Nita Lowey’s “Town Hall” --Democracy AWOL

070723Nita_Lowey_scaled.jpg

Nita Lowey called my cell phone this week. She had a message: The following day around the same time my phone would ring; I should pick it up if I wanted to “participate” in her “Town Hall” meeting on health care. (The quotations marks around Participate and Town Hall are mine and you will shortly see why.)

Why did Lowey opt to call my cell phone? Well, I gave to Hillary’s campaign. Also I’m a registered democrat. Add the two and the math says: Blue Friendly.
The following day, 6ish, I did as instructed and answered my phone. How did the conference call—aka “Town Hall”—turn out? Splendidly. Why? Because we were all on mute.

Nita told us over and over in a nice and preachy speech how great and wonderful ObamaCare will be for each and every citizen. She used the term wild misrepresentations too many time for me to count. She took calls from the phone audience. Aghm….fix that…she took some pre-arranged calls.

About those calls:
Everyone Nita called had been identified by name, and party affiliation prior to the call—remember Nita called us; we were not allowed to call her. So Nita had our number and all the helpful information her staff would need to screen who would be allowed to ask a “question.” (Again with the quotations, and you’ see why.)

We were told to press *3 to ask a question. I pressed once and was told I was queued. Then a while later a woman came on the line and asked: What is your question?

I told her. She said my question was too general. I got more specific. She still needed more information. By now, I felt my question was pretty specific. I, after all, interview for a living. I question Nobel laureates and Senators; I question CEOs and Generals. I kinda, really know how to ask a question. Yet, I got even more specific. The woman thanked me and assured me I was in line.
But I can assure my question was never asked. The woman’s drill down was not to better understand my question; it was to better understand the questioner. And this works very nicely. When one drills down one gets to the heart of doubt in a questioner’s question. My first response was more than adequate for Ms. Lowey, but it did not show where I was on the issue. The drill down forced me to play my hand, to admit I was skeptical.

Of course, I was never called upon to ask and all of us were muted out of any verbal response to Ms. Lowey.

So we have pre-selected audience, pre-selected list of acceptable questioners, pre-selected questions, and pre-selected pro vs. nay on ObamaCare, via the drill down. Nita had taken all chance of dissent out of her “Town Hall” meeting. Oh the founders of our Constitution would shudder and quake at this exploitation of their term and practice.

What questions were selected?
Well, we, oh so oddly, got a fellow who knows Nita on a first name basis. He is an MD who runs a string of community health care centers. After many minutes of his disquisition on why we need ObamaCare, and how important it is to shut up those “crazy people’ who object to ObamaCare, the good doctor admitted he had no question at all. He wanted to opine. Amazing isn’t it that he survived the grilling process questioners were subjected to. I wonder what would have happened if I’d simply said: I’ve no question, I just want to speak my mind. Click!

The spirit of Town Hall meetings is that every Joe and Sue get a voice. This Lowey stunt of Dodge the Voters actually turned my stomach. I am a fan of Lowey, have supported her with vote and money. Never again. Enough is enough! I happen to be a massive fan of democracy and this crap of telling those of us who dissent on portions of ObamaCare are just “confused” and really ought “move out of the way” and are “un-American” is making me as mad as Bush in 2000, 2001, 2002, etc.

The rest of us “participants” listened dutifully while being forcibly muted as Lowey told us that rationing of services was a “wild rumor!”

Neverumind that the cornerstone of ObamaCare will require rationed service for his “cost savings” to occur. Drugs that have less noisome side effects and are taken less often, but are injectables and more expensive will most likely take a back seat in Obama’s Medpac group—a group he wants to greatly expand and remove from Congressional oversight. Rationing goes on all the time with private insurance, so please don’t insult me and say it won’t go on in government insurance.

Next Ms. Lowey unloosed a stream of deceit in response to a “question” from a Nurse Betty.
Nurse Betty—and because of the inanity of the question I have my doubts as to her bona fides—didn’t really have a question, as questions go, but she too wanted to let the thousands listening know that she had a patient who cried,… yes cried my dear friends. This poor patient with private insurance once upon a time sat on a bench next to a patient on Medicaid. The Medicaid patient could come to see Nurse Betty for as long as she wants, but the poor despairing soul with private insurance could only come for a limited number of visits.

