HC 3200 (Obamacare)

Landy · Aug 19, 2009

Jackie,

I appreciate your views on points mentioned. Now, I do see where they most likely are concerned about real-time insurance information (i.e. co-pays, deduct, etc) on page 58. I wish another word other than "financial" could have been used. I guess anytime I see the word financial, I'm thinking money, bank accts, etc.

As for illegals...here is what was quoted in the Newsweek article:

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED
ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
not lawfully present in the United States.

Notice that it says "Nothing...shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits..." this does not say "shall not provide coverage" it just says that they won't get affordability credits, maybe we are to read between the lines that this means coverage as well?
As I was quickly skimming thru the bill, I wondered about the "lawfully present" term too. What exactly does this term mean?? If you are studying abroad, are you lawfully present in the US? Maybe I'm reading too much into this! lol

I think we can all agree that the wording in the bill could be more in layman terms. No wonder the members of Congress don't read this stuff! lol

Good discussion...

Landy · Aug 19, 2009

Jackie,

I appreciate your views on points mentioned. Now, I do see where they most likely are concerned about real-time insurance information (i.e. co-pays, deduct, etc) on page 58. I wish another word other than "financial" could have been used. I guess anytime I see the word financial, I'm thinking money, bank accts, etc.

As for illegals...here is what was quoted in the Newsweek article:

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED
ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
not lawfully present in the United States.

Notice that it says "Nothing...shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits..." this does not say "shall not provide coverage" it just says that they won't get affordability credits, maybe we are to read between the lines that this means coverage as well?
As I was quickly skimming thru the bill, I wondered about the "lawfully present" term too. What exactly does this term mean?? If you are studying abroad, are you lawfully present in the US? Maybe I'm reading too much into this! lol

I think we can all agree that the wording in the bill could be more in layman terms. No wonder the members of Congress don't read this stuff! lol

Good discussion...

Landy · Aug 19, 2009

Jackie,

I appreciate your views on points mentioned. Now, I do see where they most likely are concerned about real-time insurance information (i.e. co-pays, deduct, etc) on page 58. I wish another word other than "financial" could have been used. I guess anytime I see the word financial, I'm thinking money, bank accts, etc.

As for illegals...here is what was quoted in the Newsweek article:

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED
ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
not lawfully present in the United States.

Notice that it says "Nothing...shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits..." this does not say "shall not provide coverage" it just says that they won't get affordability credits, maybe we are to read between the lines that this means coverage as well?
As I was quickly skimming thru the bill, I wondered about the "lawfully present" term too. What exactly does this term mean?? If you are studying abroad, are you lawfully present in the US? Maybe I'm reading too much into this! lol

I think we can all agree that the wording in the bill could be more in layman terms. No wonder the members of Congress don't read this stuff! lol

Good discussion...

Landy · Aug 19, 2009

Jackie,

I appreciate your views on points mentioned. Now, I do see where they most likely are concerned about real-time insurance information (i.e. co-pays, deduct, etc) on page 58. I wish another word other than "financial" could have been used. I guess anytime I see the word financial, I'm thinking money, bank accts, etc.

As for illegals...here is what was quoted in the Newsweek article:

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED
ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
not lawfully present in the United States.

Notice that it says "Nothing...shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits..." this does not say "shall not provide coverage" it just says that they won't get affordability credits, maybe we are to read between the lines that this means coverage as well?
As I was quickly skimming thru the bill, I wondered about the "lawfully present" term too. What exactly does this term mean?? If you are studying abroad, are you lawfully present in the US? Maybe I'm reading too much into this! lol

I think we can all agree that the wording in the bill could be more in layman terms. No wonder the members of Congress don't read this stuff! lol

Good discussion...

Landy · Aug 19, 2009

Jackie,
 
 I appreciate your views on points mentioned. Now, I do see where they most likely are concerned about real-time insurance information (i.e. co-pays, deduct, etc) on page 58. I wish another word other than "financial" could have been used. I guess anytime I see the word financial, I'm thinking money, bank accts, etc.
 
