HR 676: An "alternative" to HR 3200...

Tweet

Most of us who talk about the details of Obama's health care "reform" refer to HR3200 the most. That's because it would have been the one that made it to the Oval Office approved but unread had Obama, Pelosi and Reid had their way. We've heard that there are other bills, HR 676 is one of them. Actually, HR 676 was submitted in a previous congress, but died when the last congress adjourned. The first thing one would notice is, it's not an 1100 page nightmare of legaleze and gibberish that even the peopel with law degrees voting on it are scared to read. The next thing is the part about eligibility... Obama stated he never said he was for a "single payer system".. of course, he said that after he stated quite emphatically that that was his goal... This isn't his plan, but it does realize that goal... "(1) IN GENERAL- The Program shall pay physicians, dentists, doctors of osteopathy, psychologists, chiropractors, doctors of optometry, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, physicians' assistants, and other advanced practice clinicians as licensed and regulated by the States by the following payment methods: (A) Fee for service payment under paragraph (2). (B) Salaried positions in institutions receiving global budgets under paragraph (3). (C) Salaried positions within group practices or non-profit health maintenance organizations receiving capitation payments under paragraph (4)." The program will ONLY pay Not For Profit facilities. What happens to "For Profit" facilities? "SEC. 103. QUALIFICATION OF PARTICIPATING PROVIDERS. (a) Requirement To Be Public or Non-Profit- (1) IN GENERAL- No institution may be a participating provider unless it is a public or not-for-profit institution. (2) CONVERSION OF INVESTOR-OWNED PROVIDERS- Investor-owned providers of care opting to participate shall be required to convert to not-for-profit status. (3) COMPENSATION FOR CONVERSION- The owners of such investor-owned providers shall be compensated for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care. (4) FUNDING- There are authorized to be appropriated from the Treasury such sums as are necessary to compensate investor-owned providers as provided for under paragraph (3). (5) REQUIREMENTS- The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system shall take place over a 15-year period, through the sale of U.S. Treasury Bonds. Payment for conversions under paragraph (3) shall not be made for loss of business profits, but may be made only for costs associated with the conversion of real property and equipment." In fairness, there is no prohibition on private, for profit facilities. Facilities are free to offer health care services to anyone willing and able to pay. However, you would have to do it without medical insurance helping out because: "SEC. 104. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE. (a) In General- It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act. (b) Construction- Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered by this Act, such as for cosmetic surgery or other services and items that are not medically necessary." So, if you choose care and treatment at a private, for profit facility, using insurance you purchased, that insurance can't cover payment for: Primary care and prevention, Inpatient care, Outpatient care, Emergency care, Prescription drugs, Durable medical equipment, Long term care, Mental health services, The full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry), Substance abuse treatment services, Chiropractic services,Basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes), Hearing services, including coverage of hearing aids. But again, you are free to pay for it yourself if you want. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-676