Ms. Lowey, picked up Nurse Betty’s ball and ran. This says it ALL, said Lowey. This example shows exactly why government health care is so so much better she intoned to her muted audience. Lowey rued the wild misrepresentations she had to deal with all day long. You see, there is nothing to fear in government insurance forALL, but fear itself.

The Truth about the Public Plan
Where to start with Lowey’s deceitful answer on this. Oh shame woman. Hospitals take such a bath on the paltry compensation from Medicaid (and Medicare to a lesser extent) that they pretty much count out the pennies that Medicaid pays. It is the women with the private insurance who must be counted on to allow the Medicaid woman to even step in the door of the hospital!

That the government doesn’t even try to set some limits on how many visits is testament to the reason Medicare is underfunded to the tune of 40some trillion dollars over the next several years. Medicaid is on the verge of bust almost all the time in so many states. (Doctors in private practice don’t even bother to take Medicaid patients, and do so in hospitals only because they are forced to and because private insurance allows them a paycheck. If doctors had to live on Medicaid rates, the only folks that would go into medicine are the ones you don’t want to see when you are really sick. Talk about bending the curve downward. Can anyone say I got my medical degree in a correspondence course.)

Obama’s public plan will model prices on what they pay out for Medicaid. That is, Obama public plan will originally set compensation to hospitals so low (on par with Medicaid rates) that the price to join the public plan will be much lower. Obama knows the public plan’s low reimbursement rates will be compensated for a while by private insurances and thus allow Obama’s public plan to flourish as employers do the math and in turn force their employees into the public plan—why not it will cost them less.

Eventually, private insurance will not be able to keep pace. They will bend and fold. More and more people will be forced, via employers, into the public plan. Hospitals, once they are no longer supplemented so heavily by private payers, will bleed red. (See Massachusetts current troubles for more on this!) Many will close. Eventually a Kaiser Permanente like system of public hospitals will sprout up. Eventually only the biggest of the big (think Goldman Sachs or very large media companies, aghmmm) will be able to afford to offer private insurance to their employees. Eventually the tipping point will be reached: more than 50% of people under 65 on public insurance. Then private insurance will sink about as fast as the Titanic.

Without the prop up of private insurance dollars, rationed care the likes we not yet seen will explode.
Those Obama - promised cost savings are based upon the unrealistic expectation that private insurance would allow the public plan to pay so much less for services. When public is the only game it town, taxes will speed to new heights, and rationed care will become far more prevalent that is currently the case.

So…..when Ms. Lowey says-- as she did in her wildly misrepresented “Town Hall—that : “no one will be forced into a public plan”……. FemiSex says: Get It in Writing! Really. Get it in writing—a legal contract for citizens. Demand that before any public plan is endorsed by Congress all of those with private insurance get a certification that says if they are forced into Obama’s public plan, and out of their private insurance, then compensation of not less than $100,000 will be awarded to such individuals.

Wanna bet they won’t go for it! Because as long as a public plan exists people WILL be forced into it and they KNOW this.

Tell Lowey and Obama to stop the Wild Lies about the long-term outreach and overtake goals of the public plan. If they want single payer have the decency to tell us so and let Americans vote with their voices at REAL Town Hall meetings.

We need reforms that work for the majority not just reforms that work for the minority. I’ve posted on how to get those 40some million covered and not destroy healthcare for the millions and millions of middle class folks. So Mr. Obama please don’t yak bout dissenters without a plan of their own. That is just another wild lie on Mr. Toad’s Wild Health Care Ride.

Comments

22 yrs of Nita is

22 yrs of Nita is enough!
Those of you who have attempted to attend a one of Congresswoman Nita's townhalls (there have been none) or who have called into one of her stage-managed telephone "townhalls" (at which she shamefully answers pre-screened questions by reading from a script) will find this latest posting on Nita's website particularly galling. Turns out that while she's been hiding from her constituents, she's made time to choreograph a "roundtable" in White Plains to hear "health insurance horror stories." Of course, Ms. Nita didn't deign to inform her constituents of this "event" until a week after the fact. Here's the first para of the press release posted on her website today, Aug. 21 (notice the Aug. 13 date on the release):

Victims Recount Health Insurance Horror Stories
08/13/09
WHITE PLAINS – Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-Westchester/Rockland) today hosted a roundtable meeting of Westchester County residents who have personally dealt with the difficulties of accessing affordable health care or have been denied care by insurance companies. Lowey also detailed the urgency of health insurance reform and the benefits this reform would bring to New York.

