Re: Obama unveils health plan

[Guest guest]

Thank you. I'm in the process of writing to Obama, a few GOP

sticklers, my local politicians, newspapers, etc. about the co-pays on

DME such as the oxygen concentrator I now have to use. The providers

of this equipment are making a bundle on the units. The Invacare unit

that I have (which is used - another scary thing) sells for approx.

$1000 from the mftr. I found that unit for about $700 online and will

try to buy one. $35/month plus other co-pays is killing me faster than

the mold.

BTW, Sharon, I opted for a private insurance rather than Medicare

because it had better benefits and co-pays. I was with them for one

year and now all of the benefits have decreased. I also read that they

were being fined for bilking Medicaid in the State of FL.

We need free health care systems just like the rest of the world. Of

course, we won't get it until every politician gives up the huge

amounts that they get from lobbyists. Our greed is sucking us into the

abyss.

Barth

www.presenting.net/sbs/sbs.html

SUBMIT YOUR DOCTOR: www.presenting.net/sbs/molddoctors.html

---

sac> Obama unveils health plan

sac> Proposal lowers Cadillac tax, boosts regulation.

sac> President Obama has laid out his plan on health care ahead of Thursday's

sac> bipartisan summit.

sac> The proposal, posted to the White House _Web site_

sac> (http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal) Monday morning,

closely follows the

sac> Senate version of the bill (_HR 3590_

sac> (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bill.xc?billnum=H.R.3590 & congress=111)

) with some changes to appease House

sac> Democrats.

sac> It is designed to serve as a compromise between the House and Senate

sac> versions of the bill.

sac> Here are some highlights:

sac> Cadillac tax change. Under the Obama plan, the tax on expensive health

sac> insurance plans won't kick in until 2018 and would affect fewer people.

sac> Payroll tax expansion. To make up for the lost revenue from the Cadillac

sac> tax, the President has proposed increasing the payroll tax employers pay

for

sac> Medicare.

sac> Higher cost. The plan would cost $950 billion over 10 years, slightly more

sac> than the $900 billion limit President Obama had proposed. White House

sac> officials said it would reduce the federal budget deficit by $100 billion

over

sac> that time.

sac> Expanded coverage. The officials added that 31 million more Americans will

sac> be insured under the plan, which expands federal subsidies for low-income

sac> Americans.

sac> State subsidies. The plan offers full federal support for four years to

sac> expand Medicaid in all 50 states, not just Nebraska as proposed in the

Senate

sac> plan.

sac> Denials and mandate. Insurance companies would no longer be able to deny

sac> coverage based on pre-existing conditions. To balance the cost of this,

the

sac> President's plan penalizes people without insurance to encourage them to

sac> buy a plan.

sac> Premium hike controls. Federal regulators would have more power to stop

sac> insurance companies from increasing health insurance premiums,

traditionally

sac> the realm of state governments.

sac> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

sac> I'm not too sure about this. There is no public option, so no competition

sac> for insurers. The industry still has a monopoly to control what the

sac> doctors must do when they treat illness and injury. And now...if one does

not

sac> buy into the system, they are penalized. Can the government really force

a

sac> US citizen to buy a product from a private company just because they are a

sac> US citizen? I can't think of any other institution that works this way,

sac> can you?

sac> Sharon

sac>

[Guest guest]

I don't buy this. Everyone should have the right to choose if they want a plan

or not. Being penalized for not having medical insurance, what are we taking

about and where do we live? If this is part of the plan then what is written in

the fine print? Some has to be getting paid.

Myriam

>

>

> Obama unveils health plan

> Proposal lowers Cadillac tax, boosts regulation.

>

>President Obama has laid out his plan on health care ahead of Thursday's

> bipartisan summit.

> The proposal, posted to the White House _Web site_

> (http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal) Monday morning,

closely follows the

> Senate version of the bill (_HR 3590_

> (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bill.xc?billnum=H.R.3590 & congress=111) )

with some changes to appease House

> Democrats.

> It is designed to serve as a compromise between the House and Senate

> versions of the bill.

