Key liberal congressman flips to 'yes' on health care vote

[jillio]

I believe that mandatory insurance coverage is pointless without public options, that why I'm upset at senates, especially conservative democrat won't back it.

I agree that removing the public option seriously cripples the entire move to reform health care.

 

[deafskeptic]

I agree that removing the public option seriously cripples the entire move to reform health care.

If the public option can be added later on, I'd be happy.

 

[jillio]

If the public option can be added later on, I'd be happy.

It could be. Just a lot of rigamarole involved. Delays that we really don't need when it comes to reform. But I agree. Adding it later on is better than abolishing it altogether.

 

[TXgolfer]

If supreme court see mandatory insurance coverage as unconditional so I hopefully they will strike some section of health care bill as leave ban on pre-existing condition and denying from coverage for any reason, except for fraud as enforced.

Pre existing condition protection is what makes insurance work. Removing an insurance company's ability to access risk and limit liability by reviewing pre existing conditions would be the same as telling auto insurance companies that they can't look at a driver's record.

Insurance companies gamble.....that's all it is. They gamble that they will collect more in premiums than they will pay in claims. When they lose the gamble they become insolvent and claims go unpaid. When insurance companies are forced to accept pre existing conditions one of three things happen.1) They raise premiums across the board. 2) They go broke 3)They go broke and the taxpayer bails them out. Option 3 has the same effect as raising premiums but with the added bonus of a bureaucracy surcharge. It doesn't work....no matter how rosy it seems.

 

[Reba]

...There are ways to lessen the costs of health insurance and health care for those who need it without infringing upon the rights of those that choose other options.

I would like to see the options of HSA's to cover routine and minor medical expenses combined with catastrophic health insurance, and tax deductions for prescription and non-prescription medical products without having to meet a minimum amount.

 

[TXgolfer]

Could you detail some of those ways, please? If you have posted them prior, I must have missed them.

They are all throughout this thread.....Tort reform, Opening insurance competition accross state borders ect ect. The same things that were suggested and dismissed at the summit. Things that are free or cheap to try.

 

[TXgolfer]

I would like to see the options of HSA's to cover routine and minor medical expenses combined with catastrophic health insurance, and tax deductions for prescription and non-prescription medical products without having to meet a minimum amount.

Excellent idea

 

[jillio]

They are all throughout this thread.....Tort reform, Opening insurance competition accross state borders ect ect. The same things that were suggested and dismissed at the summit. Things that are free or cheap to try.

Thanks for posting a couple. Some states have already enacted tort reform. Medical costs have not gone down as a result.

How would opening competition across state borders lower medical costs?

 

[TXgolfer]

If the public option can be added later on, I'd be happy.

Possible but it would require an amendment to the bill.....which of course requires a vote.

Certain things can be "tweaked" like Fine amounts or deadlines but actually adding something to a bill requires an amendment

 

[TXgolfer]

Thanks for posting a couple. Some states have already enacted tort reform. Medical costs have not gone down as a result.

How would opening competition across state borders lower medical costs?

Competition.

But again this is all moot until it actually passes and the SC rules on it. Way ahead of ourselves

 

[jillio]

Competition.

But again this is all moot until it actually passes and the SC rules on it. Way ahead of ourselves

This is true. But just for the sake of it, in state competition hasn't lowered costs. I don't see that out of state will do much, either.

 

[TXgolfer]

This is true. But just for the sake of it, in state competition hasn't lowered costs. I don't see that out of state will do much, either.

But it wouldn't cost us a Trillion to try it. And we have 4 years to try it before this plan would kick in anyway....if passed and upheld

 

[jillio]

But it wouldn't cost us a Trillion to try it. And we have 4 years to try it before this plan would kick in anyway....if passed and upheld

Mandatory coverage isn't going to cost a trillion, either.

I doubt seriously that we will get any reform in that 4 year interim. People are too hung up on the bill.

 

[Foxrac]

Pre existing condition protection is what makes insurance work. Removing an insurance company's ability to access risk and limit liability by reviewing pre existing conditions would be the same as telling auto insurance companies that they can't look at a driver's record.

Insurance companies gamble.....that's all it is. They gamble that they will collect more in premiums than they will pay in claims. When they lose the gamble they become insolvent and claims go unpaid. When insurance companies are forced to accept pre existing conditions one of three things happen.1) They raise premiums across the board. 2) They go broke 3)They go broke and the taxpayer bails them out. Option 3 has the same effect as raising premiums but with the added bonus of a bureaucracy surcharge. It doesn't work....no matter how rosy it seems.

Oh really, that's sucks...

It means public health options would be better to get away from gambling that what private insurance used today, it means anyone with many health problems wouldn't want get job or find part time to make income so below to meet the qualify for Medicaid.

It is pathetic about everyone can't across to health care in US.

In note, I wouldn't support taxpayer bail out the insurance companies if they are broke and let them down.

 

[jillio]

What about Religious people who choose not to go to Dr's?

I would prefer a plan that brings down costs for everyone to a plan that mandates for all and provides for a few.

If you had been reading the bill proposals, you would know that there is an exemption for those who are members of a religion that oppose traditional medical care.

 

[jillio]

Oh really, that's sucks...

It means public health options would be better to get away from gambling that what private insurance used today, it means anyone with many health problems wouldn't want get job or find part time to make income so below to meet the qualify for Medicaid.

It is pathetic about everyone can't across to health care in US.

In note, I wouldn't support taxpayer bail out the insurance companies if they are broke and let them down.

Pre-existing conditions are not what insurance work. They are what keeps insurance working for the individual that is paying the premiums and receiving nothing in return. It is a clause overused by the insurance industry as a way to increase already huge profits.

Anyone remember the case we discussed a short while ago regarding the insurance company that had determined domestic violence to be a pre-exisiting condition as a way to dissallow any emergency room visits for any injuries?:roll:

 

[TXgolfer]

If you had been reading the bill proposals, you would know that there is an exemption for those who are members of a religion that oppose traditional medical care.

Not all of them......Otherwise this too would be moot. There are many non denominational "bible churches" that do not fall under the provision

 

[jillio]

Not all of them......Otherwise this too would be moot. There are many non denominational "bible churches" that do not fall under the provision

Then perhaps they need to do what is necessary to insure that they do fall under the provision. Otherwise, anyone that simply doesn't want to purchase insurance can claim to be affiliated with a sect that does not believe in traditional medical care.

 

[TXgolfer]

Pre-existing conditions are not what insurance work. They are what keeps insurance working for the individual that is paying the premiums and receiving nothing in return. It is a clause overused by the insurance industry as a way to increase already huge profits.

Anyone remember the case we discussed a short while ago regarding the insurance company that had determined domestic violence to be a pre-exisiting condition as a way to dissallow any emergency room visits for any injuries?:roll:

This is just getting funny now.

It will be fun to watch what happens

 

[TXgolfer]

Then perhaps they need to do what is necessary to insure that they do fall under the provision. Otherwise, anyone that simply doesn't want to purchase insurance can claim to be affiliated with a sect that does not believe in traditional medical care.

I see. So people are not entitled to their individual religious beliefs.....they must be tied to an organization