Senator Max Baucus : Redefining "The Public Option"

[Titanic Sailor]

Exactly. Get used to it. Your opposition is based on emoticons when you can't handle an assertion, one that many IN GOVERNMENT already acknowledged.

 

[Contumacious]

Baucus just needs to go back and re-work his proposal. Fining and condemning people for not carrying health insurance just seems a bit Un-American to me. We should be fighting for more Freedom & Liberty for the people not less. There are compromises that can be made by all sides and that's what is going to have to happen in the end. Nice try by Baucus but i would advise him to try again.

You never answered my question. IF we do not fine these people, then can I have some of MY liberties back by NOT having to support them when they go for urgent care without insurance that they CHOSE not to have?

Your Liberties were taking away by the congresscritters , not the aliens.


.

 

[VaYank5150]

Exactly. Get used to it. Your opposition is based on emoticons when you can't handle an assertion, one that many IN GOVERNMENT already acknowledged.

If you are referring to the garbled piece of junk that appeared to be written by a 7 year old, then yes, my opposition stands. If you want to make a point Skippy, try to learn the Englilsh language and don't fuck it up next time. People will take you more seriously that way...

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Hey, we'll show those Republicans by selling out the American people. Who's in?

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Said the service manager dealing with automation and energy management..........


teeheeeheeeeeeeeeeeee!

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Liars.

 

[Oldandtired]

Democrats finally recognize Republicans have no interest in passing a bill. Only defeating the President Democrats will ignore Republicans and pass Health catre on their own without the Republicans. They realize that 40 people should not deny the people what they want! The best news is that there will not be a Re publican in he White House for a very long time!

Yeah...who cares what 53% of the people want. Democrats can pass anything they want.

You are quite selfish my friend.

And your grammar sucks ass.

 

[EriktheRed]

Senator Max Baucus : Redefining "The Public Option"

 

[Care4all]

Democrats finally recognize Republicans have no interest in passing a bill. Only defeating the President Democrats will ignore Republicans and pass Health catre on their own without the Republicans. They realize that 40 people should not deny the people what they want! The best news is that there will not be a Re publican in he White House for a very long time!

Yeah...who cares what 53% of the people want. Democrats can pass anything they want.

You are quite selfish my friend.

And your grammar sucks ass.

But isn't that what the Republicans did in the House of Representatives with the Medicare Pill Bill....not give a hoot about the rest of America and shoved their republican bill down the Democrats throat??? Through illegal means I might add...keeping a 15 minute vote opened for 3 hours because it lost the vote of the people but the republicans needed time to bribe and twist arms on representatives to CHANGE their vote to yes, in support of it?

I realize memory fades over time....but THAT ONE, I watched and I will NEVER FORGET.

The republicans have changed at least 20 different important measures in these bills through their complaints and wishes...the Dems have been MORE THAN ACCOMMODATING and have made many compromises thus far....

It is time to take an up or down vote, once the the amendments and floor debate is complete in the upcoming weeks...imho.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Getting costs under control and other issues can be resolved without giving up one's Freedoms & Liberties. Why don't more Americans understand this?

Really? Please xplain HOW we are supposed to care for those people who CHOOSE not to have health insurance and still control costs?

That's easy. If these people can afford to buy insurance but refuse to, then if they become ill, provide them with no assistance until they have spent down all of their assets and require bankruptcy courts not to allow them to get rid of their health care debts, and require them to pay a specified percentage of their incomes until all the debts, whether to private providers or government agencies, plus interest and collection costs are repaid. In this way those who can afford insurance will be discouraged from not buying it, and those who still refuse to buy will have to pay us back for any costs we suffer because of their decision.

For those who cannot afford insurance, direct them to the many federally funded and privately funded free and sliding scale clinics available everywhere in the US and refuse to pay ER's that provide non emergency care to them. Federally funded clinics already provide comprehensive basic medical and dental care for free or on a sliding scale basis regardless of your income, wealth or insurance status, and the federal government can pass a law that charitable contributions to privately funded clinics that do the same to the same standards will be tax exempt. The government can also design catastrophic care insurance policies to provide care for these people beyond what the clinics provide at Medicaid rates from Medicaid providers and provide sliding scale subsidies to allow these people to buy them. The private insurance companies that already provide HMO coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries would most likely also provide this coverage. In this way all those who are too poor to buy private insurance but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid will have affordable access to comprehensive health care at a much lower cost than any of the plans now being considered by Congress.

For those who cannot buy or afford to buy health insurance because of pre existing conditions, the federal government could establish sliding scale subsidies to cover part or all of the cost of high risk pool or rated insurance policies above standard rates depending on your wealth and income. It sucks to be sick, but imo, if you can afford to pay the extra cost of insuring your pre existing condition, you should. It just doesn't seem right to me that the janitor should be forced to pay some of the extra cost of the CEO's pre existing condition as the present plans do by requiring standard rate coverage for people with pre existing conditions.

To keep the cost of these subsidies down and to keep the cost of health insurance down for everyone else who buys health insurance, Congress could pass a bill that would allow private insurance companies to sell national insurance policies across state lines and to amend ERISA so that employees could apply the company's contribution to the purchase of individual policies. I have read there are 1500 health insurers in this country, so this would allow hundreds of companies to compete for each health insurance policy allowing price competition to drive down the cost of health insurance. To facilitate this process, the law can require national health insurance policies to be written in simple language that can be easily understood and in a standard format so that the costs and benefits of each policy can be easily compared. To further facilitate this process, the law can establish health insurance exchanges - not like the ones in HR 3200 that attempt to control all individual sales - that will provide software and counselors to help consumers compare policies and make appropriate choices. The exchanges could also provide data on how well companies live up to their contract obligations and the law could establish criminal and civil penalties for companies and employees who intentionally or through over zealousness deny their consumers payment for services they had contracted for. In this way efficient, honest companies will be rewarded and inefficient, dishonest companies will be punished, raising the quality of health insurance and lowering its cost for everyone.

 

[Contumacious]

You never answered my question. IF we do not fine these people, then can I have some of MY liberties back by NOT having to support them when they go for urgent care without insurance that they CHOSE not to have?

Interesting....

Funny thing...my mantra since this healthcare debate started...

"do what you want with healthcare. Tax me, blast me....Just don't impede on my liberties"

And this may be splitting hairs on my part, but as a human being, I am OK with helping those who simply cannot help themselves. HOWEVER, if given the option to provide for yourself, and you CHOOSE not to? Don't even look in my direction for assistance...

Well Vern, that is a problem . I work 8-10 hours 6 days a week - so I don't have the time to go around the 'hood to see who REALLY needs help.


.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus - Taking advantage of the fact that most Americans are victims of government education hence easily fooled - has Introduced a $856 Billion Health-Care Bill

It will require nearly all Americans to carry health insurance while barring insurance companies from discriminating against people based on their health status or denying coverage because of preexisting conditions.

He says that "The plan does not call for a government-run insurance option" - so who the fuck is going to enforce those requirements : Blackwater? ArmorGroup ? The Mexicans ? Canadians?

What a fuck tard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.

Health insurance companies are already regulated by state governments, in some states very highly regulated, and since there seems to be a large and broadly based consensus that we need a national policy to slow the rate of increase of health care and health insurance costs and to increase affordable access to health care/insurance, new federal legislation aimed at trying to achieve these goals is inevitable.

The problem with this bill, from what I have read so far about it, is that it fails to meet either goal and in the case of containing health care/insurance goals actually makes matters worse. Requiring insurers to cover those with pre existing conditions at standard rates and capping out of pocket health care expenses will cause standard rates to increase for everyone who now pays for health insurance. According to an analysis from the University of Michigan, insuring those with pre existing conditions at standard rates will cause standard rates to increase from 10% to 15%, an increase of $520 to $780 a year for a family of four paying for employers provided health insurance or $1,300 to $1,950 a year for those buying individual policies with comparable benefits.

Insured might pay more under Obama plan - Health care reform- msnbc.com

In effect, this plan, and the other plans being considered by the Congress, would pay for this coverage of those with pre existing conditions by imposing a regressive tax - those earning $40,000 a year would pay the same amount as those earning $240,000 a year - on all those now paying for either group or individual health insurance. Of course, capping out of pocket expenses means insurance company costs will increase and this increase will also be passed on to consumers, further increasing the tax this bill imposes on health insurance consumers.

The bill proposes to pay for a part of the cost it will generate by imposing fees, really excise taxes, on medical device suppliers and on insurance companies for each high end policy they sell. The medical device suppliers will simply pass this new expense on to consumers, further driving up health care costs, which will make health insurance cost even more, driving health insurance costs to those now paying for it even higher, and insurance companies will, of course pass on their increased costs due to the fees on high end insurance policies in the form of higher premiums. It is not unreasonable to expect to see a middle class family of four paying at least $1,000 a year more for their health insurance if this bill becomes law.

These increases in the cost of health insurance raises serious questions about whether or not this bill will decrease the number of uninsured. How many of the people now struggling to pay their monthly health insurance premiums will be able to pay the additional $80 a month or more this bill will impose on them? How many will be forced to drop their coverage, thus swelling the ranks of the uninsured? How many employers facing an additional $160 a month in expenses to provide health insurance will simply choose to drop their plans or pass more of their costs on to their employees? Since the current estimates of how many currently uninsured will receive subsidies that will allow them to buy insurance are based on current rates and current estimates of rate increases, not the higher rates this bill will create, it is unclear how many now currently uninsured will be helped by this bill if Obama's pledge of a $900,000,000 ten year cap on the federal government's outlays becomes law. Will the number newly uninsured equal the number of newly insured? Nobody knows.

There are many other problems with this bill, but in terms of containing health care/insurance costs, it is worse than doing nothing and in terms of increasing affordable access to health care/insurance it may be as bad as doing nothing.

this is why insurance has to be mandatory in the bill, according to some, because it would add 30-40 million new people to the insurance companies rolls, which more than compensates with added profit for covering the preexisting conditions for people who do not work...and can get on a group rate plan, which ALL cover preexisting conditions NOW.

Adding more people to the insured will also add more people with pre existing conditions so it will do nothing to lower the per capita costs. I know it sounds laudably egalitarian for everyone to pay the same rate, but it also means that the company's janitor will pay more for his insurance so that the company's CEO can pay less for his pre existing condition. A much fairer plan would be to establish sliding scale subsidies to help those who need it to pay the higher cost of health insurance due to their pre existing condition, and those who can afford to pay the full cost themselves, to pay for it. In this case, the CEO would pay the full cost of insuring his pre existing condition, the janitor would receive help paying for his and everyone without pre existing conditions would pay less for their health insurance.

 

[Contumacious]

Baucus just needs to go back and re-work his proposal. Fining and condemning people for not carrying health insurance just seems a bit Un-American to me. We should be fighting for more Freedom & Liberty for the people not less. There are compromises that can be made by all sides and that's what is going to have to happen in the end. Nice try by Baucus but i would advise him to try again.

Compromise.........what is the compromise between liberty and slavery....between life and death?


.

 

[Care4all]

Health insurance companies are already regulated by state governments, in some states very highly regulated, and since there seems to be a large and broadly based consensus that we need a national policy to slow the rate of increase of health care and health insurance costs and to increase affordable access to health care/insurance, new federal legislation aimed at trying to achieve these goals is inevitable.

The problem with this bill, from what I have read so far about it, is that it fails to meet either goal and in the case of containing health care/insurance goals actually makes matters worse. Requiring insurers to cover those with pre existing conditions at standard rates and capping out of pocket health care expenses will cause standard rates to increase for everyone who now pays for health insurance. According to an analysis from the University of Michigan, insuring those with pre existing conditions at standard rates will cause standard rates to increase from 10% to 15%, an increase of $520 to $780 a year for a family of four paying for employers provided health insurance or $1,300 to $1,950 a year for those buying individual policies with comparable benefits.

Insured might pay more under Obama plan - Health care reform- msnbc.com

In effect, this plan, and the other plans being considered by the Congress, would pay for this coverage of those with pre existing conditions by imposing a regressive tax - those earning $40,000 a year would pay the same amount as those earning $240,000 a year - on all those now paying for either group or individual health insurance. Of course, capping out of pocket expenses means insurance company costs will increase and this increase will also be passed on to consumers, further increasing the tax this bill imposes on health insurance consumers.

The bill proposes to pay for a part of the cost it will generate by imposing fees, really excise taxes, on medical device suppliers and on insurance companies for each high end policy they sell. The medical device suppliers will simply pass this new expense on to consumers, further driving up health care costs, which will make health insurance cost even more, driving health insurance costs to those now paying for it even higher, and insurance companies will, of course pass on their increased costs due to the fees on high end insurance policies in the form of higher premiums. It is not unreasonable to expect to see a middle class family of four paying at least $1,000 a year more for their health insurance if this bill becomes law.

These increases in the cost of health insurance raises serious questions about whether or not this bill will decrease the number of uninsured. How many of the people now struggling to pay their monthly health insurance premiums will be able to pay the additional $80 a month or more this bill will impose on them? How many will be forced to drop their coverage, thus swelling the ranks of the uninsured? How many employers facing an additional $160 a month in expenses to provide health insurance will simply choose to drop their plans or pass more of their costs on to their employees? Since the current estimates of how many currently uninsured will receive subsidies that will allow them to buy insurance are based on current rates and current estimates of rate increases, not the higher rates this bill will create, it is unclear how many now currently uninsured will be helped by this bill if Obama's pledge of a $900,000,000 ten year cap on the federal government's outlays becomes law. Will the number newly uninsured equal the number of newly insured? Nobody knows.

There are many other problems with this bill, but in terms of containing health care/insurance costs, it is worse than doing nothing and in terms of increasing affordable access to health care/insurance it may be as bad as doing nothing.

this is why insurance has to be mandatory in the bill, according to some, because it would add 30-40 million new people to the insurance companies rolls, which more than compensates with added profit for covering the preexisting conditions for people who do not work...and can get on a group rate plan, which ALL cover preexisting conditions NOW.

Adding more people to the insured will also add more people with pre existing conditions so it will do nothing to lower the per capita costs. I know it sounds laudably egalitarian for everyone to pay the same rate, but it also means that the company's janitor will pay more for his insurance so that the company's CEO can pay less for his pre existing condition. A much fairer plan would be to establish sliding scale subsidies to help those who need it to pay the higher cost of health insurance due to their pre existing condition, and those who can afford to pay the full cost themselves, to pay for it. In this case, the CEO would pay the full cost of insuring his pre existing condition, the janitor would receive help paying for his and everyone without pre existing conditions would pay less for their health insurance.

Anyone who has their health care insurance through a work group plan... preexisting conditions have been covered...they are part of the agreement with the companies they sell a group plan to...so preexisting conditions in this plan is much to do about nothing....

Where preexisting conditions are not covered is if you have lost your job and you are trying to get health care on your own....or if you work for a living at a company that does not offer health insurance as a benefit....medicaid for the poor covers preexisting conditions and all group policies covers such for their employees ....

Don't you think the insurance companies, WHO ALREADY AGREED to cover everyone's preexisting conditions would not have done such, if they felt it would hurt them financially?

Do you stop other private nonprofit coops from competing with private for profit businesses in any other industry? Why now? Why be against such for health care coops now if you are against them??????

 

[toomuchtime_]

this is why insurance has to be mandatory in the bill, according to some, because it would add 30-40 million new people to the insurance companies rolls, which more than compensates with added profit for covering the preexisting conditions for people who do not work...and can get on a group rate plan, which ALL cover preexisting conditions NOW.

Adding more people to the insured will also add more people with pre existing conditions so it will do nothing to lower the per capita costs. I know it sounds laudably egalitarian for everyone to pay the same rate, but it also means that the company's janitor will pay more for his insurance so that the company's CEO can pay less for his pre existing condition. A much fairer plan would be to establish sliding scale subsidies to help those who need it to pay the higher cost of health insurance due to their pre existing condition, and those who can afford to pay the full cost themselves, to pay for it. In this case, the CEO would pay the full cost of insuring his pre existing condition, the janitor would receive help paying for his and everyone without pre existing conditions would pay less for their health insurance.

Anyone who has their health care insurance through a work group plan... preexisting conditions have been covered...they are part of the agreement with the companies they sell a group plan to...so preexisting conditions in this plan is much to do about nothing....

Where preexisting conditions are not covered is if you have lost your job and you are trying to get health care on your own....or if you work for a living at a company that does not offer health insurance as a benefit....medicaid for the poor covers preexisting conditions and all group policies covers such for their employees ....

Don't you think the insurance companies, WHO ALREADY AGREED to cover everyone's preexisting conditions would not have done such, if they felt it would hurt them financially?

Do you stop other private nonprofit coops from competing with private for profit businesses in any other industry? Why now? Why be against such for health care coops now if you are against them??????

You are confused. Under HIPAA, the company can only look back six months to exclude you from coverage in the group plan for pre existing conditions or can cover you for everything but the pre existing conditions if its group plan allows that. The exclusion can be for a period of up to 12 months, but at the end of the exclusion period the company can look back over the last six months and exclude you again if "medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received during the 6 months". In this manner, you could be excluded forever from the group plan.

Frequently Asked Questions about Portability of Health Coverage and HIPAA

Nonetheless, a six month look back period is much shorter than insurance companies would like, however, people who go to work everyday are likely to be healthier than those who cannot make it to work, and as people become sicker, they are more likely to lose their jobs and their health insurance. Insurance companies would prefer a five year look back period to a six month look back period, and a five year look back period would produce lower group rates than a six month look back period does, but the higher group rates the six month look back period produces is somewhat mitigated by the fact that sick people tend to drop out of coverage, but that will not happen under any of the plans now being considered. That means group rates as well as individual rates are going to increase because of the exclusion of a look back period and because the plan will have to continue to pay the costs of people who become too sick to work and would have previously dropped out.

In principle, the shorter the look back period is, the higher the risk to the insurance company and the higher the group premiums are; the higher the drop out rate for sick people, the lower the risk to the insurance company and the lower the group premiums are. Therefore, insuring everyone at standard rates, no look back period, and requiring insurance companies to continue paying health care costs even after some one can no longer work or even pay his/her premiums will raise the cost of health insurance for everyone whether he/she is insured by a group plan or an individual policy. There are no free lunches to be had here.

I have no idea why you think I am opposed to health co-ops. I like the concept and have no problem with the experiment, but since we have had health co-ops and other non profits for decades I see not reason to think these new ones will have any more effect on health care/insurance costs than the ones we already have have had.

 

[Care4all]

Adding more people to the insured will also add more people with pre existing conditions so it will do nothing to lower the per capita costs. I know it sounds laudably egalitarian for everyone to pay the same rate, but it also means that the company's janitor will pay more for his insurance so that the company's CEO can pay less for his pre existing condition. A much fairer plan would be to establish sliding scale subsidies to help those who need it to pay the higher cost of health insurance due to their pre existing condition, and those who can afford to pay the full cost themselves, to pay for it. In this case, the CEO would pay the full cost of insuring his pre existing condition, the janitor would receive help paying for his and everyone without pre existing conditions would pay less for their health insurance.

Anyone who has their health care insurance through a work group plan... preexisting conditions have been covered...they are part of the agreement with the companies they sell a group plan to...so preexisting conditions in this plan is much to do about nothing....

Where preexisting conditions are not covered is if you have lost your job and you are trying to get health care on your own....or if you work for a living at a company that does not offer health insurance as a benefit....medicaid for the poor covers preexisting conditions and all group policies covers such for their employees ....

Don't you think the insurance companies, WHO ALREADY AGREED to cover everyone's preexisting conditions would not have done such, if they felt it would hurt them financially?

Do you stop other private nonprofit coops from competing with private for profit businesses in any other industry? Why now? Why be against such for health care coops now if you are against them??????

You are confused. Under HIPAA, the company can only look back six months to exclude you from coverage in the group plan for pre existing conditions or can cover you for everything but the pre existing conditions if its group plan allows that. The exclusion can be for a period of up to 12 months, but at the end of the exclusion period the company can look back over the last six months and exclude you again if "medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received during the 6 months". In this manner, you could be excluded forever from the group plan.

Frequently Asked Questions about Portability of Health Coverage and HIPAA

Nonetheless, a six month look back period is much shorter than insurance companies would like, however, people who go to work everyday are likely to be healthier than those who cannot make it to work, and as people become sicker, they are more likely to lose their jobs and their health insurance. Insurance companies would prefer a five year look back period to a six month look back period, and a five year look back period would produce lower group rates than a six month look back period does, but the higher group rates the six month look back period produces is somewhat mitigated by the fact that sick people tend to drop out of coverage, but that will not happen under any of the plans now being considered. That means group rates as well as individual rates are going to increase because of the exclusion of a look back period and because the plan will have to continue to pay the costs of people who become too sick to work and would have previously dropped out.

In principle, the shorter the look back period is, the higher the risk to the insurance company and the higher the group premiums are; the higher the drop out rate for sick people, the lower the risk to the insurance company and the lower the group premiums are. Therefore, insuring everyone at standard rates, no look back period, and requiring insurance companies to continue paying health care costs even after some one can no longer work or even pay his/her premiums will raise the cost of health insurance for everyone whether he/she is insured by a group plan or an individual policy. There are no free lunches to be had here.

I have no idea why you think I am opposed to health co-ops. I like the concept and have no problem with the experiment, but since we have had health co-ops and other non profits for decades I see not reason to think these new ones will have any more effect on health care/insurance costs than the ones we already have have had.

yes, i was confusing you with someone else...

ok, what you say does make sense...

but i will say, not one company's insurance in my or my husbands 25-30 year work history, did not cover preexisting conditions from the day the work insurance policy began.

so right now they are at a 6 mo. looking back period but will be going to no months looking back period?


wonder how much higher the costs will go?

 

[Maple]

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus - Taking advantage of the fact that most Americans are victims of government education hence easily fooled - has Introduced a $856 Billion Health-Care Bill

It will require nearly all Americans to carry health insurance while barring insurance companies from discriminating against people based on their health status or denying coverage because of preexisting conditions.

He says that "The plan does not call for a government-run insurance option" - so who the fuck is going to enforce those requirements : Blackwater? ArmorGroup ? The Mexicans ? Canadians?

What a fuck tard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.

I heard this morning that the cadillac insurance that unions have will face a 38% tax and that if you are a family of 4 and make 77,000 a year you could be fined $10,000 if you don't get insurance. Both plans suck.

 

[Maple]

Democrats finally recognize Republicans have no interest in passing a bill. Only defeating the President Democrats will ignore Republicans and pass Health catre on their own without the Republicans. They realize that 40 people should not deny the people what they want! The best news is that there will not be a Re publican in he White House for a very long time!

They can go right ahead and do it, but don't think for one second it will be forgotten come the 2010 and 2012 elections, with 53% of people against this how many more are you going to anger by pushing this bill through when the majority is against it. I would say, millions. So go ahead, move on, I am tried of the libs anyway and if this passes it could be a very, very, very long time before another liberal is elected anywhere.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Anyone who has their health care insurance through a work group plan... preexisting conditions have been covered...they are part of the agreement with the companies they sell a group plan to...so preexisting conditions in this plan is much to do about nothing....

Where preexisting conditions are not covered is if you have lost your job and you are trying to get health care on your own....or if you work for a living at a company that does not offer health insurance as a benefit....medicaid for the poor covers preexisting conditions and all group policies covers such for their employees ....

Don't you think the insurance companies, WHO ALREADY AGREED to cover everyone's preexisting conditions would not have done such, if they felt it would hurt them financially?

Do you stop other private nonprofit coops from competing with private for profit businesses in any other industry? Why now? Why be against such for health care coops now if you are against them??????

You are confused. Under HIPAA, the company can only look back six months to exclude you from coverage in the group plan for pre existing conditions or can cover you for everything but the pre existing conditions if its group plan allows that. The exclusion can be for a period of up to 12 months, but at the end of the exclusion period the company can look back over the last six months and exclude you again if "medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received during the 6 months". In this manner, you could be excluded forever from the group plan.

Frequently Asked Questions about Portability of Health Coverage and HIPAA

Nonetheless, a six month look back period is much shorter than insurance companies would like, however, people who go to work everyday are likely to be healthier than those who cannot make it to work, and as people become sicker, they are more likely to lose their jobs and their health insurance. Insurance companies would prefer a five year look back period to a six month look back period, and a five year look back period would produce lower group rates than a six month look back period does, but the higher group rates the six month look back period produces is somewhat mitigated by the fact that sick people tend to drop out of coverage, but that will not happen under any of the plans now being considered. That means group rates as well as individual rates are going to increase because of the exclusion of a look back period and because the plan will have to continue to pay the costs of people who become too sick to work and would have previously dropped out.

In principle, the shorter the look back period is, the higher the risk to the insurance company and the higher the group premiums are; the higher the drop out rate for sick people, the lower the risk to the insurance company and the lower the group premiums are. Therefore, insuring everyone at standard rates, no look back period, and requiring insurance companies to continue paying health care costs even after some one can no longer work or even pay his/her premiums will raise the cost of health insurance for everyone whether he/she is insured by a group plan or an individual policy. There are no free lunches to be had here.

I have no idea why you think I am opposed to health co-ops. I like the concept and have no problem with the experiment, but since we have had health co-ops and other non profits for decades I see not reason to think these new ones will have any more effect on health care/insurance costs than the ones we already have have had.

yes, i was confusing you with someone else...

ok, what you say does make sense...

but i will say, not one company's insurance in my or my husbands 25-30 year work history, did not cover preexisting conditions from the day the work insurance policy began.

so right now they are at a 6 mo. looking back period but will be going to no months looking back period?


wonder how much higher the costs will go?

According to the estimates from the guy from the University of Michigan, they will go up between 10% and 15% just for the coverage of pre existing conditions. Costing an employee with a family of four another $520 to $780 a year.

Insured might pay more under Obama plan - Health care reform- msnbc.com

Capping out of pocket expenses will cause them to go even higher and requiring insurance companies to continue coverage even after the person becomes too ill to work and pay premiums will cause them to go even higher.

The higher premiums go, the more likely some who now have insurance will be forced to drop it and the fewer who will be enabled to buy with the money available for subsidies. I just don't think it is possible to significantly increase access without at the same time taking steps to significantly lower health care and health insurance costs and nothing that will significantly lower health care and health insurance costs on an ongoing basis in included in any of the plans now under consideration.

 

[Maple]

None of these bills are going to pass because, when they finally sit down with a pencil and a peice of paper they are gonna find out that, THERE'S NO MONEY, THERE'S NO COST SAVINGS,!!!!!!! Then when the CBO ,the congressional budget office, gets ahold of this pos as they did the last pos they will torpedo this pos the same way they torpedoed the last pos legislation.