Originally Posted By DAR So now it will be required that the health insurance companies provide coverage to the uninsured, okay I get that. And a health insurance company is a privately run business. Now there's going to be a stipulation in the bill that if you are uninsured you have to buy insurance or you'll be penalized. So this bill is making you purchase something from a privately run company?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, not unlike the requirement that we all carry car insurance I suppose.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, that is true. But, I doubt too many people choose not to drive simply because they would then be required to have auto insurance.
Originally Posted By Mr X You actually don't mind that part, Wahoo? I'm surprised. Even a ton of left wingers are vehemently against it (particularly since there is no public option from which to choose).
Originally Posted By fkurucz I always thought that it was interesting that most states have assigned risk pools so that "high risk" drivers can get auto insurance, but we have no equivalent for health insurance. I guess its because we place a higher value on property than on people's health.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The new "high risk" pool for insurance is going to be one of the first things created now.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not a fan of most of the bill, but I don't see standing against it on the grounds that you are being forced to buy something from a private company. If you own a home you pretty much have to buy home insurance, I mentioned car insurance. There are components of the bill that, on their merits, seem fine. But, when it comes to how it was put together and how it will be paid for I have objections.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Actually, they made the fine for not getting insurance $0 so there really isn't much of a problem for people. There is a fine if a company over a certain size does not provide healthcare for its employees.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << So this bill is making you purchase something from a privately run company? >> Contrast that with the current system where people who want to buy insurance are prohibited because the insurance companies won't allow them to own policies (pre-existing conditions, illnesses, age, etc.)
Originally Posted By barboy ///If you own a home you pretty much have to buy home insurance/// Well not really, lenders holding a claim against a property with a dwelling want the title holder to carry hazard insurance/homeowners insurance as disclosed in loan documents. If one has no "house payment", that is the house is paid off, then one isn't obligated to insure it. But since so many homeowners still have lenders I guess you are right in a way.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>So this bill is making you purchase something from a privately run company?<< Sadly true, since the removal of the public option. I think this bill's going to make a lot of money (and I mean a LOT of money) for a bunch of big companies.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Posted by a friend on Facebook: "I think I'll just drop my current health care coverage and pay the $750 fine for not having it. Then, I'll just pay out of pocket for the routinely costs....should save me quite a bit of money! THEN, if I get hurt or sick I'll just enroll in health care cause then can't deny me for "pre-existing" conditions. Hehehe."
Originally Posted By fkurucz Kidding aside your friend would still be on the hook for expenses incurred before cleverly signing up for the insurance.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney The part about requiring people to purchase health insurance is the main part that bothered me as well. I'm not a left-winger, I'm a moderate. This bill definitely has a lot of good points though. I just wonder what kind of effect requiring health insurance will have...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The part about requiring people to purchase health insurance is the main part that bothered me as well. I'm not a left-winger, I'm a moderate. This bill definitely has a lot of good points though. I just wonder what kind of effect requiring health insurance will have..." What is left unaddressed by the hard right onthis issue is we require things such as health insurance in other areas already. I've been enforcing this California Family Law code section for over nine years now (as long as I've had my current position) and it has been on the books for decades: 3751. (a) (1) Support orders issued or modified pursuant to this chapter shall include a provision requiring the child support obligor to keep the agency designated under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 651 et seq.) informed of whether the obligor has health insurance coverage at a reasonable cost and, if so, the health insurance policy information. (2) In any case in which an amount is set for current support, the court shall require that health insurance coverage for a supported child shall be maintained by either or both parents if that insurance is available at no cost or at a reasonable cost to the parent. Health insurance coverage shall be rebuttably presumed to be reasonable in cost if it is employment-related group health insurance or other group health insurance, regardless of the service delivery mechanism. The actual cost of the health insurance to the obligor shall be considered in determining whether the cost of insurance is reasonable. If the court determines that the cost of health insurance coverage is not reasonable, the court shall state its reasons on the record. (b) If the court determines that health insurance coverage is not available at no cost or at a reasonable cost, the court's order for support shall contain a provision that specifies that health insurance coverage shall be obtained if it becomes available at no cost or at a reasonable cost. Upon health insurance coverage at no cost or at a reasonable cost becoming available to a parent, the parent shall apply for that coverage. (c) The court's order for support shall require the parent who, at the time of the order or subsequently, provides health insurance coverage for a supported child to seek continuation of coverage for the child upon attainment of the limiting age for a dependent child under the health insurance coverage if the child meets the criteria specified under Section 1373 of the Health and Safety Code or Section 10277 or 10278 of the Insurance Code and that health insurance coverage is available at no cost or at a reasonable cost to the parent or parents, as applicable.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder To follow up, in order to get insurance for a child, the parent has to buy the insurance for him or herself as well. No one has ever filed a motion saying it is unconstitutional to force them to get H/I for their child. They file motions saying it costs too much, but that's what the Health bill addresses. Moreover, the government can draft you into the military, possibly leading to your demise. The government taxes you, the government makes you get a license to drive, the government requires certain levels of training for certain professions, the list goes on and on. Here, thet want to ensure you take care of yourself. Heaven forbid.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And DygDisney, I'm not implying you're a hard right. I mention that faction because on the radio coming home tonight that's all I heard- whining that the government is forcing people to do something- "We've lost our free society, wahhh...."
Originally Posted By DyGDisney No prob, SPP. I get tired of hearing that too! And thanks for the info. It's interesting and something I didn't know before.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones The current bill is inadequate. I wish they would just socialize the damn health care system already.
