Jump to content
Diabetes forums
  • Welcome To Diabetes Forums!

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today to contribute and support the site.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

YellowLord

S.1955 Looks Like It's Dead

Recommended Posts

YellowLord

Hello All,

 

I am not trying to be a spammer, rather I am a concerned citizen and I am trying to get information out to those affected by diabetes about a terrible piece of legislation called the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act (HIMMA, S. 1955). This act would override state guidelines on what insurance companies must cover in their plans meaning insurance companies would NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR DIABETES CARE!

 

This will be coming to a vote on the Senate floor within the next two weeks and if it passes GOD help us and all those families afflicted by diabetes.

 

What can you do? This comes directly for the American Diabetes Association

 

Here is another thing that you can do to try to prevent the passing of the bill S.1955...I am copying these instructions directly from the moderator at the American Diabetes Association Forum.

 

Things you can do to oppose S. 1955 include:

 

* Register with our Online Action Center at http://advocacy.diabetes.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AC_homepage

Once you register, you will see this issue under the heading, "Preserve Diabetes Coverage Laws!"

Click on that link and send an email to your U.S. Senators. Sample language is already prepared.

 

* Know your U.S. Senators or one of their staffers personally or interested in getting to know them? They are on recess this week, so schedule a meeting in the district office before March 27th to talk about why S. 1955 will harm people with diabetes. Use these talking points for meetings: http://advocacy.diabetes.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AC_EnziCall&autologin=true&AddInterest=2401

 

* Have five minutes to make a phone call? Phone calls can really have a big impact. With five minutes, you can call your Senators’ D.C. offices to urge a NO vote on undoing state mandated health insurance coverage. Use these talking points for your phone call.

 

Become more familiar with S. 1955. Access the S. 1955 Fact Sheet and more.

http://www.diabetes.org/advocacy-action-center/s1955.jsp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TAutry

Hello YellowLord,

 

Thank you for joining the forums. I have researched the bill to which you refer. It appears that your information is legit.

 

Ordinarily we frown upon new members who represent a 'cause' in their first post. Feel free to post a brief introduction so that in the future you don't have to warn us that you aren't a spammer.

 

While this topic will remain open, it will be watched carefully. Should it degenerate, it will be closed and deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyborg

I'd like to get a list of our government representitives that our supporting this act so that I know who to vote against! With diabetes becoming an epedemic in the U.S. these people do not deserve to be representing us. As far as I'm concerned they are traitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KickStart101

I agree Cyborg. I am not American but since Travis says what

Yellowlord says is legit, I would be hopping on the bandwagon to

do my best to make sure that this Bill does not pass. That's

outrageous. You people have enough Bull to contend with over

there. You's certainly don't need this on top.

 

Pardon me for sticking my nose in. :wavey: :vroam:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greendavid

This bill (S. 1955, the "Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act" or HIMMA) is opposed by social workers, psychologists, health-care consumer organizations, Planned Parenthood, and the American Diabetes Association.

 

Find your senators (each state has two) and e-mail him or her, today! (Google their name if you know it, or your state and the word "senator" if you don't.) Ask them to oppose S. 1955 - HIMMA. Say "please" and "thank you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
duck

This is one of those damned things that really pisses me off. The bill, and it's "intended" purpose, is to allow small businesses, like my mothers, to be able to pool together to purchase and provide a better level of healthcare for their employees. And then they tack crap like this into a bill that otherwise does a good thing?

 

I've read about this, and read about it. The parts where it would allow states and governments to deny healthcare benefits currently afforded to say, diabetics, isn't written to do just that, but the end result could be just that. The part I can't get my head around is why those provisions are even in there, except maybe to try and lower the cost of purchasing healthcare for small businesses.

 

This is such an apostasy. I know contractors who have no healthcare because they can't afford it...I know realtors who make a decent wage, but have 0 healthcare because it is unaffordable...My mother's employees have no healthcare. This bill is supposed to create some affordable possibilities for such people, but look what it does on the back-end.

 

:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lynne1

I also read about this on something I received from JDRF. They recommend voting against the bill also. I think it was countdown magazine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
duck
I also read about this on something I received from JDRF. They recommend voting against the bill also. I think it was countdown magazine.

 

My perception from my "research" is any disease-advocacy group will be opposed to this legislation, and any group that advocates for small businesses/self-employed will be for this legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyborg
This is one of those damned things that really pisses me off. The bill, and it's "intended" purpose, is to allow small businesses, like my mothers, to be able to pool together to purchase and provide a better level of healthcare for their employees. And then they tack crap like this into a bill that otherwise does a good thing?

 

I've read about this, and read about it. The parts where it would allow states and governments to deny healthcare benefits currently afforded to say, diabetics, isn't written to do just that, but the end result could be just that. The part I can't get my head around is why those provisions are even in there, except maybe to try and lower the cost of purchasing healthcare for small businesses.

 

This is such an apostasy. I know contractors who have no healthcare because they can't afford it...I know realtors who make a decent wage, but have 0 healthcare because it is unaffordable...My mother's employees have no healthcare. This bill is supposed to create some affordable possibilities for such people, but look what it does on the back-end.

 

:mad:

 

The tacking on of this type stuff is the reason why we need to bring back the line item veto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seacomp
The tacking on of this type stuff is the reason why we need to bring back the line item veto.

You make assumptions about a president with a brain and a heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
duck
The tacking on of this type stuff is the reason why we need to bring back the line item veto.

 

Agreed, but from what I am reading, the provisions are included in order to make healthcare more affordable for small business...By now, you would think congress would see the unintended consequence of these provisions (if they are indeed unintended).

 

I shouldn't have said "tacked" like it was an add-on...

 

Ergh. The system is broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seacomp
(if they are indeed unintended).

That's the rub, I'm paranoid enought to believe that such results are very intended for many of the people involved, whether from ideology or self-interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyborg
That's the rub, I'm paranoid enought to believe that such results are very intended for many of the people involved, whether from ideology or self-interest.

 

Greed? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
duck
Greed? :confused:

 

I have a buddy whose theory is that congress (and legislative bodies worldwide) create laws with built-in flaws...later, after the flaws cause great consternation, the lawmakers go back and make new laws to fix the problems they created, and then take credit for fixing the problems during the next election cycle. I don't necessarily subscribe to that theory, but sometimes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Belinda

Well after readaing this I sent one to Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist...he is from my state and an MD....thanks for sharing the info about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
labob
Hello YellowLord,

 

Thank you for joining the forums. I have researched the bill to which you refer. It appears that your information is legit.

 

Ordinarily we frown upon new members who represent a 'cause' in their first post. Feel free to post a brief introduction so that in the future you don't have to warn us that you aren't a spammer.

 

While this topic will remain open, it will be watched carefully. Should it degenerate, it will be closed and deleted.

 

This is probably the most important post I've read since I've been a member of this forum. If you decide that the discussion "degenerates," whatever that means, and decide to delete the topic, you can delete me, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tokyo Cate
If Bush signs this Bill, I will so regret him ever being in office (more so than ever). God save our country!

 

Yeah. God save your country. This sounds horrendous. As a Canadian living overseas, I don't think there is anything I can do, other than hate your current administration.

 

I don't want to be too political, but health care in North America has been declining annually and citizens need to make it an issue in elections. When I go back, I may have to campaign against candidates (or for candidates) to promote true Universal health care in Canada. The current situation in both Canada and the US is unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
duck
Yeah. God save your country. This sounds horrendous. As a Canadian living overseas, I don't think there is anything I can do, other than hate your current administration.

 

I don't want to be too political, but health care in North America has been declining annually and citizens need to make it an issue in elections. When I go back, I may have to campaign against candidates (or for candidates) to promote true Universal health care in Canada. The current situation in both Canada and the US is unacceptable.

 

When patients can so easily sue doctors for minor "mistakes" (and I am offering the word mistake generously), that sets up an environment like what is happening now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
labob

Duck, I think you're mixing apples and oranges. The high cost of malpractice insurance for doctors certainly raises physicians' cost of doing business, and ultimately, their profits, but that's not what this bill is about. HMOs aren't responsible for paying doctors' malpractice premiums. This bill is nothing less than corporate welfare for health insurance companies, which won't be on the hook for state-mandated coverage for diabetes supplies, among other things, if it passes. The same folks in Congress who let the pharmaceutical industry write the Medicare Part D bill apparently decided that it was time to let the health insurance industry have its bite at the apple.

 

(I wrote a rant here about the problems with the somewhat disastrous roll out of Medicare Part D, which, for folks outside the US who might not be aware of the issue, finally provides some coverage for prescription drugs to seniors and the disabled, but I deleted it because I didn't want the discussion to "degenerate." Suffice it to say that pharmaceutical companies know that the reason prescription drugs are so much cheaper in Canada than in the US is because the Canadian government under its single-payer plan negotiates on behalf of the entire country for drug discounts, whereas the US law enacting Medicare Part D coverage specifically forbade the federal government from negotiating for them. I understand that the law has recently been revised in that respect, however.)

 

Anyway, as a defense lawyer who has represented HMOs and hospitals and who doesn't think that the US health industry is inherently evil, it is definitely my opinion that the US health care system is broken, and the problem isn't going to be solved by so-called tort reform. Doctors are unhappy, and justifiably so in many cases -- I think most people would be shocked by how little they are paid by HMOs per patient per month. On the other hand, HMOs are spending the vast majority of the premiums they receive directly on health care coverage -- pretty much the same percentage that they paid out in the 70s (the main reason that premiums keep rising is because of advances in expensive medical technology and drugs). That doesn't mean that HMOs, as publicly-traded companies, aren't interested in maximizing their profits -- hence the push for this bill. I just find it shocking that a party that pretends to champion "states' rights" would try to pre-empt state laws that require health insurers, as a condition of doing business in the state, to cover medical supplies that diabetics need to control their disease. So much for "compassionate conservatism."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
duck
Duck, I think you're mixing apples and oranges. The high cost of malpractice insurance for doctors certainly raises physicians' cost of doing business, and ultimately, their profits, but that's not what this bill is about. HMOs aren't responsible for paying doctors' malpractice premiums. This bill is nothing less than corporate welfare for health insurance companies, which won't be on the hook for state-mandated coverage for diabetes supplies, among other things, if it passes. The same folks in Congress who let the pharmaceutical industry write the Medicare Part D bill apparently decided that it was time to let the health insurance industry have its bite at the apple.

 

(I wrote a rant here about the problems with the somewhat disastrous roll out of Medicare Part D, which, for folks outside the US who might not be aware of the issue, finally provides some coverage for prescription drugs to seniors and the disabled, but I deleted it because I didn't want the discussion to "degenerate." Suffice it to say that pharmaceutical companies know that the reason prescription drugs are so much cheaper in Canada than in the US is because the Canadian government under its single-payer plan negotiates on behalf of the entire country for drug discounts, whereas the US law enacting Medicare Part D coverage specifically forbade the federal government from negotiating for them. I understand that the law has recently been revised in that respect, however.)

 

Anyway, as a defense lawyer who has represented HMOs and hospitals and who doesn't think that the US health industry is inherently evil, it is definitely my opinion that the US health care system is broken, and the problem isn't going to be solved by so-called tort reform. Doctors are unhappy, and justifiably so in many cases -- I think most people would be shocked by how little they are paid by HMOs per patient per month. On the other hand, HMOs are spending the vast majority of the premiums they receive directly on health care coverage -- pretty much the same percentage that they paid out in the 70s (the main reason that premiums keep rising is because of advances in expensive medical technology and drugs). That doesn't mean that HMOs, as publicly-traded companies, aren't interested in maximizing their profits -- hence the push for this bill. I just find it shocking that a party that pretends to champion "states' rights" would try to pre-empt state laws that require health insurers, as a condition of doing business in the state, to cover medical supplies that diabetics need to control their disease. So much for "compassionate conservatism."

 

I agree (mostly) with what you said. Didn't mean to infer that this bill had anything to do with malpractice, malpractice insurance premiums or the spiraling cost of healthcare in the USA. <--Just one more problem out of a slew of problems that affect healthcare in the USA.

 

As for the last part of your post...I'm disillusioned. You could take this current bunch in DC, compare them to 40 years of democratic rule, and there isn't much difference in their policies. The system is broken. I can't say that enough. You can get elected to a seat in the Federal Government, and despite all of your beliefs or principles, at some point you end up selling your soul to the system, and becoming yet another person in a long line of people who have added to the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lgvincent

Okay, I've called my senators, sent them e-mails and am about to send them letters but I doubt if it will do any good. I hate to say it but there are a lot of politicians I don't trust, especially the senior senator from Alabama. I've worked as a volunteer for the Democratic party on many occasions and as part of my efforts worked to help get this fellow re-elected one year. He won his election but as soon as he did he converted to the Republican party. Now, I don't trust the fellow as far as he can fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.