Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, August 12, 2009

To friendly crowd, Obama assails health care foes

August 12, 2009

Advertisement

— Braced for a fight he never got, President Barack Obama went on the offensive in support of his health care plan Tuesday, urging a town hall audience not to listen to those who seek to “scare and mislead the American people.”

“For all the scare tactics out there, what is truly scary is if we do nothing,” Obama told a friendly crowd of about 1,800 in a high school auditorium and a nationwide audience watching on cable television.

The White House had been ready for an unruly reception from opponents of overhauling health care. There was no sign of that, perhaps because of the makeup of the day’s crowd or out of traditional deference for the president.

Obama’s push came amid a string of disruptive health care town halls nationwide that have overshadowed his message and threatened to derail support in Congress. Indeed, Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter faced hostile questions, taunts and jeers earlier Tuesday as he tried to explain his positions at a town hall in Lebanon, Pa. Voter fears of a government takeover of health care were on stark display.

Some lawmakers, holding forums during Congress’ August recess, have gone so far as to replace public forums with teleconferences or step up security to keep protesters at bay.

But the Democratic president faced no outbursts.

The encounter was so friendly, in fact, that by the end Obama was even asking for skeptical questioners to come forward — to no avail.

He told his audience reassuringly, “For all the chatter and the yelling and the shouting and the noise, what you need to know is this ... if you do have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need.”

Retooling his message amid sliding support, he addressed some of his remarks to a vital and skeptical audience: the tens of millions of people who already have health insurance and are generally satisfied with the care they get.

He said the overhaul is essential to them, too, contending it is the way to keep control in their hands. Obama said while government bureaucrats should not meddle with people’s care, bureaucrats at insurance companies should not, either.

The president accused critics of creating “boogeymen.”

“Spread the facts. Let’s get this done,” Obama implored the crowd.

Toward the end of the session, Obama went so far as to ask people to give him skeptical questions. The best he got were queries about why he doesn’t chastise Congress more and where the nation would find the additional doctors and nurses it needs.

He reiterated his determination that the plan be paid for without adding to the nation’s soaring deficit.

He took on what he described as erroneous claims that have risen as the debate in Washington and the nation has developed.

He singled out the charge that the Democratic health care legislation would create “death panels” to deny care to frail seniors. Former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has said the Democrats’ legislation includes “death panels” that could deny care.

Obama declared that a provision that he said had caused the uproar would only authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, living wills, hospice care and other issues, if the patients wanted it. It would not “basically pull the plug on grandma because we decided that it’s too expensive to let her live anymore,” as Obama put it.

Comments

jmadison 5 years ago

Who is trying to mislead? No mention in this article that Pres. Obama falsely stated that AARP had endorsed his healthcare plans. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKi4TWhreDcA0doTJ6ph9sOAf-QQD9A0V30G1

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

I'm glad the meeting was civil. I do wonder how Obama can guarantee anything about health care reform (health insurance reform now) with legislators like Barney Frank at work, who has clearly and very recently indicated that his long-term goal for health care reform is to move to a single payer system. I really don't see how the president can dispel any myths about legislation that supposedly doesn't even exist yet. And if it does exist, why not let the public in on it so we can see for ourselves?

0

Bladerunner 5 years ago

Headline should read...."Too friendly crowd." Strange he would have the only crowd not pissed by attempted health care reform. Must have hand picked the audience.

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

Porch, can you define for me "Obama's plan?" That'd be great. Thanks.

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

Oh heck, that's right, I don't really care to hear someone else's interpretation of Obama's (nonexistent) plan. I'd rather see it in writing in front of me. Oh well. So much for transparency in government.

0

sunny 5 years ago

How in the world do you think this ignorant government plan is not going to bankrupt this country? Obamer has already doubled the debt that Bush had (in less than a year).

If his govt plan is so wonderfull, why then won't he, michelle and the girls and the rest of congress be on the same govt handout?

There are a lot of angry people out there (and here)

Have any of you been to a VA hospital? This is going to be what you get!

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

The tenets of the whole foods plan (from link from ardo's 9:41 post) actually sound reasonable.

0

cfdxprt 5 years ago

It's probably easier to get a receptive crowd for the gov't providing handouts when you have it when most people are at work.

0

jimmyjms 5 years ago

"A “friendly crowd”? Try cherry-picked crowd. Talk about staged events…."

The hypocrisy boggles the mind.

0

scott3460 5 years ago

And the conservative/insurance company/big business plan for addressing health care costs and 40+ million citizens without health care coverage is:

The public awaits answers from the crew who have done so much right over the last 8 years.

0

scott3460 5 years ago

"“Have any of you been to a VA hospital? This is going to be what you get!”

Would treatment at a VA hospital be better than none?

0

mitchell09 5 years ago

….”Too friendly crowd.” Strange he would have the only crowd not pissed by attempted health care reform. Must have hand picked the audience.

Are you serious? After the cherry-picked crowds from President Bush? Pot meet kettle. Do you guys have short term memory loss?

0

Alia Ahmed 5 years ago

Tom,

Here's what Fox News, the liberal MSM tool, said about the participants of Obama's town hall meeting were selected.

"About 1,800 people are expected for that midday event in the Democratic-leaning Seacoast region of the Granite State. Of those, 70 percent were given tickets based on a random lottery -- a potentially dicey crowd in a state known for its grass-roots political activism".

You're just upset that the GOP couldn't bus in "grassroot" activists recruited by one of the biggest crooks in the Healthcare industry, Richard Scott, who was the CEO of HCA when they defrauded Medicare of millions of dollars.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/11/obama-braces-health-care-town-hall/

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/anti-reform-group-takes-credit-for-helping-gin-up-town-hall-rallies/

0

jimmyjms 5 years ago

Tom, Lynn Jenkins would like a word with you...

