The House bill kills private insurance
- Login to post comments
The thieves in the House inserted a restriction no one is speaking of in their 'plan'...I am not talking about cost, where they lie like a rug, but about insurance...On page 16 they inserted this poison pill
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day"
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&...
So, if you have a plan, you can keep it, but never change it or providers. If you do not have a plan, or want to change your coverage, then your only option is the government program.
God knows what is the other 1000 pages....
I expect the loss of perhaps half a million jobs in the insurance industry...
Anyone out there had their policy canceled because of a pre-existing condition? How did that work out for you?
Here in Maine, that hasn't happened since the early 1990s when the legislature mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions, along with several other tidbits. Together they jacked up the cost of insurance and drove out of state all but a couple of insurers, thus killing competition, leading to ever increasing premiums. That situation spawned the catastrophic disaster known as Dirigo Health. How's all that working for you?
If the state had not imposed those mandates, but instead had established a high-risk pool to help only those people described by those mandates, there's a decent chance it would have worked so well that it could have served as a model for a national system.
But, nope, Obama wants to take Maine's wonderful system into the big leagues and make all those mistakes all over again on a much larger scale.
Does Obama-care cover wallet-ectomies? It sure will mandate a lot of them.
Amen , IAC
From the text above, I gather that if you have an individual policy before the law takes effect, you can keep it, but only if the issuer stops enrolling new people in the plan, and only if the issuer follows the rules with respect to premiums, etc.
Any issuer that wants to enroll new people in an individual plan after the law takes effect will have to first structure its product to meet the requirements for participation in Obama's "exchange," and will have to offer the plan through the exchange.
Thereafter, if you're an individual looking to buy a stripped down plan that won't do much mare than protect you from financial calamity, you're out of luck. Such products will be outlawed.
And thus the tide of freedom continues to ebb in America.
That's a red herring issue, Gearld. The issue is the government is taking control away from private citizens on how they choose to care for their own health care. I don't want or need a nanny government telling me what care I can or more likely CAN'T recieve.
wv_republican:
First, do not confuse health care with health insurance. We are discussing insurance.
Secondly, most Americans get their health insurance from their employer, and so, have almost no choice in selecting what is offered. And as recent studies have shown, employers themselves have fewer and fewer options as to what they can provide.
Third, the health insurance that most Americans have is not transportable; that is, if they leave their job, they also leave their coverage.
This idea that the private sector provides "freedom" regarding health insurance is bogus, unless of course you can afford to buy into a high cost plan.
This idea that the private sector provides "freedom" regarding health insurance is bogus ...
The reason that the private sector doesn't is that it can't. State and federal regulations make it illegal. What's really bogus is the fairy tale that employers are supposed to provide health insurance.
Secondly, most Americans get their health insurance from their employer, and so, have almost no choice in selecting what is offered.
I would ask for a citation on that.
First of all, I believe that "most" Americans don't have employers.
Secondly, virtually every employer I have had offers numerous options for insurance.
Thirdly, I believe that since 1986, Americans have had the option of porting their insurance after they leave their jobs.
I am insured by a company independent of my employers, and I pay exactly $4.00 more per month than I paid when I was employed by my last employer I had who provided insurance. (And eye doctors are covered on my independent plan, but was not on my work insurance.)
This idea that the private sector provides "freedom" regarding health insurance is bogus, unless of course you can afford to buy into a high cost plan.
I agree with this statement.
But as others have noted, there is no real "private sector" in health insurance in this country. What makes the market for health insurance uniquely irrational is the level of distortion imposed by government.
If Gerald had said most Americans have almost no choice, he might begin to peek through some of his liberal prejudices. Either through an employer or on your own, suppose you want to get health insurance that does not contain, say, maternity benefits - presumably because doing so would reduce your premium.
Go ahead, try it at your employer or at Anthem or Aetna or even Dirigo - if you can get someone to answer the phone - and when they get done laughing, perhaps they'll patiently explain that what you're asking is illegal.
quote from Gerald: First, do not confuse health care with health insurance. We are discussing insurance.
Wrong again, Gerald. If the government takes over the health care system, there will be no heath care outside of their controls, so it's all about HEATH CARE and the rationing and limits on care that will be imposed on the population with no other options available, lest the doctor be fined and/or jailed for providing services outside what is "permitted" by government bureaucrats.
