Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Questions for your health care town hall: Secs. 122-124

posted at 8:48 am on August 11, 2009 by King Banaian
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Gary Gross has begun to highlight Section 122 of H.R. 3200, which defines the benefits that any private plan must provide to be considered qualified. He actually bridges 122 and 123, and in this post I will include parts of Sec. 124; you need to see them together as a whole to understand this part of the bill. Below you will find ten questions (or sets of questions) that will help you define where your legislator is on controlling your health insurance.

Section 122 defines a list of benefits that any qualified plan would have. The rule would not apply to any plan you currently have — that is the part the President is using to say “if you like your health insurance you can keep it,” which is a vacuous promise, but not needed to discuss here. Let’s read 122 in full:

    (a) In General- In this division, the term `essential benefits package’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security, that–
    • (1) provides payment for the items and services described in subsection (b) in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical or other appropriate clinical or professional practice;
    • (2) limits cost-sharing for such covered health care items and services in accordance with such benefit standards, consistent with subsection (c);
    • (3) does not impose any annual or lifetime limit on the coverage of covered health care items and services;
    • (4) complies with section 115(a) (relating to network adequacy); and
    • (5) is equivalent, as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage.
    (b) Minimum Services To Be Covered- The items and services described in this subsection are the following:
    • (1) Hospitalization.
    • (2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, including emergency department services.
    • (3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
    • (4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care in institutional settings, physician offices, patients’ homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate.
    • (5) Prescription drugs.
    • (6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
    • (7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
    • (8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    • (9) Maternity care.
    • (10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.
    (c) Requirements Relating to Cost-sharing and Minimum Actuarial Value-
    • (1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES- There shall be no cost-sharing under the essential benefits package for preventive items and services (as specified under the benefit standards), including well baby and well child care.
    • (2) ANNUAL LIMITATION-
      • (A) ANNUAL LIMITATION- The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B).
      • (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL- The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.
      • (C) USE OF COPAYMENTS- In establishing cost-sharing levels for basic, enhanced, and premium plans under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible, use only copayments and not coinsurance.
    • (3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE-
      • (A) IN GENERAL- The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).
      • (B) REFERENCE BENEFITS PACKAGE DESCRIBED- The reference benefits package described in this subparagraph is the essential benefits package if there were no cost-sharing imposed.

That leads to a few questions right off the top.

  1. Congressman/woman, Does the lack of cost-sharing for preventative services under 122(c)(1) help control costs? A CBO letter last Friday to Rep. Nathan Deal points to a study that shows “that slightly fewer than 20 percent of [preventative] services that were examined save money, while the rest add to costs.”
  2. Does the annual cap of $5000 for a single and $10,000 for a family come on TOP of my current premium? According to the pro-reform page put up by HHS, we currently pay $1,522 in cost-sharing. Does sec. 122(c)(2)(B) mean I am going to see higher co-pays and deductibles?
  3. Do you favor a cafeteria plan for choosing benefits, as Gary highlighted in his interview of Rep. Paul Ryan? Why is it a better for cost control to define minimum benefits than it is to permit individuals to pick the services they want? Do you support the Patients’ Choice Act?

Let’s move on to Sec. 123, which creates a committee that decides on what is in the essential benefits package:

    (a) Establishment-
    • (1) IN GENERAL- There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.
    • (2) CHAIR- The Surgeon General shall be a member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee.
    • (3) MEMBERSHIP- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:
      • (A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.
      • (B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.
      • (C) Such even number of members (not to exceed 8 ) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.
    • Such initial appointments shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    • (4) TERMS- Each member of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall serve a 3-year term on the Committee, except that the terms of the initial members shall be adjusted in order to provide for a staggered term of appointment for all such members.
    • (5) PARTICIPATION- The membership of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least reflect providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies. and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children’s health and shall represent a balance among various sectors of the health care system so that no single sector unduly influences the recommendations of such Committee.
    (b) Duties-
    • (1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the `Secretary’) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards. In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities.
    • (2) DEADLINE- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend initial benefit standards to the Secretary not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    • (3) PUBLIC INPUT- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall allow for public input as a part of developing recommendations under this subsection.
    • (4) BENEFIT STANDARDS DEFINED- In this subtitle, the term `benefit standards’ means standards respecting–
      • (A) the essential benefits package described in section 122, including categories of covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes, and cost-sharing; and
      • (B) the cost-sharing levels for enhanced plans and premium plans (as provided under section 203(c)) consistent with paragraph (5).
    • (5) LEVELS OF COST-SHARING FOR ENHANCED AND PREMIUM PLANS-
      • (A) ENHANCED PLAN- The level of cost-sharing for enhanced plans shall be designed so that such plans have benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 85 percent of the actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in section 122(c)(3)(B).
      • (B) PREMIUM PLAN- The level of cost-sharing for premium plans shall be designed so that such plans have benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 95 percent of the actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in section 122(c)(3)(B).

Questions here:

  1. The committee that decides what has to be in a qualified plan contains at least twenty (20) people, yet it only guarantees one physician is on the panel. Do you think this is the right level of participation of medical professionals?
  2. The committee membership includes the words “shall at least reflect” various health insurance stakeholders. Isn’t that vague? Would you want to change that?
  3. Does Congress get any say in who’s on this committee?
  4. Borrowing from Gary: Senator or Congressperson, do you believe that this committee would unduly restrict the relationship between a patient and her or his doctor? Why or why not?

On to Section 124, which defines how the process works from recommendation by the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to action.

    (a) Process for Adoption of Recommendations-
    • (1) REVIEW OF RECOMMENDED STANDARDS- Not later than 45 days after the date of receipt of benefit standards recommended under section 123 (including such standards as modified under paragraph (2)(B)), the Secretary shall review such standards and shall determine whether to propose adoption of such standards as a package.
    • (2) DETERMINATION TO ADOPT STANDARDS- If the Secretary determines–
      • (A) to propose adoption of benefit standards so recommended as a package, the Secretary shall, by regulation under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, propose adoption such standards; or
      • (B) not to propose adoption of such standards as a package, the Secretary shall notify the Health Benefits Advisory Committee in writing of such determination and the reasons for not proposing the adoption of such recommendation and provide the Committee with a further opportunity to modify its previous recommendations and submit new recommendations to the Secretary on a timely basis.
    • (3) CONTINGENCY- If, because of the application of paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary would otherwise be unable to propose initial adoption of such recommended standards by the deadline specified in subsection (b)(1), the Secretary shall, by regulation under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, propose adoption of initial benefit standards by such deadline.

This raises questions too:

  1. Where is Congress’ input into what shall be in the plan? Does your senator or congressperson think this plan vests too much power in the hands of the HHS Secretary?
  2. In particular, can the Secretary decide to ignore the Health Benefits Advisory Committee and impose a minimum plan? (The answer is yes, only subject to the cost rules in Sec. 122.)
  3. The rules for updating the benefits package is vague, only providing for “periodic updating”. Do you think this should be that vague?

I urge you to read all of the posts done here for questions about the bill. Ask your legislator these questions and please post in comments any answers you receive. Also send them to me at comments at scsuscholars*dot*com. I’d like a diary of any of these you get.  Thanks in advance.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

I’m dizzy!

SouthernGent on August 11, 2009 at 8:50 AM

It’s all a front for the new protein meal soylent green.

faol on August 11, 2009 at 8:52 AM

This makes my brain hurt.

Akzed on August 11, 2009 at 8:52 AM

can someone please make this nightmare go away…

moonbatkiller on August 11, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Where are my two lawyers?

ICBM on August 11, 2009 at 8:57 AM

This makes my brain hurt.

Oh no. Actually substantive questions! Much easier just to shout about “death panels” and wave a sign.

Grow Fins on August 11, 2009 at 9:00 AM

Another question: Isn’t the requirement that a 55 year old woman be given maternity coverage simply a means to increase costs to small plan providers, making them less competitive and pushing more people toward the public option?

Ted Torgerson on August 11, 2009 at 9:01 AM

No bill should be this difficult to read and understand. No bill should ever be this long. We have been letting them get away with this for way too long.

BetseyRoss on August 11, 2009 at 9:01 AM

There is an even bigger argument that is being overlooked by most of the current debate. It is not really important what the current rules and mandates say specifically, but rather it is about the door that is being opened, and the BIG UGLY FOOT that is being pushed in.

Once the door is open to spelling out all of this crap, the government WILL ALWAYS be able to come back and add more controls and restrictions. It is the possibility of what it will all turn into that is really scarey.

That is what Sarah Palin meant when she referred to Obama’s death panel.

singlemalt_18 on August 11, 2009 at 9:02 AM

You get stuff like this (apologies to all JDs reading this) when you have a government by lawyers, for lawyers and of lawyers.

Techie on August 11, 2009 at 9:02 AM

Among other pressing questions the attendees at the New Hampshire town hall meeting should insist that Obama answer each of these questions. I’m afraid all he is going to spout is more party line rhetoric and absolutely nothing will be resolved.

rplat on August 11, 2009 at 9:02 AM

Whatever plan Congress passes will eventually see costs absoutely skyrocket. That will be largely consequent to Democrats using the promise of increased health care benefits as bait when fishing for votes in elections or re-elections.

Any plan is doomed to that fate.

drjohn on August 11, 2009 at 9:03 AM

Where are my two lawyers?

ICBM on August 11, 2009 at 8:57 AM

One is feeding the unicorn, the other the butterflies.

This is just the start of all the rules and regulations. By the time the departments get done with it you won’t have enough time to fill out the paperwork before your ’small mass’ turns into an 80 pound bowling ball.

On top of that, you know how the bean counters will operate…every ‘i’ dotted, every ‘t’ crossed, white, pink, yellow, orange, blue, and green copies. One error….start the process all overrrrrrrrrr again.

Limerick on August 11, 2009 at 9:03 AM

Here you go, Bushbama!

Pelayo the Younger

Pelayo on August 11, 2009 at 9:03 AM

Who actually writes this stuff? Is there like some big computer that just spits out all of this legalese? You would think that if congress is putting this on paper, they would understand what it all means. But if they claim it is too difficult to read before voting, they must not be involved in writing it either. Is anybody in our government doing their job?

Spectreman on August 11, 2009 at 9:06 AM

Where are my two lawyers?

ICBM on August 11, 2009 at 8:57 AM

You are kidding me right?!?!? /sarc/ They’re working for the DNC, and throwing their support behind every dimocrat in government. That’s why health care contains no tort reform…how else could the dims make money or secure jobs once they leave office.

PatriotPete on August 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM

More useful information:

Fact Check on HR 3200

davidk on August 11, 2009 at 9:08 AM

kbanaian

Thank you. Excellent points for us to consider and present to our legislators, and to our friends to discuss with theirs.

maverick muse on August 11, 2009 at 9:09 AM

i don’t believe the libtards who wrote this garbage understand it either.

SHARPTOOTH on August 11, 2009 at 9:09 AM

Now I see why they’ve changed their propaganda from health care reform to health insurance reform. This is nationalization of the health insurance industry. It’s the first step in the nationalization of the health care industry.
I don’t want a bunch of irredemably corrupt, power crazed boobs deciding who lives and who dies.

single stack on August 11, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Who actually writes this stuff?
Spectreman on August 11, 2009 at 9:06 AM

Well, Stuart Smalley has been elected to roll up his sleeves and dig in. I just want to cheer you up a bit.

Limerick on August 11, 2009 at 9:10 AM

More useful information:

Fact Check on HR 3200

davidk on August 11, 2009 at 9:08 AM

Great day in the morning!

maverick muse on August 11, 2009 at 9:10 AM

The committee that decides what has to be in a qualified plan contains at least twenty (20) people, yet it only guarantees one physician is on the panel. Do you think this is the right level of participation of medical professionals?

Gotta be honest, I’m not too thrilled about this part. What are the professions of the other 19?

BadgerHawk on August 11, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Congressional Dean Dingle sponsored HR 3200.

Real class act Dingle. Catch his confrontation with the father of a handicapped son on today’s news, lying to the father’s face, and afterward denouncing the father whose family was threatened late that night at home by an Obama thug with a death threat.

maverick muse on August 11, 2009 at 9:14 AM

Fact Check on HR 3200

davidk on August 11, 2009 at 9:08 AM

Very helpful link.

BadgerHawk on August 11, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Oh no. Actually substantive questions! Much easier just to shout about “death panels” and wave a sign.

Grow Fins on August 11, 2009 at 9:00 AM

Have any answers to those questions?

BadgerHawk on August 11, 2009 at 9:17 AM

BadgerHawk

No. They’re great questions. I wasn’t disparaging them (questions are good, and I’m interested to hear the answers). I was disparaging the ‘my brain hurts’ response as superficial.

Grow Fins on August 11, 2009 at 9:20 AM

(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

Since when has a person between 18 and 21 been defined as a child?

oregonelam on August 11, 2009 at 9:24 AM

Oh no. Actually substantive questions! Much easier just to shout about “death panels” and wave a sign.

Grow Fins on August 11, 2009 at 9:00 AM

Listen dipstick . . . the shouting and charges of “death panels” are because people have read and understand H.R. 3200. For most liberals and leftists ignorance is bliss.

rplat on August 11, 2009 at 9:26 AM

I cannot thank you enough for these posts!
Okay so on the ‘child’ coverge HA HA!
I read it was age 26
here is my question
so you are divorced and you have a QMCSO a qualified medical child support order from family court saying who pays what for the insurance

then Team TOTUS come along and just as you thought you were RID OF YOUR EX FOR LIFE!! The kid is 18, they say not so fast! you ahve to what? keep dealing with child support enforcement courts for another 8 years to get your ex who didnt pay when the kid was an acutla kid to pay now that the kids an unemployed adult?

gee this wont add to the backlog at family court

how can they make us pay after the age of attainment?

and isnt it a coinkydink of sheer magnificence that those Obots who go to school and grad school/law school will have a ‘free ride; with mom and dad under this bill?

ginaswo on August 11, 2009 at 9:27 AM

Oh no. Actually substantive questions! Much easier just to shout about “death panels” and wave a sign.
Grow Fins on August 11, 2009 at 9:00 AM

Sure, ask questions, the only problem is that no one has read the bill so the answers you get will consist of vague, boilerplate platitudes.

I know it’s hard to read a long bill during their month-long vacation, though I do sympathize a bit with Congress considering there are no less than FIVE competing bills to read.

Bishop on August 11, 2009 at 9:28 AM

maverick muse

if you havent seen the film Who Killed Vincent Chin?, rent it
Dingle in his glory days made several racist comments about Asians as the trial went down.

an out of work GM guy bashed in the had of a Chinese kid after a fight at a strip club, and of course the kid wasnt a Japanese auto worker (the 80s) which is what the guy was yelling about

the guy got off

Dingle was a race baiting coward then at least…

ginaswo on August 11, 2009 at 9:29 AM

CONFUSE THE ELECTORATE. SOUNDS MARXISITS TO ME

rone5847 on August 11, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Oh no. Actually substantive questions! Much easier just to shout about “death panels” and wave a sign.

Grow Fins on August 11, 2009 at 9:00 AM

So, are you OK with government run health care?

Johan Klaus on August 11, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Ted T
why yes, Ted yes it will!

ginaswo on August 11, 2009 at 9:31 AM

kingsjester on August 11, 2009 at 9:02 AM

Good to meet you. Enjoyed your comments.

Loxodonta on August 11, 2009 at 9:31 AM

You get stuff like this (apologies to all JDs reading this) when you have a government by lawyers, for lawyers and of lawyers.

Techie on August 11, 2009 at 9:02 AM

Which begs another question that should be asked at EVERY town hall meeting: “Why is there no tort reform written or proposed in this “healthcare reform” to bring down cost—-and if not, why not”????

Rovin on August 11, 2009 at 9:35 AM

So all plans will have to cover IVF and then pay for multiple babies, i.e. the Octomom? Or will the “standard of care” developed by this Committee say that you must abort any more than two embryos that implant after an IVF?

rockmom on August 11, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Since when has a person between 18 and 21 been defined as a child?
oregonelam on August 11, 2009 at 9:24 AM

The SCHIP reauthorization bill allows states to extend coverage up to age 25. Currently, Medicaid and SCHIP coverage for children typically ends at age 19.

Brat on August 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM

Grow Fins on August 11, 2009 at 9:20 AM

The ‘my brain hurts’ response of a citizen is not necessarily superficial. We don’t want to read alternative 1,000 page bills empowering government technocrats replacing liberty. The intent of the legislation is to further distort market forces with complex new structures and regulations that contain hidden but HUGE policy choices in legislation that our representatives can’t or won’t read themselves. This intent is a serious problem.

In a free society ought the citizenry be expected to engage in this level of legislative complexity when, as I believe, the concept is entirely outside the reasonable bounds of limited federal government? I think the complexity-frustration of folks who work for a living and pay taxes as reflected in ‘my brain hurts’ is completely understandable and not superficial.

clorensen on August 11, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Many, many thanks for these writeups! They are clear, detailed, but makes very complex stuf much easier to understand. Invaluable!

michaelo on August 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Here are a few questions to ask about specific HR 3200 areas….

Page 30: A Government committee will decide what treatments & benefits you get. This would be the “Death Panel” and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process.

Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.

Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans such as SEIU, UAW and ACORN.

Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care Plan

Page 149: Any Employer with a payroll of $400k or more, who does not offer a public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll

Page 241: Doctors: no matter what medical specialty, will all receive the same compensation!!!! You can thank the AMA.

Page 272: Cancer patient treatment will be on a case by case depending on cost of treatment.

Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals

Page 425: Advance Care Planning: Counseling for Senior Citizens, assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services will be made available: organizations such as ACORN.

Page 472: Payments will be provided to Community-based organizations (ACORN).

izoneguy on August 11, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Follow-up question to the questions stated above. Where does the Federal government derive its power to enact legislation this specific? “… promote the general welfare”? That is not a get out of jail free card for any legislation congress can think of that might help a few people — the key word is “promote”, not “provide for”. “Regulate interstate and foreign commerce” clause? This goes way beyond regulating and gets into running the commerce.

So, congressman, what makes such over-arching and intrusive legslation constitutional?

AZfederalist on August 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM

KBANAIAN-Thank you for the time and effort you have put into this. I am much in need of the interpretation, not being adept at reading these kinds of contracts/documents.

And on that note, it is no wonder there is no TORT reform in this bill.

keebs on August 11, 2009 at 10:10 AM

I’d like to know how much of a payoff this amounts to:

“Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans such as SEIU, UAW and ACORN”

4of8 on August 11, 2009 at 10:10 AM

Yes, thanks from me too, Kbanaian. (King Banaian?)
This is the kind of concrete, useful information we need.
Thanks again for taking the time to put it together.

Allahpundit, I’m looking at you.

jdub on August 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Think of the planning that must have been in the works for years for this Fabian deathcare.

Re-read Brave New World for the endgame. Aldous Huxley’s brother Julian was a eugenicist in the mold of Obama’s “sci-tech kommisar” John Holdren and Rahm’s brother Ezekiel, aka Dr. Death.

I suspect all the Foundations (esp. Rockefeller and Soros’ Open Society Institute) got wood bringing this legalized tyranny to fruition.

ex-Democrat on August 11, 2009 at 10:21 AM

I work for a small health insurer in the Midwest. We are regulated by the individual departments of insurance in four states where we sell insurance. Some of the things outlined in this section of the bill are non-controversial and already offered by private insurers. Others, like certain mental health benefits, “well baby” coverage, and the like are either already covered under conventional health plans or are available with additional riders. No big deal.

What is a big deal is that the federal government appears to be setting itself up as the national department of insurance. The stipulations outlined in this section of the bill are almost identical to those mandated by the states. Now, one can argue that having a single insurance regulator is prefereable to having 50, but I’ve yet to hear of any state offering to give up its oversight role of companies doing business in their domain. I am also curious how the states will react if a “public option” or private plan approved by a so-called federal co-op offers their citizens less than what the free market gives them now.

RobertE on August 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM

I know you haven’t reached this far in the bill – but we must ask about the Home Visitation Program – this is some scary stuff…….

http://speakmymindblog.com/2009/08/11/home-visitation-program-in-healthcare-bill/

sherryande on August 11, 2009 at 10:40 AM

I know you haven’t reached this far in the bill – but we must ask about the Home Visitation Program – this is some scary stuff…….

http://speakmymindblog.com/2009/08/11/home-visitation-program-in-healthcare-bill/

sherryande on August 11, 2009 at 10:40 AM

You better turn Fox News off if they come to your home or your children will be relocated to a re-education camp in La.

Jeff from WI on August 11, 2009 at 10:55 AM

It’s all a front for the new protein meal soylent green.

faol on August 11, 2009 at 8:52 AM

Andrew Zimmern would try some.

TMK on August 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM

I think the complexity-frustration of folks who work for a living and pay taxes as reflected in ‘my brain hurts’ is completely understandable and not superficial.

clorensen

I think you should give working people a bit more credit for being able to handle complex issues.

Grow Fins on August 11, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Grow Fins on August 11, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Handling complex issues is easy compared to understanding legalese.

darktood on August 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM

izoneguy on August 11, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Don’t forget the new Child Protective Services run by the FEDS buried in HR3200. Funds for home visits and parenting classes. Wonder who decides what proper child training is?

chemman on August 11, 2009 at 11:55 AM

I know you haven’t reached this far in the bill – but we must ask about the Home Visitation Program – this is some scary stuff…….

Thanks for this — I had missed it. Also, thanks everyone for your willingness to read the dense stuff in this bill. It is hard. I am outsourcing to those more gifted in one-liners the sharper, easier-to-understand questions. I don’t have a JD but I can read law by and large.

But if you’d like a simple question, let me leave you with this one: Senator or Congressperson X, do you think this bill gives too much power to the HHS Secretary? What oversight will you have?

kbanaian on August 11, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Health Policy Advisor has stated in writing:

“Savings will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others” (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2009.

also,

“[Health services should not be guaranteed to] individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

The question for Town Howl Meetings should be:

Do you agree with this?

franksalterego on August 11, 2009 at 12:11 PM

I just fired this off to the dynamic-duo of Virginia, Webb and Warner.

When/if I get a response I’ll post it, unless it takes until sometime in 2010. Webb is notorious for not responding. Warner is better, but slow. And always sends a form letter which likely does not address the issue you raised.

Sen. Warner,

I have a few questions concerning HR 3200, specifically with the Bealth Benefits Advisory Committee (HBAC).

I would appreciate a response to the following:

Section 122:

1. Does the lack of cost-sharing for preventative services under 122(c)(1) help control costs? A CBO letter last Friday to Rep. Nathan Deal points to a study that shows “that slightly fewer than 20 percent of [preventative] services that were examined save money, while the rest add to costs.”

2. Does the annual cap of $5000 for a single and $10,000 for a family come on TOP of my current premium? According to the pro-reform page put up by HHS, we currently pay $1,522 in cost-sharing. Does sec. 122(c)(2)(B) mean I am going to see higher co-pays and deductibles?

3. Do you favor a cafeteria plan for choosing benefits, as highlighted in an interview of Rep. Paul Ryan? Why is it better for cost control to define minimum benefits than it is to permit individuals to pick the services they want? Do you support the Patients’ Choice Act?

Section 123:

1. The committee that decides what has to be in a qualified plan contains at least twenty (20) people, yet it only guarantees one physician is on the panel. Do you think this is the right level of participation of medical professionals?

2. The committee membership includes the words “shall at least reflect” various health insurance stakeholders. Isn’t that vague? Would you want to change that?

3. Does Congress get any say in who’s on this committee?

4. Do you believe that this committee would unduly restrict the relationship between a patient and her or his doctor? Why or why not?

Section 124:

1. Where is Congress’ input into what shall be in the plan? Does your senator or congressperson think this plan vests too much power in the hands of the HHS Secretary?

2. In particular, can the Secretary decide to ignore the Health Benefits Advisory Committee and impose a minimum plan?

3. The rules for updating the benefits package is vague, only providing for “periodic updating”. Do you think this should be that vague?

BobMbx on August 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM

B 7 substance use disorder

So it’s no longer substance abuse. No longer decision that someone made that started them down this road. They lump it together with mental illness.

- The Cat

MirCat on August 11, 2009 at 1:59 PM

I know you haven’t reached this far in the bill – but we must ask about the Home Visitation Program – this is some scary stuff…….

http://speakmymindblog.com/2009/08/11/home-visitation-program-in-healthcare-bill/

sherryande on August 11, 2009 at 10:40 AM

It’s stuff like this that makes me afraid to read this bill.

Chaz706 on August 11, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Hmmmm, it seems more of us are reading the bill than members of congress. I’m about a third of the way through it. Enough to know that the bill, in black and white refutes everything Bozo is saying.

He’s a lying sack of excrement.

dogsoldier on August 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Hey Nancy,

Do us all a huge favor and follow up the agenda you set upon being named Speaker:

“It’s time to drain the swamp!!!”

That includes you and the rest of the crapweasels trying to tax and spend us into the stone ages.

Sweet_Thang on August 11, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Which begs another question that should be asked at EVERY town hall meeting: “Why is there no tort reform written or proposed in this “healthcare reform” to bring down cost—-and if not, why not”????

Rovin on August 11, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Tort reform?

Over John Edwards’ dead body!!!

Sweet_Thang on August 11, 2009 at 3:55 PM

I like “No Death Panels!” better.

:)

Sapwolf on August 11, 2009 at 4:27 PM

Got some news for all of you out there. The government already and for some time has moved people in and out of health care plans without their permission. I am retired Army (27 years) Had coverage for me and my family with TriCare (military retired care) untill I reach age 65. Then the government takes away my retirement coverage charges nearly three times the cost, deducted directly from by SS check for less coverage then I worked 27 years for. Also since I, as the retired service member,no longer has coverage, my family no longer has any health care coverage also. This is the reality of our government health care in-action.

jpcpt03 on August 11, 2009 at 4:42 PM

“The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family.”

My questions are:

1. How are they defining a “family”? Does a family refer to a married couple or two individuals? Do cohabitating people count as a family? Many states say that they have the same rights as married persons.

2. Does this statement mean that a family of 2 would be considered the same as a family of 10? $10,000 for each family?

lefaucheur on August 11, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.