No, It’s Not Just “Those People” Who Current Healthcare is Failing

What's you point? These issues are about caps and coverage of existing insured customers. Obama's plan does NOTHING to address these specific issues.

Ah, but it does. It prevents insurance companies from dropping people (as long as they continue to pay for the coverage). It prevents insurance companies from denying people coverage for preexisting conditions.

Under the current plan, if someone loses coverage (because they lose a job or because they are self employed and can't afford the premiums or for whatever reason) and if they have a medical condition, then they medical condition is typically UNINSURABLE (because of the preexisting condition clause in most policies).

The plan does in fact address these things.

Actually it doesn't if they already have a health plan. They would only be covered if they chose to drop their current plan and go with the government “public” option. Basically, if you want the extended benefits you have to fall in line with the rest of the sheep and give up your private insurance. The detail on this are around page 475 of the document. (I think…it's been a few weeks since I read it.)

Here's the part of the plan that is relevant to my assertions:

————————

Subtitle B—Standards Guaranteeing Access to Affordable Coverage
SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.
20 A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any
21 pre-existing condition exclusion (as defined in section
22 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or other23
wise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under
24 the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based
25 on any health status-related factors (as defined in section
1 2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act) in relation
2 to the individual or dependent.
3 SEC. 112. GUARANTEED ISSUE AND RENEWAL FOR INSURED PLANS.
5 The requirements of sections 2711 (other than sub
6 sections (c) and (e)) and 2712 (other than paragraphs (3),
7 and (6) of subsection (b) and subsection (e)) of the Public
8 Health Service Act, relating to guaranteed availability and
9 renewability of health insurance coverage, shall apply to
10 individuals and employers in all individual and group
11 health insurance coverage, whether offered to individuals
12 or employers through the Health Insurance Exchange,
13 through any employment-based health plan, or otherwise,
14 in the same manner as such sections apply to employers
15 and health insurance coverage offered in the small group
16 market, except that such section 2712(b)(1) shall apply
17 only if, before nonrenewal or discontinuation of coverage,
18 the issuer has provided the enrollee with notice of non19
payment of premiums and there is a grace period during
20 which the enrollees has an opportunity to correct such
21 nonpayment. Rescissions of such coverage shall be prohib
22 ited except in cases of fraud as defined in sections
23 2712(b)(2) of such Act.

———-

If you can find another piece of the plan that contradicts this, by all means show me, but as far as I can tell, you have misremembered what you read or mistakenly believed that it applied to the things I was talking about.

Section 111 does use that language. Section 112 does not. It appears to be all-encompassing.

In any case, the bill DOES address the issues I was talking about. Here's what I said (edited SLIGHTLY for clarity):

“Currently, if someone loses coverage (because they lose a job or because they are self employed and can't afford the premiums or for whatever reason) and if they have a medical condition, then the medical condition is typically UNINSURABLE (because of the preexisting condition clause in almost all policies). “

This is FIXED under the bill. Even if the bill did NOTHING else, then it would be a good bill and a good start to addressing the MANY problems with heath care (and the way it is distributed and paid for) in this country. The requirements in Sections 111 and 112 WILL benefit the American public.

Fix it? No. Improve things in important ways for the weakest members of our society? Absolutely. The extent to which the bill helps society overall is something that only time will tell (I'm with you on that).

What I think is certain is that if we do nothing, the broken system will not spontaneously fix itself. The myth of the perfect world (or even just the myth of the efficient market in which an unseen hand pushes always toward efficient solutions to economic issues) has been proven wrong too many times to count. Yes, I think that there are better solutions. I do NOT think that there is any evidence that there are better solutions that have any chance of passing at the moment. Partial solutions are not ideal, but if they increase the chance of passing a bill, then they are better than overwhelming change that would be better in the long run but have no chance of passage now.

Exactly and that's the problem. In 5 years anyone with existing private insurance will be forced to roll over into a qualified plan. Since we haven't defined what qualified plans are yet in substance we can only assume these will be plans much like the ones that exist for other countries with single payer plans. These have limited options for doctor selection, limited options in regard to 2nd opinions, requirements for using specific mandated drugs (in a particular order to see which one works) and other such nonsense. Talk to an Aussie about their options and coverage. They will enlighten you.

What you are missing is how the drive to a “qualified plan” structure will dilute the insurance market and the ramifications it will bring.

My point remains the same from my original comment. Obama's plan will not address debt issues of the middle class unless they change to a new “qualified” plan. Yes they can…it's their choice. But the “new” plan may have worse coverage then the “old” plan depending on their health/life/income situation.

The plan is broken now, it will be broken if he passes this mess and the only result will be more money spent on a failing system. If you consider jumping from one burning boat into another, prettier burning boat that holds more people well then I guess you get want to want.

Boy…you just don't get it. What is Obama's lead in speech soundbyte???? “If you like your plan you can keep it.” Bullshit. In 5 years everyone gets a “qualified” read that as “government controlled” plan. As I've stated and you refuse to accept these “qualified” plans are NOT detailed yet, but we know that the only way that they can cover more people and remain solvent is to limit what services are available. They can do that by rationing, decline coverage (and there's no where else to go after 5 years because they are ALL QUALIFIED) and many other options…none of which are palatable.