 As for illegals...here is what was quoted in the Newsweek article:
 
 SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED
 ALIENS.
 Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
 for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
 not lawfully present in the United States.
 
 Notice that it says "Nothing...shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits..." this does not say "shall not provide coverage" it just says that they won't get affordability credits, maybe we are to read between the lines that this means coverage as well?
 As I was quickly skimming thru the bill, I wondered about the "lawfully present" term too. What exactly does this term mean?? If you are studying abroad, are you lawfully present in the US? Maybe I'm reading too much into this! lol
 
 I think we can all agree that the wording in the bill could be more in layman terms. No wonder the members of Congress don't read this stuff! lol
 
 Good discussion...

jrotier · Aug 20, 2009

Good call...so disappointing how we have to read between the lines like this...and Terri's right....since this isn't a thing the public will vote on, they can add / delete whatever they want.

I agree Terri, my biggest fear is rationing of care. I work in a nursing home and see it already with HMO's.

Any thoughts on how this might affect research for new drugs / treatments?

jrotier · Aug 20, 2009

Good call...so disappointing how we have to read between the lines like this...and Terri's right....since this isn't a thing the public will vote on, they can add / delete whatever they want.

I agree Terri, my biggest fear is rationing of care. I work in a nursing home and see it already with HMO's.

Any thoughts on how this might affect research for new drugs / treatments?

jrotier · Aug 20, 2009

Good call...so disappointing how we have to read between the lines like this...and Terri's right....since this isn't a thing the public will vote on, they can add / delete whatever they want.

I agree Terri, my biggest fear is rationing of care. I work in a nursing home and see it already with HMO's.

Any thoughts on how this might affect research for new drugs / treatments?

jrotier · Aug 20, 2009

Good call...so disappointing how we have to read between the lines like this...and Terri's right....since this isn't a thing the public will vote on, they can add / delete whatever they want.

I agree Terri, my biggest fear is rationing of care. I work in a nursing home and see it already with HMO's.

Any thoughts on how this might affect research for new drugs / treatments?

jrotier · Aug 20, 2009

Good call...so disappointing how we have to read between the lines like this...and Terri's right....since this isn't a thing the public will vote on, they can add / delete whatever they want.
 
 I agree Terri, my biggest fear is rationing of care. I work in a nursing home and see it already with HMO's.
 
 Any thoughts on how this might affect research for new drugs / treatments?

ladybug · Aug 20, 2009

Rationing of care is terrifying to me.

Being military, we have a plan that is as close to Obama's plan to cover everyone under a government-run plan as I've seen. And guess what? I have kept my own private insurance plan with BCBS that I pay out of pocket for every month (hundreds out of pocket just for the premium btw). I choose this over having to go to who the military says I can go to and jump through all of the hurdles that come with managed (dare I say socialized) care.

I also notice there is very little incentive in the military for specialized care. I worry if Obama's plan passes, what is going to be the incentive for people to even WANT to get into dealing with CF (or other progressive diseases)? If I were a doc, I would prefer to be a peds doc or someone that doesn't deal with old people or serious disease so I wouldn't even have to deal with the re-admission issue or other rationing of care based on how sick my patients are. So, I worry there will be less specialists for our population in general. And, I think we can all agree the one or two docs that specialize in CF in random big cities across the U.S. isn't necessarily a huge abundance of docs to begin with. As we as CFers age, we're going to need more multi-disciplinary care in more cities, not less.

With regard to being re-admitted after a "stable" discharge, I have had several allergic reactions to medications or worsening symptoms, often after I was getting significantly better in the hospital. I think these little "issues" arise when we least expect them, and the LAST thing I want is for a doc to either keep me in for the entire 3 weeks cause they're afraid to let me go home on IVs or not treat me when I'm readmitted cause its a mark on their record.

Anyway, that's just my two cents, and I apologize I haven't read over all the ins and outs of this bill... it gives me a headache (and honestly a good chuckle) to even read what was posted on here. But, based on the media attention this thing is getting and what I've heard, I wanted to add my opinion. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">

ladybug · Aug 20, 2009

Rationing of care is terrifying to me.

Being military, we have a plan that is as close to Obama's plan to cover everyone under a government-run plan as I've seen. And guess what? I have kept my own private insurance plan with BCBS that I pay out of pocket for every month (hundreds out of pocket just for the premium btw). I choose this over having to go to who the military says I can go to and jump through all of the hurdles that come with managed (dare I say socialized) care.

I also notice there is very little incentive in the military for specialized care. I worry if Obama's plan passes, what is going to be the incentive for people to even WANT to get into dealing with CF (or other progressive diseases)? If I were a doc, I would prefer to be a peds doc or someone that doesn't deal with old people or serious disease so I wouldn't even have to deal with the re-admission issue or other rationing of care based on how sick my patients are. So, I worry there will be less specialists for our population in general. And, I think we can all agree the one or two docs that specialize in CF in random big cities across the U.S. isn't necessarily a huge abundance of docs to begin with. As we as CFers age, we're going to need more multi-disciplinary care in more cities, not less.

With regard to being re-admitted after a "stable" discharge, I have had several allergic reactions to medications or worsening symptoms, often after I was getting significantly better in the hospital. I think these little "issues" arise when we least expect them, and the LAST thing I want is for a doc to either keep me in for the entire 3 weeks cause they're afraid to let me go home on IVs or not treat me when I'm readmitted cause its a mark on their record.

Anyway, that's just my two cents, and I apologize I haven't read over all the ins and outs of this bill... it gives me a headache (and honestly a good chuckle) to even read what was posted on here. But, based on the media attention this thing is getting and what I've heard, I wanted to add my opinion. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">

ladybug · Aug 20, 2009

Rationing of care is terrifying to me.

Being military, we have a plan that is as close to Obama's plan to cover everyone under a government-run plan as I've seen. And guess what? I have kept my own private insurance plan with BCBS that I pay out of pocket for every month (hundreds out of pocket just for the premium btw). I choose this over having to go to who the military says I can go to and jump through all of the hurdles that come with managed (dare I say socialized) care.

I also notice there is very little incentive in the military for specialized care. I worry if Obama's plan passes, what is going to be the incentive for people to even WANT to get into dealing with CF (or other progressive diseases)? If I were a doc, I would prefer to be a peds doc or someone that doesn't deal with old people or serious disease so I wouldn't even have to deal with the re-admission issue or other rationing of care based on how sick my patients are. So, I worry there will be less specialists for our population in general. And, I think we can all agree the one or two docs that specialize in CF in random big cities across the U.S. isn't necessarily a huge abundance of docs to begin with. As we as CFers age, we're going to need more multi-disciplinary care in more cities, not less.

With regard to being re-admitted after a "stable" discharge, I have had several allergic reactions to medications or worsening symptoms, often after I was getting significantly better in the hospital. I think these little "issues" arise when we least expect them, and the LAST thing I want is for a doc to either keep me in for the entire 3 weeks cause they're afraid to let me go home on IVs or not treat me when I'm readmitted cause its a mark on their record.

Anyway, that's just my two cents, and I apologize I haven't read over all the ins and outs of this bill... it gives me a headache (and honestly a good chuckle) to even read what was posted on here. But, based on the media attention this thing is getting and what I've heard, I wanted to add my opinion. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">

ladybug · Aug 20, 2009

Rationing of care is terrifying to me.

Being military, we have a plan that is as close to Obama's plan to cover everyone under a government-run plan as I've seen. And guess what? I have kept my own private insurance plan with BCBS that I pay out of pocket for every month (hundreds out of pocket just for the premium btw). I choose this over having to go to who the military says I can go to and jump through all of the hurdles that come with managed (dare I say socialized) care.

I also notice there is very little incentive in the military for specialized care. I worry if Obama's plan passes, what is going to be the incentive for people to even WANT to get into dealing with CF (or other progressive diseases)? If I were a doc, I would prefer to be a peds doc or someone that doesn't deal with old people or serious disease so I wouldn't even have to deal with the re-admission issue or other rationing of care based on how sick my patients are. So, I worry there will be less specialists for our population in general. And, I think we can all agree the one or two docs that specialize in CF in random big cities across the U.S. isn't necessarily a huge abundance of docs to begin with. As we as CFers age, we're going to need more multi-disciplinary care in more cities, not less.

