Wyden's vision for health care reform begins with making sure everyone is covered

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Also, let's not forget that Obama lampooned Hillary during the primaries for a plan with mandates. The attack on her was, if I recall, that people would be penalized for not being able to afford insurance.

Well guess what, this plan has penalties too.

From the same link

( B ) Penalty for Failure To Purchase Coverage-

(1) PENALTY-

(A) IN GENERAL- In the case of an individual described in subparagraph ( B ), such individual shall be subject to a late enrollment penalty in an amount determined under subparagraph ( C ).

( B ) INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO PENALTY- An individual described in this subparagraph is an adult individual for whom there is a continuous period of 63 days or longer, beginning on the applicable date (as defined in subparagraph (E)) and ending on the date of enrollment in a HAPI plan, during all of which the individual--

(i) was not covered under a HAPI plan or a health plan offered through a program described in paragraph (1)(A) of section 102(a); and

(ii) was not described in paragraph (1)( B ) of such section.

( C ) AMOUNT OF PENALTY-

(i) IN GENERAL- The amount determined under this subparagraph for an individual is an amount equal to the sum of--

(I) the number of uncovered months multiplied by the weighted average of the monthly premium for HAPI plans of the same class of coverage as the individual's in the applicable coverage area (determined without regard to any subsidy under section 121); and

(II) 15 percent of the amount determined under subclause (I).

(ii) UNCOVERED MONTH DEFINED- For purposes of this subsection, the term `uncovered month' means, with respect to an individual, any month beginning on or after the applicable date (as defined in subparagraph (E)) unless the individual can demonstrate that the individual--

(I) was covered under a HAPI plan or a health plan offered through a program described in paragraph (1)(A) of section 102(a) for any portion of such month; or

(II) was described in paragraph (1)( B ) of such section for any portion of such month.

A month shall not be treated as an uncovered month if the individual has already paid a late enrollment penalty under this subsection for such month or if the individual was incarcerated for the entire month.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Randomizer

[mawilson 2,133]

Hmm... interesting. This might work.

My primary concern with this is the mandate that individuals buy policies as individuals, eliminating any 'group' discounts available today.

Well the group discounts are not available to you (as an individual) right now, are they? Unless you're a member of a group?

The idea is to encourage employers to pay for coverage (through increased taxes if they don't), or at least not

discourage them (like the retarded McCain plan).

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hmm... interesting. This might work.

My primary concern with this is the mandate that individuals buy policies as individuals, eliminating any 'group' discounts available today.

Well the group discounts are not available to you (as an individual) right now, are they? Unless you're a member of a group?

The idea is to encourage employers to pay for coverage (through increased taxes if they don't), or at least not

discourage them (like the retarded McCain plan).

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it's my sense that everybody (with a few exceptions, listed a few posts prior) will be required to buy an individual policy from their states HHA.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Also, let's not forget that Obama lampooned Hillary during the primaries for a plan with mandates. The attack on her was, if I recall, that people would be penalized for not being able to afford insurance.

Well guess what, this plan has penalties too.

Well for one, this is a proposal by Sen. Wyden and I have no idea whether Obama has even commented on it. Secondly, according to the Senator, if your income is low, you will be paying less or next to nothing.

[mawilson 2,133]

Hmm... interesting. This might work.

My primary concern with this is the mandate that individuals buy policies as individuals, eliminating any 'group' discounts available today.

Well the group discounts are not available to you (as an individual) right now, are they? Unless you're a member of a group?

The idea is to encourage employers to pay for coverage (through increased taxes if they don't), or at least not

discourage them (like the retarded McCain plan).

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it's my sense that everybody (with a few exceptions, listed a few posts prior) will be required to buy an individual policy from their states HHA.

I hope you're reading it wrong.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Also, let's not forget that Obama lampooned Hillary during the primaries for a plan with mandates. The attack on her was, if I recall, that people would be penalized for not being able to afford insurance.

Well guess what, this plan has penalties too.

Well for one, this is a proposal by Sen. Wyden and I have no idea whether Obama has even commented on it. Secondly, according to the Senator, if your income is low, you will be paying less or next to nothing.

You get no money if you make more than 400% of the poverty. For a family of 2, that's 56k. That will hit the middle class hard.

[Marilyn. 340]

yeah I hope so too.. we have excellent health care coverage from my husband's work already...

Hmm... interesting. This might work.

My primary concern with this is the mandate that individuals buy policies as individuals, eliminating any 'group' discounts available today.

