If you are happy with your private plan, Obama says no problem you can keep it.....

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: shira
So your so-called point is that the .0001 percent of Americans who WANT a sub-minimum health plan will be "forced" to accept a better plan from their employer, which may increase their cost?

THIS is the basis for your claim, "There you have it folks. You will NOT be able to keep your current plan"!!!?

You are as dishonest in fact as you claim Obama is in your hallucinating mind.

Again, you are missing the point. We are not talking about coverage, we are talking about the ability to KEEP YOUR CURRENT PLAN IF YOU ARE HAPPY WITH IT.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira
So your so-called point is that the .0001 percent of Americans who WANT a sub-minimum health plan will be "forced" to accept a better plan from their employer, which may increase their cost?

THIS is the basis for your claim, "There you have it folks. You will NOT be able to keep your current plan"!!!?

You are as dishonest in fact as you claim Obama is in your hallucinating mind.

Again, you are missing the point. We are not talking about coverage, we are talking about the ability to KEEP YOUR CURRENT PLAN IF YOU ARE HAPPY WITH IT.

You're dense

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira
So your so-called point is that the .0001 percent of Americans who WANT a sub-minimum health plan will be "forced" to accept a better plan from their employer, which may increase their cost?

THIS is the basis for your claim, "There you have it folks. You will NOT be able to keep your current plan"!!!?

You are as dishonest in fact as you claim Obama is in your hallucinating mind.

Again, you are missing the point. We are not talking about coverage, we are talking about the ability to KEEP YOUR CURRENT PLAN IF YOU ARE HAPPY WITH IT.

You're dense

The point is, however dumb it seems, that if your current plan doesn't meet a min standard, it must be changed.

The problem I have is that the government wants us to write them a "blank check" and in 18 months they will fill the "amount" in. This could lead to some crazy details that could force companies out of the market.

I've also learned that you don't get more for less. So either somebody will be paying more or we will start seeing less care.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira
So your so-called point is that the .0001 percent of Americans who WANT a sub-minimum health plan will be "forced" to accept a better plan from their employer, which may increase their cost?

THIS is the basis for your claim, "There you have it folks. You will NOT be able to keep your current plan"!!!?

You are as dishonest in fact as you claim Obama is in your hallucinating mind.

Again, you are missing the point. We are not talking about coverage, we are talking about the ability to KEEP YOUR CURRENT PLAN IF YOU ARE HAPPY WITH IT.

You're dense

The point is, however dumb it seems, that if your current plan doesn't meet a min standard, it must be changed.

The problem I have is that the government wants us to write them a "blank check" and in 18 months they will fill the "amount" in. This could lead to some crazy details that could force companies out of the market.

I've also learned that you don't get more for less. So either somebody will be paying more or we will start seeing less care.

Do any of you right-wing fanatics even understand why minimum-quality plans are required?

In order to require that insurance companies cover all comers (including those with pre-existing conditions), and simultaneously require that the maximum premium allowed is no more than twice what the lowest-risk patients pays, it's necessary to have an extremely broad insurance pool. That's why there's a "mandate" for coverage: If insurance companies MUST cover high-risk patients, low-risk patients cannot be allowed to opt-out of the system. If there were allowed to do so, the insurance companies would go belly up, since the only people with insurance would be those with higher risk.

The same reasoning applies to the QUALITY of the plan required: It would be just as fatal to allow healthy patients to elect to purchase only horrible-coverage plans at very low cost, since the effect of allowing that choice would essentially be the same as allowing patients to opt out of coverage altogether.

Thus, companies themselves cannot - after the grace period has expired - be allowed to provide sub-minimal plans. To do so would cause the insurance companies to fail.

Claiming that preventing reverse-cherry-picking is somehow preventing people from "keeping the plan they like" is just plain dishonest. The vast majority of Americans covered through their companies by adequate-quality plans will get to keep the coverage they already have. Those that want to cheat and get only low-quality coverage won't be allowed to do so.

If you can't understand this, then think about how states require minimum levels of auto insurance.

