8000 of 310,000,000 people

Revere

Rookie
Jan 23, 2010
7,427
423
0
Watching you in my profile page
was the number of people affected by the reason given for Obamacare, pre-existing conditions.

Health - WSJ.com: Only 8,000 enroll in health plan for preexisting conditions

A new nationwide effort to provide health coverage to uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions is off to a slow start, largely due to high costs and a lack of awareness.

As of Nov. 1, only 8,011 people were enrolled in the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, numbers from the Dept. of Health and Human Services show.
 
due to high costs and a lack of awareness.



Hmm I am sure the MSM media has been educating people on it's availability and how to sign up?

Ohh wait they have just been fussing over repealing the entire thing.
 
Did you even bother to read your own link? The very first line for goodness sakes.

A new nationwide effort to provide health coverage to uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions is off to a slow start, largely due to high costs and a lack of awareness.

Almost 6 million Americans are potentially eligible for the program, which runs through 2013, according to a report published in October by The Commonwealth Fund. However, because the $5 billion in federal funding designated by the law won't be enough to cover all eligible individuals, the Congressional Budget Office projects enrollment will average 200,000 a year between 2011 and 2013.

Nationally, the numbers are lower than expected primarily because most consumers don't know the program exists, Dr. Hall said. That could change because some states are beginning to reach out to advocacy groups that serve people with chronic conditions, said Dr. Hall, a co-author of the Commonwealth Fund report. Alerting people who might qualify for the insurance worked in Pennsylvania, she said. The state sent a letter to people on the waiting list for its adultBasic, a state-managed insurance program for people who have gone without coverage for 90 days
 
Obamacare Nixes Doctor-Owned Hospitals
January 4, 2011 1:34 P.M.
By Matthew Shaffer
Kenneth Artz, of the Heartland Institute, explains:

Section 6001 of the health care law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding. It has already halted the development of 24 new physician-owned hospitals and forced an additional 47 to struggle to meet the deadline to complete construction, according to the Physician Hospitals of America (PHA).

As Politico reports, “Physician Hospitals of America says that construction had to stop at 45 hospitals nationwide or they would not be able to bill Medicare for treatments.”

Jeffrey Anderson, at the Weekly Standard

This little-noticed but particularly egregious aspect of Obamacare is, by all accounts, a concession to the powerful American Hospital Association (AHA), a supporter of Obamacare, which prefers to have its member hospitals operate without competition from hospitals owned by doctors. Dr. Michael Russell, president of Physician Hospitals of America, which has filed suit to try to stop this selective building-ban from going into effect, says, “There are so many regulations [in Obamacare] and they are so onerous and intrusive that we believe that the section [Section 6001] was deliberately designed so no physician owned hospital could successfully comply.”

Artz writes, “According to Russell, the AHA, along with Sen. [Max] Baucus (D-MT) and Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA), are responsible for the language in Section 6001.”

What a perfect example of regulatory capture. (Of course, as Anderson notes, primary responsibility lies with those who voted the bill into law.)

Obamacare Nixes Doctor-Owned Hospitals - By Matthew Shaffer - The Corner - National Review Online
 
No, it's accurate. Nobody who has private health insurance can get the same plan(s) they did merely a year ago.

And the destruction is just beginning.

Yeah, this isn't true.

I'm still on the same Ins. plan I was on a year ago. The premiums and co-pays haven't gone up, and the coverage hasn't gone down.

Whooops.
 
We all know that the original Idea was supposed to be to make insurance more affordable. Somewhere along the line that was set aside and the idea of "more power" took it's place.

The entire thing needs thrown out. And after the jobs situation is fixed then it needs looked at from the beginning.
 
We all know that the original Idea was supposed to be to make insurance more affordable. Somewhere along the line that was set aside and the idea of "more power" took it's place.

The entire thing needs thrown out. And after the jobs situation is fixed then it needs looked at from the beginning.

Intensive insurance and health care industry lobbying is mostly to blame.
 
Intensive insurance and health care industry lobbying is mostly to blame.

Taking a look at Mr. Fitnah's post, I noticed the name Max Baucus.

Max Baucus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baucus has been criticized for his ties to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and has been one of the largest beneficiaries in the Senate of campaign contributions from these industries.[37] From 2003 to 2008, Baucus received $3,973,485 from the health sector, including $852,813 from pharmaceutical companies, $851,141 from health professionals, $784,185 from the insurance industry and $465,750 from HMOs/health services, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[46][47] A 2006 study by Public Citizen found that between 1999 and 2005 Baucus, along with former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, took in the most special-interest money of any senator.[48]

Only three senators have more former staffers working as lobbyists on K Street, at least two dozen in Baucus's case.[48] Several of Baucus's ex-staffers, including former chief of staff David Castagnetti, are now working for the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries.[49] Castagnetti co-founded the lobbying firm of Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, which represents "America’s Health Insurance Plans Inc.", the national trade group of health insurance companies, the Medicare Cost Contractors Alliance, as well as Amgen, AstraZeneca PLC and Merck & Co. Another former chief of staff, Jeff Forbes, went on to open his own lobbying shop and to represent the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Advanced Medical Technology Association, among other groups.

In response to the questions raised by the large amount of funding he took from the health care industry, Baucus declared a moratorium as of July 1, 2009 on taking more special interest money from health care political action committees.[51] Baucus, however, declined to return as part of his moratorium any of the millions of dollars he has received from health care industry interests before July 1, 2009, or to rule out a resumption of taking the same or greater health care industry contributions in the future.[51] Baucus's new policy on not taking health care industry money reportedly still permits him to take money from lobbyists or corporate executives, who the Washington Post found continued to make donations after July 1, 2009.[51]
A watchdog group found that in July 2009 Baucus took more money from the health care industry in violation of the self-defined terms of his moratorium, leading Baucus to return the money.[52]
 
We all know that the original Idea was supposed to be to make insurance more affordable. Somewhere along the line that was set aside and the idea of "more power" took it's place.

The entire thing needs thrown out. And after the jobs situation is fixed then it needs looked at from the beginning.

Intensive insurance and health care industry lobbying is mostly to blame.

Probably, but it still isn't what was needed.
 
We all know that the original Idea was supposed to be to make insurance more affordable. Somewhere along the line that was set aside and the idea of "more power" took it's place.

The entire thing needs thrown out. And after the jobs situation is fixed then it needs looked at from the beginning.

Intensive insurance and health care industry lobbying is mostly to blame.

Probably, but it still isn't what was needed.


Agreed what emerged from congress as HCR is not what we need. But we will not get what we need that much is clear.
 
No pre existing condition, no life time caps, tax cuts for small business, keep your children on your policy until age 26, 95% of Americans get insurance, donut hole in prescription drug coverage closed... hmmmm, hey tea partiers, are you sure "Americans don't want Obamacare", cause it's sounding pretty good to me.
 
No pre existing condition, no life time caps, tax cuts for small business, keep your children on your policy until age 26, 95% of Americans get insurance, donut hole in prescription drug coverage closed... hmmmm, hey tea partiers, are you sure "Americans don't want Obamacare", cause it's sounding pretty good to me.

Umm most of those things you postred are not entirely correct.
For instance the doughnut hole for prescription drug coverage was reduced but not closed.
 
Most Americans don't know the program exists, yet tens of millions support the legislation?

What the hell do they know about it that makes them support it then? That it's a democrat bill?
 
No pre existing condition, no life time caps, tax cuts for small business, keep your children on your policy until age 26, 95% of Americans get insurance, donut hole in prescription drug coverage closed... hmmmm, hey tea partiers, are you sure "Americans don't want Obamacare", cause it's sounding pretty good to me.

Except you won't be able to afford it (which is by design).
 
No pre existing condition, no life time caps, tax cuts for small business, keep your children on your policy until age 26, 95% of Americans get insurance, donut hole in prescription drug coverage closed... hmmmm, hey tea partiers, are you sure "Americans don't want Obamacare", cause it's sounding pretty good to me.

Umm most of those things you postred are not entirely correct.
For instance the doughnut hole for prescription drug coverage was reduced but not closed.

Umm, all are correct. What part of the donut hole was not closed? And if it wasn't closed, why aren't the Repubs saying they will close it instead of taking all the afore mentioned things away from Americans?

Answer - Because they are tools for the insurance cartel.
 

Forum List

Back
Top