Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sm1th who wrote (9673)	2/18/2012 11:40:30 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Respond to of 85487

Thanks for that info, but I didn't make that statement about 'Cadillac Plans". I was quoting Ltl Joe on that. But your info helps clarify the issue.

To: sm1th who wrote (9673)	2/18/2012 12:00:45 PM
From: Little Joe	Respond to of 85487

'My understanding is that the govt sets minimum standards, but places no restrictions on additional coverages. For example, if a plan wanted to cover cosmetic surgery, that would be allowed." It has been a while since I read it and I am not sure I read the final version. After alll who could, including the people who voted for it. (Sorry, couldn't resist that). At any rate the way I remember it required every policy be approved by the feds. But that is not what I was addressing. I was thinking more along the lines of if the regs issued under the law did not allow treatment. e.g. (( year old man with a disease that will cost hundreds of Thousands of dollars to treat, will likely not be covered. If that man were very wealthy and chose to pay for it himself could he legally do so. The current law is so broadly written that I believe the government has the power to do that, and that the question is would it? lj