Edit: To scare people into thinking that they WON'T be allowed to keep high-quality insurance coverage they genuinely like, which is the scare-tactic being used by the right, is obscene. You righties on this thread now know EXACTLY who won't be allowed to keep coverage they want - only those who prefer to cheat the system. If you keep pressing this issue in light of what you now know, you really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: shira
If you can't understand this, then think about how states require minimum levels of auto insurance.

Did Obama go on a nation stage and promise that I could keep my auto insurance?

Again, this is NOT about if minimum levels of insurance is a good thing rather the issue of being able to keep your current coverage if you are happy with it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira
If you can't understand this, then think about how states require minimum levels of auto insurance.

Did Obama go on a nation stage and promise that I could keep my auto insurance?

Again, this is NOT about if minimum levels of insurance is a good thing rather the issue of being able to keep your current coverage if you are happy with it.

For 99% of the population, Obama is exactly correct. If you want to state that he's 1% dishonest, go right ahead.

Edit: You know darn well that most people who want to keep their existing insurance will be able to do so. In light of all you know, which of the following two statements is more misleading to a large audience?

"If you like your current insurance, you'll be able to keep it."

"If you lik your current insurance, you won't be able to keep it."

Ironic, isn't it, that YOU continually make the second statement, when it's untrue for a MUCH greater percentage of the insured than the first statement, yet you label the first statement a lie?

What sort of person does this make you?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Reading Comprehension Fail.

Might want to try that again. Point out where I "failed" if it is so apparent. I am 100% accurate.

There is a 5 year grace period for current plans. After that 5 year grace period the current plan must meet the "same requirements" and provide the "essential benefit package".

So if your current plan does not meet that, it will have to be changed.

How is this any different from when new requirements go into effect in the industry? Seems like a simple phase-in period for the changes that are to be made. This is a common practice. Seems like you are seeing boogeymen where none exist....

The boogeyman is the government and they don't need to control ever aspect of my life. Why can't nimrods understand this. Have Americans become so lazy and uncarring about their freedoms that they will just roll over and let someone else take care of them?

"Should [reformers] attempt more than the established habits of the people are ripe for, they may lose all and retard indefinitely the ultimate object of their aim." --Thomas Jefferson to Mme de Tesse, Mar 20, 1787.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
So you're saying that after five years if your plan is even worse than the death-panel grandma killing rationed care minimum plan, you'll be forced to get something better?

THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

Forced Note the use of the term INVOLUNTARY in the definition.

The Government doesn't need to tell me how to live my life and what choices I should make.

 

[Budmantom]

If Obama's lips are moving you can bet that he is lying.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Pshaw,
This is easy. First offer upgraded public insurance with heavily subsidized premiums. The insurance companies will have to match it, then that puts them out of business and government get's complete control. Then they can do whatever they want, and the government expands it's powers. It's perfect.

Pretty much, it's a power grab.

For all of those that are fine with the government running your health insurance, please tell me where you would not like them to intervine on your behalf?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira
So your so-called point is that the .0001 percent of Americans who WANT a sub-minimum health plan will be "forced" to accept a better plan from their employer, which may increase their cost?

THIS is the basis for your claim, "There you have it folks. You will NOT be able to keep your current plan"!!!?

You are as dishonest in fact as you claim Obama is in your hallucinating mind.

Again, you are missing the point. We are not talking about coverage, we are talking about the ability to KEEP YOUR CURRENT PLAN IF YOU ARE HAPPY WITH IT.

You're dense

The point is, however dumb it seems, that if your current plan doesn't meet a min standard, it must be changed.

The problem I have is that the government wants us to write them a "blank check" and in 18 months they will fill the "amount" in. This could lead to some crazy details that could force companies out of the market.

I've also learned that you don't get more for less. So either somebody will be paying more or we will start seeing less care.

Do any of you right-wing fanatics even understand why minimum-quality plans are required?

In order to require that insurance companies cover all comers (including those with pre-existing conditions), and simultaneously require that the maximum premium allowed is no more than twice what the lowest-risk patients pays, it's necessary to have an extremely broad insurance pool. That's why there's a "mandate" for coverage: If insurance companies MUST cover high-risk patients, low-risk patients cannot be allowed to opt-out of the system. If there were allowed to do so, the insurance companies would go belly up, since the only people with insurance would be those with higher risk.