0

jmadison 5 years ago

Pres. Obama had his supporters bussed in. http://www.wmur.com/video/20358253/index.html

Its the typical Kabuki theater performance that our Potemkin politicians on both sides perform.

0

scott3460 5 years ago

"Maybe people are realizing he's lying about this stuff?"

Or maybe the propaganda effort by the health care insurance industry is achieving the desired result (along with the outright lies and thuggery)

0

sunny 5 years ago

scott3460 stop living off of govt assistance.

Why don't you get a job and pay for your own healthcare instead of believing the american people owe you something. We don't! It is not a constitutional right for you to have healthcare or insurance.

No socialized medicine. You already get govt housing, govt medical care, govt cheese, govt govt govt! NO MORE!

0

scott3460 5 years ago

Sunny, do you know whether I have a job, pay for healthcare or receive any government assistance at all? Since I know the answers to those questions, I know that you are someone that speaks without having any grasp of the facts. And, as such, that puts you in the category of fools whose opinion matter not to me. Life will go better for you if you gather facts before you offer your opinions.

0

scott3460 5 years ago

"Or maybe the Community Organizer In Chief is facing an increasingly organized community. Conservatives rarely get together to defeat something, but when they do, Democrats lose. Especially Democrats who lie."

That may be so, there is certainly enough misinformation and outright mind control that goes on at the hands of the mainstream corporate media and their corporate masters. Nevertheless, my point remains, one of the plausible reasons for the slip in the President's health care efforts is not that he's a poor salesman, but rather that the propaganda effort undertaken by the insurance companies to protect their livelihoods, along with the outright lies and public thuggery, is having the desired effect. 20%+/- afterall remained diehard bush supporters to the very end. There are a great number of fools in this country. The desperate nature of the insurance companies efforts, however, suggest that this battle is slipping away from them, not the other way around.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years ago

Thank you, State-Run Associated Press, for labeling those of us opposed to socialized medicine as "health care foes."

Unbelievable.

0

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

Axelrod's puppet says, "Just smile and don't make waves, citizen. You don't want to be the new Kenneth Gladney, do you?"

0

scott3460 5 years ago

"The desperate nature of the insurance companies efforts, however, suggest that they know what Obama is now denying, but Barney Frank is not: The plan will put them out of business."

I understood that the public will have the option to stick with their current plans if they wish, or go with the public option if they choose. Why are the insurance companies thinking the government will put them out of business?

0

sunny 5 years ago

The so called plan will put many americans out of business.

Who do you think is going to pay for this socialized medicine?

0

scott3460 5 years ago

Why are the insurance companies thinking the government will put them out of business? ”

Gee, I dunno. I'd Much Rather compete with someone who prints money.

What does printing money have to do with anything. The insurance companies either can or cannot successfully compete with a government run entity. Which is it?

0

jimmyjms 5 years ago

"“I understood that the public will have the option to stick with their current plans if they wish, or go with the public option if they choose.”

That's false."

Um, how do you figure. It's in both bills.

"Thank you, State-Run Associated Press"

Do you really think that the AP is state run?

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

I think it means, essentially, the government cannot run out of money. It can both "print money" and tax us, and go into insane debt, none of which the private companies can do.

0

sunny 5 years ago

Obamer has stated that he eventually wants every american on 'the plan'. If you lose your current health insurance, you will not have a choice. Your ONLY choice will be the govt 'plan'.

Do your homework!

Obamer needs to figure out how to get rid of the illegals in this country instead of offering them the govt plan!

0

scott3460 5 years ago

"I think it means, essentially, the government cannot run out of money. It can both “print money” and tax us, and go into insane debt, none of which the private companies can do."

Governments run out of money all the time. The headlines for the last 20 years have been about so called budget shortfalls and cutting of services. The ability of a government to print money and borrow endlessly has political limits, as the conservatives prove daily.

I think the issue boils down to private, for profit, insurance companies are deathly afraid of trying to compete against a public entity. Banding together and acting through our government we, the people, can force these companies to compete far more effectively than the current, largely non competetive environment. They would be forced to operate more efficiently and lower costs, or provide better services. Either way, competition would be beneficial to the public.

0

sunny 5 years ago

Frank and Pelosi are a joke. lies and more lies from both of them. They both need medication!

0

sunny 5 years ago

Scott...you really need to do some research.

You have no clue what this is all about do you? This isn't about competition! This is about the Govt (using tax dollars to do it), taking over ALL health care! There will be no choice. If you have no insurance you will not have a choice to shop around for the best deal. The only choice will be the govt health care plan.

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

Porch, glad ya woke up. We've addressed your "outcomes" before. You are looking at things collectively, with no actual true grasp as to the specific causes of these "outcomes," which are affected by many variables. I am concerned with individual liberty and choice in this country. Oh, and transparency. That's a nice one, too.

Thanks anyway.

Take it easy, Porch.

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

Friggin' hilarious Ardo.

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

WANTED: intelligent interpretation of Section 102 of HR 3200 for discussion on "keeping current coverage." Agnostick, invitation is open to you, and anyone else.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

0

Leslie Swearingen 5 years ago

It is understandable that you would feel anger because you hate your job and you are so tired and so exhausted and so fed up with the fools you have to deal with every day, and it seems like lazy slobs who don't have to do anything have more than you do. There needs to be a much better way to make sure that federal assistance goes to those who truly need it. You do have to fill out forms and provide proof and income and such to quality for anything. There is a time limit on how long an individual can get some benefits. I have known people who sold their food stamp cards and used the money to buy alcohol. But I don't know how to prove this, since I just overheard the transaction taking place. There are many more who use those cards to buy the best food they can for their families. Let us only punish those that are the offenders. Let us continue to give help to those that need it.

