DU thread has links to original threads. Its very clear my diabetic son would be harmed as will others. The poll in this post has Dems supporting some form of health plan, but the dem members in the HELP committee votede agains this bill. Small business lobbying groups are lobbying all members of congress, including all dems. They are trying to gain enogh support to over ride a filibuster.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2519183&mesg_id=2519183Original post.
Provision designed to ensure comprehensive" benefit option fails to provide protections.
*******In order to bypass a state's protections , a n insurer would only need to meet one requirement: offer a second plan that resembles one offered to state employees in one of the five most populous states (CA, NY, TX, FL and IL). These states offer their employees a variety of plans, some of which are high-deductible ( Florida , for example, offers its state employees a plan that includes a $5000 deductible for families). Thus this requirement could allow an insurer to choose a high deductible/HSA plan that can require a family to pay as much as $5,000 out-of-pocket (after paying premiums), before coverage kicks in. The fact that the insurer can choose any one of the plans available to employees of these states means that there is no requirement or guarantee that the required enhanced option" be affordable or comprehensive. Again, a state has no recourse if the plan does not meet the needs of its residents.***********
Although the bill is advertised by proponents as offering small businesses flexibility and choice, the reality is that insurance companies will control the plans available, not small businesses or their employees. Insurance companies will have the ability to offer plans that meet some, few, or none of the state's mandated benefits, and they will choose which of the state-employee models they would like to offer.
:redbox:
Allows insurers to raise premiums based on health status, age, gender and geography.
In addition, S. 1955 also would preempt stronger state laws that limit the ability of insurers to vary premiums based on health status, age, gender and geography. For many older, sicker Americans and those with complex health needs and disabilities, this would price them out of the health insurance market, undermining the stated purpose of the legislation. The bill imposes on all the states an outdated model law created by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), rather than using the NAIC's current model standard that is more protective.
:redbox:
For many older, sicker Americans and those with complex health needs and disabilities, this would price them out of the health insurance market, undermining the stated purpose of the legislation. Under this new system, many small businesses with workers who are older and sicker, women of child-bearing age, or who have fewer employees, will immediately see their premiums rise.
After careful consideration and review, ANA opposes S. 1955 due to strong reservations about the bill's impact on the practice of APRNs, consumer's access to primary and preventative health care, and the cost of insurance for those who are higher risk or in need of significant health care services.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
