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

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.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.

[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.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ok, a "medical loss ratio" is defined as "the fraction of revenue from a plan's premiums that goes to pay for medical services."

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.