Reformers Target Insurers with Protest Billboard

"They take our money and then deny claims; raise premiums, co-pays, and deductibles at will; fabricate pre-existing conditions; and refuse to cover the treatments our doctors prescribe," while escaping assurance of help in the event of catastrophe by capping lifetime coverage.

How can this industry call itself "insurance" and proceed unchallenged for doing so?

"Medical claims loss" is the phrase that would have been out there, instead of "death panels," if we had real journalism. The elephant in the room in the health care discussion is the acceleration of profit by the major health insurance corporations (HICs) at the expense of - guess what - health care. This is what medical claims loss means. A decade or so ago, HICs paid out over 90% of what they took in. Medicare still requires this. But in the private market, the numbers are now down into the high 70s.

Why? Because the same folks on Wall St. that pushed for mortgage lenders to make profits beyond their capacity are pushing the HICs. The difference is that, in an unregulated market, with no requirements for any particular health outcome, HICs have been able to do it.

No health reform means these profits keep accelerating. When do we take this seriously? When half the money we spend on health care goes to these middlemen? When 25% of our GDP, instead of 15%, goes to health care? (The next highest % of GDP for health care in the world is in Switzerland, around 11%.)

This is unsustainable, destructive to the economy, unpatriotic, and unfair to our most hardworking people. There is no moral or rational justification for what the HICs are doing, and they know it. So of course they want us to talk about 'death panels,', the Tasmanian fruit fly, or anything but the real issues.

Journalism will have responsibility if we fail to have a national policy discussion and come to some conclusion, just as it was responsible for the lack of discussion of the Iraq invasion.

If the Baucus Finance Committee bill keeps it's 4:1 age discrimination ratio for insurance premiums in the exchange you will need a whole lot more cemetery plots.

Older Americans without employer provided insurance with modest incomes of $43,500 would be required to pay over $1000 a month for a basic vanilla insurance policy.

Nobody is gonna be able to afford that cost.

Within the past year I have been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer, colon cancer, a number of other minor maladies and 5 weeks ago had 3 stents put in one artery; the other is also clogged but the treatment the physicians chose was to combat it through cholesterol pills, a blood thinner, a beta-blocker, diet and exercise.

Both my cancers are in remission now, am on hormone therapy (Zoladex - 1 implant every 90 days) for the prostate cancer and take a total of 13 1/2 pills each day of 7 different drugs. I also have 2 gels each day for Rosacea and 2 eyedrops, 1-2x per day and one at bedtime, for glaucoma. I am legally blind in my right eye, eyesight is diminishing in my left eye but I got a prescription eye glasses that helps that problem.

I still find it difficult to walk even a couple of blocks without tiring, worse if it is uphill. I turn 70 next month, have just a few thousand dollars to my name, work 7 days a week keeping a nonprofit art gallery going, live in the gallery because my social security income of $1,023 per month doesn't allow any other arrangement.

I am extremely fortunate in being a veteran (6 years active duty, 2 inactive) of the Navy - 1958 to 1964, and while I qualify as being a Vietnam Vet, I will never say that because I didn't serve in direct combat, and if I made that claim it would denigrate those who actually fought. My health care is via Veterans Administration, and they have a policy of treating vets who served but have a poverty level income.

If I had not enlisted years ago, I would be at the mercy of Medicare, and I have serious doubts that my needs would have been met. Regardless, there are millions of people who have no coverage - If I had been one of them, I would either be dead now, or dying someplace.

My gallery - MOCA DC in Georgetown - is hosting an exhibit in October featuring art, video and written word on the need for health care reform. Exhibitors include artists who are active nationwide and associated with a national campaign for health care reform: Tens of millions of Americans are in desperate need of real health coverage.

David R. Quammen, Washington, DC
MOCA DC 1054 31st St NW, Washington DC 20007 - 202.342.6230 Exhibit runs from October 2 to 31

If Insurance companies win, you lose?

See video:
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=6199

I hate to disappoint these reformers but Max Baucus' Senate Finance Committee's Healthcare Reform Bill allows private insurance companies to charge more for premiums based on a number of factors including age. These insurance companies provide more campaign funding for Max Baucus than any other legislator in either the House or the Senate. Under those circumstances why would anyone want to push for a piece of legislation that is going to be shaped by this venal politician?

Also, the White House made a deal with the pharmaceutical lobby to refrain from negotiating with them for drug prices, allowing them to charge whatever they want under healthcare reform?

Do these protestors really think that the White House or the Senate really cares about them and will make things better?

The politicians see this piece of legislaton as an opportunity to deliver the agenda that the health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies have paid them to deliver. The healthcare industry is cashing in on their investment and asking to have full performance of the campaign promises they had secured earlier when they paid their contributions.

What makes these protestors think that the Democrats are the good guys and the Republians are the bad guys when both parties are in hock to the health care industry, only the Democrats more so?

What makes them think that it's going to get better and not worse?

And why don't they wonder why the government just doesn't expand Medicaid and Medicare to take care of people who have pre-existing conditions or who can't afford health insurance? Why make insurance mandatory? So all insurance companies will have more customers while they control what Congress does to regulate their industry by paying campaign contributions to influential members and by making presidential campaign contributions to the man in the White House and to his party.

its certainly nice that HCAN can put up misleading billboards like this but insurers are BANNED from speaking to their customers about how the upcoming legislation may affect them. Wasn't there some little thing called Freedom of Speech or does that just apply to those who agree with the administration's agenda?? If/When Bush did this most were up in arms about it. Why aren't they speaking up now???

These insurers are only into showing profits and taking big bonuses for the big boys. The PUBLIC OPTION is the only way to cut off their fingers as they continually take money and give no benefits.
I went 22 years without health insurance because I could not afford it. I was healthy then and I am healthy now because I use acupuncture, homeopathy, herbs and yoga. I do see my allopathic doctor but she isn't going to put me on medication or ask for procedures I do not need.