HR 3200 - the Health Care Bill...

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok - lots of arguing all over this forum over what is and isn't in it and what it means to the American people.

So - read it for yourself.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text)

Some problems I have found already.....

Sec 102 (a) 1 (A) specifically deals with new enrollments after this starts. While the section grandfathers existing coverage - (A) limites enrollment into private insurance after the government insurance exists. Meaning you have insurance now through your employer - great. You change jobs - you are going to be limited in enrolling in your new employers plan though - you get government insurance instead!

Makes it look alot like mandated insurance through the government - unless you happen to stay with one company your entire career....

Also check out Sec 102 (c) 1 (A)
It says that no individual insurance after goverment insurance takes effect can be OFFERED.

Again - how about that choice that we get huh?

I will continue to go over the bill - but in 3 minutes of skimming the very beginning you can see that the bill itself makes it clear what the goal is - eradicate the choice of any healthcare that is not subsidized and overseen by the government.

So many people spout talking points... Well - here is the text - for those that think that this is a good thing - you better read it before you try to defend it.

[GoldenRivet]

i've said it from the start... its BS.

the feds are taking away virtually all of your individual options here.

:nope:

[mookiemookie]

Ok - lots of arguing all over this forum over what is and isn't in it and what it means to the American people.

So - read it for yourself.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text)

Some problems I have found already.....

Sec 102 (a) 1 (A) specifically deals with new enrollments after this starts. While the section grandfathers existing coverage - (A) limites enrollment into private insurance after the government insurance exists. Meaning you have insurance now through your employer - great. You change jobs - you are going to be limited in enrolling in your new employers plan though - you get government insurance instead! That's not what it says at all. See where it says "A) IN GENERAL- 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 Y1."

That "such" is the key. "SUCH COVERAGE" refers to the coverage outlined in the previous section, i.e. the "grandfathered health insurance coverage". if you like it, keep it. But they can't enroll new members in plans that fall below the minimum level of coverage.


Also check out Sec 102 (c) 1 (A)
It says that no individual insurance after goverment insurance takes effect can be OFFERED. Again, no it doesn't. It says coverage can't be offered unless it's through the Health Insurance Exchange....a brokerage house for health insurance plans, public and private. If you're going to quote a section, quote the whole section.

[CaptainHaplo]

Mookie - thanks for the input. I hope this thread can become a true discussion on the merits of the bill - not the talking points of one side or the other.

The "Health Insurance Exchange" is run by whom? My reading indicates its government controlled. However, before we debate it let me read a bit more on it so I can speak intelligently about it.

As for the such coverage - I think I see what your saying. Let me see if I do. A private policy cannot be offered if its not grandfathered in - whether through the employer or on an individual basis - unless it meets the standards defined by the government in both coverage and (as the bill terms it) "value"? Is this correct?

[mookiemookie]

As for the such coverage - I think I see what your saying. Let me see if I do. A private policy cannot be offered if its not grandfathered in - whether through the employer or on an individual basis - unless it meets the standards defined by the government in both coverage and (as the bill terms it) "value"? Is this correct?

From my understanding, that is correct.

[Platapus]

Wow, 1,000 pages. Will take some time to get through this.

Thanks for posting this

[GoldenRivet]

Wow, 1,000 pages. Will take some time to get through this.

Thanks for posting this

Not what congress seems to think.

they want to rush this through. :doh:

[CaptainHaplo]

ok TY Mookie.

But that then runs afoul of this....

SEC. 116. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.

(a) In General- A qualified health benefits plan shall meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commissioner. For any plan year in which the qualified health benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, QHBP offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment sufficient to meet such loss ratio.
So in light of the "Value" issue -what the bill states is that any private insurer that offers a policy through said exchange - MUST take a loss in an amount determined by a government official. If they do not - they must pay the people they insure so that the meet the loss requirements.

In other words - sure you can have private insurers - as long as you find companies that are willing to take a MANDATED loss every year. So how many businesses do you think are going to be willing to participate in that? You won't find any. The system is thus rigged to push out private insureres. I could understand maybe limiting profits (and even that is stifling to business) - but MANDATING a loss? There is no way any business could operate under those conditions.

[GoldenRivet]

Wake up folks.

Medicaid is broke.

Medicare is broke.

Social Security is broke.

congress honestly expects us to believe that this nonsense will work?

I'm astonished.

I am in a state of complete and total astonishment and shock - that anyone out there thinks this is even remotely a good idea :doh:

I guess there is one thing which no medical plan in the history of the universe will ever be able to cure... and thing is... stupidity

[Platapus]

Goldenrivet,

It is clear from the multiple posts that you don't agree with this bill.

What do you propose instead?

Let's hear YOUR plan.

[CaptainHaplo]

Platapus - you didn't ask for mine - but I have one if your interested - and it won't take 1000 pages to put into place either....

Also - one question that I will through out there for anyone. According to the bill - its purpose is:

"To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes."

I wonder what the devil else is hidden in this 1000+ pages! I already see amendments to the income tax law.... anyone want to wager what thats about????

[GoldenRivet]

Goldenrivet,

It is clear from the multiple posts that you don't agree with this bill.

What do you propose instead?

Let's hear YOUR plan.

major modifications to the current system we already have.

cut out the middle man.

let doctors get back to the basics of providing care... not running business. My health care options are between me - my doctor and my family.

Since uncle sam is not a blood relative he can stay the hell out of my business :D

I obviously cant sit down here and turn out a 5,000 page plan for you in the next few posts platapus.

but i do tell you this right now:

BOTH sides of the aisle have to sit down together and say "this is what we want" - "this is what we dont want" - "this is what we need" - "this is what we cant do without" - "this is what we agree on or disagree on".

and they need to spend the next 3 years thinking about it... discussing it... holding public forums of debate etc.

If BO was HALF the leader he claims to be he would come out and address the nation publicly the following statement:

"My fellow Americans, one of my chief goals in running for president was to provide sweeping health care reform to improve the most perfect of imperfect systems in the world. While it is clear that you cannot make everyone happy on this issue... i feel like myself and congress can do better than this... we must do better than this... we owe it to you the American People. it is my promise to you that any bill which comes across my desk which was not agreed upon, and was not bipartisan in it's nature... any health care reform bill which reaches me that was not voted for by the majority of both parties and does not appear to have overwhelming public support - will - be - vetoed - period."

thats my plan

at least until one can be formulated, studied, improved a hundred times over, shared with the public etc.

i see no reason to rush this thing through in 2 weeks time.:down:

[GoldenRivet]

in addendum to my post above.

look.

think back to before all of this medicare and medicaid business.

think back to the times before doctoring became a business... it was a profession yes... and you had to make money at it for it to make sense yes... but it was not a business per say.

Doctors made house calls existed.

regular family physicians were common place... a family saw one doctor all the time, he knew them all by name, he would visit when called upon or be available in the office to them... sometimes in the middle of the night if need be.

in my life - the only doctor i ever saw regularly and routinely who knew me by name was my pediatric doctor when i was barely old enough to speak.

once i grew out of the routine booster shots and vaccinations etc - i cant recall the name of a single doctor i have ever been to in my life except for the doctor who performs my routine aviation physicals every year.

we need to figure out a way to standardize health insurance plans - so that while some plans are slightly better than other plans... they really are not all that different.

we need to figure out a way to mix today's high tech health care with the personal care of yesteryear and we need to do that in such a way so as to keep the federal government from determining what is best for you or your loved one.

[SteamWake]

Again I remind you while this is good discussion do not take your eyes of the other hand.

Cap and trade is another issue of frightfull impact. It will come to a vote very soon.

[CaptainHaplo]

I agree that cap and trade has some horrible consequences.

I had hoped someone would have responded to deal with the actual bill, but maybe talking points fade when faced with fact....

Guess some are too busy sending my subsim ID to the white house to worry about responding. *No one person is singled out in these statements*

Still - everyone needs to read this monstrousity and think about what it means for them moving forward.

[CastleBravo]

When congress and the american people don't/won't read the bill we are at the mercy of one person. If that person was GWB we'd all be crazed.
BHO gets a pass. READ THE THING AND PRETEND YOU ARE A LAWYER. Because those are the folks who will be deciding.

[mookiemookie]

ok TY Mookie.

But that then runs afoul of this....

SEC. 116. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.

(a) In General- A qualified health benefits plan shall meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commissioner. For any plan year in which the qualified health benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, QHBP offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment sufficient to meet such loss ratio.

So in light of the "Value" issue -what the bill states is that any private insurer that offers a policy through said exchange - MUST take a loss in an amount determined by a government official. If they do not - they must pay the people they insure so that the meet the loss requirements.

In other words - sure you can have private insurers - as long as you find companies that are willing to take a MANDATED loss every year. So how many businesses do you think are going to be willing to participate in that? You won't find any. The system is thus rigged to push out private insureres. I could understand maybe limiting profits (and even that is stifling to business) - but MANDATING a loss? There is no way any business could operate under those conditions.


Ok, a "medical loss ratio" is defined as "the fraction of revenue from a plan's premiums that goes to pay for medical services." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/29/AR2006042900256.html)

It's not mandating that the private insurers must lose money. It's making sure they're paying out on claims.

This could be a good thing if they took an average of the medical loss ratio of the universe of insurers as a whole and said if you're X number of standard deviations from the mean then you get whacked with a penalty to get you back in line. I suppose it would have to do with how the minimum loss ratio is calculated, which I could not find the details on. I think it is to be determined later.

It could be bad if the bar is set too high though. It should not just be some subjective number.

Make no mistake, I don't think this is the perfect plan, and I'm not as in love with it as certain people would try to say I am. :03: