Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Democrats consider dropping insurance ban on pre-existing conditions

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
 
Amerigo Vespucci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:23 PM
Original message
Democrats consider dropping insurance ban on pre-existing conditions
Source: The Raw Story

Among the casualties of President Barack Obama's healthcare agenda may be those who suffer from pre-existing medical conditions and can't get insurance.

Thought the ban on denying health insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions was going the way of the dodo? Not so fast.

An astute blogger noted that the new proposals floated by Democrats in the wake of the massive health care bill's collapse is a provision that would bar denying coverage for those with pre-existing conditions -- but only if they were under 19. "Did someone just chuck pre-existing conditions overboard?" he wrote.

Among the measures Democrats are considering, the New York Times noted Friday, "Insurers could not deny coverage to children under the age of 19 on account of pre-existing medical conditions."

Read more: http://rawstory.com/2010/01/democrats-dropping-ban-pree... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm going to wait for the facts on this
Raw Story with a bunch of anonymous sources does not seem to cut it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Anonymous sources?
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 01:33 PM by Bolo Boffin
It's from a New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/health/policy/22healt...

And a Plouffe oped:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

So you can drop the Raw Story angle AND the anonymous source angle. Wow, actually reading something before you dismiss it! A concept...

edited: correct punctuation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
22. The Quoted Plouffe Editorial

. . . says nothing in support of the debunked rumor in the OP. Not one word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #22
42. The words from the Plouffe editorial being looked at.
Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition.


Why just the children, DarthDem? Why not a diabetic or a cancer survivor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #42
50. Ummm

That doesn't say what you think it says. Are you seriously reading into that and getting "Democrats are dropping the PEC ban from the plan"? I think your doom and gloom perspective may be coloring your analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. Ummmm
From that and the New York Times article, a noticable drop of all people being covered from PEC is seen. Why wouldn't they be bragging about covering all PEC's? Why just under 19? That's what being observed.

Feel free to think otherwise. But this is clearly a balloon for dropping all but under-19 from PEC. It would be foolish to assume otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oceansaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. ugh....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. If true, this sucks! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abq e streeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. thank god-I was worried he wasn't reaching out to republicans and insurance companies
enough....I'm so relieved to hear this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoapBox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. WHaaaaaaaaat?????
OH...can you hear me screaming at the top of my lungs?

IF they drop this...I will NEVER EVER forgive them.

As someone with a "pre-existing condition" (BP controlled with a cheap pill) and looking at losing my insurance in about 2 years (and then in my later 50's), where the HELL will I get insurance.

A friend with a "small" BP issue also, is now paying almost $500 freak'n a month in premiums at age 53! What happens as they approach their 60's?!

This is insane. Dems...if you f*uck this up...OHHHH how I will never forgive you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElmoBlatz Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
7. Here's the problem
You can't ban denial of coverage for pre-existing coverage unless you have a mandate that everyone get insurance. It would be similar to automobile insurers allowing people to sign up after they wrecked their car. If the mandate goes, denial for pre-existing conditions goes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Americans will not accept a mandate to purchase for-profit insurance
What part of that don't these elitist braindead politicians not understand?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. They don't think we have any choice.
They think they're holding all the cards.

They are probably right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Dr. Strange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Kinda hard to call it an RNC talking point when the government does things that way too.
See, e.g., social security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Not Analogous

Plus, it was the "auto insurance after you've already had a wreck" example that I was talking about. That's been thoroughly spread all over various left-wing sites by "commentators" who are obviously trolls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Strange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Why isn't it analogous?
The government doesn't allow you to opt into Social Security two months before retirement, for obvious reasons. Why is this reason all of a sudden nefarious when a non-government agency does it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Well . . .

For starters, SSI/SSDI/OASDI have a fixed age-floor (or disability criterion) for eligibility. Health care doesn't - - in fact, in a sense it works in reverse. And that pretty much blows away the analogy you're trying to draw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. But no one's allowed to opt-out of social security retirement or disability.
All of us who are not using it have to subsidize the ones that are. That's how all insurance works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. I Think You've Lost Your Original Point

Insurance works that way in some schemes, yes. It doesn't have to. There is no reason - - other than lesser profits for carriers - - why a mandate absolutely must go hand-in-hand with a PEC ban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. But carriers are only in it for profit.
They're not charities. If you want to make a larger point about the problem of a society that values capital over people, great, I'll be right there with you, but within our current economic structure, a carrier must have some protection against adverse selection (like a mandate) to maintain profitability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sheepshank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. It's not analogous because...
...people often choose not to drive and therefore don't need insurance.....a conscious choice involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. But everyone who is going to drive is going to need auto insurance.
Likewise, everyone who is going to incur health care expenses (as in, everyone) is going to need health care insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Strange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #41
53. You can choose to drive or not.
But the government doesn't allow you to choose whether to participate in Social Security. In effect, they don't allow "pre-existing conditions." So it doesn't seem unreasonable to do the same for health care. Force people to have insurance rather than let them wait until they have an illness that they want covered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElmoBlatz Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Care to respond with logic instead of emotion?
Lets say denial for pre-existing conditions is banned, and there's no mandate. If i'm 25 years old.... I'm not buying insurance. Why should I? Its expensive, and I'm healthy. Now if I get hurt...THEN I'm going to buy insurance, and I can't be turned down because I have a pre-existing condition.