The same reasoning applies to the QUALITY of the plan required: It would be just as fatal to allow healthy patients to elect to purchase only horrible-coverage plans at very low cost, since the effect of allowing that choice would essentially be the same as allowing patients to opt out of coverage altogether.

Thus, companies themselves cannot - after the grace period has expired - be allowed to provide sub-minimal plans. To do so would cause the insurance companies to fail.

Claiming that preventing reverse-cherry-picking is somehow preventing people from "keeping the plan they like" is just plain dishonest. The vast majority of Americans covered through their companies by adequate-quality plans will get to keep the coverage they already have. Those that want to cheat and get only low-quality coverage won't be allowed to do so.

If you can't understand this, then think about how states require minimum levels of auto insurance.

Edit: To scare people into thinking that they WON'T be allowed to keep high-quality insurance coverage they genuinely like, which is the scare-tactic being used by the right, is obscene. You righties on this thread now know EXACTLY who won't be allowed to keep coverage they want - only those who prefer to cheat the system. If you keep pressing this issue in light of what you now know, you really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I just want to know exactly what the "minimum requirements" will be. Why can't anyone answer that question? When the righties say we should slow down and discuss things more the lefties are quick to say we have been discussing this for decades yet to this day no one can give me any real details...

Is it really to much to ask that we be provided details such as this before the bill is voted upon?

 

[Pens1566]

The minimum requirements for "grandfathered" plans are in, I believe, section 121 ... could be off by one or two though.

 

[JSt0rm]

Cant minimum requirements change as new techniques and technologies come to market? I think it would be a bad move to have them set in stone.

Oh, and you people that think its better to have LESS then the minimum are retarded and are brainwashed by the insurance industry. You people either work in health insurance or are willing to die for corporate freedoms.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

I just want to know exactly what the "minimum requirements" will be. Why can't anyone answer that question? When the righties say we should slow down and discuss things more the lefties are quick to say we have been discussing this for decades yet to this day no one can give me any real details...

Is it really to much to ask that we be provided details such as this before the bill is voted upon?

The house bill in Section 122 describes "essential" services:

MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.?The items and services described in this subsection are the following:
(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, including emergency department services.
(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician?s or a health professional?s delivery of care in institutional settings, physician offices, patients? homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate.
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

But this is just a non-specific starting point. A Health Benefits Advisory Committee is defined in Section 123 of the bill:

There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a
panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.
.
.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS.?The Health Benefits Advisory Committee
shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ??Secretary??) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards. In developing such recommendations, the Committee
shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities.
.
.
(4) BENEFIT STANDARDS DEFINED.?In this subtitle, the term ??benefit standards?? means standards respecting?
(A) the essential benefits package described in section 122, including categories of
covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes, and cost-sharing; and
(B) the cost-sharing levels for enhanced plans and premium plans (as provided under
section 203(c)) consistent with paragraph (5).
.
.

The committee is to provide its recommendations within 1 year of the bill's enactment. At that point, we'll all know what the defined benefits are. Notice that there are "enhanced" and "premium" plans to be defined, too.

If you really want to know how this all is supposed to come together, read the bill.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira
If you can't understand this, then think about how states require minimum levels of auto insurance.

Did Obama go on a nation stage and promise that I could keep my auto insurance?

Again, this is NOT about if minimum levels of insurance is a good thing rather the issue of being able to keep your current coverage if you are happy with it.

D-E-N-S-E

keep repeating your self like a broken record. Please.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Cant minimum requirements change as new techniques and technologies come to market? I think it would be a bad move to have them set in stone.

Oh, and you people that think its better to have LESS then the minimum are retarded and are brainwashed by the insurance industry. You people either work in health insurance or are willing to die for corporate freedoms.

YOu dont understand what you are even talking about. Minimums do not cover techniques or technologies they are more general than that. Think more along the lines of copays, deductables and such. Looks like Oboma even wants to throw vision and dental into basic health care package. Vision insurance is a rip off and dental is not much better, but the govt may set those as minimums.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Darwin333

I just want to know exactly what the "minimum requirements" will be. Why can't anyone answer that question? When the righties say we should slow down and discuss things more the lefties are quick to say we have been discussing this for decades yet to this day no one can give me any real details...

