*** You'll lose 5 key freedoms in healthcare reform *** From CNN - Money

[SKKY]

Need some help with this one folks. What's the "rest of the story" here.

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.

A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.

Full story here- http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm

[valerief]

1. And we gain the freedom to get coverage even with pre-existing condition, the

freedom to have coverage even if we lose our jobs, the freedom to limit how high our premiums can be raised, and I'm sure lots of other freedoms to gain.

[Hutzpa]

2. It's the freedom to choose

no longer would the insurance company exclude you for pre-existing conditions, how hard
can that be???

[jody]

3. IMO the health-care plan is so murky and amendments yet to be passed that we won't know what's in it

until after Obama signs it and then it's too late.

[Baltoman991]

23. As much as

you're hoping he does, Barack Obama is NOT going to sign some piece of garbage bill.

[jody]

24. We'll find out soon enough. n/t

[SpartanDem]

32. it's not a secret what's in the bill

[jody]

38. What will become law is a secret or yet to be determined. n/t

[Bozita]

4. When we get true healthcare reform, CNN's gonna lose a lot of ad money.

[Cronus Protagonist]

8. Dign Ding Ding Ding - We Have a Winner!

You hit that one right on the nose!

[Uncle Joe]

11. CNN will lose the freedom of having your health care dollars converted to commercial dollars

promoting corporate supremacist political "leaders;" whom in turn would work against your best interests and/or freedom.

[Supersedeas]

41. the advertisers have spoken and the marketeers put on their journalist hats

[Hepburn]

5. Radically changing health care is a bad thing???

Who knew....:shrug:

[silverweb]

6. What a load of horseshit.

Notice how they keep saying how hard it is to read the current proposals, too: "Don't bother reading it for yourself, it's too hard. WE -- your friendly corporate media -- will interpret everything for you and tell you what to think!"

I hope someone like Dean rips this nonsense to shreds.

[harun]

7. Horrible article

"In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed."

FIND me even ONE American that cherishes their employer-based plan. It's only good if we are employed dumb-asses!

[Hello_Kitty]

10. GOOD! Insurance needs to be decoupled from employment.

You shouldn't have to depend on your job or your family relationships to have medical coverage.

[noiretextatique]

17. i don't cherish mine

even though i've got decent coverage. i take a drug to prevent breast cancer recurrence that can cause uterine cancer. now i have fibroids in my uterus, and my uterine lining is twice its normal thickness. simple solution: remove the uterus. when i suggested that, my primary care doctor starting talking about the risks of surgery and telling me i might be in menopause soon...instead of talking about eliminating my risk for uterine cancer. i see the gynocologist in a couple of weeks, and if she starts talking about more monitoring, going through menopause, d&c, etc., i will surmise that the insurance company will not pay for a hysterectomy...to eliminate the possibility of uterine cancer :eyes:

[harun]

22. There are four clear lies in just that one sentence.

"In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed."

1. "In reality"
It isn't the reality, it is in freepers imagination.

2. "the flexible"
Employer-based plans are not flexible at all. You get the choice of a few options maybe one week a year to choose from. If you don't like something about it you have to wait a year to change it. That is only if you actually have multiple options. You don't get to cherry pick the costs and coverages you want either. It is ridiculous for the author of the article to insinuate that kind of nonsense.

3. "and that Americans so cherish"
No one cherishes them in any way shape or form.

4. "could disappear far faster"
Would be fantastic if this were true but in every bill being discussed, many things stop this from happening. Wish this were true, would be much better.

[Bettie]

37. We've been in the workforce under several employers

...for many years.

Now I'm a SAHM, but we've never had a choice of more than two or three nearly-identical plans for health insurance through an employer.

Right now, our big, flexible choice is either a 10% or 20% co-pay...or coverage only for catastrophic illnesses. Wow, what a great choice!

We also learned that "out of pocket annual maximums" don't really apply....the insurance company can, it seems, choose to deny payment on whatever they want to!

Last year we had a baby and our "great and flexible" insurance plan denied coverage for my readmission to the hospital through the emergency room due to a seizure (post-partum eclampsia, not good). Why? Because our plan requires at least 48 hours notice before a hospitalization. Nice.

Oh, and our out of pocket annual maximum, at which point the insurance company is supposed to pay 100%...yeah, not so much. We paid that and another 4,000 bucks because they decided that they didn't cover a lot of things that the hospital does.

We need single payer and we need it now.

[harun]

39. My self and nearly every other American has had the same issues.

How the Republicans are finding anyone, ANYONE to defend the current system is beyond belief.

[damntexdem]

9. The right to go bankrupt because of healthcare costs.

The right to go without coverage because you can't afford it.

The right to be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

The right to have your coverage retroactively canceled because you were too costly.

The right to be chained to a job you hate because you need to keep your coverage.

The right to face major hassle, or no coverage, when you go out of state or even of the intrastate geographic area served by your plan.

The right to have needed benefits that are clearly covered automatically refused, requiring countless appeals to get them paid.

Oh, wait! I've gone past five rights we would lose. Which ones did they pick out?

Oh, yeah -- they have one I didn't list: the right to be ripped off by pre-tax health-savings accounts where I lose any money I didn't spend on healthcare.

[Generator]

12. Freedom means nothing left to lose

Thanks Janis, still true.

WHAT fucking freedom? The freedom to get sick and be in debt forever if you go to a hospital? The freedom to not to the doctor because you have no insurance and then only go when you are on death's door, and then you either die or yep be in debt forever. So much freedom. The freedom to have health care-we do-but never go to the doctor because it still costs hundreds of dollars and why pay unless you are really really sick-and are afraid they will put you in some diagnosis box that will mark you forever.

Do they mention who it's fining-the big evil death monger insurance companies-I would bet. RESTRICTIONS-no there are no restrictions on health care-they cover everything with a smile don't they?

[Raven]

13. Well, what's the rebuttal? Will I lose my Doc? My Plan? Seems that

this guy is pitting the young against the old. My understanding is that I would see no change in my health plan arrangements...same Doc, same coverage, same deductables. Am I wrong?

[zeos3]

34. he is pitting young against old with that bullshit

It annoys me that the right claims to be fond of those who plan ahead to provide for themselves in the later years of life but uses this divisive tactic for health care. Instead of having young people think that they will reap the benefits of this system later, the right tries to incite them with the old canard about not paying for someone else's problems. Everyone gets older and most of us will need treatment for some type of illness at some point in our lives.

You won't see a difference in which doctor or hospital you go to. The idea is to see a change in coverage and deductible for the better. the idea is to include coverage that is excluded in the fine print of your current policy and to eliminate restrictions on types of care, pre existing conditions, and dollar maximums on what your plan pays now.

[SpartanDem]

14. So lets get this straight

1. minimums benefit standards are bad
2. community rating is bad
3. outlawing crappy high deductible loop hole ridden insurance is bad

I love this BS:
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."

[donco6]

15. Can't get more propagandistic than this.

It's all written from an "impact on business" point of view - not a consumer point of view. *BUSINESSES would lose some of these "flexibilities" - i.e., ways to screw their employees. But in general, it appears the bills are written to try to protect employees over employers.



1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan

This section only questions what a *business* will have to include in their ERISA plan (in the unlikely event they continue to offer such plans). They won't be able to short their employees by choosing NOT to cover things that the federal plan does cover. Too fucking bad for them.


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

This one is completely bogus. It says that it's not fair for the young to have to subsidize the old. We do that all the time anyway. Get used to it. And it basically laments the fact that you can't eliminate or charge higher costs for coverage of sick people. Fuck them!

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage

Lamenting the downfall of the HSAs - one of the biggest scams out there right now. Too fucking bad.

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan

What this is really saying is that businesses won't be able to weaken their self-insured plan without comparing it to the federal plan. If the federal plan offers more benefits, they have to allow employees the choice, and they have to pay for it.

5. Freedom to choose your doctors

The article claims this is like an HMO, but I don't really see that. It says rou have to have a primary care physician, who then routes you to specialists. Isn't that the same as fee-for-service? I dn't think you can just walk in to a radiologist and demand radiation therapy. (I'm in an HMO and actually like it, so I may be confused here).

[SKKY]

26. Thank you donco6!

Great rebuttal! That pretty much sums it up.

[ProSense]

16. Countered

here

[prolesunited]

19. Thanks!

I knew I already saw this here and it had been ripped to shreds.

[silverweb]

20. Thank you!

Bookmarked for future reference.

:thumbsup:

[quaker bill]

18. High deductible plans

only work if you:

Have a large income and don't get sick or injured.

They work well for the young and very healthy, or the old and quite wealthy.

We have one of these on offer at work, it has a deductible along the lines of $10,000 and an HSA. The problem is that you cannot afford to get sick until the $10,000 is saved and virtually no one these days has enough spare cash to squirrel away 10 grand for a rainy day.

Of course the other alternative offered is to shop for cut-rate policies across state lines. Bottom line, even expensive insurance does not pay benefits like it did 20 years ago. The cheap stuff is only good if you never need it for anything more than the occasional sprain or common cold.

[ncteechur]

21. So what has happened is that since MSNBS has moved a bit more left and is capturing most left-

leaning viewers, CNN has moved way right to wrestle the dumbass audience away from Fox

[zeos3]

25. We need freedom from the article's listed "freedoms"

"1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan"
This is a bullshit freedom. If I have to pay for every service as an add on to my policy, like it's on an ala carte menu, I'm going to have to do without some basic services if I can't afford the total premium. This gives me the "freedom" to decide which medical services to omit because I can't afford them. If cost wasn't an issue, I wonder what most people would "choose" to include in their health plans. Dare I make a guess and say they'd want to include EVERYTHING?

"2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs"
I'm so sick of hearing about this "freedom". If you want to pay your own real costs, DON'T BUY FUCKING INSURANCE and you will pay every penny of your own real costs. Insurance works best with a broad risk pool (lots and lots of people). Yes, the healthier ones pay a bit more and the ill pay a bit less but that's the whole fucking point of insurance. The author assumes the 20 year old will remain 20 years old forever and will never get sick and thus will never benefit from the lower premiums later in life. The author is a douche bag for making this stupid assumption.

"3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage"
This "freedom" is provided to us by the fact that low deductible more comprehensive plans have become outrageously expensive. Thanks, but no thanks. If one gets a chronic illness while on a high deductible plan, one is "free" to pay this high deductible every calendar year on top of the high premiums.

"4. Freedom to keep your existing plan"
For the self-insured, I don't see why the author is getting so bent out of shape because this isn't really an insurance plan, the employers are paying everything out of their own pockets anyway. For the non ERISA employers, the author needs to wake up to the fact that the employers probably change their plans every few years anyway. This is a non-freedom.

"5. Freedom to choose your doctors"
The author should look up the term "Out-Of-Network" on his insurance plan. There are many websites one can visit now to see if one's doctor is in a particular insurance company's network. We are "free" to choose any doctor in our insurers specific network or we are "free" to pay the out-of-network costs.

I can't wait to see this idiot's "best solution" of "let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains".
The thing we have to be careful of with the cross-state shopping or the exchanges is the race to the bottom for benefits. Think of it this way, companies prefer to incorporate in Delaware because it has very weak corporate charter laws. Companies prefer to move their factories to places that have weak labor laws. If we nullify the individual state's laws regarding health insurers by allowing cross-state "bargain hunting", we will be free to choose any of the crappy plans that are available in the state with the least required standard benefits and laws regarding health insurance.

Sorry for the vulgar language, can't help it sometimes.

[depakid]

27. LMAO- Shawn Tully on CNN telling Americans that they will lose 5 key freedoms

Not only is the man dishonest -but he can't even do Norman Rockwell right.

Even Reagan could have done better than that.

Freedom from fear:

[depakid]

29. As many people know- the painting is of polio

[JaneQPublic]

42. It's time to reread "The Handmaid's Tale"...

...specifically where Margaret Atwood's distinguishes "Freedom To" and "Freedom From."

It's very appropriate to this discussion.

[Hansel]

28. Tully was a big supporter of McCain's health care plan during the campaign

Article title = "Why McCain has the best health-care plan"
Subtitle: "His is the only one of the candidate proposals that has a chance of getting medical costs under control. An argument for some free-market sanity."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/10/news/economy/tully_healthcare.fortune/

All you need to know to know he's full of it.

[SpartanDem]

30. Don't forget to send this to [e-mail]

[and-justice-for-all]

31. I despide the M$M... evil, vile fuckers they are...If you want the news

www.democracynow.org and www.grittv.com

[Hippo_Tron]

33. With regards to community rating the whole "young and helathy" thing is a farce

One of my best friends is 21 in excellent health. He refuses to get a raised mole removed until he gets a job with a large company and can get health insurance through them because otherwise it will show up as a pre-existing condition and will be prohibitively expensive for him to get insurance.

Insurance companies find numerous reasons to deny young and healthy people based on pre-existing conditions too.

[Milo_Bloom]

35. The Rest of the story is that it is a false argument.

Look at their "freedoms" you are giving up.

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan.

"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. "

Hello.. idiots. Just because there is a MINIMUM level of coverage required doesn't mean plans can't compete based on what they offer. Some may offer MORE than the minium, making them more attractive or different packages of coverage greater than the MINIMUM.

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

This is just plain old horsecrap. Insurance companies already don't "reward" you for healthy living. They punish you for having anything happen to you. Someone who lives healthy and happens to draw the genetic wildcard and gets a lifelong illness will not be rewarded for their healthy lifestyle, they are punished for genetics.

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage.

Better known as, getting rid of shitty coverage and a rip off known as HSAs. THis isn't losing a "freedom" this is being protected from a false sense of security.

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan.

This really is complete BS, but they happen to be whining about the 5 year limit on the ERISA plans to comply with the rules of the other plans (you know, minimum levels of coverage and not gouging people with pre-existing conditions, etc..)

What this really should be called is that corporations have the freedom to keep ripping you off for 5 years.

Finally, the topper...

5. Freedom to choose your doctors.

Complete fabrication. The difference here is that those buying through the exchanges (the public option) will be using a hybrid HMO type system where they choose a primary care doctor. Just like it is today, you have the freedom to choose the plan that your doctor is on. So if you have a favorite doctor, you choose the plan that has your doctor... Simple enough?

[Orsino]

36. Bullshit story, sitting next to a bullshit push-poll.

The "freedoms" they tout aren't freedoms we have now, and it's far from clear that they will be lost. In the meantime, their poll whispers, "You will pay higher taxes if you touch health coverage."

[SKKY]

40. *** THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!! & THANK YOU ***

This is why I love DU. Informed people, making informed decisions. Thanks for your help on this everyone!