![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
switch842Simply because much of it is over my head as I am just NOT politically minded. Plus, politics is generally a very personal thing and they always say to never talk politics amongst friends. LOL
But, this I just can't keep away from. It's about the new healthcare bill that's making the rounds in Washington. My husband wrote this and I must say that I 100% agree with everything he says here. I'm just going to copy what he wrote directly since he says it much better than I ever could. There are links, too, for additional information. And I'm cutting this since it is quite long. And to spare those that may not have any interest. But, even if you don't get involved much with politics, please read this since it does affect EVERY AMERICAN. And in a quite unfair way, I must say.
I send out this email to inform all who are not paying attention to what their representatives are up to in Washington D.C. Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee Referred House Resolution (H.R.) 3200 to the House of Representatives for a Vote (1). The stated purpose is: "To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes" (2).
Unfortunately, as is almost always the case, this bill is not what politicians claim. It is the complete socialization of the entire healthcare system. For those who claim that this is a gross exaggeration, I suggest they read the entire 470 page bill, which is posted online at www.Thomas.gov. I have provided a link to the printer friendly version below, see Reference 2.
Aware of how few people have the time to read this monster of a bill, here is a summary of the bill's lowlights.
#1 Private health insurance is outlawed. Or at least this bill causes the equivalent, though most likely over a few decades. Go to Section 102 PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE (page 13 in the printer friendly PDF format).
Once there you will find the following:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
This effectively outlaws the creation of any new insurance policies after Y1, which is defined as 2013 in Part II (25). So if you have coverage, and you like it and want to keep it, you will never be able to change it. If you get insurance through your employer, then you can never leave your current job. You can never start a new business and keep your insurance. Your employer cannot shop around and get a new plan with lower costs.
Paragraph (B) provides for dependant coverage to be added to existing policies. Fortunately, the term "dependant" does not appear to be redefined. Therefore a new baby can be covered under an existing policy, but once the dependent (who is not a spouse) turns 26, the government plan will be the only option for those unfortunate children.
This is the death knell for private insurance. Within 50 years, no one will be eligible for private insurance. Do you believe in choice? I do. I'm not paying taxes to be told what I can and cannot do with regard to my health. Item 1 alone is enough to kill this bill. So what else is in this bill?
#2 The Y1 start date of 2013 is considered a "Grace Period" to allow people to set up insurance programs which you need to keep for the rest of your life. See "b) Grace Period for Current Employment-based Health Plan" on the following page (2). I don't need the coverage now that I will need in 40 years. This "Grace Period" is a joke.
#3 There are some supposed good things like:
SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.
SEC. 112. GUARANTEED ISSUE AND RENEWAL FOR INSURED PLANS.
SEC. 113. INSURANCE RATING RULES.
But these requirements cost money. These three sections will drive up costs in private insurance plans. This will make "SEC. 116 - ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS" impossible to achieve. It will lead to private plans shutting down because they cannot meet the arbitrary standards set by this bill. Anyone who has taken an ECON 101 course understands this fact. If you have never taken ECON 101, I recommend Basic Economics By Thomas Sowell.
#4 The bill provides: SEC. 132. REQUIRING FAIR GRIEVANCE AND APPEALS MECHANISMS. The constitution provided the same requirement in the Bill of Rights. Amendment 1 provides us the ability to petition congress for a redress grievances (3). This has not been honored by congress since the Congress stopped reading citizen petitions in 1838 (4). If Congress will not respect it (4), and the Supreme Court will not address it (5), despite it being in the constitution, why should I expect a nameless bureaucrat in Washington to respect it in a 470 page congressional boondoggle?
Now I have reached page 30 in this bill, and I am already feeling sick. I can read no more. If you need more, you can keep reading. I have read enough to know that this Bill is a load of manure. I don't even want to know what they are promising in the government program, because I know it is a lie. We will be heavily taxed to get a slow-moving, underfunded, socialized system like Canada or Great Britain. Do you really want post office managers, or DMV staffers overseeing your healthcare?
Personally I don't think healthcare needs this kind of reform. I think that most of the present problems in the healthcare system is due to onerous regulations like this Bill. I have had enough and I hope that you are starting to see what I see.
So what can you do about this? How can you prevent this? Call your Representative.
Don't know who your Rep is? Follow this link: http://www.house.gov/ In the upper left corner, enter your ZIP Code and the site will tell you.
If you do not like what see in this bill, tell others, and pass on this email.
References:
1. Thomas.gov - HR3200 Congressional Actions (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03200:@@@X )
2 Thomas.gov - HR3200 Text of Legislation (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111OCdstd)
3. Archives.gov - Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
4. Burgess, John Williams. The Middle Period, 1817-1858: the American History Series. Page 270
(Available at:http://www.kessinger.net/searchresults-orderthebook.php?Author=Burgess,+John+William#2)
5. Supreme Court Decision - Minnesota BD. For Community Colleges vs. Knight (465 U.S. 271)
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/465/271.html)
But, this I just can't keep away from. It's about the new healthcare bill that's making the rounds in Washington. My husband wrote this and I must say that I 100% agree with everything he says here. I'm just going to copy what he wrote directly since he says it much better than I ever could. There are links, too, for additional information. And I'm cutting this since it is quite long. And to spare those that may not have any interest. But, even if you don't get involved much with politics, please read this since it does affect EVERY AMERICAN. And in a quite unfair way, I must say.
I send out this email to inform all who are not paying attention to what their representatives are up to in Washington D.C. Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee Referred House Resolution (H.R.) 3200 to the House of Representatives for a Vote (1). The stated purpose is: "To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes" (2).
Unfortunately, as is almost always the case, this bill is not what politicians claim. It is the complete socialization of the entire healthcare system. For those who claim that this is a gross exaggeration, I suggest they read the entire 470 page bill, which is posted online at www.Thomas.gov. I have provided a link to the printer friendly version below, see Reference 2.
Aware of how few people have the time to read this monster of a bill, here is a summary of the bill's lowlights.
#1 Private health insurance is outlawed. Or at least this bill causes the equivalent, though most likely over a few decades. Go to Section 102 PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE (page 13 in the printer friendly PDF format).
Once there you will find the following:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
This effectively outlaws the creation of any new insurance policies after Y1, which is defined as 2013 in Part II (25). So if you have coverage, and you like it and want to keep it, you will never be able to change it. If you get insurance through your employer, then you can never leave your current job. You can never start a new business and keep your insurance. Your employer cannot shop around and get a new plan with lower costs.
Paragraph (B) provides for dependant coverage to be added to existing policies. Fortunately, the term "dependant" does not appear to be redefined. Therefore a new baby can be covered under an existing policy, but once the dependent (who is not a spouse) turns 26, the government plan will be the only option for those unfortunate children.
This is the death knell for private insurance. Within 50 years, no one will be eligible for private insurance. Do you believe in choice? I do. I'm not paying taxes to be told what I can and cannot do with regard to my health. Item 1 alone is enough to kill this bill. So what else is in this bill?
#2 The Y1 start date of 2013 is considered a "Grace Period" to allow people to set up insurance programs which you need to keep for the rest of your life. See "b) Grace Period for Current Employment-based Health Plan" on the following page (2). I don't need the coverage now that I will need in 40 years. This "Grace Period" is a joke.
#3 There are some supposed good things like:
SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.
SEC. 112. GUARANTEED ISSUE AND RENEWAL FOR INSURED PLANS.
SEC. 113. INSURANCE RATING RULES.
But these requirements cost money. These three sections will drive up costs in private insurance plans. This will make "SEC. 116 - ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS" impossible to achieve. It will lead to private plans shutting down because they cannot meet the arbitrary standards set by this bill. Anyone who has taken an ECON 101 course understands this fact. If you have never taken ECON 101, I recommend Basic Economics By Thomas Sowell.
#4 The bill provides: SEC. 132. REQUIRING FAIR GRIEVANCE AND APPEALS MECHANISMS. The constitution provided the same requirement in the Bill of Rights. Amendment 1 provides us the ability to petition congress for a redress grievances (3). This has not been honored by congress since the Congress stopped reading citizen petitions in 1838 (4). If Congress will not respect it (4), and the Supreme Court will not address it (5), despite it being in the constitution, why should I expect a nameless bureaucrat in Washington to respect it in a 470 page congressional boondoggle?
Now I have reached page 30 in this bill, and I am already feeling sick. I can read no more. If you need more, you can keep reading. I have read enough to know that this Bill is a load of manure. I don't even want to know what they are promising in the government program, because I know it is a lie. We will be heavily taxed to get a slow-moving, underfunded, socialized system like Canada or Great Britain. Do you really want post office managers, or DMV staffers overseeing your healthcare?
Personally I don't think healthcare needs this kind of reform. I think that most of the present problems in the healthcare system is due to onerous regulations like this Bill. I have had enough and I hope that you are starting to see what I see.
So what can you do about this? How can you prevent this? Call your Representative.
Don't know who your Rep is? Follow this link: http://www.house.gov/ In the upper left corner, enter your ZIP Code and the site will tell you.
If you do not like what see in this bill, tell others, and pass on this email.
References:
1. Thomas.gov - HR3200 Congressional Actions (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03200:@@@X )
2 Thomas.gov - HR3200 Text of Legislation (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111OCdstd)
3. Archives.gov - Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
4. Burgess, John Williams. The Middle Period, 1817-1858: the American History Series. Page 270
(Available at:http://www.kessinger.net/searchresults-orderthebook.php?Author=Burgess,+John+William#2)
5. Supreme Court Decision - Minnesota BD. For Community Colleges vs. Knight (465 U.S. 271)
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/465/271.html)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-21 10:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-21 11:27 pm (UTC)I think I get what the overall purpose is - to help those that can't get/afford private healthcare help is good. I like that idea. But it's taking away that CHOICE and making mandatory that does not sit well. Plus, what is that going to do to the economy with the millions of people that will be out of a job? It just does not work as it is currently written.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-21 11:57 pm (UTC)That's it I'm fleeing the country. Now I just have to decide where? Canada, Switzerland, Australia, or New Zealand? Who's with me?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 12:21 am (UTC)I vote Canada! Though they do have governmental healthcare, too. So, hmmm....
