The din of impending doom is getting very tired.
Someone needs a nap, after the last 8 years of their own din.
Someone needs a nap, after the last 8 years of their own din.
U.S. House's Health Care Reform Bill
- Thread starter jeffg
- Start date
Help Support :
What I wouldn't give for nap! The trouble is, it doesn't matter who's at the helm, you have to watch them every second!
runematic
Well-known member
What I wouldn't give for nap! The trouble is, it doesn&#
Isn't that the honest truth. I completely agree.
Isn't that the honest truth. I completely agree.
Amen, brother!
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:
“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 the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:
“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 the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
Loading…
www.ibdeditorials.com
Wilkinservice, We have Medicare in the USA for the elderly and Medicaid for Kids.. The battle is really for the Middle class that cannot obtain coverage, it's either not offered by their small employer or they are self employed. I have worked with people that would be retired Except for the fact they are not old enough for Medicare. They have a pre-existing condition, that requires care and high dollar rx medicine. If this reform would pass, i think an incredible amount of people will retire early, change jobs, work part time. An employee that is gasping for the employers healthcare coverage or cannot pass a physical at a new employer, is an indentured servant...
andrewinorlando
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,392
"It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:
“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 the year the legislation becomes law."
What a joke....another left wingnut twisted interpretation...but that's what we've come to expect from republicans.
State facts, then debate and discuss them....not hype and horseshit. It's insulting.
“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 the year the legislation becomes law."
What a joke....another left wingnut twisted interpretation...but that's what we've come to expect from republicans.
State facts, then debate and discuss them....not hype and horseshit. It's insulting.
I dont understand...
Will the individual be able to insure against the cost of services by hospitals and doctors that do not accept payment at the current medicare/medicaid levels? I know there are some doctors who do not see medicaid/medicare patients and surely some hospitals that also do not admit patients with that level of cover only.
Will the individual be able to insure against the cost of services by hospitals and doctors that do not accept payment at the current medicare/medicaid levels? I know there are some doctors who do not see medicaid/medicare patients and surely some hospitals that also do not admit patients with that level of cover only.
It is illegal for Hospitals to decline care to medicaid or medicare recipients or indigent cases in an emergency, there are doctors that do not participate in care/caid in their pvt offices. In large urban area's there are OB/GYN's that prefer Medicaid and have their offices geared toward billing medicaid.There are many things patients do not understand about coverage and what is paid. Most if not all insurance companies follow the Medicare guidelines for reimbursement for adult care based on DRG's (Diagnosis related groupings). It's a big can of worms, and most have the same odor.
For what it is worth...
I think it is important that any US resident under any new scheme can interact with the health providers at three levels. Firstly if they chose to do nothing about health insurance they have "public" insurance by default however this can be made discouragingly expensive if they earn above a certain income. Secondly if they choose to insure privately (whether this be by a personal policy or via an employer scheme is relatively immaterial except that by making employer schemes tax effective it can be a way to ensure a strong incentive to insure privately) they then are covered for a large proportion of costs, at least as much as the public scheme covers. Thirdly they can interact with the health providers as purchasers paying the cost of services in the service of their choice as a cash transaction. I believe that it is important that there always be some absolute cash value attributed to health care. This is very imporatant in making the health providers accountable. This is I believe one of the major shortcomings in socialised medical schemes (for example the National Health in Great Britain). I believe that doctors and hospitals need to relate their care back to a cash value to be able to justify their decisions in a fiscal fashion.
I think it is important that any US resident under any new scheme can interact with the health providers at three levels. Firstly if they chose to do nothing about health insurance they have "public" insurance by default however this can be made discouragingly expensive if they earn above a certain income. Secondly if they choose to insure privately (whether this be by a personal policy or via an employer scheme is relatively immaterial except that by making employer schemes tax effective it can be a way to ensure a strong incentive to insure privately) they then are covered for a large proportion of costs, at least as much as the public scheme covers. Thirdly they can interact with the health providers as purchasers paying the cost of services in the service of their choice as a cash transaction. I believe that it is important that there always be some absolute cash value attributed to health care. This is very imporatant in making the health providers accountable. This is I believe one of the major shortcomings in socialised medical schemes (for example the National Health in Great Britain). I believe that doctors and hospitals need to relate their care back to a cash value to be able to justify their decisions in a fiscal fashion.
