High-risk health insurance pools set to begin in June

[steven johnson]

Source: Chicago Sun Times

April 4, 2010

BY MONIFA THOMAS Staff Reporter

One of the first big pieces of the federal health-care overhaul to take effect is the creation by late June of temporary high-risk insurance pools for people who can't get affordable coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

On Friday, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent letters to governors and state insurers, laying out the requirements for these pools and asking states to decide whether they'll participate.

States have 90 days from the March 23 signing of the health reform bill to set up a program to cover people with pre-existing conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months. If they can't or won't comply, the Department of Health and Human Services will administer one for them.

By 2014, the pools will be replaced with insurance exchanges that will let people shop for coverage.



Read more: http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/health/2138711,CST-NWS-health04.article

[onehandle]

1. Finally! Dick Cheney can get health insurance.

That is the Dick Cheney from an alternate universe where he's not a very rich ex-Vice-President, but an unemployed construction worker.

Wait, wait... President Bachmann just vetoed the bill.

Sorry, alternate universe Dick. You're dead.

[napi21]

2. I'd love to know what the range of monthly payments are going

to be. The implication is that they will be affordable, but who knows.

[SocialistLez]

3. Define affordable

My state already has a high-risk pool and there is no way I could afford it. I'm only 19.
The premiums are based on age, deductible, and if you smoke or not.

http://www.chiparkansas.org/pdf/Rates%20Effective%2001-01-10.PDF

In contrast, my mom gets health insurance for her and I for about $64 a month.
I forget how much dental insurance in.
Our deductible is about $3,000 and our "out of pocket limit " is $10,000. It could be worse...it could be better.

[napi21]

9. Every State is differrent. That's why I think a Fed program would be better.

My cousin in Pa. is paying $30/mo for Dr visits & hospital care, It doesn't havee any drug coverage except what you would receive in the hosp. but it's a very good deal. You do have to apply & there was a waiting period as you can well imagine, but she's very happy. Her husband in on Medicare via SSI disability, but because he is a transplant patient their drug bills are astronomical! He hits the donut hole in Feb every year! So far she hasn't needed many drugs for anything and it's working out pretty well.

I think a Fed program would even things out and maybe make plans like she has...or something at least close...available to everybody.

[SocialistLez]

12. $30 a month

is freakin' awesome considering what all you get for that.

I am sorry to hear about the donut hole. Have they tried any organizations that help with drug costs?

[eridani]

4. "asking states to decide whether they'll participate"

Remains to be seen if Sebelius will get tough on states and force a federal program on the non-compliers.

[wildflowergardener]

5. article

The article says this


"If they can't or won't comply, the Department of Health and Human Services will administer one for them."

Sounds like a good thing

[pnwmom]

6. I wonder what's the rationale behind making people have no insurance for 6 mos.?

[SoapBox]

7. Exactly!

...there are diseases that will kill in 6 monthes time.

[sandnsea]

8. So people won't intentionally drop their insurance

if the high risk pool is better and cheaper. Six months is a big risk for most people with ongoing illness.

[Skittles]

10. gives them time to fuck us over

same as with the credit reform

[rasputin1952]

11. The reality is, it takes time to set up the logistics...

As much as I'd like to see instant Universal Health Care, it would take at least a year just to get the logistics in place. One reason this is 6 months is because there are already some of the routes in place, but they need to be worked out. Anything dealing with government, on any level, takes time. I, for one don't like it, but that is sadly, just the way it is...:hi:

[eridani]

13. Of course they could just have enrolled all those folks in the ALREADY EXISTING

--Medicare program with no setup time necessary. Sure there would be an uptick in processing people, but why the bullshit of setting up a whole new system?

[rasputin1952]

14. It was part of a "step" process...

after realizing they could not garner the votes for full fledged single payer or Medicare, they did what they could to get a bill through. I know that many here complain about a "terrible" bill, but now that the door is open, other things will come about. The genie has been let out of the bottle and there is no going back.

Mark my words, this is not the end of HCR, it is just the begining...I can't give you a date/time group, but we are moving closer to 100% coverage, and at the Single Payer level.

[eridani]

15. Bullshit. They had 59 votes for lowering the Medicare age

--during the first round through the Senate. If they could pass the current abortion of a bill with fewer than 59, they could have passed lowering the Medicare age. An expansion of existing Medicare would be nowhere near Medicare for All anyway.

[Moderator]

16. Name the 59...

I know of at least 3 that made it tough...Nelson, Landreau and Lincoln. Then there was the back and forth with the House, some congresscritters held up the entire thing because of "ideology" that the vast majority saw as posturing and just plain stupid.

There were other things in the bill that were contentious as well, that peeled off others. There were also the "attempt" to add some R's, when there was no chance to do so. We saw debates that were public, we have little to no idea what went on behind the doors or curtains. It was an error to push for 60 votes, and it was a serious error to allow the R's to take the debate to where they did. I am not happy with what passed, but I'll be straight upon this, everyone who says "nothing would have been better", has completely lost it. "Nothing" would have meant nothing for 20+ years. Why people will sacrifice all for what they perceive as their "principles" is beyond me. Politics does not work that way, never has, never will. The political world is complex animal, it has little to do with logic, especially when it come to a huge societal shift. Read the history behind Social Security...FDR had one hell of a time pushing it through, and since it became law, it has been expanded numerous times to cover almost everyone. Initially, few were covered in comparison to those who are covered today. The same thing goes for the EPA, OSHA, and a host of other programs that benefit the nation's citizens and workers.

I know that things will change, they always do...to just say, "no", because of a lack of perceived perfection is to do exactly what the conservatives want. Progress is generally pretty slow, but progress beats stagnation at every turn, and beats the hell out of regression.

[eridani]

17. Every Dem but Lieberman. Social Security was a GOVERNMENT program

--however limited. It was NOT a requirement to open private retirement accounts investing in the stock market and policed by the IRS. This is not progress at all.