Well the group discounts are not available to you (as an individual) right now, are they? Unless you're a member of a group?

The idea is to encourage employers to pay for coverage (through increased taxes if they don't), or at least not

discourage them (like the retarded McCain plan).

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it's my sense that everybody (with a few exceptions, listed a few posts prior) will be required to buy an individual policy from their states HHA.

I hope you're reading it wrong.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Also, let's not forget that Obama lampooned Hillary during the primaries for a plan with mandates. The attack on her was, if I recall, that people would be penalized for not being able to afford insurance.

Well guess what, this plan has penalties too.

Well for one, this is a proposal by Sen. Wyden and I have no idea whether Obama has even commented on it. Secondly, according to the Senator, if your income is low, you will be paying less or next to nothing.

who pays the difference?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

****************

This is interesting too. From the text of the legislation... it appears this won't apply to illegals. Seeing how illegals are a big chunk of the uninsured, how does this help if they don't have the same mandate?

(1) ADULT INDIVIDUAL- The term `adult individual' means an individual who--

(A) is--

(i) age 19 or older;

(ii) a resident of a State;

(iii)(I) a United States citizen; or

(II) an alien with permanent residence;

(iv) not a dependent child; and

(v) not an alien unlawfully present in the United States; and

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

(i) age 19 or older;

Oh and why 19? Why not 18, since that's we give people the right to vote and consider them adults?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Also, let's not forget that Obama lampooned Hillary during the primaries for a plan with mandates. The attack on her was, if I recall, that people would be penalized for not being able to afford insurance.

Well guess what, this plan has penalties too.

Well for one, this is a proposal by Sen. Wyden and I have no idea whether Obama has even commented on it. Secondly, according to the Senator, if your income is low, you will be paying less or next to nothing.

You get no money if you make more than 400% of the poverty. For a family of 2, that's 56k. That will hit the middle class hard.

That's where the employer comes in. If they don't provide you with health insurance, they pay you a certain amount for you to purchase your own insurance.

[mawilson 2,133]

Also, let's not forget that Obama lampooned Hillary during the primaries for a plan with mandates. The attack on her was, if I recall, that people would be penalized for not being able to afford insurance.

Well guess what, this plan has penalties too.

Well for one, this is a proposal by Sen. Wyden and I have no idea whether Obama has even commented on it. Secondly, according to the Senator, if your income is low, you will be paying less or next to nothing.

You get no money if you make more than 400% of the poverty. For a family of 2, that's 56k. That will hit the middle class hard.

That's where the employer comes in. If they don't provide you with health insurance, they pay you a certain amount for you to purchase your own insurance.

Sounds magical... but where would they get the extra money to do so?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That's where the employer comes in. If they don't provide you with health insurance, they pay you a certain amount for you to purchase your own insurance.

From the WSJ summary of the plan (I can't locate these details in the full text, although I am sure it's there):

Employers ... would be required to turn over to each employee, in the form of tax-free dollars, the amount of money they now pay to buy that employee health coverage.

Guess what? My group cost is the sum of my employers tax-free contribution and my tax-free contribution. Give me the former and tax the latter (From OP: "Limiting the tax-exempt status of health insurance premiums") and I end up with less, not more.

Add on the added cost of an individual policy instead of a group one.

Even deeper into the rabbit hole, I go.

To begin to climb out, I'd have to make 56k (400% of poverty) or less with a family of 2. Thanks, but no thanks.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That's where the employer comes in. If they don't provide you with health insurance, they pay you a certain amount for you to purchase your own insurance.

From the WSJ summary of the plan (I can't locate these details in the full text, although I am sure it's there):

Employers ... would be required to turn over to each employee, in the form of tax-free dollars, the amount of money they now pay to buy that employee health coverage.

Guess what? My group cost is the sum of my employers tax-free contribution and my tax-free contribution. Give me the former and tax the latter (From OP: "Limiting the tax-exempt status of health insurance premiums") and I end up with less, not more.

Add on the added cost of an individual policy instead of a group one.

Even deeper into the rabbit hole, I go.

To begin to climb out, I'd have to make 56k (400% of poverty) or less with a family of 2. Thanks, but no thanks.

I think the aim of this proposal is to encourage employers to provide health insurance - that it would a savings to them to purchase a group policy rather than give each employee the money to purchase it themselves, while giving employers the freedom to choose what works best for them.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I think the aim of this proposal is to encourage employers to provide health insurance ...

If that's the aim, I'm not reading this right

Hope you're right.

Otherwise, this just sounds like a giveaway to the insurance industry.