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

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

So tell me which industrialized country is controlling medical costs? Oh wait, they have not solved that problem either.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: charrison

So tell me which industrialized country is controlling medical costs? Oh wait, they have not solved that problem either.

Well maybe they haven't 'solved' that problem (what would that mean anyway?) but they are certainly leaps and bounds more efficient than our system. Since we're looking to change ours, we should look to what works... and the rest of the 1st world offers an excellent model.

I think you know as well as I do that sooner or later we will give up (or be forced by economic reality to give up) and embrace that model. I'd rather do it now than wait another 30-50 years.

 

[PokerGuy]

Bottom line: the fact is that Obama is flat out lying when he says you will be able to keep your health care plan if you like it. I can understand why he wants to lie about it, since he doesn't want people to realize that they are going to be losing their insurance plans and be forced into the new government plan. You will not be able to keep your plan if you like it, because it will either cease to exist, or it will become way more expensive when the insurer is forced to include coverage you may or may not want.

 

[Painman]

Bottom line, Obama is a mushmouth. He wants to pass Something, but so far doesn't realize that Republicans are out for his political assassination. House Democrats know this.

The only reason you "won't be able to keep your current private plan" is because the gov't will declare it a worthless POS, which it probably is.

Once again, Americans clamber at the opportunity to have the proverbial boot crush their throat.

Just as long as it's the Right Boot. Not that icky Left one.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Thank you kindly for providing that. I know I should read the bill but honestly I don't have the time to read and actually comprehend multiple 1000+ page bills. I do have a few more questions that I hope some of you who do have the time, and an easier comprehension of legalese, won't mind answering.

Are the minimum requirements intended to be refined by the panel at a later date or are they black letter law? (IE. "(5) Prescription drugs." does that mean they must cover every prescription drug on the market? only generics? etc..)

Am I reading correctly that my current insurance plan must include dental coverage for my children in order to be in "compliance"? Right now we have separate plans for health and dental. I doubt I will see significant savings by removing my kids from our dental plan but I couldn't imagine my health insurance plan will provide that coverage for free so why should I have 2 separate dental plans?

Will tacking numbers 9 and 10 onto everyone's health plan lower or raise the costs of peoples plans that do not require that kind of coverage? I can think of an argument for and against it (spread the risk around to lower the cost/added coverage generally increases costs to consumer) have you seen any expert opinions on what this will do to real world costs, especially to people who do not need nor want that kind of coverage?

Lastly, is there a provision in the bill that allows everyone in a state to purchase any specific plan (that they qualify for) that an insurance company sells in that state? Wouldn't that be an easy way to delink insurance from employment as well as increase the number of people to spread the risk among?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Bottom line: the fact is that Obama is flat out lying when he says you will be able to keep your health care plan if you like it. I can understand why he wants to lie about it, since he doesn't want people to realize that they are going to be losing their insurance plans and be forced into the new government plan. You will not be able to keep your plan if you like it, because it will either cease to exist, or it will become way more expensive when the insurer is forced to include coverage you may or may not want.

no, he isn't

If you current plan gets pushed out of existence it will be because your provider failed to take the 5 year grace period to adjust its services to meet standards established by the government.

And quite frankly, I don't see the likelihood of any private insurer allowing that.

 

[brandonbull]

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.

Your first problem is saying "Congress is the boss". THEY ARE NOT THE BOSS AND NEVER SHOULD BE A BOSS. Congress and every other elected official's job is to represent the people.

It should never be acceptable to pass legislation without all the details written up front. None of this "just sign here and will fill in the rest later" garbage.

We have the right to know what exactly is going to happen because it has the potential to change our country in a major way.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
If Obama's lips are moving you can bet that he is lying.

'DEATH PANELS!!' :|

Oh... wait.. :roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

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.

Your first problem is saying "Congress is the boss". THEY ARE NOT THE BOSS AND NEVER SHOULD BE A BOSS. Congress and every other elected official's job is to represent the people.

It should never be acceptable to pass legislation without all the details written up front. None of this "just sign here and will fill in the rest later" garbage.

We have the right to know what exactly is going to happen because it has the potential to change our country in a major way.

In our system of government we choose people to be in an office for a minimum of two years and after we put them in place we cannot remove them. (they can remove each other, but that's another story) This is by design. So while the people can change them after those two (or more) years, for that period of time they are in fact the boss. This is how the creators of our country deliberately designed it. If you don't like it, change the Constitution.

It most certainly IS acceptable to pass legislation without all the details up front for exactly the reason I previously mentioned. The CEO of a well run company doesn't come down and tell the janitor how he should scrub a toilet, he puts out a policy that the bathroom needs to be clean.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: 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....

Not sure who you're writing this for, but I completely agree with you.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: OrByte

-snip-

Not sure who you're writing this for, but I completely agree with you.

Ahh don't mind me, I was piggybacking off your post (which I agree with) and bloviating to the ethernet in general...

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: brandonbull

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.

Your first problem is saying "Congress is the boss". THEY ARE NOT THE BOSS AND NEVER SHOULD BE A BOSS. Congress and every other elected official's job is to represent the people.

It should never be acceptable to pass legislation without all the details written up front. None of this "just sign here and will fill in the rest later" garbage.

We have the right to know what exactly is going to happen because it has the potential to change our country in a major way.

In our system of government we choose people to be in an office for a minimum of two years and after we put them in place we cannot remove them. (they can remove each other, but that's another story) This is by design. So while the people can change them after those two (or more) years, for that period of time they are in fact the boss. This is how the creators of our country deliberately designed it. If you don't like it, change the Constitution.

It most certainly IS acceptable to pass legislation without all the details up front for exactly the reason I previously mentioned. The CEO of a well run company doesn't come down and tell the janitor how he should scrub a toilet, he puts out a policy that the bathroom needs to be clean.

In no way is it or should be every acceptable to make legislation without the full details.

In no way would a CEO of a well run company would allow anyone present him with an idea and expect his signoff without explaining the details of the project.

 

[piasabird]

Why do you want to be forced to a plan run by a company (US Government) that has a lousy track record and cant balance the books on its medicaire plan? Why sign up for a plan with a company that is basically bankrupt?

There is no evidence that even the estimates envisioned by the government cronies are even realistic. Most likely you can take and government estimate of cost and multiply that by over 100.

Look at the Government cost overruns for the space shuttle as an example. Just take any government estimate and see how close it was. We are still building a site to store nuclear waste from reactors. Do you think that debaccle met its cost estimates?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Why do you want to be forced to a plan run by a company (US Government) that has a lousy track record and cant balance the books on its medicaire plan? Why sign up for a plan with a company that is basically bankrupt?

There is no evidence that even the estimates envisioned by the government cronies are even realistic. Most likely you can take and government estimate of cost and multiply that by over 100.

Look at the Government cost overruns for the space shuttle as an example. Just take any government estimate and see how close it was. We are still building a site to store nuclear waste from reactors. Do you think that debaccle met its cost estimates?

"Because ANYTHING is better than what we have now!"

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

In no way is it or should be every acceptable to make legislation without the full details.

In no way would a CEO of a well run company would allow anyone present him with an idea and expect his signoff without explaining the details of the project.

First, it happens all the time.

Second, your example is backwards.

The legislation puts the need into written law once signed.

The regulations/orders/rules created around the law is where the detail is developed.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Why do you want to be forced to a plan run by a company (US Government) that has a lousy track record and cant balance the books on its medicaire plan? Why sign up for a plan with a company that is basically bankrupt?

There is no evidence that even the estimates envisioned by the government cronies are even realistic. Most likely you can take and government estimate of cost and multiply that by over 100.

Look at the Government cost overruns for the space shuttle as an example. Just take any government estimate and see how close it was. We are still building a site to store nuclear waste from reactors. Do you think that debaccle met its cost estimates?

This is a better argument than what's currently being peddled by the MISinformers out there.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: eskimospy

In our system of government we choose people to be in an office for a minimum of two years and after we put them in place we cannot remove them. (they can remove each other, but that's another story) This is by design. So while the people can change them after those two (or more) years, for that period of time they are in fact the boss. This is how the creators of our country deliberately designed it. If you don't like it, change the Constitution.

It most certainly IS acceptable to pass legislation without all the details up front for exactly the reason I previously mentioned. The CEO of a well run company doesn't come down and tell the janitor how he should scrub a toilet, he puts out a policy that the bathroom needs to be clean.

In no way is it or should be every acceptable to make legislation without the full details.

In no way would a CEO of a well run company would allow anyone present him with an idea and expect his signoff without explaining the details of the project.

That's ridiculous, and there's no way the country could ever be run without leaving the details up to the bureaucracy. I don't think you understand how our system works. What you are suggesting will never happen, ever, in this country or any other outside of isolated circumstances. (and those are usually a bad idea)