Obamacare: Say goodbye to Grandma and the grandkids!

[bigbadwolf]

More on the health care "reforms" in this piece by Dave Lindorff:

President Obama and the Democrats who currently run Congress have been hoist on their own collective petard by their craven and gutless refusal to consider adopting a Canadian-style single-payer system to finance health care in the US, or simply to expand Medicare, which is a successful single- payer program, to cover everyone, instead of just people over 65 and the disabled.

Instead, because they are the recipients of tens of millions of dollars in legal (and probably plenty of illegal) bribes from the health care industry, they have cobbled together a “reform” in name only, which preserves not just the central role of the vampire-like health insurance industry, but also ensures the continued rapacious profitability of the other segments of the medical-industrial complex--the hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry, and the specialist doctors.


Now, like Hillary and Bill Clinton before them, these weasels and slimeballs who pose as the people’s advocates are left with nothing but a Potemkin Health Plan that looks on the outside like a reform, but that changes little or nothing, leaves vast numbers of Americans uninsured, forces tens of http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/031237254X/counterpunchmagamillions to buy crappy plans from private companies, and that will end up doing nothing to halt the continuing rise in health care costs that is bankrupting the people, employers and the country.

 

[harpo]

This should give a chuckle to certain posters here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/09/obama-healthcare-reform-defeat

Too bad the poor in the US will (still) have to go without health cover - but hey, it's worth it, isn't it, if you can say Obama failed!

 

[jp]

What provision currently exists for uninsured american's who have children with downs syndrome? Or uninsured americans who are infertile?

 

[steveinbsas]

What provision currently exists for uninsured american's who have children with downs syndrome? Or uninsured americans who are infertile?

Are you asking if the federal or state governments now provide some form of coverage for the uninsured in these cases?

Many US insurance companies do provide coverage for fertility "treatments" as well as medical care for children of covered members born with down syndrome. Medicaid or S-chip programs might provide some state assistance for these children, but I don't know if there is much in the way of public (government sponsored) fertility treatment. Does anyone have more information about that?


Recently, a bill was proposed in the US Senate that would have forced private insurance companies to provide fertility treatment for all:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2009/06/16/and-fertility-for-all.htm

As the proposed Obama "insurance reform act" (actually, a House bill as opposed to a Presidential "plan") includes "end of life counseling" to advise seniors (and the terminally ill) of their "options" (dying as opposed to receiving expensive medical treatment), perhaps some of the proposed diagnostic "tests" in the name of "prevention" of disease will also be helpful in avoiding the birth of "defective" babies (including those with down syndrome) that would not only consume too much of the nation's resources to treat but also result in the birth of individuals who could never be productive member of the collective, er, I mean society.

If private fertility clinics are allowed to exist after health reform becomes law, it is doubtful if it will be "fair" for some to receive such expensive treatment at the expense of others...unless they are members of Congress. Besides, these highly specialized doctors will be needed to serve the rest of society's more basic health care needs when 40 million individuals are suddenly added to the system and demand (by right) the care they have for so long been denied, even if they simply never bothered to buy insurance in the first place.

Like I said, say goodbye to Grandma and the grandkids...at least for some of us.

 

[jp]

I'm not all that up on whats being proposed, but some of the criticisms just seem to be scaremongering or gross misrepresentation.

If you compare with the system in the UK - there's comprehensive cradle to grave coverage for all, but cases are still assessed based on need and priority. So fertility treatment for the over 60s isn't a priority. Which is fair, because then you don't have things like this happening:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j0reKvjza8xIClJr8nMmmw_xNbmgD99F4D582

So yeah, sucks for some people. If you are an alcoholic you don't come top of a liver transplant list. If you are an 85 year old man you aren't top of the heart transplant list or even top of the surgery waiting list. If you are 66 years old you don't qualify for fertility treatment.

Am sure it pisses people off, but at least its done using a form of assessment that determines eligibility and suitability to receive treatment based on human need, instead of the desire to maximise profit. This might I suppose sound orwellian but I prefer it to an insurance companies policy of rejecting as many people as they possibly can to save money, and only the best insured get comprehensive cover.

I genuinely don't understand what the US proposals are being referenced against. Complaining that the proposals won't provide comprehensive provisions for everyone regardless of circumstance seems ridiculous, and a thoroughly insincere criticism, especially when its packaged up in scare-mongering hyperbole. Obama death boards? Yeuch.

 

[steveinbsas]

I'm not all that up on whats being proposed, but some of the criticisms just seem to be scaremongering or gross misrepresentation.

Please, read the proposed legislation.

Am sure it pisses people off, but at least its done using a form of assessment that determines eligibility and suitability to receive treatment based on human need, instead of the desire to maximise profit. This might I suppose sound orwellian but I prefer it to an insurance companies policy of rejecting as many people as they possibly can to save money, and only the best insured get comprehensive cover.
quote]

That isn't Orwellian, it's Marxist.

 

[Ries]

Currently in the USA, if you have a down's syndrome child, and you change jobs- say, you quit being the governor of Alaska and become a radio talk show host- the health insurance company will consider your child's case a "pre-existing condition" and refuse to cover it.
This is very very common.


75% of the people who declare bankruptcy in the USA, due to health care bills, HAD INSURANCE. It just doesnt pay for everything- most US health insurance plans have maximums- and if you have virtually any form of cancer, or serious multiple problems like heart attacks with diabetes, you can be pretty sure you will exceed the maximum, and have to sell your house, liquidate all assets, and declare bankruptcy.

The final plan has yet to be passed.
All speculation on its contents, at this point, is just that- speculation.

When its passed by both the Senate and the House, and signed by the president, THEN we can argue about how bad (or good) it is.
But that is a ways down the road, and a LOT of changes in wording from now.

 

[2GuysInPM]

The funniest thing about this "Obama 'death panel' that will kill everyone's grandma and Sarah Palin's little baby" conspiracy theory hoopla, is that such provision in the reform is acutally a billl introduced by Republican Senators Johnny Isakson (Ga) and Susan Collins (ME).

I don't know, but I bet'cha Rush, Glenn & Co. sort of leave that point out in their rants. ... but hey, ther're just radio entertainers.

 

[RWS]

. . . this "Obama 'death panel' that will kill everyone's grandma and Sarah Palin's little baby" conspiracy theory hoopla, is . . . introduced by Republican Senators Johnny Isakson (Ga) and Susan Collins (ME).
I don't know, but I bet'cha Rush, Glenn & Co. sort of leave that point out . . . .

The Republicans have always been the "big tent" party, embracing a very wide spectrum of thought; so I'm not surprised.

I'd guess that many an American in Buenos Aires would be, though.

 

[jp]

Please, read the proposed legislation.

Nothing I've read anywhere validates the scaremongering or flights of fancy I've read from critics and right wing commentators. All I see is a politically motivated attempt to bloody noses for the sake of bloodying noses and protecting vested interests.

That isn't Orwellian, it's Marxist.

Maybe, but its still a massive step up from "to each according to his contributions and insurance policy small print".