Defend Your Health Care

[Skull Pilot]

no one has answered a simple question.

and you wonder why people are pissed at their so called representatives.

Because you gave a link to the entire bill with no clue where the clause you are talking about is located. Give the page and title of the clause and maybe you'll get your answer...

there were page numbers in the first post.

 

[Skull Pilot]

you can get the page numbers in my first post

Bills/Laws are not arranged by page number, but by: Division, Title and Subtitle.

when the text opens up in the acrobat reader you can scroll by page numbers

how fucking dense can you be?

 

[Skull Pilot]

GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6
erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18
MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26
fore the first day of Y1

So again you can keep your non approved insurance only if there are no changes in deductibles or co pays even if those changes are fine with you.

If any changes are made you must change to a government approved plan.

if you are not on a government approved plan or you choose to go without insurance.

TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
11 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
13 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at
14 the end the following new part:
15 ‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
‘‘SUBPART A. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE.
16 ‘‘Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable
17 Health Care Coverage
‘‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
18 ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
20 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
168
•HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in2
come for the taxable year, over
3 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
5 ‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS.—
6 ‘‘(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.—
7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The tax imposed
8 under subsection (a) with respect to any tax9
payer for any taxable year shall not exceed the
10 applicable national average premium for such
11 taxable year.

[/B]

You will be assessed a fine in the form of a tax if you do not have "acceptable" insurance

any taxpayer who fails to meet the
2 requirements of subsection (e) with respect
3 to more than one individual during the tax4
able year, clause (i) shall be applied by
5 substituting ‘family coverage’ for ‘self-only
6 coverage’.

If you do no have acceptable insurance on any dependents your will be forced into a family plan

This bill is not about choice. what if I choose to forgo insurance for a time? What if I want to pay a higher deductible or co pay?

I will not be allowed to do these things and i will be fined thousands of dollars if I do not comply by buying a government approved insurance plan.

 

[veritas]

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 (IE `grandfathered health insurance coverage') does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

This means that private insurance plans that are in force before the bill is passed can keep operating and being in conflict with the new provisions in the law. Once the insurance policy is changed in any way, the policies must conform. IOW, the law cannot retroactively affect these contracts until some element of the contract is changed. Retroactive effects are generally barred within most of our laws. This is a mechanism whereby the law stipulates exactly how and when the law kicks in with respect to modified contracts.

The bill then goes on and says how they will regulate and define insurance and insurance companies will have to comply:

Title II, Sec. 201
(a) Establishment- There is established within the Health Choices Administration and under the direction of the Commissioner a Health Insurance Exchange in order to facilitate access of individuals and employers, through a transparent process, to a variety of choices of affordable, quality health insurance coverage, including a public health insurance option.

SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.



SEC. 112. GUARANTEED ISSUE AND RENEWAL FOR INSURED PLANS.



SEC. 113. INSURANCE RATING RULES.



SEC. 114. NONDISCRIMINATION IN BENEFITS; PARITY IN MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER BENEFITS.



SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.



SEC. 116. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.



SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.





(b) Minimum Services To Be Covered- The items and services described in this subsection are the following:



(1) Hospitalization.



(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, including emergency department services.



(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.



(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician's or a health professional's delivery of care in institutional settings, physician offices, patients' homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate.



(5) Prescription drugs.



(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.



(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.



(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.



(9) Maternity care.



(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

 

[veritas]

If you do no have acceptable insurance on any dependents your will be forced into a family plan

This bill is not about choice. what if I choose to forgo insurance for a time? What if I want to pay a higher deductible or co pay?

I will not be allowed to do these things and i will be fined thousands of dollars if I do not comply by buying a government approved insurance plan.

I don't think you will be able to go without insurance. The bill states that 2.5 % of any excess of your adjusted gross income will be assessed and it mentions a cap to an average national premium, but does not specify what that might be, unless there is an appendix somewhere that I am missing.

The fine or tax is sort of like when you let car insurance lapse, but the fines you pay on letting your car insurance lapse are not applicable to any future purchase of insurance you make, it's an actual fine, and purely punitive. It appears to me that the fine mentioned in this bill is a way of capturing revenue for coverage after the fact since you will be covered de facto under the plan, not unlike withholding. There is some mention of pro rata determination for a lapse but it is vague.

 

[Skull Pilot]

so tell me how the government forcing me into an approved plan or fining me if i am not in an approved plan means i can keep my insurance if i like it.

By labeling some insurance plans as unacceptable, the government is making my choices for me

This bill is designed to lessen choice and eventually funnel as many people as possible into the government plan.

 

[veritas]

I don't know about funneling, but it makes the public option look very palatable. I'd be interested to know what provisions private healthcare would have to make their plans more attractive than the public option.

As long as your policy keeps on keeping on you can keep it with the existing regulations. If your premiums change or the provisions change then the policy [all new policies] must include the minimums as set forth in the bill. I assume that you would have a better chance of determining what you were getting with the rating system proposed and assistance for figuring out what different policies offer.

I am most interested in the national database. At first it will be a monumental task to convert all the paperwork and proprietary data systems that are in place presently, but the implications for advancements is staggering. All sorts of useful things could come out of it. It would be especially useful in research. If all the grant programs were listed we could observe redundant and related work and trends and identify different strategies. Different treatments could be classified and tracked by age/sex of the patient and their efficacy. We could spot possible environmental trends for illness. Maybe a certain batch of medicine or device is defective, we would instantly be able to track it, issue alerts and recalls. Less than capable practitioners could be identified. Especially capable practitioners could be identified as well. Gross data could be used by anyone so that they might propose research or start a business to fulfill a particular need within the industry. Practitioners could identify niche markets where their specialties are needed most.

And on and on..........

 

[WillowTree]

no one has answered a simple question.

and you wonder why people are pissed at their so called representatives.

No, and they won't either. Just as they have failed to answer any of my questions. All they want is to scream "MOB"

 

[veritas]

no one has answered a simple question.

and you wonder why people are pissed at their so called representatives.

No, and they won't either. Just as they have failed to answer any of my questions. All they want is to scream "MOB"

I've answered all the questions put forth. If you have a particular issue that was not addressed then specify what it is. Otherwise you are just making noise.

 

[veritas]

Just as they have failed to answer any of my questions.

Nobody is required to answer any of your questions. Did you have one?

 

[rdean]

I don't know about funneling, but it makes the public option look very palatable. I'd be interested to know what provisions private healthcare would have to make their plans more attractive than the public option.

As long as your policy keeps on keeping on you can keep it with the existing regulations. If your premiums change or the provisions change then the policy [all new policies] must include the minimums as set forth in the bill. I assume that you would have a better chance of determining what you were getting with the rating system proposed and assistance for figuring out what different policies offer.

I am most interested in the national database. At first it will be a monumental task to convert all the paperwork and proprietary data systems that are in place presently, but the implications for advancements is staggering. All sorts of useful things could come out of it. It would be especially useful in research. If all the grant programs were listed we could observe redundant and related work and trends and identify different strategies. Different treatments could be classified and tracked by age/sex of the patient and their efficacy. We could spot possible environmental trends for illness. Maybe a certain batch of medicine or device is defective, we would instantly be able to track it, issue alerts and recalls. Less than capable practitioners could be identified. Especially capable practitioners could be identified as well. Gross data could be used by anyone so that they might propose research or start a business to fulfill a particular need within the industry. Practitioners could identify niche markets where their specialties are needed most.

And on and on..........

Actually, the National Data Base is the single best idea that has come up. The VA has one. Certainly, a national data base could be tied into the existing one which would give a huge leg up.

What are the benefits? The same as with the Government Operated VA. Doctors would be able to immediately know which procedures and which medicines actually worked based on "data". The expensive procedures that don't work would be bypassed. There could be a limit placed on other procedures. Side effects would be "known" based on "data".

Insurance companies pay less than 70 cents per dollar on patients. The VA pays 95 cents per dollar.

What do insurance companies do with that 30 cents on the dollar? CEO pay, stock options, offices, administration. Things that have nothing to do with health care.

Insurance companies have no doctors, no hospitals, no nurses, no medicine. They exist only to skim money. They only work together to keep Americans ignorant. It's sad.

Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Congressional Health Plan all have one thing in common. They are government run health care plans.

 

[veritas]

Insurance companies have no doctors, no hospitals, no nurses, no medicine. They exist only to skim money. They only work together to keep Americans ignorant. It's sad.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Insurance companies have no doctors, no hospitals, no nurses, no medicine. They exist only to skim money. They only work together to keep Americans ignorant. It's sad.

Americans are ignorant because they choose to be

 

[Care4all]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=108

Dr McCaughey's credentials

The first and most obvious lie Obama tells is

"If you like your current plan you will be able to keep it. Let me repeat that, if you like your plan you'll be able to keep it,"

but

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract - such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year - you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

and

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars - as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size - and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

tell me how is forcing me into a government qualified plan, letting me keep the plan i already have?

http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/images/BILLS-111hr3200IH.pdf

More than likely the SAME insurance company is offering the qualified plans....it says so right in the bill...

Your work insurance plan and company, by law, will honor your precise insurance plan for up to 5 years...if the plan is modified for price or deductibles, which insurance companies do every year... would not disqualify your work group plan from being grandfathered is what I read on it.

It says that IF you already have a plan, then the insurance companies grandfather you and your plan if you want, if you come to them or your company comes to them for a new insurance plan, then this plan would be covered by what the new reforms require.

The new qualified insurance plan can not exclude you for preexisting conditions or kick you out of the plan because you became very ill and costly to them, the new plan has to be clear in its coverage, offer you end of life counseling IF YOU WANT it and cover the cost of such, once every 5 years, the new plan has to tie in electronically with hospitals and doctors so that when you walk in the doc's office you know where you stand with your insurance plan financially...your deductibles still due etc..., the qualified plan will have these and many other improvements to it from the reforms that are benefitial to us, as policy holders.

So, IF this bill ever passes, I personally would want to go to the NEW QUALIFIED insurance plan with my insurance company verses grandfathering in the policy i have now...due to these measures that have to be in the qualified plan that are beneficial to us.

unless you have your insurance with some fly by night, on shaky ground, insurance company with near nil in benefits, lacking in the ability to file your claims electronically etc, then they will be offering qualified plans that you can move in to once the grandfathering ends.

So I ask, WHAT'S THE REAL BEEF with this...?

Care

 

[Skull Pilot]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=108

Dr McCaughey's credentials

The first and most obvious lie Obama tells is

"If you like your current plan you will be able to keep it. Let me repeat that, if you like your plan you'll be able to keep it,"

but



and

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars - as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size - and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

tell me how is forcing me into a government qualified plan, letting me keep the plan i already have?

http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/images/BILLS-111hr3200IH.pdf

More than likely the SAME insurance company is offering the qualified plans....it says so right in the bill...

Not the point at all. the point is that if the plan i have now changes at all 30 days before the bill is passed or any time after that it can be considered "unacceptable"

Unacceptable to whom? if I am fine with the changes, what gives the government the right to say what is or isn't acceptable?

Your work insurance plan and company, by law, will honor your precise insurance plan for up to 5 years...if the plan is modified for price or deductibles, which insurance companies do every year... would not disqualify your work group plan from being grandfathered is what I read on it.

What if I don't have a group plan?

It says that IF you already have a plan, then the insurance companies grandfather you and your plan if you want, if you come to them or your company comes to them for a new insurance plan, then this plan would be covered by what the new reforms require.

again, what if I want the plan i have already? the government should not be telling me what plan is best for me.

I happen to like the HSA plans. Since I am healthy, it actually costs me less than any other plan and i get to put money away in a tax sheltered account for future medical expenses.

ALL these plans will be deemed unacceptable.

