I didn't want to say this but I will...

[vaberella]

I didn't want to say it because this board is already as contentious and divisive as ever. Much like Congress and Dems we all have dissenting views, opinions, and thoughts. I tend, for the most part, respect the varying thoughts. Those I don't, I have no problem in letting you know. However, in this case...Maybe it's because I've read too many threads of "Because of Stupak, I'm against this bill." Or because of this or that this bill was crap. Or Kucinich was right and the bill is bad and we shouldn't support it....I've just had enough. I had enough over the weekend that I disclosed some personal info, but I think I've reached my point for real.

So I felt I should say what I'm about to say...after reading a post that rubbed me the wrong way. Although I'm sure that wasn't the posters intention---but it bugged me.


People who oppose this bill over the Stupak amendment----are basically setting up people with preexisting conditions to the death panels already in existence without health reform.

Seriously. I think the Stupak (Stupad---in my book) amendment is shite. Many here have assured me that it won't make it past Senate...but we're never too sure until the final votes and information come through. But I can say this, I support the House Bill no matter what.

I'm really tired of this. I really don't like disclosing my info. But I will say, I'm one of the people who has rationed their meds for years and I've rationed the care I desperately need for the same reason. If I get a doctors appointment once a year for a check up---that's amazing. I get and if the doctor gives me a clean bill of health aside from my PCOS I just continue on with what I was doing. I haven't been to the dentist since I was 8 years old and I'm 29 now.

A few of us with pre-existing on this board who don't have insurance also have family members in the same boat. We're basically standing in line of a "death panel" built into the system we currently have. And when I see people unwilling to give a little for this "perfect" bill....I get more livid. When I see people suggest..."NO BILL is better than this one..." I could get violent.


I've complained before but I'm getting more and more unnerved. I hate th Stupad amendment, but bloody hell I prefer the House bill to the Senate and feel it does more for the millions of us without insurance and with pre-existing conditions. Others here can afford to wait, others think we actually can wait and have plenty of time ahead of us----there's enough to suggest that Dem seats are precarious at best and if any seats are lost there will NEVER be reform----perfect or otherwise.

As a clue, this bill barely passed the Senate. We had Conservadems/Blue-dogs (whatever those Repubs are calling themselves now) holding it hostage over the Stupad amendment and if we didn't win those two seats last week or the week before, we'd probably barely make it through, since Kucinich decided to fuck a few of us over.

God...I think I need a break from DU, because this breaking me more than PCOS.

[intheflow]

1. Unrec Patrol out in force on this thread.

x(

[vaberella]

11. They always will be...Whatever. n/t

[bjobotts]

71. Kucinich didn't fuck any of us over...he like Pelosi knew it had the votes to pass so could vote aga

[bjobotts]

72. You really show your ignornace on how the system is gamed.

[bjobotts]

73. Once Pelosi got the votes she needed she went around telling some to vote agaisnt it to ensure reele

[bjobotts]

74. I believe Pelosi expects the Stupak to be eliminated by the senate

[bjobotts]

76. I beleive she was assured it would be.Becoming better informed requires effort.

[bjobotts]

77. This bill is crap in so many ways BUT it opens the door for gov, involvement which

[bjobotts]

78. can be expanded on later.SS bill was shit too when first passed.

[bjobotts]

80. Say what you will but our legislators must feel the pressure of disappointment or they won't change

[bjobotts]

81. Maybe if it said no men over 30 would be covered if subsidized that would be a

[bjobotts]

82. deal breaker for you.Reform should not include condemnation of rights.

[bjobotts]

83. It's not ins. reform when you tell people what procedures the gov.won't allow

[bjobotts]

84. Take heart:Reconciliation is for budgetary issues only and Medicare is a budgetary program

[bjobotts]

85. So Medicare for all can be passed using reconciliation which requires only 51 vote majority

Thom Hartmann's idea

[Egnever]

133. Talk about ignorance...WTF was that?

do you not know how to use a message board?

[Egnever]

134. are you talking to yourself?

[intheflow]

88. A) You're attacking the wrong person.

I never said Kucinich fucked anyone over. I was supporting the OP for speaking her opinion on how the bill will help her, in her situation.

B) Your use of multiple posts with titles only to convey what any normal DUers would put a single post with a title and body. Like what you have to say is sooooooooooooo much more important than anyone else's opinion can't be contained in a single post! :eyes:

That's really poor netiquette. :thumbsdown:

[DireStrike]

100. Please use the "message" body for your posts.

A lot can fit into the subject line, but a lot more can fit in the body.

You get one post per reply to someone.

[dsc]

2. I think you need to respect other people's personal stories too

there are many people on this site for which abortion is every bit as personal as health care is for you. I would support the bill in a close call due largely for the fact I think the elimination of pre existing conditions is so important. But I respect that someone who knows a person who had an illegal abortion or had one themselvs might find this so problematic as to not vote for the bill. In short, we all have rights to our personal stories and views.

[vaberella]

9. Did I ever say I don't support abortion rights?

Far from it. However in some cases, when people are rationing meds---it's life or death and this is their best chance. If you use life or death for abortion, I will say that as horrible as the Stupad amendment is, if your health is at risk---you're going to die is what I mean. You're covered. I'm not marginalizing this. But again, this is the lives of men and women in this nation. I realize for some it's a tough choice. For me, not so much since I'm one of them. As an addition, my mum benefited greatly from abortion rights in the 80s. She needed it twice after my baby sister because of her health. So I can personally relate on that front.

