So let me get this straight...I'm broke w/no health insurance...why should I oppose this bill?

[BluegrassDem]

I need to go to the doctor and get checked and have no insurance. As far as I can tell, this bill would subsidize my insurance. Can someone give me a good reason why I need to tell my Congressman to not vote for this bill?

[niyad]

1. according to something I read earlier this week, subsidies won't kick in for three years, for

starters.

[Schema Thing]

11. and how is that a reason for the OP to ask his senator not to vote

for this bill?

[Pirate Smile]

15. So why not make that for decades instead of three years?

[BeyondGeography]

2. Because teh Kos said so

[whirlygigspin]

3. now, don't fuss up about it litlle darlin'

just a gimme that old dollar bill ya have there and I'll give ya 2 brand spankin' new shiny nickels for it.

[Mass]

4. Cause a guy with money and an insurance told you so...

[Clio the Leo]

7. lol exactly. NT

[Eric J in MN]

5. Because the insurance company can still drop you when you get sick.

http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/11/the_senate_bill_1.html

"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will stop insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact."

That's not really a ban on rescissions. "Fraud and intentional misrepresentation of material fact" are precisely the excuses that the insurance companies are using when rescinding policies. Does the Senate actually believe that the insurance companies are telling people that their policy is rescinded because the got sick? No way.

They always claim that it's due to fraud or misrepresentations. For example, one of the many horror stories involves a woman's policy being rescinded because she didn't report a prior case of acne. Her insurance company interpreted this as fraud and rescinded the policy. Fraud! The ban on rescissions is supposed to prevent this.

[Blasphemer]

23. Indeed. And yet they are getting millions of new customers. nt

[scubadude]

6. I'm not an expert on the bill, but I believe you will find that...

there are many millions in very similar situations who won't be covered....

Scuba

[scubadude]

29. What, no callers?

nt

[babylonsister]

8. Here's some bullets from McClatchy...

and I'm with you. I'll take this vs. nothing, which is what I will be faced with soon enough.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/80626.html

snip//


Among the areas of agreement:

_ Requiring most people to have a certain level of health care coverage. In the Senate bill, those who don't would pay a $750 penalty after 2016, up to a maximum of $2,250 per family. The House penalty is on a sliding scale, depending on income.

_ Helping those who have trouble paying for coverage. Both bills offer help to people who earn up to 400 percent of the poverty level, currently about $88,000 a year for a family of four.

_ Creating health insurance exchanges. Though the bills differ in how the exchanges would be set up, they agree that consumers would be able to shop for coverage and rates easily through the exchange, or marketplace. Exchanges would have to offer four kinds of plans, from basic to premium. Basic plans would cover 70 percent of the actuarial value of costs in the House version, 60 percent in the Senate bill.

_ Barring insurers from denying coverage or charging people more because of pre-existing conditions.

_ Ending separate rates because of gender, which now is allowed in most states. In addition, both bills would limit how much more an insurer could charge someone because of age.

[kestrel91316]

9. This bill will apparently prohibit denial of insurance due to preexisting conditions.

FWIW

[Armstead]

10. because you will be forced to buy insurance you can't afford -- even with a subsidy

A mandate might make sense if, like SS and taxes, it wwere based on a percentageb of hyour income and offered real public coverage.

But this will force you to buy insurance, and the subsidy is not likely to lower it enough to make it affordable.

[Romulox]

12. Your purchase will be *subsidized*, but you'll still be required to purchase, employed or no.

:hi:

[Inuca]

16. Mandates are not evil

they go hand in hand with no longer being denied for pre-existing conditions. Do you think it makes sense for people to go and get coverage when they have a health problem and drop it when they get better only to get again when they get sick once again?

[Romulox]

18. I don't think it makes sense that we are going to save money by ordering people to buy a for-profit

product.

If it is a public good (which is what you imply with your "tragedy of the commons" scenario,) the public should pay for it. That means with taxes. And that means without private insurers making billions off of captive customers. :hi:

[Inuca]

25. I absolutely agree

in principle and we could have all the pie, eat it, and lose weight at the same time :-). I am NOT AT ALL happy with what has been happening with HRC recently. Actually I am mad as hell. The reason I keep defending what I think is still good in this bill in spite of all its flaws and in spite of it getting worse by the day is that I believe that it would still be an important step forward in spite of its glaring imperfections. And that in the longer run it would be much better to have this frustratingly imperfect bill than not to have anything at all. That's all.

By the way: :hi: back at you.

[LooseWilly]

33. So get rid of the mandates...

let the companies offering the insurance that won't be denied cover those costs without those of us outside the system being forced in to help subsidize the costs of the companies offering it to their employees...

Or provide a public option to control costs for those of us who are supposed to be forced into buying cold and without any group buying power...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. I'd be fine with a mandate IFF the insurance companies were as heavily regulated

as they are in Europe with premiums based on income, no deductibles, no denials of coverage without clear evidence of fraud, and only modest co-pays.

Mandating insurance coverage for individuals with no such controls is giving the companies a license to print money.

For a single person, the subsidy stops at about $44,000. The top limit for out of pocket expenses for people who are above that line is more than I'm paying now and it STILL has a deductible.

The Senate is a millionaires' club, so what sounds affordable to them doesn't sound affordable to anyone else.

[andym]

34. We should lobby to try to get some of these things

Your points:

premiums based on income,
no deductibles,
no denials of coverage without clear evidence of fraud,
and only modest co-pays

[ZombieHorde]

30. I would feel better about the HCR bill if it had "reasonable" co-payment caps,

and no annual caps.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. Do you know what your subsidy level will be?

Just because you're broke doesn't mean the government won't decide you make "too much" for a full subsidy. You may end up with yet another monthly bill you can't afford. OTOH, if your income is 133% of FPL or less you'll probably qualify for Medicaid.

Edit: Also, insurance isn't the same as coverage. There's nothing stopping insurance cos. from dicking you around with paperwork and barriers before they pay for your health care.

[madmom]

24. You can only receive medicaid if you have kids..if you don't ...oh well!

[Pirate Smile]

14. You are exactly who this bill is going to help. People want to ignore that fact right now.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[OneGrassRoot]

21. Some of us don't want to ignore it at all and are trying to find positives....

rather than feel fear about the mandate situation.

There are still many unknowns, so I suppose that's why no one has answered my many pleas throughout the board this morning, asking how this is, on balance, better and not worse than the current situation given the mandates that will be imposed.

My situation is that I'm self-employed, have been without insurance for 10 years, and there is no way on Earth I can afford anything more than $100 a month beyond my current expenses (and I use the term "afford" here lightly). I'm a typical paycheck-to-paycheck person and there are tens of millions of others out there like me. I'm mid-40s and with pre-existing conditions, so my premium wouldn't be the lowest, no doubt.

If I were mandated to pay $100 for a public option type of a system that focused on HEALTH CARE rather than continued the current INSURANCE approach to things, I would be encouraged. Being required to pay into a system that is corrupt, with the chance being very good that it will be more than $100 and that I STILL wouldn't be able to obtain any health care without further financial damage, isn't a move in the right direction for me.

I know many can be helped with the proposed changes that have managed to remain in the bill. That's wonderful. But if millions of others, like me, actually go from a bad situation to a worse situation....I don't see a reason to get excited about this bill.

If everyone benefited even an itsy-bitsy bit, that is progress. Sad, but progress nonetheless. For some to benefit yet others incur more harm, to me that isn't progress.

I've been asking for someone to please address my concern, to no avail. Trust me -- I don't like feeling as I do.

Maybe this is viewed that anything is a foot in the door, and we would then have to trust that more positive, incremental changes are made before any of these potential negatives take effect?

Don't mean to be Debbie Downer, but I am indeed very concerned that so many of the positives have been removed, but the negatives remain in the form of this mandate situation.

Thanks in advance for any information to shift my perspective. :)

[LooseWilly]

37. I'm in nearly the same position.

I'm a little younger, but under-employed independent contractor. On a good month I might be able to sock away a couple of bucks to cover the slow month that comes next... elsewise I'm burning through money I socked away when I was younger just to get by. 10 years ago I gave up on crappy private insurance that was running around $50-75/month, with a $5k deductible per year, and a limit on total outlays per year.

10 years later I can only imagine what the rates for private insurance are (between rises in fees, and hikes for being older), and I doubt that the mandated coverage level will accept the "ultra-crappy Emergency only coverage" plan that I decided I couldn't afford. $100 a month seems EXTREMELY optimistic... though I'm refraining from doing any research to find out how out of the ball park it might be.

If this shit passes, and the fees mandated are anywhere near where I suspect they will be... I'll probably take the tax penalty... or maybe I'll have to get even more "creative" with my solutions.

Talk of subsidies doesn't feel very re-assuring. Somehow I can't help but suspect it will be like trying to figure out how to fill out financial aid forms in college... and likely forms that will change from year to year... and what other considerations... challenges to be sorted out... or other bureaucratic nightmares to expect... another detail that I'd rather not think about.

No... all told I'd say kill this bill and let me die without health care... or eliminate the mandates and let the Democrats try to help the mainstreamers who face recissions and what have you... after all, independent contractors are never taken into consideration when benefits are being crafted by the Big 2 parties... at least leave us out of financing the benefits for others... (be consistent)

Sorry I can't offer anything more than commiseration...

:+

[OneGrassRoot]

41. I'll take commiseration....

We self-employed types are usually left out of consideration. I agree with your take.

:hug: to ya!

:hi:

[LooseWilly]

36. No, this bill helps people who already have insurance and face the possibility of be recissioned.

Or of being denied insurance that they might be offered because of "pre-existing conditions".

