(no subject)
So, I'm actually reading through the health bill that passed the House.
Page 8, Subpart A--Individual Responsibility, Sec. 501. "Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage." [emphasis mine]
It does not define 'acceptable' for the purpose of the individual's choice....yet. I find it disturbing (though that might change, many pages later), that the government is going to tell me what is acceptable insurance, for me.
Ahhh, here we go Acceptable coverage.--The term 'acceptable coverage' has the meaning given such term in section 302(d)(2).
Page 159...(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 202) or under a current group health plan (described in subsection (b) of such section).
And here's a good one...Page 25, line 22 (2)INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.--If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists. [emphasis mine]
The reason I'm noting this one, is because the fear-mongering has resulted in a backlash, with the supporters stating that waiting lists will not occur. I'm not a fan of the fear-mongering over this bill, despite much of it being just good business sense.
All that said, the stuff regarding employers (which I am) makes no sense to me - but doesn't read pleasantly in that regard. So, should this pass into law, I will be consulting my lawyer. To this point, I will be consulting my Senators, because I don't like it from a 'smallest' (as defined by this bill) business owner standpoint.
There is some good stuff in it, but I would like to point out the misnomer of 'Healthcare reform'. It's not, its insurance reform. And while I agree that something needs to be done about that side of things, this will only keep insurance costs down, it will not keep healthcare costs down. So, please keep in mind, that whatever your insurance doesn't pay for, you are responsible for, and this includes any government run insurance plan....because, as defined in this bill, it will operate in the same way.
Oh yeah, this also creates a new government committee, as well as 2 new positions that will require staffing under the HHS office. So, it does add jobs.
I'll finish reading the next 200 pages by the end of the day, and maybe some more tomorrow. Hope to have it finished by the end of the week.
Linkage if you want to educate yourself
Page 8, Subpart A--Individual Responsibility, Sec. 501. "Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage." [emphasis mine]
It does not define 'acceptable' for the purpose of the individual's choice....yet. I find it disturbing (though that might change, many pages later), that the government is going to tell me what is acceptable insurance, for me.
Ahhh, here we go Acceptable coverage.--The term 'acceptable coverage' has the meaning given such term in section 302(d)(2).
Page 159...(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 202) or under a current group health plan (described in subsection (b) of such section).
And here's a good one...Page 25, line 22 (2)INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.--If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists. [emphasis mine]
The reason I'm noting this one, is because the fear-mongering has resulted in a backlash, with the supporters stating that waiting lists will not occur. I'm not a fan of the fear-mongering over this bill, despite much of it being just good business sense.
All that said, the stuff regarding employers (which I am) makes no sense to me - but doesn't read pleasantly in that regard. So, should this pass into law, I will be consulting my lawyer. To this point, I will be consulting my Senators, because I don't like it from a 'smallest' (as defined by this bill) business owner standpoint.
There is some good stuff in it, but I would like to point out the misnomer of 'Healthcare reform'. It's not, its insurance reform. And while I agree that something needs to be done about that side of things, this will only keep insurance costs down, it will not keep healthcare costs down. So, please keep in mind, that whatever your insurance doesn't pay for, you are responsible for, and this includes any government run insurance plan....because, as defined in this bill, it will operate in the same way.
Oh yeah, this also creates a new government committee, as well as 2 new positions that will require staffing under the HHS office. So, it does add jobs.
I'll finish reading the next 200 pages by the end of the day, and maybe some more tomorrow. Hope to have it finished by the end of the week.
Linkage if you want to educate yourself