Is it really to much to ask that we be provided details such as this before the bill is voted upon?

The house bill in Section 122 describes "essential" services:

MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.?The items and services described in this subsection are the following:
(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, including emergency department services.
(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician?s or a health professional?s delivery of care in institutional settings, physician offices, patients? homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate.
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

But this is just a non-specific starting point. A Health Benefits Advisory Committee is defined in Section 123 of the bill:

There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a
panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.
.
.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS.?The Health Benefits Advisory Committee
shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ??Secretary??) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards. In developing such recommendations, the Committee
shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities.
.
.
(4) BENEFIT STANDARDS DEFINED.?In this subtitle, the term ??benefit standards?? means standards respecting?
(A) the essential benefits package described in section 122, including categories of
covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes, and cost-sharing; and
(B) the cost-sharing levels for enhanced plans and premium plans (as provided under
section 203(c)) consistent with paragraph (5).
.
.

The committee is to provide its recommendations within 1 year of the bill's enactment. At that point, we'll all know what the defined benefits are. Notice that there are "enhanced" and "premium" plans to be defined, too.

If you really want to know how this all is supposed to come together, read the bill.

which, when you look at the structure of this bill, it is modeled after essentially every other bill that has been written into existence.

I am sorry but the detail that opponents in this thread seek simply will not be written into legislation.

You want to know why? because Legislators are not the Program EXPERTS in determining this level of detail. Legislators simply legislate the NEED, not the details. That is why committee's are formed after bill's are written into law...to have a governing panel of experts manage the program.

like every other bill written into law....

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: OrByte



which, when you look at the structure of this bill, it is modeled after essentially every other bill that has been written into existence.

I am sorry but the detail that opponents in this thread seek simply will not be written into legislation.

You want to know why? because Legislators are not the Program EXPERTS in determining this level of detail. Legislators simply legislate the NEED, not the details. That is why committee's are formed after bill's are written into law...to have a governing panel of experts manage the program.

like every other bill written into law....

Can you blame people for not wanting to wait 18 months after a bill passes to find out what the final rules are going to be. Healthcare is too important and that is far too long to wait. LEt the experts define what the mins are up front so people know what they are going to be getting.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Can you blame people for not wanting to wait 18 months after a bill passes to find out what the final rules are going to be. Healthcare is too important and that is far too long to wait. LEt the experts define what the mins are up front so people know what they are going to be getting.

As Orbyte mentioned that's just not how legislation on this or anything else works. (nor should it) Congress is the boss, they set up the infrastructure and articulate policy goals, and the people Congress appoints to do the work figure out how to get there. That's the way anything that is well run works.

Usually when Congress runs into trouble is when they try to get into the fine details, something the body is not intended to do.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Can you blame people for not wanting to wait 18 months after a bill passes to find out what the final rules are going to be. Healthcare is too important and that is far too long to wait. LEt the experts define what the mins are up front so people know what they are going to be getting.

As Orbyte mentioned that's just not how legislation on this or anything else works. (nor should it) Congress is the boss, they set up the infrastructure and articulate policy goals, and the people Congress appoints to do the work figure out how to get there. That's the way anything that is well run works.

Usually when Congress runs into trouble is when they try to get into the fine details, something the body is not intended to do.

exactly,

if congress says "tho shalt..." then that should be all we want our legislators to say/do.

If the legislators start getting into the realm of implementation....then we have policymakers overreaching their boundaries of expertise...

isn't that what all of you "oppositionists" condemn your government for allll the time? overreaching their bounds!?!?

Now people are saying they want the legislators to legislate the "NEED" AND "IMPLEMENT" too?!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Can you blame people for not wanting to wait 18 months after a bill passes to find out what the final rules are going to be. Healthcare is too important and that is far too long to wait. LEt the experts define what the mins are up front so people know what they are going to be getting.

As Orbyte mentioned that's just not how legislation on this or anything else works. (nor should it) Congress is the boss, they set up the infrastructure and articulate policy goals, and the people Congress appoints to do the work figure out how to get there. That's the way anything that is well run works.

Usually when Congress runs into trouble is when they try to get into the fine details, something the body is not intended to do.

