Prophetess Pelosi

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

 

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,

-Nancy Pelosi March 2010

It is often said that the new health care law will affect almost every American in some way. And, perhaps fittingly if unintentionally, no one may be more affected than members of Congress themselves.

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.

 

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available

The law promises that people can keep coverage they like, largely unchanged. For members of Congress and their aides, the federal employees health program offers much to like. But, the report says, the men and women who wrote the law may find that the guarantee of stability does not apply to them.

“It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. may be able to retain this coverage,” the research service said in an 8,100-word memorandum.

And even if current members of Congress can stay in the popular program for federal employees, that option will probably not be available to newly elected lawmakers, the report says.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/us/politics/13health.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Okay, so this may be a bit of Schadenfreude but I am glad to see this.  The only thing that would have been better is if their insurance was taxed.

I wonder what else we  will find in the bill….

Things like Children with Pre-existing conditions not being covered. 

I am confident in Speaker Pelosi's ability to fix these minor issues. Just like they already plan the Doc Fix.

Comments

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available

Now if you could sell that to the people as "They'll see how the other 1/2 live" you're surely on to a winner?

I'd suggest that all on health plans like that have a "Personal interest" and should be declared (Should that have come up in the UK HOP anyway, don't your congress peeps have to declare interests?

[ygrii-blop.livejournal.com]

I hope the bastards do lose their coverage. Then maybe they'll understand what the rest of us deal with.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

odd but there's a decided lack of commentary from the probama cheerleaders.

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

"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.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Did they change the part about women no longer being eligible for yearly mammograms?