Cleobulus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 10:22 PM
Original message |
| Without the Public Option, this would be acceptable in the HRC bill to me... |
|
Edited on Fri Mar-12-10 10:22 PM by Cleobulus
First off, price controls at the following rates.
Premiums should be set at no more than 5% of monthly earnings for everyone, regardless of income level, with subsidies to help pay for premiums up to 400% above poverty level.
Deductibles should be set at no more than 500 dollars per year per person, with a Government subsidy based on a sliding scale starting at poverty level subsidy of 100% and reducing it 10% for every 100% above poverty level.
Copays are to be set on a sliding scale based on income level but will not exceed 50 dollars for doctor's visits or prescription drugs.
Plans that cover dependents under the age of 18 years old will be exempt from deducts and copay amounts listed above.
Employer based insurance shall be discouraged.
Oversight controls of insurance companies:
Independent federal body to deal with claims appeals process, there is already in the HRC bill a plan like this, but not independent of the insurance companies. Insurance companies would be bound by the decisions of this independent federal body.
Insurance companies who have their denial of claims successfully appealed by members shall be penalized at no less than 50% and no more than 90% of the cost the claim itself, this is in addition to having to pay the claim that they denied.
Any Insurance company that has had denials repeatedly overturned by the federal body mentioned above(percentage based, say 20% of denials overturned) shall be abolished, its members allowed to move to more responsible insurance companies and all assets of said insurance company shall be seized by the Federal Government in compensation.
Insurance companies will be audited by the Federal Government annually and they must spend at least 90 cents on every dollar paid in premiums on health care.
The federal government will be responsible for negotiating pricing on health care on behalf of Insurance companies, in instances of prescription drugs and treatment payments, health care and pharmaceutical companies will be bound by these negotiations that are to be revisited every 5 years.
Simply put, this will outright forbid Insurance Companies from at least 90% of the shenanigans they are and have been guilty of in the past and in addition will make not only health insurance affordable, but being able to actually use it affordable to the vast majority of Americans, hell, you can even mandate this and it wouldn't be that big a problem for me.
|
Lydia Leftcoast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 10:27 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. Sounds like par for the course in foreign countries that |
|
use private insurance either entirely or in part.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 10:31 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. Backwards to the seventies. But since we have so fallen off the edge of it |
|
today, maybe backwards could be a relief. :eyes:
|
w4rma
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 10:31 PM
Response to Original message |
| 3. Won't happen. Not enough time left. A public option is the only price control we might get. (nt) |
Cleobulus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 4. Apparently the Public Option is dead in the water. |
|
I'm just throwing my own ideas out there, the current HRC bill is unacceptable and while 30 million Americans may be able to be enroll in Medical Insurance afterwards, I strongly doubt most of them will be able to afford to actually use it.
|
w4rma
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
| 5. This bill is nearly worthless without a public option. And most of what is good about the bill |
|
can pass on their own merits, individually.
|
Skink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 11:04 PM
Response to Original message |
| 6. get this legislation passed so nobody can be denied then focus on expanding medicare. |
|
Edited on Fri Mar-12-10 11:06 PM by Skink
If we do medicare first insurance companies will do everything they can to shift the risk to medicare but if we pass a law saying they can't deny people we are in a better position.
|
SPedigrees
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
Cleobulus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
| 8. So no one can be denied what? Claims or Coverage? Those are two separate things... |
|
and something people have been ignoring, in the current bill, claims can still be denied, just not for preexisting conditions, which is pretty narrow, if the insurance companies denies the claim for other reasons, your only recourse is their internal(not objective) appeals process.
In addition, the costs to individuals are also ignored, it does no good to have the Insurance company say yes to paying a claim you can't pay the deduct or copay for.
|
salguine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 11:29 PM
Response to Original message |
| 9. Well, you're not going to get any of that stuff. |
Cleobulus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
| 10. True, its too bad really, if the HRC bill passes, I'm up shit's creek without a paddle... |
|
so will many other Americans.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Feb 12th 2026, 06:55 AM
Response to Original message |