Health care loophole would allow coverage limits

[Mass]

If true, more bad news
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iY4N1OnmEl-p6kEdB_ROs6toazbQD9CH3T100

WASHINGTON — A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates.

The legislation that originally passed the Senate health committee last summer would have banned such limits, but a tweak to that provision weakened it in the bill now moving toward a Senate vote.

As currently written, the Senate Democratic health care bill would permit insurance companies to place annual limits on the dollar value of medical care, as long as those limits are not "unreasonable." The bill does not define what level of limits would be allowable, delegating that task to administration officials.

Adding to the puzzle, the new language was quietly tucked away in a clause in the bill still captioned "No lifetime or annual limits."
...
Officials of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network said they were taken by surprise when the earlier ban on annual coverage limits was undercut, adding that they have not been able to get a satisfactory explanation.

"We don't know who put it in, or why it was put in," said Stephen Finan, a policy expert with the cancer society's advocacy affiliate.
...

[CrispyQ]

1. It just gets shittier & shittier every fucking day, doesn't it?

It's at the point where I'm not sure what else they can do to make it worse, but I have no doubt Congress will find a way.

[Mass]

2. Which is even worse is that it was NOT in the Finance bill, so somebody found a way to make it

worse without telling anybody.

I've seen Brown two days in a row arguing eloquently that the bill was getting rid of caps. I wonder if he knows this is in the bill.

[OHdem10]

3. From day one this bill has been a gift to Insurance Companies.

[Clio the Leo]

4. WHY did CNN's breaking news Twitter account post this as "breaking news"...

.... when they have posted almost NOTHING about health care thus far. Very suspish.

[Mass]

6. Because the Senate lied about it again and again?

I am sorry if it bothers you, but it is not admissible. This bill is to help people. Limits like that will simply prevent sicker people to get treatments.

[slipslidingaway]

5. knr nt

[vaberella]

7. Isn't this link a counter thread?! Link Below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x51929

[Mass]

8. That would be good news. It does not change anything to the principle.

Somebody in the Senate Democratic leadership inserted something while continuing to claim the opposite. Happy to see the WH says it will not agree, but it is still very worrying. If nobody had paid attention to this clause, the WH would not have reacted.

[vaberella]

9. Well how would the WH have known--they're not writing the bill.

Congress is writing the bill and many others----all currently going back and forth though CBO. I tink the WH keeps track on some issues---when they're brought to their attention. But considering they don't write it...that would be the case. That being said...we should be happy Congress if finally doing their job----to much we assume Obama is the Congress when the Congress is set up of a group of people who write the laws that are either passed or vetoed by the Pres.

[Mass]

11. Where was I assuming Obama was the Congress. My rant was about Congress and

the fact that this provision could have been ignored without supervision from the public. BTW, where do you see Congress doing its job. Reid was still saying that no caps would be a problem recently, while he and other senators have been on the senate floors for the last few days saying there was no caps.

As I said, I am happy that the WH put his foot on the brake on this, but the problem is that THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DO THAT. It is abnormal that his provision was hidden in the bill. If we are not careful, how many other surprises are hidden in this bill.

[vaberella]

15. You had mentioned the WH and I was targeting statements made in relation to the WH

It gave the impression---that the WH should be on top of each and every aspect of this bill.

[boppers]

10. 32 million in a month?

How much is too much?

[Mass]

12. 32 million? Where does this number come from?

And should you want to get somebody in your family die because of a cap. Because this is what is in question here: somebody with a very dangerous disease that requires very expensive care.

[boppers]

13. It's a number I invented, to ask when the numbers become excessive

My fiancee currently requires $6,000 a month in medications alone to live a productive life, so I'm not asking this flippantly...

So, I went in search for some current example numbers and found:
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/07/0710_costlymedicine/5.htm
Using a Davinci robot for a single heart bypass adds $80,000 to the operation costs
Defibilators cost $68,000 to $102,000
Colon Cancer meds can run up to $250,000

Should I want somebody in my family to die? No. But I'm also not so selfish as to think that prolonging a life for my, and their, mostly selfish reasons means that medical profiteers should drain american coffers to make everybody else dirt poor, while half-living on machines for the next 150 or 200 years.

Medical Industrial Complex: Count on it happening, as it's already here. So, like the Military Industrial Complex, as long as there are no caps, costs will inflate exponentially, until and unless there's something *preventing* outlandish spending and profiteering.

[quantass]

14. It's been a good year for Big Banks and Big Insurers -- maybe even a record year.