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 ...
“If they don’t do anything about the cost of healthcare (not insurance) then it doesn’t matter.”
Needs to be repeated over and over until THIS is the conversation.
Hysterical much? What a ridiculous distortion. Totally unhinged...
“Why? Businesses have always offered discounts for companies that buy in large volume. Those companies, in turn, reap the benefits of their buying power and pass some of the savings on to their customers. Why should insurance be any different?”
We are not talking about “some” when we are talking about a $2,100/$2,400, six-fold/25-fold difference.
Additionally, “tying”, a restraint of trade, traditionally forbidden by anti-trust law, is taking place.
The local hospital has a monopoly with respect to emergency care.
Since payment may involve state court judgements and Medicaid, Amendment XIV “equal protection of the law” violations are occurring.
I don’t believe this is correct.
1. The government is forcing you to buy insurance:
I’m pretty sure the individual mandate is repealed in the Republican version so no one is being forced to purchase insurance.
2. The government is not allowing someone to buy insurance when they need it:
The purpose for having insurance is so that it is already in place when it’s needed. It is not reasonable to expect an insurance company to have to cover someone who waits until they are sick before they purchase coverage—no company could stay in business that way.
A six-month waiting period is more than reasonable. But, if an insurance company chooses, I’m sure they can cover whomever they want. This provision just allows them to impose the waiting period if they see the need.
Of course, it would be best if the government got out of the way completely. But unfortunately, everyone who voted for Obama or stayed home and didn’t vote at all brought on a “fundamental change” in America that is difficult to undo in the present political environment.
I wish we could go back to the way things were pre-2010, but that is unrealistic—that horse left the barn a long time ago!
The Senate bill requires a 30% premium surcharge, it doesn’t merely allow insurers to charge more.
“Personally, I might allow an exception for Energencies, properly and reasonably defined/ limited.”
Ah, there’s the rub... and the slippery slope. Who defines “reasonably defined/ limited”? It is already limited to the ER, but it has become the free walk-in clinic.
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. Another case of being generous and compassionate with other people’s money.
If a society wants to be magnanimous then it should pony up it’s own money and raise taxes on itself.
They need to change the language of this whole debate to that of “Healthcare prepaid maintenance plans” because that’s exactly what they are, with terms that make the worst most shysterous auto plans look like angelic unicorn sprinkles.
Yep. The key to getting rates down is to increase the number of insured who are taking less out than they’re putting in. You can either charge a short term premium for those with pre-existing conditions, which produces lots of whining, or refuse to pay the bills for a couple of months for those who don’t stay covered, which produces a similar amount of whining. The whiners seem to believe there’s a third option that involves claims paying money falling from the heavens. So far, there’s no evidence of that.
If everybody can delay paying premiums until they can collect more than they’re paying in, you no longer have insurance, you have an entitled medical claimants club.
Ford is not allowed to sell a F150 to you for %50,000 and the same one to a business for $8,000. By law, any discounts have to be reasonable. In healthcare, the law is not enforced.
The Senate bill has language that the individual/employer penalties are $0.
This language should be changed since it implies that the federal government has the right to fine individuals for not buying coverage.
Perhaps: After December 31, 2015 no penalty...
I would also like to see language negating/rebating all individual and employer fines that have been assessed/paid.
I was wrong. It isn’t a mandate.
Your explanation is superior to mine. Thanks.
doh ! I see it now. thanks
Just say no to this bill. Let Obamacare die along with its enslavement.
more fu**king fascism....
definitely NOT what the federal government is there to do
If they go to the hospital without insurance, I AM PAYING FOR IT. As a taxpayer, so are you. I would rather those not on it pay for some of their healthcare. Besides, those under 26 are on their parent’s insurance.
If they don’t buy it, they get it by means of welfare and you and I are directly or indirectly paying for it.
It’s fascism to force me to pick up the bill for the uninsured.
Only two authors and they still muffed the headline?
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.
“I am all for the government not forcing people to buy insurance, but then it also must not force providers to provide free services.”
The EMTALA needs to go into the trash heap of history along with the PPACA.
The Mental Health Parity Act needs to go too.
If people cannot be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition then the government has to force people to buy insurance. As simple as that.
—
Yep.
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.