OK, I have a minute now. I heard a story this morning early that the Baucus bill has a back door

[Skidmore]

clause that would still allow the insurance companies to dump people with pre-existing conditions by charging those with health conditions, including catching obesity, smokers, etc. in that group, significantly higher rates for coverage. Did anyone else catch that and what are we going to do about it?

The Baucus bill needs to go down in flames and we need to make certain that this doesn't get put into any other version of insurance reform.

[Hepburn]

1. From your mouth to the ears of the Conference Committee. n/t

[MarjorieG]

2. Part of the wellness, prevention incentives also discriminate. Important to do, but better.

[Skidmore]

4. How is it better to discriminate?

Many people with chronic health conditions work to be well. This is a way for these companies to not provide coverage to everyone.

[MarjorieG]

16. Poor sentence. Do wellness better, not discriminate. Better incentives on every part of plan.

Doctors would rather cure than bill for the same money.

[polichick]

3. Haven't heard that, but it makes sense to me that smokers, fast-food fatties,

...and others with self-inflicted health risks should pay higher premiums.

[Skidmore]

7. Do you always assume that people who are overweight are so

because they consume fast foods? That it is always an act of volition that causes weight problems? Do you have the same feelings about those with anorexia or bulimia?

[polichick]

9. You're the one making assumptions. I'm talking about people who...

...knowingly choose things that harm their health ~ which is why I said fast-food fatties as opposed to those with medical issues that cause weight problems.

[robinlynne]

10. I am a smoker and as healthy as can be. I even pay for children's health insurance

now. (s-chip). My grandparents smoked 3 packs a day and died of other things in their late 80s. So I get to pay more than everyone else? really? How about charging people who have more than one child more? They certainly cost the planet a lot more than I do. or how about people who wear purple?

[polichick]

11. No smoker is "as healthy as can be." And yes, I do believe we should be taxed...

...per child.

[GeorgeGist]

56. Perhaps stupid people should pay more ...

after all they are a waste of resources.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Yuo realize that many of our fast food fatties are that way

since they are poor and there is no other option where they live?

You should go to the inner city and try to find a supermarket.... now the fast food places, dime a dozen.

[PSPS]

19. That's completely contrary to the proper health insurance model

With pooled risk, you set premiums according to the risk of the pool, not the individual. Allowing individual risk-based pricing of premiums is essentially what we have now. Health insurance isn't "like car insurance."

[polichick]

20. Well, I think those with healthy BMIs who don't smoke should get a better price...

Just makes sense, and provides incentive.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. And those who do not practice dangerous 'activities' such

as contact or extreme sports, skiing, surfing, should get a better price. People who do not live in polluted urban cesspools should get a better price.
There are all sorts of behaviors and choices that affect health. Those who leave the house for mere 'pleasure' bicycling, for example are taking a wild haired risk that many simply do not make. Some of those riders get hurt. Some badly, needing lifetime care. All of this in pursuit of nothing but 'kicks'. Why should anyone else carry the burden of insane bicyclists?
Now. About your family's sexual activity.....

[alittlelark]

30. +1

[polichick]

32. If those activities created the costs to our system that smoking and obesity do...

...you might have a point.

[G_j]

33. just being poor puts one's health at risk

should poor people get charged more?

[Hekate]

52. Absolutely. Why they wouldn't even BE poor if they lived right! Incentives, right?

:sarcasm:

[G_j]

31. that's the latest talking point, comparing HC to car insurance

we are not cars.

there are millions of risks and no clear lines, it absolutely should be a risk pool.

[maryf]

58. The car insurance/health insurance comparison

Not only are we not cars, but car insurance covers accidents between cars or other accidents; it does not cover basic maintenance, engine failure, oil changes, check ups, etc.; it only covers accidents. We do have some supplemental insurance that covers accidents at work or play, but no one calls that health insurance...We would be charging the insurance company of a person who coughed in our face when we went to the doctor with a cold for example if it were like auto insurance...just not a true comparison...

[Overseas]

34. Yeah cuz Goddamn It-- Health Care is a Privilege You Must Earn !

If you're some weak willed idiot who falls for the thousands of junk food ads you see on TV-- well then you just don't deserve those low rates the tough-minded self-disciplined folks have, goddamn it.

And while we're at it, let's put cigarette ads back on TV. Those jerks who fall for the ads can just pay higher insurance rates. It's all about Personal Responsibility, doncha know.

And meat eaters should pay higher rates too, for that mad cow disease they're gonna get, and all that Lipitor they chug.

If you're sick because you fall for those million dollar ad campaigns, then you're just a dumb jerk who oughta pay through the nose.

If you live in a poor community with only a convenience store to buy junk food at, well then you'd better just take that bus or walk to the lovely supermarkets in the better neighborhoods. It will only take an extra hour or so out of your two jobs and child rearing schedule.

Cuz heck, it is just all about Personal Responsibility.

And it could be good for business-- insurance companies could help fund those junk food ads so they can get higher premiums. Pepsi and United Health Care. Aetna and KFC. Call the Chamber!

[polichick]

35. Actually, it is rather a lot about personal responsibility...

...whine less, think more, eat better.

I still believe in single payer for ALL ~ but those who really work on being healthy should get a break in price.

[Overseas]

39. That is buying into a right wing propaganda technique. Let us pretend

that the millions of dollars poured into advertising to get people to eat more junk food have absolutely no effect-- people can freely choose whatever they want.

Then why on earth don't we have cigarette ads on TV anymore? Hey, it's all about personal responsibility. You can just choose not to smoke.

Edited to add--

The right wing technique is to make all the poor saps who fall for those ads feel like their poor health is entirely their fault and they don't deserve healthcare support.

You've got diabetes because you ate all those cakes-- why should I pay for you?

It is a way to divide people-- why should I pay for the diabetes guy and the heart attack person-- they CHOSE to eat donuts and meat!

It is a way of dividing people against Single Payer Universal Health Care as a right and not a privilege.

[polichick]

42. Like I said, I believe in single payer for ALL. I also believe in personal responsibility...

Nothing right wing about it.

[Overseas]

43. Yes it is right wing-- Why should I pay for you? We are all separate.

I am not my brother's keeper. We all stand alone. We have to earn the right to our health care. It is similar to the right wing opposition to welfare-- why should we support someone who can't get work? We are all working hard to support ourselves-- why can't they?

If you were living with a smoker and didn't get them to quit-- screw you! You should have moved out. Why should I pay for your healthcare?

It is dividing us, making us think that those millions of dollars in advertising have only a minor effect on behavior, and if our neighbor falls for them then he's just a dumb jerk and we shouldn't have to pay for him.

Of course we all hope that people will become more health conscious like the Obamas and exercise daily and plant their own organic gardens, but not everyone is so strong and privileged.

So the Right wants us to resent others who are "freeloading" on the government and don't "take responsibility" for their weakness.

They want us to fight about the few dollars allocated to social safety nets and resent those who need them, so that funding can be reduced and government can be shrunk to the size to drown it in a bathtub, to paraphrase Grover Norquist.

[eridani]

51. What horseshit. What is it about SHARED RISK that you fail to understand here?

Group Health in WA State dropped its healthy lifestyle discount years ago, when it became obvious that they were losing huge amounts of money on it. My husband's case multiplied by hundreds illustrates why. Neither of us could qualify by reason of weight, but he got Grave's disease and dropped a lot of weight, mostly muscle mass unfortunately. This required a lot of expensive treatment, but given that his weight was down, I applied for a price reduction for our policy and actually got it. My self-insuring company refused to offer such discounts for the same reason.

[Journeyman]

5. Hmm. . . suspicion that a whore (Baucus) has consented to do what the customer paid for. . .

and through the back door, no less. . .

I'd be surprised if there were no such provisions . . .

[hvn_nbr_2]

21. Bingo! nt

[spanone]

6. must. have. link.