>

[Guest guest]

Agreed -

"

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> I'm not too sure about this. There is no public option, so no competition

> for insurers. The industry still has a monopoly to control what the

> doctors must do when they treat illness and injury. And now...if one does

not

> buy into the system, they are penalized. Can the government really force a

> US citizen to buy a product from a private company just because they are a

> US citizen? I can't think of any other institution that works this way,

> can you?

> Sharon

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Its obvious its not about our health that President Obama and the people that

actually wrote the bill are concerned about.

Its about taxes and control.

Its always been about that.

From: snk1955@... <snk1955@...>

Subject: [] Obama unveils health plan

Date: Monday, February 22, 2010, 8:13 PM

Obama unveils health plan

Proposal lowers Cadillac tax, boosts regulation.

President Obama has laid out his plan on health care ahead of Thursday's

bipartisan summit.

The proposal, posted to the White House _Web site_

(http://www.whitehou se.gov/health- care-meeting/ proposal) Monday morning,

closely follows the

Senate version of the bill (_HR 3590_

(http://www.congress .org/congressorg /bill.xc? billnum=H. R.3590 & congress= 111)

) with some changes to appease House

[Guest guest]

The system is badly broken. (meaning health care and control of the US

economy as a whole) This " health reform " plan is myopic and short sighted. It

will not correct the root of the problem, which is that the insurance

industry controls the definition of " Evidence Based Medicine " today and will

have even greater control tomorrow.

Long term, it is going to serve to the benefit of the insurance and other

industries NOT the health, safety and welfare of the American Public.

Question: How do you punish the insurance industry for their past

misdeeds of greed and corruption in health care and insurance practices?

Answer: You give them billions of taxpayer dollars; greater control over

healthcare and the medical community; and force all US citizens to pay to

participate in the corrupt plan under threat that they will be financially

penalized if they fail to go along.

Sharon K.

In a message dated 2/24/2010 7:25:31 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

svican@... writes:

Yes, I too am self-employed and in my 50's, so my health insurance costs

keep skyrocketing, I now pay close to $2,000 per month for just the

insurance, and this is " major medical " , we have a high deductible of

$4,500 or more, can't remember exactly, and the co-pays aren't

insignificant either. BUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH MY INSURANCE is that

they reimburse very little...and I don't see that changing with any kind

of govt. plan. Now the insurance is great if you are hospitalized, or

getting conventional labs like at Labcorp, or an MRI at a participating

provider, etc. but for the kind of docs who deal with complex chronic

illnesses like what my kid is struggling with, these doctors spend time

with you trying to figure things out, not just the 10 minute HMO visit,

and I have found over the last few years that they generally charge

$300-500 per hour, for an hour appointment at those rates, I am lucky to

get $50 in reimbursement from my insurance company, and the insurance

company does not pay phone consults which is mostly what we do because

my kid has difficulty getting out, and now we are in a different state

for mold reasons so can't get to the doc physically (by the way I am

appealing the phone consult thing AGAIN but expect to lose), and they

don't pay alternative labs, etc. etc. MOSTLY THEY TAKE MY PREMIUMS AND

DON " T PAY OUT and to get any reimbursement I have to spend a lot of time

hassling them, getting in their face, filing appeals, etc. etc. which is

not how I want to be spending my time. Routinely I have to resubmit

because the initial claim was " illegible " or " in the wrong format " or

" missing codes " or " wrong code " or ....and the list goes on.......... " m

call the process " deny, delay, do not pay " and this will not change,

these are for profit businesses with one objective: maximize short-term

profits!

If we are forced to buy insurance, we should have a choice about what

that insurance covers too, like alternative therapies and such, not just

the conventional medicine paradigm and BIG PHARMA approach.

That's the other thing that kills me about my current insurance, blue

shield, while they reimburse very little for the docs and labs that have

helped us figure out what is gone wrong, they love to reimburse

pharmaceuticals that do nothing but mask the problems and not cure,

sometimes there's not even a co-pay on the drugs...Are BLue SHield and

Big Pharma in tight??

