How will Obamacare help you personally?

[Objective Voice]

How will Obamacare help you personally?


I mean, do you currently have insurance? Will you keep your insurance?

Yes to both.

Do you think you will save money by dumping your health insurance in favor of this Obamacare?

Since I don't know how much the government option health insurance would cost, I really can't answer that question. The hope is it would either be cheaper or the new emphasis on competition will drive my current health insurance cost down. But without the numbers, I can't answer this one.

Will your quality of care go up or down?

Same answer as above, thought the hope is more competition would drive costs down since more regional insurance plans would be available vice statewide limitation are what we currently have. You can't live in CA and get a cheaper health insurance policy from say IN. It just doens't work that way under today's system. But if regions are outlined, then maybe someone living in CA can get health insurance that may be in their region which also covers NV, for example.

What net gain, do you think, you will get with the current plan under review?

Not exactly sure what you mean here. If I stay with my current insurance plan, the net gain hopefully will be increased coverage at a reduced price. I think that would be the best thing about the HCR bill - more coverage, reduced cost, less out of pocket expenses.

What did you use to arrive at your answer.

Knowing what's in my current health insurance plan, knowing what problems I've had with my health insurance as far as service and overall coverage, and knowing what I've read in the current HCR bill as proposed by the House of Reps.

thanks you.

You're welcome.

 

[celticlord]

more partisan hyperbole.

Wonderful. You can spell hyperbole. Only you still neglect to actually refute what I said. You have not offered up one single argument asserting how HR3200 delivers what Dear Leader says is important.

Except for the fact that it's completely true.

You would be right, if not for the fact that you're completely wrong. HR2520 is current legislation, offered in the current session of Congress.

Where was this glorious HR2520 when the repubs had six years of total govt control?

Where was HR3200 in 2007? Where was Queen Nancy or Henry Taxman or John Dingell on the topic of health care in 2007? Where was Hapless Harry Reid? Where were your glorious Anti-Republicans then? They had the power to set the legislative agenda in 2007? Where were their big health care reform guns then?

Why did the Anti-Republicans, when in control of the Senate and the House in 2007, kill the Wyden-Bennett bi-partisan Healthy Americans Act--an act the CBO has identified as paying for itself?

 

[windovervocalcords]

I'm one of the many without health insurance. I take a very expensive medication which I have to pay out of pocket for.

I'd like to see the health care bill HR 3200 pass for my own benefit and for the benefit of others.

"The bill will not force people into a public health plan and is designed to protect certain current health coverage. It would provide an affordable public option to compete with private insurance companies and would set minimum quality standards for health care.

This would happen with the creation of the Health Insurance Exchange, a marketplace for individuals and small businesses to comparison shop among private and public insurers. This exchange will set and enforce standards that most likely will improve health care in general.

If HR 3200 is signed into law, employment-based health plans will have a five-year grace period to align their health-care plans with government-mandated minimum standards."
Durango Herald News, Fact or fiction: Debunking common myths

 

[Joe1991]

Wonderful. You can spell hyperbole. Only you still neglect to actually refute what I said. You have not offered up one single argument asserting how HR3200 delivers what Dear Leader says is important.

Huh? I don't see anything in the bill that conflicts with Obama's stated goals.

HR3200 Summary
House Health Care Bill - H.R.3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

prohibiting preexisting condition exclusions;

providing for guaranteed coverage to all individuals and employers and automatic renewal of coverage;

prohibiting premium variances, except for reasons of age, area, or family enrollment; and prohibiting rescission of health insurance coverage without clear and convincing evidence of fraud. Requires qualified health benefits plans to provide essential benefits.

Prohibits an essential benefits package from imposing any annual or lifetime coverage limits. Lists required covered services, including hospitalization, prescription drugs, mental health services, preventive services, maternity care, and children's dental, vision, and hearing services and equipment.

Limits annual out-of-pocket expenses to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Establishes the Health Choices Administration as an independent agency to be headed by a Health Choices Commissioner.

Establishes the Health Insurance Exchange within the Health Choices Administration in order to provide individuals and employers access to health insurance coverage choices, including a public health insurance option. Requires the Commissioner to:
(1) contract with entities to offer health benefit plans through the Exchange to eligible individuals; and
(2) establish a risk-pooling mechanism for Exchange-participating health plans. Provides for an affordability premium credit and an affordability cost-sharing credit for low-income individuals and families participating in the Exchange. Requires employers to offer health benefits coverage to employees and make specified contributions towards such coverage or make contributions to the Exchange for employees obtaining coverage through the Exchange. Exempts businesses with payrolls below $250,000 from such requirement.

 

[Ethereal]

The bill is over 1,000 pages long. Nobody is capable of understanding it in its entirety. It needs to be scrapped.

 

[celticlord]

Huh? I don't see anything in the bill that conflicts with Obama's stated goals.

HR3200 Summary
House Health Care Bill - H.R.3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

Dear Leader's goals, stated by you:

•Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
CBO assessment of HR3200 is that it will bend the curve up, not down.

•Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
Doesn't do that either, mainly because it does not contain costs.

•Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
Making the choice for you is not a guarantee of choice, but a negation of choice. Considering that a growing number of doctors are declining to participate in Medicare because they are tired of under-reimbursement, their ideas of reducing payments still further is a great way to reduce the available doctors. Fewer doctors means less choice.

•Invest in prevention and wellness
When overutilization of testing already costs this country hundreds of billions without delivering any tangible benefit, further over utilizing those same mechanisms is not going to result in either prevention or wellness. Prevention and wellness are laudable health goals, but they are not health care goals--and how very clever of Congress to conflate the two.

•Improve patient safety and quality of care
It's a rehash of previous patient safety legislation, and the incidence of medical error (and fatalities arising from it) are still rising.

•Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
It's CommonwealthCare on steroids--which is neither affordable nor quality care.

•Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
Doesn't do that either. Employer-provided coverage means when you lose your job you lose your coverage. Oh, wait, unless government is providing you with coverage already--so that magical "choice" you get is GovernmentCare or no care.

•End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions
Barriers which largely do not exist, since HIPAA already mandates the transition from one group plan to another group plan without disruption of coverage for existing conditions. Of course, if we transitioned away from employee-based coverage to individual-based coverage (HR2520), the problem would cease to exist--insurance companies would navigate around existing conditions in order to compete for customers.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I'm one of the many without health insurance. I take a very expensive medication which I have to pay out of pocket for.

I'd like to see the health care bill HR 3200 pass for my own benefit and for the benefit of others.

"The bill will not force people into a public health plan and is designed to protect certain current health coverage. It would provide an affordable public option to compete with private insurance companies and would set minimum quality standards for health care.

This would happen with the creation of the Health Insurance Exchange, a marketplace for individuals and small businesses to comparison shop among private and public insurers. This exchange will set and enforce standards that most likely will improve health care in general.

If HR 3200 is signed into law, employment-based health plans will have a five-year grace period to align their health-care plans with government-mandated minimum standards."
Durango Herald News, Fact or fiction: Debunking common myths

Why do you not have health insurance?

 

[Objective Voice]

Dear Leader's goals, stated by you:

•Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government.
CBO assessment of HR3200 is that it will bend the curve up, not down.

•Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
Doesn't do that either, mainly because it does not contain costs.

•Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
Making the choice for you is not a guarantee of choice, but a negation of choice. Considering that a growing number of doctors are declining to participate in Medicare because they are tired of under-reimbursement, their ideas of reducing payments still further is a great way to reduce the available doctors. Fewer doctors means less choice.

•Invest in prevention and wellness
When overutilization of testing already costs this country hundreds of billions without delivering any tangible benefit, further over utilizing those same mechanisms is not going to result in either prevention or wellness. Prevention and wellness are laudable health goals, but they are not health care goals--and how very clever of Congress to conflate the two.

•Improve patient safety and quality of care
It's a rehash of previous patient safety legislation, and the incidence of medical error (and fatalities arising from it) are still rising.

•Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
It's CommonwealthCare on steroids--which is neither affordable nor quality care.

•Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
Doesn't do that either. Employer-provided coverage means when you lose your job you lose your coverage. Oh, wait, unless government is providing you with coverage already--so that magical "choice" you get is GovernmentCare or no care.

•End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions
Barriers which largely do not exist, since HIPAA already mandates the transition from one group plan to another group plan without disruption of coverage for existing conditions. Of course, if we transitioned away from employee-based coverage to individual-based coverage (HR2520), the problem would cease to exist--insurance companies would navigate around existing conditions in order to compete for customers.

1 & 2. I can't challenge the cost reduction aspect or the bankruptcy claim because like you, I haven't seen the unofficial "official" cost analysis either. My hope, however, is that with more competition health insurance cost will go down, not up. As for families being one medical catastrophy from filing for bankruptcy, I'd say that's true. I'm on the brink of being in that situation myself. Fortunately, both my wife and I have good health insurance, but without it we'd be sunk right now because of a rare blood disorder our 18 yr old daughter has. We knew nothing about it until she started losing feeling in her extremities. It was only from a battery of test were the doctors able to narrow down the problem, but if we had to pay out of pocket....I dread thinking about it.

3. There's nothing in the HCR bill I've come across that would take your choice of physicians, clinics or hospitals away. The choice of who provides your health care services is still yours.

4. I work in public health. So, I know full well how preventive medicine can produce a much healthier society. But for too long our nation has been more focused on treatment rather than prevention. It's time to turn that trend around. Wellness (preventive care) is the key.

5. You'd have to convince me of that one by showing me the numbers. I know many hospitals over the years have had a shortage of nurses. So, perhaps the lack of safety concerns is because they just aren't enough trained nurses on staff. Turn that trend around and the safety issues will reverse.

6. You have to try. To do nothing is irresponsible.

7. Read the legistlation again. I does state that retaining one's health insurance whether your lose your job or are separated or divorced from your spouse who was the holder of your health insurance policy people would be able to keep what they have. I'm still fussy on the time-table on that because I know for a fact that in today's health care market if you lose your job your only choices for health care are: a) you sign up for COBRA which is very expensive; or b) you quickly move over to your spouses health care (if your married). Otherwise, you're on your own paying for it out of pocket. If you go through a divorce and your spouse drops you from his/her policy, you're own your own. Even your kids could go w/o health care because most insurance companies DON'T cover stepchildren. I know this because I've gone through this before. Such transitional health coverage would go a long way towards ensuring people still have access to health care even if on a limited basis (i.e., 60-90 in order to find their own health insurance).

8. The last item I know nothing about except that HIPPA laws are geared more towards protecting the privacy and security of personal medical information, not providing health care coverage. Still, until I learn more on the pre-condition aspect towhich you refer as they apply to HIPPA, I can't refute your claim.

 

[windovervocalcords]

Why do you not have health insurance?

I am self-employed and it's very expensive.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I am self-employed and it's very expensive.

Really? How much? when was the last time you quoted? Are you living in your means?