A woman who hides from her constituents but sees fit to publicize Democratic infomercials like this "roundtable" does not deserve to represent this district. -- NYDistrict18 @ yahoogroups.com.

Check out the below Reuters

Check out the below Reuters report and then tell me why Ms. Lowey is so unquestioning of such a large expansion of government at this time? Yes, we do need to reign in spending! I'd like to hear her talk about the sky high rates of property taxes that are crushing her constituents.
Never a word on this from Lowey. We are losing our jobs, our wealth is crumbling and she says this is the time to spend another few trillion on reforms that will unsettle the whole of America's health care process. No freakn' way.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57K4XE20090821

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.

The higher deficit figure, based on updated economic data, brings the White House budget office into line with outside estimates and gives further fuel to President Barack Obama's opponents, who say his spending plans are too expensive in light of budget shortfalls

Come join us at the group

Come join us at the group site that we set up at NYDistrict18 @ yahoogroups.com

While I am not posting per se under that name -- another one of us is -- please feel free to join us there as well. We need to act on this, or at least let her know that her office is not an entitlement.

Joan Chevalier

Even New York Times has cold

Even New York Times has cold feet on a public plan saying on its Op-Ed page that : "It [the public plan] has nothing to do with covering the uninsured."

And regarding the competition model that Obama is trying to snake-oil sell, the New York Times can only say that the "IDEA" is to give customers more choice.

But as the writer of this article correctly understands, adding a choice of government insurance now, is surely going to lead to Less choice down the line.

What struck me about the New York Times Op-Ed is this honesty which also denotes a lot of their schizophrenia on the issue:
"Unfortunately, as the House legislation has progressed, the proposed public plan has steadily lost its power to impose lower payments on hospitals and doctors — as the government currently does with Medicare — which is critical to maintaining low premiums.

A bill introduced by three committees, which would have paid doctors and hospitals based on Medicare rates, was projected to save $75 billion over 10 years."

Herein lies the cognitive dissonance: The New York Times admits--while refusing to say as much-- that the public plan would put additional burden on private insurance to keep doctors and hospitals up and running. They surely understand that the low payments of Medicare and Medicaid are not sufficient to staff and run a hospital.

The New York Times could take a lesson in honesty from Femisex. Saving money for whom? Yes, the government, which is deadbeat on payments to hospitals and doctors. It is very sad to me that the Times can't be as honest on this issue as this small website.
Creating "competition" that is solely intended to drown out the competition is anti-trust violation.

In the end the chaotic editors of the New York Times say that the public option, which they have just declared has "nothing to do with covering the uninsured" should be restored to life by democrats alone. I can only say that it is a very good thing that editors of the New York Times are not the ones delivering our health care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/opinion/19wed1.html?scp=1&sq=the%20pub...

I am so tired of being told

I am so tired of being told by the condescending Obama that if I don't go along with his plan, I am confused. Evidently even the media finds this suspect.

here is something I liked from Reason magazine--

"Every single time Obama implies (or says outright) that the people who disagree with him are confused, that they aren't listening properly to what he is saying, they they are in the thrall of liars, or that they are fearful or mean-spirited—he's doing it in good faith.

Obama's path is so clearly illuminated by the light of his own reason, he simply can't entertain another possible way of being, a different set of beliefs, held by an intelligent person who is well-informed and well-intentioned—or so his language about cynicism, fear, and lies strongly implies. His assumption of bad faith or idiocy on the part of his opponents is done, it seems, with a pure heart."