:P

[Skidmore]

8. This was a story on MSNBC early this morning about 7 a.m CST.

Sorry, don't have a link. Was busy all morning and didn't get a chance to followup.

[BolivarianHero]

12. A back door clause.,..

That will continue to allow Larry Craig and the radical right to fuck Americans up the...

[babylonsister]

13. Do you remember who claimed that? I don't trust the m$m at all, with

only a few notable exceptions.

[Skidmore]

15. Alex Witt was interviewing someone about it. There was a guy

who was discussing this in some detail. I didn't catch his name. Sorry, it was just a hugely busy morning.

[Cleita]

14. The wellness BS is just another insurance company excuse not to cover

certain demographics who need health care coverage more than others. It seems to have gone mainstream. I have known people who led monkish lives with no drinking, smoking or bad eating habits who still got sick of a chronic disease and died at an early age. My mother was one of them. I was a smoker up until eighteen years ago and yet I have outlived her by ten years so far and am in good health with only a few old age problems like arthritis. So artificially dumping people into a demographic because they might get a disease is purely disingenuous as far as I'm concerned.

[Snarkoleptic]

17. Agreed.

The group plan that I have through work has just instituted a thing called "Healthy Quarters", which is supposedly a wellness plan.
My premiums just increased by 20% last month and the deductible increases by $2,000 unless you enroll in Healthy Quarters.

From what I understand, you enroll online for HQ and then have to provide them with information about your height, weight, diet, lifestyle, etc. (read: fishing for data to drop you or raise rates).

Anybody else being pressured to enroll in "Healthy Quarters"?
If so, please let me know about your experience.

[Cleita]

41. This is just plain wrong.

They will use that information against you. Send a message to that insurance company that this an invasion of privacy. I think we still have rights to privacy in this country, don't we? Or did they fall away with the Patriot Act too?

[w4rma]

18. Baucus is a blasted scumbag. (nt)

[asjr]

22. Doesn't matter if the back door is open. There

are bound to be several windows open if they do shut the door. Sometimes I think they are all up there in Congress just killing time until it is time to kill us.

[emulatorloo]

23. I haven't heard a single Dem endorse the Baucus bill

except maybe Baucus or that Conrad guy.

I don't think this crappy piece of junk is going to figure too heavily in the shape of the final bill

[scentopine]

24. Wait a minute... a word about people and fat

every single day we are assaulted with fast food billboards, chain restaurants and the like. ALL DAY LONG. Kids see ads for junk food all day long. It is everywhere hammering the same message over and over, its non-stop positive images of people gorging themselves with beer, junk food, super sized pizzas, on and on and on

- its cool, cool kids eat it
- its delicious, your kids will love you for serving it
- its cheap, $1 hamburgers why not eat 4?
- super size today

Now look at this Texas contract with Coke! This is real (my bold)! What the fuck?????

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=only+coke+products+in+texas+school&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=c807e9ccc08a197a

# Keller ISD and Coca Cola Bottling Company of North Texas are parties to an exclusive beverage contract that runs through April 30, 2013.

# The district is responsible for ensuring that any person or group that is selling or serving beverages in or on district facilities purchases and provides only Coca Cola products.

* Any and all requirements, provisions or restrictions contained in the agreement with Coca Cola apply equally and without exception to booster clubs, PTAs, student organizations, and any other person or group that is selling or serving beverages in or on district facilities.
* The requirements and provisions of the agreement shall also apply equally and without exception to any outside organization using a facility of the school district.

Where are the billions from Baucus for advertising that says eating and drinking this shit every day will kill you? The reason they target kids is that they will come to believe this shit is real food! Even the most resourceful and educated parents can't win this battle alone!

[Vinca]

25. I say that until McDonalds and other fast food restaurants are banned

from the earth as well as corn syrup in canned vegetables and just about everything else, everyone needs to STFU about fat people being deserving or not of health care. Everyone deserves affordable, decent health care if they can inhale and exhale - fat, skinny or in between.

