quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Where do you get the idea that it won't cover pregnancy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Where do you get the idea that it won't cover pregnancy?

Because current individually purchased insurance does not without a seperate rider and many insurance companies do not even offer that.  At least in the state I am in.  And since you cannot sell insurance across state lines. . .

So what I am seeing is that what will happen is that at most insurance companies will be required to have a seperate rider for pregnancy and pre-natal care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And yet Thadius , with all of its faults and all of its warts...it is still a step in the right direction(my opinion of course,I do understand from previous posts that you don't agree)hopefully just the first step in an inexorable process that leads to *gasp* a single payer option.

edited to add a missing j ;-)

Mike, I am all for reforming the system, it needs itAgreed. I am all for portability (I think a policy should be owned by a person, like a 401k is)No issue with this point, I am for coverage of folks with pre-existing conditionsI certainly hope everyone agrees on this point, I am for interstate purchase of policies (the competition would do the same for costs as it did for auto insurance)wouldn't we see practices adopted ala the credit card companies...in other words all flocking to the state whith the most favorable laws..."Delaware" for the health insurance industry., I am for tort reform and protections of good doctors and hospitals.As long as it is "reform" and not a stripping of the right to seek redress when those entities screw up ..as inevitably happens There are many things we can agree upon, when it comes to the reform that is needed.Reasonable people and all that ;-) I am just against jumping in blindly to create a new benefit program without fixing any of the causes of the problems in health care. As I have stated before, I have more faith in my fellow man than I do in the politicians and their lackeys in Washington.

This deal is just another example of how bad this legislation is. When you have to promise to fix something after it is passed, before passing it, something is seriously flawed. It would be the same as a car manufacturer selling new cars with engine place holders and donut tires, promising that after you purchase it they will fix it, they just aren't sure when or how.Do you like sausage Thadius,I know you see where I am going here...This is an entrenched industry with a powerful and rich lobbying presence in Washington...fixing this was never going to be clean and easy.No way ,no how...this was the best that could be done...and as I have now stated in more than a few posts hopefully only the first step in what I see as now being a natural progression to the final destination....single payer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And why was that necessary Thadius...could it be that the vested industry involved wielded so much power thru their mostly Republican shills?
Could it be that certain members of the Republican party had declared that the President's efforts on this would amount to his own personal Waterloo
The forces fighting to maintain the status quo were powerful and in most cases without ethics(Death-Panels anyone?) so the legnths it was necessary to get even this flawed half step thru were by necessity extraordinary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

I am very familiar with the process of making sausage in the legislative branches. This went beyond making sausage, this was closet to changing the FDA rules on what is acceptable to be put in, using some unknown synthetic casing, and twisting the arms of the food inspectors, after bribing the city council for the food permits; then finally forcing a group of vegans to eat your sausage because they don't know what is good for them.

"Now serving Dahmer party of 1"[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Where do you get the idea that it won't cover pregnancy?

Because current individually purchased insurance does not without a seperate rider and many insurance companies do not even offer that.  At least in the state I am in.  And since you cannot sell insurance across state lines. . .

So what I am seeing is that what will happen is that at most insurance companies will be required to have a seperate rider for pregnancy and pre-natal care.

Ah okay. Well all I can say to that is that this is healthcare reform, and at the moment companies are able to turn away sick patients. That's going to change, along with a lot of other things, and here's hoping pregnancy will be one of those things in the "bare minimum" plans all insurers will be required to have.