There has been a moratorium on truth in ads being run by a number of groups that support the current "health reform" bill, and they need to be called to task on them. Lying about as important issues as affordability will not be good for the Democratic Party in 2012 when voters go to the polls. Additionally, as many as SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND MORE AMERICANS could die of easily preventable causes before the bill's main financial impact (its an unproven experimental procedure on the lives of 320 million people) EVEN BECOMES KNOWN. (Approximately 2016!) Any of us could be among them.
Note, as a point of comparison, Taiwan, a country of 70 million people (a little less than one quarter of the size of the US in terms of population) - had a far worse situation than we do with 45% of the country uninsured - They researched and then switched to a time-proven single payer system similar to Canada's in ONE YEAR. WOW!
From "Ad Audit: Pro-Reform Groups Stretch Truth About Health Legislation"
"ACCURACY: The ad wrongly says health overhaul legislation would stop premiums from increasing. There's no such provision in either the House or Senate bills. Some people may see initial reductions in their premiums as a result of new insurance rules, but there's nothing in the measures that stops anyone's rates from rising over time, and in fact the bills -- and cost analyses from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office -- anticipate that premium increases will continue in future years, probably at rates above inflation.
In its defense, the ad points to a part of the House bill that would require insurers to justify to the government their reasons for raising premiums. But such disclosures don't stop insurers from raising rates. In fact, insurers routinely win premium increases even in states where they must get the prior approval of the insurance commissioner. The ad sponsors also assert that the inclusion of a government-run insurance alternative, known as a public option, would provide competition for insurers, leading to more restrained premium increases. Economists differ on how much of an influence such competition would have, and most believe premiums are likely to continue to rise regardless.
It's one-sided for the ad to say the bills would strengthen Medicare. The bills do contain benefits for beneficiaries, including closing the so-called doughnut hole in the prescription drug plan over time and providing additional cost-sharing assistance for lower-income people. But the House bill also calls for $477 billion in Medicare spending reductions over the decade. Richard Foster, the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, has warned that the reductions in the House's bill could lead some providers to drop out of the program, "possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries." Also, people enrolled in Medicare Advantage private plans, which generally offer better benefits that standard fee-for-service Medicare, can expect changes as the bills would cut spending on those plans to bring them more into line with standard Medicare.
It's true that the bills would ban insurers from refusing to cover people who have pre-existing health conditions. They bills would also establish a standard list of services that all insurers must cover. However, insurers could continue to deny coverage for some experimental treatments, as they do now."
Note: Aging inherently causes huge increases in inflammation - Socioeconomic stress is another factor. Stress in general is very destructive to health. Caring for an sick loved one takes years from somebody's life, even without extreme financial stress.
The bottom line is that we can't abdicate ourselves of responsibility just because we are powerful and are getting millions of dollars from companies to do so. We can't ignore the complex problems that cause many problems in health to begin to manifest at age 40. its part of being human. Its not people's "fault". They shouldn't be punished because they can't afford to pay sums that are not possible for many.
But, the government treats aging the same way as they treat smoking, as a condition that deserves financial punishment.
The real reason is because they want people who might cost more to have to spend so much for care and "cost sharing" that they miss a payment and lose their 65% or 70% coverage.
The government is being pathologically passive aggressive!
Missing a payment. That is often the reason cited by homeless people in the United States as the reason they lost everything they had.
One missed payment of a COBRA or health insurance bill. This is the government's "reform"? What if people started treating parenthood as a condition that deserved higher taxes?
MIT Health Economist Jonathan Gruber on AFFORDABILITY:
"Let’s put it this way: It is 10 times as important as the public option and has received one one-hundredth of the coverage,"
Here's another lie, I think.. this one is particularly telling.
I don't think its even remotely possible that somebody is creating a high risk pool now TO HOLD US OVER FOR THE MANY YEARS AHEAD. But, thats what many pro-anti-reform folk here are saying.
That is a very good example of the kind of insidious lying that is being done to trap the middle class into silence, complacency and compliance with the anti-reform "reform".
The false hope that paralyzes.
That has GOT to be a lie. Why?
BECAUSE FOUR YEARS OF FUNDING THAT WOULD COST AS MUCH AS THE REAL REFORM ($280 a year per American) or more.
SO if they went to the Congress and the Senate to allocate the money to do it, you would hear about it because there would be a huge debate, and because that would be a lot.
It would be as much or more than the amount allocated later for the 'self sustaining' insurance because high risk pools lose money hand over fist, its a known fact.
The same thing happened with CHIP. It was quietly eliminated in the new bill. Not a peep, but its gone. Why? Because its too good of a deal to be allowed to continue to exist.
Reform that ignores the biggest problems- Its not reform and its not right.