[polichick]

26. What about a little self-control and responsibility??

I too believe that everybody should have decent healthcare ~ but I also believe that those who keep a healthy BMI and don't smoke should pay less.

Nobody forces anyone to eat crap food or to smoke.

[Vinca]

27. It doesn't make sense because that means the people who need

attention the most might not be able to afford it. A person who is given an opportunity for diet counseling and has a person take a continuing interest in their progress is more likely to attain and keep a healthy weight then the person who is made to feel guilty for being overweight and is penalized by having health care denied. In any case, if you single out the fatsos and smokers, then you also need to track down the dopers, boozers, sky divers, bungee jumpers, pilots, anorexics, helmetless bicycle riders, motorcycle owners, scuba divers, hunters, mountain climbers, etc., etc., etc. And you certainly can't give a break to people with chronic health conditions caused by smoking, boozing or overeating, even if they meet the BMI number and have been on the straight and narrow for years.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Ah. But there are other risky behavirors

That are done by choice. Sports. Sexual activity. Driving a car rather than using public transportation is far more dangerous. Drinking alcohol is a big health problem. I do not drink. Anyone who does, well, they need to pay much more than I do. Much. Especially the thin ones. No one forces anyone to drink. Do you drink, at all?

[polichick]

37. I just addressed that in #32

[scentopine]

38. we aren't bobmbarded daily by images

of the right thing to do.

"Nobody forces anyone to eat crap food or to smoke." - partially true, but why should a kid go to a school and be offered nothing but coca cola products including soda? Parents feed their kids crap all the time. How in god's name is a 6 yr old kid supposed to know? Fat and fillers in frozen processed food - made for a penny per dollar of revenue. 50% goes back into advertising.

Fast food like cigarettes aims straight at children with a non-stop attack on healthy eating. No one can stop their kids from seeing this all day long and as a parent its just another fucked up situation to explain why they can't eat at McDonald's just like their friends do and all the cool beautiful people on TV.

No one can compete with that - not you nor me. They spend all that money advertising this shit because it works. If we spent the same amount of money advertising how it will kill you it would also work. The fast food industry is insidious.

If they want to punish people for being sick then they need to promote truth messages to counter the billions spent teaching kids lies about eating and the disastrous consequences for human health.

We are finally making real progress on smoking after strict laws, taxes and penalties and a brilliant marketing campaign about the truth aimed straight at kids.

Oh yeah - and how about those subsidies for corn and tobacco?

And who gets to decide whether your health condition is due to "lifestyle" choices? Jesus, that's all we need. So on the one hand kids are bombarded all day by advertising and then we are going to punish them for doing what the advertising says they should do. By the time they are old enough to figure out that they've been lied to, its too late.

[polichick]

40. I haven't had any trouble feeding my kids healthy foods...

...we shop at the farmner's market and they learned early that good foods make you feel good, as well as stay healthy.

In America images and messages for crap food, smokes, violence, etc. are here to stay ~ best to teach kids what bullshit it all is.

I don't believe in the subsidies for corn, sugar and tobacco, but Congress doesn't work for us so it's not surprising.

imo it would be no big deal to have a simple physical with blood work in order to qualify for a "healthy lifestyle" discount.

[scentopine]

44. A very tiny population has that sort of access...

And in winter, farmer's markets are hard to find in many places. Besides, how about sports injuries by weekend warriors and softball? Should those people pay more? Or abortion or birth control? Should people who have sex with more than one partner pay more? Women who have more than one kid or older women - should they pay more? They are at a risk for complications. Should we charge more for people who drive cars who are injured in cars with less than perfect crash tests (note - this is different than "car" insurance where this is common practice)? How about charging more for people who drive more miles to work - they will be more likely to be in an accident. Bike riders on highways are at risk for lifestyle choice they make. Should we cover an asthmatic living in the city when they should just move to a healthier place? Should a drug test at the county courthouse be required to obtain insurance, with those testing positive required to pay more?

