That's what I wanted to know and that's what I''ll try to offer to you here.
Though the bulk of the reforms won't take place for three or four years, some significant changes will take place by year's end. Some within a month or so. Here are some of the highlights:
- Within three months of the law taking effect, those who have been locked out of the insurance market because of a pre-existing condition could buy subsidized coverage in so-called high-risk insurance pools.
- Six months after the legislation is enacted, many healthcare providers would be prohibited from placing lifetime limits on medical coverage, and could not cancel policies of people who become ill.
- Six months after the legislation is enacted, no children with pre-existing conditions could be denied coverage.
- Dependent children up to age 26 would be eligible for coverage under their parents’ plans — instead of the current rules, applied from state to state, that typically stops at 18 or 19, within six months of the president signing the bill.
- By year's end, the so-called health care exchanges – which would require insurers to sell their policies to individuals and small businesses under much tighter government scrutiny – should be up and running.
Lou Rom, an award-winning journalist, with over 2,000 articles published, hosts Lou Rom Live weekdays from 4-6 pm on KVOL1330. Contact him at kvolou@yahoo.com

Facts? Facts. Come on, Lou, who really wants facts. Good stuff.
ReplyDeleteYou should look at all the stuff that is not health care related in this bill, other than that good facts, give me more.
ReplyDeleteBut who pays the bill?
ReplyDeleteThe same assholes who sent our economy down the toilet will be paying the bill. $200,000+ per year salary. I'm fine with that!
ReplyDeleteItems #01-check, #02-check, #03-check, #04-check & #05-check.
ReplyDeleteThey all look good to me!
How could any of these items not be directly good? I guess they might look 'bad' if you owned insurance stock which you could not sell.
"The same assholes who sent our economy down the toilet will be paying the bill. $200,000+ per year salary. I'm fine with that!"
ReplyDeleteYes, let's discourage people from wanting to reach that income level. Increase their taxes, especially the small business owners. That'll really help the economy.
- Nick
Come on now Nick, like that would discourage someone from wanting to make 200K. If that would be true then they don't have much drive to begin with.
ReplyDeleteWe tried that formula for the last 2 presidential terms and apparently that boat did not float.
Sure Mark, we tried tax cuts for that tax bracket the last 2 terms but continued to grow government. Why is it the upper-level earners have to support continued growth of government?
ReplyDeleteWhy can't government get back to its basic responsibilities and stop becoming the fastest growing employer in the U.S. and in our state?
I don't see, as the above commenter tried to state, how those making over $200k/yr are the ones who brought down the economy.
You are seeking to punish the providers and job creators so those many who pay no federal income taxes can receive more "free" goods and services.
As of 2006, over 40% of U.S. adults paid zero net federal income taxes. Sounds to me like those who do already pay are shouldering enough of a burden, especially in a recession.
- Nick
Well Lou, I have to say I see the good and bad here. I remember 2 years ago when I was working for an employer who's medical insurance would cost me $600.00 a month! My wife was on meds that totaled about $800/mo. I could not afford either at the time and ask the government for help and was told I made too much! Trust me what I made was NOT too much and I only needed assistance for 3 months until my wife went back to work. I haven't read all the info on this, but I just want help when I need it. Hope this does that. Let me know. -Bon
ReplyDeleteGood to hear you talking about this today. I had to explain to someone today that the ins industry is the real winner. The Tea Party folks are too busy demonizing Pres Obama to realize that this bill is pro private business by way of subsidy. I'd accept a cap in rates if I could guarantee a steady flow of customers any day. As far as the taxing job creators line... It's bullshit.. If you have demand for a prod or service and have to add employees to meet the need you do it or your customers go elsewhere.
ReplyDelete