Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  10 Major New Health Reform Benefits Take Effect Today (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   10 Major New Health Reform Benefits Take Effect Today
Node
Knowflake

Posts: 990
From: Nov. 11 2005
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 23, 2010 07:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Node     Edit/Delete Message
  1. Curbing Insurance Cancellations
  2. Cover Kids with preexisting conditions
  3. Allow young adults to stay on their parents plan to age 26
  4. Remove Lifetime Limits
  5. Phase out annual limits

For any insurance plan that goes into effect after September 23, 2010, your insurance company must:

Many other new benefits of the law have already taken effect, including rebate checks for seniors in the donut hole and tax credits for small businesses.

More at http://www.healthcare.gov/

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5325
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 24, 2010 01:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
have you seen the pledge to america? where the republicans vow to repeal this act and replace it with one that basically is the same, however florid and un-english the language used...

heard a woman on the radio today talking about her child who had eye surgery a few years ago...for a condition which is not yet conquered and will need more surgery soon. she was "shocked" to hear her insurance company tell her her premium would not be going up and her child would be accepted on the policy AND his condition would be treated in the future even if it required more surgery....

IP: Logged

emitres
Knowflake

Posts: 74
From:
Registered: Aug 2010

posted September 24, 2010 11:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for emitres     Edit/Delete Message
as a neighbour from the north... it's about bloody time

i honestly wish we could swap your president for our prime minister...
it would be nice to have a smart man in power for a change

------------------
...there is no "I"...

IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake

Posts: 990
From: Nov. 11 2005
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 24, 2010 11:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Node     Edit/Delete Message

Bump for Jwhop

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5325
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 25, 2010 12:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
yes sounds like em has a high regard for canada's conservative PM!!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2340
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 25, 2010 11:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Bump for Node

Have you noticed the steep raises in health insurance policy rates?

There's no free lunch.

If more services are mandated to be covered...the expected result...for those who can actually think...is that the cost of those services are going to be factored into the cost of doing business and prices will go up.

Only in the minds of those living in FantasyLand...the "something for nothing crowd"...were health insurance costs going down.

Nevertheless, Conservative Republicans and Conservative Democrats are not going to be able to repeal O'BomberCare for at least 2 more years....unless they gain so many seats in the new Congress they can override the veto of O'Bomber who lied through his teeth about O'BomberCare.

However, they can starve O'BomberCare to death by refusing to budget federal funds for O'BomberCare...and that's exactly what they had better do...if they want to get themselves reelected in 2012.

IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake

Posts: 990
From: Nov. 11 2005
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 25, 2010 07:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Node     Edit/Delete Message
This is what all the opponents can’t seem to get through their heads. When we talk about the health care reform costing the government/tax payers $900 billion over 10 years, it’s not as if this is a new cost. This is mostly the government taking on costs that will otherwise still be paid by the public. It’s not like deciding to buy a new car or not, where the new car is an expense that you can avoid. The citizens of this country are going to pay trillions of dollars for health care over the next 10 years one way or another. By having the government take on some of that cost and manage it through programs designed to bring down costs across the board, all that we are doing is shift the cost to the government and hoping that in the process overall costs can be brought down. Yeah it will cost $900 billion over 10 years, but if we don’t do anything the cost to tax payers out of their own pockets will almost certainly be even higher.

Have you read the rise by every quarter that the health care industry reports? Obviously not. Have you read the increases the Insurers have posted for the last 2 years? Obviously not.
And if the government had done the right thing we would have single payer. The party of no did everything in their power to water down this bill.

Voters just might know that the obstructionists kept them from securing a better deal. This bill can and will be improved upon, right now we are realizing some of the benifits, which I posted. More will come by 2014.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2340
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 25, 2010 10:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
The O'BomberCare bill is not going to be improved upon. It's a hopeless jumble of Socialist bullshiiit.

What will happen is that the Congress will zero parts of O'BomberCare's budgets...until there's enough adults in the Congress to repeal O'BomberCare outright as almost 60% of Americans want right now.

On the other hand, O'BomberCare is the subject of several federal lawsuits and may be...and should be...struck down by federal courts as unconstitutional.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 3711
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 26, 2010 02:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
Node's right. The costs would rise regardless. It's a moot point.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2340
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 26, 2010 06:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Not a moot point at all.

Health insurance costs and health care costs will fall like a rock out of the sky....when government gets the hell out of the way..and out of the business and competition between those in the business takes over and drives prices down.

O'BomberCare and it's imbecilic provisions are going to cost consumers and taxpayers between 2.5 and 3 TRILLION dollars above what the normal rise in costs would be.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 3711
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 26, 2010 12:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
It is a moot point.

quote:
Health insurance costs and health care costs will fall like a rock out of the sky....when government gets the hell out of the way..and out of the business and competition between those in the business takes over and drives prices down.

The government was more out of the way prior to this legislation, and costs were not falling anywhere, so it's hard to make the case that increased competition would cause costs to fall.

There is a possibility that deregulation could have some success in lowering costs, but cost savings usually come at the expense of service-cutting. A cheaper product is a sham when it doesn't carry the same value as the products it's in competition with. Americans would not be enamoured with the illusion of affordable care. What insurance company is going to sacrifice it's profits in order to get the sale? I know it seems like they would in order to increase their total market share, but we haven't seen evidence that insurance companies would go that way. I'm pretty certain the low-cost insurance leader would be a stripped down company like Southwest airlines: cutting the cost whilst also cutting the consumer experience.

quote:
O'BomberCare and it's imbecilic provisions are going to cost consumers and taxpayers between 2.5 and 3 TRILLION dollars above what the normal rise in costs would be.

Prove it.

IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake

Posts: 990
From: Nov. 11 2005
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 26, 2010 01:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Node     Edit/Delete Message
Health insurance companies and respective minions complain that mandates increase the cost of healthcare and health insurance.
They have spent Millions to assure that is what people think.

Maybe people need to read the Mandated


Patients Bill of Rights

    If you are privately-insured:

  • YOUR HEALTH COVERAGE CANNOT BE ARBITRARILY CANCELLED IF YOU BECOME SICK

    Under the new law, health plans are now prohibited from rescinding coverage except in cases involving fraud or an intentional misrepresentation of facts. Due to pressure from Democrats in Congress and the Obama Administration, insurers agreed to begin implementing this protection early, this spring; so rescissions are now a thing of the past. This protection applies to all health plans.

  • YOUR CHILD CANNOT BE DENIED COVERAGE DUE TO A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION


    The new law prohibits insurance plans both from denying coverage and limiting benefits for children based on a pre-existing condition. This protection applies to all health plans, except “grandfathered” plans in the individual market. These protections will be extended to Americans of all ages starting in 2014.

  • YOUR CHILD UP TO AGE 26 CAN STAY ON YOUR HEALTH PLAN

    Under the new law, insurance companies are required to allow young people up to their 26th birthday to remain on their parents’ insurance plan, at the parent’s choice. This provision applies to all health plans. (For employer plans, only those young people not eligible for their own employer coverage receive the benefit, until 2014.)

  • YOUR HEALTH PLAN CANNOT PUT A LIFETIME LIMIT ON YOUR HEALTH COVERAGE

    Millions of Americans who suffer from costly medical conditions are in danger of having their health insurance coverage vanish when the costs of their treatment hit lifetime limits. These limits can cause the loss of coverage at the very moment when patients need it most. Over 100 million Americans have coverage that imposes such lifetime limits. The new law prohibits the use of lifetime limits in all health plans.

  • YOUR HEALTH PLAN’S ANNUAL LIMITS ARE PHASED OUT OVER THREE YEARS

    Even more aggressive than lifetime limits are annual dollar limits on what an insurance company will pay for health care. Annual limits are less common than lifetime limits – but 19% of individual market plans and 14% of small employer plans currently use them.

    The new law phases out the use of annual limits over the next three years. For plan years beginning on September 23, 2010, the minimum level for the annual limit will be set at $750,000. This minimum is raised to $1.25 million in a year and $2 million in two years. In 2014, all annual limits are prohibited. The protection applies to all plans, except “grandfathered” plans in the individual market.

    If you are purchasing a new plan, you will have the following additional protections:
    YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEY PREVENTIVE SERVICES WITHOUT DEDUCTIBLE OR CO-PAYMENTS

    Today, too many Americans do not get the high-quality preventive care they need to stay healthy, avoid or delay the onset of disease, and lead productive lives. Nationally, Americans use preventive services at about half the recommended rate.

    Under the new law, insurance companies must cover recommended preventive services, including mammograms, colonoscopies, immunizations, and pre-natal and new baby care, without charging deductibles, co-payments or co-insurance.

  • YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BOTH AN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL APPEAL

    Today, if your health plan tells you it won’t cover a treatment your doctor recommends, or it refuses to pay the bill for your child’s last trip to the emergency room, you may not know where to turn. Most plans have a process that lets you appeal the decision within the plan through an “internal appeal” – but there’s no guarantee that the process will be swift and objective. Moreover, if you lose your internal appeal, you may not be able to ask for an “external appeal” to an independent reviewer.

    The new law guarantees the right to an “internal appeal.” Also, insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage for needed care without a chance to appeal to an independent third party.

  • YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE YOUR OWN DOCTOR

    Being able to choose and keep your doctor is highly valued by Americans. Yet, insurance companies don’t always make it easy to see the provider you choose. One survey found that three-fourths of the OB-GYNs reported that patients needed to return to their primary care physicians for permission to get follow-up care.

    The new law: 1) guarantees you get to choose your primary care doctor; 2) allows you to choose a pediatrician as your child’s primary care doctor; and 3) gives women the right to see an OB-GYN without having to obtain a referral first.

  • YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACCESS TO OUT-OF-NETWORK EMERGENCY ROOM CARE AT IN-NETWORK COST-SHARING RATES

    Many insurers charge unreasonably high cost-sharing for emergency care by an out-of-network provider. This can mean financial hardship if you get sick or injured when you are away from home.

    The new law makes emergency services more accessible to consumers. Health plans will not be able to charge higher cost-sharing for emergency services that are obtained out of a plan’s network.


Congressional Republicans promise to take away guaranteed protections for millions of patients and put insurance companies back in charge of their health care decisions. With help from the Blue Dog Dems of course.

Failure to enact reform would have meant continued double digit premium increases—some as high as 60%, arbitrary loss of coverage, and huge increases in the national deficit.

IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake

Posts: 990
From: Nov. 11 2005
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 26, 2010 01:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Node     Edit/Delete Message
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O'BomberCare and it's imbecilic provisions are going to cost consumers and taxpayers between 2.5 and 3 TRILLION dollars above what the normal rise in costs would be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AG says
Prove it.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2340
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 27, 2010 09:15 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Geez, could you really be this ignorant acoustic?

Is it possible you don't know there's little to no competition between insurance companies state to state, coast to coast?

Is it possible your ignorance is so gross as to not know that in most states there's a virtual monopoly in health insurance with some states having 2 or 3 companies allowed to sell policies in that state and a very short list in other states?

Is it possible you are so ignorant that you don't know the selling of health insurance policies is forbidden across state lines across the United States?

Using Senator's and House Member's own estimates of the cost of a health insurance policy in the United States....$9.000 per policy per year.....

50,000,000 uninsured X $9,000 per policy = $450,000,000,000, $450 BILLION, per year X 10 years = $4.5 TRILLION DOLLARS.

Oh wait, I forgot you are O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinkers. You think 50,000,000 uninsured people can be insured and....no one, not the insured, not the government, not taxpayers... is going to have to pay a cent for that insurance....and....the overall cost curve for health insurance is going to actually...GO DOWN....indeed a better result than FREE!

Gawd, that O'Bomber Kool-Aid is powerful stuff.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 3711
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 27, 2010 10:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
I'm on the train, so this won't be a long answer. The pertinent points are these:

I am aware of McCain's interstate plans. You're foolish if you think you can school me in the relevant issues in the healthcare debate.

I don't know why you'd think that any liberal doesn't believe the new coverage will be paid for. That's a plain silly notion. Everyone must have health insurance means everyone must secure health insurance. How do you do that? You buy it.

Now, you still haven't proven how this legislation is going to increase costs to a greater degree than what was previously in place.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5325
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 27, 2010 10:53 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
$9000/yr is $750 per month. do you pay that much jwhop? cos i don't know a lot of people who do...which would mean the insurance companies have been LOSING money hand over fist which is NOT the case. something wrong with your math somewhere, or maybe we are going by the insurance costs of the wealthiest citizens?

course i am one of the uninsured. i am also wondering, if the fine is only $700 a YEAR, how you consider ANYONE is being FORCED to buy insurance...it would be MUCH cheaper just to pay the $55/month the fine breaks down to, wouldn't it?

IP: Logged

emitres
Knowflake

Posts: 74
From:
Registered: Aug 2010

posted September 27, 2010 11:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for emitres     Edit/Delete Message
what i think jwhop is failing to comprehend is that, quite simply, America the country is evolving and changing - America ( the people ) need to keep up...
jwhop,is your concern the fact that you may have to pay a fraction more in taxes so that your neighbour might actually get required help? is it because you perceive those who are unable to provide for themselves as "lazy" rather than victims of circumstance? or is it simply that you need something to b***h about because you really don't like the current administration, no matter what policies they would like to effect?

IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake

Posts: 990
From: Nov. 11 2005
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 28, 2010 05:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Node     Edit/Delete Message
It would appear that Mr: Just say No
has quit the field.

JW maybe you can apply for a grant to remove your Homer Simpson gene...

Deleting a certain gene in mice can make them smarter by unlocking a mysterious region of the brain considered to be relatively inflexible, scientists at Emory University School of Medicine have found.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5325
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 28, 2010 08:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
emitres, i feel jwhop is basically afraid that ANY regulation is a step towards totalitarianism. i almost sympathize with him, except that NO regulation just gives the oligarchs a free rein...however like him i don't want to see govt getting too big.

on the other hand, the amount of demonizing of obama and all regulation that goes into the tactics of the corporate stooges (and plenty of them are democrats) is really ugly to me. we don't need any more hate and division, that is exactly what they want.

instead of being willing to see that, yes, healthcare has to be paid for somehow and the rich stand as much to gain by putting into the pot as the poor do, they are basically just trying to crucify obama and his administration in order to REGAIN POWER. because they are scared sh*tless that if they don't have ALL the power they will be as good as naked/dead in the water.

and it's really pretty funny that while they complain that many think obama is the "messiah" they are acting as if they do by said crucifixion attempts.

and not one of these people seem to notice that the tea baggers are being bankrolled by the very richest among us and when they have been soaked, stewed, and squeezed dry they will be where all other tea bags end up - in the trash bin, with a bought and paid for stooge in office removing all the limits again so they can continue to outsource our jobs and products.

it is obama who is trying to bring the jobs back home but in order to spite him and stagnate the economy for decades into t he future, they will do their best to kill this too...

it just seems unfathomable to some people that the "other side" is just their reflection in the mirror and killing it is not an option...

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 3711
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 28, 2010 11:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
I'm weary of anyone who throws around the term "regulation" loosely. If a person demonizes regulation in (or as) a kind of a blanket statement I automatically assume they haven't thought out their position. In the big picture, regulations are typically enacted as a consumer protection. I should say citizen protection, but in this case the terms are almost interchangeable.

To me regulation is akin to regular civil law. The government saying you can't pollute the environment is the same as the government saying you can't vandalize someone's property. Regulation is always a restriction intended for the good of everyone.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5325
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 29, 2010 10:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
i'm a bit more cynical than you then, acoustic! i don't think, for instance that the law forbidding sex between married partners on sunday (this is in their own home) was anything but puritanically bossy! and there are others that MAY just be poorly thought out but are overbearing and no govt's business.

on the whole, yes, regulations are seen as answers to problems that have consistently got in the way of people getting along. many of them are not really necessary though,

then again some should be in place that aren't, like the current GE salmon problem - where it is looking like we will not be informed of its origins because it is deemed so similar to real salmon ... the cynic in me says, chinook salmon is labelled, sockeye is labelled, farmed and wild are labelled, WHY NOT GE LABELLING? because it might put people off! and that is pure profit-protection which robs the consumer of the right to know...and could endanger OUR species since we don't yet know the consequences of this new man-made fish.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 3711
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 29, 2010 12:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
Business regulation usually occurs when the business exploits it's freedom in a way that's harmful. For instance, this whole subprime mortgage meltdown was due to UNregulated banks granting loans that didn't meet traditional loan standards.

IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake

Posts: 990
From: Nov. 11 2005
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 29, 2010 01:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Node     Edit/Delete Message
my 2 centavos is to say that there is far too much [misdirected] focus on societal regulation,

The just say no to sex or it's modernized abstinence only.

It is bad enough when the states have antiquated laws on the books about these things....but to create new ones or add to them, are indicative to Pluto and the NN in early Capricorn.

The US has always had a problem with sex, open free and easy sex is verboten, and the buried stuff rises to the surface in a pustulous way [I will use any occasion to use that word!] because we do not treat our problems in a healthy way. It nearly always comes out in the end.

It is all about sex, most everything is when you get right down to it.

Corporate regulation is torn down for decades, while societal regulation and fear
of our collective gayness, or gender identification issues are shored up and added to. Not to mention fidelity, hetero marriage and our attempts to redefine the roles they play in our lives. Fear is the thing....fear of our gay friends, neighbors, and relatives is an invitation for people to discover what these really mean to them, for the noisiest that seems to mean fear.

But all of those are for another thread[s]?

AG there are occasionally repeated use of the M word as regards to you, why is that? What went down in the past that the Misogyny rock gets lobbed in your direction?

I don't get it.

IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake

Posts: 990
From: Nov. 11 2005
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 29, 2010 01:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Node     Edit/Delete Message
quote:
and not one of these people seem to notice that the tea baggers are being bankrolled by the very richest among us and when they have been soaked, stewed, and squeezed dry they will be where all other tea bags end up - in the trash bin, with a bought and paid for stooge in office removing all the limits again so they can continue to outsource our jobs and products.

I have a pretty sick sense of humor, so I think it is hilarious that the origins of the Boston Tea party were ostensibly against a corporation or big buisness that the East India Company was given a monopoly on the importation of tea to America....2) also that the sexual urban dictionary defines a tea bagger quite differently.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 5325
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 29, 2010 01:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
the M word is being used in place of the S word (or the interchangeable L word) because AG doesn't approve of sister sarah he must be a misogynist...if you believe 2+2=5 LMAO.

i'm guessing we are spared that particular label because we are female, though i know a few female misogynists myself! AG is the last person i would call misogynist though...another misnomer deliberately used to discredit the opposition.

some people also seem not to be aware that complete lack of regulation = ANARCHY. and insisting on a completely free market is therefore insisting on anarchy.

i somehow don't think that is what is really desired, even by the so-called free market proponents.

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2010

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a