The health-reform law is changing the health-insurance marketplace in big ways. The first changes—those that happen right away—take effect Sept. 23, 2010, six months after the health-reform bill was signed.,, Consumer Reports offers a free health-insurance guide [.pdf] to how the new law affects you.
If you get health insurance through work, your coverage will likely remain pretty much the same, but with some new consumer protections. Lifetime caps on coverage are banned, for example, and insurers will have to adopt new procedures allowing workers to appeal coverage denials.
According to the new Patient’s Bill of Rights insurers can no longer do the following: Cancel your coverage if you get sick; set lifetime limits on coverage; put annual dollar limits on coverage (this is phased in over three years); deny coverage to children under age 19 who have pre-existing conditions; and impose barriers to or refuse to pay for emergency care even if it’s at a hospital outside the insurer’s network.
Young adults can stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26 instead of being taken off when they graduate from high school or college. Also, if you have been uninsured for six months and have a pre-existing medical condition, you can apply for coverage through new high-risk pools being set up in each state. The program will last until 2014, when other options kick in and insurers cannot discriminate on the basis of health status.
Small firms don’t have the bargaining clout big companies do, and they can be vulnerable to stiff premium hikes if a single employee needs expensive care. Thus, they often pay more for health insurance. Starting this year, businesses with up to 25 workers and average wages per worker up to $50,000 per year can get tax credits to offset the cost of insuring their employees…
Starting in 2011 states will be responsible for enhanced review of health-insurance company rate increase requests. Also, insurers will have to spend 80 to 85 cents out of every premium dollar on medical care. If they don’t, they have to rebate the extra amount to consumers.
I suggest you download the brochure – via the link up top — and find out what you’re supposed to hate and fear. This week.
“Why is it acceptable for the government to provide these services but NOT health care to all?”
The people voted for government to deliver water.
The people ratified the constitution that guaranteed a national defense.
Not every citizen is allowed to drive on paid roads. The people voted that it was a privilege, not a right.
Not all food is inspected. Only random samples are inspected.
The lack of price discovery is the primary obstacle to affordable, expandable health care services. The people vote in favor of price discovery every day. We need more of it. Not less of it. Insurance is Rube Goldberg device to ration health care services.
“I’d be interested to know how many of the people arguing so passionately about the new health care provisions, both pro and con, have actually read the bill. An uninformed opinion on any subject is empty and without validity.”
I’m in a generous mood. Has a Congress ever lowered the cost and expanded the coverage of any scarce resource without the use of coercion?
You can choose any government from the history of the world.
“Can you point to one part of the bill that actually hurts you?”
The penalty for not carrying insurance. I don’t need it. I don’t want it. I’ll be forced to pay a find. But I’ll bet you I get that clause overturned in the courts with a first amendment defense.
#110
Oh goodie, another left wing, economically clueless liberal that thinks that no one but them wants for health care reform. Given Bobbo’s comment, I’m think you need more sleep.
#111
Again, you are confusing the payment and cost of health care with the care itself.
Thomas–when’s the last time you admitted an error? Learned anything?
You are wrong. I’m not confusing anything=you are: emergency room care is NOT healthcare. One of the ways Universal Healthcare/Single Payer saves money is by getting what becomes Emergency Room Care taken care of earlier in a GP Clinic setting.
” One of the ways Universal Healthcare/Single Payer saves money is by getting what becomes Emergency Room Care taken care of earlier in a GP Clinic setting.”
Another myth. There is no data to support that claim. The ER runs round the clock with the same amount of scheduled staff as the hospital plans to need. They have on-call staff as well if needed. The lack of walk in patients won’t change that cost allocation schedule.
The only method to the madness of “saving” money on health care services is when the patient provides MOST of the proactive approach to good health. That is only accomplished with a sound education and strong at home commitment to learning and growth.
Actually emergency room care is more likely under this plan. It seems intuitive that poor people without health care are going to end up in the emergency room. However the evidence doesn’t bear that out. This is because lack of health care is not the same as lack of health insurance. Having people signed up for health insurance, without increasing the supply of providers, makes it harder to get to see a doctor as demand on the system increases. This is what leads to more people in the emergency room
http://rwjf.org/files/research/072109policysynthesis17.emergencyutilization.pdf
Look at the second page of findings. Sec 1:4 6 of 32
After adjustment for health, income
and other factors, however, ED use by the uninsured is no different from the
privately insured.
The recent growth in volume of ED utilization is driven by individuals with private
insurance, higher income, and private physicians as their usual source of care.
You know, guys, history did not begin with Obama saving the healthcare system. We had a better system about a hundred years ago. If you’ve ever watched Gunsmoke you’ve had a glimpse of it. Doc just takes care of anyone who needs it and those that can pay generally do. Nobody bleeds out while a couple of hours of paerwork is being filed.