And even a public option may not help, around the New Year I heard on TV

here in Arizona that one of the Mayo Clinic clinics here in Arizona

would stop accepting Medicare because they didn't reimburse sufficiently

to cover Mayo's costs of providing care to these patients...

I know my son's doctor does not accept Medicare either, for financial

reasons but also they say that if they take Medicare then Medicare is in

their practice trying to dictate how they practice medicine, they are an

integrative clinic, and Medicare only wants conventional/integrative clinic

What is really sad is, here we live in what is (WAS?) one of the richest

countries in the world, we spend a fortune fighting wars all around the

world that arguably are none of our business, and we can't provide free

medical care to our citizens, we can't provide superior education in

safe buildings to our children, etc.. I personally hate paying taxes,

not because of the reduced income to me, but because the govt. so wastes

my hard-earned dollars, with so much going to war, lining the pockets of

big pharma, the factory frankenfoods corporations, etc...

My 2 cents!

Sue V.

>Perhaps we should be looking at this from another point of view-we are

>penalized for not having car insurance because in an accident we may

>need to pay for someone's else's car repairs and physical

Sharon Noonan Kramer

[Guest guest]

Perhaps we should be looking at this from another point of view-we are penalized

for not having car insurance because in an accident we may need to pay for

someone's else's car repairs and physical injuries...when someone doesn't have

insurance, in essence it is we, the taxpayers, that are paying for their trip to

the ER or free clinic.

Just so you know, I am in favor of a public option, absolutely, I am not in

favor of penalties if you do not have insurance too. But I am one of those

people who would benefit from neither of these-I pay my own health insurance, it

is a FORTUNE every month but because my husband has had 2 heart attacks we have

no choice. I am one of those middle class people who will be screwed by this,

somehow, I just know it. What I need is for the President to make it ILLEGAL for

the insurance companies to rip me off! We pay over $1000 a month (triple the

amount we paid 10 years ago) and honestly, that is why I don't go on vacations,

never buy clothes, forego alot of stuff because we are so stuck. It's month to

month by us and I don't hear anyone in the government saying anything that will

help me.

> >

> >

> > Obama unveils health plan

> > Proposal lowers Cadillac tax, boosts regulation.

> >

> >President Obama has laid out his plan on health care ahead of Thursday's

> > bipartisan summit.

> > The proposal, posted to the White House _Web site_

> > (http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal) Monday morning,

closely follows the

> > Senate version of the bill (_HR 3590_

> > (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bill.xc?billnum=H.R.3590 & congress=111)

) with some changes to appease House

> > Democrats.

> > It is designed to serve as a compromise between the House and Senate

> > versions of the bill.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, I too am self-employed and in my 50's, so my health insurance costs

keep skyrocketing, I now pay close to $2,000 per month for just the

insurance, and this is " major medical " , we have a high deductible of

$4,500 or more, can't remember exactly, and the co-pays aren't

insignificant either. BUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH MY INSURANCE is that

they reimburse very little...and I don't see that changing with any kind

of govt. plan. Now the insurance is great if you are hospitalized, or

getting conventional labs like at Labcorp, or an MRI at a participating

provider, etc. but for the kind of docs who deal with complex chronic

illnesses like what my kid is struggling with, these doctors spend time

with you trying to figure things out, not just the 10 minute HMO visit,

and I have found over the last few years that they generally charge

$300-500 per hour, for an hour appointment at those rates, I am lucky to

get $50 in reimbursement from my insurance company, and the insurance

company does not pay phone consults which is mostly what we do because

my kid has difficulty getting out, and now we are in a different state

for mold reasons so can't get to the doc physically (by the way I am

appealing the phone consult thing AGAIN but expect to lose), and they

don't pay alternative labs, etc. etc. MOSTLY THEY TAKE MY PREMIUMS AND

DON " T PAY OUT and to get any reimbursement I have to spend a lot of time

hassling them, getting in their face, filing appeals, etc. etc. which is

not how I want to be spending my time. Routinely I have to resubmit

because the initial claim was " illegible " or " in the wrong format " or

" missing codes " or " wrong code " or ....and the list goes on...........I

call the process " deny, delay, do not pay " and this will not change,

these are for profit businesses with one objective: maximize short-term

profits!

