Originally posted by willow1d
As mentioned in the article, this seems allow for "rationing of care" for those with pre-existing conditions if the money should run short.

That's not an article. It's a blog. I don't suppose you've read the Baucus Bill... I don't want it to pass either, but not because of what someone says in a blog. This is pure speculation.

From your source:

Is this rationing? Let me know what you think this section of the Baucus bill would do.

I don't know what it would do, but let's have someone that knows what it means explain it.

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Another bill to read.

"If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists," the bill states. <--- I can't seem to find this in the bill. It is long, perhaps I missed it.

There are two references to waiting in the bill;

The performance of and payment for abortions is regulated by both state and Federal laws. State law, for example, sometimes prescribes parental notification, waiting periods and other procedural requirements before an abortion may be performed.

Beginning in 2013, tax credits would be available on a sliding scale basis for individuals and families between 134-300 percent of FPL to help offset the cost of private health insurance premiums. Beginning in 2014, the credits are also available to individuals and families between 100-133 percent of FPL. However, individuals subject to a five-year waiting period under Medicaid or CHIP are eligible for the tax credit beginning in 2013. The credits would be based on the percentage of income the cost of premiums represents, rising from three percent of income for those at 100 percent of poverty to 13 percent of income for those at 300 percent of poverty.

edit to remove erroneous link, with apologies.

[edit on 26-10-2009 by Seiko]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

That's not an article. It's a blog. I don't suppose you've read the Baucus Bill... I don't want it to pass either, but not because of what someone says in a blog. This is pure speculation...I don't know what it would do, but let's have someone that knows what it means explain it.

I don't know, it seems to be straight forward to me. Here it is straight from the Baucus bill. You find the link in my response to Seiko.

`(2) INSUFFICIENT FUNDS- If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.

There's nothing there not to understand. It plainly says the Secretary can establish waiting lists for the "high risk pool".

In Ss2213 here's the part that says what can be in the high risk pool:

`(A) DETERMINATION OF HIGH-RISK INDIVIDUALS- The method by which individuals will be identified as high risk individuals for purposes of the reinsurance program established under this section. Such method shall provide for identification of individuals as high-risk individuals on the basis of--

`(i) a list of at least 50 but not more than 100 medical conditions that are identified as high-risk conditions and that may be based on the identification of diagnostic and procedure codes that are indicative of individuals with pre-existing, high-risk conditions;

So, are these guys going to be included in the high risk pools listed in Ss2215?

Here's from Ss2215 which has the "waiting list"

SEC. 2215. TEMPORARY HIGH RISK POOLS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH PREEXISTING CONDITIONS.

`(a) Establishment of High Risk Pools-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall establish 1 or more high risk pools that--

`(A) provide to all eligible individuals health insurance coverage (or comparable coverage) that does not impose any preexisting condition exclusion with respect to such coverage for all eligible individuals; and

`(B) provide for health benefits coverage and premium rates described under subsection (b).

It takes people on blogs to make us aware of what is in the bill. And Jamie Dupree is highly respected so I have no reason not to believe what he says. Here I have given you the actual working from the US website itself. No speculation involved there.

[edit on 10/26/2009 by willow1d]