The grandfathering provision does indeed limit ones options. It says that the company cannot sell any more of these polices after the first day of the year the law is enacted. Note the language "qualified " plan....IE; from that date on all bills offered must be 'qualified' and meet the governments new standards. A 'qualified' plan in the private sector will simply not be affordable and may not even be offered. All this does is grandfather 'non qualified' plans but insures no new policies are sold. Read all that fine print. Do you really believe any private company (a plan that has to at least break even) can create a plan that takes everyone at an affordable price. In addition, I am not sure how the 'grace period' applies to those grandfathered plans....does one have the 5 years and then one must be in a plan that is government 'qualified' or is the grandfathered plan eternal???
In addition, my concerns about the company dropping the plan remains and the lack of new private options remains. If one wishes to change jobs and keep his coverage under his existing plan, forget it. Grandfathering does not protect that either.
Private Insurance is not all the Health Care for None bill kills....
From page 430
The level of treatment indicated under subpara5
graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat6
ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
7 interventions....
‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer
13 to a hospital or remaining at the current care set14
ting;
15 ‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics;
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills...
The government, not you, will decide when it's time to stop treatement and let you die and will prevent you from being transfered to another hospital. Not an "opinion" it's in the bill, it goes on to list the types of treament that can be stopped, which includes "antibiotics."
No wonder Obamessiah is trying to rush is Heath Care for None/Death bill before the public has a chance to read it.
Two points...
Limbaugh was discussing this yesterday, and I understood him to report that HSA's will be abolished under this plan.
That stinks.
We chose 'bare-bones' insurance (with highest deductible) and we have also participated in an HSA for as long as they have been available. The HSA has been invaluable.
Secondly, with regards to denial of "antibiotics", this has been in practice for quite some time now especially in elderly populations and seriously/terminally ill infants.
We can thank the AMA for pushing their theory of "Cost of Futile Care" until it became a reality.
Gerald said
"This idea that the private sector provides "freedom" regarding health insurance is bogus"
and others here have ably pointed out that the private sector is handcuffed by government mandates.
Is Gerald the least bit open to an America where the people are free to figure these things out without government mandates?
I think the left works on the assumption that poor health coverage someone else pays for is better than good care they must pay for themselves...
Is Gerald the least bit open to an America where the people are free to figure these things out without government mandates?
I'd be interested to learn what Gerald's underlying principles are in matters like this but he seems strangely reluctant to reveal them.
It's apparent that progressives believe that government should run the nation's health insurance system, but why? Efficiency, justice, both, or some other reason?
Gerald -
I don't get my health insurance through an employer. I pay for it myself. Also, I have a wife with multiple sclerosis. If you want your family's health in the hands of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Pres. Obama - I support your choice. But I don't want that for my family.
skf
According to this U.S. Census Bureau report (pdf warning - see page 28), employer provided health insurance continues to decline, but it still provides insurance for 59.7% of Americans, with 9.1% buying their own, 27.0% on one of the government plans (Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA), and 15.8% with no health insurance at all.
Employer provider health insurance is not in fact transportable. First, policies are typically written for just one year, and so they expire. Also, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) mandates that the the only employee health insurance employers can purchase with pretax dollars is group insurance.
There is an interesting tax break of sorts given to those with employer provided insurance, in that the employer is able to count it as a business expense, but it is not counted as income by the employee, so it is essentially tax free. If an employer was to simply give their employees money to buy there own policy, this money would be taxed as income. Those that buy their own health insurance are not able to deduct this expense on their Schedule A unless their total health expenditures exceed 7.5% of their income.
Lack of portability is becoming a real concern amongst workers, especially as more and more pre-existing conditions lead to recision by insurance companies. Because health insurance isn't portable, many workers do not see themselves as :portable" either; that is, they remain at a job simply because of the health insurance.
Another aspect of employer provided insurance is that when a person retires, they typically move to Medicare. For spouses of these people - typically women - they lose their coverage when their spouse retires but are too young to receive Medicare, leaving them without coverage (unless they are able to buy some).
---
As Economy Mike knows, in my mind, any discussion about health insurance reform (and wv, until creating a single provider system like the VA is discussed, we are talking about insurance) must begin with this basic question:
"Should every American have access to affordable, basic health care?"
If your answer to that is, "No," then there is no reason to discuss any major reform to the current system. I don't mean this to be an insult - it's just that the current system does not provide such access, and never will, so if it isn't a priority for you, then I'm happy to leave you with your beliefs. Think of it this way: if you refuse to eat zucchini, it doesn't make sense for me to ask if you'd like to try the delicious zucchini boats I make, or zucchini bread - you're not going to try it, and I'm not going to convince you to do so.