0

Alia Ahmed 5 years ago

Here's a story in the Helena, Montana newspaper about the President's upcoming town hall meeting. Tickets for the event are being given out on a first come,first served basis. The only mention of people being brought in on buses is by an anti-healthcare reform group.

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2009/08/12/top/60st_090812_obama.txt

"A prominent group opposing the Democrats’ health-reform plans is planning an event in Bozeman to coincide with the president’s visit.

Patients First, a project of Americans for Prosperity, is organizing bus tours in 13 states to promote opposition to health-reform proposals before Congress. One of those tours had been planned in Montana this week, and organizers slightly adjusted the schedule to have a stop in Bozeman on the day of the president’s visit.

Jake Eaton, a former executive director of the Montana Republican Party and coordinator of the event, said the bus tour will feature speakers opposing the reforms as a “government takeover of health care,” and will stop at pre-planned rallies in several cities, from Friday through Monday.

Americans for Prosperity is a nonprofit political group that promotes conservative causes or lobbies against liberal causes. While the group says it has hundreds of thousands of members, it has been funded generously in the past by the Koch family, which controls Koch Industries, an oil-and-gas company and one of the largest privately held firms in the country.

Officials with Patients First have said no Koch family or Koch foundation money has funded its efforts."

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

Ag, and anyone else interested, my questions about this particular section have to do with the ability to "keep current coverage."

I think, if you read it, you will probably come to the same conclusion as I did (and if not, let me know, I don't want to misinterpret): your "current" coverage will not and cannot, remain the same as it is today. Once this bill goes into effect, if it does, if you use employer-based coverage, your plan will have to adhere to the same limitations AND expansions as the public option plan, within 5 years.

So, when it is said "you can keep your current plan" what they are not telling us is that by law, within 5 years of this legislation taking effect, your plan will change.

I think that is where the phrase "liar liar, pants on fire" comes in.

Anyway, if there is a different interpretation of Section 102, I'm interested in hearing it.

0

Alia Ahmed 5 years ago

exhawktown-So, when it is said “you can keep your current plan” what they are not telling us is that by law, within 5 years of this legislation taking effect, your plan will change.

Alia says....my current plan changes every year as it is. The premiums go up, the co-pays go up. How will that be different under the plan you quoted?

0

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

"August 12, 2009 Health Care: The True Obama, Pelosi and GOP Revealed This last week has been a rather disturbing one for America. We have seen and heard things that most of us thought could not ever happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
As the left tries to ram its dictatorial “health care” bill down the nation's throat, the citizenry speaks back to their insolent public officials. Exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and to petition government for redress of grievances, they show up in unprecedented numbers at town halls, telling (and often yelling) at congressmen, who have no real interest in listening, that they absolutely don't want authoritarian government rationing care. What is the response? Do the Democrats acknowledge the hornet's nest they've stirred up and back off? Do they understand that they are supposed to represent these folks and their opposition to the annihilation of private medicine and insurance? Not quite. The White House set up an e-mail address for supporters to rat out opponents, advised Democrats to “punch back twice as hard,” and President Obama arrogantly told these folks to shut the hell up and get out of the way. The Speaker of the House labeled them Nazis, claiming they were carrying signs with swastikas. And the next day, union thugs were sent in to physically intimidate people at packed town halls in places like Tampa, and St. Louis. One man in the latter location was beaten so badly he had to be hospitalized. If this doesn't speak volumes about what Obama, Pelosi and the left are about, and what they intend to do in order to force their world view upon every last one of us, nothing does. And it should scare the hell out of us all.
We have holders of national office, when faced with widespread opposition to their proposals, whose first instinct is to openly slander the America people, view the people as an enemy to be defeated by any means necessary, and tacitly endorse violence to repress them. (None of these town halls, as vocal as they were, turned the least bit violent until the day after the White House said to "punch back twice as hard" and the SEIU union goon squad started showing up. Coincidence?)" http://www.northstarwriters.com/dkk193.htm

0

scott3460 5 years ago

"You have no clue what this is all about do you? This isn't about competition! This is about the Govt (using tax dollars to do it), taking over ALL health care! There will be no choice. If you have no insurance you will not have a choice to shop around for the best deal. The only choice will be the govt health care plan."

And for 48 million people that will be a better deal than there is right now.

What happened when the government took over secondary schooling, or police protection or the Courts or etc....... Are there not better resources available for those who wish to pay for more than the basic safety net? Why is healthcare different? Should the care of a citizen's health be subject to another's profit? What benefit do insurance companies lend to the delivery of health care in our country?

And do you suppose that you do not already support those without medical insurance? If so, you are an even bigger fool than you appear.

Go ahead and imagine that nothing need be done. The current system is unsustainable and after a few more years of less covereage at higher costs you, too, will recognize what must be done.

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

Logan,

The issue is that this law makes any plan I have now obsolete, within five years. If my insurance company wants to change the plan, right now, I have the option to choose a different one, based on all their offerings, OR to buy my own individual plan outside of what my employer offers. I have a variety of plans from which to choose, if I want to pay.

in five years, all minimal plans will look like the public option. No more choices. That's the difference.

0

uneekness 5 years ago

Big picture time. We are not breaking new ground. The rest of the industrialized world has done the heavy lifting. They have better outcomes, less costs. Also, their residents are extremely satisfied with it, and even if they want it altered or improved, they recoil in horror at the thought of changing to ours. There are top-notch medical research facilities around the globe (most of the cutting-edge treatments for my kind of cancer are coming from Germany, for instance), nor do we have a monopoly of drug research, those firms are global.