[dsc]

17. and health isn't covered

which is one of the big sticking points many on this board have. Again, I am not accusing you of not favoring abortion, but I am saying you are putting your life story ahead of others who consider their life stories equally valid. I think you should be able to understand why for some people this is a bridge too far.

[treestar]

126. A person who had an abortion might also need other health care later

What person would need only abortion in their lifetime?

[Ms. Toad]

87. There is a difference between treating life and death illnesses

and paying for abortions.

I have faced both issues, as a rape survivor, and as the mother of daughter who has an illness that costs $60,000 a year to treat - in a year when nothing goes wrong. In a bad year - well let's just say someone with the same disease, 4 years older, just had his 3rd liver transplant over the weekend.

I absolutely believe that there should not be a financial test to whether one has access to non-medically necessary abortion - but if there is no money to pay for the abortion there are always other options. Carrying to term, raising the child, or giving the child up for adoption. It should not fall to the private sector, but I suspect there will also be a number of non-profits that crop up that will provide abortions at free or reduced costs. Back alley abortions existed primarily because abortion was illegal; while it may be a financial hardship under the bill, it is not currently illegal.

There are no other options for my daughter. Her treatment is so costly (and her disease so rare) that no one is going to be creating any charities that will pay to keep her alive. Her annual medical care costs costs about the same as 172 abortions. When she reaches the stage at which she needs a transplant, she will not be listed until she cannot establish that she has the financial means to pay for the aftercare from a transplant ($100,000 a year - after the $250,000 a year for the transplant). IF she can establish financial means, she will not be permitted to get the transplant and she will die - there are no life prolonging measures (like dialysis) for a failing liver, and no alternatives as there are in the case of abortion.

Yes, abortion is an important issue, and yes - it is every bit as personal - but please do keep things in balance. If the question is between sentencing people to death if they can't come up with $60,000 a year v. sentencing them 9 months of inconvenience if they cannot come up with $350, as someone who has faced both I can tell you the balance is not even close.

[dsc]

111. what about sterility is that a good enough tradeoff

there isn't a health exception, only life. So it could be a heck of a lot more than 9 months of inconvenience.

[Ms. Toad]

113. Sterility is still better than death

It is also a possibility, not a certainty; the incidence of pregnancy caused sterility is very low. I am not discounting the personal impact that can have on a woman. Finding yourself pregnant when you don't want to be is gut wrenching. But carrying that pregnancy to term because you don't have $350-$500 to pay for an abortion, and becoming sterile as a result would be a rare, tragic, event. It would certainly impact that woman for the rest of her life, but at least she has a rest of her life to be impacted.

There is a 23 year old man with the same disease as my daughter who had his third liver transplant this weekend.

Fortunately, he has medical coverage. Without medical coverage he would have been dead three times by now. No one will list you for a transplant if you cannot establish your ability to pay, not only for the transplant, but for the lifetime of autoimmune medication and follow-up treatment you will need. There are no alternatives to a liver transplant. No dialysis (which would be costly, in and of itself), no lifestyle changes (at least not for this particular disease) as alternatives or life extending options. If you need a liver, as my daughter almost certainly will (at least once), and you cannot get listed because you do not have insurance or a means to provide for ongoing care, you will die. Certainty, and death.

Frankly, I'd trade sterility for the disease my daughter has in a heartbeat. From conversations I've had with her - she would too. Yes, making abortion more difficult to obtain by eliminating access insurance coverage for it will create some personally tragic times, and some tough choices. On the other hand, my daughter, and far too many others like her have no choices without new laws that establish community based rating, bans on exclusions for pre-existing conditions, elimination of lifetime caps, and subsidies. There really is no comparison.

I suspect if you asked an impoverished woman who would be impacted both by the lack of insurance and potentially by the exclusion of abortion from the coverage of that insurance if she would prefer to wait for insurance until that insurance would pay for abortions the answer would be "No."

[lumberjack_jeff]

116. Planned Parenthood, NARAL and similar organizations

have a collective budget of roughly $1,000,000,000

There are roughly 800,000 abortions in the US each year.

Do the math. Money shouldn't be an issue.

How many women currently have insurance which covers abortion? What percentage of abortions are currently paid for out of pocket? How many women carry a child to term because they couldn't afford an abortion?

Unless we know these things, we can't understand the impact.

[kickysnana]

3. I didn't want to say this but I will...

I told you so. (So I don't have to say it next year at this time)

What you think is in this bill is not in this bill.

Think donut hole and all the transplant patients and other people with huge pharmacy bills who have died under Part E because they no longer could afford their meds.

Now you will be required to pay for coverage that denies you many, many things with no recourse.

[cleveramerican]

4. Get what we can right now.

That is my simple goal.

[vaberella]

12. Mine too.

If we get Obama in power the next four years, I'm sure he's going to be amending up the wazoo to make it better. Or I hope he will.

[jefferson_dem]

16. That's the only sane position.

Doing nothing will not do.

[patrice]

53. Paul Krugman, Howard Dean, Alan Grayson, & Bernie Sanders agree with you.

What I don't quite understand is HOW exactly can we be sure that the issues will be revisited once somekind of HCR is passed.

[bertman]

101. If you're saying that Bernie Sanders agrees that we need THIS Public Option you are wrong.

Last night he stated very clearly that he would have to wait to see which Public Option we are looking at. He understands that this is a gift to the Insurance industry if all Americans who want coverage cannot get it--a la Medicare for all, which he supports.

[AllentownJake]

5. Just wait once the Democrats control the House and have 60 votes in the Senate

we can fix the bill.

