Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

"For many families, health care relief begins today"

Health Care ObamaCare 2010

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 01:36 PM

Today a number of provisions in the health care bill passed this Spring will begin to take effect. Here's a good story on them:

http://www.nytimes.c...intro.html?_r=1

Quote

Starting now, insurance companies will no longer be permitted to exclude children because of pre-existing health conditions, which the White House said could enable 72,000 uninsured to gain coverage. Insurers also will be prohibited from imposing lifetime limits on benefits.

The law will now forbid insurers to drop sick and costly customers after discovering technical mistakes on applications. It requires that they offer coverage to children under 26 on their parents’ policies.

It establishes a menu of preventive procedures, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, that must be covered without co-payments. And it allows consumers who join a new plan to keep their own doctors and to appeal insurance company reimbursement decisions to a third party.


I don't think the bill went far enough and I'm still pissed off that the Democrats blinked on the public option. But that said, these are good, good things--long overdue reforms that will help a lot of people.

The Republicans, of course, vow to repeal this "socialistic, government-run" health care reform boogeyman that exists only in their rhetoric.

These are regulations. There is not one thing in this bill that is socialistic, and there is no "government-run health care" in this bill at all.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#2 JadziaDax

JadziaDax

    E.I.'s resident insomniac

  • Islander
  • 2,612 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 02:07 PM

I think the problem most Republicans have with the bill, other then not being able to claim credit for it-despite it being very similar to the one they tried to pass in the 90s, is it requires you to purchase insurance (and support corporations).

Which means the big bad government is telling you what to do, and in their minds, that's socialism.

Unfortunately, a lot of insurance companies are no longer selling child-only policies in response to this bill. Since (and correct me if I'm wrong) it's still legal to discriminate against adults with pre-existing conditions/being female, requiring a family plan could be very expensive for the people who only want to cover their kids but can't afford to cover themselves because of a pre-existing condition.


In all honestly, I wished they shoved a single-payer system down our system instead of the mess the bill is. I mean, it didn't get any Republican support anyways....so why not go for broke and actually try to make a difference instead of strengthening the status quo?

Edited by JadziaDax, 23 September 2010 - 02:08 PM.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup

#3 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 02:22 PM

^In that case, they may have been afraid of a successful court challenge on constitutional grounds.

#4 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 02:33 PM

^ Why would government-provided insurance be unconstitutional if Medicare isn't?
That's essentially what single-payer proponents want: something like Medicare-for-all.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#5 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 02:35 PM

View PostSpectacles quoting NY Times, on 23 September 2010 - 01:36 PM, said:

The law will now forbid insurers to drop sick and costly customers after discovering technical mistakes on applications. It requires that they offer coverage to children under 26 on their parents’ policies.

Isn't that the bugaboo though? Was it a "technical mistake" or a lie? If it was a lie, it's fraud.


Quote

And it allows consumers who join a new plan to keep their own doctors

I'm interested to know how that would work. Most insurance companies have special prices negotiated with preferred providers so if the person's previous doctor isn't one of those, does the new insurance company only have to pay the amount it would pay an in-network doctor, leaving the patient to pick up the extra cost that comes from going to an out-of-network doctor?

Edited by Palisade, 23 September 2010 - 02:54 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#6 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 02:42 PM

Quote

Jadzia: I think the problem most Republicans have with the bill, other then not being able to claim credit for it-despite it being very similar to the one they tried to pass in the 90s,


Interesting, isn't it? On the one hand, staunch Obama-supporters hail this as the most progressive accomplishment in 40 years, and on the other the right decries it as "socialism!" But in reality, it's almost identical to the health care plan proposed by Republicans in the early 90s. And it's close to what 2012 GOP contender Mitt Romney pushed for Massachusetts. So...I guess either Mitt Romney and GOP of the 90s were progressives or socialists. ;)

Quote

is it requires you to purchase insurance (and support corporations).

I don't think the Republicans mind at all that the mandate supports corporations. After all, they're the traditional party of corporate interests. They're running against the mandate because it is widely unpopular, even though mandated automobile insurance has been a fact of life in most states for years without turning them into communist strongholds.

But I hear ya. The only thing that made the mandate tolerable to me was the inclusion of a public option, which allowed people to opt NOT to give their money to a corporate insurance company but to pay in to something like Medicare. And that would have been a way to keep costs down.

Edited by Spectacles, 23 September 2010 - 02:43 PM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#7 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 03:25 PM

View PostSpectacles, on 23 September 2010 - 02:33 PM, said:

^ Why would government-provided insurance be unconstitutional if Medicare isn't?
That's essentially what single-payer proponents want: something like Medicare-for-all.

It wouldn't.  The idea that it would is another lie being fed to the public that the public is swallowing.

That said, call me selfish, but nothing is helping ME yet and it's not going to for a good long while.

Also, the best thing about the plan WOULD have been getting rid of the anti trust exemption.  But no, of course Obama had to cave on that one.

Do I sound bitter?

Damn straight I'm bitter.
Posted Image

#8 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 03:27 PM

View PostJadziaDax, on 23 September 2010 - 02:07 PM, said:

..so why not go for broke and actually try to make a difference instead of strengthening the status quo?

QFT.

Also they can kiss my lily white ass on "requiring" me to have insurance until they get off their cowardly butts and make that insurance AVAILABLE to me at the same damn rate they'd be charging your average applicant.
Posted Image

#9 JadziaDax

JadziaDax

    E.I.'s resident insomniac

  • Islander
  • 2,612 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 03:36 PM

View PostSpectacles, on 23 September 2010 - 02:42 PM, said:

Quote

is it requires you to purchase insurance (and support corporations).

I don't think the Republicans mind at all that the mandate supports corporations. After all, they're the traditional party of corporate interests. They're running against the mandate because it is widely unpopular, even though mandated automobile insurance has been a fact of life in most states for years without turning them into communist strongholds.

But the mandate is what a lot of Republicans got all pissy about when it passed. Remember? "Never before have we been required by law to buy something". They said the auto insurance wasn't a valid comparison since you don't have to have a car (but, I suppose if  you want to use the "don't want to pay, don't buy a car" argument you could use it like this: if you don't want to buy health insurance, you should move to another country).

Palisade said:

I'm interested to know how that would work. Most insurance companies have special prices negotiated with preferred providers so if the person's previous doctor isn't one of those, does the new insurance company only have to pay the amount it would pay an in-network doctor, leaving the patient to pick up the extra cost that comes from going to an out-of-network doctor?

Most doctors are part of several networks. It shouldn't promise you can keep your doctor, but chances are you'll be able to keep them.


:( I was initially very excited about the bill, but the more I read about it, the more it sounded like it didn't do very much in the way of making it affordable and available to everyone.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup

#10 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 03:54 PM

View PostJadziaDax, on 23 September 2010 - 03:36 PM, said:

Palisade said:

I'm interested to know how that would work. Most insurance companies have special prices negotiated with preferred providers so if the person's previous doctor isn't one of those, does the new insurance company only have to pay the amount it would pay an in-network doctor, leaving the patient to pick up the extra cost that comes from going to an out-of-network doctor?

Most doctors are part of several networks. It shouldn't promise you can keep your doctor, but chances are you'll be able to keep them.

But then what does this provision accomplish? If your old doctor is part of your new insurance company's network, why wouldn't your insurance company let you go to him?
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#11 JadziaDax

JadziaDax

    E.I.'s resident insomniac

  • Islander
  • 2,612 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 04:35 PM

View PostPalisade, on 23 September 2010 - 03:54 PM, said:

View PostJadziaDax, on 23 September 2010 - 03:36 PM, said:

Palisade said:

I'm interested to know how that would work. Most insurance companies have special prices negotiated with preferred providers so if the person's previous doctor isn't one of those, does the new insurance company only have to pay the amount it would pay an in-network doctor, leaving the patient to pick up the extra cost that comes from going to an out-of-network doctor?

Most doctors are part of several networks. It shouldn't promise you can keep your doctor, but chances are you'll be able to keep them.

But then what does this provision accomplish? If your old doctor is part of your new insurance company's network, why wouldn't your insurance company let you go to him?

I think it's about switching insurance plans, and getting to keep the doctor. Or still being able to go to the doctor if they are out-of-network in the new plan (but you'll have to pay more).
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup

#12 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 05:13 PM

It's only the first phase of the bill. The full bill doesn't take effect to 2012 or 14 or something. That will (in theory) allow everyone to get coverage at (again in theory) reasonable rates. I think it will work fairly well, personally. I say "in theory" but it is a complex issue and we won't know until we see it in action for a bit.

#13 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 05:42 PM

^  Two years from now means less than nothing to me.  Really.  NOTHING.
Posted Image

#14 Thia The Muse

Thia The Muse

    Galwit Mysto

  • Moderator
  • 893 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 06:15 PM

View PostPalisade, on 23 September 2010 - 02:35 PM, said:

View PostSpectacles quoting NY Times, on 23 September 2010 - 01:36 PM, said:

The law will now forbid insurers to drop sick and costly customers after discovering technical mistakes on applications. It requires that they offer coverage to children under 26 on their parents’ policies.

Isn't that the bugaboo though? Was it a "technical mistake" or a lie? If it was a lie, it's fraud.


There is a big difference between an honest mistake and fraud. Many insurance companies will go out of their way to find any error at all with your form to drop you if you prove to be too much of an expense. I understand dropping someone because they lied, but to drop someone because they filled out a form incorrectly is beyond shameful.
"Things are rarely just crazy enough to work, but they're frequently just crazy enough to fail hilariously."
~xkcd, "The Race: Part 4"
Posted Image

#15 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 08:10 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on 23 September 2010 - 05:42 PM, said:

^  Two years from now means less than nothing to me.  Really.  NOTHING.
Heck, I may not even live that long - but it's not just about me. And I recognize it takes time to properly build and staff and plan a system like they are proposing (government regulated shared healthcare pool basically).

#16 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 23 September 2010 - 10:21 PM

^Agreed. But it's good to know it's coming.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Health Care, ObamaCare, 2010

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users