For what it's worth, I favor a single payer/single provider system that would provide care for any American that signs up for it, but that runs parallel with the current private, for-profit health insurance system that most currently use and may wish to keep.
c
"There is an interesting tax break of sorts given to those with employer provided insurance, in that the employer is able to count it as a business expense, but it is not counted as income by the employee, so it is essentially tax free. If an employer was to simply give their employees money to buy there own policy, this money would be taxed as income."
Gerald -
Right. Conservatives have long been well-aware of this. Can we now connect the dots? To wit, this ostensibly benign policy (passed as a concession to labor unions, as you know) is perhaps the major reason the market for health insurance in this country is inefficient, creating additional costs without corresponding benefits. It is due to government policy alone that the market for health insurance divides classes of haves and have-nots.
By the way, your refusal to discuss economic evidence unless you first obtain a concession of agreement in matters of policy is puzzling, a sort of "sentence first, verdict later" requirement that can only serve to limit the information available to you.
I happen to believe that government should provide a system of basic health care for all, with a means-tested safety net, but additionally that it need not interfere in voluntary exchanges between providers and consumers of either insurance or health care, just as we get along fine with a food stamp program doesn't require all consumers to eat rationed, officially-approved food. I believe this on grounds of both efficiency and fairness.
But my views don't prove or disprove economic principles, For example, your notion that profits constitute a cost to consumers is - pardon my condescension - goofy. Refusing to consider that your logic might be flawed, on the grounds that you'd have to touch ideological cooties, is unbecoming to a person of your obvious intelligence and goodwill.
This:
"Should every American have access to affordable, basic health care?"
Is not the issue....this is closer to the issue
"Should every person passing through the United States regardless of legal status get 'affordable' health care made affordable by someone else's contributions. Should this care not be just 'available' but mandatory? Can this new coverage paid for by others be used to gather votes for the Democrats?"
These minor details make it much closer to the real issue.
"Should every American have access to affordable, basic health care?"
As a former medical services provider, I must point out the fact that rising healthcare costs are DIRECTLY related to the amount of money the federal government is willing to pay for said services and the amount of time it takes them to pay their medical bills.
Imagine you own an ambulance company. Now realize this fact: The federal government refuses to pay many of the bills you send out. For example:
If your ambulance company gets a call from John Doe, who is having chest pains, you are required by federal law to transport him to the hospital if he so desires. (This is the case even if Mr. Doe calls the ambulance 5 times a day for the same complaint, and it has always turned out to be gas pains.)
Now, Mr. Doe gets to the ER, and it turns out it is -- SHOCK OF ALL SHOCKS! -- gas.
Medicare -- and in most states, Medicaid -- will not pay for the trip. You, then, must eat the gasoline and maintenance costs for the ride, the money it cost to medicate (per protocol) and you are paying your staff -- extra if it's at night. And YOU are out that money.
Now, let's realize that the bills that they DO pay are reduced vastly -- sometimes 75% less than the "going rate" for services -- and that you get to wait sometimes 18 months for said payment.
Now let's memorialize the fact that the same holds true for everyone in the chain -- doctors, pharmacists, other staff.
It is illegal to charge a different fee for those who pay cash, or even for those who pay the bill early. Everyone has to pay the same amount.
So, as a medical provider, how do you make up for this constant and large loss? There is only one way: raise the costs. The patients who DO pay and whose insurance DOES pay subsidize the federal government.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do know that when I am in California or in several other states in the Union, it is possible for me to pay $35.00 for a filling, or $47.00 for a physical because I go to doctors who do not accept insurance, private or government-funded.
How do you think that works?
It most certainly is NOT because the government gives access to affordable, basic health care.
Nor is it because insurance supplies access to affordable, basic health care.
- Login to post comments
JIMV:
I'll provide the entire quote, which will give your story some context. What is being referred to is a definition of Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage, from H.R. 3200:
I'll have to read more of the bill to see if it precludes you from changing providers, or if your only option is "the government program." What is clear from the text above is that it does neither of these things, but simply states that your current plan cannot be changed if it wants to maintain its current status. This is a benefit to the insurer, not you, the insured.
I'll note that the very next section (in a new subtitle) states:
Anyone out there had their policy canceled because of a pre-existing condition? How did that work out for you?