Please explain to me

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Seriously, I might be missing something here. Please enlighten me if I am. I have health insurance from CBS and it's quite good. Costs me a fortune, but I'm gald to have it. I'm very happy to reform health care and not change my coverage at all. I would suspect a lot of people who currently have no insurance will end up with something that isn't as good as what I have. I don't want anyone to require me to get worse insurance and I wouldn't expect Congress to do so either.

My guess is that all those who are inscripted will receive a less expensive though vastly inferior coverage than you have. It will clearly be a cut all corners private insurance run inscription. The bills presently in debate are no help to any America. The healthcare battle 09 is already lost.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by merrylander

We will keep ours hopefully, except the one thing they are saying is that people who buy their health insurance as individuals will see the cost go up. Oh, but we are supposed to get better coverage, except I don't see how ours could be better. Then of course if you want to see something get FUBAR give it to Congress to work on.

So if I pay $1200 a month (which I do) and work for myself it will go up????????? For what is essentially catastrophic insurance?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

The way I understand it is that people can keep their existing insurance providers, however, if there are subsequent changes to the policy i.e. rate, coverage, etc. all bets are off and they will be rolled into the new program.

This is all part of the Republican campaign of lies to make people afraid that they will be forced to give up the insurance they presently have. No proposal that I'm aware of would have required someone to be moved into the public system if their carrier changed their policy. On the other hand, I think some proposals gave people that option. Now, since it appears that any public option we might get will be means tested, I doubt there will be a provision even remotely like you describe.

John

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by noonereal

All people presently covered can elect to stay with there current provider as I understand it.

They certainly can. Until the there have been changes to their current plan by their provider that I mentioned as I understand it.

How many times a year are you notified of policy changes under your current plan?

RC

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

Kind of the same feeling I get when I mention that the Health Care Reform bills presented require all to participate except for House, Senate and upward. They get a pass for some reason.

No responses to that one either.

RC

Show me the proposal which requires universal participation in a gummint program, with or without Congress. There ain't one.

The only thing I can think of that you might be referring to is the "individual mandate" requiring everyone to be insured, either privately or under the co-op of private insurers which is the public option. I can see some Republican troll saying that Congress was "exempted" because they get insurance as part of their gig so they wouldn't have to participate in the public option. True enough but neither does anyone else as long as they have private insurance.

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

They certainly can. Until the there have been changes to their current plan by their provider that I mentioned as I understand it.

How many times a year are you notified of policy changes under your current plan?

RC

Can you cite the bill where that appears or is is just something you heard?

John

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by noonereal

My guess is that all those who are inscripted will receive a less expensive though vastly inferior coverage than you have.

I agree. If they get a "public option" passed, I almost certainly won't opt for it and wouldn't expect Congress to either.

Originally Posted by noonereal

It will clearly be a cut all corners private insurance run inscription. The bills presently in debate are no help to any America. The healthcare battle 09 is already lost.

Well, I don't agree here. Having some coverage will help them if they have a catastrophic illness. And having them "in the pool" is a big part of what makes this work. A lot of folks with no insurance now are young and don't get sick much. With them paying in too, it will make it all work better. Yes. It's Socialism. Bwa ha ha ha ha! Working of the common good of all Americans.

It's not what I'd do if I were King of America. But if I were King of America, it woudn't be America. We have a system and you have to work in our system. Part of that is making a lot of people happy. So we often end up with solutions that are complicated and inefficent. But it's like the old saying, ours in the worst system on Earth, except for all the others.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

They certainly can. Until the there have been changes to their current plan by their provider that I mentioned as I understand it.

How many times a year are you notified of policy changes under your current plan?

RC

Yeah, I still don't know what you're talking about. I suspect there is language that allows non-conforming coverage to be "grandfathered" in but it will need to conform if there are any changes. In other words, if you currently have a plan that lets them drop you if you get sick they'll still be able to do that. But if they jack your rates even more they'll have to keep you.

I have little to work with as you're not providing any details, but that's my best guess.

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Show me the proposal which requires universal participation in a gummint program, with or without Congress. There ain't one.

The only thing I can think of that you might be referring to is the "individual mandate" requiring everyone to be insured, either privately or under the co-op of private insurers which is the public option. I can see some Republican troll saying that Congress was "exempted" because they get insurance as part of their gig so they wouldn't have to participate in the public option. True enough but neither does anyone else as long as they have private insurance.

John

I'm currently looking for it and not just some opinion piece. I did read a direct cut from the language and I was not a stretch to understand the meaning by my estimation. Looked it up in the bill itself.


I did save this however save this from Pelosi's Bill however. Like I was saying the bill is riddled with the language "Shall" or "Must" when referring to the people.

One section of the Pelosi bill that DOESN’T use the word “shall” or “must” is section 330 (on page 225):

SEC. 330. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, Members of Congress may enroll in the public health insurance option.


I will find the rest but a 1900+ page document is not easy to navigate. Particularly on this ancient laptop I'm using at the moment. The POS moves about as fast as a herd of turtles.

RC

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

One section of the Pelosi bill that DOESN’T use the word “shall” or “must” is section 330 (on page 225):

You mean the House bill? As much as I admire my fellow former Baltimorean and current Bay Area resident, I don't think she wrote the House bill all by herself.

SEC. 330. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, Members of Congress may enroll in the public health insurance option.

This only tells me that Members are eligible, even if there's a means test they don't meet. I think that's a good thing. If Members join a public plan, that gives them "skin in the game". That can only ensure that the plan will be a good one.

John