Healthcare reform

[NorthSideSox72]

Except you left out the part where someone else pays for the policy...

Maybe the best idea should have been that the fines paid in by people and businesses choosing not to insure, amount to a fund to cover the upfront cost of that type of event for people in that situation. Its almost like mandatory insurance, for not having insurance.

 

[Rex Kickass]

I am still troubled by the no pre-existing clause. I see a potential for abuse. If someone decides to not have insurance, then is diagnosed with cancer, they can then buy insurance. Insurance is based in part by having the people that do not get sick pay for those that do. If people just wait until they have a major problem, it runs the cost way up.

The problem is, though, that we end up paying to treat these people anyway. If they aren't insured, you pay for it through higher medical costs for yourself when these patients default on their treatment, or the state or federal government ends up picking up much of the check through charity care programs. Further, I don't see this as being something that will be super widespread either.

 

A few years ago, I had a specific health scare and had to have special bloodwork done. (The bloodwork is usually only done on people who are diagnosed with the medical problem that was suspected,) and was advised by more than one person not to submit the 1100 dollar blood test to my insurance because of the very same policies highlighted by this article. So I really identify with these people on a personal level. I think that the Health Care act was a flawed document but definitely a good first step to have some of these policies be a thing of the past.

[Y2HH]

The problem is, though, that we end up paying to treat these people anyway. If they aren't insured, you pay for it through higher medical costs for yourself when these patients default on their treatment, or the state or federal government ends up picking up much of the check through charity care programs.

 

So it's ok as long as private companies are the ones picking up these tabs?

 

Higher medical costs will still be coming, because private businesses can't just swallow these losses, they will pass the expense onto you. This bill will do nothing to rectify the rising costs of medical care, which I've said, and repeated, from the start.

 

The flaw in this design is so easy to spot, I'm surprised anyone could miss it.

 

Here is what will happen.

 

Insurance is now mandatory (or will be), so you will either pay a fine, OR have insurance. Simple.

 

Now you will see a sudden rise in "Eagle Man" health insurance companies, with the basic idea as follows. Our dirt cheap insurance will not actually protect you, all it will do is "cover" the fact that you are REQUIRED to have insurance. So buy our 2$ a month insurance, which will make you "legal". Now...when you get sick, or need actual care, be it last minute or not...you call a REAL insurance company like Blue Cross and drop the first months premium -- they cannot deny you -- and since you were legally covered by our crappy insurance, they can't deny you based on the lawful mandate that you needed to have insurance.

 

So.

 

Buy our crappy insurance just so you can be "within the law".

 

But when you need claims paid, go buy REAL insurance, since they cannot deny you anymore.

 

After they pay off your bills...drop them, and come back to our "within the law" insurance plan.

 

Follow me?

 

Rinse...repeat.

 

In the end, that will spell disaster, and accelerate rising medical costs.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Y2HH

[Rex Kickass]

So it's ok as long as private companies are the ones picking up these tabs?

 

Higher medical costs will still be coming, because private businesses can't just swallow these losses, they will pass the expense onto you. This bill will do nothing to rectify the rising costs of medical care, which I've said, and repeated, from the start.

 

The flaw in this design is so easy to spot, I'm surprised anyone could miss it.

 

Here is what will happen.

 

Insurance is now mandatory (or will be), so you will either pay a fine, OR have insurance. Simple.

 

Now you will see a sudden rise in "Eagle Man" health insurance companies, with the basic idea as follows. Our dirt cheap insurance will not actually protect you, all it will do is "cover" the fact that you are REQUIRED to have insurance. So buy our 2$ a month insurance, which will make you "legal". Now...when you get sick, or need actual care, be it last minute or not...you call a REAL insurance company like Blue Cross and drop the first months premium -- they cannot deny you -- and since you were legally covered by our crappy insurance, they can't deny you based on the lawful mandate that you needed to have insurance.

 

So.

 

Buy our crappy insurance just so you can be "within the law".

 

But when you need claims paid, go buy REAL insurance, since they cannot deny you anymore.

 

After they pay off your bills...drop them, and come back to our "within the law" insurance plan.

 

Follow me?

 

Rinse...repeat.

 

In the end, that will spell disaster, and accelerate rising medical costs.

Except if im not mistaken there are required minimums for coverage, including limits on copays and deductibles IIRC.

[Y2HH]

Except if im not mistaken there are required minimums for coverage, including limits on copays and deductibles IIRC.

 

I'm not sure what minimums exist, or how they can weasel around them yet. But those same types of minimums exist on car insurance, but if you've ever been in an accident, you'd know that those minimums aren't enough to protect anyone but those who don't have anything to lose and just "want to be within the law".

 

For example, minimum car insurance is something like 25,000/35,000.

 

The same exact thing will happen with health insurance now.

[Balta1701]

I'm not sure what minimums exist, or how they can weasel around them yet. But those same types of minimums exist on car insurance, but if you've ever been in an accident, you'd know that those minimums aren't enough to protect anyone but those who don't have anything to lose and just "want to be within the law".

 

For example, minimum car insurance is something like 25,000/35,000.

 

The same exact thing will happen with health insurance now.

But you've spent the last few months telling us that one solution to the health insurance cost issue is allowing states to offer plans into other states, the sole motivation of which is to allow one state to offer a plan that undercuts the minimum coverage requirements of another state.

[Y2HH]

But you've spent the last few months telling us that one solution to the health insurance cost issue is allowing states to offer plans into other states, the sole motivation of which is to allow one state to offer a plan that undercuts the minimum coverage requirements of another state.

 

I spent the last few months telling you that?

 

No, I did not.

 

A possible suggestion to help control insurance premiums was to open state lines to increase competition as the law WAS, not how it is, nothing more. And it also wasn't the "answer" to the health care woes of this nation. I was pretty clear, multiple times, when I said reforming insurance would do nothing to reform healthcare and control costs. And it's not. When it comes to the bill they passed, any suggestions I or others may have had are now meaningless and cannot be applied. They were only applicable to old law, not new law. Such suggestions have NO bearing anymore, the laws are completely changed.

 

Before this bill, there was no such thing as "minimum required coverage", so there was no way I could have possibly said anything related to that.

 

But thank you for trying to take a snipping of what I said out of context and apply it to the new system of laws.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

Shocking news alert: Cost estimates were wrong

 

Prepare for more of these stories as this thing kicks into gear.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Shocking news alert: Cost estimates were wrong

 

Prepare for more of these stories as this thing kicks into gear.

Yea, as I noted in the Rep thread, if you read the fine print, Rep. Lewis requested a cost estimate assuming that Congress would act to remove some of the cost-control measures, and that produced a higher cost estimate.

[mr_genius]

Shocking news alert: Cost estimates were wrong

 

Prepare for more of these stories as this thing kicks into gear.

 

when it really starts, the program is going to be a s***load more expensive than the 'estimates'. i just don't see there being any control over costs.

Edited May 12, 2010 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

i just don't see there being any control over costs.

Well, then give us a public plan. That's the only cost control measure that wasn't in there in some form.

[kapkomet]

Well, then give us a public plan. That's the only cost control measure that wasn't in there in some form.

 

 

 

GOVERNMENT SAVES!

[kapkomet]

Big f***ing shocker here.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100611/ap_on_...eping_your_plan

 

Health overhaul to force changes in employer plans

 

 

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 24 mins ago

 

WASHINGTON – Over and over in the health care debate, President Barack Obama said people who like their current coverage would be able to keep it.

 

But an early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many employers will be forced to make changes to their health plans under the new law. In just three years, a majority of workers — 51 percent — will be in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to midrange projections in the draft.

 

Republicans said Obama broke his promise. Employer groups were divided.

 

It's more evidence that the law will raise costs, said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But the Business Roundtable — representing CEOs of major firms — saw encouraging signs of flexibility, though it's withholding final judgment. Some experts believe increased regulation will lead to improved benefits for consumers.

 

"On the face of it, having consumer protections apply to all insurance plans could be a good thing for employees," said Alex Vachon, an independent health policy consultant. "Technically, it's actually improved coverage."

 

The types of changes that employers could have to make include offering preventive care without copayments and instituting an appeals process for disputed claims that follows new federal guidelines. The law already requires all health plans to extend coverage to young adult children until they turn 26. Such incremental changes can nudge costs up.

 

The Obama administration said the draft regulation is an early version undergoing revision. Nonetheless, the leaked document was getting widespread interest Friday in lobbying firms that represent employers and insurance companies and on Capitol Hill.

 

"What we are getting here is a clear indication that most plans will have to change," said James Gelfand, health policy director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "From an employer's point of view that's a bad thing. These changes, whether or not they're good for consumers, are most certainly accompanied by a cost."

 

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said it showed that Obama's assurance that Americans would be able to keep the plans they currently have was "a myth" all along.

 

"Since its passage, Republican arguments against the bill have been repeatedly vindicated, even as the administration's many promises about the bill have been called into question again and again," McConnell said. "So Democrats may have passed this bill, but the debate is far from over."

 

An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the rules are still being written, said the final version will uphold Obama's promise, accommodating employers' desire for flexibility while protecting consumers from runaway costs.

 

Employer provided coverage is the mainstay of the nation's health insurance system and is expected to remain so even after the new health care law is fully phased in.

 

The main issue in the 83-page regulation is how to deal with what the government calls "grandfathered" health plans.

 

Those are plans that predated the health care law and are exempt from many, but not all, of its consumer protections. Lawmakers created the special category to deliver on Obama's promise that people can keep the coverage they have if they like it.

 

But health plans change frequently. Premiums and copayments keep rising. Coverage is expanded for some services and restricted for others. Lawmakers asked regulators to spell out how much an employer can change a plan and still claim it to be grandfathered, exempting it from closer federal regulation.

 

Gelfand, the Chamber of Commerce expert, said the draft rules are too inflexible. Generally plans can lose their protected status by increasing copayments and deductibles above certain limits, and Gelfand said they're too narrow.

 

But Maria Ghazal, health policy director for the Business Roundtable, said she saw signs that the administration is trying to be responsive to employers. For example, plans that only cover retirees would be exempt from the new regulatory requirements — an important clarification. "We think there is some recognition of the challenges ahead for employers," she said.

 

How employers react to the coming changes will be critical. If many companies start dropping health care benefits, opting instead to pay the government a penalty, Democrats would face a political backlash. Whether there's a tipping point ahead is still unclear.

 

 

[bmags]

lolz, criticism from the chamber of commerce and republicans...bahaha I'm shocked, SHOCKED

[kapkomet]

Anecdotally, people are just starting to figure out the shamzus that was just forced up our ass. And they're pissed... unless you're the ultra liberals who think that they are getting health care for nothing.

 

[kapkomet]

Well, then give us a public plan. That's the only cost control measure that wasn't in there in some form.

 

 

Totally off topic... you need to change your JinDALL quote to:

 

"Our party wants you all to die horrible fiery deaths in a gigantic offshore oil rig eruption."

-Governor Bobby Jindal, R-LA, 2/24/09.

 

It's a little more appropriate.

 

[lostfan]

Anecdotally, people who have had their minds made up for a while are gleefully dabbling in confirmation bias and complaining to people who agree with them as if they haven't all along.

fixed

[kapkomet]

fixed

 

Where do you get your insurance now, lost?

[Balta1701]

Totally off topic... you need to change your JinDALL quote to:

 

 

 

It's a little more appropriate.

Dude, I'd change that to the Obama quote. It was much more timely.

 

And anyway, I'm a geologist, volcanoes are my world, I'm keeping that one.

[Balta1701]

Anecdotally, people are just starting to figure out the shamzus that was just forced up our ass. And they're pissed... unless you're the ultra liberals who think that they are getting health care for nothing.

Actually, as we predicted, polling data on the plan has steadily improved since passage. A solid majority now says "Give it a shot".

[kapkomet]

Actually, as we predicted, polling data on the plan has steadily improved since passage. A solid majority now says "Give it a shot".

 

 

Actually, it hasn't. As always, it depends on how the questions are asked.

[Balta1701]

Actually, it hasn't. As always, it depends on how the questions are asked.

But that wasn't the case at all while the bill was being debated...you are 100% certain that the American people hated the bill.

[Balta1701]

Since this got bumped...why not post this.

The new U.S. health care reform law was the best option for providing health insurance to the largest number of people while keeping federal government costs as low as possible, according to an analysis by the RAND Corp., a nonprofit policy think tank.

 

Researchers used a specially designed computer model to simulate more than 2,000 different policy scenarios and found that the only alternatives to the new health reform law were all politically difficult because they would have included much higher penalties for noncompliance, lower government subsides, and less generous Medicaid expansion.

 

Under the new health reform law, about 28 million Americans will be newly insured by 2016, according to the analysis.

 

"Of all the proposals on the table that would expand health insurance to more Americans, the final health reform law included those that covered the largest number of people at the lowest cost to the federal government," study author Elizabeth A. McGlynn, a senior researcher at RAND, said in a news release from RAND.

[kapkomet]

Since this got bumped...why not post this.

 

 

And every subsequent report shows that the costs are going well UP, not down, and don't forget that well over half the people who weren't covered chose not to be covered.

[lostfan]

Where do you get your insurance now, lost?

my job.