I still don't see your point in the rant about false claims….specifically what have I said that is false? Show me in the doctrine?

The “mess” I won't get into. We've been debating one single point of this plan…there are plenty more but I've only got so many hours in the day.

What we have now is broken but can be fixed through regulation. Heck, between Medicare and Medicaid the gov't already has the power to change many of these things anyhow but they refuse to. Implementing a new system only increases the chance of failure and will increase the cost of the solution.

Actually you have not shown that the plan does anything unless they are on a qualified plan. My original point…the plan does nothing for middle class on their current plans. The changes only affect the new plans not existing ones. Lots of us don't want a qualified plan…at least until we see what is and isn't included.

I still don't see what “false assertion” I made….

I think that you're entirely missing my point (you must be if you don't understand what false assertion you made).

Words have meaning. When someone uses the word “nothing”, then I assume that they mean “nothing” though sometimes they mean “hardly anything” or “not enough”. When someone capitalizes it for emphasis, then I really assume that they mean NOTHING.

So, your assertion was that Obama's plan does NOTHING to address the issues raised in Daniel's post. I replied that it does two things to address the issues. (1) It prevents insurance companies from dropping people (as long as they continue to pay for the coverage). (2) It prevents insurance companies from denying people coverage for preexisting conditions. Later in the discussion I showed the text of the bill that does these two things (which BOTH address the problems that Daniel was pointing out – they don't SOLVE the problems, but they alleviate them somewhat .. they certainly ADDRESS them). (1) would go into effect immediately for all plans. (2) applies to qualified plans. EVEN if that was the whole story your use of the word “NOTHING” makes your assertion false. But it's NOT the whole story .. as was discussed later, the plan would require ALL plans to do (2) within 5 years. So, though (2) might not be implemented immediately, the plan DOES implement it.

Finally, EVEN if there was no requirement for all plans to implement either of these things, if there is a public option (as in the plan), then at least people would have a CHOICE of having a plan that contains these benefits. EVEN just this would make your statement that the plan does NOTHING to address these issues a false one.

The word NOTHING is an absolute one. If the plan does even one tiny thing to address the issues, then the claim is wrong. That has been my point this entire time. That you and I differ on whether the plan is a good one is not the issue. I respect your desire for different kinds of changes, and I have acknowledged that the house plan is not perfect. But, none of that changes the fact that it was incorrect to claim that the bill does NOTHING to address the issues that Daniel was talking about.

We've already discussed this. I'm the one who pointed out in this discussion that all plans would have to meet at least the minimum requirements within 5 years. This is not news to me. It also means that the plan wipes away the distinction you keep making between existing plans and qualified plans. EVEN if the PLAN addressed the issues Daniel raised only in qualified plans (which isn't exactly the case), then since the plan makes ALL plans qualified in 5 years, then the plan addresses the issues Daniel raised in ALL plans.

My argument was never with your opinion about whether the bill is good or not. It was about the fact that you made an absolute statement that wasn't true. I'm all for honest debate, and I can respect differing philosophies. What I abhor is dishonest debate. I consider the making of false statements about an issue to be dishonest debate, and I consider absolute statements that aren't absolutely true to be false statements.

I give up. Uncle. You just don't seem to see what can happen when you change plans and what that does to people that have struggled to find a plan that finally meets their needs. Things like orphan drugs, specific specialist coverage, advanced end of life care, etc.. All these things will most likely not be covered on new plans for reasons I've stated over and over again….

I'm done.

Daniel has just put up a piece about avoiding miscommunication in arguments. In the spirit of that post, I thought I'd clarify the point I was trying to make in my back-and-forth with Scooter.

If your argument relies on certain specifics: “You just don't seem to see what can happen when you change plans and what that does to people that have struggled to find a plan that finally meets their needs. Things like orphan drugs, specific specialist coverage, advanced end of life care, etc.. ” then you should state those points (before what you declare to be your last post) rather than make (and waste a lot of energy defending) a FALSE assertion like “Obama's plan does NOTHING to address these specific issues.” I think that one of the things that has destroyed real debate in recent years is the reliance on sound bites that convey little or nothing of substance and are often simply FALSE when taken literally (which I think is the only legitimate way to take a statement). Absolute statements are usually false (and typically are rather easy to prove false). There are times that we all make them. When called on this, we should be willing to back off and say something like “I didn't literally mean 'NOTHING', I meant 'not enough' or 'it addresses some of the problems but introduces others so it's not clear that there is a net benefit'.” When viewers of a “news” program or readers of a blog hear or see the word “NOTHING” they have a right to interpret it with it's literal meaning. If that's not what you mean, then don't use the word.

From my side, if someone makes a false statement (and if I care enough to reply) then I'm going to call them on it (even if … or perhaps ESPECIALLY if … it seems intended as a sound bite). If they want to have a real discussion on the issues, I'm all for that too, but only after we've cleared up the false sound bite stuff.

On the health care debate, I've consistently said that there is much to debate on the issue. I've just grown extremely tired of hearing and reading false and/or misleading statements on the issue. The originators of the statements are not always intentionally being false or misleading, but this doesn't change the fact that they are (for example, I think that Scooter wasn't trying to make a false statement and was honestly perplexed by what I was saying and never understood my point).