That might be something for pro-govt-health-care folks to chew on a bit...

Jordan .

Mandatory 'health assessments'...any thoughts on this?  I just wish the Federal Government would not expand controls over us and stay out of healthcare--anymore than they already are. "No previous conditions will be allowed to effect being insured or premiums paid " Hmmmm  okaaay. The government wants to require you be examined inside and out? I know i don't like that idea. I wonder what other surprises the gov't has to bait and switch on people ? Obamacare is about centralized control not health. imo. I understand that wellness and prevention are reasonable, but this stealth feature in the bill is misleading to the very people who want the preexisting feature addressed and you know me, i don't trust the government to accomplish..... much of anything. 

I say:  

1)Allow interstate competiton by the 1400(or however many there are) health insurance companies in the U S.. I am limited to like 6 insurers in CA. 2) Use inexpensive catastrophic coverage for the young and healthy-not mandatory. ( My bill is one paragraph, not 1300 pages not allowed to be read by the public before a vote.)

Senate proposals put premium on healthy living

Bills could put workers under pressure to lose weight, stop smoking

By David S. Hilzenrath

updated 6:18 p.m. PT, Thurs., Oct . 15, 2009

Get in shape or pay a price.

That's a message more Americans could hear if the health care reform bills passed by the Senate Finance and Health committees become law.

By more than doubling the maximum rewards and penalties that companies can apply to employees who flunk medical evaluations, the bills could put workers under intense financial pressure to lose weight, stop smoking or even lower their cholesterol.

The initiative, largely eclipsed in the health care debate, builds on a trend that is already in play among some corporations and that more workers will see in the packages they bring home during this month's open enrollment. Some employers offer lower premiums to people who complete personal health assessments; others offer only limited benefit packages to smokers.

The current legislative effort takes the trend a step further. It is backed by major employer groups, including the U S Chamber of commerceand the National Association of Manufacturers. It is opposed by labor unions and groups devoted to combating serious illnesses, such as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Diabetes Association.

A colossal loophole?
President Obama and members of Congress have declared that they are trying to create a system in which no one can be denied coverage or charged higher premiums based on their health status. The health insurance lobby has said it shares that goal. However, so-called wellness incentives could introduce a colossal loophole. In effect, they would permit insurers and employers to make coverage less affordable for people exhibiting risk factors for problems like diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

"Everybody said that we're going to be ending discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But this is in effect discrimination again based on preexisting conditions," said Ann Kempski of the Service Employees International Union.

The legislation would make exceptions for people who have medical reasons for not meeting targets.

Supporters say economic incentives can prompt workers to make healthier choices, thereby reducing medical expenses. The aim is to "focus on wellness and prevention rather than just disease and treatment," said Business Roundtable president John J. Castellani.

BeniComp Group, an Indiana company that manages incentives for employers, says on its Web site that the programs can save employers money in a variety of ways. Medical screenings will catch problems early. Employers will shift costs to others. Some employees will "choose other health care options."

Douglas J. Short, BeniComp's chief executive, said the incentives he uses focus on outcomes, not conditions.

"I can't give you an incentive based on being a diabetic or not being a diabetic, but whether you're managing your blood glucose level — I can give you an incentive based on that," Short said.

National epidemic of obesity
The incentives could attack a national epidemic of obesity. They also cut to a philosophical core of the health care debate. Should health insurance be like auto insurance, in which good drivers earn discounts and reckless ones pay a price, thereby encouraging better habits? Or should it be a safety net in which the young and healthy support the old and sick with the understanding that youth and good health are transitory?

Under current regulation, incentives based on health factors can be no larger than 20 percent of the premium paid by employer and employee combined. The legislation passed by the Health and Finance committees would increase the limit to 30 percent, and it would give government officials the power to raise it to 50 percent.

A single employee whose annual premiums cost him and his employer the national average of $4,824 could have as much as $2,412 on the line. At least under the Health Committee bill, the stakes could be higher for people with family coverage. Families with premiums of $13,375 — the combined average for employer-sponsored coverage, according to a recent survey — could have $6,687.50 at risk.

An amendment passed unanimously by the Health Committee would allow insurers to use the same rewards and penalties in the market for individual insurance, though legislative language subsequently drafted by the committee's Democratic staff does not reflect that vote, Sen. Mike Enzi (Wyo.), for the committee's ranking Republican, has said. The bill drafted by the Senate Finance Committee would set up a trial program allowing insurers in 10 states to use wellness-based incentives for individuals.

America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry lobby, has argued that insurers should be allowed to consider participation in wellness programs when setting individual premiums.

Wellness incentives voluntary
Employers and other advocates of expanded wellness incentives say taking steps to get healthier would be voluntary. Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican and lead sponsor of the Finance Committee's wellness provision, said his proposal "would guarantee that the incentive is strong enough for Americans to want to participate."

Wellness incentives have been spreading rapidly in the corporate world. Unlike the legislative proposals, which address incentives based on results, the corporate programs typically compensate employees based on effort alone — for example, enrolling in smoking cessation programs even if they fail to kick the habit, or undergoing detailed medical assessments regardless of the findings. But there are exceptions: The Safeway supermarket company allows certain employees to reduce their premiums by meeting standards for body mass and other measures. Safeway chief executive Steve Burd has framed it as an issue of personal responsibility.

So what about people who practice unsafe sex? Will they be "taxed" at a higher premium?

So people who drive sports cars or certain cars that govt deem dangerous also be taxed at a higher premium?

and what about the financially poor overweight people? Will they be taxed at a higher premium or because they are "poor" they won't be - instead the govt will hit the middle class and above with that "premium" (ie tax)?

I guess it's all okay for the "social good" - until that "social good" affects YOU (general you) directly, huh?

Jordan .

Jordan .

You supporters might want to thnk twice or GO TO JAIL compliments of Mrs. Pelosi :

COMMITEE CONFIRMS: COMPLY WITH PELOSI-CARE OR GO TO JAIL

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail.  The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

n response to the JCT letter, Camp said:  “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail.  It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/06/committee-confirms-comply-with-pelosi-care-or-go-to-jail/

Well, everyone complains that we have to pay so much more for health insurance because hospitals are caring for those who have no insurance.

Also, it must be noted that the Senate Finance committee bill includes language that shields Americans from civil and criminal penalties if they have no insurance. This was a bipartisan decision from what I understand.

R_Flagg

Hmmm Reid and Pelosi must work that out then -maybe 4 years in prison and a $200,000 fine. Dems can do this without bipartisan support-even like the one member they seek to be able to call it bipartisan. And Pelosi can kick reid;s ass. Yes i know he was a am. boxer (but he is more like my old pal Boxer)

Do you have a link for that senate version referred to? i can't find it. And a page reference would really be a help, ya know like page 1879 kind of thing. Thanks R. 

Come on man let's join together and oppose this thing. Please? Let's drop this stuff , pass the repub bill for healthcare, stop making doctors retire and students change from med to public administration. We cut the tax rate for workers and small businesses instead of burdening them and making hiring near impossible.

Come on my man.

But throwing all of those people in jail will be good for the economy, since it will grow the prison industry and free up jobs for other people. Win win! Plus they will have health care in Prison! (obviously kidding).  The "they'll throw you in prison" line reminds me of the "are we going to have a draft?" rumors from a few years ago.

   Repub health care bill doesn't really do anything, so low cost != better value in my opinion. People with money and/or with no health problems could benefit, but not clear that other folks will be better off.  Not much of any expansion in coverage. Businesses may be better off, although I haven't seen the specifics on employer-offered health care (but I can't imagine it wouldn't somehow lower the cost for employers). Limits on lawsuits sounds good but is a relatively small part of the overall cost issue for health care, at least for most specialties.

The main part of the repub plan allows the 1500 health insurance carriers to be able to bid/offer coverage in all the states. Competition will drive down costs- it is a 'law' of economics. Currently the state of CA limits companies that can offer health insurance to 6 ! Doing away with these state limits-a kind of monopoly- will offer many more choices for residents of all the states and the competition will bring down healthcare costs. This is the main provision.

Whaddaya say Bio, can you get behind this proposal ?  Please? Thanks for your consideration.

I do see that as a positive, Raymond. However, without some consumer protections (which I haven't read about as part of this bill), it seems like a free-for-all in the market will give these companies even more incentive to drop, reduce, deny coverage as soon as something expensive comes up- anything to stay competitive and keep prices low. Also, if it doesn't go farther to insure more people, the costs for treating these uninsured people in emergencies will only become more burdensome to the system.  But I'd support trying to get this into a more comprehensive plan.

To me, i see less opportunity for abuse with 1399 other companies ready to win customers who are unsatisfied, companies with more advantageous features. Also portability would be gone with the state restrictions abolished.

Now, this is just me, but i want any denial of coverage to be easily and inexpensively addressed. An initial review to examine the denial AND an appeal to a second hearing to insure that a customer is not getting hosed.

We have seen how a [state] government option has not worked. In Hawaii, Tennesee and Massachusetts the costs have been a disaster and MANY folks still remain uninsured. These statewide programs -i assume well intentioned-have failed.

Thanks for the cogent and thoughtful response. 

Sometime i want to explain my desire for free markets, but not 'free for all' markets.

 I agree with the above ;.

We already have Medicaid for the truly poor. that should be the area, the safety net , to examine.

Jordan .

In the still

Of the night....

