80/20 RULE

[Doc]

So, wait, what is the "lockout period" for getting insurance if you don't buy it initially? And why weren't things like being allowed to keep your kids on it until they're 25, forcing people to buy insurance (with a lockout period), and the 80/20 rule introduced without the other 2,699 pages?

[DC Tom]

 

‘‘SEC. 2702 ø42 U.S.C. 300gg–1¿. GUARANTEED AVAILABILITY OF COVERAGE.

‘‘(a) GUARANTEED ISSUANCE OF COVERAGE IN THE INDIVIDUAL

AND GROUP MARKET.—Subject to subsections (b) through (e), eachhealth insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the

individual or group market in a State must accept every employer

and individual in the State that applies for such coverage.

‘‘(b) ENROLLMENT.—

‘‘(1) RESTRICTION.—A health insurance issuer described in

subsection (a) may restrict enrollment in coverage described in

such subsection to open or special enrollment periods.

‘‘(2) ESTABLISHMENT.—A health insurance issuer described

in subsection (a) shall, in accordance with the regulations promulgated

under paragraph (3), establish special enrollment periods

for qualifying events (under section 603 of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974).

‘‘(3) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations

with respect to enrollment periods under paragraphs

(1) and (2).

 

 

I'm not taking that at face value for two reasons: 1) context is clearly important, given all the references to other paragraphs in that snippet, and 2) it looks suspiciously like the same "open enrollment" plans that most (maybe all) companies already have for benefits. Which is different (perhaps substantially, depending on how much you want to argue semantics) from "getting locked out for a period of time."

 

Not saying it's false...just that I'm digging in to it further.

[dayman]

I'm not taking that at face value for two reasons: 1) context is clearly important, given all the references to other paragraphs in that snippet, and 2) it looks suspiciously like the same "open enrollment" plans that most (maybe all) companies already have for benefits. Which is different (perhaps substantially, depending on how much you want to argue semantics) from "getting locked out for a period of time."

 

Not saying it's false...just that I'm digging in to it further.

 

Ok well dig away let me know what ya find I'm interested as well. I'm not trying to fool anyone here. Also just know that if you do go poking around into this bill you have to read the entire thing with Title X in hand (which was added as an amendment but not incorporated...as many of the provisions that appear in the bill are eliminated or substantially changed by Title X). Provisions of the PPACA were also further amended by the reconciliation act. So I'm not saying it's an easy task but ultimately what you are looking at can be found in Title 1 read w/ Title X/reconciliation act in hand....all while browsing regulations.gov and the CFR for proposed and existing rules further addressing the enrollment periods.

 

(In other words your best bet is to find a scholarly synopsis and then check back to the raw material to confirm/better understand what the synopsis says).

Edited May 15, 2012 by TheNewBills

[dayman]

Next time, just say "I just think ACA is a good idea so I point to a few items of unknown value to make it seem like the entire bill is worth the billions of dollars we're wasting on it."

 

That's all you have to say and it will save us both a lot of time.

 

Actually next time you say something retarded like "the Bill doesn't even address ____" and the Bill actually does...just admit you are a jackass. It's fine if you want to talk about things you don't know anything about (and admittedly are boring things that are hard to understand)...just know that when you say "it doesn't work b/c of _____" and there's something in there that addresses "_____"...that it's actually on YOU and not the rest of the world to follow up with more. You can still attack things feel free...but you can do so with at least some basic understanding I don't think that is too much to ask.

 

So, wait, what is the "lockout period" for getting insurance if you don't buy it initially? And why weren't things like being allowed to keep your kids on it until they're 25, forcing people to buy insurance (with a lockout period), and the 80/20 rule introduced without the other 2,699 pages?

 

Well a lot of the reform all works together. The basic outline of the Bill is as follows if it would help you look through it:

 

• Title I, Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans (health insurance reforms)

• Title II, Role of Public Programs (Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program)

• Title III, Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care (Medicare amendments, primarily to encourage quality and control cost, but including some benefit enhancements and provider payment reductions)

• Title IV, Prevention of Chronic Disease and Improving Public Health (reducing barriers to clinical preventive care and encouraging wellness programs)

• Title V, Health Care Workforce (additional support for educating and training health care workers and for community health centers)

• Title VI, Transparency and Program Integrity (fraud and abuse and conflict of interest disclosure provisions as well as provision for outcomes research)

• Title VII, Improving Access to Innovative Therapies (provision for the approval of biosimilars (generic biologics) and the expansion of the affordable medicines program)

• Title VIII, the CLASS Act (a national voluntary insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and support)

• Title IX, Revenue Provisions

• Title X, Strengthening Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans (the manager's amendment...should read rest of bill w/ this in hand)

The "lockout period" once again is just the way I described it so don't fixate on that language...certain insurers controlling their own enrollment...so it's not like some scarlet letter is pinned to you and nobody will touch you for X-amount of time. More importantly to note is this entire concept is still a few years away and there's going to be regulations and private business decisions that continue to shape this concept. Point is under the reform you can absolutely still **** yourself if you choose to be irresponsible. (once again btw the majority of the hot button issues are all in Title 1)

Edited May 15, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

Actually next time you say something retarded like "the Bill doesn't even address ____" and the Bill actually does...just admit you are a jackass. It's fine if you want to talk about things you don't know anything about (and admittedly are boring things that are hard to understand)...just know that when you say "it doesn't work b/c of _____" and there's something in there that addresses "_____"...that it's actually on YOU and not the rest of the world to follow up with more. You can still attack things feel free...but you can do so with at least some basic understanding I don't think that is too much to ask.

 

 

 

Well a lot of the reform all works together. The basic outline of the Bill is as follows if it would help you look through it:

 

• Title I, Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans (health insurance reforms)

• Title II, Role of Public Programs (Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program)

• Title III, Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care (Medicare amendments, primarily to encourage quality and control cost, but including some benefit enhancements and provider payment reductions)

• Title IV, Prevention of Chronic Disease and Improving Public Health (reducing barriers to clinical preventive care and encouraging wellness programs)

• Title V, Health Care Workforce (additional support for educating and training health care workers and for community health centers)

• Title VI, Transparency and Program Integrity (fraud and abuse and conflict of interest disclosure provisions as well as provision for outcomes research)

• Title VII, Improving Access to Innovative Therapies (provision for the approval of biosimilars (generic biologics) and the expansion of the affordable medicines program)

• Title VIII, the CLASS Act (a national voluntary insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and support)

• Title IX, Revenue Provisions

• Title X, Strengthening Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans (the manager's amendment...should read rest of bill w/ this in hand)

The "lockout period" once again is just the way I described it so don't fixate on that language...certain insurers controlling their own enrollment...so it's not like some scarlet letter is pinned to you and nobody will touch you for X-amount of time. More importantly to note is this entire concept is still a few years away and there's going to be regulations and private business decisions that continue to shape this concept. Point is under the reform you can absolutely still **** yourself if you choose to be irresponsible. (once again btw the majority of the hot button issues are all in Title 1)

 

 

I didn't see what the lockout period was. What does the bill say? What are the fines for not having healthcare?

[dayman]

I didn't see what the lockout period was. What does the bill say? What are the fines for not having healthcare?

 

If you want to dig into Title 1 more this may help...bellow is some basic info directing you to certain sections in Title 1 you may want to look at (which as I said is where most of the issues people talk about are)

 

• Sec. 2701. Fair health insurance premiums, limiting rating to age, geographic area, individual or family unit, and tobacco use. (Health insurance issuers for individual and small group market. Also insurers of large groups if offered through exchange.)

• Sec. 2702. Guaranteed availability of coverage. (Former sec. 2011). (Health insurance issuers offering individual and group coverage.)

• Sec. 2703. Guaranteed renewability of coverage. (former sec 2012) (Health insurance issuers offering individual and group coverage.)

