Wednesday, Sept 23, Republicans to unveil Health Care Plan and other policies

[Quantum Windbag]

Republican Plan includes:

1. Coverage can be denied for the following "pre-existing" conditions:

asthma, allergies, tonsillectomy, back conditions, adenoidectomy, hemorrhoids or hemorrhoidectomy, disorders of the reproductive system, hysterectomy, hernia, gall stones or kidney stones, any condition of the breast including having had a mammogram regardless of the results, and any condition of the prostate

2. If a person becomes sick and can no longer pay premiums, coverage can be ended to keep costs down for others not sick.

3. No clause to cover children. They do not work. They do not need coverage.

4. Parents are no longer allowed to add their children to their health care plan while those children attend college or have passed 18 years of age.

5. An amendment to "protect marriage" will be back on the table.

6. A bill to repeal the "don't ask" part of "don't ask, don't tell".

7. Government intervention to end all abortions, including rape and incest.

8. A trillion-dollar tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.

9. Further deregulation of Wall Street.

10. Privatizing Social Security.

11. Ending Medicare and Medicaid.

12. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion. Bill to include mandatory teacher led prayers in public schools.

13. A change in science curriculum to include the possibility of "occult" intervention.

14. An amendment to strip Hispanic children of their citizenship.

There you go. I think I've covered most of what they will present.

And here I thought this was a serious post.

Didn't you see who made it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the record, Wednesday is NOT the 23rd....Thursday is.

Don't confuse yourself, rdean lives in an alternate universe where the facts we know, and the calendar, are all different.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Notice there aren't any Cons in here defending this grand "proposal". Wonder why that is?

Because, unlike most Democrats, the conservative base of the Republican party has learned that they are a bunch of politicians, and will lie about anything to get elected. It would have been a lot more impressive if the Republicans had come out with this pledge years ago, and stuck to it. As it is, all it does is agitate the wingnuts who think that there is a difference between Obama and Bush.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I propose that when you wreck your car, then go buy insurance and demand that they fix your car.

Awesome.

How will that be possible if there are only certain times during the year when you can purchase that insurance?

FAILED "logic" once again.

I have a question for you, exactly where is this provision in the ACA? My guess is that you are confusing the fact that most employers have an open enrollment period for employees to change their policies if they want. If this is actually part of the law it will result in a conundrum for some people.

Let us suppose I am unemployed, and unable to afford insurance. I sign up for, and get, Medciaid, during the enrollment period, and get a job right after the period ends. As a result of my new income I become ineligible for Mediciad, and I discover the next week that I have cancer and need treatment. Because of the required enrollment periods that are designed, according to you, to prevent people from getting sick and then getting insurance, I am unable to get insurance, even though I both need it, and can afford it. As a result I die for lack of insurance coverage.

Who does my family get to sue? Why do the insurance companies get to deny me insurance that I need based on the preexisting condition of the calendar?

Why are trying to spread obvious disinformation and bullshit lies about Obamacare?

 

[DiveCon]

I propose that when you wreck your car, then go buy insurance and demand that they fix your car.

Awesome.

How will that be possible if there are only certain times during the year when you can purchase that insurance?

FAILED "logic" once again.

I have a question for you, exactly where is this provision in the ACA? My guess is that you are confusing the fact that most employers have an open enrollment period for employees to change their policies if they want. If this is actually part of the law it will result in a conundrum for some people.

Let us suppose I am unemployed, and unable to afford insurance. I sign up for, and get, Medciaid, during the enrollment period, and get a job right after the period ends. As a result of my new income I become ineligible for Mediciad, and I discover the next week that I have cancer and need treatment. Because of the required enrollment periods that are designed, according to you, to prevent people from getting sick and then getting insurance, I am unable to get insurance, even though I both need it, and can afford it. As a result I die for lack of insurance coverage.

Who does my family get to sue? Why do the insurance companies get to deny me insurance that I need based on the preexisting condition of the calendar?

Why are trying to spread obvious disinformation and bullshit lies about Obamacare?

actually, new hires will usually be given the chance to join the group plan as part of being hired
changes to status and a few other things can get you in as well

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I propose that when you wreck your car, then go buy insurance and demand that they fix your car.

Awesome.

asthma, allergies, tonsillectomy, back conditions, adenoidectomy, hemorrhoids or hemorrhoidectomy, disorders of the reproductive system, hysterectomy, hernia, gall stones or kidney stones, any condition of the breast including having had a mammogram regardless of the results, and any condition of the prostate

So you agree that if you get sick and you had one of these "pre-existing" conditions, then you should lose your insurance? We want to be clear. That is what you are defending.

If you had an allergy or a tonsillectomy (got your tonsils removed), then you should lose your insurance if you get sick. So tell us that you agree with this.

Weird thing.

The policy you quoted does not deny coverage based on those conditions, it just advises people that they are not covered during the first six months of the policy. After that period all of those conditions are covered, and paid for to the degree the policy specifies. That is what is known as a business contract, something very few progressives understand. They all think that contracts only apply if they benefit the 'little guy', and that any company is obligated to pay through every possible orifice if the 'little guy' is even mildly inconvenienced, even the company is completely clear of any and all legal responsibility.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republican Plan includes:

1. Coverage can be denied for the following "pre-existing" conditions:

asthma, allergies, tonsillectomy, back conditions, adenoidectomy, hemorrhoids or hemorrhoidectomy, disorders of the reproductive system, hysterectomy, hernia, gall stones or kidney stones, any condition of the breast including having had a mammogram regardless of the results, and any condition of the prostate

2. If a person becomes sick and can no longer pay premiums, coverage can be ended to keep costs down for others not sick.

3. No clause to cover children. They do not work. They do not need coverage.

4. Parents are no longer allowed to add their children to their health care plan while those children attend college or have passed 18 years of age.

5. An amendment to "protect marriage" will be back on the table.

6. A bill to repeal the "don't ask" part of "don't ask, don't tell".

7. Government intervention to end all abortions, including rape and incest.

8. A trillion-dollar tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.

9. Further deregulation of Wall Street.

10. Privatizing Social Security.

11. Ending Medicare and Medicaid.

12. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion. Bill to include mandatory teacher led prayers in public schools.

13. A change in science curriculum to include the possibility of "occult" intervention.

14. An amendment to strip Hispanic children of their citizenship.

There you go. I think I've covered most of what they will present.

On #1: you got that one wrong. Here is what is does: " Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny children coverage for pre-existing conditions."

On #2: You missed it on that one too. Here is what it does: " Insurance companies will be forbidden from terminating coverage for any other reason than customer fraud."

On #3: Partially wrong again. Here is what it does: "Children of parents with insurance will be allowed to remain covered under those policies until the age of 26." I am not sure about if they cen be covered on insurance. I do believe they can. It would be crazy not to have insurence on your children.

On #4: I don't know if they can be addede while they are in college, but if they are already covered they can remain covered. (See #3)

Other coverage will include the following: "4. Insurance companies will no longer be able to cap the amount of benefits and treatment a person can receive in a lifetime.

5. Insurers can no longer charge customers for preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies.

6. High-risk pools are mandated to cover those who have been denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions."

The problem is that none of these is actually able to be used at least until 1-1-11, and some even at a later date. Most of the rest will be waiting until 2014.

While I have not read the details of these changes, I have to say that I believe they will be cause for worry. They will cause an increase in coverage cost. They will cause overloads for medical professionals. They will mosy likely have so many exceptions that in fact they will be ineffective for the most part. It is not a gift. Because of who pushed it, I do not personally trust it.

However, I will use it to the fullest extent since I am older and don't have time to take advantage of anything that MIGHT be good.

rdean is so crazy the lefties thing he is wrong.

 

[Greenbeard]

I have a question for you, exactly where is this provision in the ACA?

Section 1311. The relevant bit:

(6) ENROLLMENT PERIODS- The Secretary shall require an Exchange to provide for--

(A) an initial open enrollment, as determined by the Secretary (such determination to be made not later than July 1, 2012);
(B) annual open enrollment periods, as determined by the Secretary for calendar years after the initial enrollment period;
(C) special enrollment periods specified in section 9801 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and other special enrollment periods under circumstances similar to such periods under part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act; and
(D) special monthly enrollment periods for Indians (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act).​

As you've probably guessed, your scenario of losing other coverage and needing to get it through an exchange falls under subsection c there (i.e. it's specified in section 9801 of the Internal Revenue Code). You can scroll down to subsection (f) of that bit of law for more details (including those involving termination of Medicaid coverage).

These open enrollment periods are designed to deter adverse selection (i.e. purposefully remaining uninsured until you need it), not screw you over if you've acted responsibly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How will that be possible if there are only certain times during the year when you can purchase that insurance?

FAILED "logic" once again.

I have a question for you, exactly where is this provision in the ACA? My guess is that you are confusing the fact that most employers have an open enrollment period for employees to change their policies if they want. If this is actually part of the law it will result in a conundrum for some people.

Let us suppose I am unemployed, and unable to afford insurance. I sign up for, and get, Medciaid, during the enrollment period, and get a job right after the period ends. As a result of my new income I become ineligible for Mediciad, and I discover the next week that I have cancer and need treatment. Because of the required enrollment periods that are designed, according to you, to prevent people from getting sick and then getting insurance, I am unable to get insurance, even though I both need it, and can afford it. As a result I die for lack of insurance coverage.

Who does my family get to sue? Why do the insurance companies get to deny me insurance that I need based on the preexisting condition of the calendar?

Why are trying to spread obvious disinformation and bullshit lies about Obamacare?

actually, new hires will usually be given the chance to join the group plan as part of being hired
changes to status and a few other things can get you in as well

I know that, but RDD seems to think the law has enrollment periods built into it. The only information I have found applies only to Medicair, Medcaid, and SCHIP, and the states responsibilities under the ACA. If I get a job that does not have insurance, which will happen more and more often under Obamacare, and the law mandates enrollment periods for all insurance policies, people will be screwed.

This fiction is the only thing anyone can come up with to defend the fact that people will do exactly what RDD says will be impossible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have a question for you, exactly where is this provision in the ACA?

Section 1311. The relevant bit:

(6) ENROLLMENT PERIODS- The Secretary shall require an Exchange to provide for--

(A) an initial open enrollment, as determined by the Secretary (such determination to be made not later than July 1, 2012);
(B) annual open enrollment periods, as determined by the Secretary for calendar years after the initial enrollment period;
(C) special enrollment periods specified in section 9801 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and other special enrollment periods under circumstances similar to such periods under part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act; and
(D) special monthly enrollment periods for Indians (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act).​

As you've probably guessed, your scenario of losing other coverage and needing to get it through an exchange falls under subsection c there (i.e. it's specified in section 9801 of the Internal Revenue Code). You can scroll down to subsection (f) of that bit of law for more details (including those involving termination of Medicaid coverage).

These open enrollment periods are designed to deter adverse selection (i.e. purposefully remaining uninsured until you need it), not screw you over if you've acted responsibly.

So, where does it say that is the only time I can get insurance?

If I understand what I am reading, it doesn't.

 

[Greenbeard]

I don't know what you're asking me. The definition of an enrollment period?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

(3) Late enrollee The term “late enrollee” means, with respect to coverage under a group health plan, a participant or beneficiary who enrolls under the plan other than during—
(A) the first period in which the individual is eligible to enroll under the plan, or
(B) a special enrollment period under subsection (f).

(f) Special enrollment periods (1) Individuals losing other coverage A group health plan shall permit an employee who is eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage under the terms of the plan (or a dependent of such an employee if the dependent is eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage under such terms) to enroll for coverage under the terms of the plan if each of the following conditions is met:
(A) The employee or dependent was covered under a group health plan or had health insurance coverage at the time coverage was previously offered to the employee or individual.
(B) The employee stated in writing at such time that coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage was the reason for declining enrollment, but only if the plan sponsor (or the health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage in connection with the plan) required such a statement at such time and provided the employee with notice of such requirement (and the consequences of such requirement) at such time.
(C) The employee’s or dependent’s coverage described in subparagraph (A)— (i) was under a COBRA continuation provision and the coverage under such provision was exhausted; or
(ii) was not under such a provision and either the coverage was terminated as a result of loss of eligibility for the coverage (including as a result of legal separation, divorce, death, termination of employment, or reduction in the number of hours of employment) or employer contributions toward such coverage were terminated.

(D) Under the terms of the plan, the employee requests such enrollment not later than 30 days after the date of exhaustion of coverage described in subparagraph (C)(i) or termination of coverage or employer contribution described in subparagraph (C)(ii).

Doesn't this essentially mean that I can purchase my insurance at any point?

 

[Greenbeard]

No. Late enrollees don't get coverage at some random point, they get it during an open enrollment period. The significant point is that they refuse it during the first open enrollment for which they were eligible. So if you start a new job and turn down the group health coverage but decide a few years later--during an open enrollment period--to enter the group pool, you're a late enrollee. The assumption is that you're more likely to have developed a pre-existing condition during that interval if you're opting in during a subsequent open enrollment period. Since HIPAA limits pre-existing condition exclusions for group plans (i.e. puts a time limit on the exclusion), it piles on a slight penalty for late enrollees (they're subject to longer exclusion periods for pre-existing conditions).

That doesn't mean you can buy insurance outside of open enrollment or special enrollment periods.

 

[WillowTree]

I propose that when you wreck your car, then go buy insurance and demand that they fix your car.

Awesome.

Car insurance is mandatory.

but owning a fucking car isn't you fucking moron so stash that stupid arguement in da bin.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. Late enrollees don't get coverage at some random point, they get it during an open enrollment period. The significant point is that they refuse it during the first open enrollment for which they were eligible. So if you start a new job and turn down the group health coverage but decide a few years later--during an open enrollment period--to enter the group pool, you're a late enrollee. The assumption is that you're more likely to have developed a pre-existing condition during that interval if you're opting in during a subsequent open enrollment period. Since HIPAA limits pre-existing condition exclusions for group plans (i.e. puts a time limit on the exclusion), it piles on a slight penalty for late enrollees (they're subject to longer exclusion periods for pre-existing conditions).

That doesn't mean you can buy insurance outside of open enrollment or special enrollment periods.

That is not how I read the law, and I am sure a bunch of lawyers will see it my way, and my bet is a few judges will also. That will leave the final reading of the law up to SCOTUS, and since the obvious intent of Congress is to give everyone access to affordable insurance, the liberal judges will not have a problem seeing it that way either.

It is either that, or deny someone health care on the basis of not having insurance, or a pre-existing condition, which would make this law a total failure at its stated goals.

Which way do you think the supporters of this law will throw their weight behind with the amicus briefs?

 

[Greenbeard]

That is not how I read the law

No offense, but it doesn't matter how you read it. None of this is mysterious or ambiguous to anyone who knew about it before last night. All of this is well-established stuff.

The contortions you're going through here to find some fatal flaw are amusing. First you accuse RDD of spreading "obvious disinformation and bullshit lies about Obamacare" for pointing out that the law provides for enrollment periods for the exchanges. Then when it's pointed out that not only does the law do exactly that, it defuses your hypothetical situation of someone losing coverage by allowing for special enrollments (as in HIPAA) for those people, you move on to claiming there's no such thing as enrollment periods. It's just a steady march toward absurdity.

And it's not just you, this happens with so many people in so many of these health care threads. Someone says something that reveals they haven't bothered to read any of this law ("there's nothing about workforce!" or "why doesn't it address fraud and abuse!" or "states can't opt out!"), the simple truth is pointed out and instead of conceding that it's a good thing that X is in the law, they just keep falling back to progressively more absurd positions. usually contradicting their own earlier post. It's okay to like a provision. It's okay. It's okay.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtkST5-ZFHw]It's not your fault[/ame]

 

[RDD_1210]

That is not how I read the law

No offense, but it doesn't matter how you read it. None of this is mysterious or ambiguous to anyone who knew about it before last night. All of this is well-established stuff.

The contortions you're going through here to find some fatal flaw are amusing. First you accuse RDD of spreading "obvious disinformation and bullshit lies about Obamacare" for pointing out that the law provides for enrollment periods for the exchanges. Then when it's pointed out that not only does the law do exactly that, it defuses your hypothetical situation of someone losing coverage by allowing for special enrollments (as in HIPAA) for those people, you move on to claiming there's no such thing as enrollment periods. It's just a steady march toward absurdity.

