Senate adds penalty for going uninsured to healthcare bill

[RoosGirl]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/339488-senate-adds-penalty-for-going-uninsured-to-healthcare-bill

Senate Republicans on Monday released a revised version of their healthcare reform bill that adds a provision requiring consumers with a break in coverage to wait six months before buying insurance.

The Senate bill would make those who had a lapse in coverage for 63 days or more wait six months before obtaining insurance. Read the bill here.

The continuous coverage provision was noticeably omitted from the Senate’s draft, but aides said they were working behind the scenes to add it. The provision addresses concerns that people would only sign up for health coverage when they’re sick if insurers can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. 

The addition of the six-month waiting period could make it more difficult to pass the legislation if the Senate parliamentarian rules the provision violates the complex budget reconciliation rules. Republican leadership was working over the weekend to make sure the provision complies with the rules and can be included.

Continued at link.

[thackney]

Coverage for pre-existing conditions combined with no penalty for dropping insurance is a way to break the insurances companies.

Can you imagine not needing to buy car insurance until after the wreck and still being covered?

...not buying home insurance until after the fire/flood and still being covered?

...life insurance purchased after death?

[RoosGirl]

Coverage for pre-existing conditions combined with no penalty for dropping insurance is a way to break the insurances companies.

Can you imagine not needing to buy car insurance until after the wreck and still being covered?

...not buying home insurance until after the fire/flood and still being covered?

...life insurance purchased after death?

I understand what you're getting at, just not sure this is the way to deal with it, though I'm not sure there *is* a good way.  This makes the insurance company have to pick up the tab one way or the other, assuming you're still alive from whatever the pre-existing condition is, 6 months later. 

[Smokin Joe]

Just making sure those who got screwed out of their insurance by Obamacare stay that way. Nice.

[skeeter]

The Senate's trying to make the bill less mean, i guess.

[roamer_1]

Just making sure those who got screwed out of their insurance by Obamacare stay that way. Nice.

Right... so if you fall on hard times and lose coverage because you failed to make your payment for 90 days, Now you get *none* for six (more) months!

LOL! These idiots should be frog-marched out of the building, tarred and feathered, and sent home.

[RoosGirl]

Just making sure those who got screwed out of their insurance by Obamacare stay that way. Nice.

Yep, that's the way I looked at it also.  But you know, pretty much once gov't gets involved in anything we all get screwed, I think at this point there's no getting around us all walking funny, except it'll be the rest our lives instead of just a couple of days.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Just making sure those who got screwed out of their insurance by Obamacare stay that way. Nice.

They need to add a three month grace period --- so those who could not afford the premiums under Obamacare can sign up with the no coverage and pre-existing penalties waived if they do so within the first three months of the new plan.  After the grace period, the penalty would apply.

[Smokin Joe]

Yep, that's the way I looked at it also.  But you know, pretty much once gov't gets involved in anything we all get screwed, I think at this point there's no getting around us all walking funny, except it'll be the rest our lives instead of just a couple of days.

If the Senate adds a penalty, will Roberts rewrite the legislation to call it a 'tax' again?

Revenue measures are Constitutionally required to originate in the House.

[driftdiver]

They need to add a three month grace period --- so those who could not afford the premiums under Obamacare can sign up with the pre-existing penalty waived if they do so within the first three months of the new plan.  After the grace period, the penalty would apply.

There's a 63 days grace period as I understand it.

[driftdiver]

Chances are the insurance companies wrote this bill.

[driftdiver]

Coverage for pre-existing conditions combined with no penalty for dropping insurance is a way to break the insurances companies.

Can you imagine not needing to buy car insurance until after the wreck and still being covered?

...not buying home insurance until after the fire/flood and still being covered?

...life insurance purchased after death?

It's really more about forcing the healthier young people to buy insurance.  They need those people to help cover the cost of older people.

[XenaLee]

If the Senate adds a penalty, will Roberts rewrite the legislation to call it a 'tax' again?

Revenue measures are Constitutionally required to originate in the House.

I'm sooo confused.   Would someone please explain to me....

how the HELL this crap sammich is any different OR any better than the crap sammich the Democrats served Americans?   Other than that it will have the "GOP Label" of failure on it this time. 

As near as I can tell it still embraces several key turdish components of ObamaCare:

Eliminating the very principle of insurance via forcing companies to insure pre-existing conditions (that's not insurance).

Still forcing folks to pay a penalty/fee/tax/whatever if they don't purchase health insurance (WTF???).

Still going to cost an arm, leg and probably half a torso to purchase basic or decent health insurance (ie no reductions in cost for consumers).

Still government in it up to government's corrupt and inept eyeballs (still socialized redistribution of wealth). 

What.... the..... fruck?????

[jmyrlefuller]

If the Senate adds a penalty, will Roberts rewrite the legislation to call it a 'tax' again?

Revenue measures are Constitutionally required to originate in the House.

Oh, they figured out a way around that long ago. Just take some other House revenue measure that stalled in committee, "amend" it to erase all of its contents and leave it an empty shell, and amend it again with content of the bill they want.

[Hondo69]

In its sheer awesomeness, ObamaCare was/is so spectacular you could only get it within certain windows during the year.

When first revealed I made the assumption that sweet little tidbit would be one of the primary complaints from the public.  Strangely, I only heard a few people bitch about that aspect of the scam.

Seemed morally indefensible to me.

[RoosGirl]

In its sheer awesomeness, ObamaCare was/is so spectacular you could only get it within certain windows during the year.

When first revealed I made the assumption that sweet little tidbit would be one of the primary complaints from the public.  Strangely, I only heard a few people bitch about that aspect of the scam.

Seemed morally indefensible to me.

I think a lot of people have gotten quite used to having "enrollment periods".  But really, it's such a small price to pay for having the gov't take care of you. 

[skeeter]

In its sheer awesomeness, ObamaCare was/is so spectacular you could only get it within certain windows during the year.

When first revealed I made the assumption that sweet little tidbit would be one of the primary complaints from the public.  Strangely, I only heard a few people bitch about that aspect of the scam.

Seemed morally indefensible to me.

I bitched incessantly about this restriction though not here. I found a way around it by offering a group plan to my very tiny company and putting my family on it. This way I was able to obtain insurance outside the window.

[DB]

Why should anyone have to pay a penalty if they don't have a preexisting condition when they sign up, lapsed or not???

And if you do have a preexisting condition the penalty will mean squat.

Covering preexisting conditions isn't possible with insurance - because it isn't insurance anymore if you do. It is no longer based on risk and it just becomes a common pool everyone's health care is paid from regardless of risk. And that is single payer in the end. So if you want preexisting conditions to be covered you also want single payer because that is the consequence.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You can't have no penalty for preexisting conditions. You just cant, otherwise, why on earth would anyone buy insurance? Just wait until you're sick.

[Right_in_Virginia]

There's a 63 days grace period as I understand it.

If the 63 day grace period means no penalty for the currently uninsured, including those with pre-existing conditions, then it's fair and penalties for both should be applied only if enrolled from day 64 on. 

@driftdiver

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I wish both House and Senate leaders would insert a provision that directly refers to the provision within the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to pass this horrible legislation.

Until they do, this is 100% garbage.

[rodamala]

Anyone know where and when the senate Republican baseball team has their practice?

[RoosGirl]

935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

[rodamala]

935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Got Tar.

Need feathers.

[Smokin Joe]

Why should anyone have to pay a penalty if they don't have a preexisting condition when they sign up, lapsed or not???

And if you do have a preexisting condition the penalty will mean squat.

Covering preexisting conditions isn't possible with insurance - because it isn't insurance anymore if you do. It is no longer based on risk and it just becomes a common pool everyone's health care is paid from regardless of risk. And that is single payer in the end. So if you want preexisting conditions to be covered you also want single payer because that is the consequence.

1.3 million AIDS/HIV patients. That's what that is about. One trillion dollars worth of redistribution (and counting).