Ask HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Your Healthcare Reform Questions Now

What is the otlook for the H1N1 virus? Do they see it running its course any time soon? Will it mutate? How will we know if we need new vaccines?

-------------------------------------
Danine N. Spencer
Freelance writer
http://www.danine.net
http: ( http://twitter.com/daninespencer )

And, "Senate Democrats held ranks early Monday in a dead-of-night procedural vote that proved they had locked in the decisive margin needed to pass a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s health care system.

Quoting the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/us/21vote.html?_... ). So here we go.

Morra Aarons-Mele
www.womenandwork.org

Secretary Sebelius,

I'm an admirer of yours and appreciate your position as a pro-choice Catholic in support of women's reproductive rights. Count me as one of those hugely confused by rumored state implementation of Stupak-Pitts-like amendments which would create a patchwork of uneven health coverage for women from state to state. I'm hoping you can provide clarity given that a final bill has yet to emerge from conference committee, let alone the senate.

If, under existing law, women's right to terminate a pregnancy is perfectly legal as part of a spectrum of reproductive health needs, why do "states' rights" trump that right?

Furthermore, if women as a class are singled out in seeking coverage for a specific, gender-related health procedure *and* also expected to pay more for it in a separate, mythical "rider," how is health care equally available if the full spectrum of men's reproductive health needs are covered by all insurers with no special additional fee? Isn't this just a form of disparate costs ("gender rating") by another means, like the fact that currently young women aged 25 are charged up to 45% more for the same health insurance as 25 year old men? ( http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2009/09/hea... ) Isn't gender disparity in health insurance pricing what reform was supposed to eliminate?

Part of my confusion may stem from not being a lawyer, and not being able to decipher some of the specialized language and concepts around this issue. So if you're able, an explanation in everyday language would be great.

Thank you.

Cynematic

P i l l o w b o o k ( http://cynematic.wordpress.com/ )

MOMocrats ( http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/ )

Hi Morra,

I'm late to the party and a lot of great points have already been made, but I don't see mine listed, so here goes:

1. This is a complex piece of legislation. What steps is HHS taking now to get its staff up to speed and ensure that health care providers, insurers and consumers know what they need to know?  Dose she have an estimate of how long it will take to get those information-dissemination mechanisms in place?

2. One commonly mentioned way of reducing costs is to convert to electronic records and regularize billing procedures across the industry. Does she anticipate that the new bill will provide the anti-trust exemption that we've been told is necessary for that to happen?

3. One of the key features of the new bill is intended to boost the ranks of health care professionals to meet the anticipated rise in demand. How is HHS organizing itself to meet this requirement?

It's great that you are doing this, Morra. Another reason why BlogHer rocks!

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

Hi Morra,

I'm late to the party and a lot of great points have already been made, but I don't see mine listed, so here goes:

1. This is a complex piece of legislation. What steps is HHS taking now to get its staff up to speed and ensure that health care providers, insurers and consumers know what they need to know?  Dose she have an estimate of how long it will take to get those information-dissemination mechanisms in place?

2. One commonly mentioned way of reducing costs is to convert to electronic records and regularize billing procedures across the industry. Does she anticipate that the new bill will provide the anti-trust exemption that we've been told is necessary for that to happen?

3. One of the key features of the new bill is intended to boost the ranks of health care professionals to meet the anticipated rise in demand. How is HHS organizing itself to meet this requirement?

It's great that you are doing this, Morra. Another reason why BlogHer rocks!

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

Hi Morra!

Two questions for you from MomsRising staff:

QUESTION 1
How will health reform make sure that children covered by CHIP maintain the same low cost and high quality coverage they have now?

QUESTION 2
When do you realistically expect families to see costs for employer premiums staying stable or decreasing?
Thanks so much! We're excited to hear about how this goes!

-Anita

MomsRising.org ( http://www.MomsRising.org )

WordyDoodles ( http://www.wordydoodles.blogspot.com )

Something like insulin for people with Type 1 Diabetes costs around $115 per vial (for Novolog or Lantus insulin). That same vial gets discounted to $30 per vial if bought in quantities of 10 through Canadian pharmacy websites.

Through most American insurance companies, the co-pay is still 50%, or $56 per vial. What are American insurance companies doing with the extra $26?

Morra - have a safe trip through the snowy white Atlantic seaboard!

My question, as a newly elected NE Ohio small city's city council member, is about the talked about tax on health care premiums above a certain level. My sense is that this tax will be a disincentive to employers.  

I would like the Secretary to specify 1) the structure of said tax, to the extent it's in the Senate and/or House bill and 2) the extent to which municipalities, which themselves are being crushed by declines in revenue due to falling property values, unemployment and in Ohio, shrinking populations but increased costs of most everything, will be expected to cover this tax for their employees.

Thanks!

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

I have gone back and forth on this. What finally clinched it for me, was Gail Collins’ ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/opinion/19collin... )article which jogged my memory about what happened when progressives failed to work together to mobilize support for child care.  See my post at http://www.the-next-stage.com/

( http://www.the-next-stage.com/ )Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

1) How will the Stupak & Nelson language be combined and what will the practical effects be for women?

2) Are there provisions for long-term care in the House bill like the CLASS Act in the Senate bill?

-------------------------------------
Danine N. Spencer
Freelance writer
http://www.danine.net
http: ( http://twitter.com/daninespencer )

I have 2 questions:

1) Why are pre-existing conditions exclusions deferred until 2014 for everyone but children under age 19?

2) The Senate bill appears to leave regulatory responsibility in the hands of HHS for the most part. What assurances can the public have that those regulations will be enforced in a timely and effective manner? I ask this because much of the anger over the loss of a public option relates to the corollary belief that insurers will skirt all regulatory efforts. If there were confidence in regulators, much concern would be alleviated.

Many thanks to BlogHer for this effort, and also Sec. Sibelius.

karoli

odd time signatures ( http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ )
( http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/ )

Morra, this is soooo cool! Awesome and good luck!

As the resident contrarian libertarian, I guess my question for HHS Secretary Sebelius is this: the government seemed to have a very difficult time managing the H1N1 situation. From vaccines that eventually needed to be recalled, to long wait times for shots, rationing and reserving vaccines to those deemed to have a "priority" status, delays, shortages, shipping issues, etc. Meanwhile, Fortune 500 companies were able to get stocks of vaccines and innoculate entire companies in what seemed like half the time. This is a recurring trend when government is called upon to manage nearly any situation.

Now, I realize that the end result of this reform bill may not be a government-run or government-administered plan, but for the sake of allying my fears, can you convince me that a government-managed health care system of any sort would be more efficient or different from what I've experienced at the hands of government in the past? How can you assure me that when given control of something much larger than the distrubution of a single flu virus, that the care we get will not be substandard, metered out according to priority or available only to those willing to wait for it?

Also, given your history in the abortion debate, how do you feel about the Casey "compromise" which may, in fact, affect how women receive care? Based on which state you are in, you may not qualify for the same reproductive treatments other women in other states do...how can the government enforce a policy that is supposed to ensure uniform care for all but that makes such a distinction?

A Mandate means that I am required to buy.  How does a person do that if they just are able to pay for housing and routine life expenses?

This is not what we need in a health care plan. Being mandated to pay to make sure that insurance companies can deny me health care.

Gena Haskett is a BlogHer CE. Blogs:Out On The Stoop ( http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com ) and Create Video Notebook ( http://createvideonotebook.blogspot.com )

I'm one of those frustrated progressives who needs some convincing to support passage of legislation that likely will only leave me angry (there is the possibility of some hope for improvement of the Senate bill in conference but it means that we go back to the 60 vote problem so I'm guessing the Senate bill is more or less final form).

It's hard to formulate my ranting into coherent answerable questions but I'll try (and give you several to choose from, Morra)...

Assuming that the Senate bill is pretty much what the final bill will be, what elements address improved health care access (not just increased access to private insurance through some - important but relatively modest - increased regulation)? It is not just the inability of many to buy health insurance that is broken in our system but that private insurance companies serve as gatekeepers who, based on what is profitable for executives and shareholders, decide who gets what care.

