HR 3962 - Is it Doable?Follow

This is the Houses's big bill of health care. It may be voted on as early as tomorrow.

It is big - 2000 pages.

Highlights:

The bill would require the HHS Secretary to negotiate provider reimbursement rates rather than tie them to Medicare.

Requires all individuals to have insurance.

Establishes Health Insurance Exchange.

Requires employers to provide health insurance

Bans insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

I was hoping to see the burden of health insurance nudged away from the shoulder of the employer. But that might be too radical at this point. I also would hope to see more in cost control, but maybe that will be tied to the negotiated rates and the competition within the exchange.

Anyway, I guess I'm pro-bill because I think we need to get something passed sooner rather than later. Once a gov. health care oversight and provision system is up and running, hopefully the fine tuning can take over.

My Congressperson (D) says she'll vote for it. Maines other congressperson (R) is waffling, reportedly, his ties to the blue collar paper-makers is causing him some heartburn as they are pressuring him to vote 'yes' also.
















Edited, Nov 6th 2009 3:37pm by Elinda

I voted to Abstain. I agree with a couple points of the bill. I like how it will ban insurance coverage from denying insurance because of pre-existing conditions and how it requires employers to provide insurance.

The biggest problems I have with this bill is that it requires all individuals to have insurance. People will have to pay a fee every year if they don't have insurance. This is what I disagree with. My husband and I don't have health insurance because we cannot afford it, and his work does not offer it. We both have pre-existing conditions that would make our policy even higher than what it would be as well. If this bill passes in its current form, we do not have the money to pay the fees. We are among the millions of America that are considered "The working poor." Thankfully, my daughter is in the children's Medicaid program, so at least she is getting the medical attention she needs (immunizations, check-ups, etc...)

Please don't misunderstand me. I do not want free healthcare. I just want affordable healthcare, so my husband and I can get the medical attention we need.

This is part of the reason for the public option. People who can prove need can receive subsidized insurance through the government program at a lower cost than available otherwise. The fines are for people who won't buy insurance rather than those who can't buy insurance.

It's a good thing we'll have insurance then!

Sorry. I didn't see a public option. If there is one, then I will support it. Too bad, I can't change my vote in the poll to yes.

I blame Elinda for not being clear enough!

Yes, the House bill has a public option.

I feel more confident about my "yea," then.

Yes, sorry. Here, maybe this is a better summary. The Public Option is within, well really IS the Health Insurance Exchange portion of the bill.



You can read all 2000+ pages HERE, if you'd like.

I also would have liked a clause in there that insurance companies can't deny you because of a lapse in coverage, but perhaps that's included in the pre-existing bit.

Say you had insurance from Jan 2005 to July 2009. Your new insurance plan kicked in on 8/15/09. In 2010, you're diagnosed with breast cancer. Right now, insurance companies can deny your coverage for treatments because you could have developed the cancer those first fifteen days of August when you had no insurance.

Totally stupid, but that's why healthcare needed reform.

The AMA & AARP want it so I'm assuming it passes.

Don't sweat it. Congress rarely comes to Forum=4.