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 12:54 am (UTC)And to think everyone at school thought I was crazy for not liking Obama. Maybe it's not directly his fault, but still...
Oi.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 12:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 02:13 am (UTC)I wish I weren't so tired to look up the necessary links. I hate popping in just to say "it's debunked" but not say where it is. One thing to consider, though, is that there are actually several different versions floating throughout Congress as different committees make different concessions and alterations. Right now it's so fluid it's hard to say what is actually within the bill. The overall theme tends to remain the same: creating affordable health care for everyone.
I'll work on recollecting links and throw something together tomorrow, or sometime this week.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 02:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 02:34 am (UTC)A lot of us went to college and work hard every day, too.
Not trying to start anything; just sayin'.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 02:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 03:00 am (UTC)Of course not, but then again, all those people stuck with the HMOs or crappy insurance companies that their jobs give them (because they can't afford anything on their own) don't want insurance agents deciding which doctors they can and cannot go to, which medications they're allowed to take, or which life-saving procedures they're allowed to have.
I know someone who had heart surgery twice. She had the insurance that she'd gotten from work. Had she not had that surgery, she'd have died of a heart attack three years ago.
The insurance company refused to pay for it (after they'd already given her the go-ahead on it and it had been performed) because the doctor changed the date of the operation without asking them if he could.
She ended up tens of thousands of dollars in debt. My father is dead because he couldn't find an insurance company that would accept him. My husband had to stop taking the ulcer medication he'd been on for six years because the insurance company decided they didn't want to cover it any more. Not only does no one in my family have insurance, only about 1/5 of the people in my entire town do.
They can't afford it, or the company won't accept them, or they change jobs and the company they were with refuses to cover them any more, or the company gets sick of paying for them and kicks them off (very very Diabetic sis-in-law had this happen to her - she very nearly died because she could no longer afford her insulin).
That is the horror of the healthcare system we have now. And yeah, call me crazy, but anything that puts a stop to the unethical, illogical, prejudicial and borderline illegal activities of the way most private insurance companies work is a good thing. I have no problem with making private insurance companies illegal because I see most of them as criminal anyway.
The only choice that you have right now, as far as most insurance goes, is which company you buy it from. From that point on - your health, your life, and all of your choices are made by your insurance company. Need surgery? You'd better hope they want to pay for it, or you won't get it. Need medication? You'd better hope they want to pay for it, or you won't get it.
The only difference between the system we have now and the proposed new system, when you get right down to it, is that everyone will have access to it, and insurance companies won't be killing people just to make a few extra pennies.
Now, on a much lighter note... the hubby writes a very good persuasive essay. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 03:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 03:26 am (UTC)Health Insurance Premiums Study (http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/Individual_Market_Survey_December_2007.pdf) - In 2006/2007, the average insurance premium for a family was $5800.00. I honestly don't know anyone who could afford that if someone (read: employer) weren't paying part of it. And on top of that, in those two years, more than 10% of all claims made were rejected.
Personally, I think the "they're taking away our freedom of choice" thing is a bit of an overreaction. Because really, right now, most people in this country are only choosing between paying through the nose for something they may or may not get benefits from and not having any insurance at all and praying no one gets seriously sick or injured.
If that's the choice the government wants to take away, then I'm fine with it. I've had enough years of having to chose between my children's food and their health.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 12:49 pm (UTC)ETA: And I'm not saying there shouldn't be the option of some sort of free/super cheap government backed healthcare for those that need it. I just don't think everyone does need it. And forcing it on everyone just seems like it will create more problems then it will solve.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 06:25 pm (UTC)I totally hear ya, hon. I had people on my flist think I was crazy for not liking him. I even had one flame me and defriend me. :/ Though that made me realize they weren't much of a friend to begin with...
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 06:31 pm (UTC)Not to mention the healthcare rationing part (I heard something about the government making "end of life" decisions?). My grandma is not very well off and I'm worried about what could happen to her if they decide she's not fit for any sort of treatment because of her age and condition.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 06:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 09:32 pm (UTC)The problem lies with non-urgent procedures, like hip replacements. You can wait years in agony for one of them. That's where private insurance comes in. Anyone can get a private policy, so they get the choice - either wait it out on the public waiting list or go private. I think it's a good balance. Doctor visits and prescription medicines are subsidised ($19 US for a consultation and just $1.90 for the majority of the Pharmac-funded prescription drugs). So I just have a policy for specialist testing (ie ultrasounds etc) and hospital treatment. It costs me $38 a fortnight for all 3 of us.
I think removing the choice for private insurance is pretty foolhardy, especially if the public system ends up like ours, and is unable to cope. While I do believe that having some sort of public system is beneficial, I don't see why you can't have both.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 10:20 pm (UTC)That's my biggest fear. I mean, private insurance companies seem to have enough problems keeping track of claims and all that. How is it going to work when it's one entity keeping track of THE ENTIRE COUNTRY? It just makes me shiver.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 10:20 pm (UTC)Really? I had not heard that. That doesn't sound any better either. Ugh...
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-22 10:51 pm (UTC)