Why is Schumer collaborating with Big Insurance to continue "PRE-EXISTING CONDITION" denial of. . .

[Faryn Balyncd]

....coverage?



It's great that Sen. Schumer says he's "really for" Single Payer. (even though he won't sponsor such a bill).

And it's great that he will request that CBO score Single Payer.

And it's great that Sen. Schumer will "consider" reshaping his plan with regard to points 1 and 3 of the 5 issues raised by the Physicians for a National Health plan, regarding Sen. Schumer's plan:

The group presented a 5 point critique of Schumer's public option plan as reported in the NY Times:

1. Public plan should not initially need to be self sustaining and should have all tax advantages of private plans.
2. The treasury should serve as the reserve fund, no special reserve fund for public plan should be required.
3. Any doctor accepting any plan offered through "the exchange" should be required to take the "public option."
4. Regulators of private insurance must have no connection to private insurance companies or their investments.
5. Private plans must be required to accept all comers.

http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/senator-schumer-makes-health-reform-promises-today

But why is Sen. Schumer still carrying water for the bloated, high-administrative fee insurance corporations that want to continue to cherry pick only the healthiest demographics, and continue to stick the public and those denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions with inflated bills?


Why have we not held Schumer's feet to the fire on Point 5 ??????








:kick:











Do we really want to allow the corporatists to continue to overcharge the healthiest demographics, and have any potential "public option" devolve into a plan in which the higher risk groups are dumped on the taxpayer, if not forced to pay fantasy rates?


Could anyone other than Senators Schumer & Baucus design a so-called universal health-care "reform" that included cherry picking, and which did not include a requirement that insurers insure all comers?








:kick:

[depakid]

1. Because Shumer's a shoe in- there's no accountabilty

He can take the Wall Street and Insurance money and draft up shallow feel good bit of legislation that protects their interests, much as was done with the credit card companies.

[jkshaw]

9. depakid, it's "shoo-in"

[depakid]

13. If it were up to me, I'd give him the boot.

The guy's been in Washington far too long, and has had his fingers in dodgy financial policies, like the Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982 (which caused the Savings & Loan debacle) for FAR too long.

[cabluedem]

19. I agree. Schumer is in the pockets of the insurance companies. nt

[AllentownJake]

2. Our democratic leadership in with big business?

I'm shocked! shocked! I tell you.

Big Business saw the inevitable GOP collapse years before anyone else. They hedged their bets.

[Missy Vixen]

3. Schumer has the same solid-gold insurance coverage

the rest of Congress does. In other words, it doesn't affect him, so he doesn't give a shit.

Let's face it -- when some of these Congresspeople start giving up their own coverage because their constituency has none, I'll start believing that they actually care about anyone else but themselves.

:mad:

[QC]

4. Schumer is an honorable politician: he stays bought. n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. Because he's a goddamn useless Wall $treet whore corporate tool?

:shrug:

[madrchsod]

6. he really does`t give a fuck until he`s up for election....

gee.. he`s a politician and that`s their nature

[shadowknows69]

7. Becaue the sick poor are just supposed to die. Period.

[Individualist]

8. DLC members always give corporations precedence over the people.

[Faryn Balyncd]

14. ...

(self delete)

[jody]

10. Just more evidence that corporatists control enough Dem & Rep votes to make laws moving us toward a

corporate state and let presidents have a photo op showing bipartisan leaders supporting programs that covertly steal the birthright of We the People.

[Faryn Balyncd]

16. we need to keep up the pressure.

[AllentownJake]

21. Yep they split their investments.

These guys didn't get to where they were by being stupid and betting on one pony in a race.

[MagickMuffin]

11. Federal Employees GET the Pre-Existing Conditions

WE WANT THE SAME PLAN AS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

Now is that so hard!

Check out what government employees gets for their health care. There are more links that will show how much the government pays on their plans. It's outrages.

http://www.opm.gov/Insure/health/enrollment/new_employees.asp


This link is more links of pre-existing conditions

http://search.opm.gov/search?q=pre%20existing%20conditions&spell=1&site=default_collection&client=default_frontend&access=p&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend

[bemildred]

12. Schumer is a self-serving weasel that says whatever works for him today. nt

[brentspeak]

15. k & r

:kick:

[BrklynLiberal]

17. BecAUSE HE IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN A SELF-SERVING p.o.s.

[shadowknows69]

20. He's a pox on our State. I was never a huge Senator Clinton fan

But she at least had integrity I think Chuckie is pretty unfamiliar with.

[leftofthedial]

18. $$$$$

This is America dammit!

[bornskeptic]

22. I don't know about Schumer's plan, but the Baucus Plan does not allow discrimination

based on pre-existing conditions.

"The Baucus plan envisions that the Health Insurance Exchange would offer a new
opportunity for individuals and small businesses to easily compare private coverage
options and a public plan and to purchase the policy that would work best for them.
Eligible individuals and small businesses would receive subsidies to make sure that
coverage would be affordable. Insurance companies would be prohibited from denying
coverage due to pre-existing conditions and from discriminating against individuals solely
due to their health status."

From p17 of
http://baucus.senate.gov/issues/healthcare.cfm

[bvar22]

23. Because THAT is the Poison Pill for the "Public Option".

America,

BEWARE of a "Public Option that:

1) Does NOT force the For Profit Health Insurance Industry to accept "All Comers".
If the For Profits are allowed to deny coverage for "pre-existing conditions" or "High Risk Groups", the Public Option will become a dumping ground for people that might be unprofitable to cover.

2)... that channels Public Money to the For Profits in the form of "subsidies" for the poor.
ALL those that receive a subsidy for Health Care must be automatically enrolled in the Public Option.

Schumer is a WEASEL. He is smart enough to KNOW that America is demanding reform, but believes that Americans are too stupid to read the fine print (Schumer is correct). He, and his "Centrist" DLC buddies will design something that they can sell as REFORM, that will have the name "Public Option", BUT it will be doomed to failure.

Then they will PROUDLY say, "We tried reform, and IT DIDN'T WORK."

Don't fall for phony reform that is packaged by the "Centrists".

DEMAND true "Single Payer".
HR 676 (Medicare for ALL) currently has 93 co-sponsors in the House.

If we are FORCED to accept a "Public Option", it MUST contain the following 2 provisions:
1) The For Profits MUST accept all comers.
2) Anyone receiving a Health Care Subsidy MUST be automatically enrolled in the Public Plan.

[Faryn Balyncd]

24. Schumer & Baucus are trying to turn "Public Option" into CORPORATE WELFARE.......

.....Just as did the 2003 Bush/Cheney/Baucus Medicare Prescription Drug fiasco.

When it passed the Senate 11/25/03 54-44, it did so only because of the vigorous support of Baucus.

At the time, PBS reported:

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a leading opponent of the bill, told ABC on Sunday that "what is now coming before the Senate is basically hijacking the Medicare program. … hey want to undermine it, and they want to privatize it."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/november03/medicare.html

(The Democrats who helped push through that bill, which enriched Big Pharm and was followed by the largest drug price increases in history, included Baucus, Ben Nelson, Diane Feinstein, and Ron Wyden, who is now in 2009 peddling a "reform" that mandates insurance purchase with NO PUBLIC OPTION.)

So it looks like the same corporatists who tried to destroy Medicare in 2003, and ended up with a corporate welfare bill then, are now trying to either eliminate a true public option from healthcare reform, or, if that fails, turn the "public option" into a joke whose only purpose is to enrich the insurance industry at the expense of taxpayers and patients.

We can't lwt them carry on this charade!

[troubledamerican]

25. Why did Schumer collaborate with Rove & Bush on their Soviet legislation, 2001-2008?