Originally posted by Xtinguish
Originally posted by nixie_nox
That they are running a survey to see the cost difference of large insured companies and self insured companies all over the country? *gasp* the horrors?
SEC. 113. INSURANCE RATING RULES (b) STUDY AND REPORTS.—
(1) STUDY.—The Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets. Such study shall examine the following:
(C) The financial solvency and capital reserve levels of employers that self-insure by employer size.
Where's the detail on the information they can go after? There is none, it leaves the door wide open FOR ANYTHING. What's to stop the information from being required by the IRS or SEC?
Most likely the IRS already knows. I still consider the IRS to be the biggest, scrariest agency of all. One of the platforms that Nader ran on that I totally agreed with is that people shouldn't tremble in fear of the IRS.
anywhoo I am pretty sure that the companies have to report it to the IRS.
As for leaving the door open, that could be said about any bill.
I don't think it unreasonable to do a study to make sure that insurance rates are evenly distributed. The main reason health care reform is on the books is to make sure small businesses can have affordable access. I wouldn't put it past insurance companies to give higher rates to smaller businesses in case that business absolves.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
So that insurance companies can't limit the in network provider so they can rake people over the coals when they can't see an in-network provider? Or the few choices they have are not reasonable.
People who live in big cities with lots of providers forget that many Americans live in areas that have few options.
And considering that the number of PCP or general practitioners are declining(because of private health insurance demanding much but paying little) those options are getting slimmer.
I have known women who have had to drive to another state to see an ob/gyn because their areas didn't have any.
Page 2 Sec. 116 - Ensuring value and lower premiums, requires qualified plans to meet a specified medical loss ratio as defined by the Health Choices Commissioner. If plans exceed that limit, rebates to enrollees are required.
What's to stop a regulation of high required loss ratio could limiting how much participating private plans could charge?
Originally posted by nixie_nox
No, you have to be a legal citizen to get the healthcare.
THE BILL: SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.
Where's the specific exemption to bar illegals from U.S. health care? Find it for me.
CNSNews.com) – Both the House and Senate versions of President Obama’s health care reform plans contain passages explicitly excluding illegal immigrants from receiving federal money to purchase health insurance from either a private or government-run health plan.
link
But there is a hole that doesn't prevent employers from giving it to illegal employees. That is somethign that does need to be addressed. I think there should be mandated that any employer committing fraud has to pay a serious fine.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
THE BILL SAYS "APPROPRIATE ENTITIES" WILL HELP WITH ENROLLMENT. DOESN'T MENTION ACORN OR AMERICORPS.
It doesn't specify any group! ACORN is already providing our census services. Give me one reason why we should think they wouldn't be used in this manner as well?
So? just still pure speculation.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
But if public insurance is so horrible and can't run insurance or anything else for that matter, how could they be so sauve? And, if they are that bad, then that will drive customers to the private sector.
Not if the private insurance is unaffordable.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
I wonder how many people who say this supported the war in Iraq. "to thwart terrorism and keep us safe."
But since when should we have to pay to keep others safe?
Everyone will be paying. I fail to see how people won't pay for it.
The old America: Let a for profit company inflate prices at will, keep it unafforadable for many, and not even gaurentee services despite people being insured.
A study by the non-partisan Tax Foundation finds that the 5.4% surtax on top wage-earners proposed by House Democrats to help fund health care reform would push top tax rates over 50% in 39 states.
"That means government would be taking more than half of every additional dollar from high-income taxpayers,” said Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge. “The lowest top tax rate would be about 47% --and that's in the nine states that don't tax wages."
The proposal imposes a new surtax of 1 percent on married couples who earn between $350,000 and $500,000 (singles between $280,000 and $400,000). Couples with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million (singles earning between $400,000and $800,000) would have a 1.5 percent surtax imposes. Couples who make more than $1 million, and singles who make more than $800,000, would face a 5.4% surtax.
Are you giving half your wages to taxes?
The amount I paid up until recently for healthcare, took my budget 55%.
Our healthcare took over a third of our salary. WE could of bought a very nice house.
And we still have a stack of bills we can't pay.
[edit on 8-8-2009 by Xtinguish]