And it's not just you, this happens with so many people in so many of these health care threads. Someone says something that reveals they haven't bothered to read any of this law ("there's nothing about workforce!" or "why doesn't it address fraud and abuse!" or "states can't opt out!"), the simple truth is pointed out and instead of conceding that it's a good thing that X is in the law, they just keep falling back to progressively more absurd positions. usually contradicting their own earlier post. It's okay to like a provision. It's okay. It's okay.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtkST5-ZFHw]It's not your fault[/ame]

Couldn't have said it any better. Quantum - please just concede that you didn't understand this portion of the bill, but now it makes a little more sense. This is not some conspiracy against you.

 

[Cal]

Democrats need to run on Grayson's "Republican's say DIE!" idea

It's a winner!

What are you going to run on, the economy?

You're right.. It is a winner. The last poll I saw had Mr. Grayson up 13 fucking points! Dude's got guts! If all Democrats were like that.. The "Tea Party" wouldn't stand a chance this year. But instead, like in my district, we have a bunch of pussy ass dems, scared to take a stand for the middle class.. and fight for real reform, while calling out the true motives of the Republicans and "Tea Party". You should become a Democratic strategist.. Because you are 100% fucking right. It is a winner.

Why not? The economy was saved from the brink of depression! Something the Dems should shout from the rooftops. They need to press this message even more of, "they got us in the ditch". That's what resonates with voters.. Because they sure as hell don't wanna go back to the Bush policies!

 

[rdean]

Democrats need to run on Grayson's "Republican's say DIE!" idea

It's a winner!

What are you going to run on, the economy?

You're right.. It is a winner. The last poll I saw had Mr. Grayson up 13 fucking points! Dude's got guts! If all Democrats were like that.. The "Tea Party" wouldn't stand a chance this year. But instead, like in my district, we have a bunch of pussy ass dems, scared to take a stand for the middle class.. and fight for real reform, while calling out the true motives of the Republicans and "Tea Party". You should become a Democratic strategist.. Because you are 100% fucking right. It is a winner.

Why not? The economy was saved from the brink of depression! Something the Dems should shout from the rooftops. They need to press this message even more of, "they got us in the ditch". That's what resonates with voters.. Because they sure as hell don't wanna go back to the Bush policies!

The Democratic Party needs more like Alan Grayson and Anthony Weiner.

Harry Reid is such a weakling. Someone said he was a boxer. He could box a kitten and lose.

Obama has made a terrible mistake thinking he could work with this Republican Party giving them chance after chance and the entire time, they have publicly stated they want to "bring him down". Could you be more dense? He was thinking, "Oh, it's just politics". You can't reason with people who compare you tio "Hitler".

What is totally lost on the American people is that the Republicans, in their "Plague on America" actually LIKE the health care bill and don't want to repeal about 90% of it.

It's all understandable. The Democratic Party is a party of coalitions. Such a diverse base has difficulty working as a group. Unlike Republicans who are 90% white and mostly Christian. They vote as a block and work only for their own self interests, or so they think.

The Republican leadership misleads their base like Glenn Beck hawking gold or Sean Hannity making a fortune off of fake concerts for soldiers, or Sarah Palin on a spending spree at Bloomingdale's.

 

[DiveCon]

Democrats need to run on Grayson's "Republican's say DIE!" idea

It's a winner!

What are you going to run on, the economy?

You're right.. It is a winner. The last poll I saw had Mr. Grayson up 13 fucking points! Dude's got guts! If all Democrats were like that.. The "Tea Party" wouldn't stand a chance this year. But instead, like in my district, we have a bunch of pussy ass dems, scared to take a stand for the middle class.. and fight for real reform, while calling out the true motives of the Republicans and "Tea Party". You should become a Democratic strategist.. Because you are 100% fucking right. It is a winner.

Why not? The economy was saved from the brink of depression! Something the Dems should shout from the rooftops. They need to press this message even more of, "they got us in the ditch". That's what resonates with voters.. Because they sure as hell don't wanna go back to the Bush policies!

i'd like to see a source for that poll claim