• Sec. 2704. (former sec. 2701) Prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions or other discrimination based on health status. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2705. (former sec. 2702) Prohibiting discrimination against individual participants and beneficiaries based on health status. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2706. Non-discrimination in health care. This section both prohibits discrimination by insurers against providers operating within their scope of practice and against individuals in violation of section 1558, which prohibits retaliatory action against employees who complain about actions their employers take in violation of the reform act ( group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2707. Comprehensive health insurance coverage. Requires insurance issuers in the individual and small group market to provide essential benefits under sec. 1302(a) and group health plans to comply with the cost sharing requirements of sec. 1302(a).

• Sec. 2708. Prohibition on excessive waiting periods (over 90 days). (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2709, Coverage for individuals participating in approved clinical trials (group plans and insurers in the group and individual market)

• Sec. 2709. (Formerly 2733). Disclosure of information by health insurance issuers.

• Sec. 2711. No lifetime or annual limits (group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage, more permissive rules for self-insured and large group plans.)

• Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.

• Sec. 2713. Coverage of preventive health services. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2714. Extension of dependent coverage. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2715. Development and utilization of uniform explanation of coverage documents and standardized definitions. (Secretary to develop standards. To be applied by health insurance issuers and sponsors of self-insured plans.

• Sec. 2715A. Reporting of additional information.

• Sec. 2716. Prohibition of discrimination based on salary. (Plan sponsors of group health plans other than self-insured plans.)

• Sec. 2717. Ensuring the quality of care. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2718. Bringing down the cost of health care coverage. (minimum loss ratios) (Health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage. Does not apply to self-insured plans.)

• Sec. 2719. Internal and external appeals processes. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2719A Patient Protections.

• Sec. 2722. (Formerly 2721). Exclusion of certain plans (i.e. governmental plans)

• Sec. 2723. (Formerly 2722). Enforcement provisions.

• Sec. 2724. (Formerly 2723). Preemption, state flexibility, construction.

• Sec. 2725. (Formerly 2704) Drive through delivery. (Group health plan and health insurance issuer offering group and individual coverage.)

• Sec. 2726. (Formerly 2705). Mental health parity (group health plan and health insurance issuer offering group and individual coverage.)

• Sec. 2727. (Formerly 2706). Reconstructive surgery following mastectomies. (Group health plan and health insurance issuer offering group and individual coverage.)

• Sec. 2728. (Formerly 2707). Coverage of dependent students during medically-necessary leave of absence. (Group health plan and health insurance issuer offering group and individual coverage.)

• Sec. 2731 (Formerly 2711). Section rewritten as a limitation on guaranteed coverage based on network or financial capacity and transferred to 2702

• Sec. 2732. (Formerly 2712). Guaranteed renewability of coverage in small group market. (revised and transferred to section 2703)

Edited May 15, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

If you want to dig into Title 1 more this may help...bellow is some basic info directing you to certain sections in Title 1 you may want to look at (which as I said is where most of the issues people talk about are)

 

• Sec. 2701. Fair health insurance premiums, limiting rating to age, geographic area, individual or family unit, and tobacco use. (Health insurance issuers for individual and small group market. Also insurers of large groups if offered through exchange.)

• Sec. 2702. Guaranteed availability of coverage. (Former sec. 2011). (Health insurance issuers offering individual and group coverage.)

• Sec. 2703. Guaranteed renewability of coverage. (former sec 2012) (Health insurance issuers offering individual and group coverage.)

• Sec. 2704. (former sec. 2701) Prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions or other discrimination based on health status. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2705. (former sec. 2702) Prohibiting discrimination against individual participants and beneficiaries based on health status. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2706. Non-discrimination in health care. This section both prohibits discrimination by insurers against providers operating within their scope of practice and against individuals in violation of section 1558, which prohibits retaliatory action against employees who complain about actions their employers take in violation of the reform act ( group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2707. Comprehensive health insurance coverage. Requires insurance issuers in the individual and small group market to provide essential benefits under sec. 1302(a) and group health plans to comply with the cost sharing requirements of sec. 1302(a).

• Sec. 2708. Prohibition on excessive waiting periods (over 90 days). (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2709, Coverage for individuals participating in approved clinical trials (group plans and insurers in the group and individual market)

• Sec. 2709. (Formerly 2733). Disclosure of information by health insurance issuers.

• Sec. 2711. No lifetime or annual limits (group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage, more permissive rules for self-insured and large group plans.)

• Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.

• Sec. 2713. Coverage of preventive health services. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2714. Extension of dependent coverage. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2715. Development and utilization of uniform explanation of coverage documents and standardized definitions. (Secretary to develop standards. To be applied by health insurance issuers and sponsors of self-insured plans.

• Sec. 2715A. Reporting of additional information.

• Sec. 2716. Prohibition of discrimination based on salary. (Plan sponsors of group health plans other than self-insured plans.)

• Sec. 2717. Ensuring the quality of care. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2718. Bringing down the cost of health care coverage. (minimum loss ratios) (Health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage. Does not apply to self-insured plans.)

• Sec. 2719. Internal and external appeals processes. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.)

• Sec. 2719A Patient Protections.

• Sec. 2722. (Formerly 2721). Exclusion of certain plans (i.e. governmental plans)

• Sec. 2723. (Formerly 2722). Enforcement provisions.

• Sec. 2724. (Formerly 2723). Preemption, state flexibility, construction.

• Sec. 2725. (Formerly 2704) Drive through delivery. (Group health plan and health insurance issuer offering group and individual coverage.)

• Sec. 2726. (Formerly 2705). Mental health parity (group health plan and health insurance issuer offering group and individual coverage.)

• Sec. 2727. (Formerly 2706). Reconstructive surgery following mastectomies. (Group health plan and health insurance issuer offering group and individual coverage.)

• Sec. 2728. (Formerly 2707). Coverage of dependent students during medically-necessary leave of absence. (Group health plan and health insurance issuer offering group and individual coverage.)

• Sec. 2731 (Formerly 2711). Section rewritten as a limitation on guaranteed coverage based on network or financial capacity and transferred to 2702

• Sec. 2732. (Formerly 2712). Guaranteed renewability of coverage in small group market. (revised and transferred to section 2703)

 

Simply put, once more, what is the waiting period and what are the fines? Your little facade here is less than amusing, cut and paste boy.

[dayman]

Simply put, once more, what is the waiting period and what are the fines? Your little facade here is less than amusing, cut and paste boy.

 

LOL facade? If you want to look around for answers I pasted some resources I use to make it more manageable. Feel free to use them or not! I could care less.

 

Search around for the word "penalty" would also be my advice that's what they call it in the Bill.

 

Actually a quick search shows it to be in subsection C of 26 USCS § 5000A...so go ahead and google that. You are welcome.

Edited May 15, 2012 by TheNewBills

[IDBillzFan]

Actually next time you say something retarded like "the Bill doesn't even address ____" and the Bill actually does...just admit you are a jackass. It's fine if you want to talk about things you don't know anything about (and admittedly are boring things that are hard to understand)...just know that when you say "it doesn't work b/c of _____" and there's something in there that addresses "_____"...that it's actually on YOU and not the rest of the world to follow up with more. You can still attack things feel free...but you can do so with at least some basic understanding I don't think that is too much to ask.

You have me confused with someone else. All I've done is question your understanding of the bill. There are a number of things about the law that I don't like, starting with the obvious, yet overlooked fact that regardless of what you say, it absolutely does NOTHING to reform health care itself. It also mandates you buy something against your will simply because you are alive in the US. That, in and of itself, should immediately dismiss the idiotic argument that the bill is worth it because parents can keep their kids on their plan until they're 26.

 

It's a crappy law that weighs heavy on the business world. If the Supreme Court does not throw it out, we must elect people who will. The simple fact that you can't read and interpret such a HUGE law without referencing another document should tell you all you need to know about how poorly written and ill-conceived the law is.

 

Remember, the ONLY reason we have this abortion is because the left saw full control of the WH, House and Senate and realized they had just one year to grab their holy grail of entitlements. That is not a reason to burden a free people with such a piece of garbage.

 

And one other note: YOU are the one who brought up the idea of being locked out. The burden is on YOU to prove it, not on us to prove you wrong.

[dayman]

 

And one other note: YOU are the one who brought up the idea of being locked out. The burden is on YOU to prove it, not on us to prove you wrong.

 

As a response to someone asserting that the absolute basic system provided no way for insurance companies to not go out of business. Think about that for a minute. If you say something like that...burden is on YOU to at least know what you are talking about.

Edited May 15, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

You have me confused with someone else. All I've done is question your understanding of the bill. There are a number of things about the law that I don't like, starting with the obvious, yet overlooked fact that regardless of what you say, it absolutely does NOTHING to reform health care itself. It also mandates you buy something against your will simply because you are alive in the US. That, in and of itself, should immediately dismiss the idiotic argument that the bill is worth it because parents can keep their kids on their plan until they're 26.

 

It's a crappy law that weighs heavy on the business world. If the Supreme Court does not throw it out, we must elect people who will. The simple fact that you can't read and interpret such a HUGE law without referencing another document should tell you all you need to know about how poorly written and ill-conceived the law is.

 

Remember, the ONLY reason we have this abortion is because the left saw full control of the WH, House and Senate and realized they had just one year to grab their holy grail of entitlements. That is not a reason to burden a free people with such a piece of garbage.

 

And one other note: YOU are the one who brought up the idea of being locked out. The burden is on YOU to prove it, not on us to prove you wrong.

 

 

No, this tool is right until we read 2700 pages plus a synopsis to prove him wrong? The bill is not only unconstitutional but can't work in its present form. The Law of Large Numbers is in play here but he isn't smart enough to figure that out and is trying to confuse the issue with cut and paste bs.

[dayman]

No, this tool is right until we read 2700 pages plus a synopsis to prove him wrong? The bill is not only unconstitutional but can't work in its present form. The Law of Large Numbers is in play here but he isn't smart enough to figure that out and is trying to confuse the issue with cut and paste bs.

 

Trying to confuse the issue by showing where the sections that address issues we are talking about are? Are you insane?

 

Why not say what you really mean. He's bothering me by helping me see where to go to read about things I pretend to care about, and that sucks b/c I'd rather just talk out of my ass and say nothing works.

Edited May 15, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Doc]

Actually next time you say something retarded like "the Bill doesn't even address ____" and the Bill actually does...just admit you are a jackass. It's fine if you want to talk about things you don't know anything about (and admittedly are boring things that are hard to understand)...just know that when you say "it doesn't work b/c of _____" and there's something in there that addresses "_____"...that it's actually on YOU and not the rest of the world to follow up with more. You can still attack things feel free...but you can do so with at least some basic understanding I don't think that is too much to ask.

 

 

 

Well a lot of the reform all works together. The basic outline of the Bill is as follows if it would help you look through it:

 

• Title I, Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans (health insurance reforms)

• Title II, Role of Public Programs (Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program)

• Title III, Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care (Medicare amendments, primarily to encourage quality and control cost, but including some benefit enhancements and provider payment reductions)

• Title IV, Prevention of Chronic Disease and Improving Public Health (reducing barriers to clinical preventive care and encouraging wellness programs)

• Title V, Health Care Workforce (additional support for educating and training health care workers and for community health centers)

• Title VI, Transparency and Program Integrity (fraud and abuse and conflict of interest disclosure provisions as well as provision for outcomes research)

• Title VII, Improving Access to Innovative Therapies (provision for the approval of biosimilars (generic biologics) and the expansion of the affordable medicines program)

• Title VIII, the CLASS Act (a national voluntary insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and support)

• Title IX, Revenue Provisions

• Title X, Strengthening Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans (the manager's amendment...should read rest of bill w/ this in hand)

The "lockout period" once again is just the way I described it so don't fixate on that language...certain insurers controlling their own enrollment...so it's not like some scarlet letter is pinned to you and nobody will touch you for X-amount of time. More importantly to note is this entire concept is still a few years away and there's going to be regulations and private business decisions that continue to shape this concept. Point is under the reform you can absolutely still **** yourself if you choose to be irresponsible. (once again btw the majority of the hot button issues are all in Title 1)

I still do not see a defined "lockout period" TNB. Hence I'll have to believe there isn't one, otherwise more than one of us would have heard about it by now. Perhaps there was some lip-service being paid to it, but I'll bet that when it comes time to decide on one, they'll say "well, we can't just lock people out when they need care, otherwise we'd be as heartless as the insurance companies!" So there won't ever be a lockout period.

 

BTW, Title III is where they're going to (foolishly) try to save money. There is no other mechanism for saving money in PPACA. The problem is that all providers account for just 15% of health care spending. At best you're looking at a 2-3% reduction, while the rest of PPACA will more than off-set that decrease. The thing is, providers aren't going to take less money/be paid on contingency (of good quality)/provide fewer services, when their risk exposure is still high because tort reform was never enacted.

[B-Man]

It begins: Catholic university drops all health-insurance coverage in response to HHS mandate

by Ed Morrissey

 

Actually, it’s not just the mandate, but also the costs that will drive Franciscan University to bail out of the health-insurance business. Before now, the Catholic institution required all students to carry health insurance; those who did not have them were required to buy insurance through the school. That’s not entirely dissimilar to the ObamaCare mandate, although of course attendance at the school is entirely voluntary.

 

Franciscan University put the HHS contraception mandate as its first justification, however:

The Obama Administration has mandated that all health insurance plans must cover “women’s health services” including contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing medications as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),” the university says in a new post on its website. “Up to this time, Franciscan University has specifically excluded these services and products from its student health insurance policy, and we will not participate in a plan that requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life.”

“Additionally, the PPACA increased the mandated maximum coverage amount for student policies to $100,000 for the 2012-13 school year, which would effectively double your premium cost for the policy in fall 2012, with the expectation of further increases in the future,” FUS continues.

 

“Due to these changes in regulation by the federal government, beginning with the 2012-13 school year, the University 1) will no longer require that all full-time undergraduate students carry health insurance, 2) will no longer offer a student health insurance plan, and 3) will no longer bill those not covered under a parent/guardian plan or personal plan for student health insurance,” the college said.

 

A Franciscan University employee blasted the Obama administration and the HHS mandate in an essay at Catholic Vote:

In short: We. Will. Not. Comply. And our students are the first one who will feel the pinch.

Those who are left high and dry by the administration’s intrusion into our freedom to practice our faith are our students. Who knows how many will have insurance, how many will not, how many will have insurance of the quality we offered before, how many will be able to stay on their parents’ insurance through the extended adolescence provision of Obamacare, etc.

But there you have it: thanks to the government’s firm desire to make sure the one or two women left in the country who did not have easy and cheap access to contraceptives, abortofacients [sic], and sterilization procedures, our 2,500 students will no longer have an insurance plan ready and waiting for them.

 

{snip}

 

The cost issue shows that the problem won’t end with the religious exemption. Franciscan is a relatively small school, one that cannot self-insure and save costs through managing their own premiums. Many small businesses will have the same problems meeting the new coverage mandates even apart from contraception and sterilization, making it easier to pay the penalties for not providing the insurance and throwing employees onto public subsidies instead. That will cause an explosion in the overall cost of ObamaCare, and a much higher burden for taxpayers.

 

 

Franciscan’s refusal to comply with the HHS edict shows that this issue will not go away quietly for Obama among Catholics and members of other faiths less inclined to vote Democrat. As more Catholic institutions opt out, the issue will get more and more acute for Obama as bishops press hard for freedom of religious conscience.

 

 

Hot Air

 

 

Of course, this was the plan all along...............

 

.

[dayman]

I still do not see a defined "lockout period" TNB. Hence I'll have to believe there isn't one, otherwise more than one of us would have heard about it by now. Perhaps there was some lip-service being paid to it, but I'll bet that when it comes time to decide on one, they'll say "well, we can't just lock people out when they need care, otherwise we'd be as heartless as the insurance companies!" So there won't ever be a lockout period.

 

LOL are you trying to troll me? As I said right away "lock out period" is a term I used. The relevant portions address the enrollment periods and the bottom line is a (very) basic understanding of government and administrative law is necessary to get the idea that all the specific rules and enforcement of the scheme are yet to be formed. As is with almost every large bill passed by Congress. Like it or not we live in an administrative state. This issue is alluded to in the section I quoted and as you saw the companies themselves will have control subject to rules promulgated by the secretary.

Edited May 15, 2012 by TheNewBills

[IDBillzFan]

As a response to someone asserting that the absolute basic system provided no way for insurance companies to not go out of business. Think about that for a minute. If you say something like that...burden is on YOU.

The insurance companies are forced to take on anyone regardless of condition. They do this how? By raising rates to cover costs they KNOW they now have to account for because ALL of the risk is on them. You say there is some part of some page of some statute of some addendum of some initiative from a friend who was there who says there are supposed to be ways to ensure people don't cherry pick when they're covered. Fine. Let's assume that's even true. Do you honestly believe a country that sends billions of dollars in rebate checks to dead people every year is even remotely capable of police this to ensure costs are covered? Really? Doubtful and we both know it.

 

Thast said, I currently own a small business and provide health inurance for all employees and their families out of my own pocket for hundreds of thousands of dollars. My rates increase anywhere from 14-25% a year, and have gotten worse since Obamacare was passed.

 

I...and thousands of companies just like mine ... will soon have a choice: Keep paying hundreds of thousands to Blue Cross or HealthNet, or let my employees go on the government dole and pay a small penalty to the government and pocket the profits.

 

Insurance companies don't stand a chance, and if you have even the slightest bit of common sense you'd see this coming from a million miles away. What you will ultimately see happen is the large insurance companies will close up shop, and in their place will sprout small, speciality insurance firms that only the wealthy can afford. My plan is to take my savings and get into those plans so I don't have to stand in line with every other co-dependent liberal dolt who finds it necessary to call in sick and see the doctor every time they get a runny nose.

[Doc]

LOL are you trying to troll me? As I said right away "lock out period" is a term I used. The relevant portions address the enrollment periods and the bottom line is a (very) basic understanding of government and administrative law is necessary to get the idea that all the specific rules and enforcement of the scheme are yet to be formed. As is with almost every large bill passed by Congress. Like it or not we live in an administrative state. This issue is alluded to in the section I quoted and as you saw the companies themselves will have control subject to rules promulgated by the secretary.

No I'm not trying to troll you and I'm fine with the term "lockout period" because that's what it would be called, and there SHOULD be one. But you see, that's the scary part of this whole thing. They managed to fill 2,700 pages with god-knows-what, and there are still many things they have yet to be hashed-out. What if they don't have a lockout period and you can buy insurance whenever you need it and drop it whenver you don't? Do you think that system will work and are you still enthused about PPACA? Or are you just happy that something got done, even it it's something that will lead to the ruin of the country?

[dayman]

The insurance companies are forced to take on anyone regardless of condition. They do this how? By raising rates to cover costs they KNOW they now have to account for because ALL of the risk is on them.

 

You do realize that while people who otherwise cannot qualify at the time will be pushed into the market...so will everyone else that is currently uninsured...you get this? Healthy uninsured...becoming insured.

 

Also when you say go on the government dole do you mean enter the exchange?

Edited May 15, 2012 by TheNewBills

[dayman]

No I'm not trying to troll you and I'm fine with the term "lockout period" because that's what it would be called, and there SHOULD be one. But you see, that's the scary part of this whole thing. They managed to fill 2,700 pages with god-knows-what, and there are still many things they have yet to be hashed-out. What if they don't have a lockout period and you can buy insurance whenever you need it and drop it whenver you don't? Do you think that system will work and are you still enthused about PPACA? Or are you just happy that something got done, even it it's something that will lead to the ruin of the country?

 

It's not "God knows what" though. Yes it's a fat bill. It's complicated reform. Is it too big? Absolutely. But lets move on from the fact that large pieces of complicated legislation reforming an industry that is almost 20% of our GDP as a nation in a way that is politically possible is complicated. Of course it is. That's just life.

 

And of course there are a TON of things yet to be hashed out. The Bill is designed to set a very loose framework outlining the reform. In some areas it's more concrete than in others. Now the relevant agencies will get to work promulgating rules and so on...SAME AS ALWAYS. This is just how it goes. This is what agencies do. They "work things out" most of the time not Congress that is just the reality of modern America. Whether or not this is desirable is another discussion all together ... but it is the way government works.

 

As for the hypothetical you put forth, that just isn't going to happen. Assuming for sake of argument though that the Act would destroy us all and lead to the ruin of the country I would not be "so enthused" about the Bill, lol. If that answers you question.

 

Anyway I've taken on the defender role here but it's not like I AM Obama. Just a reminder, I see it as progress. I see its repeal as backwards. I see a lot of misinformation and propaganda around it and I just want to encourage people to not parrot the totally ridiculous things they hear without some sense of...well...knowledge. These views seem (to me) to be perfectly fine, as are other reasonable views that disagree with them...but go ahead PPP make me an insane person if you want. I can deal with it.

Edited May 15, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Doc]

It's not "God knows what" though. Yes it's a fat bill. It's complicated reform. Is it too big? Absolutely. But lets move on from the fact that large pieces of complicated legislation reforming an industry that is almost 20% of our GDP as a nation in a way that is politically possible is complicated. Of course it is. That's just life.

 

And of course there are a TON of things yet to be hashed out. The Bill is designed to set a very loose framework outlining the reform. In some areas it's more concrete than in others. Now the relevant agencies will get to work promulgating rules and so on...SAME AS ALWAYS. This is just how it goes. This is what agencies do. They "work things out" most of the time not Congress that is just the reality of modern America. Whether or not this is desirable is another discussion all together ... but it is the way government works.

 

As for the hypothetical you put forth, that just isn't going to happen. Assuming for sake of argument though that the Act would destroy us all and lead to the ruin of the country I would not be "so enthused" about the Bill, lol. If that answers you question.

 

Anyway I've taken on the defender role here but it's not like I AM Obama. Just a reminder, I see it as progress. I see its repeal as backwards. I see a lot of misinformation and propaganda around it and I just want to encourage people to not parrot the totally ridiculous things they hear without some sense of...well...knowledge. These views seem (to me) to be perfectly fine, as are other reasonable views that disagree with them...but go ahead PPP make me an insane person if you want. I can deal with it.

I don't have/want to make you insane. Most Americans can't look to the futue and see that how their actions today affect them down the road. It's a "live now and deal with the consequences later," with the dealing consisting of trying to put out fires. It's no different in how many Americans deal with credit cards, or the government deals with the deficit. You just keep on spending what you don't have and kicking the can further down the road.

 

In any case, PPACA will either be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, and if not that, be repealed by Romney in 2013. But if it's not, and you're sick, good luck finding a health care provider. There will be mass defections from the medical field, enrollment in medical schools will plummet, and quality will suffer. I'm already planning for my soon-to-happen post-medicine life.