Youth may pay a lot more for health premiums (+17%)

[IndianaGreen]

Youth may pay a lot more for health premiums

Costs expected to rise 17 percent once insurance is required

By CARLA K. JOHNSON

updated 2 hours, 1 minute ago

CHICAGO - Under the health care overhaul, young adults who buy their own insurance will carry a heavier burden of the medical costs of older Americans — a shift expected to raise insurance premiums for young people when the plan takes full effect.

Beginning in 2014, most Americans will be required to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty. That's when premiums for young adults seeking coverage on the individual market would likely climb by 17 percent on average, or roughly $42 a month, according to an analysis of the plan conducted for The Associated Press. The analysis did not factor in tax credits to help offset the increase.

The higher costs will pinch many people in their 20s and early 30s who are struggling to start or advance their careers at a time when the unemployment rate is at a 26-year high.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36087653/ns/health-health_care/

[denimgirly]

1. And Ladies and Gentlemen THIS is why a Public Option was Necessary.

or Grayson's "Medicare You Can Buy into" bill.

[IndianaGreen]

3. The public option was the only way to keep the industry in check

and control costs.

[Nikki Stone1]

24. And that's why the Senate killed it before it got any traction.

As soon as the House was forced into voting on the Senate bill, this should have been over and the bill should have been toast. It almost was, I think, but then Wellpoint sent a signal, raising prices 39% in California. I think this was blackmail to get the bill through. But that's just my own take on it.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

95. Winston Smith, is that you?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guilded Lilly]

2. My insurance company just raised my monthly premium ,,60%.

No lie, 60%. No typo there....60%. No reason. No changes in my health over the last year. I am in my fifties and buy an individual plan. Needless to say I am seeking out several other options and hope to dump their greedy butts before spending one more penny towards their coffers. I got more sick just reading their letter of intent to me than I did all last year!

This is going to be a very painful transition until we get some fierce competition for the insurance companies.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Under new law, if you have employer health care, you can't get into the exchanges

It will be a long time before there are exchanges, and only if the states allowed them.

[Nikki Stone1]

21. Do you have Wellpoint?

Mine went up into the stratosphere too--just because I live in California. They are preparing for the exchange and have four years to get their money up front. Some of us were talking about this for months. Sigh.

[Guilded Lilly]

128. No, it's a local hospital group and

up until this year, my increases have barely been 5%~

Rough goings for awhile, but I am looking into an HSA here as well, that might be able to give me a much better rate.
I sigh with you!

[Zynx]

5. Hmmmm... "The analysis did not factor in tax credits to help offset the increase."

Well, that's kinda silly.

[IndianaGreen]

6. College grads that get a job, will be burdened with college loans

they can ill afford the higher premiums of the IRS-enforced mandates, and they won't qualify for tax credits.

A tax credit will not put cash in your pocket when you need it.

[Nikki Stone1]

19. The parents will end up paying this.

I wonder if the IRS can put a lien against the parents' house if the twentysomething doesn't pay his insurance premiums or fine in a timely manner, as required by the language of the bill.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Many parents are divorced, living separate lives

and I personally know of kids that became emancipated as soon as they turned 18 in order to escape a bad home environment. What about them? They are going to college thanks to loans they have taken. They will likely have jobs when they graduate, but won't be able to afford health insurance rates on top of paying back their college loans and settling down.

[Nikki Stone1]

26. Oh I know. But the IRS is going to want their money from somewhere

I wonder if the "option" to insure your kid up to age 26 is going to become a "requirement". In that case, the IRS could levy fines, liens and put parents in jail.

[IndianaGreen]

31. 'They sent the IRS after you!'

I can see that as a political slogan.

[Nikki Stone1]

36. You know, it will happen because the language of the bill

only prevents seizures, liens and imprisonments if you pay your fine in a "timely manner". Timely is an interesting word and I'm pretty sure its definition will suit the needs of the IRS and not those of the people.

[FrenchieCat]

110. Levy cannot be made to collect unpaid taxes assessed for lack of insurance.

Read the bill,
soon, please.
Spreading falsehoods and misinformation
is not doing anyone a service except for
the teafuckingbaggers.

[dionysus]

130. "put parents in jail" when you make up stupid shit like this, it blows away any shred

of credibility you (didn't) have (to begin with).

that's straight up republican style fear mongering.

:eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

109. Property cannot be liened, period.

Read the bill,
one day.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

131. The Stupid ! It burns us....

The IRS can't put a lien on you if your child (who is no longer your dependent) is in arrears on his taxes. No more than they could put a lien on YOUR tax return if YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR had not paid his child support.

Fucking Duh...

Add to that the fact that the legislation specifically prohibits the IRS from assessing liens and levies, and you pretty much have an EPIC FAIL.

Thanks for trying, though.

[Zynx]

25. "They won't qualify for tax credits..." I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about there.

If they get a high income job, alright. However, if you are referring to a 23 or 24 year old, they are being covered by their parents.

As for the tax credit cash flow timing issue, that will be an issue at first, but eventually it will become part of an individual's annual cash flow and will be something they can plan around.

[Nikki Stone1]

30. To get help paying for insurance, you can be no more than 300% of the poverty line

For singles, this is about 10K. 300% over poverty line is 40K. The system is graduated. At 10K you'll get more than you get at 30K. My guess is that the real problems will be for college grads in the 30-40K range who don't get insurance with their jobs but don't get much of a subsidy either. OF course, if you're making 41K, you get nothing, and it's still a problem, especially if you're paying off student loans.

[Zynx]

35. At 41k, in most parts of the country, a single individual is hardly struggling.

Raising a family on 41k is not doable in most parts of the country, but that is not the discussion here.

By the way, I speak as a 23-year old about to enter the labor force.

[Nikki Stone1]

38. In Los Angeles, 41 K is not enough to rent a decent apartment by yourself.

Standards of living are different all over the country. Folks in LA also have higher insurance premiums. (Big cities usually work this way).

[Zynx]

45. I said most parts of the country. LA and NYC are not middle-class friendly.

Here in Madison, WI I can live very well on around $40k a year on my own. I've planned it out and it's very doable.

[Nikki Stone1]

47. There are a lot of places that are not friendly to the middle, working and low income classes

I don't know where you live, but most of the population is around the coastal urban centers and none of these is especially friendly to anyone without significant means.

[Zynx]

68. LA and NYC are particularly unfriendly.

The costs of living there are markedly higher than the national average or the national median, whichever measure of central tendency you choose to use.

The vast bulk of the people in this country don't live in the high cost areas. Sure, they live near costs, but most of those areas are not like NYC, Chicago, LA, or DC.

Madison is much closer to the typical cost of living in this country than LA is.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883960.html

[Nikki Stone1]

74. What is the average apartment rent for a 1bd apt in Madison?

That will help me gauge some of the costs involved.

[Zynx]

84. 700-900 for a decent one. You can pretty easily go 500-600.

By the way, I know the numbers. I can survive quite easily on 30,000 a year here.

[Nikki Stone1]

91. Ok. Here, it's about $1000-1300, maybe more

So let's say you have an $800/mo apt. Your apartment rent should take no more than 1/3 of your take home pay, which means you need to take home about $2400/mo. As a salary, with taxes, FICA etc., that runs about 50K/yr., assuming you're single and have no dependents. If you're making 50K chances are your employer is paying for your insurance and you may have a small contribution to the premium.

If the apartment rent is 1/2 your take home salary, $1600/mo take home, that would be, after all taxes etc. about 30-35 K, give or take. With a job like this, you might not get insurance. A lot depends on the company. Assuming you don't, you have an $800/mo rent, and then $800 left for all other expenses. You could get some kind of subsidy here, but not the whole thing paid for. Assuming gas, groceries, car expenses/insurance, utilities, you could probably handle about $100-200 a month in insurance premiums.

This is still very tight.

[Zynx]

97. In truth $800 gets you a fairly nice apartment in many parts of Madison.

I also don't have a car because I don't need one for most purposes. If I really need to do something that requires one, I occasionally use a cab. All told, rent included, I have been able to keep my non-school expenses to about $1100 a month for most of my time here. It's very possible.

[Nikki Stone1]

102. That sounds like a nice place to live.

In LA you really cannot live without a car.

It sounds like Madison is decent place to live. I assume the job market is not the same as it is in the large cities, which is why people congregate in the large cities. If you ever move out of Madison, it might be eye-opening in terms of the prices and cost of living. I'd love to be able to live without a car. It's just not possible here if you work for a living. :)

[Zynx]

108. I will eventually need a car for work if I get the full time job I am applying for.

The trick to getting a good job in Madison is that it is a very heavily educated town and you need a Masters just to get a middle-class job. It's highly competitive.

[Nikki Stone1]

116. A master's? What kind of jobs are there?

I know the university is there and I'm guessing a lot of people stay there because it is desirable. Small college towns have a lot of charm and fewer problems.

[Jennicut]

132. $41,000? When I got out of colllege 12 years ago, I was lucky to make $20,000.

Most of my friends were in the same boat. And I live in CT, which is not cheap to live by any means.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Parents? The nuclear family is a myth!

I thought only rightwingers believed in that Mister and Mrs Cleaver crap!

[Zynx]

37. Most people have covered parents.

Granted, there are many exceptions, but I don't think the issues regarding divorce and remarriage make you ineligible.

[IndianaGreen]

41. Most of the young folks I know are the exception you speak, except they are the norm

The exception is the intact nuclear family.

[Nikki Stone1]

46. Yes, the figures actually support you. About half of all kids live in nuclear families and half dont

.

[Zynx]

50. No, that doesn't support what they said. They said that the nuclear family is a rarity.

That speaks to the opposite. Also, most people have covered parents, however you choose to define "parent".

This is really a silly discussion.

[Nikki Stone1]

53. It speaks to the fact that you're just as likely to have divorced parents as married parents

And divorced parents, especially mothers, tend to have less means. But even the married parents have been losing income and their savings, if they have any, has been going down in value thanks to the fall of the dollar. No one gets out of this unscathed.

[Zynx]

61. And this kicks kids off the insurance....how?

This is an asymmetric debate. First of all, the nuclear family situation will still apply to half of the people. Secondly, those with remarried parents are still covered from everything I can see. It is also very likely that a great many of those situations will qualify for a large subsidy.

[Nikki Stone1]

73. You have never seen families who are struggling, have you.

You are a very lucky young man. Appreciate that and appreciate your parents for it. Many young people are not so lucky. I have had a long time watching families struggle to make ends meet, working two jobs with no insurance. They will be hurt by this.

The number of middle class families with enough money to cover their children's insurance until they are 26 is not as large as the number of families that will have problems doing so. Middle and working class families are struggling now, real wages have been flat for over 20 years, and meanwhile the necessities have gone up in price. Adding insurance burdens will make a huge difference. I know families that will not be able to deal with this.

Like I said, you're lucky. Be grateful and thank whatever you believe in every night for it. When you've lived another 20 years and have seen more of the world, you might have a different perspective.

[Zynx]

83. I worked with very poor people when I worked for 3 1/2 years in retail.

I know what it is to work very hard for very little. I've put in 70 hour weeks for $6.50 an hour doing grunt work and was damn grateful for the opportunity at the time. I knew people who raised families of four on $25,000 a year. Don't lecture me or patronize me. I've also done relief work on the gulf coast following Katrina. I have seen destitution.

The fact of the matter is that you keep claiming that there is no added subsidy for those who are covering their children, but that is not true. Yes, people will fall through the cracks in a bill of this scope and hopefully before 2014 some corrective measures will be taken to alleviate them. However, when I look at the numbers, I still do not see the ruin you claim. It is all well and good to engage in polemic, but at the end of the day I want to see brass tacks.

[Nikki Stone1]

98. Who are you talking to?

"The fact of the matter is that you keep claiming that there is no added subsidy for those who are covering their children, but that is not true. "


I NEVER claimed this. Take a look at my posts. Families have different rates from individuals, of course. The standard is 300% of the poverty line, which is 10K for individuals and about 23K for families of 4, last I checked. Of course there will be differences.

Clearly you have misunderstood this entire conversation, and you're fighting an issue where there is none. I don't know who you're talking to, but it wasn't me. Take a look.

And at this point, your lack of respect combined with your complete misreading of what's in front of you leads me to believe that this conversation is best left here.

[Zynx]

101. You made a personal attack against me, though it was underhanded.

Also, you never did address my basic complaints about your claims of financial ruin. I've not seen numbers that indicate what you suggest.

[Nikki Stone1]

107. I made no personal attack against you, underhanded or otherwise

And I was enjoying our conversation. But you need to understand that I never said what you think I said, and you need to admit to a misunderstanding. I don't want any hard feelings, but you misunderstood me and I'd appreciate an acknowledgment of that.

And when it comes to personal attacks, when I do make them, people know. And they usually get deleted. :)

[Zynx]

48. First, an intact nuclear family isn't exactly an endangered species.

Most people I know come from a household where they have had the same two parents for their whole lives.

Secondly, in the cases you speak of, I don't see how you are kicked off of insurance.

Now, for orphans and those with unemployed parents, this is an issue. However, those situations are not the norm.

[Nikki Stone1]

44. If they're employed and middle class and haven't had serious illnesses--yes

But that's not always true. There are many parents who carry only catastrophic insurance for hospital stay if they get a very serious illness or are in an accident. They certainly can't pay a kid's insurance on top of that. And those carry catastrophic will now have to change and carry a more comprehensive "Bronze" plan, whether or not they can really afford it. If you're a 47 year old woman with an 18-year old son, making 41 K, and have catastrophic for yourself and your son, you will now have to pay out of pocket for Bronze coverage for both of you. In LA, your budget would be completely destroyed.

[Zynx]

57. I was using a premium subsidy calculator and I didn't exactly end up at doomsday on there.

Instead of polemic, I want to see the numbers on this. I still ended up with a fairly substantial government subsidy with what you described.

[Nikki Stone1]

59. Do you pay for insurance now?

?

[Zynx]

63. I'm 23 and my parents have insurance.

I have ample room in my budget to pay for it if need be.

[Nikki Stone1]

65. You parents pay for you then? Are you still in college?

Or are you working and off your parents' insurance?

[Zynx]

70. I work part time and will hopefully be full time this summer.

I will be on my own then.

Also, I asked you to demonstrate the numbers indicating financial ruin. Every simulation that I have run on the online calculators under the situation you presented indicated a substantial government subsidy. I believe you are trying to distract from this point because you stepped into something that you do not understand.

[Nikki Stone1]

76. I wish you luck.

The online calculator that you used, where was it? Peterson? Kaiser?

[Zynx]

85. Kaiser.

Unless they are totally off base, you are quite wrong in much of what you have said.

[Nikki Stone1]

120. What am I wrong about (just trying to keep track here.:) )

My problem with any counter is that it looks at current conditions under the best assumed circumstances. The insurance companies are going to raise rates: Aetna has already announced that they will and I know my insurer, Anthem/Wellpoint wants to raise rates 39% in CA. This means that the counters are useless. If Aetna and Wellpoint raise their rates, so will Cigna and the other major players. It will not be prosecutable even though it looks like collusion, but if two major players are talking about raising rates, the others are sure to follow. Look at the situation in Maine where Wellpoint is suing for "a right to profit": they feel they should be able to raise their rates and Maine is trying hard to fight them.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15421/the-wellpoint-right-to-profit-case-in-maine-and-what-it-means

I also know that Mass. has been having major cost overruns. This will happen when insurers raise their rates.

The bill does not include enough regulation to stop this kind of thing, and Congress is in thrall to the financial industry (of which insurance is a part) for large campaign donations.

[Lorien]

66. They don't do you a damned bit of good with the deductibles, OR paying

for their overpriced premiums out of pocket.

[Zynx]

72. The deductible argument is a silly one. In the absence of the insurance you would pay

a great deal more than the deductible.

As far as the premiums, yes there is a cash flow gap. I hope that they address this with a one time instant tax rebate or something to that effect before 2014.

[Nikki Stone1]

79. How much do you think the deductible is?

And how much do you think co-pays are?

[Zynx]

88. Once again, the appropriate comparison is to in absence of insurance.

In absence of insurance, the situation for a major medical procedure is far worse.

[Nikki Stone1]

113. When the money is available then this is the appropriate comparison

When the money is not available, food on the table, gas in the car and a roof over the head take precedence. A lot of families don't have insurance and just pray a lot.

In California, where car insurance is mandatory, 25% of the people still don't have it. There are reasons for this, including the practice of redlining in certain districts. Certain poor or accident prone districts in the major cities require much higher premiums, and these are often poor areas where people can't pay the premium.

