HIPAA Recreational Injury Technical Correction Act

[TitaniumLegs 8]

Saw this on a motorcycle forum...

"U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) recently introduced S. 616, "The HIPAA Recreational Injury Technical Correction Act.” Identical legislation passed the full Senate in the 108th Congress and obtained 177 bipartisan cosponsors in the House.

S. 616 aims at ending health care discrimination for individuals participating in legal transportation and recreational activities-activities like motorcycling, snowmobiling, skiing, horseback riding, and all-terrain vehicle riding. "


And here .

The examples don't say skydiving, but I suspect it applies. It seems broad enough.

Anybody (with the legal and/or political knowledge) want to look at this and figure out what we should do to support it? Just add our votes on the motorcycle forum?

(>o|-<

If you don't believe me, ask me.

[Andy9o8 2]

I haven't looked up any of the statutes (beyond the snippet quoted in the link), so I can't tell whether each of the 3 statutes noted have broad application that would apply to the general population, or some narrower application.

Anyhow, without doing any legal research, I would think that the term "legal recreational activity" would probably apply to most skydiving.

Legislators' staffs just quickly record letters on issues as "pro" or "con", and ignore the rest, so keep it simple:

Dear Senator Blotz:

As your constituent, I urge you to vote Yes on Senate Bill 616 to end health care discrimination in legal transportation and recreational activities.

Sincerely,
etc.

You may or may not get a nifty form letter in reply.

[kelpdiver 2]

the sad thing is that the AMA got this passed several years back, only to have the entire intent of the bill ignored during the rule making process. Hopefully this time it could be more successful.

The intent is to prohibit insurance restrictions on any legal activity, so skydiving certainly should qualify.

[mark 107]

Quote

The intent is to prohibit insurance restrictions on any legal activity, so skydiving certainly should qualify.

The intent is to get non-risk takers to help pay for our medical bills. They wouldn't do that voluntarily, so we'll use the coercive power of government to make them. It's for their own good, you see, as well as ours.

Mark

[siddacious 0]

Quote

Quote

The intent is to prohibit insurance restrictions on any legal activity, so skydiving certainly should qualify.

The intent is to get non-risk takers to help pay for our medical bills. They wouldn't do that voluntarily, so we'll use the coercive power of government to make them. It's for their own good, you see, as well as ours.

Mark

word.

edit: by which I mean I recognise that skydivers and motorcyclists (of which I am both) are at greater risk of injury than people who play bingo for fun. I'm not a fan of paying more for insurance, but I'm not willing to accept higher premiums for higher risk policy holders as discrimination.

A dolor netus non dui aliquet, sagittis felis sodales, dolor sociis mauris, vel eu libero cras. Interdum at. Eget habitasse elementum est.

[bob.dino 1]

Quote

Quote

The intent is to prohibit insurance restrictions on any legal activity, so skydiving certainly should qualify.

The intent is to get non-risk takers to help pay for our medical bills. They wouldn't do that voluntarily, so we'll use the coercive power of government to make them. It's for their own good, you see, as well as ours.

It's a community thing - you pay for my skydiving injuries and I'll pay for your triple heart bypass caused by years of eating McDonalds. Whether that's a noble goal is a subject best left for Speaker's Corner.

[mark 107]

Quote

It's a community thing - you pay for my skydiving injuries and I'll pay for your triple heart bypass caused by years of eating McDonalds.

Not a good analogy, since both are arguably risky behaviors. I do not expect risk-averse vegans to pay for my McDonald's heart attack, and they shouldn't have to pay for your skydiving injuries either. For all of us, the expected value of our insurance benefits should be equal to the amount of our premiums minus some amount for admin fees.

Mark

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

For all of us, the expected value of our insurance benefits should be equal to the amount of our premiums minus some amount for admin fees.

In that case you might as well jump uninsured and pay your own bill - look at what you would save on the admin fees...

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[mark 107]

Quote

In that case you might as well jump uninsured and pay your own bill - look at what you would save on the admin fees.

Well, yes. If you can afford a lump-sum outlay, you are on average better off putting the equivalent of the premium into your own investments.

Mark

[MarkM 0]

Quote

Not a good analogy, since both are arguably risky behaviors. I do not expect risk-averse vegans to pay for my McDonald's heart attack, and they shouldn't have to pay for your skydiving injuries either.

As soon as medical costs become reasonable, then everyone can pay for their own fuck ups. But until that point, people just need to deal with sucking up the costs involved with other people getting sick or hurt. Part of living in a society is supporting the community. If someone doesn't like that, they're free to live on a mountain top or a remote island somewhere.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

Quote

It's a community thing - you pay for my skydiving injuries and I'll pay for your triple heart bypass caused by years of eating McDonalds.

Not a good analogy, since both are arguably risky behaviors. I do not expect risk-averse vegans to pay for my McDonald's heart attack, and they shouldn't have to pay for your skydiving injuries either. For all of us, the expected value of our insurance benefits should be equal to the amount of our premiums minus some amount for admin fees.

Mark

what about healthy young adults subsidising the bills of elderly people who get sick (and break bones) easily?

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[NWFlyer 2]

Yes, but pooling risk would be the very concept of insurance. Between my employer and me, we pay about $4,500 a year for my insurance. In any given year, I expect (and certainly hope) that I'll use less than that. Over the course of my lifetime, I expect and hope that I'll use less than the aggregate that I've paid in over the years. But the reason I buy insurance is that shit happens (both illness and injury) and if shit happens, it will probably cost more than $4,500 a year ...

Just as people who are considered, actuarially, to be higher risk (men, younger people, etc.) pay higher auto insurance premiums, I would expect that people who are considered higher risk might pay higher premiums. You already see this on individual health insurance policies - people who smoke (for example) have higher premiums. Older people have higher premiums.

I haven't read the proposed legislation, but I am betting nothing in the legislation precludes insurers from charging higher rates to people who engage in higher-risk recreational activities. It's just saying that an insurer can't refuse to cover it.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The intent is to prohibit insurance restrictions on any legal activity, so skydiving certainly should qualify.

The intent is to get non-risk takers to help pay for our medical bills. They wouldn't do that voluntarily, so we'll use the coercive power of government to make them. It's for their own good, you see, as well as ours.

when the exclusions are arbitrary, yes, this sort of government coerced 'fairness' is for our own good.

"non risk taker." There's a loaded term.

[mark 107]

Quote

this sort of government coerced 'fairness' is for our own good.

Democracy: 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Mark

[kelpdiver 2]

if your self interest framework, I'd have been very pissed off at all the money spent on people crashing in their cars, esp while drinking, up till the point where I crashed my motorcycle over road debris.

The vast majority of health care costs are due to the activities of the majority. Arguments about not wanting to pay for the stupid sins of the evil kinevils out there are rarely about actual money, but rather on undefendable principles and an inaccurate notion of the actual costs. If you go into the recreational realm, skiing probably dominates with the blown knees and ankles, and now with boarders the broken hips, shoulders, wrists.

(drifting into speakers corner realm)

To stay on target, I would expect this corrective act to be good for those who have an exclusionary policy, but not in the immediate future (before 2009)