You are getting healthcare reform, Dammit!

TurdFerguson said:
While it is a shitty bill, it does prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and also prohibits rescissions.
Click to expand...
Again, only after a year and only as part of the new risk pool and only with the "bronze plan", whatever that is. I don't want whatever it is, because I'm sure it is the same crap in hr 3200.

The new risk pool they create from what I've read, could be charged respectably more than others.
 
Damocles said:
Again, only after a year and only as part of the new risk pool and only with the "bronze plan", whatever that is. I don't want whatever it is, because I'm sure it is the same crap in hr 3200.

The new risk pool they create from what I've read, could be charged respectably more than others.
Click to expand...

And what is wrong with that? If you have a pre-existing condition, then perhaps it is best that you pay a bit more. The point is to keep insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And what is wrong with that? If you have a pre-existing condition, then perhaps it is best that you pay a bit more. The point is to keep insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...
True. I'll give that one to y'all.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And what is wrong with that? If you have a pre-existing condition, then perhaps it is best that you pay a bit more. The point is to keep insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...
Um. You do know that almost all group health insurance has that same requirement. 1 year, different risk pool, et al? It is individual insurance that doesn't, and with this bill there really wouldn't be individual insurance any longer. It isn't really changing much.
 
Damocles said:
Again, only after a year and only as part of the new risk pool and only with the "bronze plan", whatever that is. I don't want whatever it is, because I'm sure it is the same crap in hr 3200.

The new risk pool they create from what I've read, could be charged respectably more than others.
Click to expand...


I think you are misreading the bill (Chairman's Mark). The effective date of the entire subtitle containing the prohibition on denied applicants with pre-existing conditions is January 1, 2013. However, in the meanwhile, individuals that are denied individual insurance due to a pre-existing condition can obtain insurance as part of a high-risk pool with the Bronze Plan. That's why the high risk pool until will only exist until 2013.l
 
TurdFerguson said:
I think you are misreading the bill (Chairman's Mark). The effective date of the entire subtitle containing the prohibition on denied applicants with pre-existing conditions is January 1, 2013. However, in the meanwhile, individuals that are denied individual insurance due to a pre-existing condition can obtain insurance as part of a high-risk pool with the Bronze Plan. That's why the high risk pool until will only exist until 2013.l
Click to expand...
See the post directly above this one.
 
Damocles said:
Um. You do know that almost all group health insurance has that same requirement. 1 year, different risk pool, et al? It is individual insurance that doesn't, and with this bill there really wouldn't be individual insurance any longer. It isn't really changing much.
Click to expand...


How on earth can you claim that "with this bill there really wouldn't be individual insurance any longer?" The Baucus bill goes out of its way to ensure that there will still be individual insurance, they just have to be part of state-regulated exchanges.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And what is wrong with that? If you have a pre-existing condition, then perhaps it is best that you pay a bit more. The point is to keep insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...

you can't see whats wrong with that?

try this one:

a pre-existing condition that even with insurance has soaked up all savings and forced individual/couple/family to live paycheck to paycheck while eating ramen and hot dogs, now to continue coverage for pre-existing condition, but at a higher cost, so said family can eat ramen and hot dogs still, just every other day.
 
TurdFerguson said:
How on earth can you claim that "with this bill there really wouldn't be individual insurance any longer?" The Baucus bill goes out of its way to ensure that there will still be individual insurance, they just have to be part of state-regulated exchanges.
Click to expand...
Because they would be in a pool and then I was speaking to the differences that exist between individual and group insurance (pre-existing coverage) becoming non-existent.

Man, can you please just try to keep up? You are like arguing with molasses today, in either moniker.
 
TurdFerguson said:
Why? I've read the bill. I know what it says. Your claim that it doesn't prohibit denying applicants based on pre-existing conditions is not correct.
Click to expand...
Because I pointed out that you two were correct, then explained why this isn't much of a change.
 
Damocles said:
Because they would be in a pool and then I was speaking to the differences that exist between individual and group insurance (pre-existing coverage) becoming non-existent.

Man, can you please just try to keep up? You are like arguing with molasses today, in either moniker.
Click to expand...


Either moniker? I only got the one.

I though you were disagreeing with me since you said that the bill "didn't really change much" together with your previous statement that the bill didn't prohibit insurers from denying applicants based on pre-existing coverage. The bill changes quite a bit, particularly on the pre-existing coverage and rescission issues. They might be the only two good things with the bill.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you can't see whats wrong with that?

try this one:

a pre-existing condition that even with insurance has soaked up all savings and forced individual/couple/family to live paycheck to paycheck while eating ramen and hot dogs, now to continue coverage for pre-existing condition, but at a higher cost, so said family can eat ramen and hot dogs still, just every other day.
Click to expand...

Gotta eat hotdogs? Fire up the BBQ! And with the right veggies added, ramen can pretty good too. Better to be eating ramen and hot dogs out of your own kitchen, than off a hotplate at the homeless shelter.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
FROM MY COLD, DEAD, ......wait. wrong subject.
Click to expand...

Oath keepers...I just read about you folks. You're the soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and women, coasties, border patrol ,cops, and first responders of all kinds who have taken an oath to refuse any order that abrogates the Constitution or violates the Bill of Rights.

My hat's off to you. People don't realize that the United States of America is not a physical geographical area, not a collection of cities, or even of people. IT IS AN IDEAL, EMBODIED IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE GREATEST DOCUMENT EVER DEVISED BY HUMANS, and the trampling of those ideals in the name of national security or "protecting us from terrorism" makes a mockery of the founders' design and purpose, and i'm glad to see there are people who take seriously their oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

"Those who would give up essential liberties in order to gain a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."

Benjamin Franklin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top