What's in the Healthcare bill for you, now?

Posted on: March 24th, 2010 by ecthompson md No Comments

Questions

From Speaker Pelosi:

Under the legislative package the House passed on Sunday (the Senate-passed health bill as amended by the reconciliation bill) many key provisions take effect this year - here are some of them:

IF YOU ARE A SMALL BUSINESSES OWNER:

SMALL BUSINESS TAX CREDITS—Offers tax credits to small businesses to make employee coverage more affordable. Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available. Effective beginning for calendar year 2010. (Beginning in 2014, small business tax credits will cover 50 percent of premiums.)

IF YOU ARE A SENIOR:

BEGINS TO CLOSE THE MEDICARE PART D DONUT HOLE—Provides a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010. Effective for calendar year 2010. (Beginning in 2011, institutes a 50% discount on brand-name drugs in the donut hole; also completely closes the donut hole by 2020.)

FREE PREVENTIVE CARE UNDER MEDICARE—Eliminates co-payments for preventive services and exempts preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program. Effective beginning January 1, 2011.

HELP FOR EARLY RETIREES—Creates a temporary re-insurance program (until the Exchanges are available) to help offset the costs of expensive health claims for employers that provide health benefits for retirees age 55-64. Effective 90 days after enactment.

IF YOU HAVE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE:

NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CHILDREN WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS—Prohibits health plans from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, this prohibition would apply to adults as well.)

NO RESCISSIONS—Bans health plans from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Effective 6 months after enactment.

NO LIFETIME LIMITS ON COVERAGE—Prohibits health plans from placing lifetime caps on coverage. Effective 6 months after enactment.

NO RESTRICTIVE ANNUAL LIMITS ON COVERAGE—Tightly restricts new plans’ use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care. These tight restrictions will be defined by HHS. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, the use of any annual limits would be prohibited for all plans.)

FREE PREVENTIVE CARE UNDER NEW PLANS—Requires new private plans to cover preventive services with no co-payments and with preventive services being exempt from deductibles. Effective 6 months after enactment.

NEW, INDEPENDENT APPEALS PROCESS FOR NEW PLANS—Ensures consumers in new plans have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal decisions. Effective 6 months after enactment.

MORE FOR YOUR PREMIUM DOLLAR—Requires plans to put more of your premiums into your care, and less into profits, CEO pay, etc. This medical loss ratio requires plans in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of premiums on medical services, and plans in the large group market to spend 85 percent. Insurers that don’t meet these thresholds must provide rebates to policyholders. Effective on January 1, 2011.

NO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SALARY—Prohibits new group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees. Effective 6 months after enactment.

IF YOU DON’T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE:

IMMEDIATE HELP FOR THE UNINSURED WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS(INTERIM HIGH-RISK POOL)—Provides immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition - through a temporary high-risk pool – until the Exchanges up and running in 2014. Effective 90 days after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, health plans are banned from discriminating against all people with pre-existing conditions, so high-risk pools would phase out).

EXTENDING COVERAGE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE UP TO 26TH BIRTHDAY THROUGH PARENTS’ INSURANCE – Requires health plans to allow young people up to their 26th birthday to remain on their parents’ insurance policy, at the parents’ choice. Effective 6 months after enactment.

GENERAL REFORMS:

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS—Increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow for nearly doubling the number of patients served over the next 5 years. Effective beginning in fiscal year 2010.

MORE PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS—Provides new investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals. Effective beginning in fiscal year 2010.

HEALTH INSURANCE CONSUMER ASSISTANCE—Provides aid to states to establish offices of health insurance consumer assistance to help consumers file complaints and appeals. Effective beginning in FY 2010.

A NEW, VOLUNTARY, PUBLIC LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE PROGRAM—Creates a long-term care insurance program to be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled. Effective on January 1, 2011.

And in 2014, once the exchanges have formed, more insurance reforms go into effect, including:

NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ADULTS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

BAN ON HIGHER PREMIUMS FOR WOMEN

PREMIUMS BASED ON AGE CAN ONLY VARY BY A MAXIMUM OF 3-TO-1 RATIO

CAP ON OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES for private health plans

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

I appreciate you adding multiple comments on Constitutionality. But the one comment you cited (not "sited") from one author that even "non-purchase can be considered an economic activity to be regulated" is INSANE. That means that every single thing we do -- or don't do -- is subject to government control. How can that possibly be? The Commerce Clause is supposed to regulate economic activity that's actually occurring, not economic activity that has not or will not happen.

Bud -As usual, I appreciate you thoughts. Is it INSANE or is it the law?Where did you find the intention of the Commerce Clause? I would be happy to read the reference unless you are just making that up. :-)From Linda Monk's book, The Words We Live by - The Commerce Clause has become the greatest source of federal power under the Constitution. Congress had no power to regulate commerce under the Articles of Confederation, and the states acted in a variety of ways to restrict the flow of commerce between one another. The first Supreme Court case to deal with the Commerce Clause involved the power of states to grant monopolies over steamboat navigation in their waterways. In that case, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall defined the commerce power broadly to include transportation, rather than limiting it to buying and selling, and struck down New York’s monopoly for steamboats. This ruling increased the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and create a national economy.Also, check out this link - http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrial...

"Is it INSANE or is it the law?"Are you saying it can't be both?Are all laws reasonable, just because they were passed?Is there no such thing as an unreasonable law, a stupid law, or one that's just flat out nuts?Should we give our unquestioning obeisance to every act of the legislature?

From the legal blog Balkinization:Contemporary originalist readings have tended to view the commerce power through modern eyes. Originalists defending narrow readings of federal power have identified “commerce” with the trade of commodities; originalists defending broad readings of federal power have identified “commerce” with all gainful economic activity. In the eighteenth century, however, “commerce” did not have such narrowly economic connotations. Instead, “commerce” meant “intercourse” and it had a strongly social connotation. “Commerce” was interaction and exchange between persons or peoples. To have commerce with someone meant to converse with them, meet with them, or interact with them. Thus, commerce naturally included all trade and economic activity because economic activity was social activity. But the idea of commerce-as-intercourse was broader than economics narrowly conceived—it also included networks of transportation and communication through which people traveled to interact with each other and corresponded with each other.Understanding "commerce" in its original sense of “intercourse” is consistent with all of the evidence offered by rival theories of commerce as trade or economic activity; but it better explains the source of Congress’s powers over immigration and foreign affairs. It also better explains Congress’s broad powers over transportation and communications networks, whether or not these networks are used for purposes of business or trade.

"the one comment you cited ...from one author that even "non-purchase can be considered an economic activity to be regulated" is INSANE. That means that every single thing we do -- or don't do -- is subject to government control. How can that possibly be?"Bud, Bud, Bud. Of course the government is supposed to control everything we do. (Didn't you know that's what the constitution says?)That's why Obama is here, because HE knows what is best for you.You can indeed be forced to buy fruits and vegetables because it's good for you and you'll cost the health care system less, and prohibited from buying junk food, according to the liberal interpretation of the commerce clause.You can be forced to open an account with Citi, because the government is a shareholder and it's good for the country, and prohibited from opening an account in a bank which needed no bailout, according to the liberal interpretation of the commerce clause.You can be forced to buy a GM automobile and prohibited from buying a Ford, according to the liberal interpretation of the commerce clause.You can be forced to buy CNN on cable and NY Times on paper because they have 'approved views', and prohibited from buying Fox News on cable and Washington Times on paper, according to the liberal interpretation of the commerce clause.You can be forced to buy tickets to the museum because it educational, and prohibited from buying tickets to the NBA game, according to the liberal interpretation of the commerce clause.You can be forced to buy candy from the kid raisning money for public school activities, and prohibited from buying candy from the kid raising money for the Boy Scouts, according to the liberal interpretation of the commerce clause.

Thanks Dr. T. This was the clearest explanation I've seen! Susan.

Thanks for stopping by Susan. I really appreciate it.

Where's the outrage over who's going to pay for this monstrosity?Where's the outrage over the 153 +/- new federal agencies created by this?Where's the outrage over the prohibition of doctors owning an interest in a medical facility?Where's the outrage of the lack of tort reform?Where's the outrage over the taxing of investment income to "pay" for this?Where's the outrage over preventing that investment income to employ more people, open more businesses, expand current businesses, and then people can get employer-sponsored insurance, which is far less costly??Where's the outrage over the COST of this thing?Where's the outrage over the UNCONSTITUTIONAL mandate of forcing people to buy a good or service? There is no precedent for that in all of the U.S.'s history. But suddenly, the Dems have the "moral authority" to do it because it "feels good," "sounds right," "is well intentioned," or some other emotional feeling?WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE!?!?

:-)Bud, you should stop by more often. I talked about the constitutionality of healthcare reform several weeks ago. The data is clear. Thanks for you thoughts.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] that the Dems would land flat on our backs) . This went on for weeks. The Dems finally wised up and passed Healthcare Reform without Senator [...]