If we are forced to buy insurance, we should have a choice about what

that insurance covers too, like alternative therapies and such, not just

the conventional medicine paradigm and BIG PHARMA approach.

That's the other thing that kills me about my current insurance, blue

shield, while they reimburse very little for the docs and labs that have

helped us figure out what is gone wrong, they love to reimburse

pharmaceuticals that do nothing but mask the problems and not cure,

sometimes there's not even a co-pay on the drugs...Are BLue SHield and

Big Pharma in tight??

And even a public option may not help, around the New Year I heard on TV

here in Arizona that one of the Mayo Clinic clinics here in Arizona

would stop accepting Medicare because they didn't reimburse sufficiently

to cover Mayo's costs of providing care to these patients...

I know my son's doctor does not accept Medicare either, for financial

reasons but also they say that if they take Medicare then Medicare is in

their practice trying to dictate how they practice medicine, they are an

integrative clinic, and Medicare only wants conventional/big pharma care...

What is really sad is, here we live in what is (WAS?) one of the richest

countries in the world, we spend a fortune fighting wars all around the

world that arguably are none of our business, and we can't provide free

medical care to our citizens, we can't provide superior education in

safe buildings to our children, etc.. I personally hate paying taxes,

not because of the reduced income to me, but because the govt. so wastes

my hard-earned dollars, with so much going to war, lining the pockets of

big pharma, the factory frankenfoods corporations, etc...

My 2 cents!

Sue V.

>Perhaps we should be looking at this from another point of view-we are

>penalized for not having car insurance because in an accident we may

>need to pay for someone's else's car repairs and physical

[Guest guest]

I think that things would change if a great portion of US citizen voted in each

election. Being around 35 to 45% in most voting events, the majority does not

rule. If all us who are the majority voted, thing wouldn't be as they are.

Myriam

>

> Yes, I too am self-employed and in my 50's, so my health insurance costs

> keep skyrocketing, I now pay close to $2,000 per month for just the

> insurance, and this is " major medical " , we have a high deductible of

> $4,500 or more, can't remember exactly, and the co-pays aren't

> insignificant either. BUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH MY INSURANCE is that

> they reimburse very little...and I

[Guest guest]

I hear that Washington is swamped with lobbiest from health insurers 24/7 and

there are multiple lobbiest talking to each and every congress person. They

really do some arm bending and are in their face constantly. Nothing can get

through senate anymore that is not good for corporations because they focus on

senate as the place they can more easily stop anything they want to, fewer

people to influence, and talking to people they have contributed alot of money

in, to help them get in office. They help both parties get into office, put

more money into Republicans since they are more cooperative with corporations,

but they edge their bets by major contributions to Democrats also. The problem

lies in the fact that these people need this money to get into office and to

stay in office. For example, television time is critical, so it should be FREE

to all candidates, an equal amount of time given to each candidate. The air

waves are public, this needs to be done but nobody has the backbone or perhaps

the power to do something about it. Television time costs enormous sums. If a

candidate cannot be heard, they cannot get elected or stay in office so as much

as many of them would like to do the right thing, at a certain point it is self

preservation. If they cannot stay in office, they can't accomplish ANYTHING,

so... Health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the oil business

and the defence industry are way too powerful and I doubt there is anything that

can be done UNLESS the majority of people caught on to this and voted. Just

encouraging everyone to vote won't work because people are so confused as to

what is going on. If they don't vote, it's because they don't see who is best

and encouraging them to vote, is encouraging them to just guess and that won't

help anyone.

[Guest guest]

Yes, but I think you are assuming that the majority is well informed and

would make wise voting decisions, which I am not convinced is the case,

and also that there are even good choices to vote for... For example,

look at how and where the majority of US citizens " vote " with their

dollars, buying cheap plastic junk from China at Walmarts, buying and

eating junk frankenfoods and soda pop instead of real unprocessed

organic food from local small farms, and the list goes on. If Obama

were serious about improving the health of this country's citizens, he

could start with removing toxic chemicals and sick foods from the US

scene. my 3 cents. sue v

>I think that things would change if a great portion of US citizen voted

>in each election. Being around 35 to 45% in most voting events, the

>majority does not rule. If all us who are the majority voted, thing

>wouldn't be as they are.

