ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Neoteny]

Er, I'm not sure it's called that in the bill, actually, but the general plan has been referred to as the National Insurance Exchange. I think it's usually referred to as "state-based exchange program" or something along those lines.

What all that business on page 16:

1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6
erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18
MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26
fore the first day of Y1.

is saying is mostly 2 things.

Individual policies already in effect may continue but may not be altered, and employers have five years to get in compliance with the new regulations.

New policies will still be available, but they will have to be made available through some sort of state-based exchange program. I'm not completely versed on the specifics, but it will at least be a system where the private companies will still be competing against each other as well as a government plan. If you want to change your policy, it will just have to meet the requirements of this exchange system. I suppose the requirements might be debatable, but I don't really know that they will be much different from current regulations.

Anyhow, it's not making private insurance illegal. At most, it's changing the regulations on private insurance, which could, I suppose, be manipulated to be out of reach, but I can't say that's happening.

[Neoteny]

PS and let's just ignore the FACT that socialized medicine is not even being considered right now.

Except that's what Obama stated it will lead to before he started his presidential campaign. And even more recently prominent democrats like Barney Frank said that he wishes they could go straight to single-payer, but that the public plan would have to be a stop on the way to that. The American people are starting to see through the rhetoric that Obama, Pelosi, and other democrats are spouting regarding the plans and are now seeing the plan for what it is: more government.

Ironically, most of the people on this forum have long seen through the rhetoric you spout here and see it for what it really is: more nonsense.

[Neoteny]

If the free-marketeers are right, the private market should respond to this competitive threat by innovating, by improving, and by winning out. If that happens, then we all win.

[Neoteny]

And, to address Phatscotty's retarded title, the current bill, even if it were socializing, is not socializing healthcare, it's reforming insurance standards. Don't worry, your doctor is still going to get paid out the ass for poking your prostate you old fogies.

I find it staggering that everyone is freaking out about something that exists only in their minds.

[Snorri1234]

If the free-marketeers are right, the private market should respond to this competitive threat by innovating, by improving, and by winning out. If that happens, then we all win.

Word. All these free-market lovers should be glad that the free market finally has a chance to prove it is the best option.

[GabonX]

A big problem here is that people have this idea that they are going to get "free universal coverage."

That's yet to be seen. Just because a person is in favor of universal health care does not mean that they would be in favor of this plan.

I'm skeptical of the idea as I recognize that bureaucracy often times does not improve a situation but waists a lot of time, money and resources trying, but the fact is that nobody even knows the full extent of what this plan does.

Support of this bill is ignorance by definition.

[Neoteny]

So far, I've demonstrated that ignorance of this bill is fairly common on at least one side. I seriously doubt anyone thinks they are going to be getting free coverage. Really.

[Snorri1234]

A big problem here is that people have this idea that they are going to get "free universal coverage."

Yes, that is exactly what people think. All supporters of Universal health care are braindead morons who never pay taxes and think doctors work for free. You are completely right. You're not a blabbering moron, you are an intelligent and thoughtfull person who is right on everything.

That's yet to be seen. Just because a person is in favor of universal health care does not mean that they would be in favor of this plan.

Ofcourse not. Why would you say such an obvious thing?

I'm skeptical of the idea as I recognize that bureaucracy often times does not improve a situation but waists a lot of time, money and resources trying,

Yes, and the insurance companies certainly don't waste an astonishing large amount of money on overhead costs like administration and trying to deny claims.

Seriously, objecting to this because money would be wasted in bureaucracy is absurd since government programs are far more efficient at spending the money on actual care. (Which is due to them not wasting resources on trying to get out of payment and such.)

but the fact is that nobody even knows the full extent of what this plan does.

Just because you don't doesn't mean nobody else does either.

Support of this bill is ignorance by definition.

Refreshing.

[Snorri1234]

Is anyone suprised that the previous threads about this very topic always seem to die whenever I or one of the other dancers makes solid points and arguments?*



I am not.






*Or in better words: "Lays down the LAW!"

[TheBro]

Healthcare should be like premium membership. If you pay $25 you get covered for a year. If you don't, you only get covered 4 times a year.

[PLAYER57832]

The Efficiency of the Court System combined with the Compassion of the IRS

PS and let's just ignore the FACT that socialized medicine is not even being considered right now.

The primary fix is to require everyone to carry insurers and insurance companies to cover everyone at reasonable rates.

... PLAYER, explain this one to me, please.

Under the header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states: (page 16 of the bill)

“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".

... In simpler English, for the kids from US public schools:

... Health insurance companies cannot legally enroll new members once this bill becomes law.

Read on.

Basically, its what's commonly known as a "grandfather" clause. The insurance companies will have to offer new policies, with terms that comply with the new laws.

.... What option is left then, PLAYER, if not the "Public Option"?

... I know you despise insurance companies and I don't entirely disagree with you on that point, but explain to me please how this is supposed to work without becoming "socialized medicine".

...

Actually, I think it may lead to that in time, but not because of this legislation. It will lead to that because it will become more and more apparent that paying all the private insurer's and investors their hefty salaries is not the real way to keep costs down and provide decent coverage.

