivious about it as the rest of the sheeple.

They will be hit very hard, right along with all the rest of the inhabitants that don't have a clue.

[scentopine]

74. This is extrremely good point - some other random thoughts...

All the CEOs are fighting for our money - the food CEO is watching the health care CEO scoop up more of dollars. These are dollars we could be spending on food. Good health requires good food.

So, with less to spend on food, the food CEO has two options - the first is to lower costs using low cost additives and non-nutritional fillers. (This is potentially directly or indirectly contributing to the health care problem). Second is to raise prices.

The health CEO realized that health care is essential and that many people will pay any amount to get it. So they drive up prices. The banker CEOs realized that housing is essential and people will pay any amount to have it in absurd interest rates (fueling the sub-prime disaster).

Food, energy, health, housing - all fighting for more of our dollars.

I suppose the food CEO could simply drive up prices because when it comes to food, shelter, medical care - food is arguably the most important.

Global food inflation is around 15% right now, but much lower in USA. I am expecting it is just a matter of time before food prices start climbing to gain back market share lost to these other commodities.

I'm seeing food prices climbing faster than the 3% a year they say is average now.

[TBF]

75. It IS class warfare -

and we need to talk about that more. We have two very conservative parties, and we can see how that is working out for us workers.

[Grinchie]

64. It is "health Insurance Reform" not Health Care Reform as the propogandists claim.

Even Obama himself calls it "Health Insurance Reform".

There has been no reform in Health Care that I can see, other than the promotion of more "For Profit" policies that prop up the entire US American Ponzi Scheme.

I depend upon my partner for health care, and I trust her. She is not for Profit, although I do most of the heavy lifting for her out of gratitude and joy.

She loves her work, I love mine, and we rarely fall ill.. If she were a doctor and I was her only patient, she'd be broke except for the rare cut, abrasion, or hangover..

[keepCAblue]

66. Why? Because the "subsidized" part is in the form of a TAX CREDIT

So for someone like me, the annual premium would be nearly $9,000 (for a single adult) of which I would be responsible for roughly $1,600; the gov would subsidize the remaining. HOWEVER, the subsidy is paid in the form of a tax credit, so I would still have to come up with the full $9,000 and wait til the following year to claim the tax credit. Fuck that. I don't have $9,000 (or $750 per month) just lying around. AND I would be responsible for a $3,000 deductible BEFORE benefits kick in (and even then, you have to submit a shitload of paperwork to get reimbursement, so even after meeting the deductible, I'd have to pay out of pocket and then wait gawd knows how long to get reimbursed.

$9,000 a year. And that is based on an annual income of just $24K (and I live in a "high" cost-of-living region -- Silicon Valley).

Uhm, yeah. THAT is why so few people have signed up for it. They STILL can't afford it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. When I was a grad student at Yale, I learned that there are people in the world

who literally have never heard anyone in their family say, "We can't afford that." They have never themselves had to think, "I can't afford that."

Therefore, when other people say, "I can't afford it," the phrase has no meaning to them.

[Hello_Kitty]

82. In the case of health insurance

They have decided that uninsured people (those who don't officially fit the definition of "poverty") really have plenty of extra money. They are selfishly withholding it from the health care system to buy cell phones, flat screen TVs, and bling, leaving the Good Godly Responsible Insured People holding the bag. Never mind that most of the people with insurance have their employer picking up a large part of the tab, tax free, and aren't paying anywhere near the 20% of their income they expect the newly mandated Americans to be able to afford.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. Yup

That's about right.

[USArmyParatrooper]

85. Do you midn if I ask your age?

[glitch]

87. Humiliating that our side should be demanding us to find this acceptable, expecting gratitude.

Infuriating to be punked like some damned pathetic bushbot.

[metapunditedgy]

78. LOL... Obama campaigned as a "utopian"??? n/t

[Safetykitten]

96. Served up naked bound and gagged to the insurance companies. What? Not happy?

Ingrates!

Now we need some Canadian sensibility posted here on how we don't get it. Or deserve it.

[Nikki Stone1]

98. We told you so.

Sorry, but we did.