Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Who Will Get Locked Out of the Health Exchange?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 11:34 AM
Original message
Who Will Get Locked Out of the Health Exchange?

...

All of this is prologue to answering the real question – once the public health insurance option is up and running, can I drop my employer-based coverage, sign up for the Exchange and lock myself into my own little piece of Medicare-like coverage? In the Senate bill, the answer looks to be no – I’d still be “eligible” for my employer’s plan, and so ineligible for the Gateway. This is what Ezra Klein calls “a so-called ‘firewall’”, keeping out large businesses and individuals who could have coverage through their employer. If the House bill is what we get, I have more options. After all, the contract we sign with our employers and their insurer usually has different options for opting out. Some allow for “open enrollment” periods once or twice a year, most allow for “qualifying events” like marriage or divorce to add or remove dependents. A few are even more open-ended. And in many you could sign up for other benefits (401(k), life insurance, etc.) but pass on health coverage.

The success of these Exchanges and the public health insurance option (which would only be offered within these Exchanges) depends largely on how many people can participate. How much choice we’d really have in the new health care system depends on whether the House or the Senate prevail in the fight to come.

http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/who_will_get_locked_out_of_the_health_exchange

And, when I read Obama's word from last night, it looks to me like he supports the Senate version:

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.


This is important. If Obama really supports the House bill and opening up eligibilty the ball is now in his court to say so. Otherwise, it looks like he's siding with those who are working overtime to keep the Public Option as small as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. The House bill itself firewalls the exchange
This is not a new detail of Obama's. According to the House bill, only the long-term unemployed, the self-employed, and employees of small businesses can join the exchange or the public plan. The House bill does allow the administrator of the exchange to gradually open up the exchange to larger businesses after 2015, but you would still not be able to by coverage from the exchange on your own unless you aren't offered insurance through work.

Ron Wyden has a proposal - the Free Choice Act (not to be confused with his other bill, Wyden-Bennett) - which he plans to offer as an amendment to the bill. It would allow anyone to join the exchange. If you don't like your employers' offered coverage, you could ask for a voucher instead and buy insurance from the exchange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 11:43 AM
Original message
I agree that Ron Wyden's proposal is getting too little ink...
Edited on Thu Sep-10-09 11:43 AM by Junkdrawer
I've posted twice today about that.

As for the House firewall, I've read good people claiming its does and it doesn't firewall. But nobody thinks the Senate version doesn't firewall - except of course the paid disinfo agents who are swarming here today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. From what I understand...
... the House bill has a more porous firewall, in that it allows, after year 3, the exchange administrator to open up the exchange to all businesses. Large corporations could thus simply sign up for the exchange, pay into it, and have their employees purchase coverage from that. However, individuals would still not be able to buy coverage from the exchange if their employer doesn't sign up.

Also, I believe that in the House bill, if you buy coverage from the exchange then join a company that offers insurance, you don't have to drop your coverage from the exchange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Thanks for this info. I think it's important and those who are just bitching loudly should read your
post and latch onto Wyden's proposal and FIGHT FOR IT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. I don't like the idea of the PO being inside the "exchange"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Why not?
It seems like having it side by side with private insurance would increase access to it.

I imagine going shopping at the mall. I'm wandering inside trying to find the Gap, but it's actually across the street.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. That again is not a new detail
It's been a feature of all the congressional plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-10-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Why? That's what will help derail price gouging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC