Obama

[scaeagles]

There are a few things that concern me, Alex, as far as me being "forced" onto the government program.

Page 16 of the bills is one of my concerns. Perhaps I am not reading it correctly, but it says (in part):

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1” (the year the legislation becomes law).

As I read that, no new employee can be enrolled in a company insurance program after the beginning of the government program (I couldn't find any exceptions in that paragraph). Does that mean I am forced onto the new program? No, I suppose not, but that puts a burden on the company I work for to deal with two separate plans.

This is just one aspect of many that make it more likely that companies will opt for the government option. Does my company have to? I suppose not, but there are other aspects of the bill that makes it difficult for my company NOT to change to the government option. I don't really have time to go into it all, but hopefully I have answered your question.

I haven't even begun to list a small portion of what I don't like about the bill, from what it says to what can be implied or interpretted to what it will cost.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1” (the year the legislation becomes law).

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually read that yourself and it is just a coincidence that Sean Hannity talked about it in response to an IBD editorial that misrepresented it. It is pretty standard grandfathering boilerplate.

A few comments.

1) The bill does not outlaw private insurance.

2) That paragraph is talking about grandfathered insurance plans. The bill creates new rules and regulations around private insurance. Generally, when rules and regulations change (as currently happens all of the time) existing plans must be brought into compliance. This section is actually there as a bone to your fears. It is saying that existing plans at the time the bill is passed can continue as they currently are. So, as is the phrase, if you already have insurance and like it the way it is you get to keep it. Similarly, when laws were passed that mandated seat belts in automobiles existing cars did not have to be abandoned but all new cars had to have them. Under your reading of this, such a grandfathering rule for seat belts would mean you weren't allowed to buy any new privately manufactured cars.

3) However, any new coverage provided by privateinsurance companies must comply with the new rules and regulations. Just as currently happens all of the time. Again, private insurance is not eliminated, it is just required to comply with new regulations and rules, which they already have to do every day. So you are correct that employees could be on two different plans. That, however, is almost universally true already.

4) You say you read on and found no exceptions to this bar on new enrollment in grandfathered plans. The very next paragraph is an exception.