Obama

[scaeagles]

I am actually not able to listen to the radio at work (no reception) and streaming is forbidden.

Just FYI, I came across a list of items (some 100 that are "concerns" out there) in my research and have been investigating each of them. Many of them are wild spin and I can obviously see that. Some greatly concern me.

I did read on, and yes, I suppose adding a dependent to my existing policy is an exception, but my concern was specifially that a new employee could not be added to the existing employer offered plan. I hve a problem with that as it takes away the ability of the new employee to accept whichever it is they might want. I'm not trying to be difficult. Am I misunderstanding that in your opinion?

Why is it so great that the government will allow programs to be grandfathered? The very fact that grandfathering is an issue on existing plans means that the government sees something wrong with them and will not be allowing new similar plans in the future. The very next paragraph (after the dependent exception) also says the grandfathered plan cannot change any of the benefits. That seems to me to be a bit unrealistic and very restrictive. That says you can keep what you have as long as it doesn't change at all (a copay change, whatever). If it changes at all, you can't have it, and have to go with a government approved plan (public or private).

With your seatbelt analogy, I can put a new engine on my old seatbeltless car without having to abandon it because I've changed something about it. In the healthcare example, changing something about it means it does have to be abandoned.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I did read on, and yes, I suppose adding a dependent to my existing policy is an exception, but my concern was specifially that a new employee could not be added to the existing employer offered plan. I hve a problem with that as it takes away the ability of the new employee to accept whichever it is they might want. I'm not trying to be difficult. Am I misunderstanding that in your opinion?

No, but that is generally the way grandfathering works. If have an old 5gpf toilet you can keep it but if you want to install a new toilet or do a significant remodel of your bathroom it has to be one that meets current requirements. If you have a public doorway that doesn't meet ADA requirements you (sometimes) can keep it, but if you do any remodeling to the doorway you have to bring it up to speed. If you have a smokestack that has emissions higher than the new standards you can keep it but if you make any changes at the plant you have to bring it up to code.

Why is it so great that the government will allow programs to be grandfathered? The very fact that grandfathering is an issue on existing plans means that the government sees something wrong with them and will not be allowing new similar plans in the future.

That's correct. I don't think it is great to allow grandfathering where not doing so would not create a huge expense (for example, requiring every existing toilet to be replaced immediately rather than in the course of regular replacement).

And when it comes to insurance regulation I believe it is very much not the standard to grandfather existing plans from new regulation. But the grandfathering clause is there because of people complaining that they'd be forced off of insurance that they're satisfied with.

So I'd say the complaints are trying to have cake and eat it too. It is evil of the government to force you into plans meeting new regulations but at the same time the fact that they'll let you keep your current plan if you want is a sign of how evil the new plans are?

That seems to me to be a bit unrealistic and very restrictive. That says you can keep what you have as long as it doesn't change at all (a copay change, whatever). If it changes at all, you can't have it, and have to go with a government approved plan (public or private).

You already have to go with a government approved plan. Insurance is right now a heavily regulated industry. Whatever insurance plan you currently have has been approved by government. If they make a change it has to comply with government approvals. Your government is constantly tweaking what is required for those approvals.

And the grandfathering clause is very restrictive. Such is generally the nature of grandfathering. If it wasn't then new regulations would simply be statement of ideals (especially if completely new entries could opt into the grandfather clause).

===

I need to correct something I've been saying since I misread this section the first time (I'm not really reading the bills in detail now because I don't yet know which of several possibilities will move forward).

The section about grandfathering applies only to individual insurance, not employment based health insurance. So, the bad thing that you've now said is grandfathering is not an issue for you (I'm assuming you get your insurance through employment). Employment based plans would have a 5-year grace period to comply with the new regulations.

So that is pretty standard as every time insurance regulations change now, the insurance companies change the plans (or they change the plans just because they view it in their business interest) and you have no say in the matter no matter how much you preferred the previous version.

Also, the hassle of your employer administering multiple plans due to grandfathering is definitely not an issue (though it wouldn't have really been an issue anyway).

====

Can you point me to your list of 100 things? I'd be interested in seeing what is on it?

Question: If you have confirmed for yourself that many of the things on the list are BS, how does that sway your default skepticism setting on the others you haven't checked? Do you start out assuming they're true until proven otherwise?

Finally, for anybody who cares to read primary sources here's a link to the Ways & Means Committee version of a health insurance bill and is the specific one we've been talking about here. Hopefully the 100 things list sticks to a single version for criticism (or at least is clear on which version they're criticizing at any given time).

[scaeagles]

Here is a list similar to what I referenced. Not the one, but the one I had seen was forwarded to me by someone in my home email which I can't access at present. This one is much shorter (ends at page 494 for some reason).

Haven't gone through even close to all of them, just a few really. I read the page they are referring to, see if there is anything that could possibly be interpretted that way, and research as necessary.

Really, though, most of my personal research has been done at the Heritage Foundation site.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Really, though, most of my personal research has been done at the Heritage Foundation site.

And we all know what a bastion of impartiality they are!

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by JWBear

And we all know what a bastion of impartiality they are!

No less impartial than the World Health Organization whose numbers seem to go unchallenged around here

[innerSpaceman]

Um, Huh? I've been posting here a long time, and I don't recall there being any prevalence of World Health Organization numbers bandied about.


That said, what dirt do you have on that organization? I wasn't aware they had a reputation for inaccuracy. I'm sincerely curious. I don't know anything about them.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Um, Huh? I've been posting here a long time, and I don't recall there being any prevalence of World Health Organization numbers bandied about.


That said, what dirt do you have on that organization? I wasn't aware they had a reputation for inaccuracy. I'm sincerely curious. I don't know anything about them.

You can count on one hand the number of posts you would have to go back....World Health Organization = WHO.

[innerSpaceman]

ok, so what makes their numbers unreliable?

[Gn2Dlnd]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

ok, so what makes their numbers unreliable?

What, don't you understand that for every fact presented there must be an equal and opposing "fact?" Don't you ever watch Fox News? Jeez.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

ok, so what makes their numbers unreliable?

They have Oman ranked number 8......that alone discounts the ranking in my book.

Much of their results are based on infant mortality....problem is they don't have a universal definition of infant mortality and instead allow each nation to define their own.....the US considers still borns against infant mortality; most other nations{especially the high ranking ones==surprise surprise===} don't.

Life expectancy, the US ranks 30.......but we are a nation of 300 plus million so really should not be compared to Monaco or Iceland.

Our Life expentancy is the highest in the world when compared to the 8 most populous Nations on Earth(and 2nd in the world when compared to the 10 most populous).

In short, the WHO numbers are not the problem, just their conclusions.