Posted on 06/26/2017 10:41:17 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Senate Republicans on Monday released a revised version of their healthcare bill that adds a provision requiring consumers with a break in coverage to wait six months before buying insurance.
The Senate bill would make those who had a lapse in coverage for 63 days or more wait six months before obtaining insurance. (Read the bill here.)
The continuous coverage provision was noticeably omitted from the Senate’s draft, but aides said they were working behind the scenes to add it. The provision addresses concerns that people would only sign up for health coverage when they’re sick if insurers can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The addition of the six month waiting period could make it more difficult to pass the legislation, if the Senate parliamentarian rules the provision violates the complex budget reconciliation rules. Republican leadership was working over the weekend to make sure the provision complies with the rules and can be included.
It’s unclear whether Senate Republicans will have the votes to pass the bill, with at least five Senate Republicans on record as opposing the bill in its current form.
On Monday, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) doubled down that a vote will be this week.
The Congressional Budget Office is expected to issue its analysis of the bill as soon as Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Why not, if the business is buying 500 of them and I'm buying one?
By law, any discounts have to be reasonable.
Who decides if they are reasonable?
In healthcare, the law is not enforced.
Or maybe it is. If a doctor negotiates a set prices with Cigna knowing that they have a good chance of getting a lot of Cigna customers by being part of their network then why shouldn't they be free to do so?
The politicians problem with that is that the whole mess is solved if Title 15 is enforced on health insurers and providers but that means taking an immediate 15-20% hit to GDP with a subsequent harsh but short depression as the economy sorts its shit out.
I’m all for it, the citizenry is also going to have to pay the price for being the other side of the equation of electing douchebags who promise voters “free stuff”. It’s going to happen in some way shape or form and if we don’t nut up and do it it’s going to cripple the Republic in the near future.
They are freaking clueess.
The opposite case would be to force insurance companies to sell cheap insurance to someone who chose not to get insurance until they got sick. That is definitely overreach, nobody is owed insurance at "healthy" person rates.
I am referring to the now cancerous Fedbeast, not one of many asinine bills these congressional turds are idly shoving back and forth.
Not necessarily. Pre-ACA insurance companies could and did flatly refuse to write policies for people with certain conditions.
A waiting period for coverage was a feature of some employer provided group plans, but in the individual market you could be flatly denied.
The opposite of what they are proposing is for them to require insurance companies to sell coverage to a sick person. That is just as arbitary and hurtful.
“Surprisingly it was Reagan that signed that bill forcing ER to treat anyone regardless of their ability to pay, AND WITH NO COMPENSATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT.”
There is some DSH compensation for hospitals that provide an above-average amount of free EMTALA care.
If everyone paid the same, than either Medicaid would go bankrupt or all the hospitals in the country would go bankrupt. and there would be a lot of suffering either way. Medicaid reimbursement is a joke.
80%+ of the “pre existing condition” crap is wholly due to personal lifestyle choices which are for the far most part ameliorated by changing those choices/habits.
This is unfair. No one should be penalized for not buying health insurance. If they don’t want it, they should not be forced to have it.
—
You’re kidding yourself if you don’t believe we’ll still be picking up the tab when welfare mamas drop more babies at our hospitals. If they’re covered or not, one way or another, we’ll still be paying for it.
And we’ll continue to pay for those that show up at the hospital if we like it or not.
It's a cap. Insurance companies would charge a lot more than 30% in many cases. But with 30% and a 6 month waiting period they can defer some of the cost new coverage for a sick person.
Good point.
That’s a variation on what’s being proposed. No coverage for the pre-existing condition for six months, or no coverage for anything for two months pencil out about the same. Some version is necessary to prevent gaming the system.
The folks who are talking about people dying during the waiting period are engaging in the same kind if hyperbola that got us into this mess in the first place. A tour of pill hill will reveal that the gutters outside hospitals aren’t full of the bodies of people who didn’t have insurance. Having access to medical care is not synonymous with having somebody else paying for it.
Bingo!
So? Shouldn't companies be free to negotiate with their suppliers? The fact that the doctor charges you $2500 for something allows them to charge Cigna $500 for the same thing. That keeps my premiums lower and I kind of like that.
Additionally, “tying”, a restraint of trade, traditionally forbidden by anti-trust law, is taking place.
That's not "tying". The legal definition of tying is when Company A requires that you buy Item B in order to be able to also buy Item C. Or require that if you want to buy Item C you cannot buy Item B from anyone else. And tying arrangements are not in and of themselves unlawful.
The local hospital has a monopoly with respect to emergency care.
Only if they choose to. I live in a rural county so there is only one emergency room. My sister lives in the suburbs so she had half a dozen emergency rooms within ten miles of her.
What if the insurance company wanted the user to join before six months. Well, the Senate says, Tough Sh*t!
FUMM!
That’s NOT an individual mandate.
The GOP proposal removes the existing requirement for people to buy insurance they don’t want.
It’s a one time surcharge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.