Republican state attorney general Rob McKenna is trying to overturn the newly passed health-insurance reforms by suing the federal government. If he gets his way, he’ll repeal health protections for millions of people in Washington who previously had restricted coverage, risked losing their coverage, or had no coverage. Like these people.
A few years ago, after months of feeling under the weather, Marcelas Owens’s mother, Tiffany Owens, began vomiting blood. As Marcelas tells it, she called her supervisor at Jack in the Box and said she was too sick to come to work. The supervisor told Tiffany she’d been taking too many sick days already and she now had a choice: show up or be let go.
Tiffany lost her job, and with it her health insurance.
This was October of 2006. A short while later, she was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension. It’s a tough-to-beat disease with no known cure, but with proper medical care and treatment, people who have it can live 20 years or more. Unable to access regular medical care, Owens was in and out of emergency rooms, and then, in June of 2007, she died at the age of 27, when Marcelas was 8.
If his mother had been able to get health insurance after she lost her job, 11-year-old Marcelas said in a phone interview with The Stranger, “I think she would have at least had a fighting chance against the disease. I couldn’t say whether she would have lived or died because I’m not a doctor, but I think she would have at least had a fighting chance to live with the disease a bit longer.”
The health-care reform law provides options for people facing situations such as the one Tiffany Owens faced—people with a “preexisting condition,” no job, and limited financial resources for getting on a health plan. It prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to someone just because that person has, say, pulmonary hypertension. It also provides tax credits to help lower-income people pay for insurance.
After hearing about Marcelas, who goes to elementary school in Columbia City, Senator Patty Murray began telling policy makers what had happened to him and his mother. The Washington Community Action Network then paid to send Marcelas to the nation’s capitol to lobby, testify, speak about his mother, and, ultimately, stand right next to President Obama as the bill was signed.
“It was exciting because I know that I helped, that I had a small part in helping with the health-care bill being signed,” Marcelas said. “I don’t want any other kid to lose a family member because they’re not as rich as some people, or have to choose between food or medical attention.”
Now far fewer kids will have to experience losing a parent too soon for lack of good health care, like Marcelas did. That is, unless Rob McKenna wins his lawsuit. ELI SANDERS
Carrie Sellar, a 38-year-old self-employed mother, has been denied health coverage for a condition she doesn’t have anymore. It’s called AV nodal reentrant tachycardia, two short circuits in her heart’s electrical system that used to cause her heart rate to jump suddenly, making her short of breath and giving her headaches. Doctors corrected the condition a decade ago. “They went in through my femoral artery and pushed an electrode into my heart,” she says. “They mapped the electrical pathways to figure out where the fault was, zapped the short circuits to destroy them, and it was pretty much done. It’s a neat treatment.”
Even though the condition is cured, it continues to haunt her. Sellar, an independent logistics consultant, makes enough money to buy insurance for herself and her daughter in the open market, but insurance companies don’t like her history of tachycardia. “They send you a great fat packet about your parents’ health and your grandparents’ health, what you eat, what you weigh,” she says. “And on the front page was a list of conditions and boxes to check. If you’ve ever been treated for one of those, they tell you not to bother filling out the rest of the form, just go to the back and sign your name. And it’s like: ‘Oh, that can’t be good.'”
Predictably, she was denied coverage.
For now, Sellar and her 8-year-old daughter, Morgan, have health insurance via Sellar’s partner, who gets it from the company where he works. But having to depend on that limits their lives. He’s frustrated about having to keep his current job when he’d rather work for a nonprofit that wants to hire him, but that nonprofit can’t cover his family’s health-insurance needs; Sellar is frustrated about her dependence on her partner’s insurance when she could afford her own.
Under the new health-care law, insurance companies are barred from denying coverage to people because of preexisting conditions. McKenna, in pushing his lawsuit, would strip people like Sellar of the ability to purchase their own coverage.
“I was proactive and got my problem fixed years ago, and now it’s a penalty,” Sellar says. “It’s ridiculous.” She argues that it’s not McKenna’s place to spend taxpayer money to undo the work of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. “He’s not going to stop health reform,” she says. “He is just going to spend a lot of our money—when we don’t have any—on his personal political grandstanding.” BRENDAN KILEY
Barry Faught is excited to finally buy his staff health insurance. He employs two people and himself at the Soho Coffee Company in the Central District, and all of them have been without health insurance for almost two years now. Faught’s motto has been “Don’t get sick.” He says, “You don’t realize how big of a deal [getting sick] is until one person can’t cover their shift.” Preventative medical care and access to a doctor would help Faught and his employees avoid medical emergencies and help them recover faster when they do get ill.
Among its other benefits, the new federal law grants business owners with fewer than 50 employees a tax credit (covering 35 percent of health-care premiums now, increasing to 50 percent by 2014) to help cover insurance costs. Faught researched insurance plans for months in anticipation of the bill’s passing. “It’s still a big expense,” he says, “but it’s also finally manageable. I’m proud to be able to cover my employees.”
State attorney general Rob McKenna is suing the federal government to prevent insurance from becoming affordable for Faught. In Washington’s 7th Congressional District, comprising Seattle and Vashon Island, the law immediately helps 21,300 small businesses afford insurance coverage—to say nothing of the estimated 142,300 other small businesses in the state—according to a study conducted by the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
“Health insurance obviously isn’t as important to Rob as it is to us,” Faught says, “since he’s already got it.” Every tax-paying resident in the state already pays for McKenna’s insurance plan—and his paycheck—which means that if McKenna suffers from exhaustion while fighting to kill insurance reform, he can afford to see a doctor.
“Every small-business owner in the state should be pissed off at Rob McKenna,” Faught says. “We’ve been uninsured for too long. It’s time for small-business owners to fight for this.” CIENNA MADRID
This is the problem with your paper: While I totally agree with the sentiment of the article, your ludicrously hyperbolic headline lacks any sort of cleverness or tact, and completely misses the point.
It’s quite clear that none of the authors of this article understand the lawsuit. I would direct them to the AG’s FAQ on the subject: http://www.atg.wa.gov/page.aspx?id=25410
“The two main provisions of our lawsuit deal with:
1) The unprecedented and unconstitutional requirement that individuals lacking health insurance must purchase private insurance or face a fine; and
2) The massive expansion of the Medicaid program which will unconstitutionally require states to spend billions more on this program at a time when state budgets are already in crisis.”
I personally have a problem with forcing people to buy health insurance and thereby directly supporting a private sector of the economy, and I support the lawsuit.
However, should their challenge be successful, the outcome is that these provisions would be discarded and the rest of the statutes in the bill would remain. This means that the situations outlined above would still be covered by the health care reform bill, even with a successful lawsuit.
In fact, none of the above quoted cases have any relevance to the AG’s lawsuit.
To the authors of this article, I realise that constitutional law isn’t your area of expertise, but a little diligence goes a long way.
Why are all comments being deleted from this article?
Because the stranger authors are fear-mongering?
Just like Rush and Fox News?
Please say it isn’t so.
Apologies, the comments are disappearing and magically re-appearing. It must be something technical.
Again, apologies for comment 3.
@2, so it’s OK for states to mandate the purchase of auto insurance?
Also, you seem to be misunderstanding the law. The government is imposing a tax on people if they don’t have health insurance. That’s no different than imposing a tax on you for any of the myriad reasons that one presently has to pay taxes.
You and @1 don’t like the headline because you don’t like being reminded of the human cost of your douchebaggery.
But wait, isn’t he suing because the bill FORCES people to buy insurance?
Yes, on top of that, it’s not even HIS lawsuit, he just joined with one spearheaded by a floridian.
Read the lawsuit, and unless I am mistaken, it is intended to block portions of the bill that MANDATE THAT ALL AMERICANS BUY INSURANCE.
The argument has never been against giving people access to healthcare. That’s just stupid to even infer that.
Did you miss the part of the bill that mentions that if you don’t buy health insurance, you can be fined by the IRS? Take that unemployed mother of one! Didn’t buy health insurance! Since when has it been our governments job to force people to purchase anything from the private sector? The Commerce clause gives states the ability to require auto insurance, but that’s just if you own a car, not just exist.
I support affordable health insurance, I support supplemented insurance for low income. What I don’t support is the government strong-arming people into purchasing insurance at the threat of a fine.
This is lazy knee-jerk pandering reporting Stranger writer Cienna Madrid. You shouldn’t use teary-eyed human interest stories like this to push your own misguided agenda. People actually read this paper, and if someone didn’t know better (which happens…) they would believe you for what you say.
But wait, isn’t he suing because the bill FORCES people to buy insurance?
Yes, on top of that, it’s not even HIS lawsuit, he just joined with one spearheaded by a floridian.
Read the lawsuit, and unless I am mistaken, it is intended to block portions of the bill that MANDATE THAT ALL AMERICANS BUY INSURANCE.
The argument has never been against giving people access to healthcare. That’s just stupid to even infer that.
Did you miss the part of the bill that mentions that if you don’t buy health insurance, you can be fined by the IRS? Take that unemployed mother of one! Didn’t buy health insurance! Since when has it been our governments job to force people to purchase anything from the private sector? The Commerce clause gives states the ability to require auto insurance, but that’s just if you own a car, not just exist.
I support affordable health insurance, I support supplemented insurance for low income. What I don’t support is the government strong-arming people into purchasing insurance at the threat of a fine.
This is lazy knee-jerk pandering reporting Stranger writer Cienna Madrid. You shouldn’t use teary-eyed human interest stories like this to push your own misguided agenda. People actually read this paper, and if someone didn’t know better (which happens…) they would believe you for what you say.
God, shut up you douches. No one is being forced to buy insurance. They will be taxed for not having insurance, because guess who pays for emergency room visits by the uninsured, Taxpayers do.
@7 and everybody else
Without mandatory health insurance, none of the perks–eliminating pre-existing conditions, limited health payments, kicking people off plans, etc–are possible. You can’t add a bunch of terminally ill people onto the system without someone paying for it. Those someones are healthy people that have to buy insurance.
Anyone who goes through their entire youth without insurance (or worse yet, uses the ER as primary care), and then buys insurance only when he/she is old and prone to sickness, is a strain on the economy. Insurance can’t work that way–it needs most customers to be healthy for most of the time.
Republicans want to just keep all the perks of the bill while removing the stuff that actually pays for it. More fiscal non-conservatism.
yeah this article has nothing to do with the lawsuit, and even if it did, did not address the lawsuit in any substantive way
@6— Did you not read my comment? I said I agree with the sentiment. The headline is retarded. You know what that’s like.
Yet another “brilliant” article by the Stranger, taking issue with the constitutionality of HCR clearly means that Rob McKenna hates the people the article mentions… This stupid type of article leads to exactly the type of group-think that is destroying this nation… And honestly, if a law is unconstitutional, would you still support it because it seems “necessary”? I remember that kind of thinking leading to the swift passage of the Patriot Act, you God-damned liberals are every bit as bad as the God-damned conservatives, but you seem to want to spend more of my money…
Yet another “brilliant” article by the Stranger, taking issue with the constitutionality of HCR clearly means that Rob McKenna hates the people the article mentions… This stupid type of article leads to exactly the type of group-think that is destroying this nation… And honestly, if a law is unconstitutional, would you still support it because it seems “necessary”? I remember that kind of thinking leading to the swift passage of the Patriot Act, you God-damned liberals are every bit as bad as the God-damned conservatives, but you seem to want to spend more of my money…
Lumpmoose is right. Without expanding the pool of people paying for insurance (through the incentives/penalties challenged by the lawsuit), you can’t address the problems that the article rightly decries.
Rob McKenna can’t have it both ways, but he’ll try to argue that he can.
Yet another “brilliant” article by the Stranger, taking issue with the constitutionality of HCR clearly means that Rob McKenna hates the people the article mentions… This stupid type of article leads to exactly the type of group-think that is destroying this nation… And honestly, if a law is unconstitutional, would you still support it because it seems “necessary”? I remember that kind of thinking leading to the swift passage of the Patriot Act, you God-damned liberals are every bit as bad as the God-damned conservatives, but you seem to want to spend more of my money…
Without the bill “forcing” everyone to pay for insurance, the other provisions don’t work. People could just remain uninsured until they actually got sick, only now they couldn’t be denied for a pre-existing condition. Requiring everyone to pay for insurance guarantees there won’t be people taking advantage of the system.
The opposition didn’t come up with viable alternatives to the bill’s provisions (and they had an entire fucking year to do so), so this is what we get. It’s a baby step, but at least it’s in the right direction.
@BillofBelltown
The SCOTUS determines if a law is constitutional or not, at which point the Congress can elect to send a Constitutional Amendment to the states for a vote. Checks and balances. Lay individuals whining about supposed constitutionality aren’t that relevant to the process.
@10 Ha, beat me to it.
@2 You hit it on the head.
@6 Yeah, because you are making a choice to drive a car and put other peoples property at risk. So you need insurance to cover any damages. If you don’t drive a car, you don’t HAVE to buy auto insurance. The government isn’t giving you a choice in this. Which is why it is wrong.
@10 OK, well my back hurts when I work for more than 4 hours a day. I will now expect you to pay more in taxes so I don’t have to work so much. It’s only fair, people who are healthy and work a lot of hours should subsidize me.
@20
Sounds like Social Security disability payments. We already pay taxes for people who are disabled and can’t work. As for working part-time, I don’t know what, if any part of the health care bill or social security covers you (or your theoretical archetype).
What’s your point?
@18 SCOUTS can only make a decision that a law is unconstitutional IF a lawsuit is brought.
If congress passes,the presidents signs, a law that says “In order to save money we are closing all military housing and putting soldiers in the homes of private citizens” (Unconstitutional under Amend. 3) and no one sues over it, it can still be enforced. It requires a federal lawsuit, like the one the AG (a citizen could also bing one, though they would need to be fined by the IRS first) is trying to push forward, to have it declared unconstitutional.
@18 SCOUTS can only make a decision that a law is unconstitutional IF a lawsuit is brought.
If congress passes, and the presidents signs, a law that says “In order to save money we are closing all military housing and putting soldiers in the homes of private citizens” (Unconstitutional under Amend. 3) and no one sues over it, it can still be enforced. It requires a federal lawsuit, like the one the AG (a citizen could also bring one, though they would need to be fined by the IRS first) is trying to push forward, to have it declared unconstitutional.
@21 my point is that it sounds like the stupidest thing ever.
Other people paying pouring money into something they wont ever get anything out of? At least with Social Security (as it was originally designed) was that you got something out of it in the end.
Now, healthy people have to pay MORE into a system that they never used in the first place. How does that seem right to you?
The reason why Rob McKenna is party to this lawsuit is 100% political. It has no basis in the merits (or lack thereof) of the PPAC act. If you don’t know why, then you’ve been paying zero attention to this issue. Go learn some facts before posting.
Also, arguing the 10th Amendment is like arguing for moonbeams & rainbow ponies. It is the Constitution’s appendix– pointless, w/o function or use.
There is much to dislike about the PPAC act, but every way to improve it would mean dismantling in part, or in whole, of the for-profit health care industry which has prevented all attempts at reform for over a century. They have owned the GOP outright, and bought enough Dems to maintain their monopolies. The election of ’08 was a watershed event, when enough progressives were elected to convince enough of their fellow Dems to finally do something about HCR. The GOP, as always, did nothing but block it at every turn.
If you don’t like it, then support progressive candidates (NOT just any Dem). They are the only ones who are working to improve health care. Everyone else, including Rob McKenna, wants to return to the old status quo.
@IANAL
Good point, I didn’t think of it that way. Does the state AG have special federal lawsuit superpowers? I don’t think the role is mentioned in the Constitution nor in the traditional Separation of Powers idea, but then again, neither are the states.
@25
It only makes sense if the concept of insurance makes sense. Insurance functions by requiring a large pool of people that rarely use their services. In the case of health insurance, that means they need healthy people buying insurance. It’s the only method by which middle-class people can afford any modern health care at all.
The pre-HCR system was broke and spiraling out of control. That’s the bottom line. There isn’t some working status quo that we’re departing. It was unsustainable. Might still be.
@9 and @10, you seem to misunderstand how insurance works. Your premiums you pay in over time are paid out when you get sick, assuming the actuaries at the insurance companies are accurate. If you don’t know what an actuary is, then stop, look it up and educate yourself.
Sicker, older and more at risk people will have to pay more in premiums than healthy people, because the insurance companies will pay more for their care over time, again, based upon those statistical models.
And if you think this is for subsidizing the sick, again, please read up on how insurance and statistical modeling works.
Also, any comparisons to Social Security are bogus because it’s a federally mandated program that all workers are compelled to participate in. The government is allowed to do that. Social Security is not a private market, there is only one social security.
Now, if there had been a public option where there was a gov’t run health insurance program, then they could legally fine you for not having insurance (because you would be compelled to participate in a gov’t sponsored alternative). But that was shot down specifically by the Republicans. It’s not that they couldn’t think of anything better, it’s because what was better was rejected.
But if the lawsuit succeeds on the first point and they no longer require health insurance for everyone. No biggie, it won’t massively impact everyone, insurance premiums may be slightly higher, but it won’t affect any of the other aspects of the bill.
The increased burden on states is another matter, but apparently no one here cares, so we’ll just ignore it for now.
@27 I think the issue is more complex than that, I think the lack of tort reform, combined with the pharma-medical power block effectively allows increasing profits and escalating costs.
When it comes to doctors rejecting additional medical spending, well, if you did that, you might get sued!
And thus it fuels the cycle of allowing these blocks to establish more expensive and not necesarily more effective technology. Or prescribe unnecesarily expensive treatments when the return on investiment in terms of efficacy just doesn’t justify it from a financial standpoint.
“How American Health Care Killed My Father” in the September 2009 Atlantic is a great read and available online (can’t post a link)
It makes some great points and asks some great questions, one of the best being why do we expect health insurance to pay for so much of our care? We don’t call our car insurance company when we want to get gas or an oil change in our cars, insurance is for disasters.
“How American Health Care Killed My Father” in the September 2009 Atlantic is a great read and available online (can’t post a link)
It makes some great points and asks some great questions, one of the best being why do we expect health insurance to pay for so much of our care? We don’t call our car insurance company when we want to get gas or an oil change in our cars, insurance is for disasters.
“How American Health Care Killed My Father” in the September 2009 Atlantic is a great read and available online (can’t post a link)
It makes some great points and asks some great questions, one of the best being why do we expect health insurance to pay for so much of our care? We don’t call our car insurance company when we want to get gas or an oil change in our cars, insurance is for disasters.
sorry about all those, when hitting submit I was getting an HTTP 500 error
@ Lumpmoose
Yes, it’s called the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. “
AFAIK, I haven’t read the actual suit, the AG’s contention is that the Federal government if forcing the states to spend money on something they might not want to. A power “not delegated to the United states [Federal government].”
The second part the AG talks about, that it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to FINE citizens. (I have read this part of the law) The fine is called it a “penalty.” Still a fine, not a tax. Which is also “not delegated to the United states [Federal government].” I’m not sure how, as Attorneys General, any of them would have standing to challenge that without one of their citizens actually being ordered to pay. But like I said, I’m not a lawyer (yet, anyway).
I love how all the “we hate everything” republicans threw hysterical fits over the idea of “socialist” medicine and demanded, over and over, that the government use a private market solution, and now that we have one, they are throwing hysterical fits about how the private market is evil and that it’s unconstitutional for the government to work with the private sector. Sorry, douchebags, you can be as douchy as you want, but the truth is you can’t have it both ways. You guys did everything in your power to fight and make sure that the private insurance industry got to make the big decisions in this bill (because anything else is eeeeevil socialism), so now you’re stuck with them.
Plus, for a group that is supposed to care about the economy and fiscal matters, it boggles my mind that none of you have any concept of how insurance even works. Do you honestly think it would work if no one ever paid for insurance until they got sick, signed up, and then when they got better stopped paying again? The reason we can’t do it that way is because “patriots” and “libertarians” like you guys would try to suck as much money out of the system as possible without giving anything back.
And for the love of god, teabaggers, stop saying “tort reform”! It’s blatantly obvious none of you know what the fuck a tort even is, and have no idea what sort of impact any sort of reform would have on health care costs (Hint: almost none). Repeating “tort reform” over and over as if it’s some kind of solution to a problem just outs you as the braindead Fox news mouthpiece you are.
First, to everyone, the SLOG servers are fucked up today. So no need to apologize for double & triple posts.
And PleaseFactCheck: “I think the issue is more complex than that”
Uh…. DUH!!! ::cue donkey braying noise::
This is the comments’ section of the SLOG, you think you’re going to read a comprehensive review of the legislation & it’s possible effects?
You & SgtDoom do well to argue the point that insurance companies shouldn’t be involved in health care. Every problem & issue you raise would be solved if there was a “single payer” system in America. A system that, while not 100% perfect (and what is?), is incredibly successful in every other ‘first world’, industrialized nation that has it.
No other industrialized nation has tried to do what the US has done, an entirely free market solution to providing health care. We are a great example of why nations should never do it because it’s been an abysmal failure, in every measurable area for success. This is fact.
The only thing our old system does is provide excellent coverage for the super-wealthy and the well-connected.
Again, there is much to dislike about the legislation, because the health care industry was allowed a seat at the table. This act is a first step at muscling them out. Once you cut them out of the loop, easy & successful health care solutions will follow.
Nice misleading intro guys!
It took three people to do this shit? Christ..
I disagree with McKenna’s actions, but this article is pure FUD
@51 – The insurance companies need some way of fighting fraud; it would be a big mistake to subsidize fraud across the board. The main way the insurance companies dumped sick people was saying they misrepresented “pre-existing conditions”, and the new bill stops companies from being able to dump people based on that. They can still dump you if you commit some other more legitimate type of fraud, but it is up to the courts to decide what constitutes fraud. But pre-existing conditions no longer count.
@47
So I’m a Democrat, voted Democrat in every major election, and you infer I’m a teabagger because I don’t think there should be obscene damages on professional misfesance?
Malpractice insurance and the threat of lawsuit drives most doctors to provide unreasonable levels of medical care, driving up costs and driving more profits into the insurance industry (higher premiums == high profits given equal payout percentages).
And in and of itself, it is not a solution, but once you allow medical care to be governed by reason and not fear, then we can start controlling costs.
he people acting in line with the teabaggers, with the ad hominem arguements, are acting as if this is an assault on the concept of improved health care. It’s not.
Thanks for your sophomoric pity piece!
What the article fails to mention is that the insurance giants offered to accept anyone with any preexisting condition and to remove yearly and lifetime benefit caps for the chance to reap the benefits of 35 million new suckers to bleed dry. Their only desire was to kill the public option and retain their full market share.
How does the health care bill fail?
The “reform” bill prohibits the government from negotiating prices with drug companies and from permitting the importation of drugs. The insurance companies will remain exempt from antitrust laws. Corporate and financial power in the health care sector remains fundamentally unchallenged and the cost of premiums will in all likelihood remain at or above current levels.
The two major reasons for escalating insurance costs: the price of prescription drugs and marketing, will not be affected by the this “reform”. And what reason does Obama give for not enacting the necessary reforms that would actually bring about his much talked about change? In an interview with Fox News’ Brett Baier last week he said:
“I have rejected a whole bunch of provisions that the left wanted that are – you know, they were very adamant about because I thought it would be too disruptive to the system.”
It’s a very telling answer in that his concerns are really not with popular public opinion, but “the system”.
The health sector poured a remarkable $178,252,901 into congressional and presidential campaigns between the beginning of the 2008 election cycle and the summer of 2009. The insurance industry invested $52,739,320. Obama received more than $19 million from the health sector for the 2008 election cycle – a new record.
So what do you think of the reform now?
