Do the health care reform proposals keep ins. companies from writing new policies?

Factual Questions
1

A health-care-reform-hating coworker and I just had the following exchange on Facebook:

Him: “what about the “keep your current health care” myth. Yea, you can keep what you have, as long as you don’t have to change it…then you have to go government. And oh, yea, we have decent coverage (I would say really good), but after this comes in, new hires wouldn’t be able to get it, they would have to go government, because insurance companies are forbidden from writing new policies.”

Me: “I need to educate myself more, we all do, but I’m fairly certain that insurance companies are NOT going to be forbidden from writing new policies.”

Him: “that is the infamous pg 16. that page states, “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law. This prevents insurance companies from writing new policies, if they cannot write new policies, then the current polices will go away, either because of necessary changes or as Ins. companies can no longer operate because there are no new customers.”

What the heck? First I’ve heard of insurance companies being prevented from making new policies. Common sense tells me this is bollocks, but does anyone know what this “page 16” provision is that he’s referring to? Is that an accurate quote, or taken out of context?

2

Presented without comment or endorsement:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854

3

That’s very interesting and disconcerting - and I say that as someone in FAVOR of health care reform. I’m amazed that this hasn’t gotten more press, if the IBD’s take on it is accurate. Seems like insurance companies should be raising a huge stink.

Can anyone else debunk or clarify this? I know the IBD is the same publication with the Stephen Hawking gaffe, so I’m not taking them at face value…

4

To the best of my understanding of the bill, which is here: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

The wording the IBD editorial refers to appears to mean that in the future private and employer insurance will have to meet certain new requirements. For example, it might require that certain types of conditions be covered. Health insurance would not be considered qualified coverage if it did not meet the new conditions. It looks like it is referring back on page 15 to Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage), Subtitle C (relating to essential benefits), and (3) Subtitle D (relating to consumer protection). Existing insurance policies that did not meet those conditions would not be outlawed, they just couldn’t enroll new people. This looks like a fairly standard grandfathering clause to me.

If someone more immersed in the text of this bill would like to clarify, I’d be happy to learn more.

5

Offered without comment,

6

Thanks silenus, that’s the straight dope I was looking for.