Baldies' Blog began originally in the UK by a 26 year old journalist with a blood cancer on a mission to inform the world about bone marrow donation.

He has since died, and I took on the cause of making cancer care more transparent for everybody.

Cancer is a disease that will touch everybody through diagnosis or affiliation: 1 in 2 men will be diagnosed and 1 in 3 woman will hear those words, "You Have Cancer."

I invite you to read how I feel along my journey and
how I am continuing to live a full life alongside my Hodgkin's lymphoma, with me controlling my cancer, not my cancer controlling me.

I hope that "Baldies' Blog" will prepare you to handle whatever life sends you, but especially if it's the message, "You Have Cancer."

Get a playlist! Standalone player Get Ringtones

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Historical Legislation?

The House passed what is being called a “landmark health insurance bill” last night under severe controversy over the clear party split that will ensure, or mandate, insurance coverage for Americans.

Only one republican, Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted for the measure in the final vote that won only 220-215. Thirty-five democratic representatives voted against the measures.

Prior to the vote, Democrats added an amendment to the bill sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., that prohibits individuals who receive insurance subsidies from purchasing any plan that pays for elective abortions.

House Democratic leaders agreed Friday night to allow a floor vote on the Stupak amendment to the bill in order to win the support of about three dozen Democrats who feared that the original bill would have subsidized abortions.

The abortion vote solidified support for the legislation, easing some of the fears of conservative democrats (

This additional bill states that no federal money will help subsidize abortion or even any plan covering it. Abortion remains an elective surgery, much like plastic surgery.

As much as I support health reform measures and agree with the need for legislation, I too have my own fears regarding the bill.

I do understand the flip side opinion.

I think penalizing anybody who chooses to remain uninsured is simply un-American; however, this piece of legislation was added to the bill as a demand of the insurance companies.

Big insurance stated loud and clear that they could not function as a profitable business if "they were forced to insure all these sick people," as required through the bill by forcing insurers to accept people with preexisting conditions.

This is how the mandate was put into the bill, to satisfy the capitalists who profit off illness.

I think it's reprehensible, but I do understand that with so many stakeholders trying to get their hands in the pot how the mandate has passed.

I mostly fear that with this bill people will again become complacent with our system. The bill does not address "purging" of this sick, but disallows raising premiums to make them unaffordable to the ill.

Believe it or not, it also does not help me, who has insurance but is severely underinsured. Only in the most dire of circumstances- should I lose my house etc would I qualify.

It does begin to protect small business owners from rising private health insurance costs that can tally upwards of $25,000 yearly, thankfully, which I believe is much needed to help aid our ailing economy and provide stability for my generations’ future.

For me, At least the bill will provide a strong legal backing for any consumer, aka patient, complaints.

I'm am happy there is now going to be regulation of the industries that for so long ran rampant and grew from oppressing the ill, but I think there is much more to be done such as devising a specific means of oversight with penalties to the companies which still continue to practice oppressive methods of profiteering, such as Reliance Standard, which insured me for four years before “purging” me from their system stating that social security received for my child rendered their award null and void.

If I were to provide evidence that I receive social security to what I can only liken to loan sharks they would be looking to collect $20,000+ dollars in repayment.

This bill also will not directly address current problems of the inability to access care, specifically through mail order pharmacies that will not provide medication without procurement with credit.

In the upcoming months, prior to what we hope will be signed into law by the end of the year, legislation as to how, specifically, insurers will be regulated will hopefully be addressed.

Again, I'm afraid that people will become complacent with the bill and move on to the next vogue cause forgetting that many of us will continue to suffer until regulation takes effect. This bill will never recoup my lost income from being purged by reliance standard or stop the denials of claims which plague patients causing stress during all ready difficult times.

It is my hope that in future talks these patient fears will be openly addressed. I do think this is a monumental, historical step forward in creating change and moving towards transparent, patient-centered care.

No comments: