Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think once employers find out that they can dump off the expensive private market health insurance, for the cheap government insurance, then we will see a lot of people being forced into the government system.
I dont understand universal health care - in the beginning I thought it would be good for those people who made too much for state aid but couldn't afford to have insurance taken out of their net pay (I was one for a few years) but the more I hear about it the less I like it. There seems to be a lot of information that's being left out.
People want affordable healthcare. I don't think they care whether it's provided by insurance companies or the government. How many veterans do you know who opt for private coverage over the VA? I imagine there are some, but I don't know any. The Congress seems to be satisfied with its government plan. I haven't heard of anyone skipping Medicare for Humana.
Take a look, tell me what you think, because from my chair, it appears that if the current health care bill is signed, no one will be buying private health care any more unless they conform to the new rules set by the government, which does not have to compete with anyone.
The requirements have not yet been made available, so no one will be able to enroll new members until the government decides what the want to require.
Not only that, but if you do not have any life insurance it looks like you will be taxed for not having any insurance.
Currently, each state has its own insurance rules, which may or may not conform to the government's. While I am not a big proponent of govt. intervention, I do think some standards so that people know what they are getting is a good thing. So many people think they are covered for something, then get a big surprise when they need the coverage the most.
My feeling is that if the private insurance carriers are afraid of losing business if/when the public option becomes available, that is evidence they have generally been screwing the pubic.
You got half baked truth served to you, a load of crap would be more like it. And it was enough to get your biased mindset only dig deeper in the direction intended. Not sure which source you used to read "the whole section", but this should be it.
Now, allow me to help you analyze/understand, because people you listen to and read have done a pretty lousy job. Start with the title itself and the rest of the text quoted as well:
Sec. 102: PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP THE CURRENT COVERAGE
(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- 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 of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.
Then try to answer this to yourself: What do you think grandfathered health insurance implied? Why do you think this provision has been made? How in the world did you manage to conclude that the plan is to make the public option mandatory?
Your snide superiority complex notwithstanding, you don't need to, and likely aren't able to, help me understand anything. I do know how to read for comprehension, not just to copy the words. As to the source of the "whole section" I read, that is fairly irrelevent, as the document is the docement, from wherever it is downloaded.
You sound angry, and you make a nice show of pointing out to me something I am missing. Then you fail to point out anything. You simply repost the exact language I already had from my source, which you seem to suggest provided me with something other than the exact text of the bill. And of course, all that does is reinforce what I think to be true. I can't tell if it's becasue you aren't understanding my point, or if you just want to argue.
So, to answer your questions; We all know what grandfathered means. If you have coverage and want to keep it, you may.
This provision has been made so that defenders of the bill can say, "Look, you don't have to go with the government plan if you don't want it, you can keep what you have."
Of course teh government "public option" is mandatory. This bill makes it MANDATORY for every person to have, and every employer to offer, health insurance. It goes on to dictate how and under what terms that insurance must be offered. For the first five years, those grandfathered policies will still be in effect, and after that, even those will have to be made to conform to the "public option." If one MUST have insurance, and the only insurance that may be sold is the government option, where is there any choice? Is there any clause, any language you can point to, that allows a company or an individual to opt out of the public option? Those "grandfathered insurers" will not be able to enroll anyone new in those plans, as per your 1 a above. So where is the option for anyone to purchase new insurance other than the "public option"? And five years in, where is the option for anyone to HAVE any option other than the "public option"?
Last edited by Bill Keegan; 07-18-2009 at 03:03 PM..
People want affordable healthcare. I don't think they care whether it's provided by insurance companies or the government. How many veterans do you know who opt for private coverage over the VA? I imagine there are some, but I don't know any. The Congress seems to be satisfied with its government plan. I haven't heard of anyone skipping Medicare for Humana.
If it ends up costing us $2 trillion, then it will not be very affordable, and the bean counters will find ways to cut costs.
Once public healh care costs get out of control, and Medicaid is close to going broke, who will be the ones making the decisions whether or not $40,000 is too much taxpayer money for grandma to get a cancer treatment, if it will only extend her life by one or two years? Or if expensive treatments and pills are seen as a waste of taxpayer money for some person 70 years old, no matter how strong their spirit is?
Quote:
Jane Sturm told the story of her nearly 100-year-old mother, who was originally denied a pacemaker because of her age. She eventually got one, but only after seeking out another doctor.
"Outside the medical criteria," Sturm asked, "is there a consideration that can be given for a certain spirit ... and quality of life?"
"I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit," Obama said. "That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people.'
0bama suggested that one expeditious way to curtail medical costs is for the old and sick to look at end of life care, and to forgo having expensive surgery or medical procedures, and take a painkiller instead.
I think there will be a list of treatments, medical procedures, tests and drugs in column "A" and column "B" will have the cut-off age for them. "Sorry grandma, your just not worth the taxpayer dime, take a pain killer.'
0bama suggested that one expeditious way to curtail medical costs is for the old and sick to look at end of life care, and to forgo having expensive surgery or medical procedures, and take a painkiller instead.
This is not true. He was talking about patients for whom there is no hope for recovery forgoing heroic procedures. That is, in fact, what is being done right here in the US, today, in many situations. Age does not factor into it.
Currently, each state has its own insurance rules, which may or may not conform to the government's. While I am not a big proponent of govt. intervention, I do think some standards so that people know what they are getting is a good thing. So many people think they are covered for something, then get a big surprise when they need the coverage the most.
My feeling is that if the private insurance carriers are afraid of losing business if/when the public option becomes available, that is evidence they have generally been screwing the pubic.
What if people are young and healthy, and just want cheaper insurance for catastrophic care, just like some people only have liability car insurance with a $2,000 deductible?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
