Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

RAW STORY: Dems dropping preexisting condition ban?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
CLANG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:34 AM
Original message
RAW STORY: Dems dropping preexisting condition ban?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
endless october Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. careful, nausea might be a pre-existing condition.
this congress is almost worthless.

they have a huge majority in both houses; more than Bush ever had. and they're making the bill worse? unreal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brickbat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
2. Waiting to feel any modicum of surprise ... waiting .... hmmm.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
3. Raw Story reports a Blogger's Concern on a NY Times plausible outcomes. hmmm.
Hyperbole anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Not to mention the fact tha Plouffe's statements were about what happens immediately
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 10:43 AM by WeDidIt
Children cannot be denied coverage due to PECs immediately upon the bill being signed.

Adult bans on denying coverage over PECs takes effect 1/1/14.

That's the Senate version, and no, the dates cannot be altered by reconciliation, nor can a ban on PECs be taken up via reconciliation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. "Some say" that Democrats are dumping the preexisting ban.
Same tactics used by FAUX News.

and suckers believe every word of it.

yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
4. If true, they can forget my support, but careful. Plouffe talks about immediate
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 10:38 AM by Mass
suppressions. The Senate bill gets rid of preexisting conditions for adults in 2014 and has high risk pools in between. It may be what this is about.

We need to be careful, but not jump the gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
5. this is why you can't break up the bill
you can't ban denial of pre-existing conditions without a mandate. So no mandate, no pre-ex protections.

So, the solution, is to pass.the.damn.bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. why cant you ban denial of pre exisiting cond w/out a mandate?
Most of Europe and Canada have no denial for pre-existing, and NO mandate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Their mandate is their taxation. We have mandated Medicare thru taxes.
I do think tho that in places with private, nonprofit (and heavily regulated) health insurance, like Switzerland and the Netherlands, you are required to get insurance. They also have generous safety net coverage for those too poor to get the insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I think the whole concept of insurance does not exist. you are not required
to do anything. If you get sick, you go to the doctor or hospital. it is free. that is that. end of story.
WEll you also get in home care, medicines, and more for free.
you pay taxes.
Insurance is the betting on whether or not you will get sick.
We do not need insurance. We need health care. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. if there were no mandate, but still was a ban on pre-ex condition exclusion
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 06:37 PM by Teaser
think about what the logical course of action for a given human is...

You don't buy insurance until you get sick. Just stay uninsured. Get sick, go and buy insurance.

So, what happens to the insurance company? Because you haven't been paying into the system, they don't have money to defray the cost of your treatment. So they raise prices for everyone across the board. Which then discourages more people from signing up until they get sick. Which then leads to more prices increases...


See the problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. I sure do see the problem! We need single payer, universal health care!
I hope you do too.

This is ridiculous. Our system doesn't and cannot work. What is the matter with us that we don't have a leader who just says "ENOUGH!" and gets it DONE!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. of course we need single payer
but given that we're not going to get it, I can tolerate the system in the bill. It's a half assed way to do things, but it is marginally functional, which beats the current system. Given time, with community rating, for profit insurers will become nothing more than heavily regulated health utilities.

Which is still an inferior approach to single payer, but it is workable, and has been implemented in other countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
6. No compromise is too compromising - try them!
You'll see. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bullet1987 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
8. I'm hoping they're not stupid enough to drop it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
9. The story is bullshit so don't waste your nausea on the specific claims
There is no discussion anywhere of dropping the pre-existing condition ban (except as a by-product of dropping the whole thing)

The OP article plays on the fact that most people didn't realize that the ban for adults doesn't kick in for four years.

That is its own problem, but not the same problem as that fancifully "deduced" in the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
10. It is impossible to ban discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions without a mandate.
If you do, premiums will go up to the actual cost of treating someone with a pre-existing condition (possibly several thousand/month).

The only reason there is talk of dropping this is because they might not be able to get a mandate/subsidies through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Of course it is possible to have a mandate without allowing
profit to be part of the deal, as other Democracies do when they mandate that their citizens purchase insurance. Also, the premiums can be capped, as they are in other nations.
So maybe the problem is not the mandates, but the mandated profit, making people contribute to the profit of private companies, under the force of law, is not necessary for any reason.
Let's just be clear about that. You do not have to agree that we should do it that way, but that is how all of our 'peer nations' do it. In fact, it is usually a crime to profit from these basic health care policies. So there's that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Without the mandate, the bill is meaningless. It becomes a suggestion to get health insurance.
The mandate will be kept. No matter what.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
change_notfinetuning Donating Member (750 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
13. This administration believes in CONpromises, not COMpromises. It's the
anti-promise mentality that sees everything as negotiable. Surrender might be a better word.

Whatever the promise, you can kiss it goodbye. Their strength is weakness.

Any hope of Obama getting it? If you think so, I hear Bernie Madoff has a new venture you might wanna get in on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
15. Living: is a pre-existing condition. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faygo Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
19. If this is dropped, that's it for my support. This is non-negotiable.
What the hell are people 50-64 supposed to do? None will be insured. They can't do this and expect support. Period. I have gone along with almost anything to get something passed, but not this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irish_shark Donating Member (133 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Relax. You're not being a pragmatic realist n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thatsrightimirish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
23. sort of like how karl rove was indicted?
hopefully this too isn't true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 20th 2014, 04:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC