I just read about the bipartisan bill brewing from the senate finance comission.
Looks like it would not require a government run plan, and that it wouldn't require employers to provide coverage (although there would be penalties if they do not).
Haven't read a whole lot more about it, but we can use this thread to keep tabs on it.
With no public insurance option, there will be NO compe ive pressure on for-profit health insurance companies, and therefor NO drop in health insurance costs (aka, their revenues).
"The American Academy of Family Physicians is backing the measure, in part, for including primary care bonuses, though it would like to see those incentives boosted."
No ! MORE money for doctors, what's not to love?
Before they pay themselves a penny, independent primary care docs spend $250K year on overheads, basically pushing paper and paying staff to fight with insurance companies.
I just prepared a renewal for a company with 325 employees.
The in bent (current carrier) proposed an 18% increase over last year's rates.
A compe or proposed a 7% increase if the company would move to it.
The in bent matched that proposal, hoping the company would stay put for like dollars.
A THIRD carrier then got involved and offered to take the case at the same premium level as last year. When presented with this, the in bent refused to match.
The company moved.
I never sent this to the government. It felt a awful like compe ion.
(Yes, it is very uncommon for company's to get a "no increase", but the carriers all wanted this one)
The one thing in the original post that stood out to me was that employers that don't provide a plan will have to be fined, how does that work with companies that hire a lot of temp workers, or places like fast food joints, where workers (high school aged idiots) leave after short periods of time often?
From what I read, if the company does not offer insurance, and some of their employees would qualify for government subsidies in order to acquire insurance themselves, then the company would have to pay for those subsidies.
Health Policy Now Carved Out at a More Centrist Table
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ROBERT PEAR
Published: July 27, 2009
WASHINGTON — On the agenda is the revamping of the American health care system, possibly the most complex legislation in modern history. But on the table, in a conference room where the bill is being hashed out by six senators, the snacks are anything but healthy.
Last week, there were chippers — chocolate-covered potato chips — described on a sign as “North Dakota Diet Food.” More often, there are Doritos, pretzels, Oreo cookies and beef jerky: fuel to get through hours of talks on topics like the actuarial values of private insurance plans or the cost-sharing provisions of Medicare.
The fate of the health care overhaul largely rests on the shoulders of six senators who since June 17 have gathered — often twice a day, and for many hours at a stretch — in a conference room with burnt sienna walls, in the office of the Senate Finance Committee chairman, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana.
President Obama and Congressional leaders agree that if a bipartisan deal can be forged on health care, it will emerge from this conference room, with a huge map of Montana on one wall and photos of Mike Mansfield, the Montanan who was the longest-serving Senate majority leader, on the other.
The battle over health care is all but paralyzed as everyone awaits the outcome of their talks.
Mr. Baucus says his group will produce the bill that best meets Mr. Obama’s top priorities, broadly expanding coverage to the uninsured and curtailing the steep rise in health care spending over the long term, what policy makers call “bending the cost curve.”
Still, if the three Democrats and three Republicans can pull off a grand bargain, it will have to be more conservative than the measures proposed by the House or the left-leaning Senate health committee. And that could force Mr. Obama to choose between backing the bipartisan deal or rank-and-file Democrats who want a bill that more closely reflects their liberal ideals.
Already, the group of six has tossed aside the idea of a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers, which the president supports but Republicans said was a deal-breaker.
Instead, they are proposing a network of private, nonprofit cooperatives.
They have also dismissed the House Democratic plan to pay for the bill’s roughly $1 trillion, 10-year cost partly with an income surtax on high earners.
The three Republicans have insisted that any new taxes come from within the health care arena. As one option, Democrats have proposed taxing high-end insurance plans with values exceeding $25,000.
The Senate group also seems prepared to drop a requirement, included in other versions of the legislation, that employers offer coverage to their workers. “We don’t mandate employer coverage,” Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine and one of the six, said Monday. Employers that do not offer coverage may instead have to pay the cost of any government subsidies for which their workers qualify. In the House, centrist Democrats have temporarily stalled the health care bill, many lawmakers want to see what Mr. Baucus’s group produces before voting on tax increases in the House bill.
Mr. Obama, in his news conference last week, praised the three Republicans in the Senate group — Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Ms. Snowe. Mr. Grassley, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, and Mr. Baucus share a history of deal-making, and group members said they share a sense of trust despite the partisan acrimony that pervades the Capitol.
Mr. Enzi, who sits on both the Finance Committee and the health committee, has a long record on health issues but found Democrats on the health panel unwilling to compromise.
And Ms. Snowe, one of two centrist Republicans, often teams with Democrats as she did on the economic stimulus plan this year.
After the group insisted it needed more time, the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, conceded that a floor vote would have to wait until after the summer recess. “If this is the only bill with bipartisan support,” Ms. Snowe said, “that will really resonate. It could be the linchpin for broad bipartisan agreement.”
In addition to Mr. Baucus, the Democrats are Senators Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.
“I think there’s a heavy sense of responsibility among this group,” Mr. Conrad said in an interview. “Our country needs us to get this right.”
As they near a deal, however, Mr. Baucus is getting resistance from Democrats who think he is giving too much ground.
Mr. Grassley said the group agreed on how to achieve most of the larger policy goals, including barring insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and better managing treatment of costly chronic diseases like diabetes and asthma. But there have been sharp disagreements, particularly over how to pay for the legislation.
Often a single topic can consume an entire day or more. On Wednesday of last week, it was Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for low-income people that was likely to be expanded but was also a major factor in the legislation’s high cost.
Another recent topic has been how to create payment incentives for doctors and other providers to work in collaborative teams, as part of so-called accountable care organizations.
“The talks are free-flowing,” Ms. Snowe said. “Max is very inclusive,” she said of Mr. Baucus.
Members of the group methodically work through issues. When they reach a tentative agreement, Mr. Baucus asks, “Can I put down a ‘T’?”
“It’s very businesslike,” Mr. Conrad said. “Everybody participates. One senator might carry a discussion. Others chime in. Senator Baucus, the chairman, is the leader, but he rides with a very light rein.”
Typically, they gather at 10 a.m., break around noon for meetings, lunches and votes, and then resume at 2:30. Each senator now claims the same seat — “just like kids in school,” Ms. Snowe said in an interview.
Then, there are the refreshments. The coffee, brewed in the office, is roasted in Montana, usually the Grizzly or Buffalo blends.
For all the discussions about preventive medicine, and the need to encourage Americans to lead healthier lives, carrots and celery sticks are not typical.
“The food leaves something to be desired,” Ms. Snowe said. But she also noted that no one was in the room to eat.
“There are not many occasions when we have the opportunity to sit down and immerse ourselves in an issue like this, an issue that has profound implications for the country, with historic overtones, to say the least,” Ms. Snowe said. “I feel privileged to participate.”
LINK
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...er-mandate.php
Report: Senate Finance Committee To Include Co-Ops, No Employer Mandate
By Brian Beutler - July 27, 2009, 7:38PM
A quick update on this post. More details have emerged from the Associated Press bringing a bit of clarity to the question of what's going on in the Senate Finance Committee.
AP is now reporting-- that the Senate Finance Committee will likely call for the creation of a system of non-profit co-operatives in lieu of a public option--something which has been in the works for weeks--but will not require employers to provide insurance for their workers.[O]fficials stressed that no agreement has been reached on a bipartisan measure, and said there is no guarantee of one. They also warned that numerous key issues remain to be settled, including several options to pay for the legislation. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss matters under private negotiations. They said any legislation that emerges from the talks is expected to provide for a non-profit cooperative to sell insurance in compe ion with private industry, rather than giving the federal government a role in the marketplace. The White House and numerous Democrats in Congress have called for a government option to provide compe ion to private companies and hold down costs.That won't create nearly as much of a splash as we would have seen if, after months of wrangling, the committee had just punted on the public option question. But reformers are still averse to the co-op model, and, given the nature of the reform proposals, regard the employer mandate as a crucial element--one which could still be imported from other legislation. We shall see.
Officials also said a bipartisan compromise would not subject companies to a penalty if they declined to offer coverage to their workers. These businesses would be required to reimburse the government for part or all of any federal subsidies designed to help lower-income employees obtain insurance on their own.
The Senate will effectively kill health reform.
The corps and capitalists will get their way, as always.
..here is some more info on the Health care bill being worked on...go to websites for more info
Health Insurance Bill of Rights
THE SECURITY YOU GET from health insurance reform:
* No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
* No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
* Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
* No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
* Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
* No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
* No Gender Discrimination
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
* No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
* Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
* Extended Coverage for Young Adults
* Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
* Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
* Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Whitehouse.gov
Do you work for nothing? Obviously, you've made enough "profit" to be on a computer somewhere. Life must be sooo hard for you.
I don't know if this dude has a job. Welfare pays pretty good now a days. I could have easily traded food stamps for a hard drive/monitor...If he knows the right people he might even be able to get a laptop.
Good...I hope it stays dead this time. And, I hope it drags Cap and Tax into the grave with it; along with whatever political capital Obama might have left.
Earliest lame duck president, evah!
An expensive and unsustainable condition on existing commercial Insurance Companies.* No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
So, I can hold off on paying any premiums until I'm sick and, if it turns out I have a major medical problem, oh well, the Insurance company is on the hook for all my medical expenses before I've contributed a dime. Multiply that times a bazillion such people and Blue Cross and Blue Shield will say, " it."
Which, I understand, is the general idea. Obama wants commercial insurance companies to throw in the towel so he can achieve the ultimate goal of single-payer government healthcare.
See above.* Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Stupid; plus see above.* No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
See above.* Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Any Insurance Company that signs on to this deal is run by idiots. They'll just go away...* No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
* Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
* No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
* No Gender Discrimination
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
* No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
* Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
* Extended Coverage for Young Adults
* Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
* Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
* Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
For a good example, see what happened in Maine.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
