Senate HealthCare Bill Needs Extensive Amending! (Part Two)

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by JimofPennsylvan, Nov 21, 2009.

  1. JimofPennsylvan

    JimofPennsylvan VIP Member

    Jun 6, 2007
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    “PART TWO”

    The bill requires insurance issuers to report yearly insurance premium increases to the state and the state has to determine if these premium increases are unreasonable and if an increase is deemed unreasonable the insurance issuer has to justify the increase (Sec. 2794). This is excessive government control and an added and unnecessary expense for government and insurance issuers. It is really a stupid legislative scheme being created here - “unreasonable” is not defined objectively in the bill it is a subjective standard being created and therefore not fair to insurance issuers. The bill authorizes a quarter of a billion dollars over five years to pay for this initiative this is a lot of money to be spending on a legislative scheme which is not necessary; let the marketplace determine what is unreasonable if an insurance issuers is not justified in its premium increase the consumer will correct the problem by taking his or her business to another insurance issuer. Furthermore, what is really shocking about these provisions in the bill is that it gives the states the power if they so chose to mandate that state approval is required on a yearly basis for an insurance issuer to be able to raise the price of premiums (Sec. 2794(C)(1)(A)) – the big selling point of this bill is that it is supposed to give the American consumer choice on health insurance this provision of the bill common sense would indicate will definitely tend to deter insurance issuers from entering a state’s market that has this price control regulation – the Senate is making bad law here.

    The “Reinsurance Plan For Retirees” which is in the House bill is a stupid stereotypical liberal Democrat idea and should be scrapped. It reimburses insurance plans that provide insurance for retirees 55 years of age or older for part of the cost of that retiree to the plan with the intent that the money that the government gives the insurance plan is supposed to lower the premiums and/or co-pays and/or co-insurance of the non-retiree plan participants. Even assuming the plan administrators follow the rules will the savings be significant to the non-retirees enrollees in the plan probably not in most cases – because in these plans the number of non-retiree enrollees will dwarf the number of retirees. Many plan administrators will probably be able to play with the numbers and not give non-retiree enrollees a break for the government reimbursement, they could say that the overall claims were higher than projected for instance. Furthermore, for the majority of these reimbursement claims they are going to be for insurance plans where the non-retiree’s benefits and/or wages are better than what close to the majority of Americans are receiving – it seems awfully unfair to use taxpayer money to subsidies these American who are doing so much better than many Americans to begin with. If truth be told this initiative which is fairly expensive at an initial cost of $ 5 billion dollars is probably an initiative being done for the benefit of the unions and America can’t afford this special interests catering anymore.

    The Senate should scrap the bill’s mandatory financial penalties on health insurance issuers for not complying with the administrative regulations in the bill (Sec. 1104(j)). The Secretary should have discretion on sanctioning insurance issuers with these financial penalties; the term “shall” needs to be replaced with the term “may” in these provisions in the bill. Congress needs to keep in mind that its goal with reform of America’s health care system should be try to as much as possible take costs out of the system not add costs to the system which this mandate on the Secretary will be doing.

    It may be that this bill cannot ultimately be amended so that the negative effects of the bill can be reduced or eliminated so that the harm from the bill is something good Americans can live with and if this unfortunate development occurs then every good Senator should cooperate to use the procedural rules of the Senate to block the bill from getting past the amendment stage. Nevertheless, and this refers specifically to Republican Senators, who many ordinary Americans fear are just going to try to advocate for the Republican alternative Health Care bill in this amendment process, they should follow the leadership of one of the greatest Republican Americans living today, namely Bob Dole, who essentially said over the past year that Republicans should try to make this Health Care Reform Bill better because it might pass into law in which case reducing and eliminating bad elements of the bill will have been doing work that helps the American People!

Share This Page