Bill Frist sells out

[ugonow]

Personally, I don't know anybody that has ever been denied coverage (including a former roommate with a stent and taking heart meds) or that has been cancelled after a claim for omitting a 20 year old wart removal from their application....I'm also not saying that nothing like this has ever happened.

Of course.This is a tired lib talking point. What they do is set the premium to cover the increased risk exposure,something that is necessary to be profitable. If you are not willing to pull your weight in the mutual pool,stay out of it.

[floridayankee]

Jan 19, 2011 16:23:00 GMT -5 @marjar said:

I was denied coverage - I took anti anxiety meds for 4 years and had carpal tunnel -several years prior to applying. I hadn't been on medication for 2 years prior to applying for insurance Excellent blood pressure, good cholesterol, never had cancer, not diabetic. Other than being pregnant, I've not spent a night in the hospital since I was a child.

My doctor's son- he graduated college and was having trouble finding a job, two years ago. Their policy didn't allow him to be covered after he turned 23. They applied for a policy, and because he was ADD, he was denied coverage.

A policy? You all give up after one application?

Shall I go on?

No need because I already acknowledged that "I'm also not saying that nothing like this has ever happened." I simply do not believe that these sort of things are as commonplace as some would have us believe.

As I said...my former roommate was able to find coverage even with an existing condition.

So, you know people that have been denied for a pre-existing condition....I know somebody with a pre-existing condition that was able to get coverage. I guess we can we conclude that while some may be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, others have been able to find coverage.

If you were denied after applying for a policy, don't give up and apply for a policy somewhere else.

[floridayankee]

Jan 19, 2011 17:11:26 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

They happen,

No kidding...never said they didn't. I simply said I don't personally know anybody that has been denied.

my late brother was a diabetic for many years,

Was? I'd bet he still is. BTW, the metformin meds are free at publix.

I ran into a problem when looking to by long term coverage, not health, but in case need live in, come in type help. At the time, smoker, most turned down and one or two would take me rates were crazy.

So basically, you found coverage but were unhappy with the rate. And this higher rate for higher risk surprises you? I bet it costs a hell of a lot more to insure a Lamborghini than it does to insure my Camry too. Should we revolt against the auto insurers and demand we all pay the same rate?

[Deleted]

Pubs are suggesting a high risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions. Some of you guys act like Pubs just want people to die. Try to at least listen to what they are saying. Everybody is open to change, and we need a major step in the direction of cutting medical care costs which the bill does NOT do. Pubs are talking tort reform, buying insurance across state lines, which will create competition, and other things. I constantly hear people saying Republicans moan and groan, but put no ideas forth. That is not true. If someone thinks that, they are not listening. May I suggest changing the channel?? I FORCED myself to watch 2 solid hours of MSNBC last night, and I HATE that news channel. How can anyone have an opinion on anything if they have no idea what the opposition is up to?

[safeharbor37]

The problem with "the bill" is that it's too long and convoluted and contains 'god only knows what'. I think everyone recognizes that some form of health care coverage is essential in today's world. The question is, "How do we provide it?", knowing that there are some who will never provide it for themselves for various reasons and we won't [and probably shouldn't] allow them to do without.
Let's see:
1] coverage despite preexisting conditions.
2] prevention of unjustified cancellation.
3] coverage for those who cannot afford coverage themselves.
4] coverage for dependents still actually dependent.
5] coverage for conditions which are too expensive for private coverage.
You can add to the list. All the above are at least worth consideration. But which could not be met with a government sponsored high risk pool and appropriate Federal subsidies where necessary? Would that require myriad regulations spanning 2700 pages? I think not.
Congress should not pass laws which have never been read by anyone other than those who wrote parts of it. There is absolutely no way to assure that there aren't contradictions and that there are not provisions which will be unacceptable in their application. Laws will always include various provisions and include disparate applications, but this 'bag of worms'/ 'pig in a poke' is probably the 'poster child' of irresponsible legislation.

[deziloooooo]

Jan 20, 2011 14:38:14 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

The problem with "the bill" is that it's too long and convoluted and contains 'god only knows what'. I think everyone recognizes that some form of health care coverage is essential in today's world. The question is, "How do we provide it?", knowing that there are some who will never provide it for themselves for various reasons and we won't [and probably shouldn't] allow them to do without.
Let's see:
1] coverage despite preexisting conditions.
2] prevention of unjustified cancellation.
3] coverage for those who cannot afford coverage themselves.
4] coverage for dependents still actually dependent.
5] coverage for conditions which are too expensive for private coverage.
You can add to the list. All the above are at least worth consideration. But which could not be met with a government sponsored high risk pool and appropriate Federal subsidies where necessary? Would that require myriad regulations spanning 2700 pages? I think not.
Congress should not pass laws which have never been read by anyone other than those who wrote parts of it. There is absolutely no way to assure that there aren't contradictions and that there are not provisions which will be unacceptable in their application. Laws will always include various provisions and include disparate applications, but this 'bag of worms'/ 'pig in a poke' is probably the 'poster child' of irresponsible legislation.

The bill has been passed, wasn't something done over nigh.
If you feel there are holes , problems, tell me what is so wrong with the other side who claim they had no input into it, and the side who passed it working together to examine what is here and then writing{compromising, how it is done} on those parts that might need modifying instead of wasting time with the rhetoric of how bad it is in total and needs to be scrapped rhetoric for the next two years.

That is futiile as you know of getting it repealed.

Don't have the votes, won't reach the Senate floor and if by some idiotic way did would be vetoed by the President.

Oh because the most impotant thing on the agenda is to have the commotion to do that , remove the POTUS, #1 on the agenda, rather then work to solve the deficit, tax reform, entitlements, defense over done, unemployment, JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, forclosures, JOBs.

Well why didn't you say so, thought you were being reasonable here.

[safeharbor37]

"If you feel there are holes , problems,...."
There are 2700 pages of "holes, problems" and anyone with bat sense knows that it would take years to go over each detail, argue it and reject objectionable items item by item. The fact that the bill would be difficult to repeal has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it should be repealed and a reasonable substitute passed. Why not address my suggestions rather than impugning my motives?

[billisonboard]

Jan 20, 2011 19:16:29 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

"If you feel there are holes , problems,...."
There are 2700 pages of "holes, problems" and anyone with bat sense knows that it would take years to go over each detail, argue it and reject objectionable items item by item.

So, Batman, how are we going to determine exactly what should and shouldn't be in a new bill?

[safeharbor37]

" So, Batman, how are we going to determine exactly what should and shouldn't be in a new bill? "
In a open way I'd hope, unlike the way the original 2700 pages were composed. I'd think that it wouldn't really take a lot of time if only the essentials were considered. You hadn't figured that out?

[deziloooooo]

Jan 20, 2011 19:16:29 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

"If you feel there are holes , problems,...."
There are 2700 pages of "holes, problems" and anyone with bat sense knows that it would take years to go over each detail, argue it and reject objectionable items item by item. The fact that the bill would be difficult to repeal has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it should be repealed and a reasonable substitute passed. Why not address my suggestions rather than impugning my motives?

There are 2700 pages because they have to cover all the bases as best they can so there are as little descrepencies as possible and ambiguitys and there still will be those. The thing is involving billions and billions..you should want or expect a one liner to cover it?

Not that it is going to happenn , but to start all over, it's going to take a three week period? Not on your life , there is about nine minths into this one.

It won't take years..one thing falls from another as to what they cover..there is till 2014 before it is all finished.in place.

I am trying to discuss this rationally.

It would take time, not by all members, but apointed qualified members of both sides with the experts to explain from the financial and heath departnments .

If there is a will there is a way...

I say there is no will from one side. Reason? To do so would give legitimacy to the other side and their prime objective for the next two years is to remove the other side from the power they have now, that is their agenda.

Want to refute that?

[SweetVirginia]

Pubs are suggesting a high risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions. Some of you guys act like Pubs just want people to die. Try to at least listen to what they are saying. Everybody is open to change, and we need a major step in the direction of cutting medical care costs which the bill does NOT do. Pubs are talking tort reform, buying insurance across state lines, which will create competition,

Hello krickitt how are you doing? I do not believe that Pubs just want people to die, but I do think that they dont really care if people die as a result of them advocating solely for the big health care corporations. That is what they are doing krickitt. That said, I believe that there are plenty of democrats that are in bed with the health care corps too. Corporate democrats are just as bad as corporate repubs but the dems are just hypocrites about it. All that crap about tort reform, buying polices across state lines, is just that, CRAP. They are all lying to us and cheating us, the repubs and the dems. Most of them are just out for their next campaign contribution from the big fat greedy health care corps. That is just the sad truth.

[deziloooooo]

This message has been deleted.

[safeharbor37]

The "buying policies across state lines" argument is complete crap. Insurance companies would be glad to sell across state lines except for the fact that states prohibit it. Each state has its own laws which determine which policies can be sold in their state. Blue Cross / Blue Shield for example sells in every state but must have different policies to meet each state's requirements.
Most people look and see that some states' policies are cheaper than others and think, "Why can't I shop for the cheapest policy." Problem is that the coverage of the policies are different ~ to meet requirements of the state in which they are sold. The actuarial tables of the various states are different. That's why the rates are different.
The proponents of the "buy policies across state lines" might as well go ahead and endorse universal healthcare since it cuts into "States Rights." Insurance companies write their policies to meet state requirements. As in the case of BC/BS, companies already operate in all states, but must write policies to meet local requirements....
If, e.g., BC/BS wrote a single policy for all states, the cost would be the same so those in states where the costs are now low would get higher rates while only those in currently high rate states would get a reduction. Some would benefit, but, on average, the cost would be the same since cost is based on actuarial tables and nationwide, they would be the same.

[floridayankee]

Jan 21, 2011 15:25:07 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

The "buying policies across state lines" argument is complete crap. Insurance companies would be glad to sell across state lines except for the fact that states prohibit it. Each state has its own laws which determine which policies can be sold in their state. Blue Cross / Blue Shield for example sells in every state but must have different policies to meet each state's requirements.

Plus with a company policy, usually it's issued from the state where the corporate HQ is. Our employees here at our branch have BC/BS but not from FL.