[shoo doop shooby doo]

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Thank goodness for Obama's expulsion of lobbyists. The death of pork barrel legislation. And the transparency we now enjoy. It has been wonderful to watch the discussions of Obamacare on C-Span these past months. Oh wait- it has been closed door secretive governance with Chicago tactics. Voting on 2,000 page bills in the middle of the night. Bills that are incomprehensible, unread and still championed by Pelosi and company. This bill or it's clones are going to ruin healthcare and as always the poor will be on the front line of it's broken promises.

After all. as some Dems have told us " They[you and I] don't know what is good for them."

We are now a Stateist country. Hyperbolic government takeover of private sectors,  reckless bananna republic spending, and trespassing intrusion into personal freedoms.

I was afraid we were heading for a nightmare descent into hell 10 months ago. IMO we are actually ahead of schedule.

So Michael Steele warned GOP members of congress that they will face tough consequences if they vote in favor of the health care bill. Steele literally said "we'll come after you" I wonder if they will send the assassination squad after Louisiana republican Anh Cao for voting for it?

R_Flagg

If you're talking about big government, out of control spending, and wrecking the economy that hell ride started over 10 years ago my friend! We will be on the ride for a long time to come.

R_Flagg

Agreed. It is just that we have hit warp speed now.

 To repeat the best long range plusses for Obama's place among the presidents would be defeat of Obamacare. Defeat of Cap and trade, control of the Afgan/ Pakistan situation and a return of stimulous money to the treasury. He could truthfully say he tried on Ocare, C &T and he made an indicated change in the economic approach by returning stim. money. and cutting  taxes. Bill Clinton set the template for this very scenario. But, I believe Obama is an idealogue and does not have Clinton's shrewd practicality.

Well Bio, i have myself referred to my knee jerk reaction to some topic on here ;) Guilty as charged;)

And it goes to my distrust of the government-both parties by the way-to accomplish anything economically sound, beneficial to the people, or even being constitutional in some cases.

I abhor career politicians e.g. V P Biden who has spent his entire career as a lawmaker. The longer these parasites remain in office the more power they accrue and the more disconnected from the real world. I believe two terms-12 years would be a healthy check on these insulated power brokers. For the legislature 4 terms 8 years should be a reasonable limit.
You see the government produces nothing, it just spends taxpayer money without any personal liability. The very term "lawmaker" implies that they must enact laws. It gives them the opportunity to pass legislation to benefit the various lobbies and the lawmakers' friends. A bad practice encouraged and amplified by length in office.

Give me a gal who has been an executive, has met a payroll, has served in the military, etc. Let her run at some logical time in her career for office. Serve the country for a limited time and then return to other endeavors. I don't think the original goal was to have congressmen keep at it for decades, for a lifetime. Let the purpose of a candidate to be to sacrifice their talents for awhile for the good of the country and move on.

R-Flagg, Bio, can you agree with this or at least understand where I am coming from? thanks in advance guys.

Washington did a great thing by stepping down after 2 terms. He did it mostly to not setup a "king" again - but it created a precedence up until the 1900s when FDR decided to stick around longer.

I've always been for some sort of term limits.

So BTW - did the House vote to also force them to use the same insurance they just voted for the rest of us? (sure they did....)

Jordan .

 Bah!  At least the American public knew what was going on unlike, oh, the "patriot" act for instance.

Are diehard conservatives against all social programs?  Perhaps we should do away with food stamps and unemployment benefits.  You know, they thought FDR was a commie for trying to make it so people could eat.  The rise of McCarthyism yet again.

I disagree, the american people did (do) not know what is going on. The lack of open sessions and the renegging on c-span coverage prevented that. No ?

None but perhaps 5 Dem lawmakers had ANY idea what was going on. 2 thousand pages of obfuscated print, produced in private with a hour to digest the bill ?  That is how "Tarp' a Bush Admin act and the the 'stimulus' bills were passed in the middle of the night, without review under the pretext that the emergency made immediate unexamined  passage necessary. And we acted in haste and are living with the failed result of the stimulus bill. The promise that unemployment would stay below 8% with the StimBill has proven to be B S.

I don't speak for die hard conservatives-I'm a Libertarian- but the best way to provide food on the table and employment is thru private sector hiring. Jobs attention is last on the list after Healthcare-which will, i believe cost thousands of jobs , Cap and trade-which will make this country at a disadvantage and the added taxes will discorage small and large company hiring. It, as with HCare, will cost the economy thousands of jobs, And finally the minor percent of the Stimbill addressing small business job creation is miniscule. The Social prgrams - Hcare, Cap & trade - are the primary legislation goals for this admin and they are job killers and hyperbolic increases in the budget deficits and the national debt.

The admin and congress should have had priority no 1 JOBS, job creation. As an advisor told Bill Clinton " It's the economy stupid." Yes, a safety net for the displaced workers. But the emphasis should be small business friendly so they can hire people and make the need for food stamps ultimately not needed. Reduce taxes on the small business gal so she can create someone a job.