The new qualified insurance plan can not exclude you for preexisting conditions or kick you out of the plan because you became very ill and costly to them, the new plan has to be clear in its coverage, offer you end of life counseling IF YOU WANT it and cover the cost of such, once every 5 years, the new plan has to tie in electronically with hospitals and doctors so that when you walk in the doc's office you know where you stand with your insurance plan financially...your deductibles still due etc..., the qualified plan will have these and many other improvements to it from the reforms that are benefitial to us, as policy holders.

So, IF this bill ever passes, I personally would want to go to the NEW QUALIFIED insurance plan with my insurance company verses grandfathering in the policy i have now...due to these measures that have to be in the qualified plan that are beneficial to us.

unless you have your insurance with some fly by night, on shaky ground, insurance company with near nil in benefits, lacking in the ability to file your claims electronically etc, then they will be offering qualified plans that you can move in to once the grandfathering ends.

So I ask, WHAT'S THE REAL BEEF with this...?

Care

So you want the right to choose but if someone wants to keep an unacceptable plan like an HSA with a high deductible, they don't get to choose right?

Oh and BTW if you do choose an unacceptable plan, the government will fine you thousands via an additional income tax.

Yeah government run health care will increase choice and competition my ass.

This bill is designed to punish those who want to retain the freedom to choose their health plans with the goal of funneling everyone into a government dictated plan.

 

[Care4all]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=108

Dr McCaughey's credentials

The first and most obvious lie Obama tells is



but



and


tell me how is forcing me into a government qualified plan, letting me keep the plan i already have?

http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/images/BILLS-111hr3200IH.pdf

More than likely the SAME insurance company is offering the qualified plans....it says so right in the bill...

Not the point at all. the point is that if the plan i have now changes at all 30 days before the bill is passed or any time after that it can be considered "unacceptable"

Unacceptable to whom? if I am fine with the changes, what gives the government the right to say what is or isn't acceptable?



What if I don't have a group plan?



again, what if I want the plan i have already? the government should not be telling me what plan is best for me.

I happen to like the HSA plans. Since I am healthy, it actually costs me less than any other plan and i get to put money away in a tax sheltered account for future medical expenses.

ALL these plans will be deemed unacceptable.

The new qualified insurance plan can not exclude you for preexisting conditions or kick you out of the plan because you became very ill and costly to them, the new plan has to be clear in its coverage, offer you end of life counseling IF YOU WANT it and cover the cost of such, once every 5 years, the new plan has to tie in electronically with hospitals and doctors so that when you walk in the doc's office you know where you stand with your insurance plan financially...your deductibles still due etc..., the qualified plan will have these and many other improvements to it from the reforms that are benefitial to us, as policy holders.

So, IF this bill ever passes, I personally would want to go to the NEW QUALIFIED insurance plan with my insurance company verses grandfathering in the policy i have now...due to these measures that have to be in the qualified plan that are beneficial to us.

unless you have your insurance with some fly by night, on shaky ground, insurance company with near nil in benefits, lacking in the ability to file your claims electronically etc, then they will be offering qualified plans that you can move in to once the grandfathering ends.

So I ask, WHAT'S THE REAL BEEF with this...?

Care

So you want the right to choose but if someone wants to keep an unacceptable plan like an HSA with a high deductible, they don't get to choose right?

Oh and BTW if you do choose an unacceptable plan, the government will fine you thousands via an additional income tax.

Yeah government run health care will increase choice and competition my ass.

This bill is designed to punish those who want to retain the freedom to choose their health plans with the goal of funneling everyone into a government dictated plan.

i am uncertain on health savings accounts and how this will work with them specifically....
i can try to look it up and research it for you, if you'd like me to?

this is not gvt insurance....something like medicare is gvt insurance plan....this is an insurance reform plan....all private sector run....without even a public option, which i believe belongs in the bill for competition.....

there are some good things in this house bill and some bad things...nothing is set in stone, thank goodness there is time for everyone to read this and it was not rushed through...

care

 

[Skull Pilot]

More than likely the SAME insurance company is offering the qualified plans....it says so right in the bill...

