Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

5 "freedoms" you'd lose in health care reform-CNN hit piece

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
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 05:23 PM
Original message
5 "freedoms" you'd lose in health care reform-CNN hit piece
Edited on Mon Aug-10-09 05:42 PM by SpartanDem
1 Freedom to choose what's in your plan

The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer

Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.

The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.

Yeah this sounds absolutely horrible can't have any of that nasty regulation stuff :eyes:

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs

As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.

Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.

Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.

Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents

If the first section alone didn't prove what a hack this person was this will. Other "freedoms" you'll lose "choose high-deductible coverage" As if people choose water downed coverage that will drain their wallet if they actually get sick. Of course some free-market jerk comes to the defense 'The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ejpoeta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. what a joke!!!
who has the 'freedom to choose what's in your plan'??? i don't know anyone. you get what you get. the insurance company chooses what is in your plan, last i checked... and they like to change it at their will. so much for freedom to choose... and you 'choose' from one or two plans your employer offers....

as for regulations.... well, if it weren't for the rules my state has... the insurance company would still be able to make me pay a much larger copay to go to mental health appointments that my standard copay for a doctor or specialist visit. Now, thanks to a new law that took effect a couple years ago... they must charge the same copay for counseling or a shrink as they do for a specialist visit. also, they have to cover things that otherwise they would not cover.... they would still charge us what they are charging us now, but they would just not cover these things.

what bullshit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
etherealtruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. Imagine the freedoms the un and under-insured will lose
The freedom to suffer from and/or die from treatable and preventable diseases .... that'll be the first freedom to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. The only freedom that will be lost is that of health insurers make obscene profits while killing off the insured.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. Don't make me laugh.
How about these five freedoms when you have national health care.

The security you have that you can see a doctor or go to a hospital and not be turned away.
Not having to be afraid of losing your health care when you change jobs or lose your job.
Not being fearful of getting an expensive disease and losing all you have worked for because you are forced into bankruptcy.
Not having to fight with your insurance company every time you need an operation or procedure or even being denied coverage.
Being able to get the medication you need and not having to worry about buying pills or buying food.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. Without ad $$$ from insurance, pharma and banking, CNN would lose the freedom to broadcast.
What's that old saying about not biting the hand that feeds you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
abelenkpe2 Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. ug
Demand stations only report facts and not misinformation.
Debunk nonsense whenever the opportunity arises.
Gotta keep fighting....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. cnn is so jealous of fixed noise
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
8. The real fight is between those who have Health Insurance and
those who do not have Health Insurance. This is what it has
boiled down to at this time.

Those who have Insurance see Reform as perhaps messing up their
individual care.

The Media have excellent Insurance and this underlies their

What everyone is choosing to ignore. Our economy is in flux
and when we come out of this recession we will be a poorer nation.
The Media chooses to ignore this. Their insurance is not absolute.
As living standards lower, there will not be money for big Advertising
on TV.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. That's true
I think that's why you've seen over the last few weeks the emphasis shift in message from the uninsured to the insured ,since the majority of people are insured, to calm those fears. Most people think their coverage is great even though in reality it may not be once they have to use it. So you've got the Dems playing up the insurance reform side and less talk about things like the public option now this has been seen as by some as a precursor to eliminating the public option. Which I guess it could be, but I don't think it's very likely.
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 Mon Aug 21st 2017, 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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