It will be illegal to eliminate people with pre-existing conditions, but without price

[ej510]

caps the insurance industry can price out the people with pre-existing conditions. There is always a way around legislation, because lobbyist make sure there are loopholes to game the system. The insurance industry wins again.

[rucky]

1. Yep. They're not overlooking it, either.

This is a loophole they're drafting into the bill on purpose.

[havocmom]

2. and with mandate, people will be forced to pay, or what?

Face it, the mandate puts the American citizens in a cell where only Big Insurance has the key. It seems more like indentured servitude than health care reform.

[Oregone]

8. 2.5% tax on their AGI

Could be worse really.

‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE

2 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

3 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual

4 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at

5 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed

6 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

7 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in

8 come for the taxable year, over

9 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in

10 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

[T Wolf]

3. You can have A POLICY. But there is nothing that prevents the corporation from refusing to pay for

anything in particular they want to deny.

Pre-existing does not prevent you from buying a policy - only from getting a procedure covered by that policy.

***adding analogy - You pay taxes (forced) for the fire department in your hometown. They must come to your house if it is burning. But upon arriving, they state that they learned that you had smoked years before. They conclude that this fire could have been because you were smoking in bed. They leave without putting out the fire. You were covered (had a policy) but it did nothing to get this fire put out.

This is "reform" under this obscenity of a bill.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Of course. I am beginning to feel like this entire "Health Care Reform"

stuff is just one big tease......it will n ever really happen.
Too many Congressmen getting too much money from Insurance companies and Big Pharma..That includes Democrats as well.

[ej510]

9. Maybe progressives need to go the third party route like Bernie Sanders.

It be wise for the unions and progressives to begin running as independents locally and expand to state and national politics to move our agenda forward.

[BrklynLiberal]

10. That would be soooo cool!!!

[ej510]

13. This would get the corporate run democratic parties attention.

The democratic party is moving further to the right every year.

[BrklynLiberal]

15. Have to agree with you there.

Barry Goldwater would be a moderate Democrat these days...

[ej510]

25. Even my Senator Dianne Feinstein is a corporate democrat.

[SpartanDem]

5. It would be illegal to charge more based on health

due to community rating provisions

[DrToast]

18. Yes, just so everyone knows, the original post was nonsense. (nt)

[SpartanDem]

6. dupe

[phantom power]

7. I read that they are not allowed to increase premiums for pre-existing either.

[ej510]

11. If it is in the bill it will be stripped or waterd down fairly soon.

[phantom power]

12. This sausage certainly hasn't made it all the way thru the meat grinder yet.

[SpartanDem]

14. Given that it's been in every single bill

even the crappy Baucus verision I don't think that's likely

[babylonsister]

16. Got a link for that? I'd like to see it in writing vs. your assertions. Thanks. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. Wrong forum

Please move this to the "speculative histrionics about stuff which isn't even being discussed" forum.

If there is something in one of the bills actually being considered that you specifically are concerned about, please share. Otherwise, please don't contribute to the disinfo.

Too much heat, not enough light.

[bvar22]

19. There is an aspect of this that may be even more troubling.

The Exchange

People currently without Health Insurance (already rejected for pre-existing conditions) will be eligible for "The Exchange". The Public Option will be administered by The Exchange, a private corporation consisting of a consortium of (you guessed it) The For Profit Health Insurance Corporations.

It may be possible for a For Profit Health Insurance Corporation on "The Exchange" to deny applications from those with Pre-Existing Conditions which WILL be picked up by the "Public Option", ALL under the aegis of "The Exchange". Technically, those with Pre-Existing Conditions were NOT denied coverage by "The Exchange".

This WOULD make the already WEAK Public Option a dumping ground for Pre-Existing Conditions and High Risk applicants.

This IS a possibility.
The NEW House Bill came out this morning, and it is an overwhelming 2000 pages long.
I haven't had time to sift through it, and I'm NOT a lawyer.
The above is one of my concerns, and it IS something we will NEED to know.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. It is *possible* that the new bill mandates pigs to sprout wings.

Given the goals and the language in the previous HR3200, it is unlikely in the extreme that the new bill would have been written to enable private insurers participating in the government-run exchange to reject people with preexisting conditions.

And the exchange is open to small businesses and anyone who lacks employer-based coverage.

I really wish it were easier to wade through the speculative histrionics and get to real analysis.

[bvar22]

23. Good.

An expert on the "language and goals" in HR 3200.
I've been looking for one to answer some questions.
Since you claim to be well versed on "the language and goals" in HR 3200, please take some time to answer a few questions.

*Why do we need "The Exchange"?
Obama says that we need one so that we can shop for insurance, and compare prices and plans.
But I can already do that without "The Exchange".
Just GOOGLE "Shop for Health Insurance".

*Who is "The Exchange"?
It looks to me like it is going to be a consortium of the For Profit Health Insurance Corporations. Wouldn't they have an obvious conflict of interest?
I've muddled through the language establishing "The Exchange" in HR 3200, but I'm not an expert like you, so please clear this up for me.
Why should I trust them with the health of my family?


*Why won't I be allowed to buy my "government run" Health Insurance directly from "the government"?
?


*If the Public Option is administered by "The Exchange", and The Public Option picks up people with "pre-Existing Conditions", won't that satisfy the claim that "no one will be turned away for Pre-Existing Conditions" while allowing other For Profit Insurers on The Exchange to avoid covering them?

My questions are legitimate.
I've asked them before, and haven't found a single supporter of HR 3200 that can answer them.
I'm glad I've finally found an expert.
Thank You.


Good luck with the pigs and wings thing.
I personally feel that is a waste of time,
but then again, I'm NOT and expert like you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. One at a time

a) you need an exchange, because "the free marketplace" doesn't come with any standards, nor can you purchase any of their offerings unless they approve you.
b) The exchange isn't a private consortium, it is an independent agency within the executive branch
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text?version=rh&nid=t0:rh:690
You have been posting on this topic for months now. If you don't consider yourself to have enough expertise to even read the bills, summaries or even news coverage about them, I ask that you stop posting disinfo.
c) If you are eligible to participate in the exchange (meaning no current employer-based coverage) then you can purchase government-provided coverage from a government broker.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/the_house_releases_its_health-.html
d) The public option picks up people with preexisting conditions because EVERY insurer participating in the exchange is mandated to accept people with preexisting conditions. Why is this so hard to understand?

What expertise I have I gained by reading. It's not that hard.

[Ganja Ninja]

21. Yeah they'll just come up with a new terminology for "pre-existing conditions" and

go on with business as usual.

[ej510]

24. They always find a way around the law.

[Ganja Ninja]

27. That's why we needed to kick the insurance companies to the curb and go single payer.

Don't give the politicians a chance to double cross us. Clearly their interests lie in keeping the insurance industry as donors to their coffers. It's a case of them against us and them ain't the insurance industry.

[backscatter712]

22. Don't the bills have mandatory community rating provisions?

IIRC, the only factors that can affect your premiums are the region you live in, the size of your family, and your age (I really wish they didn't include age, though various flavors of the bill limit how much the premiums can vary based on age). Pre-existing conditions are not one of the factors, meaning the guy who needs the lung transplant pays the same as the healthy person with the same age, region and number of family members.

[amandabeech]

26. Under the original Senate Finance Committee bill, insurers could discriminate by age.

Older people could be charged 5 times as much as younger ones.

On average, older people use more health care than younger ones, so age is a good stand-in for health or pre-existing conditions.

I'm older and I can hardly wait. :sarcasm:

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. Every bill allows "discrimination"... in the sense that not everyone has the same premium.

But the rating critera DONT include prexisting conditions.

I'm older too, but I think it's reasonable for me to pay somewhat more for insurance than my 20 year old son, and the affordability credits make the difference kind of academic - I'll get a bigger subsidy to purchase the coverage.

[amandabeech]

30. When I was younger, I always had group insurance in which I subsidized older people.

I was told then that it was fair because the younger people would subsidize me when I got older. What a crock!

Now, I can't find a permanent job with health benefits after I was out of the workforce for family and personal reasons.

Making age the criteria for high payments instead of pre-existing conditions doesn't really make me feel better.

[ipaint]

31. When I was younger insurance companies charged reasonable rates, affordable to both businesses

and individuals. People did not game the system en masse and the ins. companies were able to make a reasonable profit without dumping sick people. ALL of this was possible without a mandate. Imagine that.

As in all other countries with some form of universal care it works as you were told, young people buy in and pay for old people and they were then taken care of down the road. Discrimination based on age is unnecessary and illegal simply because it is wrong.

Only here do we bend ourselves into pretzels just to accommodate an industry that has killed over a million people in the last 20 years. Until we get campaign finance reform and can begin to get rid of the ins. giant's industry employees in the senate and congress, the lower middle class and below will be sacrificed to the insurance companies for a measly and temporary premium cut for the better off.