FOr healthcare I think waiting 18 months for a final ruling is far too long. No thanks.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Can you blame people for not wanting to wait 18 months after a bill passes to find out what the final rules are going to be. Healthcare is too important and that is far too long to wait. LEt the experts define what the mins are up front so people know what they are going to be getting.

As Orbyte mentioned that's just not how legislation on this or anything else works. (nor should it) Congress is the boss, they set up the infrastructure and articulate policy goals, and the people Congress appoints to do the work figure out how to get there. That's the way anything that is well run works.

Usually when Congress runs into trouble is when they try to get into the fine details, something the body is not intended to do.

FOr healthcare I think waiting 18 months for a final ruling is far too long. No thanks.

It seems to me that you are trying to make a convenient excuse to dismiss this reform effort.

The legislative goals are laid out. the regulations that follow must be written in a way to implement those goals. And there are ALWAYS audits/checks/balances to make sure that legislation is implemented AS WRITTEN. Laws simply do not get written only to be underminded by regulation....that only happens in conspiracy novels.

Most of legislation is written in this way. And it has worked since the beginning.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Can you blame people for not wanting to wait 18 months after a bill passes to find out what the final rules are going to be. Healthcare is too important and that is far too long to wait. LEt the experts define what the mins are up front so people know what they are going to be getting.

As Orbyte mentioned that's just not how legislation on this or anything else works. (nor should it) Congress is the boss, they set up the infrastructure and articulate policy goals, and the people Congress appoints to do the work figure out how to get there. That's the way anything that is well run works.

Usually when Congress runs into trouble is when they try to get into the fine details, something the body is not intended to do.

FOr healthcare I think waiting 18 months for a final ruling is far too long. No thanks.

Sorry you don't like it, but that's how the world works.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Can you blame people for not wanting to wait 18 months after a bill passes to find out what the final rules are going to be. Healthcare is too important and that is far too long to wait. LEt the experts define what the mins are up front so people know what they are going to be getting.

As Orbyte mentioned that's just not how legislation on this or anything else works. (nor should it) Congress is the boss, they set up the infrastructure and articulate policy goals, and the people Congress appoints to do the work figure out how to get there. That's the way anything that is well run works.

Usually when Congress runs into trouble is when they try to get into the fine details, something the body is not intended to do.

FOr healthcare I think waiting 18 months for a final ruling is far too long. No thanks.

It seems to me that you are trying to make a convenient excuse to dismiss this reform effort.

The legislative goals are laid out. the regulations that follow must be written in a way to implement those goals. And there are ALWAYS audits/checks/balances to make sure that legislation is implemented AS WRITTEN. Laws simply do not get written only to be underminded by regulation....that only happens in conspiracy novels.

Most of legislation is written in this way. And it has worked since the beginning.

THere is plenty in this bill not to like. There are many reforms that could be implemented do not involve getting the govt more involved in an already over regulated industry.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: charrison

Can you blame people for not wanting to wait 18 months after a bill passes to find out what the final rules are going to be. Healthcare is too important and that is far too long to wait. LEt the experts define what the mins are up front so people know what they are going to be getting.

As Orbyte mentioned that's just not how legislation on this or anything else works. (nor should it) Congress is the boss, they set up the infrastructure and articulate policy goals, and the people Congress appoints to do the work figure out how to get there. That's the way anything that is well run works.

Usually when Congress runs into trouble is when they try to get into the fine details, something the body is not intended to do.

FOr healthcare I think waiting 18 months for a final ruling is far too long. No thanks.

It seems to me that you are trying to make a convenient excuse to dismiss this reform effort.

The legislative goals are laid out. the regulations that follow must be written in a way to implement those goals. And there are ALWAYS audits/checks/balances to make sure that legislation is implemented AS WRITTEN. Laws simply do not get written only to be underminded by regulation....that only happens in conspiracy novels.

Most of legislation is written in this way. And it has worked since the beginning.

THere is plenty in this bill not to like. There are many reforms that could be implemented do not involve getting the govt more involved in an already over regulated industry.

I think the experience of the rest of the industrialized world shows us what we should be doing, and it's not deregulating the insurance industry.