These questions have been put to rest in most (if not all) other industrialized nations. It always ends in an indefensible discrimination based on politics and ideology. Ultimately, the inevitable conclusion of this line of thinking will reach this - How about penalizing two people who get married who have genetic markers for cancer - should their kids pay more because of the lifestyle choice their parents made to get married and have kids? A simple blood test could determine this.

The neo-lib, free market democrat would say yes. Others who operate on moral and ethical principals will find the idea abhorrent. I am in the latter camp. This free market idea of punishment for anyone who isn't healthy or rich or beautiful is dragging us down the sewer.

I hope you don't think I am attacking you - I very much like a lively respectful discussion on issues like this and very much appreciate your comments.

[Hekate]

55. I'm so glad for your children that their parents can AFFORD the farmer's market...

... and that there is one in their neighborhood that they can get transportation to.

It is indeed a wonderful teaching opportunity -- just not available to vast numbers of people.

And you want those people to pay higher premiums, too. Try, just try, to put yourself in their shoes.

Hekate

[Odin2005]

46. Healthcare is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT, so saying that...

..."healthy" people have more of a right to healthcare (making it cheaper) is fundamentally immoral. I don't like stupid rich people building houses on fire-prone California hillsides, but they have a right to get help from the fire department. Same thing with healthcare.

[nashville_brook]

48. some people have a right to more rights than others. didn't you know that?

:evilgrin:

[nashville_brook]

47. ugh -- not exactly what I'd call a progressive attitude. so much wrong with it, there's no point in

trying.

[Hekate]

54. You're really big on that, aren't you? No one's trying to take away YOUR personal responsibility...

... or your self-control and BMI. Good, you may have them, more power to you.

All that people here are trying to do is make you see that the human body is far more complex and varied than the experience that you, personally, have inside your own body up till this point in your own personal life.

And dear, no one will force you to eat crap food or smoke if you don't want to.

Hekate

[Laelth]

45. We can not make lemonade out of this lemon.

From what I have seen so far, passing any bill that closely resembles the five that have come out of committee will be a disaster for both the Democratic Party and for America.

The best option now is to demand that your Representative and your Senators vote against what is now on the table. I don't need a political "win" for Obama. I need a win for the party and the people, and we will be punished severely if we pass any of the bills now under serious consideration (and we'll deserve it--because they stink).

:dem:

-Laelth

[SoCalDem]

49. Of course it does.. Insurance companies are in it for the money

They will "offer" coverage, but at a price no one can afford, so they did not break a law..

They want YOUNG HEALTHY people who just pay premiums, and only use the coverage for the occasional cold or minor "Owie".

The LAST kind of customer they want is someone who is chronically ill or who has a family history of some complicated malady.

This is why they love the Baucus bill, because it will send them millions of young people who have not been covered, and who will probably use the coverage the least.

[eridani]

50. That isn't the problem. The problem is no cost controls

It doesn't mean jackshit if they have to offer you a policy regardless of pre-existing conditions with price tag of $7000/month.

[LatteLibertine]

53. It's worth noting

the fine for dumping people with pre existing conditions, or refusing them is only on the order of 5k. That's hardly a deterrent.

IMO the Baucus bill is indeed garbage.

[TransitJohn]

57. This whole manufactured debate is so fucked.

How have they twisted it to "providing health insurance" from "providing health care"? :banghead: Of course, that's what it's been about all along, the continuation of health insurance profits. Health insurance companies' existence is so immoral it's sickening. And their bought-and-paid-for toadies in Congress are even more vile.

[TheWebHead]

59. stopping the pre-existing condition situation of rejecting altogether

is going to require that there be a higher premium option for those falling in that category. That shouldn't come as a surprise. It's no different than how we're paying health/life insurance premiums based on age, or auto insurance if you have speeding tickets, DUI, etc. That's how insurance works... charging based upon risk. The hope will be there will be a reasonable cap for the pre-existing condition rates, as they do now with smokers, whether you're a pack a week or 3 packs a day.

Not charging people with pre-existing conditions a higher premium would mean they'd have to raise rates for everyone else, which would be a political liability for the Democrats in 2010 and beyond.