>

>Myriam

>

[Guest guest]

So true!

[Guest guest]

I trust our people to move ahead in good times and in bad times. If they have

the knowledge or not. I do not know, however I understand that people

manifesting what they feel is positive; even if they do no concur with me.

Voting is sacred and some do not understand that through this mean; there will

be changes. In some cases, which I would prefer, for better, and others for

worse, however the facts are telling us that " Houston we have a problem "

I don't want us to end like the Roman Empire as someone mentioned. America is

Great and we have always prevailed. And I am sure there are much more who love

there country than the anarchist that want to do whatever they want and who are

the real destroyers of our country's heritage. Together as one we will prevail.

Myriam

>

> Yes, but I think you are assuming that the majority is well informed and

> would make wise voting decisions, which I am not convinced is the case,

> and also that there are even good choices to vote for... For example,

> look at how and where the majority of US citizens " vote " with their

> dollars, buying cheap plastic junk from China at Walmarts, buying and

> eating junk frankenfoods and soda pop instead of real unprocessed

> organic food from local small farms, and the list goes on. If Obama

> were serious about improving the health of this country's citizens, he

> could start with removing toxic chemicals and sick foods from the US

> scene. my 3 cents. sue v

>

>

>

> >I think that things would change if a great portion of US citizen voted

> >in each election. Being around 35 to 45% in most voting events, the

> >majority does not rule. If all us who are the majority voted, thing

> >wouldn't be as they are.

> >

> >Myriam

> >

>

[Guest guest]

With all due respect I just don't agree about the car insurance-we both know

that if given a choice ALOT of people would forego the car insurance and drive

anyway- " taking a chance " that they won't have an accident. Honestly, car

insurance is so damn expensive who wouldn't do this? I myself have 2 friends who

are driving uninsured because they can't afford it-how about that for another

emerging insurance problem!

But I have to agree with you about everything except the future doctors in the

country. My daughter is a pediatrician (she got her degree three years ago from

Mount Sinai Hospital in NY who has an environmental illness department!)and she

was trained remarkably well-her school was 51% women and was traditional but

acknowledged natural remedies and diseases like MCS. She is very open to things

and I think it's probably half having a mom like me but also half because

training is getting more enlightened.

I think there is hope with the next generation of doctors-a little too late for

us though...

>

>

>

> Sue,

>

> I don't think the car analogy applies to this situation. People can

> choose to drive a car, and when they drive a car they potentially could harm

> another should an accident occur. People do not choose to be born in the US

> and just because they are, does not mean their government has the right to

> force them to enter into an agreement with a private entity.

>

> Yes. you are going to get screwed with this healthcare plan. And so is

[Guest guest]

Barb,

You make some good points and in a perfect world that would make sense to

have the young and healthy paying premiums to offset the expense of those

with chronic illness But the problem is, healthcare in America is far from a

perfect world and the insurance industry does not look at it from the

standpoint that if we receive more money from A we can spend more money on B.

They don't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions because they can't

afford to pay those claims. They deny them because they adversely impact

bottom line profits.

Insurance premiums and insurance payout for illness and injury is based on

one thing and one thing only: What can they get away with while increasing

the bottom line. They have shareholders to appease The lines have become

blurred as to who the owe the greatest responsibility, their clients the

insured or their shareholder investors.

Understand that the insurance industry is about one thing only - risk

analysis for the purpose of increasing profits and you will understand why the

system will never work until their is competition in the market that causes

them to lose clients - which decreases the bottom line - unless they offer

service that is worth what they charge. It is the principle of trade and

economics that capitalism is founded on.

Right now, they have a monopoly. They will still have a monopoly under

the Dems plan. When one has a monopoly and shareholders they are responsible

to deliver the highest return on investment possible, there is no way

those caught in the system of the monopoly will ever get a fair shake. And to

force every man, woman and child into this broken system is not the answer

to the problem.....seems to me, anyway.

There is much more to it than this. Many health insurers are also

property causality insurers Think about who loses when physicians are taught

of

causation of environmental illness from IAQ. Property causality and workers

comp. So, as health insurers are determining what is evidence based

treatments for illness that the physicians must follow to be reimbursed for

their

work, there is much financial motivation to feign ignorance of

environmental causes and avoid viable treatments that help to prove causation

which

tremendously increases liability for property/casualty and workers comp

divisions.

They think they are going to control it by this big pool (Exchange) they

are establishing to buy insurance in blocks and keep the cost down. But

that is wrong. Until they address what are viable treatments, not just who

pays what premiums, the game is still fixed

It's a mess. Competition is the only answer that makes them have to

compete for business, NOT control the whole game. .....seems to me, anyway

Sharon K

In a message dated 2/25/2010 11:07:54 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

barb1283@... writes:

I understand Sharons comments but if it were illegal not to have health

insurance, the cost of premiums would become very low as it would cover

mostly health people and some day when they needed it, it would be there for

them too. His original idea was to provide a public program for people who

could not afford but the senate has dashed that possibility so he is trying to

get whatever he can to cover everyone and bring costs down so I'm for it,

despite the logical argument Sharon gives.

[Guest guest]

When I was in my twenties and didn't have a good job, I could hardly afford

anything. I had car insurance because it was illegal not to. I didn't have

health insurance. My car insurance turned out to be hugely important when I was

hit as a 'pedestrian' by a car during the Christmas shopping season, in a

parking lot of shopping center, where I worked at a second job. My car

insurance paid my hospital bills. It's unbelievable I know that my insurance

had to pay anything since I was hit by a car but he was as young as me but had

no car insurance, had no money or assets, so my car insurance paid my medical

bills. Even though I probably would have been taken care of at a country run

hospital to a minimum level anyway, ever since then I have never minded paying

my car insurance. I know this is aside from the issue but just reminded me of

that.

I understand Sharons comments but if it were illegal not to have health

insurance, the cost of premiums would become very low as it would cover mostly

health people and some day when they needed it, it would be there for them too.

His original idea was to provide a public program for people who could not

afford but the senate has dashed that possibility so he is trying to get

whatever he can to cover everyone and bring costs down so I'm for it, despite

the logical argument Sharon gives.

>

> With all due respect I just don't agree about the car insurance-we both know

that if given a choice ALOT of people would forego the car insurance and drive

anyway- " taking a chance " that they won't have an accident. Honestly, car

insurance is so damn expensive who wouldn't do this? I myself have 2 friends who

are driving uninsured because they can't afford it-how about that for another

emerging insurance problem!

[Guest guest]

you really said that well. sue v

>Barb,

>

>You make some good points and in a perfect world that would make sense to

>have the young and healthy paying premiums to offset the expense of those

>with chronic illness But the problem is, healthcare in America is far

>from a

> perfect world and the insurance industry does not look at it from the

>standpoint that if we receive more money from A we can spend more money

>on B.

[Guest guest]

When i moved to NM , I asked the insurance agent why the car insurance, with the

same agency, was so much more expensive tan VA. He said it was because so many

people in NM drive without insurance, even though it is illegal. So having

uninsured people does drive up the cost for the rest of us. And after living

here for a few years, I can say that there are a lot of outright criminals here,

some on the lam from the east coast, who do not register or insure their cars.

The rest of us pay for them.

>

> When I was in my twenties and didn't have a good job, I could hardly afford

anything. I had car insurance because it was illegal not to. I didn't have

health insurance. My car insurance turned out to be hugely important when I was

hit as a 'pedestrian' by a car during the Christmas shopping season, in a

parking lot of shopping center, where I worked at a second job. My car

insurance paid my hospital bills. It's unbelievable I know that my insurance

had to pay anything since I was hit by a car but he was as young as me but had

no car insurance, had no money or assets, so my car insurance paid my medical

bills. Even though I probably would have been taken care of at a country run

hospital to a minimum level anyway, ever since then I have never minded paying

my car insurance. I know this is aside from the issue but just reminded me of

that.

>

> I