People without car insurance just pray that they don't have an accident, and if they do, they get treated in the ER or, if they're at fault, they often leave the scene of the accident. They are not usually found. This is very unfair, obviously, to the rest of us, and my premiums here in LA reflect the huge amount of uninsured here, which is well over the state figure. But on the other hand, if these families have the choice between getting food for the kids and getting car insurance, I can't totally blame them.

My hope is that families like these will be covered by Medicare or by the subsidy. However, some of these are illegal immigrants and they were excluded from the bill at the outset.

[Nikki Stone1]

77. Yup

He's 23. He's still learning.

[FrenchieCat]

119. Youstill need to read the bill......

You're too old not to,
especially if you are going to post
about it.

[gravity]

7. This is expected

It is either that or you shift more of the burden on older folks. Someone is going to pay the bill either way.

[Nikki Stone1]

20. That's exactly right.

I think some of the young people misunderstood this part of the bill or they wouldn't have supported it.

[Zynx]

27. Conversely, a lot of old people opposed the bill, but didn't know about this.

[Nikki Stone1]

33. Old old people are on Medicare and they DID oppose the bill. 40-50 somethings DID

oppose the bill even though they were told that their rates might go down. The middle-aged are older, smarter and have dealt with insurance companies. Many didn't trust this bill from the get go because all the promises of the bill relied on the insurance company playing fair. There are few real regulations with teeth and lots of loopholes. Sometimes, people vote in the best interest of the country and not to get freebies.

[gravity]

52. Not everyone votes with their wallet

[Nikki Stone1]

54. No, some people vote for the good of the country--and that would have been AGAINST this bill

not for it.

[ClarkUSA]

96. Congressional Republicans and teabaggers everywhere agree with you 100%!

Congratulations!

:crazy:

[Nikki Stone1]

123. Oh stop, there's been enough name calling.

I read the bill. I don't trust it.

[ClarkUSA]

126. Who's name-calling? Not I. I just stated the facts.

And you have yet to respond to Zynx's request for numbers to back up your polemic.

Not that I expect any, because polemic never does stand up to further scrutiny.

[Nikki Stone1]

134. Guilt by association. An indirect form of namecalling and you know it.

Zynx misunderstood me and my position. I let him know that. No need to support a position I don't believe in. That would really be polemic. :D

The fact is that young people will pay more for insurance than they are now to offset the older, sicker people that cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions or thrown off their insurance for serious illnesses. The rate for the older/sicker crowd is no more than 3X the rate for the younger healthier crowd. It's the only way a for-profit system can work without getting rid of the old and sick, and it is written into the law. Read the law, it might help you.

The law also currently allows parent to pay for their children's insurance until the age of 27. Considering that about half of all families are not the traditional two-parent family, there may be problems with parents paying for the insurance. The twentysomethings are going into a very difficult job market and may not be able to pay for their own insurance. This is why many of us are worried about the true cost of this bill. If a twentysomething is making between 10-20K, s/he will probably get all of the insurance subsidized by the taxpayer. This adds up fast.

When you read the bill, let me know what you think about the parts with criminal penalities, and rescission.

[Lorien]

67. Unless we opted for single payer and got out of the insurance business

like any sane, civilized Nation has already done. United Healthcare doesn't NEED to spend 120k PER HOUR on their CEO!!

[Nikki Stone1]

80. Odd distribution of resources, eh?

:)

[bluestateguy]

8. Strikes me as false

By corporate media pushing an agenda.

[Nikki Stone1]

17. What agenda do you think they might be pushing? (Serious question).

The bill is law and there's nothing that can change it.

[Nikki Stone1]

9. Not a surprise.

.

[ProSense]

10. Pushing the GOP/MSM talking point without any critical thinking

Benefits for young adults

To be sure, there are benefits that balance some of the downsides for young people:

• In roughly six months, many young adults up to age 26 should be eligible for coverage under their parents' insurance — if their parents have insurance that provides dependent coverage.
  
• Tax credits will be available for individuals making up to four times the federal poverty level, $43,320 for a single person.
• The credits will vary based on income and premiums costs.
  
• Low-income singles without children will be covered for the first time by Medicaid, which some estimate will insure 9 million more young adult.

But on average, people younger than 35 who are buying their own insurance on the individual market would pay $42 a month more, according to an analysis by Rand Health, a research division of the nonpartisan Rand Corp.

Because you know, there are so many young people under 35, who will not be on their parents insurance, who are not insured through their employer and are making more than $43,000 per year.

Good grief.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Posting an AP story is not being a GOP flunkie

You should be one to lecture anyone about critical thinking.

[Nikki Stone1]

14. No, it's not. There will be more and more of these.

The bad news is just beginning to leak out, but when you have insurance companies in total control, with no price controls and no real regulations, this is what you get. That's what a lot of us were trying to explain, but some folks couldn't see it. The irony is that the folks that are defending HCR the most strenuously right now actually have the most to lose. HCR creates a caste system of health care and it solidifies both insurance industry control and social inequities.

[gravity]

16. Echoing GOP talking points is

Instead of dwelling of the negative points helping out the Republicans, energy can be better spent on selling the positives of the bill.

[Nikki Stone1]

18. The bill has already passed. "Talking points" (if there were any) are pretty futile

At this point, I think you're getting the actual truth here. The only agenda I can see is that the media (and the insurance industry) waited until after the bill was passed to explain how the bill will affect rates. Had they published this stuff two weeks ago, there would have been incredible pressure to stop the bill in its tracks, by Democrats.

[gravity]

42. There is the 2010 elections

They still need to sell the current healthcare bill to a skeptical public. All these GOP talking points aren't helping the cause.

[Nikki Stone1]

49. They don't need to sell anything. It's a done deal and the GOP, for all its bluster.

will not dismantle it. No one wants the insurance companies to take money away from their campaigns. It's a done deal. 2010 makes no difference for this issue. There are others, but not this one.

[gravity]

56. It makes a difference in maintaining a Democratic majority

which affects other issues.

[Nikki Stone1]

62. Obama got a bounce from this and then he went to Afghanistan-another bounce.

This WH knows what it is doing. It also knows that Americans don't read the paper and many don't do math well. I don't think you have any worries. I am more concerned about the good of the nation right now, not who "wins." In the end, the people lost on real healthcare reform, regardless of who "won" the vote.

[IndianaGreen]

75. I rather have a people's majority than a corporatist majority

What good is it to have a Congress that serves the corporations rather than the people?

[FrenchieCat]

86. you are gonna have a congress serving militias,

you keep this shit up, of posting speculative AP bullshit,
and trying to fearmonger with them....cause that's all this is.

[IndianaGreen]

89. I assume that 'We The People...' did not strike a chord in you

hint: The Preamble to....

[FrenchieCat]

106. Yeah...whatever you say.

You're like their toy,
but we ain't yours.

[Nite Owl]

28. We need to know what the details

are in the bill. Why should the media hide it?

[Nikki Stone1]

51. Yes we do.

We should have known this months ago. The press may have been sitting on a lot of this.

[Forkboy]

94. I wasn't going to take this seriously until you chimed in.

Now I know it's worth paying attention to.

How's your week going?

[geek tragedy]

12. Then make the old people pay more.

Somebody has to pay for it . . .

[IndianaGreen]

13. That 'somebody' votes!

and somebody will pay for it.

[Nikki Stone1]

15. That is the current system.

Older and sicker people pay more and can get booted off their insurance for illnesses and denied for pre-existing conditions. In order to make sure that 50-year old cancer victims don't get kicked off their coverage, the young people have to pay more. I'm sure someone explained this to you, right? There are 3 tiers in the bill: the oldest and sickest people (who are not in the small high risk pool) can only be charged 3X more than the younger people. So if the 50 year old should be paying $1500/month and the young person should be paying $100/month right now, these have to be evened out. The young person pays $400 and the older person pays $1200.

[geek tragedy]

23. I largely agree with you.

I think it's kind of funny that sometimes the same people who complain that this would cause rates to go up for young people also complain that the maximum age rating ratio allowed is too high.

[Nikki Stone1]

34. It really all boils down to whether or not you trust the insurance companies since this bill had no

real regulatory teeth. The only thing that might have controlled costs was the public option and the Senate nixed that idea in many different ways. That's what happens when you owe your seat in the Senate to corporate $$.

