What to watch for: Resistance from employers, who may not be too keen on paying more money to insure their workers’ young adult children. While it’s a good bet that insurers would relish new business and more premiums from younger and healthier people, they just might find it more lucrative to send all these young people into the individual market rather than keep them on family coverage.
Guaranteed Insurance Renewal. The White House says that insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays the premium in full, and won’t be allowed to cancel anyone who gets sick. Mr. President, take note. HIPAA already says that all kinds of health insurance policies are guaranteed renewal—job-based coverage and individual health insurance. So what’s new here? Is this an attempt to deal with rescission, that onerous individual-market practice where insurers drop coverage claiming that a policyholder lied or failed to disclose information on the application?
What to watch for: Will insurers fight for language that continues to allow rescissions? Watch for language that allows rescissions for fraud and misrepresentations. If there are new rights to coverage and prohibitions on carriers from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, there should be no incentive for fraud or misrepresentation, whether intentional or unintentional.
Journalists, this is where the action is going to be if a bill moves forward in the Congress. If ever there was a time to watch the backroom politics of insurance reform, it is now. The AP moved a story yesterday that at first I thought was promising. “Consumer protections lost in health care debate,” the headline said. But the story was disappointing, missing a chance to explain and analyze exactly what these protections are, and how they might get watered down. Instead, the story was a collection of graphs, a couple of which noted how insurers could no longer base premiums on someone’s medical history. It included a few quotes from Washington wonks, and talked about the age rating that would be allowed by the House and Senate bills.
The story did deliver one takeaway for readers who might be tempted to think their problems getting insurance and staying insured are about to be solved. The AP said the protections would not be available until 2013. That’s a long time to wait if you need medical care—and a way to pay for it.
Obama's plan should be more focused on the same type of plans held by members of the congress concerning health care. They take very good care of themselves. I am of the opinion that the American people are every bit as important as members of congress. Equality takes on a new meaning when it comes down to who is taking care of whom.
#1 Posted by Duane Allen, CJR on Wed 12 Aug 2009 at 11:22 AM
Obama's plan should be more focused on the same type of plans held by members of the congress concerning health care. They take very good care of themselves. I am of the opinion that the American people are every bit as important as members of congress. Equality takes on a new meaning when it comes down to who is taking care of whom.
#2 Posted by Duane Allen, CJR on Wed 12 Aug 2009 at 11:23 AM
Duane, you realize that the federal government contracts with hundreds of insurers, that they have a range of hundreds of plans for people at various income levels. Many STILL can't afford one.
I think that they pay 75% of the cost for full time employees--but that many Federal employees, even with those substantial subsidies, still can't afford one.
Thats the cost of health care. That's the dark side they want to hide as long as they can.
Look at it this way. If a Congressperson is paid say, $100k a year, and a mailman makes $40k and they are both offered a healthcare plan that costs 20k for a family, but the Federal government pays $15k that leaves $5000 that an employee must pay. That $5000 ends up being a huge bite for the postman, but not such a big bite for the congressman.
Now, suppose YOU, the outsider, are offered the opportunity to buy into "the same plan", at the same price, $20,000.
Its a bit like COBRA. The same plan, at the same price. But SO few of us turn out to be able to afford it!
Welcome to America.
Ouch. You forgot these politicians start out as lawyers. And you listened to that lawyer speak.
Dont forget, Catch 22, you're not a federal employee!
No, just buying into their system at their cost. If you have a big income, and perhaps some health problem, you would probably jump at the chance, because you need to be able to avoid individual premiums which are much higher than that, (and the plans have such high deductibles they don't pay much, so people with health problems soon find it doesn't work for them)
But, don't expect to walk away smiling. And many people wont be able to afford the cost in any possible way. (That's what they are waiting years for, BTW. And prices are going up, fast.)
See my point? Naive voters voted assuming that they would through some miracle, get a 75% subsidy which they almost certainly couldn't in actuality, get. That $15000 subsidy is the reason the postman can afford a health plan and you might not be able to, even if you are "offered" a group plan.
(If you are "offered" one at work, but can't afford it, you wont even get that. No public options for you. Thats a deal thats going to make a lot of people very angry. No wonder they want to put it off for years, perhaps decades.)
I hope that this helps make the problem a little clearer. Even if you are allowed into Tiffany's that doen't mean you can buy diamonds. Or even fake ones.
Consumer driven plans are a dead end in that its NOT a choice when you cant find a single affordable option that works to get you affordable, quality health care.
They are designed to conceal that unpleasantness. Nobody likes telling people stuff like that.
Its a trap.
#3 Posted by Charles, CJR on Sat 31 Oct 2009 at 05:13 PM