[CTLawGuy]

58. you mean once liberals

control the house and have 60 seats in the senate.

That has not happened. And if you had assumed that all democrats were liberals...

[MrMickeysMom]

65. Hey, you left this behind....

:sarcasm:

[FLyellowdog]

6. Explain your statement about "preexisting" conditions.

Where do you get that without Stupak, preexisting conditions aren't going to be covered for healthcare?

[POAS]

7. She is saying that if people

fight to, and succeed in, killing the bill because of Stupak or some other flaw in the bill (as now written) then pre-existing conditions will continue to bar millions from getting the insurance they need.

[mbperrin]

26. And yet, with no control over price, the insurance which covers those

pre-existing conditions may be completely unaffordable.

Single payer universal is the only way to actually reform health care. Kill the insurance companies.

[Garam_Masala]

34. Hear hear....SINGLE PAYER ..or.. Bust .

This mandate shit is more enrichment of large insurance corporations.
Which means they will have more money to buy more politicians.
Why do you think Lieberman is against PO? he is from CT...Hellooooooooooooooo

[CreekDog]

55. but the price to the patient will be limited because there will be a subsidy

to keep out of pocket expenses below a fixed amount based on one's income.

when you leave that out of your argument, i think you are not dealing honestly here.

[mbperrin]

60. I think you're not dealing honestly. What is that fixed amount?

And what is the income relationship to that amount? Please spell it all out in dollars and cents so that the new insurance is cheaper than now, because those who cannot afford it now cannot magically afford more later.

[Ms. Toad]

89. I did the calculation on my family

and even without a subsidy, the cost was about a third of what I am paying now.

[mbperrin]

112. Can you provide the link to that calculation, please?

Thanks.

[Ms. Toad]

114. It was posted in another thread here.

I'll see if I can find it.

[Ms. Toad]

119. Here it is.

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

When you get to that link, you can also generate comparisons between the various plans. (Below the calculator on the page)

[mbperrin]

125. Thanks! I'm on my way over!

[prolesunited]

8. It was clear that the bill would NOT pass in the House without

the amendment. There would be no bill without that amendment and we would have to start over. The point is, a lot more people will die or go bankrupt if we don't take this first step.

[vaberella]

10. If the bill is shot down and not passed then people with pre-existing conditions still suffer

and in many cases (more often than not) die.

[FLyellowdog]

20. OK, I got it this time. Yes, that would be for certain.

Thanks. :hug:

[grantcart]

44. for 10 years the grantcarts have not been able to see a doctor

because we are afraid that if we do we will be informed of a condition that will permanently label us with a pre existing condition.



Now 12 years ago my wife had an emergency situation and we had insurance and after the doctor convinced the insurance company that denying her care would be tantamount to murder she went immediately into the hospital and saved her life.


If that happened today it would kill her.


This terribly flawed bill would eliminate pre existing discrimination and will save lives, many of them women.


I am for the legality of abortions but if it comes down to saving lives by having wider medical care and having to find private sources of funding to make abortions available to poor women then I would have to choose the prior.

[ClarkUSA]

13. Thanks for sharing your personal story with us. I agree completely. K&R

[jefferson_dem]

14. In the past day or so, teh stupids have crawled out from under their rocks.

Just laugh at them and move on. They'll tire of trolling in a bit.

[Clio the Leo]

19. Exactly. Keep your chin up Vabs! NT

[mopinko]

15. this amendment is a brilliant piece of strategery.

got us at each other like an overpopulated box of rats.
i am at the :puke: point with this place as well. so sad to say.

[demwing]

18. Vabrella, I am so sorry to hear your sad story

please keep strong and be well. Health care is coming.

[vaberella]

30. That's what I'm hoping for. There are a few like me---my friends to be exact. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

21. Damnit, You are making me cry!

Fuck the fools who think that Insurance Companies are going to be made to pay
if no bill passes! That's what makes their argument non-sensical!

[vaberella]

32. Don't cry. I get angry to the point of tears too when I hear people want to kill this bill.

Not so much for me but so many others who are in worse conditions. My aunt ignored the fact she was bleeding (after 20 years post menapause) and then it as to find out it was too late for the ovarian cancer. No insurance, the fees, and she didn't want to burden her family with the problem.

[Cha]

22. Thanks Vaberella..for

letting us know your personal story. There are a few coming out now to counteract those who only want it if it's done their way.

I know you're over there in France:hi: My sister and her family are going to have 4 hours layover in Paris on Christmas Day on their way to the Canary Islands!B-)

Hang in there girl:hug:

[vaberella]

28. Hanging. My sister was dancing for joy when I told her the bill passed.

She had to forgo insurance because of not enough money coming in and finding a job is hard. She's been at it for a year now.

[Cha]

50. Going to help so many deserving people!

[winyanstaz]

23. I am in sympathy of your plight and of those that need urgent care now...

as I too need some urgent care or I may well end up crippled for the rest of my life if I cannot see a doctor soon..I had a bad fall and I don't have the money for a doctor and I think it has not healed right.
It is not life threatening as yours..but it is very painful non the less to me.

How ever...I also know many women will also DIE because they cannot get an abortion so it is not that someone doesn't care..
It is that we care enough that we also want to save women's lives too...as well as women's civil rights..and we also want to save YOU.
You can see how it harms you to not have the right care..so you are willing to settle for women to die so you can get care sooner...I know that is the scene that is facing you and I am angry and sad that it is so. That was a damned dirty trick they played on us all.
The fact is..
We will not get anywhere that doesn't cost lives if we let this bill pass.
BUT if we kick up a big enough fuss..they will be forced to do a better bill and many lives all the way around can be saved.

[Egnever]

40. How are women going to die?

Abortions are still legal.

[winyanstaz]

57. this bill makes it very hard

if not impossible for a poor woman to get any help. And thats how women will die. With coat hangers and back alley abortionists..just like it used to be.
Rich women have never had that problem..it is only the poor that are denied care.
This bill also strips women of their civil rights as it allows discrimanation on care just because she is female. This bill does not outlaw prostate cancer help...or any other type of male sexual problem help..but it is a breach of church and state as well as a denial of a womans civil rights when it denies women access to abortion.

[AllTooEasy]

75. Where are you getting your research/facts?

Who is dying from coat hanger and back alley abortions nowadays in the US???

Chemical abortions are cheap and done early. My ex had one and she/we were ghetto broke. Most clinics, especially in poor areas, offer payment plans for non insurred patients. In some cases, the abortion is entirely paid if you can prove hardship. The process of proving hardship is quick, less than a day. They make it as easy, quick, and stressless as possible. Abortion rights and women's groups mostly fund these causes. How are you not aware of this?

On top of that, it's the poor, mostly us Blacks and Hispanics, who are the most pro-life. Probably a correlation.

I'm against the amendment, but let's back up our positions with currents events and truths.

[Ms. Toad]

90. Thank you for a dose of reality. n/t

[noiretextatique]

91. that's not the case everywhere in this country

in rural areas, for example.

[AllTooEasy]

128. You can't compare prostrate//testicular/etc cancer coverage to abortion coverage...

...unless the women's health is directly at risk. Now all pregnancies are risky, but I'm talking about pregnancies that are diagnosed as high risk. In other words, she's definitely going to die if this thing continues.

A woman may not have a prostrate, but she has a vagina, uterus, cervix, etc. and corresponding cancers/stones/infections are covered.

Once again, I reject this amendment, but let's provide an accurate argument.

[AllTooEasy]

129. You can't compare prostrate/testicular/etc cancer coverage to abortion coverage...

...unless the women's health is directly at risk. Now all pregnancies are risky, but I'm talking about pregnancies that are diagnosed as high risk. In other words, she's definitely going to die if this thing continues.

A woman may not have a prostrate, but she has a vagina, uterus, cervix, etc. and corresponding cancers/stones/infections are covered.

Once again, I reject this amendment, but let's provide an accurate argument

[AllTooEasy]

130. You can't compare prostrate//testicular/etc cancer coverage to abortion coverage...

A woman doesn't have a prostrate, but she has a vagina, uterus, cervix, etc. and corresponding cancers/stones/infections are covered.

[chill_wind]

24. vaberella,

What kind of a society are we when our own citizens can't have affordable access to dental care and other vital health care? I've been there for too many years. I hear you, and may be facing it all again sooner rather than later. This is such a difficult crucial landmark moment for Americans, for precisely, as you point out, our time is now and we may never again be in a better position than this time we had at hand right now. That is what is so agonizing to realize. What we as a country desperately need, vs what we are actually going to get.

Is it what we all hoped for? Not by a long shot. Is something better than nothing? Yes. Breaks are good, but please don't leave. We will get something. Speaking only for me,I can't imagine the Stupad amendment surviving.

[vaberella]

31. I hope not.

Actually Obama released a statement saying that he doesn't agree with the amendment and I get the feeling it will be amended, which is great. By the way one of the things I'd like to know about is dental on the plan. Most insurance plans don't give dental except as an addition. That's not on basic plans. ONe of the things I'd like added if it's ot there in the PO is dental. Do you happen to know anything on it?

[chill_wind]

37. Excellent question. I have no idea.

I can just totally empathize with all the dental care/other health rationing persons like yourself.
I'm paying the consequences now. I hope you can get the care you need seriously soon.

[Egnever]

48. inside the echange

there will be 4 tiers of coverage to chose from the top tier will allow dental to be an option I think I might be wrong on that though I would have to go back and look.

[vaberella]

93. Thanks Egnever. n/t

[ThomCat]

25. I'm one of the people with pre-existing conditions.

Many of them at this point. But that still isn't enough to get my support for this bill.

The insurance industry will be required to sell me insurance, but they are still allowed to charge me more for it. So will I be able to afford it?

They are still allowed to deny charges. They refused to stop denying claims so will I be able to get anything paid for?

They are still allowed to drop coverage at any time. They refuse to stop this practice too, and our politicians didn't even seem to try very hard to get them to stop this abuse. So will I be able to keep my insurance for very long? Will you? Will any of us?

Just being able to buy a policy and spend money isn't a solution. Getting them to provide payment for health care consistently without blocking services and without second-guessing doctors is the solution. We aren't anywhere close to that yet.

For the many people who won't be helped at all by this bill, we haven't even taken the first step yet. :(

[vaberella]

36. I see your point.

I don't know all the parts of the 2000+ bill to quote you from the top of my head what is going on. And I know it's not discussed. I wonder if Obama can create a Q & A forum so we get the details. I know I would be eligible for the PO without a problem, but that was beause someoen posted it. Eithr that or we can fnd a way to divy up the reading and break down what's in it and what's not.

[Egnever]

41. woa woa woa

Couple of things you should know. The bill removes the ability to charge based on your health. Rates are only based on age. So no they can not charge you more for it.

And no they are not allowed to drop coverage at any time, thats called revisionism and it is outlawed by this bill.

This bill goes much further than just letting you buy coverage. I really think you should read it for yourself or at least the summary if the full version is too confusing. You can find lots of info on it here.http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml

scroll down to the bottom of the page to the links.

[ThomCat]

43. I did read it myself and many of the summaries.

The prohibitions are not really prohibitions though. These will just be practices that I would be able to appeal now to a central regulator agency. The regulatory agency, from the look of it, is designed to be toothless. So a prohibition that can't be enforced isn't really a prohibition.

The limitations upon the new government agency, specifically the ones stating that they must go to each separate state insurance regulatory agency and work though them for enforcement purposes essentially guts enforcement at all levels. The insurance industry has control at the state level in most states, and strong influence in the others.

It is very frustrating to keep reading that all these absolute protections exist, when in fact the enforcement rules make it nearly impossible for the insurance industry to ever be punished for continuing any of these practices. Punishments, if they really do happen, will be fines.

Have you ever known any industry to cease an abusive practice because of a fine, especially when that abusive practice is important to their profit margin?

Seriously. Before you go announcing that absolute prohibitions exist, make sure you check out the proposed punishments, whether they are significant enough to stop the abuse, and how it is proposed that the abuse would be reported, reviewed and judged. It just isn't there.

[Egnever]

47. Wow well thats a pretty defeatist attitude you got there.

Dont you think it would be a good idea to put those restrictions in place? If as you say the punishments arent enough to deter the companies from ending the practices could we not go back and strengthen them later?

Seems silly to me to suggest that we shouldnt lay out new limitations because you dont think the punishments are stringent enough.

[ThomCat]

49. I think it would be wonderful to put those restrictions in place.

I'm not being defeatist at all. I'm reading more of the legislation than you and apparently understanding it better.

Protections don't exist until they are designed to exist. When protections have been undermined during negotiations so that one side is already protected in so many ways, those protections don't exist. They also won't exist unless some significant changes are made. I'm waiting to see if those changes are made.

You think that those protections exist because we could go back and strengthen them later? Really? So if we could have something later that means somehow we have it now? How is that even remotely logical? If the protections are added later then they will exist, and I will take them seriously. But not until then. You can keep imagining them though if that makes you happy.

I am laying out new limitations. I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean. Seriously. I'm not a legislator, so I don't lay out anything. I just read it and see what is there or not there.

If you are Assuming that those protections exist simply because Ideally they should be, that isn't very practical or very smart. Idealism should inspire you to action, but not blind you to reality.

I hope when all is said and done we are both happy with the results. But the difference seems to be that you will be happy no matter what, because you seem to have blind faith that things will work out just fine somehow. Silly me, I peak to make sure.

[Egnever]

52. Maybe we can step back and try to discuss these one at a time.

You said in your original post,

They are still allowed to drop coverage at any time. They refuse to stop this practice too, and our politicians didn't even seem to try very hard to get them to stop this abuse. So will I be able to keep my insurance for very long? Will you? Will any of us?

Yet the bill says this

RESCISSION.—A health insurance issuer may re19
scind individual health insurance coverage only upon clear
and convincing evidence of fraud described in subsection(b)(2), under procedures that provide for independent, external third-party review.’’.

So since you claim to understand it better then me, please explain how your statement holds true.

[ThomCat]

56. My statement is true because

if the insurance company ignores that section, there are no teeth to penalize them, and they profit from it. If they can profit from violating a law, and get away with it, they will.

You will be able to wag your finger at them and tell them they violated the new law, but you can't stop them. All you will be empowered to do is complain to the new insurance oversight agency that is being created.

That agency, if they CHOOSE, could investigate. If they choose to investigate and find that anything was done wrong they can ADVISE the state agency to investigate too and issue penalties.

If the state agency then CHOOSES to follow suit and CHOOSES to issue penalties, they can issue a fine. They might also order the Insurance company to reverse their decision.

However, after all the time it would have taken to reach that point through the various bureaucracies, reinstating your insurance will be either too late (for a service that was needed immediately) or irrelevant (if you needed insurance so urgently that you were forced to get a new policy in the meantime). Reinstating your insurance is only meaningful if you weren't really using it yet.

If the insurance company is issued a fine for canceling your policy, they'll be able to afford to eat that fine. The savings from canceling your insurance is higher than the mandated fines that are ever likely to be approved by a state agency.

Most likely the department that canceled your insurance won't even be aware that there was a dispute and that it resulted in a fine. Another department would fight disputes and take the fines. Insulating the acting department from the punishing feedback is a common corporate way of ensuring that abusive behavior continues. They never get the feedback to stop. They don't know about the fine. They are under instructions to keep doing business as usual.

That's how.

The short answer for all of this is that there are always two sides to every story, the official answer and the truth. The official answer is that canceling policies is prohibited. The truth is that canceling policies will still be profitable, there will be no reason for them not to, and no significant penalty if they do.

They will break that clause with impunity, because the enforcement has been compromised precisely so that they can break it with impunity.

[Ms. Toad]

98. The protections are laws, not "practices."

Any insurance company that refuses to offer insurance because of pre-existing conditions will be in violation of the law.

I expect it will work just as well as the current waiver of pre-existing conditions waiting period. If you have coverage, you are entitled to a waiver of the pre-existing condition waiting period. You do have to know your rights and assert them. The waiver of pre-existing condition coverage has been automatically granted without question in the three times I've changed carriers between then.

That is an example in this industry - and I see no reason to believe that they will treat this statute (not a practice) any differently than they have the previous ones which required mandatory issue (in some circumstances) and waiver of the waiting period for pre-existing conditions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

118. The regulator can kick the insurer out of the exchange.

That's hardly toothless.