There is no way in hell that national healthcare should have been left in the hands of those who would let people die so they could make a profit.

[IndianaGreen]

39. HCR is like trusting the Somali pirates to enforce anti-piracy laws.

Our bought and paid for Congress put the fox of the health industry in charge of the hen house.

[Nikki Stone1]

58. Exactly

Sigh.

[geek tragedy]

40. I think the regulatory scheme will work better than you think it will.

We'll have to see who's right. I hope I'm right--and not for ego gratification.

AHIP buckled pretty quickly today.

[IndianaGreen]

43. They didn't buckle, they just did a strategic retreat

Watch for the premiums they will charge!

[Nikki Stone1]

64. They got four years to do all this

That's a lot of time to cause a lot of mischief.

[IndianaGreen]

71. A lot of people with pre-existing conditions will die between now and then

The same people that were told that they would be covered immediately by the bill.

[Nikki Stone1]

81. I hope that's not kids too

There are people on this board with severely ill children.

[Nikki Stone1]

60. On what basis do you believe that?

Nothing in the bill indicates real teeth.

And I hope you're right too--for the good of the country.

[bornskeptic]

99. Isn't it pathetic? Apparently a 3:ratio 1 is both too low and too high.

According to the Kaiser calculator the projected premium for a single 25-year-old making $45,000 in 2014 is $2637, or about $220 per month, while a 55-year-old making the same money would have to pay $6607, about $550 per month.

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

[Zynx]

29. One other point, this was a conscious policy trade-off.

If you are not comfortable with making trade-offs such as this one, you have no business making public policy.

[Nikki Stone1]

82. Trying to trace what you were talking about.

What was a conscious policy tradeoff?

[SpartanDem]

105. the policy of a narrower age rating band

insurers charge more than 3x for older customers today by forcing them to charge less, it was going to shift the cost to younger customers.

[Nikki Stone1]

114. Ah, yes.

Well of course it was. And thank you for answering.

[FrenchieCat]

55. This is speculative trash talk of the HCR bill.....coming from AP, a GOP news wire service

far as I'm concerned.

Those who call themselves Democrats and are jumping on this shit reporting,
must have an agenda....and that's really too bad.
If you want your world ran by a bunch of folks who respect
racists militias, go ahead.......but don't act like what you are
doing will result in anything different, because it won't.

The entire plan of the GOP and its media is to contineously leak
what they are massaging as "bad news" in reference to this Health plan,
polling data showing negativity against this bill (they have been doing that all day today),
because the last thing they want is for anyone to see any good in it....
and they want folks to want to go vote for the GOP in 2010 in hopes of repealing
any future benefits, so they are making folks scared, not of the immediate benefits
since they can't do that, but of the future benefits, because as long as those are intangibles,
fear can be squeezed from them.

It's so fucking obvious and closing your eyes won't make it go away.
Pushing this disinformation makes folks doing this in actuality doing the GOP's work.
It's like advocating voting for Nader in Florida after seeing the future
knowing what happened when Gore almost lost Florida.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

78. There is no issue, there's nothing but speculation......

and the only person babbling nonsense is you.....

Your only goal is to "show us", cause I guess you ain't got nothing to lose,
evidenced by the fact that you are constantly miserable about everything anyway.

I'm telling you, it is very easy to see what the strategy is here coming from the GOP,
even if you feign not to see it, it is still there.

The GOP are now Trash talking/fearmongering not the immediate benefits for the HCB,
but the ones coming in 2014, because it is easier to feed fear on what is in the future,
and do not be mistaken, that's all that this article is.

The Fuck word MAY should have tipped you off, but of course,
you didn't want to be tipped off. You like posting this shit.
but know this....ain't nobody stupid now,
just like many weren't stupid before.

I'm sure the fucking death panels are still coming...."MAY"be in 2014, right?

[Peacetrain]

90. This seems to be conveniently overlooked by some

The analysis did not factor in tax credits to help offset the increase. .. the offset credits for people.

[FrenchieCat]

93. Well, they don't want you to read,

just get pissed by the headlines.

Afterall, we are a bunch of stupids, if you didn't know.
We eat their shit for breakfast, and then ask for more.

