NP Rank:
8 Ways Health Care Reform Brings Security and Stability to Public
I have a sibling who is a medical doctor supporting Barack Obama's health care reform. My sibling forwarded the following e-mail message to me for guidance as the health care debate rages on. It seems to have been prepared by President Obama's folks as key talking points in the health care debate.
Eight Ways Health Care Reform Provides Security and Stability for those With or Without Coverage
- Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
- Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
- Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
- Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
- Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
- Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
- Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
- Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/
8 common myths about health insurance reform
- Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
- We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
- Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
- Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
- Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
- Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
- You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
- No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq
8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
- Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
- Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
- Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
- Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
- Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
- The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
- Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
- The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf
NowPublic on Facebook
Recommendations (49)
-
Rory Cripps
New Port Richey, Florida, United States -
Uwe Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan 
Anonymous user
-
mudricky
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom -
Mary Richard
Toronto, Canada -
Karen Hatter
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States -
dunkelberg
United States



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (7)
at 08:17 on August 15th, 2009
Thanks for the info. I've actually started reading the plan (HR 3200) last night. I'm a fast reader but it will probably take me at least two weeks to decipher the plan and come up with conclusions pro or con. At first blush, it's obvious to me that the plan's proponents want all Americans in the health care loop whether they like it or not and there will be penalties imposed on those who don't play ball.
The plan will definitely provide access to health care coverage for the millions of Americans that don't have coverage. But at this point, I am in no way convinced that the plan, if passed, will not diminish the quality and quantity of health care that Americans on private plans now receive. There are only so many dollars in the federal coffers that are available to maintain such a plan. And even if the plan can be sustained, I don't believe it's possible to do so without some form of rationing or substantial tax increases especially in light of the devastated U.S. economy and the trillion dollar deficits that the U.S. is now faced with let alone the massive U.S. debt at a time when the value of the dollar is falling.
My opinion is that HR3200 needs to be condensed into twenty pages or less in order for its proponents to understand what it is that they're attempting to sell the American people on. If the bill's proponents can't do that, then they need to go back to the drawing board. More Americans, than ever before, have no faith in the U.S. government. And no rational American, that's on a private health plan, and who reads HR 3200, would be very confident about the bill's merits. It would be one thing if Americans who are on private health plans were totally dissatisfied with their health plans. But unfortunately for the proponents of HR 3200, that's not the case. I know that the bill states that Americans on suitable private plans won't have to give up their coverage and sign on with the federal program. However, in the the way that the bill is structured, it appears to me that the reality will turn out to be the opposite.
at 09:20 on August 15th, 2009
The is the Axelrod letter without the recommendation to forward to any and all. Rather
unusual for the Whitehouse to be e-mailing this kind of stuff. Think I'll forward and report
this to flag@whitehouse.gov
at 09:35 on August 15th, 2009
Interesting that when are tricked into a war of choice, cost is no object, even after the truth comes out. War profiteers not only make fortunes, they are encouraged and protected by the government who sent troops into harm's way without adequate equipment or supply lines.
When it comes to correcting a problem that affects millions here at home, we mustn't hurry and we should watch expenses.
Hypocrisy.
What's being proposed is a great start. Those who argue against it mainly argue to maintain the status quo, which is unacceptable, or to pander to the baser instincts of mob mentality, which is shameful.
at 19:19 on August 15th, 2009
I agree with you. In retrospect, we spent about a trillion dollars on the Iraq War, based on nothing but facile soundbites. It's better to spend a lot on health care that is necessary than to spend a lot on war that is counterproductive.
If you ask me whether we need health care for all Americans or 20,000 more Americans in Afghanistan who will come back and lack access to health care, I'd rather invest the money in health care.
For eight years, the Republicans couldn't care less about the expense of their "War on Terror". The Congress passed hundred billion dollar statutes like a parent gives money to a child for ice cream. Suddenly, the Republicans are focusing on the cost of coverage (no, health care is not free) and as soon as we accept the premise that covering 50,000,000 more people should be "deficit neutral" then we've effectively accepted that we won't achieve health care at all.
It's like saying to your husband, sure, fix the roof, as long as you can do so for free.
at 11:39 on August 15th, 2009
"Guns and butter" mentality coupled with fear mongering like WMD worked! Some Americans responded positively to precepts that siphon billions of dollars for wars that could have been better spent domestically. Right now we are experiencing the aftermath of eight years of status quo mentality. We live in a world where immediate gratification supplants measured, thoughtful interventions and solutions; therefore, we want the economic crisis to be over now; we want the war in Afghanistan to be over now; we want everyone to have a job now. Maybe its because I am older, but to me having a vision of an improved future is more important than reading the headlines today and getting depressed because the accumulated problems of the last twenty years are not solved.
at 15:10 on August 15th, 2009
I bought a do-it-yourself fix it guide for my car, and the guidebook was over 200 pages long. How can you overhall a nation's health care system with a law shorter than a guide on maintaining a car?
When I studied Civil Procedure in law school, our text was about 400 pages long, and I bought an additional horn book to help me do well in the course. If it takes six hundred pages for one student to learn Civil Procedure, how can we expect to fix health car nationally with a law shorter than a textbook in law school?
Health care is inherently complex. But I can propose a one-page solution to the problem:
"The US Congress hereby announces that health care is a right and directs the president to propose such tax increases for the rich as are necessary to provide health care for anyone present in America who requests such care at a Government institution. Government employees shall not inquire into the income or assets of those receiving such care and shall not accept compensation of any kind for such care, nor shall the ever refuse such care for lack of compensation. Health Care at Government-run facilities is henceforth an individual right enforceable at law by anyone denied care that is medically necessary."
How's that, Roy? There's a health care bill in one paragraph!
at 16:54 on August 15th, 2009
For those who think the bill in Congress is too long, here's a one-page alternative.
The 2009 One-Page Omnibus Health Care Act
But, if you are a highly-paid insurance company executive or highly paid lobbyist, or if you simply don't care that some people lack access to all or adequate and affordable medical care, then I'm not sure you'll like the one page alternative any more than you like the bills working their way through the US Congress.