Welcome to PatsFans.com

What HR 3200 says..and what it means

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patsfanin Philly, Aug 17, 2009.

  1. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +85 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    The President says, " you can keep your health insurance" and he's telling the truth BUT you can't change it and if you change jobs, you can't get new private health insurance because it won't be allowed under HR3200.(page 16-17) If your employer tries to change it or drops coverage, you will be out of luck because no new private insurance will be allowed and you'll be forced into the gov't plan. If I'm reading this wrong, I'll sure someone will correct me.If the public option is off the table, they'll have to change this but until the White House says that they don't want a private option, it's still there.

    The Secretary of HHS says that abortion is not mentioned in the plan and she is correct, it's not. BUT in interpreting insurance law if something is not specifically excluded, it is considered to be covered. By not mentioning it, it is a backdoor way to include it. Whether you favor insurance coverage of it or oppose it, it is intellectually dishonest to try to get it in by the backdoor and pretend that it is not covered. A better approach would be to put it in a separate section and ether cover it or not cover it but let it be clearly stated so there is no misconception or verbal sleight of hand.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2009
  2. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,194
    Likes Received:
    525
    Ratings:
    +1,390 / 10 / -11

    #75 Jersey

    Fundamental question:

    Why is it the EMPLOYER'S responsibility, in our system, to insure the employee's (and family's) health?

    Switch out of that odd paradigm and you solve "Age-ism" biases of hiring managers, add to private employers' bottom lines by eliminating health insurance costs, overhead, administration, etc.

    With or without Government involvement, we all buy our own car insurance, life insurance, homeowner's insurance, etc. without (except for some basic term life coverages via work) expecting it from our employers.
     
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,958
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +423 / 12 / -26

  4. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +85 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey


    Darryl,
    Instead of attacking the messenger, look at the message. Section 102, part 1...(page 16 as I mentioned in my OP)
    >>>>
    (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
    11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
    12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
    13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
    14 any individual in such coverage if the first effective date
    15 of coverage is on or after the first
    16 day of Y1.

    <<<<
    I interpret the plain English to be no NEW enrollees. Before attacking it as right wing hysteria, what do you think it means?
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2009
  5. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,958
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +423 / 12 / -26

    It does not say what you said, this is all legal speak and unless your work for congressional daily it makes little sense... it is all hysteria, google your thread and see what comes up..
     
  6. mgcolby

    mgcolby Woohoo, I'm a VIP!!! PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    :confused: So your saying that unless you are a member of congress or an aid then you can't understand the bill? Yet, in the post above you tell people not believe the hysteria and read the bill for yourself?

    So what I conclude from your combined statements is this: you didn't read the bill and believe the hysteria that you want to believe, while telling people not to believe the hysteria you disagree with and read a bill that you don't believe is readable yourself.

    Is that accurate? :confused:
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2009
  7. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,668
    Likes Received:
    309
    Ratings:
    +607 / 7 / -7

    "In interpreting insurance law..." okay I don't know what this means. But in any law, if it's not against the law, it would indeed be legal to cover abortion. That is the current law of the land. Do you have insurance? Does your carrier cover abortion? We're looking at the same world. I am in agreement with you: the law is not a substitute for a repeal of Roe vs. Wade. The point is it's not meant to be.

    As to the offending pages 16-17, (PFIP), chill dude, you're only up to the definitions. If you don't like considering the entire context of parts, subparts, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sub paragraphs, sub sub paragraphs, and the like, don't wade into this stuff. Seriously. It's nested. I am not trying to discourage you, I am only discouraging your from thinking "Eureka!" and quoting a few sentences.

    That's the way they write it. You want plain English for the section you're talking about? Heck I do something like that for a living* Below, I am going to quote beyond the usual length because text released by the US Government for public consumption is public domain by nature. If Mods cannot accept that, this will just be so much namecalling once again.

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

    Beginning on P.14...

    (a) PURPOSE. - The purpose of this title is to establish standards to ensure that new health insurance coverage and employment-based health plans that are offered meet standards guaranteeing access to affordable coverage, essential benefits, and other consumer protections.

    PFnV gloss - like the penumbra of the constitution, most if not all these bills begin with a "PURPOSE" statement. It is general, self-contained, and pretty straightforward. The rest of the bill tells you how they're gonna do it.

    (b) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS.—On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved:
    .....(1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage).
    .....(2) Subtitle C (relating to essential benefits).
    .....(3) Subtitle D (relating to consumer protection).

    PFnV gloss: this is setting out what's a "qualified health benefits plan." You may have a "non-qualified" plan, but it will be treated differently (perhaps for tax purposes etc.) This is basically saying, here are the places you find the rules for qualified plans. It's a given that the "qualified" plans mean "real" plans, the ones that get you the tax breaks or other goodies. This tells you to go to Subtitle B for rules on affordable coverage, Subtitle C, for rules on essential benefits, and Subtitle D for consumer protection rules. This definitional scheme and the remainder of the law kicks in on "the first day of Y1," meaning the effective date of the law. In short, it says, starting on the effective date (not yet known,) here's the rules for what's a "qualified plan" for purposes of this law.

    (c) TERMINOLOGY.—In this division:
    .....(1) ENROLLMENT IN EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLANS.—An individual shall be treated as being ‘‘enrolled’’ in an employment-based health plan if the individual is a participant or beneficiary (as such terms are defined in section 3(7) and 3(8), respectively, of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) in such plan.

    PFnV gloss - this is definitional and tells you what they mean by "enrolled" in an employment based health plan. It says basically it will use the ERISA definitions of participant and beneficiary. It says using that definition, if you're a participant or beneficiary in such a plan, you are considered "enrolled" in an employment based health plan. You need to find ERISA 3(7) and 3(8) to dig into this definition. Here's the easy googling version, where it finds a brief mentioning ERISA 3(7):

    Section 3(7) of ERISA defines "participant" as:
    any employee or former employee of an employer, or any member or former member of an employee organization, who is or may become eligible to receive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan which covers employees of such employer or members of such organization, or whose beneficiaries may be eligible to receive any such benefit.

    804 F2d 1059 Wisconsin Education Association Insurance Trust | Open Jurist

    I am sure section 3(8) is just as exciting.

    So by and large, this section says "we've done this before, and we'll just use the definition we use elsewhere in employment benefit definitions." Good thing too. Otherwise the proposed law would contradict existing employment benefit laws.


    (2) INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—The terms ‘‘individual health insurance coverage’’ and ‘‘group health insurance coverage’’ mean health insurance coverage offered in the individual market or large or small group market, respectively, as defined in section 2791 of the
    25 Public Health Service Act.

    PFnV gloss - go to s. 2791 of 25 PHSA to get this definition. The terms mean the same here.

    SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
    ...(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

    Now we get to the beginning of the bit PFIP thinks is scary (from what I can tell.) This is defining what's "grandfathered" coverage. It means that if you have coverage in effect before the first day of the effective date of this law, it's considered "grandfathered," assuming the following things. What rules apply to grandfathered plans will follow later; this is just giving you the conditions for a grandfathered plan.

    ..............(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
    ....................(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

    PFnV gloss - condition one on being considered "grandfathered" is that the plan can't enroll new people after the effective date of the law. So the grandfathered health plan is closed to new members. Since it is "grandfathered" (presumeably out of the rules from the effective date forward,) you can't just keep enrolling new people in the grandfathered plan. The people in the plan already aren't mentioned here.

    ...................(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
    individual who is covered as of such first day.

    PFnV gloss - in Subparagraph (A), above, we say you can't enroll anybody new. But what if your plan is a family plan, and you like it? Then what if you have a baby after the effective date of the law? No problem. You can subsequently enroll a dependent covered as part of your family (for example, and probably the most likely example to be faced.)

    .............(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

    PFnV gloss - you can't just be grandfathered, and then change the terms of the plan. If you're grandfathered, the terms of your plan freeze right there.

    .............(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

    This sets forth the rules on increasing premiums for grandfathered plans. This one regulates the premium increases in grandfathered plans and says you have to change all your plans the same way, grandfathered and post-"Obamacare" plans, at the same rate. It also looks like the rate of percentage increase in all plans will be stipulated by "The Commissioner," which should give right-wingers conniptions.

    What this does not say, however, is that you cannot keep your old plans. As regards increases in premium rates, it also specifically says they have to change just like other plans.


    PFnV

    * this plain-English interpretation is PFnV's own personal reading of the language in question and is not intended to represent the interpretation of the US government or any agency thereof.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2009
  8. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,323
    Likes Received:
    495
    Ratings:
    +1,140 / 13 / -27

    #87 Jersey


    Politicians made it that way ... unfortunately. Some years ago, I had some people on my Blue Cross plan by posing them as employees. The only way you could have a group policy was to be an employer. They have stiffened the laws since then and it's even tougher to pull it off.

    I always wondered why soneone could not start their own group ... but you could not. You had to be an employer. Also ... I think and I could be mistaken but I think Credit Unions in RI had something but that was a long time ago.

    So ... you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction. It's not so much that people expect it from their employers as it's the only way to be in a group with lower rates ... much lower. Back in the 80's and 90's it was at least 25% cheaper to be in a group. The larger the group the better your rate was. At some point also in the early 90's they raised what a group was to a minimum of 10 in Rhode Island.
     
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,915
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12

    Well this thread is a perfect example of why we don't want the government entrusted with running the healthcare system for the nation.

    The language is ambigious which is no suprise, the problem who gets to interpert what the meaning is? An unelected bureaucrat? A judge?


    Good article here, title of the article "Terrorists Get Appeals, Obamacare Patients Don’t
    ":

    Terrorists Get Appeals, Obamacare Patients Don’t by Andrew C. McCarthy on National Review Online


    See if you don't like the decision of an insurance company you can appeal, you can get a different provider, when the government is the provider there is no way out.


    The patient can't appeal the decision of the bureaucrats, yet terrorist are accorded appeals, seems sick..
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2009
  10. mgcolby

    mgcolby Woohoo, I'm a VIP!!! PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    216 pages in and my dislikes exceed my likes 10-1. Hopefully there will be a huge turn around in the last 800 pages. But for some reason I doubt it.

    This thing is littered with unknowns and BS taxes. This bill (based on the first 200 pages admittedly) is essentially approving a health care system to be developed at a later date. It is too generic and leaves way too much up to the "commissioner" to determine at a later date carte blanche.

    2 billion seed money for 90 days?

    a fine of 2.5% for an individual who doesn't want or can't afford health care. $100 a day fine for businesses that don't offer health insurance at 72.5% of the cost for an individual and 65% for a family?

    They are going to use medicaid rates to determine the cost of the program, are they kidding?

    They will allow affordability credits for premium plans starting in year 3? If a person can't afford the basic plan then they should not be allowed to enroll in the "premium" plan.

    No payments for undocumented aliens. But apperently they will for documented aliens who are exempt from the program. How about we require the person to be a US citizen? Just a thought..

    People who make 350 -500k per year are taxed an additional 1% and folks making 500k -1 million will pay 1.5% in addition to their own premiums. And in many of these cases these folks are business owners who are already paying up to 72.5% of their employees health care. That seems fair to me :rolleyes:

    The premiums are not reviewable by an administrative or judiciary committee. So it is transparency without accountability. Awesome.

    Well that is it for now 800 pages to go.:cool:
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2009
  11. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +85 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    It means that when courts have interpreted insurance contracts, if something is not specifically excluded in the language of the contract it is presumed to be part of the contract. That's why there will be language excluding things such as experimental treatments or other things such a s limitations on certain types of care. Without the exclusion there is no limitation on the coverage. My point was that since there is no language re abortion, it is presumed and would be interpreted to be covered. I didn't ay I opposed it or favored it, just that it should be clear and not hidden within legalities.


    That's what I said in post #4 (in capital letters) no new enrollees (other than new dependents)in the existing plan. So if you change jobs, you can't get into the new companies existing plan and are forced into the public option.

    If you work for say Company X and you keep your plan if you're happy. New employee graduates from college and gets hired. He can't get into this great plan because he's a new enrollee and as such has to go into the public option.
    With no ability to add new insured individuals, eventually the private carriers will die off.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2009
  12. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +85 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    First you told me to read the bill, which I had and I quoted you chapter and verse as it is. Now you're telling me that I and others don't understand it because it's legal speak.....
    Sorry to burst your bubble but I've read plenty of legal documents.....and I understand them too.. Enough to pass the California Bar exam and be admitted to the Bar. PM me and I'll give you my bar card number so you can verify it , if you'd like.
    When courts evaluate a law, they look at the text, the history, the structure and precedent. First and foremost is the text of the legislation which is why I interpreted the way I did. If you interpret it differently, I'm willing to see a different viewpoint but the language is not ambiguous.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2009
  13. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,668
    Likes Received:
    309
    Ratings:
    +607 / 7 / -7

    So I take it that you believe this bill to be an insurance policy. It is not. It is the proposed law governing insurance companies. The companies write the policy. so by not mentioning abortion, the bill does not force the companies to write abortion into the policy or not to. The companies themselves will continue to write their insurance policies (contracts) just as they do now. However, I take issue with your initial statement. It is nonsensical. My homeowner's policy does not specifically say that it does not cover me for value loss due to market fluctuations; yet there is not a court in the land that would award me the difference between what I paid and what I could get on the open market today. QED. That may be, under certain constraints, a tenet in judgements on settlements, but it does not arise from a non-mention of a subject, that that subject is covered. Methinks there is something a bit more complex to insurance law than your formulation. It's unimportant, because this is not a contract, it's a law regulating insurers. They can write their policy to say "we don't cover abortions," or they can write the policy to say "abortions are 100% covered plus we give you $1000 cash for having an abortion." That is, as in prior law, entirely up to the insurance company.

    Having gone all the way to page 17, and read the definition of a grandfathered plan, I suppose this is the logical conclusion.

    However, you are in precisely the same position as now.

    You work at Bob's Widgets. You want to work for Sam's Sprockets. You move over to Sam's Sprockets. You join the Sam's Sprockets plan.

    You could not joint the Sam's Sprockets Grandfathered Plan, because as you say it's grandfathered. You would join a newer plan or the public option (if it survives.)

    If this scandalizes you I don't know what to do to help you. If you want your old coverage, you can indeed keep your old coverage. If you want to move jobs, you will have to move to a newer plan, and will not be able to retain the old plan (assuming a single-employer arrangement, which is not the only arrangement under discussion. It is however one arrangement, being covered by your employer. If you change employers, and your insurance is through your employer -- just as under the current system -- you change plans.)

    Nope. You just can't get into a grandfathered plan. You join the company's "conforming" plan rather than its grandfathered plan which is allowed to play by yesterday's rules and still get its tax advantages.

    By the way, note that some of the language explains that a company running a grandfathered plan can only grow premiums at the same rate as their non-grandfathered plans. So it's obvious by page 17 that the same carrier is going to continue to carry the older style plans alongside the new plans.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2009
  14. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +85 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    That's true but Federal law (Hyde amendment) prevents using federal money yo pay for abortion services. By not excluding it and by being silent, it will be interpreted to be part of a plan.


    Your homeowner's plan does or may have a replacement clause which pays to rebuild your house if it burns down so it does have a fluctuation clause built in. Why do you think they have all sorts of things excluded from your homeowner's policy. If specifically excludes damage from flooding (not broken pipes but overflowing creeks and ponds). If it was silent, it would be considered a covered expense and they would have to pay for flood damage.

    No, but the policy would rebuild your house if you have replacement coverage so it's a bad analogy.

    If a conforming plan as decided by the government panel required abortions to be a covered procedure, the insurance companies would be forced to cover it. What happens if a company chooses not to offer abortion coverage and the government panel that decides which plans are conforming decides that to be conforming it must be a covered procedure?
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2009
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,668
    Likes Received:
    309
    Ratings:
    +607 / 7 / -7

    That may be argued, though I don't know on what grounds. Strikes me as utterly spurious and your examples don't support this contention.

    Now: you can write your policy to say you never cover abortions and there is no law saying you should not. If and when you see the feds saying you MUST carry abortion coverage, you have something to complain about on specific culture-war grounds. Until that time, again, we're in exactly the same world as before, and it's a red herring.

    It's a perfect analogy. I want to trundle into the courtroom and say "Look! When I sold my house it lost value! I am insured for this because my policy does not say the contrary!"

    What you were trying to say is I'm insured, without limitation, "because of how insurance policies are interpreted." That's balderdash. What I was trying to establish is that the "implied" coverage may be an important principle in certain cases. Say that I have insurance against heavy things hitting the roof, except for tree branches blown at the roof as a result of an act of war. Well, most insurance would say ANYTHING blown at the roof... and indeed, when I go into court and insist my claim be covered due to a downed plane going through my roof, this policy is TOO specific - by specifying the tree branch it implies coverage of other war-generated damage. That is why it will have a broad statement saying it doesn't cover "act of war, act of God, etc. etc. etc.," rather than a catalogue of types of debris that may hit my roof. In other instances the principal you talk about will apply; i.e., if you do provide a list of insured events within a certain like category as excluded, you do have to be careful, because if you say "I'll cover every kind of procedure, with these exception," you have said you'll cover it. We've beaten this into the ground - you're taking the basics of how law is written and saying it means something far beyond what it means. It is what it is: if you have a list of exceptions, you have to list them all.

    The point you are correct in, is that the law does not outlaw abortions.

    Then you're exactly where you are now. Again: if you have a health insurance policy, look at whether abortion services are covered. I know quite a few conservatives I've asked this of, and when I asked why they don't drop that coverage in moral outrage, they either get pissed or laugh. None of them have done so. But I'm pretty sure you can't just directly contradict one law with another; that's why there are campaigns to repeal Hyde (which by the way specifically applies to Medicaid). Indeed it should be repealed, but that is not the question in point.

    Given how many people want to reignite the culture wars, there is a very good reason not to drag abortion into the broader question of coverage. It will remain a procedure that insurance companies can choose to cover or not to cover.

    If you are on Medicaid, Hyde will continue to make sure your state loses Federal funds if your state covers that medical procedure.

    PFnV
     
  16. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,958
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +423 / 12 / -26

    Then it makes sense to someone who passed the bar, even from your point of view it can be interpreted differently by different people.. the reality is that this is not something you read and said Oh my god!!! It is something already interpreted by a right wing blogger.. in reality what the bill says and how the regs are written are two different things, see NCLB legislation...

    That is my point, goody goody goody for you that you passed the Cal Bar... we are all proud and tip our hats.
     
  17. alvinnf

    alvinnf In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,304
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 1 / -0

    The real point is, what are they trying to achieve? You blame right wing media and so on. But the question is do we believe they are trying to create a public option that competes with and cleans up current insurance practices. Or is their goal to ultimately have us all on the single payer plan?
     
  18. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,958
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +423 / 12 / -26

    I do not believe that is what is planned at all.. that will never happen, the lobbyists and companies have too much invested in the current process..
     
  19. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +85 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    You are right that there are very valid reasons not to include any language re abortion. But, will you agree that if these government boards that decide which are approved plans decide that abortion should be a covered procedure under any approved plan, an insurance company will have no choice but to offer it or risk not having their plan be accepted as conforming? In that case, someone who opposes it might want it addressed early on in the legislative process, before it gets to that point.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2009
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,915
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +252 / 8 / -12



    Your subjective opinions are not a risk I am willing to take with my families health. Point is bureaucrats will decide if a law is passed and the language leaves them a lot of latitude.


    First rule do no harm.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2009

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>