no penalty for pre-existing conditions?

[amborin]

"By more than doubling the maximum penalties that companies can apply to employees who flunk medical evaluations, the legislation could put workers under intense financial pressure to lose weight, stop smoking or even lower their cholesterol....

In effect, they would permit insurers and employers to make coverage less affordable for people exhibiting risk factors for problems such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

"Everybody said that we're going to be ending discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But this is, in effect, discrimination again based on preexisting conditions," said Ann Kempski of the Service Employees International Union.

The legislation would make exceptions for people who have medical reasons for not meeting targets."

<http://www.dailykos.com/>

[damntexdem]

1. Kill the bill!

Start over with reconciliation and get something worthwhile, rather than this abomination that will hurt us rather than help us.

[eileen123]

13. comment

Pretty well said..!!!!!!!

Shelly Smith..
------------------------

http://www.legalx.net/advertise">Lawyer Marketing

[ChiciB1]

2. Whoops! Gee, It Just Gets Better & Better!

I'm going to go start din-din before I get myself in some real trouble! I'm in a "tense" mood, but I have some meds I can take! Try NOT to take any, but today I FEEL THE NEED!

[ramapo]

3. Are you serious?

This is in the Senate bill?

This would be beyond totally FU'd.

[csziggy]

4. If they include genetic factors as a pre-existing conditions, that might solve this

For instance, I have slightly higher than desirable cholesterol, but high cholesterol runs in my family. In fact, I have the lowest tested level of anyone in my family and my levels are only slightly over the current standards. So if my cholesterol is higher than the "desirable" level,I am still doing good to keep it as low as it is. But unless my family history is factored in, I could be penalized for the level I have been able to achieve. And if they gave me the chance to "meet targets" it would probably not do much good since I am already doing everything that is recommended to lower cholesterol levels.

So would I be penalized for not lowering my cholesterol more even though I have achieved unusual low levels for my family and have done everything that has been advised for dropping it down - except take medication. I do not consider a 5% elevation above the ideal to be worth taking yet another expensive drug that is not fully covered by my health insurance. If the insurance company would cover the cost to the same extent as they cover generics, I might have a different attitude.

[cabluedem]

7. Statins have many risky serious side effects. Try www.spacedoc.net. nt

[csziggy]

8. That is why I don't want to add another drug to what I already take

The other part of my family health history is that our ratio of good to bad cholesterol is excellent, even when the levels are high. And the longevity is great - both my parents are in their late eighties and their parents lived into their seventies. While my Dad has problems from untreated osteoporosis, neither he or Mom have problems related to cholesterol.

At the same checkup my doctor wanted to put me on cholesterol medication, he gave me the results of my bone scan which indicated the beginnings of osteoporosis. I would much rather treat that than the cholesterol since I have seen more adverse effects in my father than from his cholesterol levels.

I'm keeping to a low fat diet, reducing the saturated fats, cutting back on meat eating, especially beef, eating more vegetables, etc. Not only does it seem to be helping with my cholesterol, I have lost about 5% of my body weight. I hope to keep that up!

[cabluedem]

9. Sounds like a good plan. My uncle by marriage died a very bad death by OP. Both hips broken. nt

[Nite Owl]

5. And I'm sure they have a new

drug for whatever it is that is in violation with their rules. Of course it won't be covered either. What a scam.

[ThomCat]

6. According the Oberman's review

They can charge you more for having a preexisting condition. They can charge you more for being older. They can charge you more if you smoke.

Up to 3x more at each step, so we're now up to 9x more than someone younger, healthier who never smoked. Will that be affordable?

And he mentions that they will be able to move to states with the least/worst state regulations and insurance mandates so that insurance plans will not be required to provide coverage for damned near anything they don't want to. More and more people will find that what their doctors order isn't covered. The insurance companies are going to be allowed to say "No."

:grr:

[laughingliberal]

10. Is that true? Up to 9 X. If so we'll be looking at premiums of around $3000-4000 for some people

I hope he's wrong about that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Up to 4.5 times

The variation allowed for tobacco use is 1.5 times. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7246683&mesg_id=7247279 (link to bill in reply #38 of that thread). (FWIW, the 'section 2707(c)' refered to is about children-only plans, so isn't relevant to this main discussion).

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. Could you provide an actual link, please?

So we don't all have to trawl through drunken Kos posts about eggnog to find what you're talking about. Kthxbye.

[Kablooie]

12. I would encourage everyone with diabetes to STOP doing diabetes right now!

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. This is over 2 months old, people

Look:

Health bill may target reckless living

By David S. Hilzenrath

Washington Post
Posted: 10/15/2009 10:32:46 PM PDT
Updated: 10/17/2009 07:41:07 PM PDT


WASHINGTON — Get in shape or pay a price.

That is a message more Americans could hear if the health care reform legislation passed by the Senate finance and health committees becomes law. By more than doubling the maximum penalties that companies can apply to employees who flunk medical evaluations, the final bill could put workers under intense financial pressure to lose weight, stop smoking or even lower their cholesterol.
...
President Barack Obama and members of Congress have said they are trying to create a system in which no one can be denied coverage or charged higher premiums based on their health status. The insurance lobby has said it shares that goal. But so-called wellness incentives could introduce a colossal loophole. In effect, they would permit insurers and employers to make coverage less affordable for people exhibiting risk factors for problems such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke.


"Everybody said that we're going to be ending discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. But this is, in effect, discrimination again based on pre-existing conditions," said Ann Kempski of the Service Employees International Union.

The legislation would make exceptions for people who have medical reasons for not meeting targets.

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_13574055?source=rss

So: this was talking about the Baucus bill, most likely. Please point to where this is in the currently proposed bill, before we discuss it further.