Not the point at all. the point is that if the plan i have now changes at all 30 days before the bill is passed or any time after that it can be considered "unacceptable"

Unacceptable to whom? if I am fine with the changes, what gives the government the right to say what is or isn't acceptable?



What if I don't have a group plan?



again, what if I want the plan i have already? the government should not be telling me what plan is best for me.

I happen to like the HSA plans. Since I am healthy, it actually costs me less than any other plan and i get to put money away in a tax sheltered account for future medical expenses.

ALL these plans will be deemed unacceptable.

So I ask, WHAT'S THE REAL BEEF with this...?

Care

So you want the right to choose but if someone wants to keep an unacceptable plan like an HSA with a high deductible, they don't get to choose right?

Oh and BTW if you do choose an unacceptable plan, the government will fine you thousands via an additional income tax.

Yeah government run health care will increase choice and competition my ass.

This bill is designed to punish those who want to retain the freedom to choose their health plans with the goal of funneling everyone into a government dictated plan.

i am uncertain on health savings accounts and how this will work with them specifically....
i can try to look it up and research it for you, if you'd like me to?

Do you believe I haven't already researched the fact that HSA'a will be eliminated?

this is not gvt insurance....something like medicare is gvt insurance plan....this is an insurance reform plan....all private sector run....without even a public option, which i believe belongs in the bill for competition.....

what makes you think that a public insurance "option" will increase competition?
A public insurance "option" will be funded by the governments bottomless pockets (our tax dollars that is) and the government will simply regulate private insurance out of existence while exempting itself from the very regulation that is heaped upon the private sector.

there are some good things in this house bill and some bad things...nothing is set in stone, thank goodness there is time for everyone to read this and it was not rushed through...

care

More bad than good.

You'll lose 5 key freedoms under Obama's health care plan - Jul. 24, 2009

Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan

The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.

Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.

The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.

Now what if I don't need substance abuse benefits or mental health benefits?

The government is telling me that I have to pay for them or I will be fined.

And since when is a 26 year old a "child"

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs

As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.

Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.

Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.

Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.

So reform means a shifting of cost on to the backs of the healthy.

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage

The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.

Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.

The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."

So a "reform that says it will offer more choice actually denies choice. again that whole "acceptable" thing should be sticking in the craw of every American and the fine for having "unacceptable" insurance should down right piss off every single American.

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan

This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.

But read on.

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months

.

So again I ask the question I did in my first post.

How can i keep my insurance when the bill clearly states that I can't?

5. Freedom to choose your doctors

The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.

Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.

The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.

In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.

Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.

The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered Freedoms. To top of page

Funny how the one thing that would really promote competition, buying insurance across state lines, is banned by the bill.

As I said there is more bad than good in this bill

 

[OneWorld]

so tell me how the government forcing me into an approved plan or fining me if i am not in an approved plan means i can keep my insurance if i like it.

By labeling some insurance plans as unacceptable, the government is making my choices for me

This bill is designed to lessen choice and eventually funnel as many people as possible into the government plan.

Your questions were answered several times. You are refusing to accept the truth, and want to hold to your lie (gee, wonder where you got it from?).

 

[Skull Pilot]

so tell me how the government forcing me into an approved plan or fining me if i am not in an approved plan means i can keep my insurance if i like it.

By labeling some insurance plans as unacceptable, the government is making my choices for me

This bill is designed to lessen choice and eventually funnel as many people as possible into the government plan.

Your questions were answered several times. You are refusing to accept the truth, and want to hold to your lie (gee, wonder where you got it from?).

I have yet to see an answer.

the fact is I won't be able to keep the plan i have now. and i will be fined thousands of dollars if i don't have an acceptable plan.

Those are the truths you are refusing to acknowledge.

 

[OneWorld]

I have yet to see an answer.

the fact is I won't be able to keep the plan i have now. and i will be fined thousands of dollars if i don't have an acceptable plan.

Those are the truths you are refusing to acknowledge.

No, you won't be forced to give up your current plan. And your questions were answered. You're refusing to accept them.