It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Not sure if this is in the right forum area... But, I figured this was Political Madness at it's best. I certainly don't call this reform... and on top of it all, it going to cost the working class American even more money. As if we aren't paying enough as it is!!!!

Source


WASHINGTON - You're afraid your cancer is back, and a health insurance company just turned you down. Under the health care bills in Congress, you could apply for coverage through a new high-risk pool that President Barack Obama promises would immediately start serving patients with pre-existing medical problems. Wait a second. Read the fine print. You may have to be uninsured for six months to qualify. "If you are a cancer patient and have cancer now, you can't wait six months to go into a plan because your condition can go from bad to death," said Stephen Finan, a policy expert with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. He called the waiting period in the Senate bill "unacceptable." Advocates for people with serious health problems, as well as some insurance experts, are raising questions about one of the most important upfront benefits in the Democratic health care legislation: a high-risk pool for the medically uninsurable. Obama proposed the pool in his September health care speech to Congress. Intended to serve the most vulnerable as a temporary fail-safe, it would stay in place until 2013. That's when insurance companies would be banned from denying coverage because of medical problems. Government subsidies to make coverage more affordable for millions of uninsured would also start that year. Now, concerns are being raised about the design of the high-risk pools. In addition to the six-month wait, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough. The money would be used to help people in poor health pay premiums. Obama credits his Republican presidential rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, for the risk-pools idea. But when the GOP candidate proposed it in 2008, the estimated cost was $7 billion to $10 billion a year. The six-month wait is in the health care bill the Senate Finance Committee approved last month. To qualify for the pool, patients must be turned down for coverage because of a pre-existing condition and uninsured for at least six months. "If you are somebody with cancer or a heart condition who needs immediate coverage and immediate treatment, that's not very helpful," said Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University health policy professor. Senate Finance staffers say the restriction is meant to prevent people switching from more expensive coverage to take advantage of government assistance. But the House health care bill unveiled last week by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., doesn't include a waiting period. Instead, it would require insurance plans who "dump" seriously ill patients to repay the federal pool. "The House provision will provide immediate relief for people with high-risk conditions who have no alternative for coverage," said Finan. It may be easier to fix the waiting period than the financing. Both the House and the Senate Finance bills set aside $5 billion for the pools. "It doesn't seem like it's near enough money," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was a top domestic policy adviser for McCain. The McCain campaign ultimately concluded it could take as much as $20 billion a year to properly run risk pools, he said. The White House says McCain's proposal was more elaborate and not directly comparable to Obama's. If the Democrats' risk pool starts running out of money, the government may have to start a waiting list, raise premiums or take other unpopular measures. Congress could be asked for a bailout. Several independent experts say concerns about the financing are valid. "It would seem that ($5 billion) is going to be small relative to the need," said Thomas Buchmueller, a University of Michigan business professor. Some 30 states now have risk pools for those who can't get health insurance on the private market, covering about 200,000 people at a cost of around $1 billion a year. "This is clearly not going to be enough money to cover everybody," said Pollitz. Insurance expert John Bertko, a visiting scholar at the Brookings Institution, said it may be possible to stretch the $5 billion, but there's a small margin for error. Bertko said his "back of the envelope" math suggests there are about 1 million uninsured Americans in poor health, or five times the number currently covered by state high-risk pools. If all of them signed up for the new federal pool, it would burn through the $5 billion in a year. However, people eligible for government benefits often fail to sign up. And if only one-third were to enroll, the budget could work. That's cutting it close. "No doubt about that," said Bertko.




posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
" If the Democrats' risk pool starts running out of money, the government may have to start a waiting list, raise premiums or take other unpopular measures."

Sing it with me...
"Oh Canada, Oh Canada"

I wonder what the "Other unpopular measureswould be"? DeathPanels? People debating whether you should live or die? Hmm, just maybe.

Was Palin right?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
...*sigh*


Our government is an utter failure. There are 33 nations with better health care systems than our own, all of them with healthier, happier citizens, all while we spend ridiculously more per capita then they do.

Why can't they just emulate the model of a successful system like Canada, England, France, Sweden, Italy, Norway, Spain, Denmark.... I could go on.

The whole 'money over health' thing in this country has really left us hung out to dry.

"Welcome to America: the newest third world country on the block. If you can't afford to live, you deserve to die in the streets."



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


I think your right about Palin... I guess the government just thinks that if you aren't able to survive in 6 months... then at least we don't waste any money on you...

What I'm concerned about as well as everyone else is... what about the people that have a terminable illness... or people with chronic pain?

Next thing you will see is a Government-distributed suicide kit. On the box it will say... If you can't wait for the 6 months then go ahead and take control of your own life.

Didn't we see that before... Oh yeah that's right in the movie; Children of Men. Maybe that movie is the glimpse of the future. Hopefully, the flu shot doesn't make everyone sterile... guess time will tell!

BTW: Common Good... Great Avatar!



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by x2Strongx
reply to post by Common Good
 


I think your right about Palin... I guess the government just thinks that if you aren't able to survive in 6 months... then at least we don't waste any money on you...

What I'm concerned about as well as everyone else is... what about the people that have a terminable illness... or people with chronic pain?

Next thing you will see is a Government-distributed suicide kit. On the box it will say... If you can't wait for the 6 months then go ahead and take control of your own life.

Didn't we see that before... Oh yeah that's right in the movie; Children of Men. Maybe that movie is the glimpse of the future. Hopefully, the flu shot doesn't make everyone sterile... guess time will tell!


BTW: Common Good... Great Avatar!


Idontknow ifPalin was right or not, but it seems as if she might be doesnt it? Scary.
Suicide kits...Yay! Thats our real "Bailout".
My best friend has Lymphoma cancer, he definately doesnt need to hear about this news yet.
Oh and Thanks! Yours is pretty damned funny as well.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
So let me see if I got this straight.

Progressives like myself have been pushing for a single payer system (which for the most obvious reasons is the best choice) and we had to capitulate and surrender all the way down to a watered down crapola version of a public option because...

a) Southern "Blue Dog" Democrats ( I like to call them corporate sucking whores)

and

b) Republicans who have fought night and day for no reform and sparking ridiculous paranoia with thing like death panels from caribou Barbie.

Now you have the gaul to complain about how bad the watered down public option is after all that you have done to turn it into the pile of crap that it is.

You people are truly amazing. Seriously.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by AllexxisF1]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


I dont know why you are attacking the OP for bringing this out to light..
he didnt write this report afterall, so why are you on him about it ?

Do some of you just not care where the money is comming from, as long as it gets done? Even if we have to bankrupt this nation?

""This is clearly not going to be enough money to cover everybody," said Pollitz


Edit to Add- Nobody in here said ther was GOING to be Death Panels..
I asked if what they meant by "Unpopular alternatives" meant if they were refering to a panel who decides peoples fates since they cant afford to pay for everyone. And 6 months waiting list? Are you kidding me? Like the OP stated, the Govt might as well just hand people loaded weapons so they can take care of it themselves



[edit on 5-11-2009 by Common Good]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join