- \n
![\"Insurance](\"http:\/\/s217.photobucket.com\/albums\/cc83\/TomCat1948or2\/Blog%202009\/HealthCareEditorialTheManagersAmendment_2CEF\/Insurancegreed2_thumb.jpg\" "\\"Insurance")
<\/a> Stronger medical loss ratios<\/strong>. Health insurers will be required to spend more of their premium revenues on clinical services and quality activities, with less going to administrative costs and profits – or else pay rebates to policyholders. These stricter limits will continue even after the Exchanges begin in 2011, and apply to all plans, including grandfathered plans. (Ed note: Reportedly, these require group insurance plans to pay 85% of premiums to health care, and individual plans to pay 80%<\/strong>. These would go into effect in 2011. In 2012, the ratios would be based on the average medical loss ratio in the Exchange.)<\/font> <\/li>\n- Accountability for excessive rate increases. A health insurer’s participation in the Exchanges will depend on its performance. Insurers that jack up their premiums before the Exchanges begin will be excluded<\/strong> – a powerful incentive to keep premiums affordable. <\/font><\/li>\n
- Immediate ban on pre-existing condition exclusions for children<\/strong>. Health insurers will be immediately prohibited from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children. <\/font><\/li>\n
- Patient protections. Health insurers will have to abide by a set of patient protections that, for example, protect choice of doctors and ensure access to emergency care. <\/font><\/li>\n
- Ensuring access to needed care. The use of annual limits on benefits will be tightly restricted to ensure access to needed care immediately, and will be prohibited completely beginning in 2014<\/strong>. <\/font><\/li>\n
- Guaranteed opportunity to appeal coverage denials. All health insurers will be required to implement an internal appeals process for coverage denials, and states will ensure the availability of an external appeals process that is independent and holds insurance companies accountable<\/strong>. <\/font><\/li>\n
- Multi-state option. Health insurance carriers will offer plans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that oversees health plans for Members of Congress. At least one plan must be non-profit, and the plans will be available nationwide<\/strong>. This will promote competition and choice. (Ed note: At least two plans will have to be offered, one of which must be non-profit. OPM can negotiate medical loss ratio, profits, premiums and other terms.)<\/font> <\/li>\n
- Free choice vouchers. Workers who qualify for an affordability exemption to the individual responsibility policy but do not qualify for tax credits can take their employer contribution and join an exchange plan<\/strong>. <\/font><\/li>\n
- Children’s health. Support will be extended for the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the adoption tax credit. Foster care children aging out of Medicaid will be able to retain its comprehensive coverage. <\/font><\/li>\n
- Rural and underserved communities. Access will be expanded through funding for rural health care providers and training programs for physician and other types of health care providers. <\/font><\/li>\n
- Revised abortion language, including state opt-out of abortion coverage\u2026<\/font> <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Inserted from <Health Care For America Now<\/a>><\/p>\n
Some of the provisions are not too bad. Mandated medical loss ratios are a good thing, but the level is too low. Companies should be required to pay out 90%-95%. I like the idea that companies that jack up their rates will be excluded from the exchange, but I want to know how much is too much and who makes that decision. I favor the immediate ban on pre-existing conditions, but for everyone, not just for children. Until I know what patient protections are guaranteed, I can\u2019t comment on that provision. Annual limits should be prohibited immediately. Nationwide plans have more bargaining power than state plans. I also like the free choice vouchers. I favor extending CHIP support. Funding rural health care is a bribe. I\u2019ll cover that later.<\/p>\n
The most controversial aspect of the Reid Amendment is the abortion sell-out.<\/p>\n
\n
\u2026Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in the insurance exchanges<\/strong> the bill would set up. The exchanges are designed to serve individuals who lack coverage through their jobs, with most receiving federal subsidies to buy insurance. Enrollees in plans that cover abortion procedures would pay with separate checks<\/strong> — one for abortion, one for any other health-care services\u2026 [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Inserted from <Washington Post<\/a>><\/p>\n
I find this provision inacceptable. It amounts to a coat hanger mandate in Red States, and a violation of privacy everywhere, that is so extreme that I doubt it will pass muster when it receives judicial scrutiny. It\u2019s shameful!<\/p>\n
And ironically, it\u2019s not strong enough for that C-Street DINO, Stupak.<\/p>\n
\n
An aide to Rep. Bart Stupak (D. Mich.) coordinated opposition to a Senate compromise on the place of abortion in health care legislation this morning with the Republican Senate leadership, the Conference Catholic Bishops, and other anti-abortion groups, according to a chain of frantic emails obtained this morning by POLITICO. <\/font><\/p>\n
The emails show that Stupak<\/strong> – who has so far remained silent on language accepted by Senator Ben Nelson (D. Neb.) and faces intense pressure from the White House to accept it – is already working behind the scenes to oppose the compromise<\/strong>. <\/font><\/p>\n
They also demonstrate a previously unseen degree of coordination between Stupak and the office of Republican leader Mitch McConnell<\/font><\/strong>\u2026 [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Inserted from <Common Dreams<\/a>><\/p>\n
That\u2019s right. The rat is working with Bitch McConnell.<\/p>\n
Needless to say, there is opposition from pro-choice Reps.<\/p>\n
\n
\u2026But Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY)–co-chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucuse–say they’re not sold. They say the new compromise is possibly unconstitutional, and that they and other pro-choice House members could still reject it.<\/font><\/p>\n
As the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, we have serious reservations about the abortion provision included in the U.S. Senate’s health care bill. This provision is not only offensive to people who believe in choice, but it is also possibly unconstitutional. As we have maintained throughout this process, health care reform should not be misused to take away access to health care<\/strong>. The more than 190-member Caucus will review this language carefully as we move forward on health care reform.<\/font><\/p>\n
The Nelson compromise may ultimately allow health care reform to pass in the Senate–but with strong opposition from both pro-life and pro-choice members and constituent groups, the language still an open question in the House. Onward to conference!<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Inserted from <TPM<\/a>><\/p>\n
We can only hope that the Conference committee will return the bill to the Capps standard.<\/p>\n
Several states are getting special deals under this amendment.<\/p>\n
\n
\u2026Ben Nelson\u2019s \u201cCornhusker Kickback,\u201d as the GOP is calling it, got all the attention Saturday, but other senators lined up for deals as Majority Leader Harry Reid corralled the last few votes for a health reform package. <\/font><\/p>\n
Nelson\u2019s might be the most blatant \u2013 a deal carved out for a single state, a permanent exemption from the state share of Medicaid expansion for Nebraska, meaning federal taxpayers have to kick in an additional $45 million in the first decade<\/strong>. <\/font><\/p>\n
But another Democratic holdout, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), took credit for $10 billion in new funding for community health centers<\/strong>, while denying it was a \u201csweetheart deal.\u201d He was clearly more enthusiastic about a bill he said he couldn\u2019t support just three days ago. <\/font><\/p>\n
Nelson and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) carved out an exemption for non-profit insurers in their states from a hefty excise tax<\/strong>. Similar insurers in the other 48 states will pay the tax. <\/font><\/p>\n
Vermont and Massachusetts were given additional Medicaid funding<\/strong>, another plus for Sanders and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Three states \u2013 Pennsylvania, New York and Florida \u2013 all won protections for their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries at a time when the program is facing cuts nationwide<\/strong>. <\/font><\/p>\n
All of this came on top of a $300 million increase for Medicaid in Louisiana<\/strong>, designed to win the vote of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu\u2026<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Inserted from <Politico<\/a>><\/p>\n
With one exception, all of this is grossly unfair. Bernie Sanders deal for community health centers will benefit such programs nationwide, so it\u2019s quite different from these other provisions that are nothing but bribes.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s an excerpt from Joe Biden\u2019s Op-Ed.<\/p>\n
\n
IF I were still a United States senator, I would not only vote yes on the current health care reform bill, I would do so with the sure knowledge that I was casting one of the most historic votes of my 36 years in the Senate. I would vote yes knowing that the bill represents the culmination of a struggle begun by Theodore Roosevelt nearly a century ago to make health care reform a reality. And while it does not contain every measure President Obama and I wanted, I would vote yes for this bill certain that it includes the fundamental, essential change that opponents of reform have resisted for generations.<\/font><\/p>\n
We have been here before. In the past, as the moment of decision drew nearer, criticism from both the left and the right grew louder. Compromises were derided. The perfect became the enemy of the good. <\/font><\/p>\n
Most recently, in 1993, Democrats had a chance to forge a compromise with Senator John Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, on a health care reform bill. Congress\u2019s failure to pass health care reform that year led to 16 years of inaction \u2014 and 16 years of exploding health care costs and rising numbers of uninsured Americans.<\/font><\/p>\n
We can\u2019t let that happen again. While it is not perfect, the bill pending in the Senate today is not just good enough \u2014 it is very good. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or drop coverage when people get sick. Charging exorbitant premiums based on sex, age or health status will be outlawed. Annual and lifetime caps on benefits will be history. Those who already have insurance will be able to keep it, and will gain peace of mind knowing they won\u2019t be priced out of the market by skyrocketing premiums. And more than 30 million uninsured Americans will gain access to affordable health care coverage.<\/font><\/p>\n
That is not all. President Obama and I know we have to put our fiscal house in order. This is why those who claim they oppose reform because they fear for our country\u2019s fiscal stability should finally acknowledge what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office makes crystal clear: not only is the Senate bill paid for, it is this country\u2019s single largest deficit-reduction measure in a dozen years\u2026<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Inserted from <NY Times<\/a>><\/p>\n
If you want my honest opinion, this bill stinks compared to what it could have been, had it been properly shepherded and had there protecting the giant corporations not been a priority. Nevertheless it is not completely devoid of good qualities.<\/p>\n
Whether we like it or not, barring some last minute grandstanding by Traitor Joe, this bill is going to pass the Senate. Because the administration is so desperate to pass a bill and proclaim victory, they will exert intense pressure on the House to keep changes in conference to a minimum. Nancy Pelosi will, after exacting some unknown future consideration from the White House, will play ball. She will succeed in getting it through conference with few changes if any. What we see now is essentially what we\u2019re going to get. I\u2019m not saying we shouldn\u2019t keep fighting to make it better. We should. But our voices will appear to be falling on deaf ears. The party has too much political capital invested into passing a bill now.<\/p>\n
We have two choices after we finish bitching and ranting about how lousy this is. I\u2019m sure I will do my share. We say we don\u2019t matter, abandon the Democrats, talk third parties and become completely ineffective politically, or we can work to build public support for passing more legislation next year to fix what\u2019s wrong with this bill. I\u2019ll be making the latter choice, and I strongly hope you will too.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Leg Hound Harry finally released his Amendment, and Bitch McConnell insisted that it be read on the Senate floor in it\u2019s entirety. That took all day, giving me time to do a little research. Here\u2019s a summary of the changes: \u2026 Stronger medical loss ratios. Health insurers will be required to spend more of their […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-409","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-editorial","category-politics","category-19-id","category-5-id","post-seq-1","post-parity-odd","meta-position-corners","fix"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/409","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=409"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/409\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=409"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=409"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=409"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
- Accountability for excessive rate increases. A health insurer’s participation in the Exchanges will depend on its performance. Insurers that jack up their premiums before the Exchanges begin will be excluded<\/strong> – a powerful incentive to keep premiums affordable. <\/font><\/li>\n
![\"Insurance](\"http:\/\/s217.photobucket.com\/albums\/cc83\/TomCat1948or2\/Blog%202009\/HealthCareEditorialTheManagersAmendment_2CEF\/Insurancegreed2.jpg\" "\\"Insurance")
<\/a> Stronger medical loss ratios<\/strong>. Health insurers will be required to spend more of their premium revenues on clinical services and quality activities, with less going to administrative costs and profits – or else pay rebates to policyholders. These stricter limits will continue even after the Exchanges begin in 2011, and apply to all plans, including grandfathered plans. (Ed note: Reportedly, these require group insurance plans to pay 85% of premiums to health care, and individual plans to pay 80%<\/strong>. These would go into effect in 2011. In 2012, the ratios would be based on the average medical loss ratio in the Exchange.)<\/font> <\/li>\n