The Finding Out What's In The Bill Thread

[antagon]

Thanks for the info on HR 4872. I had not yet gone to find it.

I don't see the Health Insurance Exchange as anything close the the Stock Exchange. What I see is the government regulating the policies and the costs of private insurance and telling private insurers that they will offer coverage on things like breast enhancement (I hesitate to mention abortion, but that is what I am thinking) and that they will charge no more than X dollars for their coverage and deductibles will be no higher than Y etc. etc. etc.

That in my opinion constitutes puppetry.

And since I do not trust a damned thing said by any politician, them telling me it is a "stock exchange" is not going to fly.

Immie

this is the finding out whats in the bill thread, immie, can you substantiate any of what you are saying is in the bill is actually in there?

there are certainly some differences between the h/c exchanges and the stock exchange. the main difference is that the exchange aims to have a standardized set of coverages as a minimum for qualified plans.

i dont know what it is like for people who get plans offered them from their jobs, having never gone through that. when you look online, however, at the comparison sites for private insurance, it is immediately obvious that aetna sells apples and blue shield oranges. you cant compare these plans side by side, beyond wide-sweeping bases like deductible amount.

if you are hell-bent on seeing everything as puppetry, you will certainly see it, but couldnt standardized coverage for the purposes of an exchange create direct competition in an all-apples market? right now insurers avoid this through diversifying their plans and altering the terms that they use for essentially, but not exactly the same thing.

i got my insurance from having to sit down with sales people. they pitched me on the way their favorite plan worked; they all sneaked around some general requirements (price/deductible) i had, but with many bizarre options clouding real comparison of their offerings.

this exchange bit could be refreshing??

Well according to your previous post the language did make it through to the final bill.

Now, the interpretation of what that language means is up to who? The government.

If you read the language it says that insurance companies cannot write new policies as off today unless they qualify as a qualified plan... hell! Have they even defined what a qualified plan is? They can wait 5 years and not define what a qualified plan is and completely drive all health insurance providers out of business and then they will have succeeded in forcing us all into their "public option" which really is no option at all since there is no other "option".

How will the courts interpret that language? I'm not sure on the answer to that but if they do so literally, no health insurer is allowed to write new policies effective yesterday.

Immie

like i said if you want to squeeze an absurd interpretation about any law, you can.. its even easier than looking for the reality.

a qualified plan is defined in the bill.. of course.. that being the whole point.

there's a reason there's no public option in the bill and why attempts in the 90s to create as much had failed. - the private health industry determines support for legislation. there is no momentum for any public displacement of the private system.

your ability to realize as much seems to be fogged over by a presumption that democrats dont respond to lobbies or dont have ambitions aided by private enterprise, and somehow, manage to find this power through bigger government alone. you have not been paying attention to the way american politics functions. its as simple as that.

see pages 25-29 of the bill where minimum qualifications for plans are enumerated... for starters (there are references to other parts of the bill in there). \

the bill

 

[antagon]

We have a small plumbing biz with 8 employees and payroll over 250K. Pay the fine or reduce the payroll? This could hurt many good people.

after joe the plumber, im getting the impression plumbers run their bizs different than the rest of us.

ever thought about raising your prices like any other biz would? that doesnt occur to plumbers? sorry ralph, gotta let you go. we're probably going to incur another 7gs in fees because of you and obama, and we dont know any other way to cover that between now and april 2015.

contributing/covering employees is an option, depending on how much family theyve got, it might not cost too much. Sam will pick up half (for < 10 employees all making less than $80k/yr) according to the bill.

SEC. 45R. SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEE HEALTH COVERAGE CREDIT.

the bill

Sorry my name's not Ralph. We currently pay HC for our top guy to a tune of $16K. He kicks in $4K. We can not pay $16K for the others, so... Either we will pay the fine, offer a less expensive plan, or decrease our payroll. Obama promised people they could keep the coverage they have, didn't he? He also said that small businesses would be exempt. But he forgot to mention that he had a particular disdain for the building trades for some reason.

Yes we can raise prices. Now you are making sense. Pass that along to all the Obamamites that think that only the rich will pay for this entitlement.

It ain't just the taxes folks. People will lose jobs and the PRICE OF EVERYTHING will go up.

ralph was the name of the hypothetical employee at whose expense you were planning to 'reduce your payroll'

1) the mandate starts in 2014.
2) employees can opt in or out of an exchange based system, however, it seems such 'grandfather' coverage wont be available a few years later as insurers are required to exchange all their plans eventually. (i think that is what immie and i were talking about)
3) there's no builder disdain. i cant find it...you? ive made a point to assess the impact of the bill on my company specifically along these lines. the bill, in fact, demands standards which would make public bidding on schools and hospitals more accessible to smaller firms like mine, probably your own.
4) obama was going with the 50-employee+ mandate, but he didnt write the bill; such is the nature of our constitution. i was disappointed by the payroll-based mandate, and that it was so low, and across the board to all types of firms.
5) dont forget that you'll get half of your best guy's plan credited/deducted, and any others you get, should you go the coverage route.
6) prices for labor-intensive services/products will go up micro-businesses will leverage more advantages over small businesses. medium and large businesses will gain back some leverage lost to small-businesses before 2014. foreign services and labor-intensive products will gain leverage on domestic. from the domestic employee's perspective, there are qualitative benefits.

because it is an economy-wide force, but only effects labor, will it really precipitate noticeable inflation? hard call. minimum wage increases have not, but they are a different beast.

2-6% of payroll tax for opting out of covering weighs against the 50% credit for expenditures on coverage. if you cover your employees as it is, this is welcomed relief. if youre a deadbeat like myself, there's a decision to make... in the next 4 years.

details of the fine and option to retain existing coverage are laid out on pages 143-151 of the bill.

there's more on the opt-out excise, plus the details of the credit on page 183-194. finding that, i learned that the credit wont be on top of existing coverage-related credits, and wont come into effect until 2013.

 

[Immanuel]

this is the finding out whats in the bill thread, immie, can you substantiate any of what you are saying is in the bill is actually in there?

there are certainly some differences between the h/c exchanges and the stock exchange. the main difference is that the exchange aims to have a standardized set of coverages as a minimum for qualified plans.

i dont know what it is like for people who get plans offered them from their jobs, having never gone through that. when you look online, however, at the comparison sites for private insurance, it is immediately obvious that aetna sells apples and blue shield oranges. you cant compare these plans side by side, beyond wide-sweeping bases like deductible amount.

if you are hell-bent on seeing everything as puppetry, you will certainly see it, but couldnt standardized coverage for the purposes of an exchange create direct competition in an all-apples market? right now insurers avoid this through diversifying their plans and altering the terms that they use for essentially, but not exactly the same thing.

i got my insurance from having to sit down with sales people. they pitched me on the way their favorite plan worked; they all sneaked around some general requirements (price/deductible) i had, but with many bizarre options clouding real comparison of their offerings.

this exchange bit could be refreshing??

Well according to your previous post the language did make it through to the final bill.

Now, the interpretation of what that language means is up to who? The government.

If you read the language it says that insurance companies cannot write new policies as off today unless they qualify as a qualified plan... hell! Have they even defined what a qualified plan is? They can wait 5 years and not define what a qualified plan is and completely drive all health insurance providers out of business and then they will have succeeded in forcing us all into their "public option" which really is no option at all since there is no other "option".

How will the courts interpret that language? I'm not sure on the answer to that but if they do so literally, no health insurer is allowed to write new policies effective yesterday.

Immie

like i said if you want to squeeze an absurd interpretation about any law, you can.. its even easier than looking for the reality.

a qualified plan is defined in the bill.. of course.. that being the whole point.

there's a reason there's no public option in the bill and why attempts in the 90s to create as much had failed. - the private health industry determines support for legislation. there is no momentum for any public displacement of the private system.

your ability to realize as much seems to be fogged over by a presumption that democrats dont respond to lobbies or dont have ambitions aided by private enterprise, and somehow, manage to find this power through bigger government alone. you have not been paying attention to the way american politics functions. its as simple as that.

see pages 25-29 of the bill where minimum qualifications for plans are enumerated... for starters (there are references to other parts of the bill in there). \

the bill

The thing that you seem to fail to understand is that the bill (as all bills are) is written in such a vague way that the courts when attempting to rule on legislation do so literally. When this gets to court, the court is going to say, "according to section 102 private insurers are forbidden to write new policies unless they are a qualified plan" and there won't be any until the bureaucracies have been established. Right now there is no such thing as a qualified plan and any private insurer who writes new policies today is literally breaking the law.