BUT, the insurance lobby is far too powerful to let that happen right now.

[Neoteny]

Is anyone suprised that the previous threads about this very topic always seem to die whenever I or one of the other dancers makes solid points and arguments?*



I am not.






*Or in better words: "Lays down the LAW!"

I am saddened by how difficult it is to find a gif or video of a good Arsenio Hall fist pump...

[Snorri1234]

Is anyone suprised that the previous threads about this very topic always seem to die whenever I or one of the other dancers makes solid points and arguments?*



I am not.






*Or in better words: "Lays down the LAW!"

I am saddened by how difficult it is to find a gif or video of a good Arsenio Hall fist pump...

Well, guess we have to settle for him looking kind of scared in one of the best movies ever.

[GabonX]

Is anyone suprised that the previous threads about this very topic always seem to die whenever I or one of the other dancers makes solid points and arguments?*

You've yet to make a solid point or argument that I've seen.

You offer your opinions and ridicule people who don't agree with them while alluding to statistics which are not presented.

Also, you choose to ignore legitimate and real problems with the European and Canadian systems which are actually presented.

[bedub1]

I can't believe people are bitching about $75 to see a doctor. Do you realize how much money it costs to go to school to be a doctor? Do you realize how much they have to pay for insurance? I do Network Engineering, and my company bills me out at $165 per hour. I have less education, less insurance. A doctor wants $75 and you bitch and complain? You wanna know why healthcare is expensive, CAUSE IT'S HARD WORK.

NOBODY should support this 1000 page plan. It's a terrible idea. And beyond that, only having 24 hours to review a 1000+ plus plan is just stupid. Obama just wants to shove it through before anybody has a chance to read the thing and realize it will destroy healthcare and this country. Obama is an idiot, I hope he dies of a heart attack.

[GabonX]

.... What option is left then, PLAYER, if not the "Public Option"?

... I know you despise insurance companies and I don't entirely disagree with you on that point, but explain to me please how this is supposed to work without becoming "socialized medicine".

...

Actually, I think it may lead to that in time, but not because of this legislation. It will lead to that because it will become more and more apparent that paying all the private insurer's and investors their hefty salaries is not the real way to keep costs down and provide decent coverage.

BUT, the insurance lobby is far too powerful to let that happen right now.

It comes down to a question of whether or not a person thinks having companies compete with one another for business, or an all powerful government entity which does not have to answer to anyone, will result in better service.

It's a tough call no doubt. Frankly, people would be better off if they would save their wealth but such is frowned upon by the social agenda.

[Neoteny]

I can't believe people are bitching about $75 to see a doctor. Do you realize how much money it costs to go to school to be a doctor? Do you realize how much they have to pay for insurance? I do Network Engineering, and my company bills me out at $165 per hour. I have less education, less insurance. A doctor wants $75 and you bitch and complain? You wanna know why healthcare is expensive, CAUSE IT'S HARD WORK.

NOBODY should support this 1000 page plan. It's a terrible idea. And beyond that, only having 24 hours to review a 1000+ plus plan is just stupid. Obama just wants to shove it through before anybody has a chance to read the thing and realize it will destroy healthcare and this country. Obama is an idiot, I hope he dies of a heart attack.

[PLAYER57832]

PS and let's just ignore the FACT that socialized medicine is not even being considered right now.

Except that's what Obama stated it will lead to before he started his presidential campaign.[ And even more recently prominent democrats like Barney Frank said that he wishes they could go straight to single-payer, but that the public plan would have to be a stop on the way to that.

The majority of American people, when they hear the real facts, want a single-payor system. Obama has said that if he could start from scratch, he probably would favor a single-payor system, however he also says that making such a sweeping change to 6% of the nation's economy is just not practical right now.

Here is the deal.

Do you have insurance? If no, then we, then unless you are independently wealthy, the taxpayers will foot the bill should you get seriously injured -- so much for your idea of "pay your own way".

If yes, have your rates increased in the past 3 years? Note, I don't just mean your "out of pocket" expenses, I mean the portion your employer might pay as well. For almost everyone in the US, rates have gone up a minimum of 30% for the same coverage.

BUT -- most people's coverage has not really remained the same at all.

Furthermore, do you know what the "lifetime limits" to your policy are? Do you know how much medical care you can use before reaching those limits? Chances are a bout with cancer and/or a serious accident will eat them up.

Worst of all, if you do manage to actually use most of those benefits, then your insurer will cancel OR you will wind up costing your employer so much money to ensure you that they will be all but forced to let you go. And, yes, supposedly you are not supposed to be fired just because you get sick, but welcome to the real world. No employee is so perfect they can withstand a true attempt to fire them.

ALL of those things hit small business owners far harder than the big corporations. This legislation would put everyone on even footing, would require the insurers to offer the same policies to everyone, not better policies to big corporations or only healthy people. Will some people pay more? Young, very healthy people will pay more, BUT it will balance out because the overwhelming majority will (surprise!) get sick eventually.