How will reform help the uninsured now while waiting until the 20-teens for major provisions to kick in?

I am not grokking how cost controls will make individual policies that small business owners and entrepreneurs like me buy affordable. Even at a relatively modest income, subsidies max out and my policy for example has double digit yearly increase and has nearly doubled in three years. The penalty likely will be far smaller than the cost of buying insurance even if they can't turn me down for coverage so small business people like me will not be able to afford policies, won't be able to cover employees, will have difficulty expanding their businesses and increase hiring and so on. Can Secretary Sebelius talk me down at all to help me believe small business owners, entrepreneurs, freelancers and contractors like many in the BlogHer community won't be left out of this reform effort?

Does the White House believe that mandating Americans (and taxpayers through subsidies) buy private insurance (i.e., deliver profits on a silver platter) from companies exempt from antitrust laws particularly while prohibiting those companies from providing legal services (i.e. reproductive health care) is in any way good for the public let alone constitutional?

It seems to me that there has to be a more effective middle ground between the my-way-or-the-highway approach taken by Clinton (or so we've been told) and the ultra hands-off let Congress do what they will do approach President Obama seems to have taken. Will we see any more forceful leadership and direction from the executive branch on reforming the reform? (I know she can't really answer this question but I would love to hear the answer so thought I'd throw it out to the universe anyhow).

Despite my grrr-argh-grumble-grumble angst, I do appreciate the White House giving us and you, Morra, the opportunity to ask questions and learn more from Secretary Sebelius.

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/maria-niles ) PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ )

I understand that true U.S. healthcare reform will include several steps and this is just the first one - coming to a compromise that covers those Americans who are currently not covered at all and gets us moving in the right direction.

As someone who endured a birth-related nerve injury that would likely have been prevented if I could have continued seeing my doctor in the UK and delivered my baby there, and the after-effects of the injury which would have been treated for free if I lived in France (this is all documented) leading my family to pay over $150k in unplanned related medical and childcare costs thus far, forcing me to sell my house, try a series of sub-optimal treatments and possibly living the rest of my life in chronic pain, I want to know if there is any chance my daughter will have higher quality healthcare and preventative options that we don't have here in the U.S. now. I want her not to be limited in ways we're limited now.

How long is it going to take for us to catch up with European countries in our programs and preventative care?

Sarah Granger is originally from Kansas. She studied at KU before graduating from UofM. Her dad served in tha Kansas Attorney General's office and has season basketball tickets at Allen Field House where she was lucky enough to sit near Secretary Sebelius over the Thanksgiving holiday. She blogs at BlogHer, the Huffington Post, MOMocrats and SFGate.

I want to know the answers to all the above questions.   But I've gone from feeling hopeful about healthcare to feeling cynical...and I'm sure I'm not alone. 

It seems to me that the people who need healthcare reform the most are being asked to wait, compromise, and pay.  While the people who already have all of the power and all of the money (the insurance companies) are simply being handed a gift.  If this is "the best" our elected officials can do for us, then (I'm sad to say) I've lost all faith in our system of government.

So I guess my question is this...

How will passing (or not passing) a bad healthcare bill prove to struggling Americans that they can trust their government to help them?

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
Also at Catherine-Morgan.com ( http://catherine-morgan.com/ )

What an amazing opportunity!  Congratulations, Morra.

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font ( http://twitter.com/font )-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt;} @page ( http://twitter.com/page ) Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
As you point out in your blog post, the new healthcare legislation will do so much to improve the health of Americans -- and the health of our economy.  But most Americans are still quite skeptical of what this bill will actually accomplish.  What will Secretary Sebelius and President Obama do to publicize the positive benefits of this new, sweeping legislation?

if the argument has merit (and I hop from one side of the fence to the other about whether to believe it or not), then I want to know how the concerns of the people are going to stay front and center after the legislation is in there. I'm not interested in watching any celebrations lauding a successful healthcare reform when this bill clearly isn't reform. I'd rather Obama show up and say, we still have work to do, and we need each and every one of you to continue fighting. And then tell us HOW to fight so it makes a damn bit of difference. Because right now, it feels like once again the rich are gonna get richer off of the poor, and the people who are most vulnerable will continue to be so.

