President Barack Obama’s administration on Tuesday formally proposed new rules requiring insurers to cover people with preexisting conditions and set minimum health benefits to millions of others under U.S. healthcare reform law.
Two weeks after Obama’s re-election ensured the survival of the 2010 law that Republicans have vowed to repeal, the proposal is the first in an expected deluge of rulemaking to implement the law in time for its Jan. 1, 2014, start date.
Defining essential benefits, guaranteeing sick people access to coverage and promoting healthy living are well-known goals of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But the proposed rules set down in writing how each would be accomplished while giving stakeholders and the public an opportunity for comment.
The benefits rule provides states and insurers guidance on benefits and costs that must be covered through new state-based online healthcare exchanges, and through small-group and individual plans that are outside the exchanges but not grandfathered under the law.
Taking aim at critics who say reforms amount to a rigid, “one-size-fits-all” bureaucratic system, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed giving states the discretion to choose essential benefit benchmarks from typical private or public plans already operating within their borders.
Health insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition, or from charging higher premiums because of current or past health problems, gender, or occupation. The rules would ensure access to catastrophic coverage plans for young adults and others who could not afford coverage otherwise.
The administration also proposed a rule to expand employment-based wellness programs to help control healthcare spending and to protect individuals from unfair underwriting practices that could otherwise reduce benefits based on their health status.
(Reuters)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
2 Responses
The minimums are very liberal, including such things as paying for contraceptives (which are very inexpensive, but it’s the principle involved). By increasing the minimum, often beyond what people would pay themselves if their own money was involved, it raises the cost of the system. Requiring everyone to pay for pre-existing conditions is a bad deal for everyone else, and may make health insurance unaffordable (which some say is the idea in order to pave the way for a British style socialized medical system where the government makes all your decisions for you). In all fairness, most frum families have a serious pre-existing condition that makes it hard to get health insurance (fertility in women is an expensive condition since it often leads to pregnancy and childbirth – which are things insurance fear as much as cancer and AIDs). Indeed, it could be argued that while Obamacare will be disasterous for the country, and not so good for the average American who will see his/her options reduced and costs increased – it’s very good for the frum community which is underemployed (too busy learning, never working more than six days a week) and (Baruch ha-Shem) overblessed with kinderloch.
Akuperma says “…[r]equiring everyone to pay for pre-existing conditions is a bad deal for everyone else, and may make health insurance unaffordable (which some say is the idea in order to pave the way for a British style socialized medical system where the government makes all your decisions for you).”
Akuperma, you clearly have not read the insurance industry’s rationale for supporting Obamacare…the insurance mandate will provide the economy of scale necessary to make this work…without the mandate, they would have taken your position…with the mandate you appear to be dead wrong.
As to your “some say” comment…who, pray tell, can you cite to other than conservative pundits?