Lieberman Fights Obama

slowing down (0.00 / 0)

and your point is that slowing down to take time to look at this plan and the consequences (intended and unintended), as well as actually reading the legislation, is bad because it takes longer?

find on page 16 where it currently says once the bill is passed no companies may enroll any new people into a private health insurance program. so greeting married, new babies, adoptions - additions to the family - will not be allowed to be added to your plan if you keep it. Through attrition these private plans will go out of business. So much for competition.

options? choice? personal decisions on your health care?

The government will be deciding who much medial services may cost and who will get them. More government, more cost to all tax payers.  

---

by: retired yes @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 19:34:37 PM UTC

Liebermans objective isn't to slow down healthcare reform (0.00 / 0)

it's to kill it just like he did Hillarycare.

The AMA came out today and endorsed the House version of this bill which is even better than the Senate version Dodd managed to get through the Senate Health Committeee.

The only chance to stop this now is the Senate finance committee and everyone knows this.We're going to get this bill through with or without Lieberman and with or without  the corperate owned Democrats who are trying to kill it.I'm hoping Obama is forced to use the Reconciliation route and Joe Biden is the 51st vote in the senate so everyone in this country knows which Democratic Senators stands with the people and which are total Corperate whores.

---

by: ctkeith @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 19:56:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

cite? (0.00 / 0)

reired yes, could you provide a link or quotation to the language you believe prevents companies from enrolling additional insureds?  I'd like to read it.  Thanks.

---

by: dkfennell @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 21:18:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

citation- Investors Daily quotes page 16 of health care bill (0.00 / 0)

I'm pasting an except from the following link:

http://www.investors.com/NewsA...

... It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised - with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers. ...

---

by: retired yes @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 01:23:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

excerpt, quote, passage (0.00 / 0)

sorry about the typo.  

---

by: retired yes @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 01:24:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Investors Daily excerpt (0.00 / 0)

Thanks retired yes, I took a look at the provision in the House discussion draft from the Energy Committee (which you can read at http://energycommerce.house.go...  (The provision is not found in the version that emerged from Dodd's committee which is what Lieberman is opposing.  That version can be seen at http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A8...

In any event, as I understand the context of the excerpt quoted by Investors Daily, it is dealing with an exception to what the bill calls a "qualifying health insurance coverage."  The bill mandates plans have certain coverage provisions and requires employers to provide such qualifying plans (or pay a tax).  There is an exception for existing coverage -- which is "grandfathered."  That is what the excerpt quoted by Investors Daily is referring to.  It prohibits a grandfathered plan from taking on new insureds.  And this is as it should be.  The provision is an exception to required coverage.  If the bill allowed existing plans to take on new insureds it would allow the exceptions to eat up the mandatory requirements of the bill.  The purpose of the bill is to require basic minimums of coverage.  The restrictions are to prevent non-qualifying plans (which are only allowed by the choice of the insured to keep his pre-existing coverage) from overruning complying plans.

Incidentally even under this exception for grandfathered coverage, the plan can continue to add dependants of those already insured.  The very next paragraph says:  "Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day ..."

---

by: dkfennell @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:59:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Links (0.00 / 0)

I tried the links once the above comment was posted.  (Evidently the software that recognizes urls picks up all the punctuation that follows so the links don't work.)

Here are the links I referred to:

  House Energy Committee bill:

http://energycommerce.house.go...

  Senate Help bill

http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A8...

Here's an analogy:  If you wanted to require cars to have a minimum mileage, you might have a law requiring only future cars to comply.  A manufacturer could sell off its existing inventory but not make any new ones.  That is not to say that the manufacturer could not make any more cars, but only that it has to make ones that comply.

---

by: dkfennell @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:13:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

dependents (0.00 / 0)

and so you can add dependents. Thank you. That was one worry.

But you can not get private coverage once you leave your insurance coverage. When that private company coverage is lost, you are out of luck and must only have the public option.

Not good enough for Congress, but good enough for us?

and this inability to write new coverage will not put private health coverage companies out of business through attrition?

Why is it a good thing to have a new government bureaucracy for our health issues? Will it save money to add government employees to oversee who and what can be covered and how much they will pay for services?  

Where will we get college students wanting to run the gauntlet of getting the medical license? Why spend the time and the hundreds of thousands to get an M.D.?

Too many questions to feel good about this change so far.

---

by: retired yes @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 03:24:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lieberman is a hypocrite (4.00 / 1)

 It was interesting  to see Lieberman tell Obama  to  "slow down"  on the important issue of healthcare....on an even bigger  issue effecting  all of  us such as  the war in Iraq, Lieberman  was  rushing  to war  and  never once told President Bush  to  "slow down"

---

by: BruceRubenstein2 @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 22:25:59 PM UTC

Lieberman for Lieberman, as always (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman, like the Republicans, fears that the Health Care bill will be successful, and for the same reason. If the Democrats succeed, they will gain more seats in Congress next year. The Republicans will continue to spiral into helpless oblivion and Lieberman will become irrelevant.
If Joe isn't needed to make up a Democratic majority, then he will be left to marinate in his own bile. He knows this and will do whatever he can to sabotage the Democratic agenda.
As always, Joe comes first in all things, for Joe.
oldswede

---

by: oldswede @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 05:08:54 AM UTC

Save the mother ship (0.00 / 0)

So you are concerned that passing this trillions additional burden for 50% of population who pay taxes is about gaining Dem seats in congress?

Look forward, longer view. If the USA defaults on all these loans to China and other outside sources we'll be giving the land and businesses away to who knows what country. We spent too much we can't afford! (Hello?)

If the mother ship fails, we all die.
Have you ever heard that?

I  hope you can see that slowing down and seeing what is in the bill, how much it may cost and how to pay for it is a good idea.

Get this done as fast as possible before anyone can truly take a look at the consequences is not the way to plan ahead for success.

What are the speeders afraid that we'll find out?

---

by: retired yes @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 20:28:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]