[HM2Viking]

http://www.americanprogressaction.or...WJcP7H&b=83210

HEALTH CARE -- SENATE CONSIDERS BAD MEDICINE FOR HEALTH CARE CRISIS: In honor of what the right has labeled "health week," the Senate is considering Sen. Michael Enzi's (R-WY) bill to allow small businesses to join across states lines to buy health insurance. The bill would allow these businesses to "purchase insurance that overrode coverage requirements mandated by the states." A Families USA report lists the kind of coverage requirements people may lose if the current bill becomes law: "cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screenings; mammograms; mental health care; well-child care; emergency services; alcoholism treatment; dental anesthesia; diabetic supplies and education; drug abuse treatment; metabolic disorders; and home health care." Many consumer and health groups, including the American Cancer Society, and the American Diabetes Association, are opposed to the bill because fewer people would get proper preventive care. The American Medical Association also has expressed "strong concerns" about the bill. Also, the Enzi bill "would result in higher, discriminatory health insurance premiums for people with health problems and disabilities because it would override state laws that protect people from significant premium differences based on health status, age, gender, and other factors."

[Fuzzy]

Heck, I'd be happy with the Enzi bill. Maybe I could get health insurance. I don't get the health screenings now, although I can pay for them if I can make payments. I just can't pay if something is found. So right now, I just hope that I don't get anything like cancer.

The people against this bill don't see it this way as they're already covered by a health plan of some sort.
Fuzzy

[Bugpie]

SOURCE: American Nurses Association
http://vocusgr.vocus.com/grconvert1/webpub/ana/ProfileIssue.asp?IssueID=4491|Senate&XSL=ProfileIs sue&hidLegislatorIDs=
(links to all documents can be accessed through source)

The Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2005 - S. 1955

Save Health Care Protections in Your State—Oppose S. 1955!
5/12/06 UPDATE--Victory on S.1955!

We won! Thanks to your hard work, supporters of S. 1955 failed to win enough votes to move forward with the bill, and it has been pulled from consideration. Supporters needed 60 votes to bring S 1955 forward for further consideration--they received only 55. This procedural vote, called "cloture" was the definitive vote on the bill, and failure to win cloture stops this very damaging bill in its tracks.


This victory was hard fought, and would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of nurses and our the combined efforts of the nursing community with our coalitoin partners.


Let your Senators know how you feel!
You can learn more about how your senators voted on our Vote Scorecard Page. If you Senators voted "NO" on cloture -- a vote against S 1955 -- be sure to thank them. If they voted "Yes" on cloture -- a vote for the bill-- you may also want ot reach out to them to share your disappointment.


This may not be the last that we see of S. 1955 -- it is important that all Senators know that nurses are watching and that erosion of state laws protecting consumers and ensuring access to APRNs and other providers is not the right way to address the problem of the uninsured.

Send an e-mail TODAY by clicking on the “Write a Message” button below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why ANA Opposes S. 1955. It strips coverage that consumers have and depend on, eliminates key health care benefits and guaranteed access to Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, and raises the cost in health insurance for those most in need of care. There is no evidence that this legislation would ensure any real expansion of health insurance coverage, or that it would lead to more affordable health insurance for small businesses.

S. 1955 eliminates important health care coverage protections that only exist in the states.
S. 1955 pre-empts state benefit and provider mandate laws for all state regulated insurance leaving insurers free to offer policies that exclude basic benefits.
Millions of Americans would lose coverage for such important primary and preventative care as: screenings for breast, cervical, colorectal and prostate cancer; well-child care and immunizations; contraception; emergency services; mental health; and diabetes supplies and education.
This preemption also overrides state provider mandates that guarantee access to Nurse Practitioners (32 states) Nurse Midwives (30 states) Nurse Anesthetists (17 states) and Psychiatric Nurses (18 states). Please click here to find out more about APRN mandates in your state.
S. 1955 includes such significant preemption of state law that it even allows insurers to sue states in federal court if they attempt to act on behalf of their residents.

Some insurers can even go directly to the federal court of appeals and get an expedited review of their case, a right not afforded to patients.
S. 1955 invites cherry-picking and fraud.

The bill still invites favorable treatment of those who are young and healthy, at the expense of those who have more complex health care needs. It also invites insurance fraud, through weak certification requirements.
S. 1955 is a bad deal for small businesses.

Insurers choose what plans are offered and what benefits they cover. Employers can select only from the plans offered. While young healthy groups may see more affordable rates, as soon as an employee gets sick or hurt, insurers can raise rates dramatically. The bill It will subject small businesses to unaffordable rates if their work force is older, sicker or very small.
Detailed Information and Resources on S. 1955

How You Can Help Stop S. 1955!


ANA Letter Opposing S 1955 – March 10, 2006
List of Organizations Opposed to S. 1955 - May 3, 2006
Coalition S. 1955 Opposition Letter - April 4, 2006
Claim vs. Reality on S 1955 – National Partnership for Women & Families - March 14, 2006
National Conference of Insurance Legislators S. 1955 Opposition Letter

Governors letter (May 5, 2006)



Letters of Opposition from State Insurance Commissioners/Attorney Generals:
Letter of opposition signed by 41 state Attorneys General
Illinois Insurance Commissioner

New Hampshire Department of Insurance
Louisiana Department of Insurance
Letters from California, Florida, Nevada, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin Insurance Commissioners (together in one document)
American Nurses Association Briefing for States on S. 1955 – Speaker Beth C. Fuchs, Ph.D., Health Policy Alternatives - April 10, 2005
S. 1955 – Current Text – April 6, 2006
S 1955: Section By Section Summary – Chairman Michael Enzi’s (R-WY) Markup of S. 1955 - April 6, 2006

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Heck, I'd be happy with the Enzi bill. Maybe I could get health insurance. I don't get the health screenings now, although I can pay for them if I can make payments. I just can't pay if something is found. So right now, I just hope that I don't get anything like cancer.

The people against this bill don't see it this way as they're already covered by a health plan of some sort.
Fuzzy

I personally view health care as a basic human right not a privilege. This bill was a bill of goods. If BUSHCO was really interested in fixing the small business insurance problem they would have introduced a bill that authorized business purchase of insurance through the Hederal Employee program.

[Fuzzy]

I'm betting that it would have been shot down too. Remember those people are already covered. I don't think that they really care much about those of us that don't have health insurance. I don't care what political party they belong too. They just bring it up in order to get re elected. It's on that 'feel good but let's do nothing agenda".

Fuzzy

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I'm betting that it would have been shot down too. Remember those people are already covered. I don't think that they really care much about those of us that don't have health insurance. I don't care what political party they belong too. They just bring it up in order to get re elected. It's on that 'feel good but let's do nothing agenda".

Fuzzy

I really disagree with this idea. There are substantive differences in attitudes towards health care and the social contract between the democrats and republicans. If you look back on the history of the single payer health care movement in the US it is an idea that has always been brought forth by the Democratic Party and labor Unions while the Republicans have always shot it down. (Going back to the Truman Administration.)

There will always be time for the Republican Congress to pass tax cuts for the wealthy but real effective health care reform will be put on the back burner. The real goal of HSA's is to have patients pay more for their health care and receive fewer services for their health care dollars.