Comments on: At The Request of AHIP, Senate Bill Guts State Health Insurance Regulations

By: cavenewt

cavenewt — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:44:17 +0000

But won’t people be able to shop on the exchange for coverage they want? Are you arguing that people will just buy the cheapest policy without knowing what to look for? And, since pre-existing condition denials are outlawed in both the House and Senate plans, in the even you need it, won’t you be able to purchase different insurance that does cover, say, autism? (Of course, who knows how much it might cost at that point…)

I have another question about this part of the bill: “only the State benefit mandate laws of the State in which the plans are issued.” Is “the state in which the plans are issued” the state the insurance company is based in (like South Dakota for credit card companies), or the state the policyholder lives in? It’s so hard for regular people to figure out this stuff!

By: visionbrkr

visionbrkr — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:32:43 +0000

you really don’t get it do you. If you get rid of the anti-trust exemption all it will do is allow them to sell across state lines (which is what the author doesn’t want). The other more damaging thing it will do is just what the author says but look at it this way.

Say you’re a resident of NJ like me. We have autism covered now (thank God) as of August. But the people of Mississippi for example may have no need or can’t afford what autism coverage costs. National plans won’t allow NJ residents autism coverage for those that need it desperately. You THINK you’re helping liberal causes but in effect you’re giving insurers exactly what they want.

By: walkinboots

walkinboots — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:52:32 +0000

lol.

By: marcopolo

marcopolo — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:30:44 +0000

I majored in French…

By: selise

selise — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:47:39 +0000

wow. this is ginormous. thanks jon.

By: walkinboots

walkinboots — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:11:37 +0000

Ya know, to sit for the citizenship test in Canada you only need to live there for 4 years. Not too shabby an idea actually.

By: placton

placton — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:57:20 +0000

“The business of America is business.” – Calvin Coolidge

“As goes GM, so goes the country.” Eisenhower cabinet memory from long long ago

We…. are …. screwed – thanks Dems and Fearful Leader Obama.

By: greenharper

greenharper — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:05:20 +0000

Per The New York Times, per a staffer at Senator Kirk’s Boston office (617.565.3170) (hearsay, to be sure) the penalty for failing to buy extortionate health insurance – if you don’t fall into an exception — is a fine. So it’s a civil penalty, not a criminal one.

One of the exceptions is apparently a religious objection to buying the insurance. If that provision makes it into the final bill, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

I’ve told both of my Senators to kill the whole thing and go back to the drawing board.

By: marcopolo

marcopolo — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:06:55 +0000

Agreed. This bill is a travesty of health care reform. Either (1) put a match to it, as you suggest, or (2) keep the guaranteed issue and rescission provisions while overturning McCarren-Ferguson.

Canada O Canada…

By: walkinboots

walkinboots — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:54:27 +0000

Okay…. so lets see if I have this correct….. AHEM

The senate bill fosters, and assists the insurance companies profit driven pillage of the American People by superseding what little state regulation there is (and it varies from state to state, my state has terrible regulation) whilst simultaneously mandating that I purchase insurance and that my state can opt-out of the public option, even though I cannot opt-out of the mandate? Is there something here I am missing? Or am I getting this? Because if I am getting this, I think we need to put a match to this bill.