2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

Excellent point. Thanks for bringing it up.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

There are two MAJOR problems with the two lauded 'good' aspects of the Senate version: prohibiting kicking paid customers off the rolls and eliminating denial of coverage based on preexisting conditions. First, these don't begin for 3-5 years, giving the industry all the time it needs to whittle away at these new regulations. Second, there is no talk about how much they can charge to take on these new customers with their preexisting conditions. The insurance industry can still charge whatever they want; sure, we'll happily take you on as an insuree, but you'll have to pay 20-30-40% of your income...

This whole discussion is rather academic, however. If anyone wonders who will win in this proposed reform, just look at the value of the stocks of the industry over the last few days. They're skyrocketing.

Thanks.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context