Healthcare Reform = Underemployed people must buy health insurance

[Junkdrawer]

Forget the Public Option. A meaningful “Public Option” is long dead:

The people who brought us the “public option” began their campaign promising one thing but now promote something entirely different. To make matters worse, they have not told the public they have backpedalled. The campaign for the “public option” resembles the classic bait-and-switch scam: tell your customers you’ve got one thing for sale when in fact you’re selling something very different.

When the “public option” campaign began, its leaders promoted a huge “Medicare-like” program that would enroll about 130 million people. Such a program would dwarf even Medicare, which, with its 45 million enrollees, is the nation’s largest health insurer, public or private. But today “public option” advocates sing the praises of tiny “public options” contained in congressional legislation sponsored by leading Democrats that bear no resemblance to the original model.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the “public options” described in the Democrats’ legislation might enroll 10 million people and will have virtually no effect on health care costs, which means the “public options” cannot, by themselves, have any effect on the number of uninsured. But the leaders of the “public option” movement haven’t told the public they have abandoned their original vision. It’s high time they did.

...

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/20/bait-and-switch-how-the-%E2%80%9Cpublic-option%E2%80%9D-was-sold

And employer mandates looks similarly doomed:

...

So what's left? Well, the bills do keep alive the so-called employer mandate, requiring companies to provide insurance to their employees. A good idea — except that the Blue Dogs managed to exempt employers with annual payrolls below $500,000, meaning that 87 percent of all businesses will be allowed to opt out of the best and toughest reform measure left. Thanks to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, we can now be assured that the 19 or 20 employers in America with payrolls above $500,000 who do not already provide insurance will be required to offer good solid health coverage. Hurray!

Or will they? At the end of July, word leaked out that the Senate Finance Committee, in addition to likely spiking the public option, had also decided to ditch the employer mandate. It was hard to be certain, because even Democrats on the committee don't know what's going on in the Group of Six selected by Baucus to craft the bill. Things got so bad that some Democrats on the committee — including John Kerry, Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez — were reduced to holding what amounts to shadow hearings on health care several times a week, while Baucus and his crew conducted their meetings in relative secrecy. The chairman did not even bother to keep his fellow Democrats informed of the bill's developments, let alone what he has promised Republicans in return for their support of the bill. "The Group of Six has hijacked the process," says an aide to one of the left-out senators.

...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/print

No, the deal is that in exchange for untested health insurance reforms, some of the people least able to absorb a significant hit on their monthly expenses will now have to buy health insurance or face a yearly fine.

Once the dust settles, Democrats are SO going take a hit for this. And, thanks to our two party “winner take all” election laws, the public will bite off its nose to spite its face and elect Republicans.

Sigh.

[Aramchek]

1. Well, Rolling Stone said it. I guess we are doomed!

[Junkdrawer]

2. Not just Rolling Stone...

Most of the lefties I read that worked their butts off for healthcare reform are similarly disheartened.

[Warpy]

3. That's because crap like this is being pushed

along with all the wet dreams from all the conservatives on both sides of the aisle.

Meanwhile, the media are universally silent about the people who still back the public option as the only meaningful competition for profit insurance would have to face and the only thing that will force them to clean up their predatory practices.

[Junkdrawer]

4. I've been saying for weeks now that we will get a "Public Option"...

That it will lead to a short increase in the bill's acceptance...

And that, when everyone sees that it's meaningless because either:

1.) It doesn't kick in until 2013

2.) Most will be prohibited from buying it

3.) By law, the rates aren't that much better


There will be an uproar. But, hey, a short term boost is all a politician can ask for.

[Warpy]

6. A public option will offer something the private does not--oversight

That means that the private, for profit insurance plans that cheat their subscribers will have to clean up or go out of business because they'll face the first real competition they've ever had to face.

[Junkdrawer]

7. If only a few can buy it, how is that competition?

:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Anyone who is eligible to participate in the exchange can buy it.

As time goes on, larger employers will demand the right to participate in it so they can choose the cheaper public option too.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. july 20th article.. somewhat out of date IMO

[cabluedem]

8. Question: Who is going to pay fines when we cant afford healthcare? Not us. nt

[Junkdrawer]

9. Here's one: What happens when you suck a good portion of disposable income....

out of the non-medical economy?