Besides, it is a big stretch between "law enforcement has too many restrictions" and "there are no laws".

[Laelth]

27. I hear you. Please hear me.

I am one of the uninsured--one who hasn't seen a doctor in years, one who can not afford to go to a doctor, one who doesn't have insurance because I can't afford it, one who will be forced to buy piss poor insurance, and then I still won't be able to go to the doctor because I won't be able to afford the co-pays.

This law does nothing for me. It either taxes me or criminalizes me. Obama promised no new taxes for those making less than $250K/year. The mandate is a back-door and highly regressive tax.

Those of us on the left who oppose this legislation have very good reasons for doing so, and for many of us, it is personal ... just as this issue is also personal for you.

:dem:

-Laelth

[vaberella]

29. Actually that's the thing with the bill.

If you can't afford it you'd be subsidized for it. But the PO is open to people who meet a prerequistite, did you see the list. AT least 6 months out of work, or making under a certain amount of money and a few others...I met all requirements and by the bill Nance Pelosi proposed I would be on it.

[Laelth]

35. The subsidies are wholly inadequate.

But I hope you get some relief and aid from whatever bill passes.

I will only get a new tax.

:dem:

-Laelth

[char22]

106. I totally agree with you

This bill is a disaster for the people and the economy too.
I pray that it will never pass. but I think it will come in the back door somehow.
With some transparency????????? just kidding....

[Laelth]

110. Welcome to DU.

Looks like the individual mandate will pass. Tragic, but I see no way around it at this point.

:dem:

-Laelth

[optimator]

33. dumping this bill doesn't mean giving up

they need to start over and if it fails, start over again, etc.
They can pass a bill with just insurance regulations immediately without mandates and without all the other shit.

[FrenchieCat]

38. We will not start all over again.......

IT is this or never, period....
and you damn well know it.

The Insurance companies are laughing at you,
cause they don't give a damn how they get their money,
whether it is from a few or from many, the dollars is what they are counting.

Canning this bill doesn't hurt the Insurance companies,
it only hurts Americans.
Insurance companies are fighting this for a reason,
Status quo is fine by them......
and when we go bankrupt trying to pay them,
they'll just hike everyone's fucking premiums,
and we won't have shit to say about it....
they'll cancel Joe's insurance,
and raise Mike's....and they'll get the same fucking amount,
and they won't give a shit about you, then or now.

So go ahead and keep talking,
cause it won't mean jackshit.
You will have hung yourself,
with or without the assistance of the health insurances.

[vaberella]

39. You don't get it. We have a lot of issues to take care of.

Congress is a lazy piece of shit system. I'm being serious. LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZYYYYYYYY!!! That's what they are. We have DADT/DOMA to repeal. We probably will have another stimilus to take care. We will have other laws to repeal, reword, and take care. Do you have any idea how much is on our platter?!

Further more, and this has been said countless times, Dems (overall) want to do something. Elections are in 2010. If healthcare reform doesn't happen or something big like it...and so far that's what we have that's massive...Dems could be out. Dem seats are not confirmed for life, and many are sitting on dangerous ground. That being said, we have this many Dems we need to get something done now, that is substantial so we can vote. We lose even one seat next time around after waiting----health reform won't happen under Obama-----EVERYONE knows this. And the way the Republicans are running...health reform won't happen in my life time. This is the point.

We can amend later you know. We get this through if we need to sharpen anything and clean it up more we can do that with more legislation in the future.

[pundaint]

70. I don't care what the name of the party in power is, I care what they do.

The Democrats are not doing what I want. I will try to fire my congressman. If I can't get it done in the primary, I'll try again in the general.

I get nothing out of power that is not wielded in my interests. Has your congressman actively pursued your best interests? Didn't think so.

[Egnever]

45. what makes you think so?

No way will they pass an end to pre existing conditions without mandating coverage. The risk pool needs to be enlarged to do so.

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. Yes it does. It means exactly that.

It means giving up and letting our children try again in 20 years.

Nationalized health care was pushed by Teddy Roosevelt.
Scaled back Nationalized health care was pushed by Truman.
Single payer was pushed by Nixon.
The public option was pushed by Clinton.
A weakened public option is now being pushed by Obama.

See the pattern?

In 20 years, out kids will be pushing for the Senate Finance Committee bill as a best case scenario.

[Egnever]

42. My dearest vaberella

Take heart my dear! This place does not represent america. Sometimes I wish it did but others like the last few days I am glad it doesnt.

It appears you havent read this bill for yourself. I encourage you to do so. Despite what the naysayers on here would have you believe this bill is chock full of really good stuff.

please take some time and go here http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml
scroll down the page at the bottom there is a section by section summary that is pretty easy reading and lays out what this bill says. The most important and relevant to you and I is section 3 of the bill where the exchange is set up. Please at least read that section if nothing else. There is so mich more though besides the exchange including funding for nurse and doctor training, funds for the building of local health clinics, limits on drug costs the list goes on and on really!

I know its popular on DU to say this bill stinks but it most assuredly does not. It is not single payer but again its chock full of really great stuff. Dean did not get on board for no reason when he said it was a good billl he said it with confidence. Read it yourself please! it will help to lay a lot of your fears to rest. If we get this bill as it stands Obama will go down in history as a hero! Yes it could be improved on but its far from bad despite the spew you read here.