What do you think the response of the Health Insurance Cabal would be? Rates would rocket even higher than they have been.


Do you have an alternative scenario? Or do you just want to call names?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Actually, he's right, and you just look like an idiot by being pointlessly nasty.
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 02:40 PM by superduperfarleft
Google "adverse selection."

If private insurers are going to be involved in this, which they clearly are since single-payer has been off the table for a while, a mandate will be necessary in order to prohibit pre-x clauses. That doesn't make it a good thing, but it's a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Ugh, Fine

Buy into the RW talking-point, then. It's hopeless! Pre-existing bans require a mandate! Even thought they don't - - and incidentally, the bad on PECs wasn't even the genesis of the mandate in the current bill (either version).

Do some reading. And don't assume that people don't know what basic concepts like "adverse selection" are. This isn't rocketry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
GinaMaria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
26. yes you can, if you have a PO
with a public option there's no need to mandate a ban on pre-existing conditions. People have an alternative from the insurance industry. If the insurance companies want the same customers they will change their policy about pre-existing. If they don't want them, they don't change their policies. There's no need to mandate everyone to death in this bill, when all we need are options.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. The PO would've been an underfunded piece of crap the minute the Rs took the reins again.
And when all the healthy people or people who could afford better coverage gravitated towards private insurers, and the PO was left with nothing but the sick and indigent, it would've been bankrupt in no time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #26
46. The PO would've been a dumping ground for the high risk under those circumstances
In which case it would've had to be taxpayer subsidized to be sustainable and that means it would not have been deficit neutral.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GinaMaria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. A Medicare option for anyone who wants it
would likely attract more than just those who could not get coverage. I'm looking for a way not to give these blood suckers my money. If this is something we all pay into, it could be managed to be lower cost, by spreading the costs across a large population.

I know this admin would never go for expanding medicare, especially since it looks like they want to discontinue it. We started this in a very compromised position, imho.

I agree the repukes would try to destroy it. They don't want government to function.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. You're assuming an ideological outrage that I don't think exists
Most people haven't seen Sicko, most people don't think about this in terms of "punishing the blood suckers". They think about this in terms of "how can I get coverage for as little as possible"? And if the insurance companies offer them a lower premium than the public option for being young and healthy, most of them will stick with the insurance companies, other than a few like yourself who are concerned about social welfare more than the bottom line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GinaMaria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #52
61. The outrage is broad and it scares insurance co Execs.
I've worked on Medicare contracts and in the industry and I hated telling people where I worked because I would get an earful, from Doctors, lawyers, auditors, musicians, actors, marketing people all sorts of people in all sorts of jobs and this was 2007! The outrage is out there. It's worse now and I'm glad I switched jobs.

We all pay into Medicare. We should all get to use it if we need it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #26
56. it would make the 'public option' a HUGH money loser.
people wouldn't get insurance until they needed it, making it very expensive for the insurance carrier- in the case of a public option- the taxpayers. as long as you have irresponsible people, you'll need a mandate- and you'll ALWAYS have irresponsible people.

in countries that have single-payer programs, there is essentially a 'mandate' to have coverage, because everyone pays for it through their taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GinaMaria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. I pay for medicare through my paychecks. We're all bought in n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #59
62. you pay for medicare, based on people recieving it at age 65...
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 07:29 PM by dysfunctional press
or when they get disabled. and paying a share of it themselves.
if medicare were expanded to lower ages, you'd need to pay more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GinaMaria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Fine by me. I'm not expecting a freebee. I expect to pay.
Many of the people this would impact are already used to paying for Medicare. And many pay through the nose just to have insurance they can't afford to use. It would be nice if these folks could see a doctor when they were ill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. it's not up to you, though.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GinaMaria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. No shit. It's not up to any of us
Because we aren't really represented. There can't be an expansion of medicare when the administration's goal is to dismantle medicare. It's why certain options were off the table from the start. There's big plans for Medicare and SS. The vision for the future.... it's grand :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. someday people will get fed up with it all...
and there will be a revolution.

that's one thing that history teaches us.

it might take a long damn time before that happens, however.

global climate change and peak oil might make a big difference too...eventually.

nothing lasts forever- take comfort in that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GinaMaria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. water shortages, increasing unemployment
Less health care... the list goes on. We're in trouble and I can't help but think of I Claudius. There's a line where Claudius as an old man questions why he tried to change policy, laws etc to save the republic. He felt he only delayed the inevitable.... the death of democracy in Rome. He had tried to restore it. There's no comfort in that. For those of us who wish to restore democracy to the republic it's a huge loss. We are looking at revolution or complete collapse. Neither option is comforting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #67
69. i've got a well, i'm retired, and i'm on medicare, and i don't have kids...
i only need the republic to last a little bit longer...another quarter century should be adequate...then it can do what it wants, for all i care. :shrug:

unfortunately, tho- i'm having doubts as to which of us will be the first to go.
being disabled- if 'the republic' goes first, i probably go with it. (depending on what kind of prescription drug plan comes with post-apocalyptic anarchy)
if i go first- it won't matter a hoot. in fact- it will probably save the country some money, as i've probably already run through way more than i ever paid in fica "contributions".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GinaMaria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. It needs to last longer than you or I
and you deserve perscription coverage, health care and SS. We all do. It's worth fighting for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. not as far as i'm concerned.
besides, i've already got prescription coverage, healthcare and social security...and i'm done fighting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GinaMaria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Good for you. If you are done fighting
why bother to join in on these kinds of threads?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. posting is fighting..?
no wonder we're not getting anywhere... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GinaMaria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. Most here are fighting for something
and there's no where for us to get to. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bamacrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
8. If true then there is no point of passing anything.
That was the main biggest problem. People who desperately need it are rejected. But what if they said they will not make private insurers cover pre-existing conditions but allow those people to buy in to medicare or a government plan. Then the people who need the most will get it? doubtful but an idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
9. It's as if they've set out to piss off every Democratic voter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
10. The video of Ed Schultz interviewing Gibbs was an eye opener
Despite Ed's best try in getting Gibbs to talk about other topics (like abandoning the base) Gibbs instead only wanted to talk about HCR, and how it would eliminate pre-existing conditions for children.

Never once did Gibbs say anything about eliminating it for anyone but children, using the example of a mythical child in Iowa over and over.

The video was put up last night.


Its pretty obvious that the WH has no intention of pushing to end pre-existing conditions for everyone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
11. Raise your hand if you saw this coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trayfoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
12. If this is true, then I am so NOT a Dem anymore!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
13. Oh never fear! They'll use reconcilliation to give us all perfect, free, glorious health care
Everyone says so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
15. Already posted and refuted as rumor. The "story" is blogger's "concern" over a NY Times article
that supposes a statement about pre-existing conditions being banned as a requirement on children.

Please, there is no fact or basis to this bullshit story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. +1

READ CRITICALLY, PEOPLE!!!!!!!! The MSM is NOT your friend. And many bloggers are very silly people.

This is not going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endless october Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
17. i can only find two blog sources on this.
if true, it's dumb beyond belief.

i guess i'm waiting for a legit source to confirm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Read #4, Plouffe is a legit source. I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. True, But See #22


Plouffe didn't write anything of the kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #23
43. However, consider #43.
Plouffe did write something of the kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. Quote, Please?
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 03:27 PM by DarthDem
I've read the piece three times. But it's certainly possible that I'm missing the key language. Can you assist? Thanks.

On edit, never mind - - you meant to refer me to #42, not #43. See upthread for my response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #48
55. Yes, I meant #42, not #43.
Your upthread response is not anything you should refer anyone to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CanonRay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
18. How to read exactly the wrong message from Massachusetts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
28. could we put everyone who was kicked off of medical insurance on Medicare?
Please? The health insurance companies don't want them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
57. medicare would go broke that much faster.
you have to have healthy people paying premiums to offset the costs of the sick people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #57
71. maybe we could back end into medicare for all this way
say... we take the sick and now that medicare is losing money we have to take those who are well to offset it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
29. What's left of HCR?
This thing is such a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
38. So we're left with what?
A mandate to buy insurance that won't cover you for anything you need?

Why not cut to the chase and just let these guys steal directly from your bank account?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
39. Oh come on, there can't be anyone surprised by this. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
47. You don't need a mandate if the system is funded entirely out of tax revenues and
every legal resident of the U.S. is automatically eligible.

Because Congress and the president have rejected the SIMPLE solution from the outset, they are stuck trying to patch together a complicated solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
51. So Dems, let's see; other Countries get better care, everyone is covered and they spend HALF as much
because, for the most part, they've cut out the middle man. But you're going to reinvent the wheel by extorting money from the poor and giving it to your wealthy, obstructionist insurance corp owners who will still allow us to die by denying care. AND we as a Nation will STILL be paying twice what those with Universal coverage pay. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vicdoc Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
58. You can polish a turd...
But it will still be a turd...
They are using some of this product on the Health Care Plan:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howaboutme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
60. No public option, no reimportation and now no prexisting
If true, someone (as in PARTY) needs held majorly accountable. I'm going to wait a few days to hear the truth although it wouldn't surprise me based upon the scum suckers who played out the I'm for health care for corporations plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
68. This is spin. As others have pointed out, "under 19" refers to legislation that takes
effect immediately vs. what will be staggered in.
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 Fri Dec 26th 2014, 07:29 PM
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