5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform

So, it's 2011 and I have the questions for the American folks here, have you lost the aforementioned 5 freedoms?
:lol: Of course not.

The Health Care reform as it was passed was half arsed.
True, but it's a step in the right direction.

Good time to resurrect this thread. Now that Republicans have the House they're going to throw everything they've got behind repealing/chopping up HCR. Next week the House GOP is holding a "closed" vote (no amendments, no debate) on the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act. I'm trying to get over the painfully childish name. The closed vote is made all the more ... interesting by Boehner's pledge to keep the House open. According to him, it will only be open "at his discretion".

Anyway, the CBO has stated that total repeal of HCR would add 230 billion to the deficit by 2021. Boehner dismissed the CBO's analysis as an "opinion", then claimed that repeal would actually reduce the deficit. Of course he offered no thorough economic analysis to refute the CBO; he just pulled the statement out of his ass.

Politico said:
The House Rules Committee meets Thursday on the health repeal legislation with a procedural vote scheduled for Friday and a floor vote next Wednesday. The new Republican rules will say that no bills can pass if they add to the deficit, but Republicans are making an exception to their own rules for the repeal bill.
Imagine that. :rolleyes:
 
From this very moment, the democrats should begin to pin every single repeal law from the GOP as un-American. You can do a lot with a name.

Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act? What about Killing poor people who can't afford insurance Act? The democrats are too soft. In most nations, that works, but in the US, there's no point in it. Some dirty politics is what's needed, the GOP has gotten away with it for a long time, so it is time for the democrats to do the same. It's all about changing minds, and to do that, they'll have to take a lead from the GOP.

What's a victory? A victory is if the American people get back to the position they held before Glenn Beck and his friends at FOX said "death panel" one gazillion times, and that was before GOP politicians got into the studios to comment on it.
 
I pay for health insurance because it is illegal not to have it, it has to have prescription coverage even though the prescription coverage covers less than is covered by my AAA card, and I get regularly surprised by them changing their mind about what doctors they cover which is awesome because then I get unexpected bills.
I had to go get blood tests ordered by a dermatologist because they decided to stop covering my primary care doctor, I got a letter today that seems to hint they will not be covering the tests anyway.

This is not the federal bill, this is the democratic majority state of MA bill. This is the health care I heard occasionally being referred to as better than the original health care bill before it got cut up. If this is true (I'm sorry i can't decipher the absurdly long bill of legal speak without my eyes crossing) I have NO IDEA why anyone wanted this health care. It doesn't help it just makes things harder and more complicated.
 
This is not the federal bill, this is the democratic majority state of MA bill. This is the health care I heard occasionally being referred to as better than the original health care bill before it got cut up. If this is true (I'm sorry i can't decipher the absurdly long bill of legal speak without my eyes crossing) I have NO IDEA why anyone wanted this health care. It doesn't help it just makes things harder and more complicated.

But you are covered, no? Rather than under what the GOP want which is for you not to be covered. (Ideally, still by paying anyway.)
 
Most Americans want health care, not coporate welfare, which is what this law is. By making it mandatory to purchase health insurance from an insurance company is corporate welfare.
 
But you are covered, no? Rather than under what the GOP want which is for you not to be covered. (Ideally, still by paying anyway.)

I am "covered" as in I have insurance. The insurance doesn't actually seem to cover anything even though it says that is full coverage, I think I may be covered if I get hit by a bus or something. So what I have is pretty much what you are describing, I am not covered but I am still paying anyway.
 
Those damn socialist Founding Fathers....

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

I saw this on NPR a few days ago and I think this is the original story they were talking about.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/22/133141262/can-congress-mandate-health-insurance

The short version is Congress new that the US would need a strong merchant marine for trade and since we had almost no Navy a gov't merchant fleet would be out of the question. Seamen kept getting hurt or sick and captains often didn't have the manpower they needed.

Enter the ?An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.?

Please stop the snickering in the back over the title. We all realize the relief of seamen is somewhat amusing.

If you wanted to be a seamen then you had to buy federally mandated health insurance which cost about one percent of your monthly pay.

If you didn't pay your premiums then they wouldn't let your ship dock.

If a sailor was hurt or sick they checked to make sure the premiums had been paid then gave the sailor a voucher to go to one of the mostly public Marine hospitals run by the Feds.
 
The problem is by now the government is too fucked up to pass such a thing correctly, so you end up paying a large amount of money for the mandatory insurance then it doesn't cover anything so you have to pay even more than you originally paid for it in doctor bills :|
They are putting a shiny name on what is basically the insurance they passed out in elementary school for if you get hit by a bus.
 
(The shop I work in has a TV that plays the news 24/7. It has picked up a story about a judge ruling that the Obama health care bill was unconstitutional.)
Customer: ?Well good! It is unconstitutional! You can?t force anyone to get health care if they don?t want it. This country is becoming too socialist! We don?t need any socialist programs!?
Me: *avoiding the topic* ?Your total comes to [total].?
Customer: ?Alright, here you go.?
(The customer hands me her food stamps card.)
 
Yeah that's our government for you. Apparently you can get disability if you have a kid with ADD, but I know a kid who they wouldn't give it to who was severely autistic. There is no logic in the way they do things.
 
Those damn socialist Founding Fathers....

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

I saw this on NPR a few days ago and I think this is the original story they were talking about.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/22/133141262/can-congress-mandate-health-insurance

The short version is Congress new that the US would need a strong merchant marine for trade and since we had almost no Navy a gov't merchant fleet would be out of the question. Seamen kept getting hurt or sick and captains often didn't have the manpower they needed.

Enter the ?An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.?

Please stop the snickering in the back over the title. We all realize the relief of seamen is somewhat amusing.

If you wanted to be a seamen then you had to buy federally mandated health insurance which cost about one percent of your monthly pay.

If you didn't pay your premiums then they wouldn't let your ship dock.

If a sailor was hurt or sick they checked to make sure the premiums had been paid then gave the sailor a voucher to go to one of the mostly public Marine hospitals run by the Feds.
Great read, thanks rover. But, this:

"Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution."

:D

Yeah that's our government for you. Apparently you can get disability if you have a kid with ADD, but I know a kid who they wouldn't give it to who was severely autistic. There is no logic in the way they do things.
If Penn & Tiller is to be trusted, you can get that very same status if you have trouble with overspending money. I'd like that, would be nice to park in disabled parking spaces.
 
They don't give you a parking spot thing for that sort of thing I don't think, you need to be physically handicap for that. I am pretty sure that I am messed up enough to qualify for one now I have a diagnosis now though :D
 
I went to the doctors on Friday, he ordered some blood tests, changed my prescription as he felt that the tablets were possibly causing some of my symptoms, I get the tablets do the Bloods and go back in a month - cost less than 10.65 GBP for the prescription, auto repeat for a year (365 tablets, one per day).

You GOP Americans are completely right - you do not want to pay for other people's illness, sod off socialism. :( My total expense for the service is the cost of the prescription 10.65 GBP - how much in the US for the same facility/service?
 
Last edited:
Seriuos business: Presently I'm uninsured, but working on finding insurance. Do I run afoul of the law? Does the law offer me any remedies? etc.
 
Those provisions haven't even kicked in yet. They have to set up the health insurance exchanges first. I think you have at least two years before the potential, they are lots of exceptions to those penalties, kick in.
 
Double post

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20Dubinsky.html?src=twrhp

Redwood City, Calif.

THIS isn?t the story of a poor family with a mother who has a dreadful disease that bankrupts them, or with a child who has to go without vital medicines. Unlike many others, my family can afford medical care, with or without insurance.

Instead, this is a story about how broken the market for health insurance is, even for those who are healthy and who are willing and able to pay for it.

Most employees assume that if they lose their job and the health coverage that comes along with it, they?ll be able to purchase insurance somewhere. The members of Congress who want to repeal the provision of last year?s health insurance law that makes it easier for individuals to buy coverage must assume that uninsured people do not want to buy it, or are just too cheap or too poor to do so.

The truth is that individual health insurance is not easy to get.

I found this out the hard way. Six years ago, my company was acquired. Since my husband had retired a few years earlier, we found ourselves without an employer and thus without health insurance.

My husband, teenage daughter and I were all active and healthy, and I na?vely thought getting health insurance would be simple.

Why did we even need insurance? First, we wanted to know that, if we had a medical catastrophe, we would not exhaust our savings. Second, uninsured patients are billed more than the rates that insurers negotiate with doctors and hospitals, and we wanted to pay those lower rates. The difference is significant: my recent M.R.I. cost $1,300 at the ?retail? rate, while the rate negotiated by the insurance company was $700.

An insurance broker helped me sort through the options. I settled on a high-deductible plan, and filled out the long application. I diligently listed the various minor complaints for which we had been seen over the years, knowing that these might turn up later and be a basis for revoking coverage if they were not disclosed.

Then the first letter arrived ? denied. It never occurred to me that we would be denied! Yes, we had listed a bunch of minor ailments, but nothing serious. No cancer, no chronic diseases like asthma or diabetes, no hospital stays.

Why were we denied? What were these pre-existing conditions that put us into high-risk categories? For me, it was a corn on my toe for which my podiatrist had recommended an in-office procedure. My daughter was denied because she takes regular medication for a common teenage issue. My husband was denied because his ophthalmologist had identified a slow-growing cataract. Basically, if there is any possible procedure in your future, insurers will deny you.

The broker then proposed that the three of us make individual applications. Perhaps one or two of us might be accepted, rather than the family as a group.

As I filled out more applications, I discovered a critical error in my strategy. The first question was ?Have you ever been denied health insurance?? Now my answer was yes, giving the new companies reason to be wary of my application. I learned too late that the best tactic is to apply simultaneously to as many companies as possible, so that you don?t have to admit to a denial.

I completed four applications for each of the three of us, using reams of paper. I learned to read the questions carefully. I mulled over the difference between a ?condition? and ?something for which you have sought treatment.? I was precise and succinct. I felt as if I was doing a deposition: Give the minimum true information, and not a word more. I was accepted by exactly one insurance company. So was my daughter, although at a 50 percent premium over the standard charge for a girl her age. My husband was also accepted by one insurer but was denied by the company that approved me.

Our premiums, which were reasonable at first, have increased substantially over the last six years; the average annual increase has been 20 percent. I now am paying premiums that are more than double what they were initially. And because these are high-deductible policies, we still are paying most of the medical bills ourselves.

The new health care reform legislation is not perfect. Nothing that complex could be. But I have no doubt that the system is broken and reform is absolutely essential. If we are not going to have universal coverage but are going to rely on employer plans, then we must offer individuals, self-employed people and small businesses a place to purchase insurance at a reasonable price.

If members of Congress feel so strongly about undoing this important legislation, perhaps we should stop providing them with health insurance. Let?s credit their pay for the amount that has been paid by the taxpayers, and let them try to buy health insurance in the individual market. My bet is that they all would be denied. Health insurance reform might suddenly not seem to them like such a bad idea.

Donna Dubinsky, a co-founder of Palm Computer and Handspring, is the chief executive of a computer software company.
 
Sitting on such a panel would seem to put a doctor in conflict with the Hippocratic Oath in spirit, if not in letter.
 
Top