[vaberella]

46. Thanks Egnever, you're the best..

:hug: :pals: Here is this thread too by Prosense, it needs more kicks and recs. I will read through this and get back to you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8742991

By the way...I haven't spoken to you in ages,I had forgotten to tell you that yesterday. I hope you're well.

[Number23]

79. "This place does not represent america."

I think it's very good to be reminded of that every now and again. Thanks for that. :)

[noiretextatique]

95. it absolutely does reflect america...it's a microcosm

of america. far too conservative for my tastes, but so is the rest of america.

[Number23]

102. The "place" in question was DU. You think DU is too conservative?

[noiretextatique]

104. yes

:rofl: i think DU is conservative :hi: i have lived in california for most of my life, and i am a green party member.

[dave29]

51. I will continue to fight for you

I also have a pre-existing condition -- not currently life threatening, but it makes my life miserable, and put a stop to my chosen career which was starting off remarkably well (composer). It will never go away, and there is no cure. While I am already insured, I believe that this bill must pass, and the only way for us to get healthier, wiser and ultimately more happy in this life -- is to improve the quality of our healthcare system.

I have also fought from the perspective of uncovering fraud in the system. A clinical lab charged me $1806 for a urinalysis, which would have gone unnoticed had my insurance HRA plan passed the cost on to me, without blinking an eye. That item is currently being investigated by the Texas Medical Board. I know... Texas... but I have hope some good will come of my unwillingness to put up with the bullshit.

I listen to people whine all day here and elsewhere that this bill does nothing, that it will make things worse.... and all I can think is.... change really is hard. But it is happening. And we are the ones making it happen.

I will keep you and yours in my thoughts as we make our way through the dark.

-Dave

[char22]

107. I really do wish you well..........

I have family with pre-existing conditions.
and I pray very hard that this bill will not pass.
While I do believe in National Health care and would sign up for anything like France or Germany.
I will fight this one with my very last breath...It is not designed to help the people it is designed only to pay a National Debt.
It is more like a diagnostic system then a therapeutic care system. I hope it will never pass.
I do not want my family to be told that whatever tests or treatment they need they can get but then give them an appointment for someday in about a year. YAP just as Canadians do and many do come here to get help.
so wishing you well means that I hope we get something more like what France has then what Canada has and that is really wishing you well. signing this bill would not be. SO I will fight this bill for my family and all who deserve "CARE"

[HughMoran]

54. K&R

[JTFrog]

59. K&R

[GeorgeGist]

61. Shallow

[watercolors]

62. You are not alone, there are many just like you.

Hang in there I am hopefull!

[rhett o rick]

63. This argument is premature. This is not a final bill. Worrying that those against the Stupad amend

are somehow endangering the precondition portion is misdirected. IMHO the Senate bill will not have the precondition agreement in it. The insurance companies dont want it and they have a lot of pull in the Senate.

Instead of fighting with those that want to dump the Stupad amend please channel your energy into ensuring that the Senate bill includes the precondition agreement.

[vaberella]

92. I'll be a bit clearer.

My response wasn't to the post position on this board by some members. My response is in lieu of the prevoting response by posters on here. There was one post that said, "I hope to God this bil fails." There were posts that said, "This is not a bill and shouldn't go through." Another clown even said something along the lines of being willing to die or get sick rather than see this bill go through. I know very well that this is by no means the final bill, tons of things will change in it, but so far this bill is definitly a good start in my book. To see people on here advocating for it's collapse before the vote---well it just hurt.

[rhett o rick]

108. With respect, you must develop a thicker skin. Ignore, ignore, ignore.

There are idiots out there and there are disrupters. Dont pay them no mind.

[lumberjack_jeff]

121. All the bills end exclusion based on preconditions.

Any reform will include that.

The OP is referring to the widespread, naive and petulant view that the public would be better off doing nothing.

[sam kane]

64. This doesn't get you health care, just health "insurance."

My insurance company denies expensive care all of the time. The insurance companies will deny expensive care to most of those with "pre-existing conditions" just like my insurance company denies mine. This is classic bait and switch.

[emulatorloo]

67. There is plenty in the bill that forbid the insurance companies to treat you that way any more

They are losing their anti-trust exemption, so they will have to become more competitive.

They will not be allowed to drop your coverage if you are sick and "too expensive"

They will not be allowed to deny you coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

There is a lot of disinformation out there.

[pundaint]

66. Shall we abandon those who aren't served by this bill because you are?

SEE THIS IS THE PROBLEM!

We're all concerned about our own near term interest. That said it's more than reasonable that someone whose life is so profoundly impacted by our current system should be so specifically focused. It's not that I lack compassion, but rather that I feel compassion even for those cases whose specifics are not before me.

There will still be more left out than included by this approach. Shall we abandon their interests for a decade in favor of yours?

This is on Congress and the President. I believe that by rejecting this bill, and completely replacing Congress in the next election we can get comprehensive Medicaire coverage for everybody sooner than you personally could benefit from this bill.

So I'll support this bill if you all will promise to fire your Congressmen in '10, in search of a new group that represent the peoples interests.

We get what we settle for, why have we be settling for this shit for so long?

[vaberella]

86. 38 Million are served by this bill, including me. Let me add also...

The bill serves an additional 252 million with massive reform administratively and cost wise, added to that it doesn't even include the amount of jobs it will inadvertently provide. Although my post might appear selfish, there is a massve social dynamic involved with this bill, that you also choose to ignore. Added to that, excluding the stupidity of the STupad amendment, which I condemn, women are no longer denied because they are women. I'll have you know in this bill it actually ends that---YES women were denied for just being women. So am I thinking of myself, partly. However, my entire point is to show I'm one the millions upon millions of people in this naton that WOULD BENEFIT from this bill.

[winyanstaz]

68. This is a bad bill and we can do much better....

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/on-a-new-form-of-indentured-servitude/

"The bill requires every American, with few exceptions, to carry health insurance. To enforce this individual mandate, the Senate Finance Committee created the excise tax as a penalty for people who don’t have insurance – and it can run as much as $3,800 a year per family.

The House bill also refers to the penalties for not carrying insurance as a tax. It calls for a “tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage” and amends the tax code to implement it."

At a time when middle class families are teetering on the edge..this will push many Americans into poverty for sure.
This bill denies women's civil rights to their own bodies and denies them needed care. Women will also die from the lack of health care.
This is a bad bill and we can do better.
There is no reason for it to take a long time either..but it will have to be fixed in the senate...and now is the time to fight for what we all need...not just a few..because we are all in this together.

[emulatorloo]

69. vaberella - my heart goes out to you, you are solidly in my thoughts

Sometimes I get the feeling that those who want to kill the bill have never actually had to deal with our healthcare system as it is. They have never had a friend or relative dropped from coverage. They have never been denied coverage based on pre-existing condition. They have never seen an uninsured friend have debt piled up on them like an avalanche because of an unforseen catastrophic illness.

I agree Stupak is absolutely horrible. From the reporting I am seeing, it may have been GRANDSTANDING more than anything else. So once it is taken out, Stupak and those who voted for it can say to their fundy constituents "Oh, well we tried". And then vote for and pass the final bill.

It is a serious mistake to "kill the bill" over Stupak. A better strategy is to work to support our Senators and Reps who insist it be taken out before the final bill.

[vaberella]

96. Agreed and thanks for your consideration. n/t

[Peacetrain]

94. You are not alone..

The pre existing condition clause has millions in its cross hairs.. You are in my thoughts.. :hug:

[thesquanderer]

97. 64 recs? I'm impressed. My similar post got ravaged.

I made a similar case in the thread at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6959731

though I did it strictly from a "rational" point of view rather than personal story. Yours was clearly the better approach!

My recs? <0 !

[AllentownJake]

117. General Discussion vs. GDP

You probably would have got 64 recs over here.

[Scruffy1]

99. good point

<imgsrc=""

[valerief]

103. I didn't want to reply but I will

People who oppose this bill over the Stupak amendment----are basically setting up people with preexisting conditions to the death panels already in existence without health reform.

Congress is sending people to existing death panels, not posters. Congress is disappointing and killing people, Congress is whoring itself, Congress is failing.

[vaberella]

122. I'll respond to this.

Congress is put in place by citizens of the United States. Most of the posters here are Citizens and vote in the national election for their repesentatives, these Reps makeup our Congress. When people here claim they would want the bill to fail, that says to me, as a politically active board they are most likely vocalizing and/or advocating this voice towards failure to their reps. Admittedly, that may not be the case---but we don't know. So if they are, they would be seen a voice amongst the rest who are against the bill for whatever reason. This plays a role (normally) in the final actions of those in Congress who vote on the bill. Inadvertently they (these citizens against) play a part in sending people to existing death panels. For those who figt against, they're voice unfortunately not heard.

[valerief]

123. Well, Congress is actually put in place by the corporate money that allows them

to buy votes through campaigning and whatever else they do. Diebold helps, too.

Now I'd be happy as a clam if campaign financing was fixed and paper balloting was the law.

In the meantime, the corporations who buy/contribute to/lobby Congress are the biggest shareholders and hold the most votes. When we rattle our cages, it alerts Congress that the mob could run wild. That would ruin their for-profit economy.

[char22]

105. I am for National Health CARE but not this......

I think if they can tell us we would have the same care as France or Germany we should ALL sign right up.
but that is not the plan... The plan resembles Canada and maybe a bit of England and NO they are not Health CARE they are health diagnosis. So if anyone needs more then an antibiotic or an aspirin we would have to wait on line maybe sometimes a year and by then we may be long gone. Yes that is how it works.
My girlfriend has lost both her parents in Canada because by the time their appointment came due they were gone.
this package s not for the people - actually is sucks. it is designed to pay of the National deficit.
so at the end of each month if anyone here thinks they will give a chit about the "CARE" "TREATMENT" that you need forget it. But you will pay more tax and get less Healthy.
I am NOT for this bill at all. I hope it will never pass. I am afraid that it will. :(
My brother had a kidney transplant and my daughter is bipolar. Would I want this bill? Hell NO!!!!
It is no "CARE" it is a penalty not a contribution to our lives.

[annabanana]

109. I read your detailed and highly personal thread the other day.

There are so many people that come and go here, that it's more than likely that hundreds missed that post. For your own health and well being, maybe it's time to take a brief vacation from the "sturm und drang:" around this place.

You'll be glad you did, and you'll be able to come back renewed.

[xultar]

115. BRA-FUCKING-VO!!! REC by proxy after 24hrs

[ProudDad]

124. What good is "access to insurance"

if you fucking can't afford it???

This bill does NOTHING about controlling the for-profit leeches in the USAmerikan sick care system...

It's worthless...

I call it the "Health Insurance and Drug Corporation Stimulus Bill" of 2009...

Piece of low-grade, worthless SHYTE!!!

[treestar]

127. You need to read it or something

You're describing the situation we have now.

[ZombieHorde]

131. You make a compelling argument. nt

[ZombieHorde]

132. Naughty doppelganger. nt