Wouldn't this be the ultimate anti-stimulant?

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. Medical care costs what it costs.

Reform simply redistributes the load.

It doesn't suck anything from the non-medical economy. It remains 83% of gdp.

As medical costs grow, the do-nothing alternative DOES take money from the real economy.

[kenny blankenship]

11. That's like an automatic contempt of court and there's a fine for that.

Maybe jail time too. So the score stands at 2 fines + jailtime + no health insurance after you're freed.

And every year you get a fresh bite at this apple.

[cabluedem]

24. Contempt of court? Hardly. Millions of we poor will never pay a dime & you have to pay for jail . nt

[kenny blankenship]

27. Have you ever known the "you can't jail all of us" argument to work on Republicans?

or for that matter our own corporatist Democrats?

They just issue more prison industry stock and build more jails.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Poor will get care for free.

The second quintile will find coverage cheaper than the fines.

The fines will be tacked onto upper middle class tax returns. The gnashing of teeth and rending of garments here on DU are on behalf of those in the top two income quintiles; $80,000 and up.

[Jkid]

10. They might as well kill the bill

...and be done with it. Seriously, if this bill passes, it will achieve the same results as the Massachusetts mandate, it will fail.

[Junkdrawer]

12. I don't think we can afford to screw around with non-solutions like this....

The situation is beyond critical and the ONLY viable solution (single payer) is being rejected on ideological grounds.

[cabluedem]

25. Agreed. No one who is poor will be able to pay the fines anyhow. nt

[SpartanDem]

13. The public option is open to everyone

this as much a myth on left as death panels are to the right. You're allowed drop your employer plan just like today. Your employer required to OFFER your coverage, there is no obligation for you take it.

SEC. 311. HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.

An employer meets the requirements of this section if such employer does all of the following:

(1) OFFER OF COVERAGE- The employer offers each employee individual and family coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of section 102(b))) in accordance with section 312.

(2) CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS COVERAGE- If an employee accepts such offer of coverage, the employer makes timely contributions towards such coverage in accordance with section 312.

(3) CONTRIBUTION IN LIEU OF COVERAGE- Beginning with Y2, if an employee declines such offer but otherwise obtains coverage in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (other than by reason of being covered by family coverage as a spouse or dependent of the primary insured), the employer shall make a timely contribution to the Health Insurance Exchange with respect to each such employee in accordance with section 313.

So who is eligable for the exhange and thereby the public option? It is true that only people without insurace can access it, but as noted above there is nothing stopping you from not taking your employer insurance plan

SEC. 202. EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS.
........
(1) INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this subsection, an individual described in this paragraph is an individual who--

(A) is not enrolled in coverage described in subparagraphs (C) through (F) of paragraph (2); and

(B) is not enrolled in coverage as a full-time employee (or as a dependent of such an employee) under a group health plan if the coverage and an employer contribution under the plan meet the requirements of section 312.

For purposes of subparagraph (B), in the case of an individual who is self-employed, who has at least 1 employee, and who meets the requirements of section 312, such individual shall be deemed a full-time employee described in such subparagraph.

(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- For purposes of this division, the term `acceptable coverage' means any of the following:

(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan.

(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER CURRENT GROUP HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102) or under a current group health plan (described in subsection (b) of such section).

(C) MEDICARE- Coverage under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.

(D) MEDICAID- Coverage for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act, excluding such coverage that is only available because of the application of subsection (u), (z), or (aa) of section 1902 of such Act.

(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE)- Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including similar coverage furnished under section 1781 of title 38 of such Code.

(F) VA- Coverage under the veteran's health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Commissioner in coordination with the Secretary of Treasury to be not less than a level specified by the Commissioner and Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, in coordination with the Secretary of Treasury, based on the individual's priority for services as provided under section 1705(a) of such title.

[Junkdrawer]

14. The first cite just says that if you obtain coverage in the Exchange...

an employer must contribute to it.

But first, you have to obtain coverage in the Exchange. Now:

...

That sounds great, particularly in conjunction with the new set of standards for employer-provided insurance outlined in the House version of reform. Under the bill — known as HR 3200 — employers must provide "essential benefits" to workers or face a stiff penalty. "Essential benefits" includes elements often missing in the fly-by-night plans offered by big employers: drug benefits, outpatient care, hospitalization, mental health, the works. If your employer does not offer acceptable coverage, you then have the right to go into one of the state-run insurance "exchanges," where you can select from a number of insurance plans, including the public option.

There's a flip side, though: If your employer offers you acceptable care and you reject it, you are barred from buying insurance in the insurance "exchange." In other words, you must take the insurance offered to you at work. And that might have made sense if, as decreed in the House version, employers actually had to offer good care. But in the Senate version passed by the HELP committee, there is no real requirement for employers to provide any kind of minimal level of care. On the contrary, employers who currently offer sub-par coverage will have their shitty plans protected by a grandfather clause. Which means …

"If you have coverage you like, you can keep it," says Sen. Sanders. "But if you have coverage you don't like, you gotta keep it."

...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/print

[SpartanDem]

17. The second one listed requirements for being in the exchange

and merely being OFFERED accetable coverage is not one of them

[Junkdrawer]

18. You think Bernie Sanders got it wrong?

I'm going to go with Bernie's assessment.

[SpartanDem]

20. Yes, going by what I've read

it's there in black and white

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/28/anthony-weiner/employers-dont-have-keep-coverage-under-health-ref/

That's true only if you're talking about large employers having access to the exchange. Individuals are allowed to shop on the exchange right away, if they're willing to drop their employer-sponsored coverage

[Junkdrawer]

21. Let's see:

St. Petersburg Times interpreting a 1000 page piece of legislation, trashing a Democrat and supporting Fox and Friends

-- OR --

Bernie Sanders making an unequivocal statement.

:think:

Again. I'm going to go with Bernie's assessment

[Junkdrawer]

22. PS: Do we agree that the St. Peterburg Times got this wrong?

...

Weiner also says, "you can't migrate to the public plan." That's true only if you're talking about large employers having access to the exchange. Individuals are allowed to shop on the exchange right away, if they're willing to drop their employer-sponsored coverage. "You" might not want to, though: In most cases, employers pay part of their workers' insurance premiums. A worker with a large employer who drops coverage from their job to go to the exchange would lose that contribution.

...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/28/anthony-weiner/employers-dont-have-keep-coverage-under-health-ref/

[SpartanDem]

23. We do

However, I still stand by what I said earlier I've thr read parts dealing with the exchange and employer obligations and I just don't see it.

[cabluedem]

26. Then why are we poor being threatened with jail if we cant pay? nt

[lovuian]

15. No I think the Republicans are going down with this one

but the Blue Dog Dems better watch out

[Junkdrawer]

16. The house liberal caucus revolt will force some House Republicans...

to vote for the plan.

But by-and-large this will have "Democratic Plan" written all over it.

[madville]

19. I don't think the public is that stupid

We have big majorities and the White House. Anything the Republicans do at this point is the fault of the Democrats because they have enough power to prevent it if they want. The Democrats are scared to death to go with this alone, they want the Republicans to go along so they can spread the blame if things go bad.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. No. The victors write the history books.

If healthcare reform is rejected, it will be "because it was seen by the public as a socialist overreach".

History, public perception and truth are not the same thing.

[KoKo]

36. +1

[area51]

28. kick. (n/t)

[KoKo]

29. K&R!

[KoKo]

30. This is an incredibly important post...we need to read links before Obama's Speech

so we aren't hoodwinked by increadible, soaring rhetoric and come away with "stars in our eyes" forgetting Emmanuel, Daschle and the Insurance Industry Lobbyists who are writing these bills and in collusion together.

I'm not blaming Obama...he obviously had to take these people on. But, he can sell anything and we need to understand what he's up against and fight back for the reasons we elected him. It wasn't Emmanuel/Daschle or Health Industry/Big Pharma we Elected. It was the man who said: "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!"

[inna]

31. too late to rec this post, but..... thank you for clarity on this,

unfortunately you're in minority here on DU (let alone, the rest of the country).



this sad, bad joke of a health - oops, SCRATCH that - i mean, *insurance* reform is basically just RACKET, a bonanza for the insurance "industry" at the expense of those who are LEAST able to absorb, like you said, a significant hit on their monthly expenses. add to that a fact that this monstrosity of a reform is designed to be funded largely by CUTS to Medicare and Medicaid (what a OBSCENE, OBSCENE idea in the first place!!), and.... you get the picture.


:banghead:

:grr:

:argh: