"No one knows what's in this bill" is disingenuous stance at this point. If you wish to inform yourself, there's a really good 66-page section-by-section summary produced by the CRS. You can get it here (http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill53.pdf). There's also a similar review of the reconciliation bill here (http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill63.pdf).
And yes, the section under question here is in the analysis, plain as day, Section 1312:
Requires the offering of only qualified health plans though Exchanges to Members of Congress and their staff.
The problem isn't the section itself, but the fact that when the section goes into effect isn't properly defined, and could be interpreted to go into effect before the exchanges are available. Which makes no sense, but technically it's an error.
Also notable is the "pre-existing condition for children" issue is also in the 66-page analysis, Sec 1255:
Section 10103 ... applies the prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions with respect to children effective six months after enactment.
The problem here is people getting confused as to what "exclusions" meant.
If you can't read a 2500+ page legal document, there's no reason you can't read a less than 100-page, more plainly written summary of it. I would encourage everyone on both sides of the issue to do so if you wish to actually have a reasonable informed discussion of these topics.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 14/4/10 19:57 (UTC)And yes, the section under question here is in the analysis, plain as day, Section 1312:
The problem isn't the section itself, but the fact that when the section goes into effect isn't properly defined, and could be interpreted to go into effect before the exchanges are available. Which makes no sense, but technically it's an error.
Also notable is the "pre-existing condition for children" issue is also in the 66-page analysis, Sec 1255:
The problem here is people getting confused as to what "exclusions" meant.
If you can't read a 2500+ page legal document, there's no reason you can't read a less than 100-page, more plainly written summary of it. I would encourage everyone on both sides of the issue to do so if you wish to actually have a reasonable informed discussion of these topics.