Katherine Mangu-Ward is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

"It's true that the United

"It's true that the United States spends more on health care than anyone else, and it's true that we rank below a lot of other advanced countries in life expectancy. . . . One big reason our life expectancy lags is that Americans have an unusual tendency to perish in homicides or accidents. We are 12 times more likely than the Japanese to be murdered and nearly twice as likely to be killed in auto wrecks. In their 2006 book, 'The Business of Health,' economists Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider set out to determine where the U.S. would rank in life span among developed nations if homicides and accidents are factored out. Their answer? First place. That discovery indicates our health-care system is doing a poor job of preventing shootouts and drunk driving but a good job of healing the sick. All those universal-care systems in Canada and Europe may sound like Health Heaven, but they fall short of our model when it comes to combating life-threatening diseases" -- Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman.

This is a classic addition to

This is a classic addition to this. I have sent Senator Schumer several emails; never a response. I send him an email to express my irritation with his threat to get this bill passed through reconciliation; I said that I did not support a public option Tonight, I get my first email response to tell me how pleased he is that I support a public option. At least get it right, or don't respond at all.

Yeah, very depressing. I

Yeah, very depressing.
I called Shumer's New York office and I was assured by his staff that no matter what the public polls suggested Schumer would be supporting the public option.

I asked what independent polls showed in terms support in the whole state for public plan. The staff had no idea, and wanted to tell me about calls into their office. (Anyone can call one time or 50 times, so that is very unreliable way to assess.)
I can tell you one thing for certain, when Schumer is running for re-election he WILL look at independent polls, not relieve on what call-ins say about his chances.
Where is my representative government? This article has it right; they are AWOL.

Wonderful article. When you

Wonderful article. When you said "We need reforms that work for the majority not just reforms that work for the minority" you said it all. We need you in Washingtin.

I just read through this

I just read through this quickly. Great piece!!! The writer also managed to avoid all of the fury that I am now feeling as a Democrat and a liberal. I am spitting mad at the characterizations of the protesters as unAmerican racists. What this writer documents is a propaganda campaign -- nothing ticks me off more. A troika of us are trying to organize opposition to Ms. Lowey. This really is grassroots! Her complacency about her position needs to be shaken. I feel entirely unrepresented in Congress at this time. I can be googled. I am a speechwriter, and vis a vis Linked In, you can arrive at my home email. I don't know if we will achieve anything, but it is certainly time to rediscover the practice of democracy. And thank you to this writer. I will return to this site to pay more attention!!!!

I just googled and read you

I just googled and read you op/ed from the Boston Globe. Good stuff!

Yes, this is a fantastic piece and the tone is very measured, which is such a breath of fresh air. I am not in Lowey's district but my outrage at this farce of telling us that the only ones who don't want this are fringe righty people has me seeing red--as in I may vote that color just to send a message. I also agree with the person who said that we need a third party. Now is the time for a third option in this country.

Thanks for that. I

Thanks for that. I absolutely agree on organizing a third way. It has been going on out west for a long time under the radar. I actually "signed up" for the "radical center" on the Quivira site. I have been very active in ranch and farm issues; the women are almost always the political leaders there. This liberal madly loves red state constituents now and I am so fed up with how little the coasts know about rural America and how sneering we manage to be toward their concerns, values, attitudes. This is the antithesis of liberal for me. I have been on more protests in my lifetime than any of those elderly men and women at these town halls. And I was not a civilized protestor. If my fellow Democrats want to see a mob -- I can amply demonstrate for them. Anyway, I wasn't courting compliments with invitation to google me (actually, as I got about 800 pieces of hate mail after the Globe piece -- that never occured to me!); I just wanted those interested in fighting Lowey to contact me -- that extra step seems to keep it real for people. And I must say, this piece on Lowey was just such a breath of fresh air. They don't seem to list the writer, but I haven't spent much time yet exploring the site. Doesn't this make you think the internet has some potential? Thanks again, Joan

I would suggest you update

I would suggest you update your Must Reads with this from Bloomberg news:

Lines and paragraphs break automatically.Impromptu Obamanomics is getting scarier by the day. For all the president’s touted intelligence, his un-teleprompted comments reveal a basic misunderstanding of capitalist principles.

For example, asked at the Portsmouth town hall how private insurance companies can compete with the government, the president said the following:

“If the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren’t subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete.”

Self-sustaining? The public option? What has Obama been doing during those daily 40-minute economic briefings coordinated by uber-economic-adviser, Larry Summers?

Capitalism Explained

Government programs aren’t self-sustaining by definition. They’re subsidized by the taxpayer. If they were self-financed, we’d be off the hook.

The proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit. He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.

The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn’t understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact.

Neither option is good; ignorance is clearly preferable to the alternative.

Speaking truth to power: either Lowey and Obama are ignorant on their own plans and what outcomes would result or, they are lying.
ignorant or lying, neither is good.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aJ01reSCujDQ

I came across this in the

I came across this in the comment section on Politico. It is well said.

A Public Option would doom any private insurance except for the wealthy and eliminate choice for working class Americans. Do the math. John Makes 50K per year. His company paid portion of his family insurance plan is $7000.00. Under Obamacare his company has the option of paying an 8% Penalty and forcing workers onto the Govt Plan. In Johns case the 8% is $4000.00. Does his employer choose to save $3000.00 by ending private insurance? You Betcha. Thats a fact. Simple math. And call it a "Penalty" for saving money.

you will like this: More

you will like this:
More fundamentally, the Obama reforms completely scramble the health care market. There will be new governmental mandates, huge new individual subsidies and different tax treatments. What employers will offer after everything is scrambled up and resettles is entirely unknowable.

Simply put, the health care coverage people currently have would be subject to considerable change. An honest health care debate would acknowledge that.

Robert Robb is a columnist for the Arizona Republic and a RealClearPolitics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/22/obamas_health_care_...

I just came across this on

I just came across this on Digg. When will politicians learn not to lie to us? Bush tanked his party with his lies on WMDs and his intentions to invade Iraq no matter what. Obama is lying to us about what a public plan will do to private insurance (gut it!) and his intentions to foist single payer universal gvt ins. on all the public.
Three cheers to the solid reasoned voice of this post. I will return to your site. It really sounds quite independent in nature, something I'm hungry for these days.

I just called Lowey's office

I just called Lowey's office to voice my concerns. A bored fella named Gabrial told me with certainty that all those who wanted to ask a question were able to in what they are now billing as tela-Town Hall meetings.
I asked to speak with a higher level person. Patricia, i think, got on the phone and could not have been more rude had she tried. She verified that only a few were selected to ask a question. She was curt and wanted to hang up.

She was very angry that I'd voiced concerns about the veracity of what Lowey was telling the public. I suggested that is democracy in play.
She demanded my home address. I didn't want my home taxes re-assessed suddenly! Call me a wary citizen.
When will these democrats stop shooting themselves in the foot. I am in the party, have voted democratic for the most part all my life. Yet if I Disagree and I'm dirt.
I want a 3rd party and I want it now!

Uh, oh...I was dumb enough to

Uh, oh...I was dumb enough to give my name, address, and phone number when I called. I did receive a nice form letter from Congresswoman Lowey too.

I have to say, as a loyal

I have to say, as a loyal Democrat and supporter of the President and a public option, I really feel informed by this rational and seemingly honest critique of the public option. Why can't moderate Republicans find there voice and help educate the public on this element of opposition. I wish we could have this kind of real discussion about healthcare in the main stream. While this issue is very personal to me and I feel such despair as a young working American that I have to live in fear of getting hurt or sick because I don't have health insurance and absolutely no money to pay for care, I am also keenly aware of the fact that we have to find a way to pay for a public option.

If you have a proposal offering an alternative plan that will cover as you say the 40some folks like me, please provide the link. I did not see it here.

I also feel very strongly that tort reform must be a key feature in any bill. How can we improve the quality of care if rates decrease and doctors still have to cope with exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums? That said, it is so hard not to feel anger and disgust with the way elected officials are treating this discussion. Their approach to this critical debate, this life and death issue, has been sad and shameful. They should die of shame for dragging us so low.

Hi MJ- yes, absolutely tort

Hi MJ-

yes, absolutely tort reform should be part of a package. People like to point to other countries as examples of systems that work, but America is so large and boisterous and disparate--unlike any other place on earth. For example, Americans, unlike Canadians, are very litigious. Just another reason why our reforms MUST be tailored to the country they will serve! I can't say this enough!

So many other things ought be part of the package. Get true portability from job to job, open up state lines so folks are not limited in their choices of private ins. End pre-existing conditions, which will require mandated coverage. Standardize billing forms.
What you ask: how to pay and cover:

http://www.femisex.com/content/david-leonhardt-has-been-reading-femisex

I would have a gander at that and also read our other items FemiSex has posted on HC reform. Pay for performance, for example. Not working out too well in U.K.
On Medicare, see the gvt. report that shows how deeply in debt this program is and will grow to be more so in coming years. A quick scroll backwards on our site will show these and other items.
( We do need to improve our search box and have our guy working on that now!)
We have also covered the problems of cost uptick that could come from electronic medical records and the many MDs voicing concerns that such a system will dehumanize the pt/dr relationship. So many issues, it can make the head spin. But sorting this out is Mr. Obama's job; he should be convening--smart bipartisan brains on this issue--those who know health care not opine about an ideal society. Instead he has the tunnel vision of single payer in mind and has let the fractious Pelosi lead us down a garden path of dishonesty on the topic.

If we are going to cover the millions without ins. we are going to have to tax health care benefits. People who buy insurance on their own are already being taxed. This is vastly unfair. A public plan will dismantle health care in this country. There is no need to disrupt the care the majority receives in order to serve the minority. We currently HAVE a public plan for those under 65--Medicaid/Medical --and it reeks! It doesn't work, is fully dependent upon private insurance to function, and is not what middle class folks want or need. It is stop-gap care for the poorest of poor.
The goal is to shrink--not grow!-- Medicaid. But Mr. Obama doesn't seem to get this as he merrily tries to expand Medicaid to millions more as bipartisan governors erupt in consternation.

Many states have grouped citizens who work for themselves into pools so they can buy Private insurance at affordable group rates. This is not rocket science and it works very well! Many of my friends participate in this plan administered by Blue Cross, HMO. Care is not disrupted for those who get employer based ins. and the self-employed are not shunted into gvt. ins. You can opt in or out of drug coverage. The plan even pays for fertility drugs.

What I say to those who want the public plan is that they be very aware that if that comes to fruition so will single payer ststem in 10 or 20 years. If they want such a system, I say Ok to them. But they must also be prepared for the post office care that will eventually accompany such a system in the U.S.-- And 20 years out is just about the time those who are stranded without care now will really start to utilize the system in larger measure.
This site wants U.S. health care to expand to include better treatments for cancer care that continue to come out of personalized medicine. (We have written on this topic as well here at FemiSex) But by expanding gvt. there will be pull backs on innovations and personalized medicine that are essential for combating our most deleterious diseases.

sorry this so long and hastily put together, i'm on the fly.
best
Edit FS

Can you give link to your

Can you give link to your post on personalized medicine? That is a worrysome issue. My sister had breast cancer and she is being treated with a drug specific to her tumor type. Her doc says personalized treatments will get better and better, but more expensive treatments will result.

A very clear explication on

A very clear explication on the intersection of public plan and priavate insurance. Also excellents is this from Union-Tribune:

The second claim is that a health overhaul would not affect individuals who are satisfied with their existing insurance plans.
Really? The day the overhaul took effect, businesses that now provide health insurance at an average cost of 12 percent to 14 percent of payroll would have the option of dropping their coverage and paying a fee equal to 8 percent of their payroll to the federal government, which would provide the benefit.
Obama, Pelosi and Reid have to know that this would give businesses a huge incentive to drop coverage, thus affecting millions of Americans who are happy with their existing plans.
The private coverage that did survive this federal assault wouldn't be home-free yet, however. After a grace period of a few years, all health insurance would have to meet federal standards. By every indication, these standards would greatly expand what health plans have to cover, leading to a big increase in the cost of premiums.

"The private coverage that

"The private coverage that did survive this federal assault wouldn't be home-free yet, however. After a grace period of a few years, all health insurance would have to meet federal standards."

Read SEC. 102. Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage. (page 16 in HR 3200). (a)(1)(A) seems to say that an employer could not provide the plan to new employees. (a)(2) seems to say that no changes can be made to the terms or conditions for five years? I currently take several drugs for which there is no generic equivalent. If a generic were developed and my insurance company wanted to change it's formulary to offer that, would my plan lose its "grandfathered" status?

Hi Dan-- I think your

Hi Dan-- I think your question is extremly apt so if Kathy doesn't mind I will step in here. Called Waxman and Dingell to confirm:

Per Waxman’s office :

For the first 5 years after a bill was passed into law insurance companies can’t change a person’s coverage. That is no benefit changes would be allowed for 5 years.

When I asked if, say fertility drugs that are now covered could be changed to uncovered or visa versa she said that was probably correct. When I asked about generic durg changes she said she'd have to get back to me. I will update you. But one seems the same as the other.
---------------------------------------
Per Dingell’s office:

Sec 102 A of the bill applies to insurance that covers individuals and Section B of 102 applies to Group Coverage.

Section A is all about disallowing new individuals from entering any plan that exists currently. That is, all existing plans are effectively shut down for new comers . (If you birth or father or adopt a child, that is an exception.)

This declares that all new comers must enter into government-approved plans, all of which are offered under the term "exchanges." This would mean that individuals can purchase public plan from day one of passed legislation.

To your questions re “limitations on changes to terms or conditions”—a very good point!
As this now stands, you are correct. For example, if a current plan does not offer fertility drugs they can’t decide to offer such a drug and visa versa. (Note: My plan updated with fertility drugs about 2 years ago. That would be off the table now.) Also if generic drugs come to market, addition of coverage would be prohibited as written. As mentioned Waxman’s office has promised to get back to me on this issue. Dingell’s said the details are not pinned down yet.

Sec 102 B mandates that all group plans be in line with government standards once a 5 year grace period is reached.

And by 2013 no consumer (person or group) may buy any plan that is outside of the government-approved exchange of plans.

FemiSex comments:
Major problems—as I’ve mentioned. Public plans pay too little to sustain our system of health care delivery. Women would be moved from coverage of contraception and abortion services to Gvt. Plan that will not cover abortion and “most likely not” cover contraception. Mandates on employers to provide insurance set penalties lower than opting out of coverage, so this will strongly encourage many businesses to opt to pay the penalty—with the end result a flood of those currently covered by private insurance into public plans.

For now big employers are forced to provide private insurance to their employees—that is because: for this system to work for a time will require that private insurance subsidized the poorly paying govt. plans. (Medicaid, Medicare, New Gvt. Public Plan.) This is all very crafty way to ensure the private insurance premiums will be forced to rise to a degree that shuts them down in the long run.

I hope this helps!

My surgeon told me he is for

My surgeon told me he is for the Obama plan to open up Medicaid to millions more. But the funny thing is: he does not take any Medicaid patients. He also strictly limits the number of Medicare patients he sees.
This is where the rubber meets the road. My Northeast Ivy Jewish MD wants Obamacare, but he doesn't want to have to deliver it.

talk about a fresh

talk about a fresh perspective

What's interesting about what

What's interesting about what you wrote here is how dialogue is cut off. There is no dialogue. And no wonder we will have no health care reform in this country. We can't even stand to listen to each other. We can't look at our present system as well as proposed plans in a clinical way. Everyone is so ideological. And I'm talking everyone.

I haven't made up my mind yet as far as which avenue I support for health care reform. But I do know that most of the people I have conversed with on this topic have behaved like asses, shouting down and demonizing even those who dare to ask questions or play devil's advocate. I am seeing this from single payer advocates, the Obots who blindly support Congress's plan as well as those who naively believe we should just keep things as they are in the name of personal freedom and choice.

I don't want to yell and scream and call other people stupid. I'd like to figure this thing out and come up with an educated opinion and the best possible solution. This is one of the few sites with a rational tone and thankfully, a thoughtful solution.

Keep writing about this!

Agreed about the rational

Agreed about the rational tone. That is why I keep coming back. I want single payer, but I do like open discussions about the downsides. I have two kids and I simultaneously worry they won't find coverage and that they will be so saddled with Obama/Bush deficits they won't have much of a future.

You have nailed it on the

You have nailed it on the dynamics of the public plan. Those who want the public option are those who want a Canadian system. But just this week top medical officials in Canada are admitting their system is starting to buckle.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3b...

I just want to say the realism of this site is something I appreciate.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options