Regardless, Morra, thanks for communicating our questions.

Lara

Notions of Identity ( http://www.notionsofidentity.com )

I found Collins' column ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/opinion/19collin... ) yesterday interesting- she basically says, let's just get a piece of legislation in there. Now is our policy window. Otherwise, this is it. She compares HCR to 1971's childcare support legislative push, which Nixon vetoed.

What do you all think? I hate always being asked to compromise. "Something is better than nothing," blah de blah. Is there merit in this argument?

Morra Aarons-Mele
www.womenandwork.org

How much are we expected to compromise?

Morra Aarons-Mele
www.womenandwork.org

Hey, it is the best subject line I could think of for the questions I have. And, well, I'm sure I'll offend people with my questions, but I think they need to be asked from a moderate, middle-of-the-road POV that isn't happy with what is going on, from either point.

And following that up with someone that is lucky to have insurance, a BCBS PPO (I refuse to do HMO because that's reactive healthcare, not proactive healthcare).

Are the rumors of a back-room tort deal true? Why aren't there any tort reforms tied into the healthcare reforms? My friend's father had to (a) divorce her mother so her mom could not be sued; (b) 'sold' his house to his son; and, (c) retired from being a general surgeon because the insurance is now $8000/month and it was not cost-effective to be a surgeon or doctor anymore. Why isn't the bill getting these costs under control?
If you believe the polls, public support for the bill is under 50 percent now. If the general public - you know, those people that elect these politicians to represent us - has lost confidence in the HCR bills, are you going to listen to the populace and scrap the plans until you come up with something that actually works, or you going to do the "we know better than you, little people" and move forward with something that is likely no good for anyone?
If President Obama turns out to be a one-term president, this whole version 1.0 is a bunch of hooey because there won't be a second term to get it right. Why not try to get it right the first time, instead of piece-mealing it?
As I wrote in my subject line, my insurance (because I was lazy and was without insurance for the 90-day crap while switching to a new job - which is funny, since most jobs make you wait 90-days but I digress) won't pay for pre-existing conditions. Um, most of my stuff is pre-existing, I've had insurance companies (BCBS of MI) refuse to pay for preventative medical tests, and the sort. The bills don't seem to solve any of these issues either, but sure do seem to screw a bunch of people. Is this administration actively trying to be one-term administration?

Hi Morra!!

Jeremy Pepper POP! PR Jots ( http://www.pop-pr.blogspot.com )

At the risk of sounding like an idealist, I want to know why the Administration has completely abandoned the strategies that created its promise in the first place: the people. Instead of using its intelligence in mobilizing the community, it appears that the White House has decided to play politics to appease the conservatives. And those who were once promising transparency aren't exactly following through.  I just can't buy into a bill that doesn't offer a public option or Medicare buy-in for those 55-65, and I believe there are many other citizens who feel similarly. I want to know what the White House and our elected officials are going to do to show they are listening to us?

This bill looks and feels like a watered down version of what it initially promised. I'd like assurance the public isn't being played for a fool in this. I certainly haven't received it thus far.

Notions of Identity ( http://www.notionsofidentity.com )

Thank you for this opportunity to ask questions.   I have blogged about now having healthcare , being denied three times ( http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2009/08/hea... )and the measures I have taken to get the word about the need for Health Care. <http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2009/08/hea...

But frankly, I have been confused of late, disheartened to say the least and unclear about how I can best support or push for change. 

Three questions:

*If this bill is the "starter home" plan, then what does version 2.0 look like and is there a timeline or plan of action as to what the next priorities would be.  What can I look forward to since I am not sure this one is going to do anything for my family right now?

