I decided to take my own advice and read the bill I’m so concerned about. Of course I want to know what it means but I also want to know who put what section in the bill and who placed it there.
If there was campaign finance reform and lobbying restrictions that have any sort of impact on the plutocrats that want congress to decide what is best for themselves I wouldn’t have to do this. Well republican ideals have infiltrated the most sacred political venues leaving the publis to fend for our selves.
I will update as I read and research as I wish there was a limit on double negatives in political discourse.
The first section is a let down for many living in medieval states with limited access to health care. The federal program for the ‘uninsurable’ will just be a continuation of the established state programs. So, if your state is like mine those dental abscesses will still be covered under the republican emergency room health care model. Too bad that those policy’s promote the development of mersa’s due to antibiotic overuse, and that infection from your jaw to your aorta shouldn’t be a problem for very long. It’s good for the bottom line today!
It also has the usual Machiavellian appendices to make sure that those eligible for employment insurance with what looks like ironclad coverage are not those eligible for a public option. They also have the rates based on market value, which explains the huge rate jump and slashing of coverage this last season.
What really jumped out at me as catering to not only the insurance industry but also those industries that result in regional medical side effects from their operations. Is this, page twenty-eight lines 6-13:
‘‘SEC. 2754. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.
‘‘The provisions of section 2714 shall apply to health
insurance coverage offered in the individual market in the
same manner as such provisions apply to health insurance
coverage offered in the small or large group market except
to the extent the Secretary determines that the application of such section may destabilize the existing individual
market.’’.
Who put this little gem in the bill and where does this person get their most substantial campaign donations? Do you think it would be considered destabilizing for consumers to not be able to afford coverage? Or is the company’s wallet the only one to be considered? How about those living in cancer, asthma, and autism pockets? They have to pay more insurance to live there because someone else wants to pollute for better profits?