Immie

 

[antagon]

We currently pay HC for our top guy to a tune of $16K. He kicks in $4K. We can not pay $16K for the others, so...

I'm pretty sure that if you offer health care coverage to one employee you are required by law to offer it to all employees...unless the others are all part timers. At least that has been the law up until now.

really!!!???

 

[Ravi]

We currently pay HC for our top guy to a tune of $16K. He kicks in $4K. We can not pay $16K for the others, so...

I'm pretty sure that if you offer health care coverage to one employee you are required by law to offer it to all employees...unless the others are all part timers. At least that has been the law up until now.

really!!!???

I'd have to go state by state but here is a link showing that in Texas you must.

If you decide to offer a health plan to your employees, you must make it equally available to all of your eligible employees and their dependents.

Small Employer Health Insurance from the Texas Department of Insurance

 

[antagon]

Well according to your previous post the language did make it through to the final bill.

Now, the interpretation of what that language means is up to who? The government.

If you read the language it says that insurance companies cannot write new policies as off today unless they qualify as a qualified plan... hell! Have they even defined what a qualified plan is? They can wait 5 years and not define what a qualified plan is and completely drive all health insurance providers out of business and then they will have succeeded in forcing us all into their "public option" which really is no option at all since there is no other "option".

How will the courts interpret that language? I'm not sure on the answer to that but if they do so literally, no health insurer is allowed to write new policies effective yesterday.

Immie

like i said if you want to squeeze an absurd interpretation about any law, you can.. its even easier than looking for the reality.

a qualified plan is defined in the bill.. of course.. that being the whole point.

there's a reason there's no public option in the bill and why attempts in the 90s to create as much had failed. - the private health industry determines support for legislation. there is no momentum for any public displacement of the private system.

your ability to realize as much seems to be fogged over by a presumption that democrats dont respond to lobbies or dont have ambitions aided by private enterprise, and somehow, manage to find this power through bigger government alone. you have not been paying attention to the way american politics functions. its as simple as that.

see pages 25-29 of the bill where minimum qualifications for plans are enumerated... for starters (there are references to other parts of the bill in there). \

the bill

The thing that you seem to fail to understand is that the bill (as all bills are) is written in such a vague way that the courts when attempting to rule on legislation do so literally. When this gets to court, the court is going to say, "according to section 102 private insurers are forbidden to write new policies unless they are a qualified plan" and there won't be any until the bureaucracies have been established. Right now there is no such thing as a qualified plan and any private insurer who writes new policies today is literally breaking the law.

Immie

read the bill. the bill rolls out, rather than taking immediate effect. do you really, really think that you were the first person to think of that scenario?..that you thought of it before the lawyers at the health insurers who lobbied the bill did? that they didnt realize you'd have to establish a commissioner to establish exchanges before you insist complicit policies are drafted for it?

i repeat... if you want to use your imagination to envisage ways this is a crack-pot legislation, you will succeed. i doubt it is perfect, or in everyone's interest at once, but basing criticisms on the bill itself, instead of the realm of imagination, makes them more credible to me.

 

[antagon]

I'm pretty sure that if you offer health care coverage to one employee you are required by law to offer it to all employees...unless the others are all part timers. At least that has been the law up until now.

really!!!???

I'd have to go state by state but here is a link showing that in Texas you must.

If you decide to offer a health plan to your employees, you must make it equally available to all of your eligible employees and their dependents.

Small Employer Health Insurance from the Texas Department of Insurance

id have to look into that around here. i liked chanel's coverage for the super concept.

thats counter-productive with texas, i think. allrnuthin is tuff.

 

[chanel]

after joe the plumber, im getting the impression plumbers run their bizs different than the rest of us.

ever thought about raising your prices like any other biz would? that doesnt occur to plumbers? sorry ralph, gotta let you go. we're probably going to incur another 7gs in fees because of you and obama, and we dont know any other way to cover that between now and april 2015.

contributing/covering employees is an option, depending on how much family theyve got, it might not cost too much. Sam will pick up half (for < 10 employees all making less than $80k/yr) according to the bill.

SEC. 45R. SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEE HEALTH COVERAGE CREDIT.

the bill

Sorry my name's not Ralph. We currently pay HC for our top guy to a tune of $16K. He kicks in $4K. We can not pay $16K for the others, so... Either we will pay the fine, offer a less expensive plan, or decrease our payroll. Obama promised people they could keep the coverage they have, didn't he? He also said that small businesses would be exempt. But he forgot to mention that he had a particular disdain for the building trades for some reason.

Yes we can raise prices. Now you are making sense. Pass that along to all the Obamamites that think that only the rich will pay for this entitlement.

It ain't just the taxes folks. People will lose jobs and the PRICE OF EVERYTHING will go up.

I'm pretty sure that if you offer health care coverage to one employee you are required by law to offer it to all employees...unless the others are all part timers. At least that has been the law up until now.

Not in NJ. Under 50 is exempt. We do contribute to pension and profit sharing for all.

 

[Zona]

top ten benifits from this bill...
Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;

Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;

Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;

Lower seniors' prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;

Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;

Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;

Require plans to cover an enrollee's dependent children until age 26;

Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;

Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;

Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.

 

[Immanuel]

like i said if you want to squeeze an absurd interpretation about any law, you can.. its even easier than looking for the reality.

a qualified plan is defined in the bill.. of course.. that being the whole point.

there's a reason there's no public option in the bill and why attempts in the 90s to create as much had failed. - the private health industry determines support for legislation. there is no momentum for any public displacement of the private system.

your ability to realize as much seems to be fogged over by a presumption that democrats dont respond to lobbies or dont have ambitions aided by private enterprise, and somehow, manage to find this power through bigger government alone. you have not been paying attention to the way american politics functions. its as simple as that.

see pages 25-29 of the bill where minimum qualifications for plans are enumerated... for starters (there are references to other parts of the bill in there). \

the bill

The thing that you seem to fail to understand is that the bill (as all bills are) is written in such a vague way that the courts when attempting to rule on legislation do so literally. When this gets to court, the court is going to say, "according to section 102 private insurers are forbidden to write new policies unless they are a qualified plan" and there won't be any until the bureaucracies have been established. Right now there is no such thing as a qualified plan and any private insurer who writes new policies today is literally breaking the law.

Immie

read the bill. the bill rolls out, rather than taking immediate effect. do you really, really think that you were the first person to think of that scenario?..that you thought of it before the lawyers at the health insurers who lobbied the bill did? that they didnt realize you'd have to establish a commissioner to establish exchanges before you insist complicit policies are drafted for it?

i repeat... if you want to use your imagination to envisage ways this is a crack-pot legislation, you will succeed. i doubt it is perfect, or in everyone's interest at once, but basing criticisms on the bill itself, instead of the realm of imagination, makes them more credible to me.

Of course I was the first to think about it.

The problem is that I don't want to use my imagination to envisage ways that these things can happen. My concern is that some crazy bureaucrat, politician or lawyer will see the same thing that I mention and carry something like this to court AND WIN.

You say it "rolls out" and you are correct, but according to the language that we are discussing that part takes effect the day that the bill is signed into law. It is one of the first bits of the legislation that goes into effect.

Now, it is certain that the courts may not interpret that provision literally, but that is not guaranteed.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I'm pretty sure that if you offer health care coverage to one employee you are required by law to offer it to all employees...unless the others are all part timers. At least that has been the law up until now.

really!!!???

I'd have to go state by state but here is a link showing that in Texas you must.

If you decide to offer a health plan to your employees, you must make it equally available to all of your eligible employees and their dependents.

Small Employer Health Insurance from the Texas Department of Insurance

Thanks for the link Ravi, but the way to get around this would be to increase the employee's salary by the cost of the premium and have the employee write the check the the insurance company. Which as I said would mean that the income is taxable to the employee.

Immie

 

[antagon]

The thing that you seem to fail to understand is that the bill (as all bills are) is written in such a vague way that the courts when attempting to rule on legislation do so literally. When this gets to court, the court is going to say, "according to section 102 private insurers are forbidden to write new policies unless they are a qualified plan" and there won't be any until the bureaucracies have been established. Right now there is no such thing as a qualified plan and any private insurer who writes new policies today is literally breaking the law.

Immie

read the bill. the bill rolls out, rather than taking immediate effect. do you really, really think that you were the first person to think of that scenario?..that you thought of it before the lawyers at the health insurers who lobbied the bill did? that they didnt realize you'd have to establish a commissioner to establish exchanges before you insist complicit policies are drafted for it?

i repeat... if you want to use your imagination to envisage ways this is a crack-pot legislation, you will succeed. i doubt it is perfect, or in everyone's interest at once, but basing criticisms on the bill itself, instead of the realm of imagination, makes them more credible to me.

Of course I was the first to think about it.

The problem is that I don't want to use my imagination to envisage ways that these things can happen. My concern is that some crazy bureaucrat, politician or lawyer will see the same thing that I mention and carry something like this to court AND WIN.

You say it "rolls out" and you are correct, but according to the language that we are discussing that part takes effect the day that the bill is signed into law. It is one of the first bits of the legislation that goes into effect.

Now, it is certain that the courts may not interpret that provision literally, but that is not guaranteed.

Immie

im semi-fluent in gubmintese and legalese, let me help:

1) Y1 is 2013, not today... p. 13.

2) grandfathered coverage is assessed as such on Y1... p. 15.

3) only after 5 years from Y1 are insurers req'd to make granddaddy plans complicit with post-Y1 plans, though they cant limit cvg or raise prems on granddaddies either... (recourse to issuing a Y1 plan)... thats 2018.... p 17.

isnt that the language we're talking about? 2018, man! im 40 then! we'll have robots and hovercraft!

 

[Immanuel]

read the bill. the bill rolls out, rather than taking immediate effect. do you really, really think that you were the first person to think of that scenario?..that you thought of it before the lawyers at the health insurers who lobbied the bill did? that they didnt realize you'd have to establish a commissioner to establish exchanges before you insist complicit policies are drafted for it?

i repeat... if you want to use your imagination to envisage ways this is a crack-pot legislation, you will succeed. i doubt it is perfect, or in everyone's interest at once, but basing criticisms on the bill itself, instead of the realm of imagination, makes them more credible to me.

Of course I was the first to think about it.

The problem is that I don't want to use my imagination to envisage ways that these things can happen. My concern is that some crazy bureaucrat, politician or lawyer will see the same thing that I mention and carry something like this to court AND WIN.

You say it "rolls out" and you are correct, but according to the language that we are discussing that part takes effect the day that the bill is signed into law. It is one of the first bits of the legislation that goes into effect.

Now, it is certain that the courts may not interpret that provision literally, but that is not guaranteed.

Immie

im semi-fluent in gubmintese and legalese, let me help:

1) Y1 is 2013, not today... p. 13.

2) grandfathered coverage is assessed as such on Y1... p. 15.

3) only after 5 years from Y1 are insurers req'd to make granddaddy plans complicit with post-Y1 plans, though they cant limit cvg or raise prems on granddaddies either... (recourse to issuing a Y1 plan)... thats 2018.... p 17.

isnt that the language we're talking about? 2018, man! im 40 then! we'll have robots and hovercraft!

My mistake and thank you for clearing that up!

However, that does not change the fact that these plans will in fact be puppets of the U.S. Government... does it?

Immie

 

[antagon]

Of course I was the first to think about it.

The problem is that I don't want to use my imagination to envisage ways that these things can happen. My concern is that some crazy bureaucrat, politician or lawyer will see the same thing that I mention and carry something like this to court AND WIN.

You say it "rolls out" and you are correct, but according to the language that we are discussing that part takes effect the day that the bill is signed into law. It is one of the first bits of the legislation that goes into effect.

Now, it is certain that the courts may not interpret that provision literally, but that is not guaranteed.

Immie

im semi-fluent in gubmintese and legalese, let me help:

1) Y1 is 2013, not today... p. 13.

2) grandfathered coverage is assessed as such on Y1... p. 15.

3) only after 5 years from Y1 are insurers req'd to make granddaddy plans complicit with post-Y1 plans, though they cant limit cvg or raise prems on granddaddies either... (recourse to issuing a Y1 plan)... thats 2018.... p 17.

isnt that the language we're talking about? 2018, man! im 40 then! we'll have robots and hovercraft!

My mistake and thank you for clearing that up!

However, that does not change the fact that these plans will in fact be puppets of the U.S. Government... does it?

Immie

i couldnt say. how far does the hand have to go up the ass to constitute a puppet? they have a minimum standard, regulations, are traded on these fed/state exchanges.. the providers are taxed, but also force-fed customers.

i do mini-contracting; maybe im a puppet when we do section-8 compliance work. im licensed, regged, taxed, fed customers... that saved our ass last year - i kinda like the hand up the ass.

 

[Immanuel]

im semi-fluent in gubmintese and legalese, let me help:

1) Y1 is 2013, not today... p. 13.

2) grandfathered coverage is assessed as such on Y1... p. 15.

3) only after 5 years from Y1 are insurers req'd to make granddaddy plans complicit with post-Y1 plans, though they cant limit cvg or raise prems on granddaddies either... (recourse to issuing a Y1 plan)... thats 2018.... p 17.

isnt that the language we're talking about? 2018, man! im 40 then! we'll have robots and hovercraft!

My mistake and thank you for clearing that up!

However, that does not change the fact that these plans will in fact be puppets of the U.S. Government... does it?

Immie

i couldnt say. how far does the hand have to go up the ass to constitute a puppet? they have a minimum standard, regulations, are traded on these fed/state exchanges.. the providers are taxed, but also force-fed customers.

i do mini-contracting; maybe im a puppet when we do section-8 compliance work. im licensed, regged, taxed, fed customers... that saved our ass last year - i kinda like the hand up the ass.

What I want to know is how much autonomy are they going to be given.

Do they get to set their rates or does a bureaucrat set it?

Do they get to offer different policies and give customers the option of choosing higher deductibles for lower premiums or are all insurers going to have the same policies and the only option you really have is which one to send the check to?

Immie

 

[antagon]

My mistake and thank you for clearing that up!

However, that does not change the fact that these plans will in fact be puppets of the U.S. Government... does it?

Immie

i couldnt say. how far does the hand have to go up the ass to constitute a puppet? they have a minimum standard, regulations, are traded on these fed/state exchanges.. the providers are taxed, but also force-fed customers.

i do mini-contracting; maybe im a puppet when we do section-8 compliance work. im licensed, regged, taxed, fed customers... that saved our ass last year - i kinda like the hand up the ass.

What I want to know is how much autonomy are they going to be given.

Do they get to set their rates or does a bureaucrat set it?

Do they get to offer different policies and give customers the option of choosing higher deductibles for lower premiums or are all insurers going to have the same policies and the only option you really have is which one to send the check to?

Immie

i think that that is the idea of the exchanges. that there will be competition for clients much like a comparison website, but with a bit more in the way of common ground inasmuch as the standards and minimum coverages consumers could be certain are included.

we send the check to the feds!

... this is what i gather from skimming. ive mostly looked into the bill from how it would affect small employers.

 

[Immanuel]

i couldnt say. how far does the hand have to go up the ass to constitute a puppet? they have a minimum standard, regulations, are traded on these fed/state exchanges.. the providers are taxed, but also force-fed customers.

i do mini-contracting; maybe im a puppet when we do section-8 compliance work. im licensed, regged, taxed, fed customers... that saved our ass last year - i kinda like the hand up the ass.

What I want to know is how much autonomy are they going to be given.

Do they get to set their rates or does a bureaucrat set it?

Do they get to offer different policies and give customers the option of choosing higher deductibles for lower premiums or are all insurers going to have the same policies and the only option you really have is which one to send the check to?

Immie

i think that that is the idea of the exchanges. that there will be competition for clients much like a comparison website, but with a bit more in the way of common ground inasmuch as the standards and minimum coverages consumers could be certain are included.

we send the check to the feds!

... this is what i gather from skimming. ive mostly looked into the bill from how it would affect small employers.

I'm not actually sure yet who we will send the checks too and I did not say we send the checks to the feds. I said the only choice we will truly have is who we will send the check to. Meaning I can choose United Healthcare to send my check to or I can choose Aetna, but they will be regulated in such a way that they are all forced to offer the exact same policies for the exact same price and those policies will be limited so much that I as a consumer really won't have a choice at all... except as I said, which company do I want to make my check out to.

I fully expect that before this is all said and done payment will be made through nothing other than... you guessed it... payroll tax deductions.

Immie

 

[antagon]

i couldnt say. how far does the hand have to go up the ass to constitute a puppet? they have a minimum standard, regulations, are traded on these fed/state exchanges.. the providers are taxed, but also force-fed customers.

i do mini-contracting; maybe im a puppet when we do section-8 compliance work. im licensed, regged, taxed, fed customers... that saved our ass last year - i kinda like the hand up the ass.

What I want to know is how much autonomy are they going to be given.

Do they get to set their rates or does a bureaucrat set it?

Do they get to offer different policies and give customers the option of choosing higher deductibles for lower premiums or are all insurers going to have the same policies and the only option you really have is which one to send the check to?

Immie

i think that that is the idea of the exchanges. that there will be competition for clients much like a comparison website, but with a bit more in the way of common ground inasmuch as the standards and minimum coverages consumers could be certain are included.

we send the check to the feds!

... this is what i gather from skimming. ive mostly looked into the bill from how it would affect small employers.

rather....

(4) DIRECT PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS TO
PLANS.—Under the enrollment process, individuals
enrolled in an Exchange-participating health benefits
plan shall pay such plans directly, and not through
the Commissioner or the Health Insurance Exchange.

page 99...

it is much like how i think employees are offered plan options from their employer's group plan options.

ive been hazing myself with my taxes; i dont have the heart to read this whole section on the exchanges.

 

[Immanuel]

What I want to know is how much autonomy are they going to be given.

Do they get to set their rates or does a bureaucrat set it?

Do they get to offer different policies and give customers the option of choosing higher deductibles for lower premiums or are all insurers going to have the same policies and the only option you really have is which one to send the check to?

Immie

i think that that is the idea of the exchanges. that there will be competition for clients much like a comparison website, but with a bit more in the way of common ground inasmuch as the standards and minimum coverages consumers could be certain are included.

we send the check to the feds!

... this is what i gather from skimming. ive mostly looked into the bill from how it would affect small employers.

rather....

(4) DIRECT PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS TO
PLANS.—Under the enrollment process, individuals
enrolled in an Exchange-participating health benefits
plan shall pay such plans directly, and not through
the Commissioner or the Health Insurance Exchange.

page 99...

it is much like how i think employees are offered plan options from their employer's group plan options.

ive been hazing myself with my taxes; i dont have the heart to read this whole section on the exchanges.

And that is basically what I said would happen. Your only choice would be who to send the check to. I suppose I will choose AETNA because their name is smaller and I will use much less ink over the years as compared to United Healthcare. I am pretty sure with the higher costs that are coming I may need to save every millicent I can.

Immie

 

[antagon]

What I want to know is how much autonomy are they going to be given.

Do they get to set their rates or does a bureaucrat set it?

Do they get to offer different policies and give customers the option of choosing higher deductibles for lower premiums or are all insurers going to have the same policies and the only option you really have is which one to send the check to?

Immie

i think that that is the idea of the exchanges. that there will be competition for clients much like a comparison website, but with a bit more in the way of common ground inasmuch as the standards and minimum coverages consumers could be certain are included.

we send the check to the feds!

... this is what i gather from skimming. ive mostly looked into the bill from how it would affect small employers.

I'm not actually sure yet who we will send the checks too and I did not say we send the checks to the feds. I said the only choice we will truly have is who we will send the check to. Meaning I can choose United Healthcare to send my check to or I can choose Aetna, but they will be regulated in such a way that they are all forced to offer the exact same policies for the exact same price and those policies will be limited so much that I as a consumer really won't have a choice at all... except as I said, which company do I want to make my check out to.

I fully expect that before this is all said and done payment will be made through nothing other than... you guessed it... payroll tax deductions.

Immie

i actually thought that you paid the exchange or the govt, then picked fixed plans.

instead there are plans that fit in categories like basic, premium, and premium plus, then they can deviate a lil bit within each with their deductibles and the premiums will be what they'll have to make competitive.

if they make the specs too stringent, the providers will probably collude, i say.