Now, for your point above, do you have any idea how hard it is to start an insurance company? Don't you think there's a reason that almost every every ACA co-op failed despite being given almost every advantage in the book? It's really tough. It would be even more so if there were an unlevel playing field like a state with exceptionally lax regulatory requirements domiciling the big insurers while new ones tried to form locally.
Followed by torch lit parades & martial music after the sun sets.
There's nothing sacred about the term bare bones health plans. It may very well mean something different to you than to me. If you want to call it a catastrophic plan, fine. Neither term was on my policy. But the point is it doesn't cover all the crap that Obamacare has forced onto me. What do I need with maternity or birth control?
I suggest all women of child bearing age have maternity coverage. I'd even go so far as to require itThe maternity would have been for you while you were in your mother's womb.
You did have a mother, right?
.
I suggest all women of child bearing age have maternity coverage. I'd even go so far as to require it
We didn't all pay for it prior to ACA...we will again get ala carte health insurance under this administration. From what I'm reading maternity will stay but other ala carte items will not such as mental illness, free preventative and free birth controlAnd that's why we all pay for it; or do you still not understand how health insurance works?
Hint: It's not a la carte.
We didn't all pay for it prior to ACA...we will again get ala carte health insurance under this administration. From what I'm reading maternity will stay but other ala carte items will not such as mental illness, free preventative and free birth control
And prior to the ACA it was difficult to impossible to obtain in the individual market.
Group health plans, like the kind you get from work, covered maternity and the men subsidized the women. But in the individual market maternity was always excluded. You could buy a plan at any time so maternity could easily be selected against, meaning you bought insurance with maternity only when you wanted to get pregnant. In order to get maternity in the individual market you would have to buy a specific maternity rider which often had a waiting period of at least a year.
First off, the idea about buying/selling across states lines is off. You can't say that "If the insurers selling from state X are bad then just don't buy from them" will work. That ignores how insurer domestication works. Each insurer has a state that it is domiciled in. That home state regulates the financial solvency of the insurer as well as its operations in that state. If the insurer wishes to do business in another state it registers as a foreign insurer. It does not become subject to the solvency regulation of the new state but it does become subject to the operational regulation of the new state. In "sell across state lines" talk we're discussing that an insurer choosing to do business in another state, one in which they currently would be required to register as a foreign insurer and be subject to operational regulation, would no longer be required to register as a foreign insurer and would not be subject to operational regulation. It would only be subject to regulation from it's home state.
In that scenario every insurer would just redomesticate to state X and there would be no other insurers to choose from.
Now, for your point above, do you have any idea how hard it is to start an insurance company? Don't you think there's a reason that almost every every ACA co-op failed despite being given almost every advantage in the book? It's really tough. It would be even more so if there were an unlevel playing field like a state with exceptionally lax regulatory requirements domiciling the big insurers while new ones tried to form locally.
I assuming this would be ripe for fraud
Oy.I see you're still not convinced. You obviously need to read up on the law. Here's something from back when it was passed:
As Democrats in Congress rushed to pass a health care overhaul of stunning scope, they didn’t bother working out key details about how the new law would be implemented. Instead, they left many crucial decisions in the hands of one woman: Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.
There are more than 2,500 references to the secretary of HHS in the health care law (in most cases she’s simply mentioned as “the Secretary”). A further breakdown finds that there are more than 700 instances in which the Secretary is instructed that she “shall” do something, and more than 200 cases in which she “may” take some form of regulatory action if she chooses. On 139 occasions, the law mentions decisions that the “Secretary determines.” At times, the frequency of these mentions reaches comic heights. For instance, one section of the law reads: “Each person to whom the Secretary provided information under subsection (d) shall report to the Secretary in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate.”
The powers given to Sebelius are wide ranging. In the coming years, if she remains in office, the former Kansas governor will be able to determine what type of insurance coverage every American is required to have.
This quote comes straight from the wording of the law:
But as for the details, the law states that “the Secretary shall define the essential health benefits…”
https://spectator.org/39516_empress-obamacare/
I don't know how I can make it much clearer than that. If you want to continue to stick your head in the sand and stay ignorant on the subject then that's up to you.
Paul Ryan has outlined the Republican plan and it consists of 3 parts. Part 2 entails the HHS Sec repealing many parts of Obamacare w/o Congress. I am opining that they may opt to jump to part 2 if part 1 doesn't pass Congress
At this point what difference does it make? The left has convinced themselves that 0bamacare is a crown jewel when it comes to legislation. Therefore, nothing by way of replacement will be satisfactory.
Individual mandate?I suggest all women of child bearing age have maternity coverage. I'd even go so far as to require it
I assuming this would be ripe for fraud
Yeah, in my first post I put the qualifier that I had no idea how difficult it was to start an insurance company. But our goal should be to create a system that protects potential start ups while still giving larger companies the flexibility businesses need to exist. You clearly know more about the insurance field than I do though. It's probably more complex than I can imagine to create and run an insurance company...
Oy.
Your entire quote (save for the last sentence) is merely an analysis by Philip Klein of The Spectator, a Washington Examiner editor with no expertise and a self-described conservative magazine with tabloid roots. The last sentence you cite from the law is, of course, completely free of context or legal analysis and does not in any way make it clear the minimum requirement regs are likely to be successfully repealed, especially knowing it is a mortal lock they will be challenged in court, as sactoking just delineated a few posts ago.
So look, you can continue to embarrass yourself with links to The Spectator I suppose, but no one is going to take you seriously with nonsense like that, FYI.
Right now I'm the one being screwed in the system. You're damn right I'm looking out for #1.Sea Ray wants what he wants when he wants it regardless of the larger picture of which he is actually a part. He wants to skate by on a skimpy plan as long as possible, upgrade coverage when the need arises. In order to have an affordable plan when the time comes he needs for the vast majority of everybody else to do the opposite to create a pool with enough healthy individuals to cover the liabilities he brings. He wants to work the system & everybody in it to serve him alone.
Individual mandate?
Forget sea squirt. He'll never escape his narrow bubble and window he views the world through. Never mind that almost half the states didn't even have maternity insurance plans offered prior to the ACA. Never mind that the maternity ins. plans in the other states that actually had maternity insurance plans available were prohibitively expensive, more than the actual delivery in a lot of cases.
No, don't try to present facts to sea squirt because he knows it all....like a typical teenager without a clue.
But squirt's reasoning, which more than a few men regurgitate, has to make one ask......why do they hate women so much?
And prior to the ACA it was difficult to impossible to obtain in the individual market.
Group health plans, like the kind you get from work, covered maternity and the men subsidized the women. But in the individual market maternity was always excluded. You could buy a plan at any time so maternity could easily be selected against, meaning you bought insurance with maternity only when you wanted to get pregnant. In order to get maternity in the individual market you would have to buy a specific maternity rider which often had a waiting period of at least a year.
lolYou absolutely don't know what you're talking about. Maternity was definitely offered as an option on the individual market. I know 'cause I paid for it
So let's see...you don't like articles that use editors, journalists or quotes from politicians. What's left?
EDDIE BRAVO: Dr. Steve Pieczenik, and you got some heat for this, this is kind of changing the subject a little bit. Dr. Steve Pieczenik, on your show, said that no kids died at Sandy Hook, that it was a homeland security drill that they passed off as a real --
ALEX JONES: He says that. And I've been hit really hard with it. I can't prove it one way or the other. I know Anderson Cooper is standing up there and turns and his whole nose disappears. I work in TV, I know what a blue screen is, bro.
BRAVO: Yeah. And I have on question about Sandy Hook, the one question -- the [World Trade Center] Tower 7 question is “Why weren't the medevac helicopters called?”