But all that fredom and equality was not good enough for some who felt that they could have an advantage under a regulated system. So we got drug control and the rest to cartelize healthcare. Sort of like an OPEC for medicine. The result was the screwed-up system that you want the goverment to save you from.
That makes about as much sense as asking Barney Frank to clean up the fanancial mess.
These schemes are pretty effective for fooling ignorant and greedy voters, but in the long run they fail. Did you know that this year Social Security took in less money than they payed out? Generations of pandering polititions have ridden SS to electoral victory many of them are now safely retired. They won’t have to deal with the train wreck.
You should have noticed 2 things about ObamaCare:
1) Congress exempted themselves.
2) Some parts come into effect before the next
election, most parts after. Can you guess why?
wtfcibrtxqy: its in the early intervention of a GP HEALTHCARE provider that the citizens get that information to actively participate in their health and avoid the Emergency Room. Quality of life, and social life, greatly enhanced too.
The argument about the ER care being inconsequential and absorbed on the margin makes sense and greatly depends on the models and assumptions used. In fairness, I would call it a push. Given that, it is more humane, rational, orderly to provide the care in a GP setting.
Somebody–good one. Ol Doc never washed his hands either and thought a glass of whiskey cured all manner of communicable diseases.
#117
Thomas–when’s the last time you admitted an error? Learned anything? You are wrong. I’m not confusing anything=you are: emergency room care is NOT healthcare.
I’ve admitted mistakes plenty of times when I’m wrong. However, since I’m not wrong here, this is not one of those times. What you are missing, again, is the constant vague use of the words “health care” to mean numerous different things to different people. Emergency care is ONE FORM of health care of the form “if you are seriously hurt, can you get medical attention”. In the US, the answer is a resolute “Yes”. However, as you point out, there is more to the question of “health care” than just medical attention. There is preventative care, there is paying for that care and so on.
Funny, I don’t remember Doc having an MRI machine, doing major surgery, or prescribing medication that cost 100’s of dollars per month.
Perhaps we should just take a chicken to the Doctor?
Your over simplification doesn’t help solve a complex problem.
#122
It should also be noted that the barrier to entry to be a doctor was substantially lower than now. For example, even adjusted for inflation, it is orders of magnitude more expensive to acquire the education and training to be a doctor now than in the 19th century. In the early 19th century, you could probably become certified as a doctor through a correspondence course. In addition, it was substantially more difficult to successfully sue a doctor in the 19th century than now. Arguing that we should go back to the era of paying for medical care with cows and chickens is ignores the fact that times have changed and that means our approach to medical care must also adapt.
Thomas–as usual, so reasonable in tone.
I’ll take another run: if you are poor, you can’t get healthcare to diagnose your cough. You have to wait until you are in extremis and sick enough to motivate yourself to get to an EMERGENCY ROOM where after a few days/hours if you haven’t been there too often before you might get seen.
Diagnosis: tuberculosis. And how many fine upstanding sorts such as yourself have been infected because the person could not get timely healthcare?
Who know? Even the self centered who take the full context of healthcare can see the benefit to themselves by having universal healthcare/single payer. Its cheaper. Its healthier for all. Its better. Which is why everyone but the USA does it.
Still, Dallas catches your issue better than a reasonable discussion.
Thomas—use your brain==wise up. Use your heart==wise up. Apply your pragmatism as to what makes society work==wise up.
Avoid being silly. You have yours, stop screwing everyone else when your actually benefit yourself in the process.
Silly Hooman.
#126
I’ll take another run: if you are poor, you can’t get healthcare to diagnose your cough.
Perfect example. That has to do with paying for health care, not the care itself. “The” issue of “health care” as proponents like to state, is actually a series of very different discussions. The primary discussion is paying for the cost of health care via insurance which itself has multiple facets such as preventative, emergency, general sickness, severe sickness and so on.
Furthermore, trying to claim that only the left want reform is silly. EVERYONE, down to the last person including CEOs at insurance companies want some sort of reform in health care insurance and cost law. Everyone. There isn’t one person that wants absolutely no change whatsoever. The difference comes in what we each think is proper right now during one of the worse economic periods in the past 70 years.
Again, if you think single payer is great, do it your State and let’s see how it goes. There is absolutely no reason it should be done at the Federal level right now. If more than half the States implement a successful single payer system only then might I buy the idea that we should implement something at the Federal level. From a risk assessment standpoint, trying to implement a single payer system that has never been tried in this country for everyone is folly. We’d have better odds of buying lottery tickets for everyone.
Pragmatism tells me that trying to implement one system to rule them all without any experience is just dumb. The smarter solution would be to implement something on a smaller scale to work out the kinks and then consider something larger. The Federal government works best when it sets guidelines and lets the States handle the implementation.