FIRTHERMORE, you cannot lump medicaid, (which often has not worked well) with Medicare, which has absolutely worked very well... ask your elderly neighbors if you don't think it works!

The American people are starting to see through the rhetoric that Obama, Pelosi, and other democrats are spouting regarding the plans and are now seeing the plan for what it is: more government.

As opposed the the scare tactics put forward by the far right?

Real people could care less how much government there is. We want effective government. Bush might have theoretically reduced government roles by turning jobs over to private contractors, but it really wound up costing us more money AND was less effective that direct government work.

This is the part all you "less government" folks seem to forget. Things the government does are inherently different from those things the private sector does. They are specifically things that are either too critical to leave to market vagaries (defense, transportation ... and many people would say heathcare now, as well) OR are not profitable (a lot of ground-breaking research in all areas, parks, forests, cleam water, clean air, protecting species, etc.)

Sometimes just making money is not the best guage of success. Sometimes its what you accomplish WITH that money.

[GabonX]

And sometimes failure can be judged by how poorly funds are spent.

The Federal Government should be looking in to ways to do more with less. Throwing more money at a problem doesn't necessarily fix it.

This plan will however make all citizens subject to the whims of the state..that is when everyone is grandfathered in.

[Snorri1234]

Is anyone suprised that the previous threads about this very topic always seem to die whenever I or one of the other dancers makes solid points and arguments?*

You've yet to make a solid point or argument that I've seen.

Just because you're too dumb to spot them doesn't mean they aren't there.

You offer your opinions and ridicule people who don't agree with them while alluding to statistics which are not presented.

Honestly, if you can't be bothered to check wikipedia it's futile to argue with you. These statistics I speak of are right there. Your insistence on denying they are true is strikingly absurd.

Also, you choose to ignore legitimate and real problems with the European and Canadian systems which are actually presented.

Actually, I do not ignore them. However, they are usually unrelated to the topic or flat-out wrong in their conclusion.

Furthermore, those problems are generally either also the case in the US or limited to the specific form of health care the country provides. The only problem that is universal in the countries with universal healthcare is that of waiting times, which are a logical result of everyone having health care. To use that as proof of how much better your system is is absurd, since what you're saying is that denying a lot of people care is better than giving it to everyone. I mean, waiting for knee-surgery for 3 months is annoying but it's better than not even having a chance at getting that surgery at all.

[Neoteny]

Also, you choose to ignore legitimate and real problems with the European and Canadian systems which are actually presented.

That's great except the reform proposed is not like Canadian or European systems. That's what we call a straw man... where's thegreekdog when you need him?

That's why we ignore the problems with Europe and Canada.

[PLAYER57832]

Is anyone suprised that the previous threads about this very topic always seem to die whenever I or one of the other dancers makes solid points and arguments?*

You've yet to make a solid point or argument that I've seen.

You offer your opinions and ridicule people who don't agree with them while alluding to statistics which are not presented.

Also, you choose to ignore legitimate and real problems with the European and Canadian systems which are actually presented.

No we have presented facts, research, etc. You choose to ignore it or claim it is "biased", not because they lack scientific credibility, but because you disagree.

Furthermore, 99% of what you present is pure outright garbage and lies. But, half the time you make it clear you have not even read what you post, so that is not a great surprise.

My major source was a whole series of investigations NPR did last year. They looked at as many countries with as many different types of programs as they could. I don't remember all but they looked at Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, even Thailand, to name a few. They interviewed people using care in various situations (elderly parents, disabled kids, etc.), doctors, etc. I don't know if those links even still exist. It was done some time ago.

This "socialized healthcare doesn't work" is an old saw. The reality is you DON'T see Europeans clamoring for a new system. You DO see millions of americans who say, plain and simply "this MUST change!".

[GabonX]

I hear both of you telling me that these things exist, but the bottom line is you have yet to present any information. Undoubtedly there is a lot of propaganda and suppression of information mixed in with real information, but I have yet to see either of you (Snorri and Player) present ANY of it.

There is legitimate information, which I have presented time and time again, which contradicts your claims that there are not inherent and crippling flaws with socialized medicine in other countries.

As for not being able to find Europeans who are dissatisfied with social health care one need not look further than the first page of this thread

[Snorri1234]

Also, you choose to ignore legitimate and real problems with the European and Canadian systems which are actually presented.

That's great except the reform proposed is not like Canadian or European systems. That's what we call a straw man... where's thegreekdog when you need him?

That's why we ignore the problems with Europe and Canada.

Actually, it's very much like the dutch system. Except that there is no government-option.

[GabonX]

Also, you choose to ignore legitimate and real problems with the European and Canadian systems which are actually presented.

That's great except the reform proposed is not like Canadian or European systems. That's what we call a straw man... where's thegreekdog when you need him?

That's why we ignore the problems with Europe and Canada.

Actually, it's very much like the dutch system. Except that there is no government-option.

Hehe, I didn't claim that this would be like their system's did I?

Socialized health care in the United States is turning out to be a different animal. This is about controlling the population.