"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


No, we need Association Health Plans. They were passed in
the
House
last
year...but they've been sitting in a Senate Subcommittee
for
16
months
while
the Chairman of the subcommittee figures out how to garner
enough
votes
to
make it filibuster-proof when it hits the Senate floor.
The
National
Federation of Independent Businesses is throwing the
majority
of
its
political clout (rated the #2 most powerful lobbying group)
behind
their
passage.


The majority of working Americans who have no health
insurance
work
for
sipstick little companies who aren't going to buy into this
any
more
than they buy into anything else to help their employees.

They will if you create a large enough incentive (via a tax
break)
for
them
to contribute to employees' health insurance

I would not object to a tax break with the REQUIREMENT that
small
businesses provide as a result at least a standardized plan for
all
employees. No exclusions...everyone has at least decent
coverage.




You know of course that local unions are major proponents of
the
concept
of associated health plans and in fact sponsor many. Nice to
see
a
smal
business association buy into the concept of collective
bargaining,
if
not for their employees.

As you stated, unions are already able to band together in
association
health plans. Small businesses aren't.

They should be allowed.


It's not that we won't buy into the
concept...it's that we are not allowed to because insurance
companies

lobbied long ago to keep all insurance regulation under the
control
of
each
state's insurance commission, rather than under the control of
the
Federal
government (look up the McCarron-Ferguson Act). Congress has
the
responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. If I'm buying
insurance
from a company in Massachusetts, then shouldn't Congress
regulate
such a
transaction.


As someone who spent three years as a consultant to a
multi-state
insurance company and who had to write all sorts of copy
differences to
accomodate vagaries of state law, I couldn't agree more. But we
need a
high federal regulatory standard, not the standard some ********
state
might like to impose.


Fine. Let's use the standards that apply to the health insurance
that's
currently given to employees of the Federal Government.


Works for me. Same system, too. A wide variety of plans from which
to
choose, with the exployer paying a minimum of 75-80% of the average
premium of the five largest plans.

I pay 85% of a grossly inflated premium for coverage. If those
premiums
fell, I'd pay 100%.


(I was a consultant for nearly 10 years to one of the largest FEHBA
plans)

But..what about those who still are not covered for one reason or
another.

*TEMPORARY* Medicaide coverage for the unemployed or those between
jobs
and
actively looking. Long-term or life-time coverage for the truly
disabled
and unable to work.

There is plenty of cheap short term insurance availible....most people
would rather buy toys than insurance...it is their choice......and not
the
guvmint's responsibility.



Health care insurance costs have exploded under Bush, period.

Actually they started to soar in 1997 and throughout the remainder of
Clinton's second term. They have actually declined for the past year under
Bush.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1215/csmimg/p21a.gif