"Buy In" and Public Option are "OUT" ?

So the exact language of a Public Option is out. So is the buy in for Medicare for 55 - 64. Another failed amendment was the one that would allow us to buy prescription meds from other countries. But what is buried in the language of this zillion page bill? For sure we know that these three elements remain:

1. You cannot be rejected for health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. And,

2. Your insurance company cannot drop you out of the blue. And,

3. You will be charged a fine if you do not carry health insurance.

Obama and the Dems still claim the bill will be deficit neutral, will result in lower premiums for all, and will lower costs.

This does not compute. The numbers I mean. For example, why have health insurance companies rejected people for pre existing conditions? Cost. If the insurance companies were required to cover those who already have costly conditions, they would have to . . . . . raise the premiums to cover the anticipated costs. So who will help with those costs? Taxpayers. Will the already ill be able to afford those premiums anyway? Likely not. If you think $500 or $600 monthly premiums are high, just imagine what my health insurance premium would be if I tried to go out and buy a policy today (Stage 4 Renal Cell Carcinoma). Since they would not be able to reject me, they would have to charge thousands of dollars a month to cover a small part of my medical bills.

And what about healthy 20 and 30 something people? Probably would rather pay the fine than pay premiums. So they are still not covered. Right?

Still not adequately addressed are Tort Reform, buying health insurance across state lines, and cost control.

This bill is too costly, will drive more Doctors out of practice, and will result in less available care. Don't pass the bill.

Great video interview with Steve Forbes:

Senate Health Care Reform Debate - Harry Reid (D) NV

So if you can't beat them with the facts, sling mud that's irrelevant. That's what Mr Reid from Nevada did on the Senate floor today. Chastising the Republicans for what he said was their call to "slow down" he compared it with to civil rights/slavery and women's right to vote.

Will this kind of rhetoric get any Republicans to vote the Democrat's way?  Will it sway moderate Democrats to abandon their committments to refusing tax payer dollars for abortion? Will it convince anyone that a public option is in the country's best interest?

Amendments to the bill keep coming up and getting defeated. Yesterday the Ensign Amendment - putting limits on lawyers' fees on contingency cases - failed. Even the Lincoln Amendment, proposed by a Democrat, failed. It would have limited the ability of insurance companies to deduct executive pay from their taxes. That was a move designed to punish the private insurance sector and pave the way for a total government takeover of the insurance industry. Surprised the Dems could not get that one passed.

Here's the clip of Sen Reid's lame argument:

Would Universal Health Care in the US be . . . NICE?

NICE, also known as National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, is the UK's system for determing the guidelines for medical practitioners as to how various conditions should be treated and whether or not a particular treatment should be funded. This layer of government decides if your medical condition merits treatment and what kinds of treatment. If they decide you get the treatment, it is given to you by the government system, paid for by the taxes you'd pay as a citizen of the UK. Yes, to be eligible you must be a citizen.

Up until very recently, the cancer drug Sutent, was prohibited by NICE. If you had renal cell carcinoma or other cancers, you were not allowed to take Sutent - the "gold standard" for treating RCC. Previous to Sutent, patients with kidney cancer had no hope. Traditional chemo is not very effective against it and Sutent is a kidney cancer patient's best hope of surviving.

What if? What if our government takes over health care management and decides that Sutent is just too expensive to provide to those in the public option?  That would be a swift death sentence for those who, like me, are a Stage IV cancer patient.

I hope the health care reform bill being debated soon in the Senate gets the swift death it deserves.

Here's What Scares Me About the Health Care Bill Being Considered in 2009

In a word, cost. I do not want the government to interfere with my cancer treatments. Given the high cost of my medications and my low copays I don't want anything to change. I am afraid that my cancer medication (Sutent) will become unaffordable, or as in the UK, deemed unaffordable by the government.



You also have to consider the "unintended consequences" of the bill. In just one isolated example, Tricare, underwritten by Humana, has been said by the administration to be safe from any changes. BUT, what if, because of a mass exodus out of Humana, Tricare has to undergo a massive change. Raising premiums, denying coverage, limiting diagnostics, etc..?? The president has said that Tricare would not change, but he cannot promise something he has no control over. True?

Why would Humana fall apart? If tens of thousands of Humana's other customers opt for the "government option" Humana would not be able to continue as normal. The same holds true for all other insurers. If there is a mass exodus out of traditional health insurance to a government plan, they would not survive. The only thing left would be the government run and government administered program. That would not be pretty.