Would the Senate healthcare bill have helped Obama’s mother?

[IndianaGreen]

Would the Senate healthcare bill have helped Obama’s mother?

The Dunham in our modern example, covered under the Senate healthcare bill, could not be turned down for a preexisting condition like ovarian cancer, nor could she be dropped if she developed ovarian cancer while already insured.

However, according to the Washington Post’s David S. Hilzenrath, insurers would not be prohibited from using Dunham’s health status against her until 2014. In the meantime, they could continue to deny her coverage or charge her higher premiums. As Ezra Klein points out, there will be some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

Meanwhile, the insurance exchanges don’t open open until 2014, and Americans who are denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition will have to participate in a national high-risk pool, a program that is susceptible to its own fiscal limitations. The proposal would permit the HHS secretary to stop accepting applications for the pool once it has exhausted the $5 billion the proposal would appropriate for the program and premiums no longer cover claims. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this would happen in mid-2011, reports Daniel Esquibel, California Healthline Managing Editor.

Additionally, opponents like Howard Dean claim the legislation “allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage.”

The House-passed bill allows age-rating at a 2-to-1 ratio, which means an elderly person could be charged twice what a 20-year-old normally pays. The bill in the Senate would set the ratio at 3 to 1. Insurers may agree to cover everyone, but they could also charge a lot of money to cover older people, who are more likely to get sick. Model Dunham may have to pay much more for coverage simply because of her age.

Donna Smith, legislative advocate for the California Nurses Association, says age-rating will “leave a lot of people exposed by buying only those policies they can afford…So they can still be driven to foreclosure and bankruptcy.”

http://trueslant.com/allisonkilkenny/2009/12/17/would-the-senate-healthcare-bill-have-helped-obamas-mother/

[valerief]

1. Why wouldn't an elderly person be on Medicare?

The House-passed bill allows age-rating at a 2-to-1 ratio, which means an elderly person could be charged twice what a 20-year-old normally pays. The bill in the Senate would set the ratio at 3 to 1.

[IndianaGreen]

2. She died at age 53--still not covered by the now defunct Medicare buy in

[valerief]

4. 53 isn't elderly. See the section I cited. nt

[Ken Burch]

6. That was the OP's point

Even the "buy-in" wouldn't have helped her. She'd still have been left to die to keep insurance profits rising. Probably nothing short of the "robust public option" or maybe outright single-payer would have helped in her case.

[valerief]

7. I'm not talking about her. I'm talking about the section I cited. nt

[Ken Burch]

3. They're gonna flame you for this...but that's because they have no good response

The truth is, this measure would still have left her to die.

[valerief]

5. Definitely. She may even have gotten the curbside dropoff some hospitals

have been caught doing.

[CatWoman]

8. actually, I think this is a very good thread

this question needs to be addressed.

No flames from me......