With regard to being re-admitted after a "stable" discharge, I have had several allergic reactions to medications or worsening symptoms, often after I was getting significantly better in the hospital. I think these little "issues" arise when we least expect them, and the LAST thing I want is for a doc to either keep me in for the entire 3 weeks cause they're afraid to let me go home on IVs or not treat me when I'm readmitted cause its a mark on their record.

Anyway, that's just my two cents, and I apologize I haven't read over all the ins and outs of this bill... it gives me a headache (and honestly a good chuckle) to even read what was posted on here. But, based on the media attention this thing is getting and what I've heard, I wanted to add my opinion. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">

ladybug · Aug 20, 2009

Rationing of care is terrifying to me.
 
 Being military, we have a plan that is as close to Obama's plan to cover everyone under a government-run plan as I've seen. And guess what? I have kept my own private insurance plan with BCBS that I pay out of pocket for every month (hundreds out of pocket just for the premium btw). I choose this over having to go to who the military says I can go to and jump through all of the hurdles that come with managed (dare I say socialized) care.
 
 I also notice there is very little incentive in the military for specialized care. I worry if Obama's plan passes, what is going to be the incentive for people to even WANT to get into dealing with CF (or other progressive diseases)? If I were a doc, I would prefer to be a peds doc or someone that doesn't deal with old people or serious disease so I wouldn't even have to deal with the re-admission issue or other rationing of care based on how sick my patients are. So, I worry there will be less specialists for our population in general. And, I think we can all agree the one or two docs that specialize in CF in random big cities across the U.S. isn't necessarily a huge abundance of docs to begin with. As we as CFers age, we're going to need more multi-disciplinary care in more cities, not less.
 
 With regard to being re-admitted after a "stable" discharge, I have had several allergic reactions to medications or worsening symptoms, often after I was getting significantly better in the hospital. I think these little "issues" arise when we least expect them, and the LAST thing I want is for a doc to either keep me in for the entire 3 weeks cause they're afraid to let me go home on IVs or not treat me when I'm readmitted cause its a mark on their record.
 
 Anyway, that's just my two cents, and I apologize I haven't read over all the ins and outs of this bill... it gives me a headache (and honestly a good chuckle) to even read what was posted on here. But, based on the media attention this thing is getting and what I've heard, I wanted to add my opinion. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">

HollyCatheryn · Aug 29, 2009

A couple of things that concern me - mind you I haven't finished reading the bill yet - are these:
1 - if the govt plan is cheaper, what employer will choose to keep buying a more expensive group plan? Where does that leave their employees, but dumped into a govt plan or buying their own more expensive personal coverage.
2 - currently, many doctors and clinics do not accept people on Medicare or Medicaid because reimbursement for services to these people is so far below reimbursement from group or private plans like BCBS. At the same time that they pay less, they require more from doctors in the way of testing. As an example, my father-in-law who is post heart-transplant 8 1/2 years needed a test, an expensive one. Instead of getting the dr's verification that it was indeed necessary before Medicare payed for it, Medicare required 7, count them up folks, 7 other tests before they would pay for the one he needed. The dr tried to argue that these tests were irrelevent and wouldn't give them any useful information, but Medicare demanded them anyway. This sort of procedure does NOT save money. It costs money to the care providers and the insurance, but a govt program doesn't pay comparably.
3 - I have had both BCBS and Medicare/Medicaid. With BCBS, I never had to worry if something was covered - everything was 80/20. I always knew exactly what the copay was going to be. I always knew that I could get any medication I needed and what it would cost me. Now, since the loss of my husband's university teaching position, I am on Medicare and Medicaid and I literally spend time on the phone every other day trying to get things covered, trying to get medications paid for, get the right equipment. They always want to substitute everything and make it a real hassle by dictating which pharmacies and providers can me used for what. It spreads out my care and means that I get poorer quality than I need sometimes. I would rather pay the copays with BCBS anyday! I have had to have knock-down drag-outs over the phone with pharmacies trying to get them to refrigerate my pulmozyme!

I'm all for insurance coverage for everyone, my husband is currently one of the uninsured and it's difficult and scary. I would love for him to be able to get coverage, but I'm just not sure that this is the way.

HollyCatheryn · Aug 29, 2009

A couple of things that concern me - mind you I haven't finished reading the bill yet - are these:
1 - if the govt plan is cheaper, what employer will choose to keep buying a more expensive group plan? Where does that leave their employees, but dumped into a govt plan or buying their own more expensive personal coverage.
2 - currently, many doctors and clinics do not accept people on Medicare or Medicaid because reimbursement for services to these people is so far below reimbursement from group or private plans like BCBS. At the same time that they pay less, they require more from doctors in the way of testing. As an example, my father-in-law who is post heart-transplant 8 1/2 years needed a test, an expensive one. Instead of getting the dr's verification that it was indeed necessary before Medicare payed for it, Medicare required 7, count them up folks, 7 other tests before they would pay for the one he needed. The dr tried to argue that these tests were irrelevent and wouldn't give them any useful information, but Medicare demanded them anyway. This sort of procedure does NOT save money. It costs money to the care providers and the insurance, but a govt program doesn't pay comparably.
3 - I have had both BCBS and Medicare/Medicaid. With BCBS, I never had to worry if something was covered - everything was 80/20. I always knew exactly what the copay was going to be. I always knew that I could get any medication I needed and what it would cost me. Now, since the loss of my husband's university teaching position, I am on Medicare and Medicaid and I literally spend time on the phone every other day trying to get things covered, trying to get medications paid for, get the right equipment. They always want to substitute everything and make it a real hassle by dictating which pharmacies and providers can me used for what. It spreads out my care and means that I get poorer quality than I need sometimes. I would rather pay the copays with BCBS anyday! I have had to have knock-down drag-outs over the phone with pharmacies trying to get them to refrigerate my pulmozyme!

I'm all for insurance coverage for everyone, my husband is currently one of the uninsured and it's difficult and scary. I would love for him to be able to get coverage, but I'm just not sure that this is the way.

HollyCatheryn · Aug 29, 2009

A couple of things that concern me - mind you I haven't finished reading the bill yet - are these:
1 - if the govt plan is cheaper, what employer will choose to keep buying a more expensive group plan? Where does that leave their employees, but dumped into a govt plan or buying their own more expensive personal coverage.
2 - currently, many doctors and clinics do not accept people on Medicare or Medicaid because reimbursement for services to these people is so far below reimbursement from group or private plans like BCBS. At the same time that they pay less, they require more from doctors in the way of testing. As an example, my father-in-law who is post heart-transplant 8 1/2 years needed a test, an expensive one. Instead of getting the dr's verification that it was indeed necessary before Medicare payed for it, Medicare required 7, count them up folks, 7 other tests before they would pay for the one he needed. The dr tried to argue that these tests were irrelevent and wouldn't give them any useful information, but Medicare demanded them anyway. This sort of procedure does NOT save money. It costs money to the care providers and the insurance, but a govt program doesn't pay comparably.
3 - I have had both BCBS and Medicare/Medicaid. With BCBS, I never had to worry if something was covered - everything was 80/20. I always knew exactly what the copay was going to be. I always knew that I could get any medication I needed and what it would cost me. Now, since the loss of my husband's university teaching position, I am on Medicare and Medicaid and I literally spend time on the phone every other day trying to get things covered, trying to get medications paid for, get the right equipment. They always want to substitute everything and make it a real hassle by dictating which pharmacies and providers can me used for what. It spreads out my care and means that I get poorer quality than I need sometimes. I would rather pay the copays with BCBS anyday! I have had to have knock-down drag-outs over the phone with pharmacies trying to get them to refrigerate my pulmozyme!

I'm all for insurance coverage for everyone, my husband is currently one of the uninsured and it's difficult and scary. I would love for him to be able to get coverage, but I'm just not sure that this is the way.

HollyCatheryn · Aug 29, 2009

A couple of things that concern me - mind you I haven't finished reading the bill yet - are these:
1 - if the govt plan is cheaper, what employer will choose to keep buying a more expensive group plan? Where does that leave their employees, but dumped into a govt plan or buying their own more expensive personal coverage.
2 - currently, many doctors and clinics do not accept people on Medicare or Medicaid because reimbursement for services to these people is so far below reimbursement from group or private plans like BCBS. At the same time that they pay less, they require more from doctors in the way of testing. As an example, my father-in-law who is post heart-transplant 8 1/2 years needed a test, an expensive one. Instead of getting the dr's verification that it was indeed necessary before Medicare payed for it, Medicare required 7, count them up folks, 7 other tests before they would pay for the one he needed. The dr tried to argue that these tests were irrelevent and wouldn't give them any useful information, but Medicare demanded them anyway. This sort of procedure does NOT save money. It costs money to the care providers and the insurance, but a govt program doesn't pay comparably.
3 - I have had both BCBS and Medicare/Medicaid. With BCBS, I never had to worry if something was covered - everything was 80/20. I always knew exactly what the copay was going to be. I always knew that I could get any medication I needed and what it would cost me. Now, since the loss of my husband's university teaching position, I am on Medicare and Medicaid and I literally spend time on the phone every other day trying to get things covered, trying to get medications paid for, get the right equipment. They always want to substitute everything and make it a real hassle by dictating which pharmacies and providers can me used for what. It spreads out my care and means that I get poorer quality than I need sometimes. I would rather pay the copays with BCBS anyday! I have had to have knock-down drag-outs over the phone with pharmacies trying to get them to refrigerate my pulmozyme!

I'm all for insurance coverage for everyone, my husband is currently one of the uninsured and it's difficult and scary. I would love for him to be able to get coverage, but I'm just not sure that this is the way.

HollyCatheryn · Aug 29, 2009

A couple of things that concern me - mind you I haven't finished reading the bill yet - are these:
 1 - if the govt plan is cheaper, what employer will choose to keep buying a more expensive group plan? Where does that leave their employees, but dumped into a govt plan or buying their own more expensive personal coverage.
 2 - currently, many doctors and clinics do not accept people on Medicare or Medicaid because reimbursement for services to these people is so far below reimbursement from group or private plans like BCBS. At the same time that they pay less, they require more from doctors in the way of testing. As an example, my father-in-law who is post heart-transplant 8 1/2 years needed a test, an expensive one. Instead of getting the dr's verification that it was indeed necessary before Medicare payed for it, Medicare required 7, count them up folks, 7 other tests before they would pay for the one he needed. The dr tried to argue that these tests were irrelevent and wouldn't give them any useful information, but Medicare demanded them anyway. This sort of procedure does NOT save money. It costs money to the care providers and the insurance, but a govt program doesn't pay comparably.
 3 - I have had both BCBS and Medicare/Medicaid. With BCBS, I never had to worry if something was covered - everything was 80/20. I always knew exactly what the copay was going to be. I always knew that I could get any medication I needed and what it would cost me. Now, since the loss of my husband's university teaching position, I am on Medicare and Medicaid and I literally spend time on the phone every other day trying to get things covered, trying to get medications paid for, get the right equipment. They always want to substitute everything and make it a real hassle by dictating which pharmacies and providers can me used for what. It spreads out my care and means that I get poorer quality than I need sometimes. I would rather pay the copays with BCBS anyday! I have had to have knock-down drag-outs over the phone with pharmacies trying to get them to refrigerate my pulmozyme!
 
 I'm all for insurance coverage for everyone, my husband is currently one of the uninsured and it's difficult and scary. I would love for him to be able to get coverage, but I'm just not sure that this is the way.

HC 3200 (Obamacare)

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

jrotier

Guest

jrotier

Guest

jrotier

Guest

jrotier

Guest

jrotier

Guest

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member