How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[Olo401]

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Explain Sec. 102 for me plox. If I've got this entire thing wrong, I have no problem admitting it.

Let's have a look then..

Sec. 102: PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

...as if the title of the fucking section wasn't enough for you to figure it out yourself. Still I'm guessing you'll want an explanation for all of Section 102.

Well here you are! Spoilered for wall o'text & formatted for BG viewing pleasure..

Spoiler: show

Sec. 102: PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.
Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(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
16 day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.— Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.— The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific
grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the
Commissioner.

(b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT BASED HEALTH PLANS.—
(1) GRACE PERIOD.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.
(B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS PLANS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the following:
(i) Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PL 111–5).
(ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including coverage under a specified disease or illness policy described in paragraph (3)(A) of such section.
(iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify. In no case shall an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the coverage or benefits described in clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable coverage under this division
(2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—During the grace period specified in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health plan that is described in such paragraph shall be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.

(c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.

And explained..
a - Anyone who has insurance now has the option to keep it, as is.
b - Anyone can keep their existing employer-based plan and employers can offer existing plans, as is, to new employees along with the choice of public coverage plan.
c - New private insurance plans (i.e. plans that are not grandfathered in) are automatically offered via the health insurance exchange (aka the insurance plan that currently covers elected officials) along with the public coverage plan.

Waiting for that admission...

[Rhinox]

1st where did I advocate war? 2ndly what does this prove?

It proves, since it went over your head, that there are far more nonproductive ways that government "wastes" money. The military is one of them in which we as the people have no say in how its funded.

Translation:



I can do that too.
Seriously, Troll harder or read better.

Point still stands like i said lrn2read

Way to address the point about switching plans and if your premiums change.

I like your idea though, much better then the current system.

It's called a public option for a fucking reason. No one is gonna stop you if you want to keep or switch your shitty blue cross blue shield hmo.

Healthcare for everyone isn't a bad idea. Our federal government running it is.

Why is Government bad again?

[Rhinox]

Let's have a look then..

Sec. 102: PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

...as if the title of the fucking section wasn't enough for you to figure it out yourself. Still I'm guessing you'll want an explanation for all of Section 102.

Well here you are! Spoilered for wall o'text & formatted for BG viewing pleasure..


And explained..
a - Anyone who has insurance now has the option to keep it.
b - Anyone can keep their existing employer-based plan and employers can offer existing plans to new employees along with the choice of a public plan (aka the private/public health insurance exchange)
c - New private insurance plans (i.e. plans that are not grandfathered in) are automatically offered by the health insurance exchange.

Waiting for that admission...

My theory is that he panicked when you called him on his bluff went to skim through really quick and saw "Preventing" in the the section title.

[Sirrus_Asura]

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.— Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

This is a bit confusing, care to explain?

(c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.

By the looks of it, you can have what are called "Excepted benefits"? Is this the same as health insurance?

[Sirrus_Asura]

It proves, since it went over your head, that there are far more nonproductive ways that government "wastes" money. The military is one of them in which we as the people have no say in how its funded.


Point still stands like i said lrn2read


It's called a public option for a fucking reason. No one is gonna stop you if you want to keep or switch your shitty blue cross blue shield hmo.



Why is Government bad again?

1. I'm well aware that government wastes money. At no point did I say that I agree with how the military is funded or functions.

2. What point? Why do you have this assumption I have an issue with poor people? Explain plox.

3. Yes and Federal Express has the word "Federal" in it. They must be with the Federal Government correct?

4. You have an entity that makes our laws and absorbs 1/3rd of most peoples income every year and that entity is swayed by lobbyists and money.

5. Don't ride Olo401's dick too hard. He's actually giving good responses.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

So guartz is telling us that back in the day healthcare was basically free / low cost and by the influence of greedy doctors and hospitals this was taken away and we now are in the middle of a health crisis, so naturally the solution is to ignore the influence of the populace asking to take us back to a place where healthcare is affordable and humane and reverse the current trend by using the elected government that got us into this mess in the first place.

Wait, wut?

[Rhinox]

1. I'm well aware that government wastes money. At no point did I say that I agree with how the military is funded or functions.

Holy shit, I explained it twice and it still goes over your head.

2. What point? Why do you have this assumption I have an issue with poor people? Explain plox.

what the fuck is plox? anyway you said you want government relocation programs for the poor and the homeless. You want them shipped out into certain states.

3. Yes and Federal Express has the word "Federal" in it. They must be with the Federal Government correct?

HAHAHHAHA. dude seriously quit trolling me bro.

Please Cut the Crap

4. You have an entity that makes our laws and absorbs 1/3rd of most peoples income every year and that entity is swayed by lobbyists and money.

And states government are free from this influence you speak of?

5. Don't ride Olo401's dick too hard. He's actually giving good responses.

You're either the most retarded assbackward Libertarian I have ever met or a good troll. My money is on option 1.

Btw Pohi if you're reading this I've got a question for you.

[Rhinox]

Or guartz. I guess he'll do.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Holy shit, I explained it twice and it still goes over your head.

what the fuck is plox? anyway you said you want government relocation programs for the poor and the homeless. You want them shipped out into certain states.

HAHAHHAHA. dude seriously quit trolling me bro.

Please Cut the Crap

And states government are free from this influence you speak of?

1. Explain it again.

2. How is that me hating the poor? I said State Run Healthcare; Someone responds "BUT PO PPL WONT BE ABLE TO MOVE", I say offer transportation for those who need it.

But you're right, that's just me hating.

3. "ITS GOT OPTION IN THE TITLE, THEREFOR ITS AN OPTION". Try and draw a parallel between what you said and what I said. I'm sure that wont be too hard for you.

4. They're smaller, more manageable and more accountable. That and the decisions they make don't directly fuck up the entire country. If a state goes backwards, you move~

[Rhinox]

1. Explain it again.

Fun Fact: 36 cents out of every tax dollar is pumped into the military. Another Fun fact: We haven't been attacked by a nation since WW II. You really want to cut government spending? Have them stop sending us to fucking Needless Wars.

gotta love all these assholes who would rather have a Pay or Die system then something that you know might actually benefit the majority of this country cause it smells of dare I say it?

Spoiler: show

Socialism

It proves, since it went over your head, that there are far more nonproductive ways that government "wastes" money. The military is one of them in which we as the people have no say in how its funded.

and now again

If the government is gonna spend money it should spend it on it's people who are in need not playing cowboy's and indians around the the world.

2. How is that me hating the poor? I said State Run Healthcare; Someone responds "BUT PO PPL WONT BE ABLE TO MOVE", I say offer transportation for those who need it.

transportation isn't the issue stupid. Living cost and the cost of moving is what would hinder people. Not a 40 dollar greyhound bus ticket to your nearest out of state ghetto. How great did Bush and the state of texas handle Katrina survivors after they where bussed to texas?

3. "ITS GOT OPTION IN THE TITLE, THEREFOR ITS AN OPTION". Try and draw a parallel between what you said and what I said. I'm sure that wont be too hard for you.

I'll give you that I could've been more specific. Which is why I posted the link I did.

4. They're smaller, more manageable and more accountable. That and the decisions they make don't directly fuck up the entire country. If a state goes backwards, you move~

More accountable/Manageable? really? Do you not know how state governments are run? They're essentially Patronage jobs

[Sirrus_Asura]

and now again

If the government is gonna spend money it should spend it on it's people who are in need not playing cowboy's and indians around the the world.
transportation isn't the issue stupid. Living cost and the cost of moving is what would hinder people. Not a 40 dollar greyhound bus ticket to your nearest out of state ghetto. How great did Bush and the state of texas handle Katrina survivors after they where bussed to texas?
I'll give you that I could've been more specific. Which is why I posted the link I did.

More accountable/Manageable? really? Do you not know how state governments are run? They're essentially Patronage jobs

1. That's great. No argument here.

2. But you want these people in charge of your healthcare?

3. Apparently I don't. You might have to enlighten me on this.

[Olo401]

This is a bit confusing, care to explain?

To be perfectly honest it looks like it's a restriction to prevent changing legacy plans that are grandfathered in (i.e. a protection measure for people who keep their existing plans, so they don't get screwed by an HMO that wants to cut their coverage to trim the bottom line).

I could be interpreting it wrong though, since it depends on the text from another laws already on the books.. let me dig around a bit more to verify.

By the looks of it, you can have what are called "Excepted benefits"? Is this the same as health insurance?

Depends on what Sec. 2791c of the PHSA says.. more digging! I wonder if I get frequent flier miles for visiting Findlaw and Cornell Law School's website?

[Sirrus_Asura]

To be perfectly honest it looks like it's a restriction to prevent changing legacy plans that are grandfathered in (i.e. a protection measure for people who keep their existing plans, so they don't get screwed by an HMO that wants to cut their coverage to trim the bottom line).

I could be interpreting it wrong though, since it depends on the text from another laws already on the books.. let me dig around a bit more to verify.



Depends on what Sec. 2791c of the PHSA says.. more digging! I wonder if I get frequent flier miles for visiting Findlaw and Cornell Law School's website?

If there's no catch 22 within those 2 parts I'ma have to be downin some humble pie.

[Khamsin]

My impression was it'd just be another healthcare option. e.g. I could choose to be covered by Group Health, or Premera Blue Cross, or any number of other plans. The public option would just be another to freely choose, restricted by plan years and enrollment periods and all that like any other plan, I assume.

Am I wrong?

[Beckwin]

You act like the government couldn't start a program to help people move to a healthcare state. Is that out of their power?

So everyone should be apart of the government healthcare system regardless of how that state feels and you don't think that's fucked up in the slightest bit? That's not even a fair choice.

Once again, I'm amazed at your faith in government not to fuck this up.

So you're saying it'd be wasteful and mega-inefficient for the government to provide health insurance, but if the states did it and the federal gov't created a program to help poor people move and find jobs in states with state health insurance, it'd magically be more efficient?

I mean you talk about disbelief in my "faith" in gov't but are arguing for a solution by state governments for healthcare and the federal gov't for a potentially massive relocation program.

I really hate when conservatives/libertarians talk about state governments like they aren't still government; again for all the flaws of our federal government, state governments generally manage to be worse and more inefficient. you can argue for decentralization all you want but this isn't some kind of power grab and it's also a situation that benefits, efficiency wise, from having larger pools of participants (larger pools drives down insurance costs in general).

[Sirrus_Asura]

So you're saying it'd be wasteful and mega-inefficient for the government to provide health insurance, but if the states did it and the federal gov't created a program to help poor people move and find jobs in states with state health insurance, it'd magically be more efficient?

I mean you talk about disbelief in my "faith" in gov't but are arguing for a solution by state governments for healthcare and the federal gov't for a potentially massive relocation program.

I really hate when conservatives/libertarians talk about state governments like they aren't still government; again for all the flaws of our federal government, state governments generally manage to be worse and more inefficient. you can argue for decentralization all you want but this isn't some kind of power grab and it's also a situation that benefits, efficiency wise, from having larger pools of participants (larger pools drives down insurance costs in general).

My argument for states running heath care has nothing to do with wasteful spending and efficiency. It's about more people getting their way. If there is any infringement upon peoples freedom to choose / change / pick their provider, then I don't think it's fair to blanket it over everyone, It's as simple as that.

If a state government wants to enact a Government Option, I'm fine with this, because it doesn't effect the other 50 states directly. Hell, the health-care states could collaborate and combine funds, that helps satisfy your concern with the larger pool of money.

*This is also under the assumption that this health care bill actually limits peoples choices, which seems to be up for debate.*

I really hate it when people assume they know why I feel the way I do.

Lastly, I have a hard time believing state governments are as bad as you say they are.

[Rhinox]

You're living under a rock then.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Are you going to explain how State Governments are so much worse than the Federal Government? Or are things just true because you say they are?

Edit: I don't want to be an outright prick to you, but your responses make it really hard to do so.

[Rhinox]

I'll just leave this right here.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aGQ2gvumwE

[Sirrus_Asura]

Edit: Blah