If you have no insurance, you'll be required to get insurance... and keep insurance... and get it from private companies... who will still be allowed to spike the rate if you have a pre-existing condition... or even if you're just a higher risk... and you'll have to pay for that mandatory insurance, or face a tax penalty... or jail time.

That's not help.

Subsidy information seems to still be rather vague...

[jefferson_dem]

19. Because OBAMMA IS A CORPORATISST!!!1!

n/t

[readmoreoften]

27. NO, HE'ES NOT! HE'ES ARE GRATE SAVYUR!!!11!!!!

[zulchzulu]

22. People opposing this bill based on their selfish utopian purist tendencies...

...don't really give a shit about you.

I'm for Single Payer and have been for years. That said, anyone with a third grade level of understanding politics knew right off the bat that all this healthcare reform will have to be incremental due to REALITY. But, if you live in some sophmoric utopian purist World, the President apparently has the powers of a King. Except only when he's a Liberal...

So, instead of getting the bill passed and amending it and perhaps eventually getting Single Payer, you should vote against this less-than-perfect bill and kick the idea of any healthcare reform down the road for another 15 years.

So what is millions of people will not have the insurance companies be able to reject them due to pre-existing conditions. So what if other benefits such as cost controls on pharmaceuticals are taken away. The hell with it. People wanted their pony and they want it now!

[PassingFair]

42. People with "pre-existing conditions" will pay 3X more than others.

This bill is a GIVE-AWAY to insurance companies and
won't help.

They will "have" to insure people with pre-existing
conditions, but not if they can't pay the inflated prices.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Yes, just one of the minefields buried in this monstrosity

along with ridiculous ideas of what is "affordable."

[dpbrown]

26. 1. Subsidies can be cut. 2. You can be priced out regardless. 3. It's not reform, it's a handout

A bill that enslaves citizens to an industry that has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of us is worse than no bill at all. Mandating health insurance with no guarantee of health care is the ultimate betrayal. If this is the best Democrats can do with a massive mandate for "change" then it should be spiked right now rather than appease that traitor Lieberman any further.

[Shagbark Hickory]

28. Here are some reasons why....... in plain english......

1.)If they are private for-profits, they will drop you or jack up your rates if you start filing claims

2.) If they are private companies, the government is going to be paying them with your tax dollars so they can block reform in the future.

3.) If there is a mandate, you will be forced to patronize a private for-profit company.

4.) You probably won't be able to afford it even with subsidies.

5.) You probably won't qualify for subsidies.

That's all I got for now.

[Honeycombe8]

31. If you're broke, you can't participate in the subsidy. You have to be able to pay for ins.

You will be fined if you don't get insurance.

If you're TRULY broke, then you already qualify for Medicaid, don't you? No subsidy. It's free.

[AbbeyRoad]

35. Being a poor adult alone does not qualify you for Medicaid

I found this link that shows who qualifies.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/02_AreYouEligible_.asp#TopOfPage

[sandnsea]

40. It will after this bill is passed

for those up to 150% of poverty. It's sad that so-called progressives would distort this bill so badly. This thread is full of garbage.

[Waiting For Everyman]

32. Because the price for it is screwing over millions of other Americans

who will be forced to pay most of their available income to these blood-sucking insurance companies, and god forbid if they can't, then be sanctioned by the IRS or forced into jail. Debtors' prisons. Imagine that for a moment. Who will be thrown into it next, for inability to pay some extortion demand?

Still want that doctors' appointment?

I don't, and I would get the same benefit from this as you.

Sometimes, we need to stand up for each other just because it's right... even if that doesn't directly benefit us personally. We're all in one boat, and we can't scalp each other to get our own particular needs met.

Why isn't there one big U.S. buy-in pool which anyone who wants to can be part of CHEAPLY? Tell me why. All it takes is the government to set it up, and anchor the costs to Medicare. But instead, we're turned against each other? NO! That is not reform.

There has to be a line in the sand somewhere. And this is it. Beyond that line is unacceptable. It's like the saying, "you have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything".

We are selling our birthright with this, and for not much.

[bigwillq]

38. Who told you not to support it?

:shrug:

[Greyhound]

39. Because, if you're really broke, you will still not have any insurance, you will still

be sick and have to go to the emergency room, and everybody that isn't broke is going to have to give the insurance companies even more money to continue to ignore you until you eventually die. Tax credits are worthless to those that pay little income tax.

Is that clear enough?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. This bill is a passive-aggressive attempt to discredit health care reform

Everyone is required to buy health insurance, but the insurance companies are under no obligations to make it affordable or usable.

Look at my post above. If the bill mandated insurance AND put the insurance companies in a choker collar the way the German system does (limits on what they can charge people based on income, no denials or rescissions, prompt payments to providers, no deductibles, modest co-pays) , then I'd reluctantly accept it as an alternative to single-payer.