Download the Kennedy healthcare bill here (.pdf at link)...

[babylonsister]

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/06/05/download-the-kennedy-healthcare-bill-here/

Download the Kennedy healthcare bill here
@ 4:49 pm by Hill Staff

The Hill has obtained what appears to be a draft version of the healthcare bill Sen. Edward Kennedy's (D-Mass.) Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is planning to mark up later this month.

Check out the PDF here.

UPDATED: There's more to come from Kennedy's committee. This is just the first section of a bill that looks like it'll be a lot longer.

[Faryn Balyncd]

1. K & R - - This appears to meet Obama's specs of having BOTH a Public Option & OPEN ENROLLMENT !!!!

Although it has 167 pages, there it is, right up there on page 3:

"(a) In General--- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health coverage may not impose any preexisting condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage."

When Schumer met with physicians from PNHP recently, he weakly promised to "consider" 2 of 5 issues, but pointedly REFUSED on this critical issue of open enrollment.

The insurance lobby wants to cripple the public plan by making it the only open enrollment plan, thereby dumping unprofitable patients into the public plan, shielding their racket at taxpayer expense.



Obama's letter of June 2 stressed the necessity of BOTH a Public Option AND Open Enrollment:

“.....But for those who don't have such options, I agree that we should create a health insurance exchange -- a market where Americans can one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose the plan that's best for them, in the same way that Members of Congress and their families can. None of these plans should deny coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition, and all of these plans should include an affordable basic benefit package that includes prevention, and protection against catastrophic costs. I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest…."

Open Enrollment in the private plans is important not only for providing options to Americans, but primarily to create a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD so that private plans will have to compete, and not create an economically crippled public plan whose chief function is protecting industry profits.


I would like to see more specifics regarding the actual public option.


But it appears that this bill may be the first Senate bill to meet Obama's twin requirements of BOTH a Public Option AND Open Enrollment without regard to pre-existing conditions.


Since that's what we already require of every insurance company that offers a Medicare Advantage plan (that they accept all comers, regardless of pre-existing conditions, with an open enrollment option once a year, why is this such a problem for Schumer??????/

[Ms. Toad]

3. Actually better than his minimum

It includes an income based subsidy, and it prohibits the cost of premiums from being based on health status.

[Ms. Toad]

2. After a quick scan

Affordable = whatever it costs to provide the benefits

Premiums must be based on the actuarial cost to provide the benefits to the target group (age, community, and perhaps some other criteria I've forgotten - but NOT health)

Lifetime maximum on payments is prohibited

Premiums are community based; health conditions cannot be taken into account

Credits for state Gateway products (seems to the the public health option - but I didn't see an exclusion on private insurance plans being part of the gateway option) for everyone making 500% of poverty level or less, out of pocket maximums are also limited based on income (although not to the same extent)

Tax penalty for failing to purchase a qualified health insurance plan (to be a qualified plan it must meet cover a certain minimum list)and on employers for failing to provide some insurance subsidy (with some exclusions and limitations). Amounts of the penalty not set in the bill - but are intended to be the minimum amount deemed necessary to induce participation.

Insurance companies must offer all plans to all individuals (although there seems to be an exception for pre-existing plans)

It's a good start. Better than I expected.

[Faryn Balyncd]

4. This bill is a great step forward, and needs a few more "Recs"

[slipslidingaway]

5. knr nt

[Ms. Toad]

6. So - we're all intereste in signing a petition that doesn't

provide any details - and calls for something that by the terms of the petition is marginally better than what we have - but no one is interest in what is actually in the draft proposal?

Mostly commenting because this needs to be back in the line of sight - but I am a bit disturbed by the immediate and loud reaction to bullet points in both Obama's statement and Dean's petition (which both called for little more than what we have now) in contrast with the minimal reaction to the substantive proposal (which actually is a major improvement).

[Faryn Balyncd]

7. I share your wonderment

[dflprincess]

8. I don't understand why so many are so ga-ga over this plan

Unless they were losing sleep worrying about whether or not the for-profits would survive. Now they can rest easy as there is no doubt the health insurance companies will stay healthy.

After 40 years I would have thought Kennedy would have come up with something better. This bill is bad enough, but once it gets "compromised" it will only get worse. If this thing passes it will be another 40 years before we get single payer.

[Ms. Toad]

12. It is certainly not what I want, but unlike Dean's or Obama's

lofty words, it does expressly include subsidies for individuals earning up to 500% of poverty level, it requires insurance companies to accept all without regard to pre-existing condition (meaning the public plan will not become the more expensive dumping ground by default), and it prohibits setting the premium based on the health of the individual being insured.

Is it what I want? - no. I have said all along I want single payer. Realistically, we're not going to get single payer this time around. I refused to support either Dean's petition or Obama's statement - and took a lot of flack about being single payer or nothing. I am not single payer or nothing - but whatever I support had to be meaningful change. Unlike Dean's petition or Obama's statement, neither of which addressed the issue of affordability beyond hoping that competition would drive the price down, this plan does, so I can support it as a first step. I am not ga-ga over it.

[Oregone]

9. Aint that grand

Its actually quite humorous. One thing is, people may just not know what to make of this yet. Another thought...early proposals were based on ambiguous, loftily words that anyone can interpret to mean most anything (people saw what they wanted without reason, and either hated or loved it--I disliked where it would go without firm legislation).

At first read, it is light years ahead of the early direction on this issue (it will be compromised in my opinion before it is done). I still remained dismayed that a private industry that is failing America will be allowed to continue operating (IOW, no single-payer).

[Ms. Toad]

14. Agreed.

>>Another thought...early proposals were based on ambiguous, loftily words that anyone can interpret to mean most anything (people saw what they wanted without reason, and either hated or loved it--I disliked where it would go without firm legislation).<<

My problem, precisely. I read the lofty words and looked for specific guarantees in those words as to features that were crucial to me (subsidies for low income or income based premiums, and preventing the public health plan from being the only option for those with pre-existing condition (which would inherently drive up the price of that option),for example) and saw that congress could easily introduce a bill that would do nothing substantial but meet the literal meaning of the lofty words - then we would be stuck with the retort - "But this plan does everything you said was important - so why are you complaining now?" This specific proposal includes many of the features that I have said are crucial to me in order to constitute a big enough step in the right direction that I could support it. Even though it doesn't get to where I ultimately hope we will be, it is significant movement.


>>At first read, it is light years ahead of the early direction on this issue (it will be compromised in my opinion before it is done).<<

I agree - all the more reason to read it now, so that we can say specifically "That provision is crucial - do not compromise on it."

[Greyhound]

10. Better than nothing, barely. It's far too early to start combing through it line by line

but in general it could be worse.

It does guarantee the existence and profitability of insurance companies and I find no provision prohibiting it from being gutted by future Congresses, which is disturbing. Essentially it locks everybody into participating but doesn't prevent providers from screwing their indentured clients in the future.

Very much like auto insurance requirement with no cap on rates.

Let's see what happens...

[Badgerman]

11. I was going comment in detail, but your post did it admirably...and I generally agree with your take

n/t

[Ms. Toad]

13. Pretty much impossible to write a law

that can't be changed by future congresses. That's the nature of legislation - and generally it is a good thing. If we were stuck with some of the laws from 100 years ago just because the authors prohibited "gutting" them we'd be mighty unhappy.

There actually is a cap - not great, but a cap. There is a cap on profits (although the percentage may be one of those blanks, at this point).