The right wing arguments haven't changed in 100 years, whether they want to rail against civic water systems, public schools, highways, clean food regulations, etc. But these areas aren't true markets, and their outcomes are often skewed away from larger, long term benefits to the community or nation as a whole. So, as we have done as a nation since the Progressive era, legitimate powers enumerated in the Constitution are utilized to effect a public benefit. (A similar example at the state level: you have no choice in Kansas to drive a car without insurance that meets at least a minimum standard set by the state. Where's the outrage at this blatant crushing of our liberties?) What has been the outcome of all of this mixed-economy experimentation? Since the Great Depression, economic growth unparalleled in the history of the world, outpacing even the US' own growth over the previous 150 years by a factor of 4.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the real reason the right wingers hate this is because once universal health care gets passed and gets off the ground, the sun will come up the next day, businesses will start competing on a more level field with their international competitors, people will be free to start up small businesses without worrying that one illness or accident will take it from them, and on the whole, they will like it, like they do Social Security, Medicare, VA health care and such. And the right wing will be even more marginalized.

So lets get down to brass tacks, right wingers. I've asked this before and gotten nothing. I know your brain hurts from actually having to think in the moment, be fluid, and adapt to changing circumstances. I know it's easier to just memorize bumper sticker slogans. So I'll make this simple: do you believe that a public insurance option will lead to the irreversible economic decline of the US? To unending stagnant or negative GDP growth? (Before you answer, think back to 1993, and how you felt about Clinton's tax increase - the one you probably thought was going to lead to the irreversible economic decline of the US and unending stagnant or negative GDP growth, because that's what the inestimable economist Rush Limbaugh told you.)

Now, what's your answer?

0

scott3460 5 years ago

Excellent post, uneekness.

Let me add one more thing that is near and dear to my heart to the mix:

For much of the last 20 years we have heard conservatives rail against medical malpractice suits. So called "reform" has been passed across the country. How much did our rates drop in response?

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

Uneekness,

Sorry, I don't know if a public insurance option (which, under HR 3200 will be the "gold standard" for insurance coverage) will "lead to the irreversible economic decline of the U.S."

There are more concerns about this legislation than that, I'm sure you know. And no, I don't disagree with this legislation because of any supposed anxiety about the sun coming up the next day, though your post was entertaining.

Let's do get down to "brass tacks." Many right-wingers and libertarians (let's not leave them out) dislike/disagree/disdain this legislation because it imposes on our liberty, dear.

0

uneekness 5 years ago

Thanks Scott. I just don't know what all the histrionics on this are about. These folks don't seem too concerned about our single-payer military, or fire and police protection. At it's core, universal health care advocates just want to get a safety net in place. I can't tell you how much I want to start my own business, but with the cancer I have had and some bad health history of my wife, it's not a matter of having expensive health coverage. No one will even offer it to me. I can't put my family at financial risk like that. So I stay put in my current job.

Funny, if I started a small business and hired some people, and someone else got hired for my job, that might look economic growth to some people. Weird how universal care could have unintended consequences like that...

0

uneekness 5 years ago

exhawktown-

Seeing your live crushed by a for-profit medical system, either by denying you treatment or forcing you into bankruptcy to pay for it, is something Americans fear happening to them, not a cherished freedom they fear losing.

0

scott3460 5 years ago

Exactly right. That is the amazing thing about this "debate." You'd think that most of the business community would see the upside in this for them (just as there is an upside in the public school system - or at least there was till they dreamt up just importing an oversupply of cheap labor.) For the most part the business community is on the sidelines or mildly afgainst the effort. It is quite frightening to consider that so much disinformation and hysteria is being inflicted just because one industry wants to protect their turf. Hopefully there are enough thinking people to overcome the easily manipulated ones who argue against their own interests just because the talking box and hired propagandists tell them to do so.

0

rivercitymom 5 years ago

I have the opposite problem with the plan being proposed than most of you. It isn't nearly progressive enough, as far as I'm concerned. Single Payer all the way!

But the mainstream media doesn't even mention the number of progressive bloggers, people at the townhalls, etc., who are appalled at Obama's backroom deals with the health insurers and Big Pharma. Check this out from Black Agenda Report:

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/top-ten-ways-tell-your-president-his-party-arent-fighting-health-care-everybody

0

Alia Ahmed 5 years ago

Here's an interesting clip of Ronald Reagan in 1963 warning us that if Medicare passed, it will be the start of socialism. How many people 65 and older want to give up their Medicare coverage now? No, instead, they shout, "Keep your hands off my Medicare (as if it wasn't a public option).
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-show-lawrence-odonnell-and-joe-califano

0

uneekness 5 years ago

ardoardoardo, typical Repug, spew first regardless of what was actually said. Poster noted that a quote from Reagan in a 1960's album put out by the AMA, opposing Medicare:

"Write those letters now, call your friends and tell them to write. If you don't, this program, I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until, one day, as Norman Thomas said, we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."

Yep, that's exactly what happened after Medicare passed. He didn't "see the failure of the system". He directly linked the passage of Medicare to Socialism taking over our country in his lifetime. As wrong as always.

Instead, the elderly like their socialized medicine so much that when lied to by Repugs that universal care somehow threatens it, they freak out. Not because they think socialized medicine is a threat to their liberty.

0

TacoBob 5 years ago

Classic comment - the government and private industry compete all the time - take FedEx, UPS and the Post Office for example. "FedEx and UPS are doing just fine......."

The Post Office lost 2+ billion dollars last year, and is contemplating closing up to 1000 facilities and dropping Saturday delivery, despite raising the cost of postage this year. Another bailout in the making.

No matter your stance on health care reform, one has to admit that this was a world-class bad example, right?

Right?

0

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

Keep in mind that Axelrod's puppet and the members of Congress would not be subject to this mad scheme they want to palm off on the rest of us.

0

ENGWOOD 5 years ago

Obama Says "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems." And he wants to reform the Health Care System.Better have another BUd Light there dumass!!!!!!!!!

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

Uneekness, Hours ago, I tried to post, but was unable to access the website. Am truly sorry for any personal tragedies you've experienced. Sincerely.

Do not think all "right wingers" are against any kind of reform. We're not. Too many assumptions are made about those who argue against current health care reform legislation under scrutiny. Believe it or not, I don't like seeing anyone getting screwed over by their insurance company. But those of you who think the government is your answer, who think government officials somehow are not corruptible like insurance company execs and CEOs, well, you're simply putting your eggs in a basket that will likely be dumped on your heads. I don't want to see you, or me, get screwed over by our illustrious government, either.

You might ask what's the difference between an insuarance plan changing (per insurance company's wishes) and an insurance plan changing per governmental mandate. Isn't it clear? The governmental mandate part. Once the government mandates what my plan must and must not include, my choice, your choice, no longer exists. I guess I thought you'd give a sh1t about that. If not, pardon the assumption. OH, I also thought you might care about the part where the folks trying to sell the plan are also lying about choice. I guess you don't mind that discrepancy. Trust them, at your own risk.

Best of luck to you, uneekness.

0

Katara 5 years ago

ardoardoardo (Anonymous) says… “It's in both bills.”

That's a lie.

If your employer dumps your health insurance, you don't keep your insurance. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That happens now and instead of having another affordable option, you go without insurance. Or if you are uninsurable (due to pre-existing conditions), then you go without.

What's your point?

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

The point, Katara, is that those trying to shove this "reform" down everyone's throats are either lying about it, or haven't read it. There are other instances, if you've been reading this thread, where someone would not be able to keep their current plan because of HR3200. (It would be the actual cause of someone losing his/her insurance.)

Again, the point is that some are lying about it, or they haven't read it. Period.

And you trust them?

0

BigPrune 5 years ago

Obama and his handlers are well versed in the Joseph Goebbels propaganda techniques. Of course his audience was hand picked.

0

Katara 5 years ago

exhawktown (Anonymous) says…

The point, Katara, is that those trying to shove this “reform” down everyone's throats are either lying about it, or haven't read it. There are other instances, if you've been reading this thread, where someone would not be able to keep their current plan because of HR3200. (It would be the actual cause of someone losing his/her insurance.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I had to read the bill provision you refer to from Agnostick's link. There is something wrong with the site you linked to. It was crashing my browser.

Anyhow, what you claim this bill will do under Section 102 is not correct.

It clearly states that any employer coverage that is in effect prior to the enactment of this bill is grandfathered and you still retain that coverage. The exception is if that current coverage has less coverage than the proposed government insurance plan, your current coverage must change to meet it.

0

Katara 5 years ago

cont'd. Here is the actual bill portion you refer to: "SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

(b) Grace Period for Current Employment-based Health Plans-

(1) GRACE PERIOD-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

0

Katara 5 years ago

cont'd (B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS PLANS- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the following:

(i) Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5).

(ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including coverage under a specified disease or illness policy described in paragraph (3)(A) of such section.

(iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify.

In no case shall an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the coverage or benefits described in clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable coverage under this division

(2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- During the grace period specified in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health plan that is described in such paragraph shall be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.

(c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage-

(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage."

So, yes, if you are currently covered by health insurance & it meets (or exceeds) the coverage the government plan offers, then you get to keep it.

0

Katara 5 years ago

ardoardoardo,

Aside from the fact that I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, President Obama is not lying about keeping your current coverage. Please be so kind as to read the entire section I copied and pasted from the bill.

0

Katara 5 years ago

I see. Do you enjoy health insurance that covers very little? Do you enjoy having a $10,000 deductible and then maybe getting a 80/20 coverage after that?

I don't and I don't think very many others do. People must settle for substandard plans under the current system due to affordability and availabilty.

If you want to argue that many Americans who have substandard health insurance like it and want to keep it, then I guess I'll give you President Obama is lying with that quote.

Be sure to back that one up with some info showing that many Americans like being forced into bankruptcy due to medical bills, like being denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, like paying high deductibles/or premiums for little to no coverage for many conditions or like having a low cap on their coverage that can be blown by one serious illnes, etc. AND want to keep that type of system.

0

jaywalker 5 years ago

"So, yes, if you are currently covered by health insurance & it meets (or exceeds) the coverage the government plan offers, then you get to keep it."

Not exactly sure how you were able to extract that definitively, Katara, but you're kidding yourself either way.
A large number of businesses, particularly those with government contracts, and a huge number of small businesses that offer employees health insurance ARE going to lose their insurance and be forced to take the public option.... Period! That's regardless of whether their current insurance is 'better'. They may well be forced by default. Take my business. I have a number of employees and a company health plan. We get good breaks since we all have it and are healthy. Obamacare goes through and I will be required by mandate to offer the 'public option'. If the number of people on our company plan drops to or below 75% participation due to a couple opting for Obamacare, we either lose the entire coverage of our current plan or the premiums go way up. If I 'choose' not to offer the 'public option', I get taxed back to the stone age. Such events will be devastating to an awful lot of business owners, not to mention the excessive extra taxes on all of us this exercise in futility is going to spur, and all because this administration and the idiots who won't read the whole thing (if there were a 'whole' thing) but want to "ram it through", (Pelosi), think this is the best way to get the 7.5% w/o coverage under a plan.

Damn straight the President is lying about this. Might not be on purpose 'cuz he keeps talking about "THE" plan and "MY" plan, even though there's no such thing yet. There are like 7 or 8 different "plans" being worked by Senators and reps, but Obama's been quoted as being for a single payer system AND quoted as saying "we probably can't eliminate private insurance within the next five years. It'll probably take 10, maybe 15, maybe 20." Talkin' like this is just an 'option' is obfuscation at the very least.

And one more thing that's more than confusing: if the government wants to wade into this game and offer their own coverage, BUT there are going to be plans in existence that are BETTER...........what's the point? What the hell are they solving if they can't come up with improved health care?

0

fancy80 5 years ago

President Obama isn't lying when he says you can keep your insurance if you want to. He just isn't finishing his sentence. He knows that if he adds "as long as your private Insurance company can stay in business", he won't be able to keep the smirk off his face.

0

jimmyjms 5 years ago

"Better check in with the hopenstasi to see how to spin this…"

Flirting with Godwin there, dimwit.

How's the stock market doing?

0

Katara 5 years ago

jaywalker (Anonymous) says… Not exactly sure how you were able to extract that definitively, Katara, but you're kidding yourself either way. A large number of businesses, particularly those with government contracts, and a huge number of small businesses that offer employees health insurance ARE going to lose their insurance and be forced to take the public option…. Period! That's regardless of whether their current insurance is 'better'. They may well be forced by default. Take my business. I have a number of employees and a company health plan. We get good breaks since we all have it and are healthy. Obamacare goes through and I will be required by mandate to offer the 'public option'. If the number of people on our company plan drops to or below 75% participation due to a couple opting for Obamacare, we either lose the entire coverage of our current plan or the premiums go way up. If I 'choose' not to offer the 'public option', I get taxed back to the stone age. Such events will be devastating to an awful lot of business owners, not to mention the excessive extra taxes on all of us this exercise in futility is going to spur, and all because this administration and the idiots who won't read the whole thing (if there were a 'whole' thing) but want to “ram it through”, (Pelosi), think this is the best way to get the 7.5% w/o coverage under a plan. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First, I'd like you to provide some evidence that your scenario is going to happen.

Second, you don't lose your insurance because the government offers another option. That's incredibly false. You priced yourself out of having any other options. You negotiated a contract for you and your employees that penalizes you for choosing another option for insurance. And you think that is a good thing?

The health insurance company locked you into them and your only other option under the current system is to drop coverage for you and your employees altogether or lock yourself into another exclusive contract with another private company - another company that may still deny coverage for any of your employees that may have pre-existing conditions or don't like the color blue or because it just happens to be Tuesday.

0

fancy80 5 years ago

Katara, since you love to cut and paste. I've asked the white house and to date, have not received a response. Please refer me to the page in the bill (or just cut and paste it) that outlines the safeguards that will be put into place that will guarantee that illegal immigrants (ooops, I mean undocumented workers) will NOT be able to access this healthcare. I have read a good portion of the bill and I see nothing in there that actually will prevent that.

0

Katara 5 years ago

ardoardoardo (Anonymous) says… How about I just tell you that no less than 67 million Americans don't like your plan?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publi… ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ How about you just prove to me that no less than 67 million Americans enjoy filing bankruptcy due to medical bills, high premiums for little coverage, denial for pre-existing conditions or just forgetting to dot the "i" in "insurance" on their initial application and then having their coverage yanked retroactively, etc.?

0

Katara 5 years ago

fancy80 (Anonymous) says… Katara, since you love to cut and paste. I've asked the white house and to date, have not received a response. Please refer me to the page in the bill (or just cut and paste it) that outlines the safeguards that will be put into place that will guarantee that illegal immigrants (ooops, I mean undocumented workers) will NOT be able to access this healthcare. I have read a good portion of the bill and I see nothing in there that actually will prevent that. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

And no, I don't enjoy copying and pasting. It is actually a pain in the butt. But I'm the type of gal who likes to show her work and if someone if referring to a specific section or quote, I like to have it there for everyone to see.

You are free to click on the link provided by either exhawktown or Agnotick if you wish to view the bill. I used Agnostick's link because it worked on my browser. YMMV.

0

rivercitymom 5 years ago

A compelling blog (written by an RN who worked with her husband, a family practice doc) on why SINGLE PAYER is the only way to "fix" health care:

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/the-view-from-the-belly-of-the-beast-part-one/

0

rivercitymom 5 years ago

Exactly my point. I wish we were talking about single payer! But we're not so I don't know why all the "progressives" are going blue in the face defending this half-baked plan.

Read that blog I linked to and see a perspective from the trenches and why insurors WANT medical providers to get exhausted and just give up on fighting for necessary tests and meds for us. Single payer would help medical providers and it would help us. It would NOT continue to overline the pockets of insurers and Big Pharma. Now that Obama's backroom deals with Big Pharma and the insurers are coming to light, well, gee, guess I'm not surprised that single payer is off the table.

0

jaywalker 5 years ago

Katara,

First of all, I've already done my research as it regards my company. I utilize various professionals to advise me on such matters. They are my evidence, go do your own research.

"Second, you don't lose your insurance because the government offers another option."

Didn't say "I" did, nor that we do. What I said is, as is true with all company group policies, we must keep a 75% participation rate or lose it or see rates skyrocket. If I have to "offer" the public plan and people take it, the rest are screwed. I haven't "locked" us into anything, our insurer gives us great policies based on the numbers we're able to include. It works out for both sides. Sorry, not some "evil" conspiracy as you like to believe. Group policies generally give companies much better and comprehensive coverage than individual policies because you go quid pro quo on the central bargaining point: GROUP. It's not "exclusive". We re-up every year as it's prudent, one year contracts with automatic portability for all my employees. Doesn't matter what happens to 'em, they're guaranteed coverage as long as we stay with them and if they quit, get terminated, or the company were to fold they get to take it with 'em.
Oh, and one other caveat I forgot to mention: Obama's health shift is going to require businesses like mine to pay for 100% of my employees care or be taxed by the IRS at 8% my gross earnings, unless......and that's a gigantic "unless"......... we convert to the Obama plan. Explain to me how fair that is?! They know most businesses can't fund 100% of their employee health care nor pay an additional 8% tax off the top of their gross. I take care of 50% right now. I can't possibly go full monty without firing at least one man, maybe more, and that's something I've been able to avoid over the last three years, AND I'm in the construction industry!!!!!! But this garbage is going to force my hand?!! So businesses will be forced to switch to the Obama plan or shut down. Last I heard, the estimate is around 120 million people that will be effected by that rule. That's just swell, but naaaaw; these people ain't lyin' 'bout any of this.
I don't like how people are behaving at these town hall meetings, but I definitely understand why they're so upset. And anybody that thinks this is all some sort of right wing conspiracy, staged by people like Limbaugh, man oh man you just don't have a clue. Obama better grab the reins now and make this horse stop.

"...or don't like the color blue or because it just happens to be Tuesday."

Sarcasm notwithstanding, such a comment displays how open-minded you are on the subject.

0

Katara 5 years ago

jaywalker.... Sarcasm notwithstanding, such a comment displays how open-minded you are on the subject. ~~~~~~~~~~~ You've apparently not had a claim denied that should have been approved.

I had to fight my insurance company to cover the epidural needed for my emergency C-section while they had no problem paying for the epidural during labor.

The reason for denial?

BCBS didn't feel that an epidural during a C-section was medically necessary.

I ended up asking them if they would have covered the bottle of whiskey and the stick for me to bite on instead.

The fight to get them to pay for it tooks months and did damage to my credit.

You seem to mistake using "you" to indicate you personally when it is used to indicate anyone who is claiming they will lose their insurance. Way to try to wriggle out of your statement. I'll use you all or y'all next time. ;)

cont'd

0

Katara 5 years ago

cont'd This is what you (meaning the words that you personally posted) said, "A large number of businesses, particularly those with government contracts, and a huge number of small businesses that offer employees health insurance ARE going to lose their insurance and be forced to take the public option…. Period!"

To which my response was that you (meaning in the plural and general sense) don't lose your insurance simply because the government offers another option.

I am sorry that I confused you (meaning you personally and not referring to any other person).

I understand the concept of group insurance. It is basically bulk buying. Same concept with what is being proposed and the group is much larger than a couple hundred employees. Much better bargaining power, don't you think?

It does bother me though that you are under the impression that your employees are guaranteed coverage even if they quit, get fired or if the company folds. Do you understand that the coverage is COBRA coverage and your employees will not be paying the premiums they pay while currently employed by you.

First, by being no longer employed by you, they lose the 50% you say you pay toward their premium. Their cost for insurance just doubled with that loss.

Second, there is a time limit on COBRA coverage so it can end and leave them without any insurance if they are not able to find a new plan (or new employer that provides them one). At that point, any pre-existing conditions that develop can be denied by the new insurance company, still leaving them without insurance.

I'd really like for you to provide a link to the actual bill that states that you are required to pay for 100% of your employees' care or be taxed at 8% of your gross income.

I understand why people are angry. I am angry, too, at all the misinformation out there. You have people like Sarah Palin telling others that the President's plan includes "death panels". You have people here like Godot stating that having an "end of life" discussion with your doctor is mandatory and if you don't comply with their wishes, they will pull the plug on you. You have other talking heads telling people that government bureaucrats will dictate your every health care decision.

You have people like Sen. Barney Frank telling people that the President wants a single payer plan. You have others telling people that the President's plan guarantees everyone free insurance and healthcare.

You've got people out there so worked up that there is violence happening over simple discussions. People are showing up armed to townhall discussions. Our representatives, who we elected, are not even allowed to speak to explain what they think.

I am skeptical of all these claims. I am not sure if I support the full plan or not but I see benefit in having options - options that I currently do not have for myself or my family and I have probably some of the best coverage ever now.

0

Katara 5 years ago

ardoardoardo (Anonymous) says… Katara, you think that's bad, wait until the Government denies your claim! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That would be a bit difficult for them to do. Under the bill, I keep my current coverage.

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

Coming to the party (again) a little late here.

Katara, I see earlier, you wrote "If you want to argue that many Americans who have substandard health insurance like it and want to keep it, then I guess I'll give you President Obama is lying with that quote."

For those of you still asking, that's the point. So many of you think you know so much better for others what's best for them, to the extent that you're willing accept and even perpetuate lies about this stupid bill, all the while claiming altruistic motivations.

Who in the h3ll are you to make a judgment for someone else about what kind of coverage they have to have? The argument is this: I don't want you, or Barack, or Harry, or Barney, or Nancy or friggin' Hillary to decide for me and my insurance company what I have to have covered, by law!

I do want to thank you, though, Katara. It may have annoyed some, but thank you for cutting and pasting section 102 into this thread. At least, if people want, they have direct access as to the exact language, and can read it for themselves. If you see the ends (what you might think is a health care utopia) as justifying the means (lying to get this bill or a similar one passed) then we disagree on philosophy. What I think you are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you agree with deliberate manipulation and twisting of facts by the president if it means "better health insurance" for you and others.

That simply sucks.

People either have to read for themselves, or they have to rely on who they think they can trust when a 1000+ page bill is being considered. If you are willing to admit you think the president lied about this one tenet of the bill, don't you wonder if maybe there are other things he may be fibbing about, in order to get it passed? Are you curious enough to research further?

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

When you leave so much open to interpretation by putting together a 1000+ page bill, well, sometimes, people are going to interpret it differently than what was perhaps intended.

Palin's comments were made not as a public official, but as a citizen.

I do have a point: This demonstrates why transparency is so important!

0

Katara 5 years ago

You are welcome exhawktown for the cut n' paste. It is useful for people to see the actual verbiage in order to discuss it.

However, per your request, I am correcting you on this statement you made...

"What I think you are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you agree with deliberate manipulation and twisting of facts by the president if it means “better health insurance” for you and others."

I don't agree with any deliberate manipulation or twisting of facts by anyone, even the President, regardless if I benefit or not from it. That's not how I roll.

I don't believe that the President has deliberately manipulated or twisted the facts because I read the part of the bill that the people claim he has lied about. It is pretty clear to me I don't lose my current coverage. And as I read more info about it, I don't believe anyone is going lose coverage.

I also don't believe that many Americans like substandard coverage and want to keep substandard coverage if that is what they currently have and they have an option for something that has better coverage. That doesn't even make sense at all to do so.

It isn't a matter of judging what is best for you. I think you would do what is best for you and your family and that is why I think you would opt for something that provides you better coverage rather than sticking with something that provides you substandard coverage.

0

Katara 5 years ago

That's pretty funny, Agnostick. Wonder what changed her mind?

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

Ag, I'm afraid I might be a little late on this, My point with the link/opinion piece, if you read it, was that transparency is important. Clarity is also important. Palin's language and personal influence was enough to stir enough public backlash against that provision in the previous bill, so it looks like that provision is being dropped. If the bill were clearer, and if the administration and congress had approached this from a standpoint they (at least the prez) campaigned on, (transparency) by encouraging a reasonable amount of time to allow lawmakers and the public to examine and discuss the tenets of the bill before trying to force it through, perhaps this (removal of this piece from future legislation) would not have happened.

And, I’m not saying I’m for this provision. I’m saying this got taken out, precisely because the administration didn’t practice what they preached. I also think this illustrates why we need to find out for ourselves what’s in proposed legislation and not rely on others who we may not be able to trust. . . You also illustrated that point. Thanks.

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

Now, about Palin's stance:

Obama quote from the opinion piece I linked to above: "It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc.," he said, adding, "The intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they're ready on their own terms. It wasn't forcing anybody to do anything." This quote is also on Palin's facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434

From Palin's Facebook: "The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context. . . During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4] Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

Awareness Day vs. legislation. Context.

Do I think Palin's comments about the "death panels" were inflammatory? Yes. Do I think she believed legislation regarding consultation on end of life services, including government benefits available to pay for those services was creepy enough to use such language? Yes. Do I want to read this section of the bill myself to figure out better what is going on? Yes.

0

exhawktown 5 years ago

Katara, Glad you posted again. I was hasty in my rant, and should have thought it out a little better before I wrote. We still disagree on the truth factor of the president's statements. You may not lose your current "coverage" though we agree a person still will not necessarily be able to keep his/her current "plan."

I think it matters because I value choice, even the choice to not carry comprehensive health insurance. I'm not young, so I will always opt for coverage. However, it doesn't make sense to me to require coverage for services a large sectiondifferent sections of the population may not use. It doesn't make sense to me to require anything, because I value choice. If HR3200 really did simply provide more options to everyone, that would be one thing, but that's not all it does. I think it would do a lot of damage, but the one thing I'm addressing is that It mandates minimal coverage for all plans after a certain period of time, thereby limiting personal choice of what your plan can cover. That's why I don't support this particular bill. Some people simply want coverage for catastrophic events. I think that should still be legal, but I don't think it would be under Section 102 of HR3200.

0

notajayhawk 5 years ago

I heard a great comment on the radio the other morning. A listener pointed out that all the politicized debating and partisan bickering on this issue demonstrates exactly why we shouldn't put our healthcare in the hands of politicians.


scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

"That may be so, there is certainly enough misinformation and outright mind control that goes on at the hands of the mainstream corporate media and their corporate masters."

And it sure looks like you've bought into every bit of it.

"Nevertheless, my point remains, one of the plausible reasons for the slip in the President's health care efforts is not that he's a poor salesman, but rather that the propaganda effort undertaken by the insurance companies to protect their livelihoods, along with the outright lies and public thuggery, is having the desired effect. 20%+/- afterall remained diehard bush supporters to the very end."

Funny how it's always the other guys who are indulging in propaganda and thuggery.

"There are a great number of fools in this country."

You've proved that quite nicely.

"The desperate nature of the insurance companies efforts, however, suggest that this battle is slipping away from them, not the other way around."

Seen the polls lately, scottie?

0

Katara 5 years ago

exhawktown,

Thanks for clarifying what you are saying.

I understand your argument about choices however, I think the bill increases my choices for better coverage. I think better coverage is a good thing.

I also understand what you say about the choice for catestrophic policies. People usually get that type of policy because they cannot afford better coverage. To me, that isn't really a choice you get to make. It is one you are forced to make if you want any type of coverage at all.

Catestrophic does not cover pre-existing conditions (even after a waiting period like most group coverage does) and it has a cap on the maximum amount of benefits you can receive and if hit with a serious or even a chronic but not serious medical issue, you can easily smoke through that cap quickly. Once the cap is reached, your policy is cancelled. If you have a policy cancelled, it is that much more difficult to get a new policy.

You still end up with sizable amounts of medical bills and this is one of the reasons people end up filing bankruptcy. Bankruptcy costs affect everyone.

And what puzzles me is that a lot of the people making the argument about restricting choices (such as catastrophic policies) are usually the first ones to get upset about people having to file bankruptcy because they are crushed with medical bills.

I don't think you fall along those lines but quite a few that are vocal in opposing this bill are. They complain about having to pick up the tab for all the "deadbeats" who are forced into medical bankruptcy because of the "choices" said "deadbeats" made for their healthcare.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.