Wow, crappy article, outstanding comments from most of you. It’s kind of hard to be seen as valid when you resort to childish remarks and name calling (i.e. douchebags).
I would be in favor of combining all government health services into a single agency; VA, Indian Health, community clinics, and any other I can’t think of right now. Just one place for anyone who wants it.
But by giving the very same insurance companies they were vilifying untold billions more in revenue just defeated any hope of reform.
While the go go government is mandating individuals to purchase insurance, exemptions are granted to those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of an individual’s income and to those with incomes below the tax filing threshold ($9350 for singles and $18700 for couples in 2009). Moreover, refundable and advanceable premium tax credits are given to those with incomes between 133 and 400%of the federal poverty level to purchase coverage. This means, if you have an employer-sponsored plan, don’t worry about the reform because you can keep what you have. If you are not covered and are too poor, you will get credits or exemptions. Chill out, selfish republicans with employer-sponsored insurance.
Insurance companies and drug companies will be required to pay billions in fees under the new law. Further, insurance companies can no longer rescind coverage based on preexisting conditions or impose annual or lifetime limits. These private sector players are not given any preference. Read the bill before you oppose the reform
Aaaand of course, those Republicans who oppose health care reform on the basis that “employers already provide health care” conveniently happen to be the very same people who believe that employers should be able to fire people for taking sick days WHILE THEY’RE SICK, like the fast food asshole in this article.
So once again, it comes down to “if you get sick, and do not have a trust fund, you’re completely fucked.” And then they claim to represent the “average joe.”
Beginning in 2011, drug makers must pay $2.5 billion annually. Beginning in 2014, insurance companies must pay $8 billion annually.
@60/61 – No, YOU go back and read the legislation. Once the pre-existing conditions section kicks in, insurers can NOT deny you for pre-existing conditions, raise your premiums for pre-existing conditions, or basically do anything much at all about it. So even if you accidentally failed to report a pre-existing condition, it’s NOT FRAUD, because you are not getting any money out of it and they are not losing any money; they can not try to imply that you are defrauding them, because your pre-existing conditions have nothing at all to do with your insurance coverage. They might be able to accuse you of fraud by saying you lied about your age or home address, but that’s harder to do if you put your actual birthday and address on the form. The vast majority of fake fraud accusations that insurers use is saying that you failed to mention some vague sickness in your past. They can not use that anymore, because vague sicknesses in your past can not change the price of your insurance or coverage.
If the Republicans were honest that their opposition to the bill is based on the constitution not giving the federal government powers not explicitly delegated to it, they would be arguing that hospitals and doctors don’t need to provide free coverage for people that can’t pay for care. Currently my hospital (yes I actually work in healthcare and am in charge of the healthcare of more that 100,000 patients every year, our reimbursement for their care and the operations of more than 100 technical staff) is paid less than 47 cents for every dollar we bill. Why is it fine for us to be required to provide free coverage but no one can be required to buy insurance?
GET YOUR FACTS FUCKING STRAIGHT!… He wants to make the law CONSTITUTIONAL…Hey “The Stranger”..give me 1,000 dollars because The GOD KING OBAMA says so!…
Get off your liberal-free love-free cheese-green hobby horse… And one last thing ..MARCELAS OWENS..sad as it is ..you lost your mother due to her “OBESITY” not her lack of “god a’mighty healthcare”.. 11 years old is too young to be a Democratic-Acorn!-Washington-CAN!-shill-puppet.
I still would like to find out just how much money Washington tax payers are funding for this project. Rob and his staff are being paid while they work on this project. Full disclosure to this details have not been given as far as I’ve heard.
@65 – The Republicans do not want to “make the law constitutional”. I’m not sure how you missed it, since they have repeated the same thing over and over again in lock step, but their plan is to “repeal the health care bill and start over from the beginning with a step by step approach that uses common sense”. In other words, destroy it completely and then ignore the problem while making pathetic gestures like “tort reform” to pretend that they actually give a fuck about solving any problems. There is no “making it constitutional”, there’s only repealing it completely and then spending another decade arguing about things and getting nothing done.