*After being denied health coverage for my family three times, we finally got catastrophic insurance coverage at a price we can live with at $500 a month (note: I am not writing "affordable").  My son recently came down with the H1N1 - the medicine, Tamiflu, was $140.  My insurance covered $10.00 of it.  What the heck am I paying for? What can be done about drug coverage and prices? 

*Now that I have crappy insurance (don't get me wrong I am feeling extremely privileged to have it), will the plan help me get "better" insurance and a "better" rate? Does it allow me to "shop" around as opposed to the "I'll take anything you've got" kind of insurance?

This was an unplanned expense to say the least at the time of year when money is even tighter than normal. (Just keeping my fingers crossed that my daughter doesn't come down with it.  aack. ) 

I'm concerned about the possibility that several states will pass mini-Stupak amendments, severely restricting abortion access for many women.

It seems that the media, and even most politicians, have focused solely on the affect Stupak (on the national or state level) would have on optional abortions.  What seems to be missing from this debate is any knoweldge about medically necessary abortions - otherwise known as a D&C.  D&C's are frequently performed when a natural miscarriage is incomplete to prevent hemorhagging and infection.  

Perhaps I'm hyper aware of this because of my own struggles to have a child and the 2 medically necessary d&c procedures I've endured - both covered by insurance. But I am absolutely infuriated thatv a woman's health and future fertility could be put at risk by such an amendment.  I fail to see how this is any different from restricting access to medical treatment for any other condition.

Is the administration aware of this?  What will the administration do to ensure that women (and this does solely affect *women*) aren't put at risk by the willingness of politicians to serve up abortion rights as "compromise."  The reproductive health of so many women could be at stake.

Lawyer Mama

http://lawyermama.com

http://momocrats.typepad.com

http://dcmetromoms.com 

And if they test you and pay the bill, if the results indicate you're sick and later you're without insurance for more than 60 days for some reason like the person in whose name you have insurance is unemployed for a bit and can't afford COBRA payments, then when you do get a new insurance company, they probably won't pay for anything related to Celiac disease because now they call it a pre-existing condition. So, yes, it's like Vegas, "Let's make a deal" for your health.

You pay them and they pay for the tests only to use the tests results against you in the future, and like you say, you're not the doctor. You may not have ever considered that you needed these tests that the Insurance companies later use to penalize you. So, now you've confirmed you're ill, but what can you do about it if you're not wealthy? Health care costs are outrageous.

I have a documented kidney issue discovered when I was in my late 20s and the doctors could never figure out what caused it. Think of how many illnesses an underwriter can blame on that! And btw, should you seek a mental health professional's help to get you through the trauma of knowing you're sick but you don't have the money for your treatment, then you can officially hang it up. Many insurance companies will use mental health care visits to reject any type of coverage completely. No, I'm not making that up.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

I had been waiting years to be tested for celiac disease.  Getting a diagnosis is important if you want to find out (read: get insurance company to pay for you to find out) what kind of fun damage you may have done to your kidneys, intestines etc. (Also, people with undiagnosed celiac have an unfortunate tendency to die of digestive cancers)  Finally, we had insurance  and I thought it was time to have the blood work done.  Turns out, since I am already on a gluten restricted diet the tests were inconclusive.  Since they were inconclusive, that must mean they aren't necessary, right?  So the insurance company won't pay.  Now I am stuck paying off $300 in bills for the tests.  At first I was flogging myself for not researching the matter more thoroughly beforehand and realizing that I would need to eat wheat for a time before the tests.  Then it occurred to me:  hey, I'm not actually a doctor.   I didn't order the tests, and I'm not supposed to be the expert.

So after paying $700 a month for 6 months, and a $35 co-pay, and a bunch of visits to the doctor, all I got out of it was a bill for another $300.  I was better off before I ever went, and I still don't know what's wrong with me.  It's almost like going to the doctor is gambling.  If the tests say you are sick then the insurance company will pay your bill.  If they say you aren't, that'll be $3-600.  Preventive care and screening is just a bad bet. (And you don't even get a trip to Vegas.) 

Tacoma Mama ( http://www.tacomamama.com )

I've stopped watching healthcare reform debate. I feel like so many compromises have been made that we're going to end up with window dressing only, so I guess I'm in the group to which Elisa refers. I think that when it's all said and done, various partisan activists on all sides will say what judges tell divorced couples, "Well, since nobody's happy about my decision, it must be fair." And then these partisans will pat each other on the back.

I am disheartened because this debate is about people like me, people who've watched their parents benefit from Medicare but know those were probably the country's golden years, and whether young or old, I'll never see any peace of mind where I can go to a doctor and not worry about a bill, not unless I win the lottery.

I recently cancelled my COBRA insurance with Blue Cross Blue Shield. I was paying $560.80 per month, which is probably better than some other premiums I've seen, and yet I was still trying not to go to the doctor because I know that whatever you say, whatever tests are done, whatever you request, is written down and turned over to the insurance company mainly to be used as ammunition by the underwriters to avoid paying the bill. People talk about a socialist agenda and loss of freedom. What about how we live now, under the Insurance Company Gestapo?

Finally, I had to go to the doctor because I'm on a medication that the doctor won't continue to prescribe without blood work. So, I went in, and since I'm 49 and reported some other symptoms to the doctor, he ordered a few tests, which came to $635.00. Hmm. That's only $75 more than the monthly premium I'd been sending in for about 7 months before I needed ordinary tests.

The insurance company kicked it back. They wouldn't pay it. The doctor's billing department said, they'd send it back with my chart notes so the insurance company could see the tests were related to a medical concern. They said the underwriters tend to kick back anything if a symptom like hair thinning is mentioned because they think it must be cosmetic and they don't do cosmetic. After the doctor's office refiled, the insurance co. still didn't pay. Instead they requested all my records. They wanted to see if they should pay for anything at all ever, I suppose.

Last month I cancelled my health care insurance. If after I've faithfully paid nearly $4000 to someone and the first time I need testing related to something like menopause they start trying to figure out how not to pay the bill, what's the use? I'd be a schmuck to keep throwing $561 each month at these people for nothing, after they'd made it clear they won't pay for anything ever, except maybe a visit to the dentist after I've paid a deductible.  (I paid $5608 to them in 2009 before I cancelled. What do I have for that?)

Why do we have health insurance? Because we've been told that it's the wise thing to do. We should have it in case we have a catastrophic event, right? 

Let' see, oh, a stroke would be a catastrophic event, right? But will your insurance company pay for your treatment, even your initial hospital visit, if they find out you have high blood pressure. Will they pay if you go in with a heart attack if they discover you had high cholesterol a few years ago? Will they cover your diabetes if they discover you're 20 lbs overweight? Even after you lose the weight, will they pay it because you were once overweight and who knows what that caused? And a spouse beating you to a pulp is also pretty catastrophic, but I hear some insurance companies won't cover that either.

I'm paying on a $6,000 hospital bill right now because a while back a different insurance company refused to pay a testing bill for a test, btw, that revealed I was fine. They didn't even follow up. They just sent out notices to my doctor's offices saying they wouldn't pay b/c of a pre-existing condition, and when I checked into it, they never even bothered to get my records from my doctor. And I definitely did not have a pre-existing condition related to the testing. And there was nothing I could do about it because I had 60 days to challenge them and they'd used that time up pretending to check with my doctors, which they never did.  I don't have the money for a lawyer to fight that because, well, I needed money to pay my new insurance company $560.80 per month and couldn't afford a lawyer. Plus, for what the lawyer would charge me, I'm sure paying for the test myself was cheaper.

My question is will this new bill help people like me at all? I can't afford to send anybody nearly $7,000 per year for them to tell me that they've got me covered when all that's really going on is a game in which I send them money and they look for ways to not pay any of doctor bills, not even something like a hormone test for a woman who may be pre-menopausal and would like to know. Wouldn't that $7,000 be put to better use for preventive care instead of to line an insurance company's pockets?

I've heard that under the new health care bill insurance companies can't refuse anyone coverage based on pre-existing condition. So, what does this mean? Will everyone get coverage, pay premiums only to have insurance companies refuse to pay for testing anyway? I ask this because technically I had coverage, they couldn't refuse to accept my premium payments under COBRA, but what was the result? I ended up paying money to both the doctor and the insurance company.  I paid the doctor for an actual service. I paid the insurance company to tell me that they've got my back, but that's just it. All they were doing was telling me that. They didn't have my back on anything at all.

When I see documentaries on health care coverage in countries like Great Britain, France and Canada, I get depressed. I start saying to myself, "I thought I lived in the greatest country in the world, but something's wrong. What's wrong with us that we in our wealthy nation don't care enough about our citizens to come up with a health care plan that actually helps people, that any effort to do this becomes the people against the health insurance lobby?"

Will this bill actually give us something better than the status quo?

Is health care reform a right or a privilege? ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-re... ) (http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-re... ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-re... ) )

http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-inusran...

http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2009/11/dear-uspstf-wh...

I didn't intend to write so much, but now that I've gotten it out, I'm glad.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Doesn't a mandate to buy insurance just benefit the insurance companies?

Why doesn't it make more sense to fund Federally run hospitals and clinics for those in need?

BlogHer Contributing Editor, Sports and Fitness ( http://blogher.org/topic/sports-fitness ) Sarah and the Goon Squad ( http://sarahandthegoonsquad.com/ ) Draft Day Suit ( http://draftdaysuit.com/ )

The thing I find troubling about asking Secretary Sebelius (who I have admired since my law school days at the University of Kansas!), is that when we met with Ms. Jarrett in the summer, she told us that the President would fight for a health care bill that WOULD cover all people and that he would fight for a public option.  That just doesn't seem to be what is happening.  So, what can she tell us that will make me feel that the administration will fight to improve whatever we get?

At a news conference on Saturday, the current legislation was called a "starter home" and that we would need to work toward something better.  Can the millions of Americans who need health insurance now afford to live through the "starter home" phase?

Also, I would like to know what the administration is going to do to keep women's health issues, especially reproductive rights, from being chipped away until nothing is left?

I would love to know the answer to these questions as well.  Being single and self-employed, if I could afford any type of insurance now I would have it.  Without a public option, will I be forced to purchase a policy that I cannot afford?

I woke up to the news and am very curious. 

Politics & News Contributing Editor Erin Kotecki Vest ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

Thanks to the Manager's Amendment, it is now possible for states to basically enforce their own Stupak if they so choose.  How can we justify the idea that women (especially poor women) now have more rights in some states than in other states?

exactly what I want to know. Watching the progress of health care reform through the Congress has been terribly discouraging. At this point, it's hard to feel that there is anything left but a travesty. Is anything good still in the bill? Is there any reason not to reject the whole thing?

Virginia DeBolt
BlogHer Technology CE ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/virginia-debolt ) | Web Teacher ( http://www.webteacher.ws/ ) | First 50 Words ( http://first50.wordpress.com )

What assurances can Secretary Sibelius give us that the Obama administration will make improving this bill a major prioirty?

I think many many Americans want to know.

Morra Aarons-Mele
www.womenandwork.org

This is not the way I expected it to turn out. No public option, no Medicare buy–in for people 55-64. But I don’t want to kill the bill.

I’m reconciled (sort of) to passing this flawed bill as a first step and trying to talk myself into a "don’t mourn, organize!” mind set.

I’m going to work like crazy to make sure the people who came out for Obama in 2008 come out in 2010 to give the president the votes he needs to fix this bill. Too bad Lieberman doesn’t come up or re-election until 2010.

What assurances can Secretary Sibelius give us that the Obama administration will make improving this bill a major prioirty?

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

My mother had cancer twenty years ago and has fought that pre-existing condition for years. I wonder what would have happened to her if she hadn't had my dad's health insurance. I want to hear more about the public option and what it can do for the uninsured. Private-only insurance is leaving millions uninsured. The current system is broken for anyone who can't afford it. How do we make sure all Americans can get affordable health insurance through any available option?

Rita Arens writes at Surrender Dorothy ( http://surrenderdorothy.typepad.com ) and BlogHer and is the editor of Sleep is for the Weak ( http://tinyurl.com/9pg62e ). She is BlogHer's assignment and syndication editor.

I am upset that Obama and Congress aren't fighting harder for a much stronger public option.   The country needs leadership, not deals.  America needs economic stimulation - the kind that comes from supporting a strong creative class.  Without a strong public option entrepreneurs are at a disadvantage.  How can anyone roll the dice and gamble on a startup with out of control health care costs?  We need the creative spirit of America to have a fighting chance.  Please ask her why Obama & company are compromising on the very heart of healthcare reform?

I understand the Senate version of the bill does not contain a public option or cost controls, but does include a mandate that everyone purchase health insurance.  (With subsidies for the poorest Americans.)

As an uninsured individual, what assurances do I have that my family will be to afford insurance after health care reform?  Last year, we had health insurance through my husband's employer for a short time.  We paid over $700 a month for the privilege and I am still paying off bills for simple medical tests which were not fully covered under that plan.  We could only afford to pay these premiums because of the job he had at the time, but we are not living anywhere near the poverty level.  Without purchasing insurance through an employer, our premiums would be significantly higher and likely exceed our monthly housing costs.

Like most uninsured Americans, if we could afford to pay this much, we'd already be doing it.  How will health care reform ensure that people like us are able to purchase mandated health coverage at a price we can afford?  What effect will such a mandate have on the already fragile consumer economy, and what safeguards will be in place to make sure that health insurance plans  1) provide full coverage in exchange for their premiums and 2) are not so expensive that families have to cut out other necessities?

Jennifer Boutell

Tacoma Mama ( http://www.tacomamama.com )

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font ( http://twitter.com/font )-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 415 0;} @font ( http://twitter.com/font )-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-520092929 1073786111 9 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;} p {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page ( http://twitter.com/page ) Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

I appreciate that having a bill is better than nothing (and getting rid of the "pre-existing condition" excuse is HUGE). I have high hopes that once the thing is passed it can be amended into something closer to what we all thought we were going to get when we started thsi process. In the meantime, I have the following questions:

 1.       Without a public option and no option to sign up for Medicare, how does the bill control spiraling healthcare costs? And what is going to incent  insurance companies to keep their premiums low?

2.       My understanding of the Senate bill as it currently reads is that the mandate to purchase insurance doesn’t kick in for a couple of years – and neither do the subsidies to help people afford it. What about middle class folks who need affordable access to healthcare NOW and are unable to find coverage due to a number of reasons (i.e., costs, pre-existing conditions – which apparently everyone who makes it past the age of 40 has)?

3.       A provision that would allow us to import prescription drugs at lower rates from Canada just failed to make it into the bill. Could someone set me straight as to why we need to import cheaper drugs from other countries (where costs are lower because the government mandates it so) rather than setting price ceilings or negotiating bulk rates ourselves?

Not only do Progressives feel gutted, but many people worry that the bill ( http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/14/0912... ) won't even work to contain the costs of medical care, which are a huge problem. Atul Gawande' ( http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/14/0912... )s article in the New Yorker is a must read here. Even though the HHS Report says the Reform Bill will save families money, if medical care delivery doesn't get less exhorbitant, no one will be able to keep up, not even the US Government!

Morra Aarons-Mele
www.womenandwork.org

Ok, so I really can't skip it since I am the Political Director here at Blogher and all... but... I want to know why this reform is important, in particular, to women and girls. Tell me why women and girls MUST have this bill passed. 

See you bright and early Monday! 

Politics & News Contributing Editor Erin Kotecki Vest ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

OK, that's brutally early Pacific time, but I'm not an early bird for nothing. I will be there.

My question is: A lot of progressives feel like health care reform has been gutted at this point, and that passing a bill now is just for show.

To rebut that, what would you identify as three improvements this legislation is delivering that *truly moves the needle* on changing our health care system?

Elisa Camahort Page BlogHer elisa@blogher.com My BlogHer profile ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) truly shows you everything I do online...Check it out!!