Here's how I read that article.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=253073&mesg_id=253383

[Juche]

87. I knew this going in

I really don't mind. I had health insurance in college but dropped it when they raised my rates 40% in one year even though I made 0 claims. Them raising rates 20-40% a year anyway isn't unheard of. At least this way we get rate hikes for a good cause.

Either way, the private market is doomed to collapse. You can't maintain 20% rate hikes every year, that doubles prices every 4 years. Rate hikes of 35% double prices every 2 years. But a 17% hike is nothing new.

[Nikki Stone1]

100. Fair enough.

This is really the least of the problems that are coming down the pike.

[FrenchieCat]

104. You've got more unsourced "Analysis "commissioned by AP to serve us later?

Great! :bounce:

[akbacchus_BC]

111. Frenchie, why you getting into an argument with that one? Save your

breath, LOL.

[FrenchieCat]

118. Cause I don't need folks damaging our future with some half baked speculative hit piece

featuring some shady analysis from some fucked up Republicans
which don't take obvious shit into consideration like tax credits.

I'm tired of this shit. It's becoming harmful.
Propaganda pushed here, need to be pushed back.

[ClarkUSA]

112. I fully expect the GOP to be parroting this purely speculative AP media whore talking point soon.

Thanks for always letting us know what fearmongering anti-HCR stories are out there in corporate-sponsored journalism.

:sarcasm:

[TomCADem]

115. ROFL! Story Relies On A "Bi-Partisan" Group Headed By A Former George Bush Staffer

Two problems. First, the article relies on studies prepared by right wing political operatives. Second, what program whether it Medicare or Social Security does not effectively transfer wealth from the young and health to the old or unhealthy? The law specifically limits premiums to elderly Americans to a certain percentage above that of younger Americans, which is a subsidy. Social security works on the same principle with the young health paying more than they receive.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36087653/ns/health-health_care/

Predicting exactly how much any individual's insurance premium would rise or fall is impossible, experts say, because so much is changing at once. But it is possible to isolate the effect of the law's limits on age-based pricing.

Some groups predict even higher increases in premiums for younger individuals — as much as 50 percent, says Landon Gibbs of ShoutAmerica, a Tennessee-based nonprofit aimed at mobilizing young people on health care issues, particularly rising costs.

Gibbs, 27, a former White House aide under President George W. Bush, founded the bipartisan group with former hospital chain executive Clayton McWhorter, now chairman of a private equity firm. McWhorter finances the organization. The group did not oppose health care reform, but stressed issues like how health care inflation threatens the future of Medicare.

"We don't want to make this a generational war, but we want to make sure young adults are informed," Gibbs says.

[Nikki Stone1]

122. ROFL: HCR totally relies on the Heritage Foundation plan

It's a right wing plan. :)

[ClarkUSA]

125. ROFL! Yeah, that's why right-wing Republicans all voted for it. Oh wait... they didn't.

Sorry, but your polemic holds as much water as an old elm tree that has been struck down by lightning.

:)

[Nikki Stone1]

135. Heritage Foundation . org

Look it up: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/12/The-Crisis-in-Americas-Emergency-Rooms-and-What-Can-Be-Done

The republicans didn't vote for it because they didn't want Obama to have the win. They would have introduced it themselves in some slightly altered form when they took over Congress. Then it would look like they had forced Obama into it in the same way the GOP forced Clinton into welfare "reform". It was all political for the GOP this time.

But the ideas came from the right.

[CTLawGuy]

137. they had 6 years between

'00 and '06 to introduce this bill without any Democrats to stop them. Why didn't they do so?

This could only plausibly (and I use that term loosely) be called a conservative/right bill because it's based on ideas from Nixon, Eisenhower and Dole, three moderate leaders who would have been primaried out of existence for being socialists if they were around today. It was also the bill of the heavily Democratic (with veto proof majority) Mass. state legislature, which was signed by Mittens back when he was the moderate pro-choice governor of that state.

If anything, this is a centrist bill. But it's a PASSED bill (i.e. a law) and that's what matters.

[Thrill]

117. Another hit piece by the Insurance Industry

You know thats who actually wrote article

[FrenchieCat]

124. And you see who's spreading the shit here......

while pretending to have read the bill.

This is sick.

We've got the militia on one side doing their thing,
the Teabaggers on the other lying their ass off,
and then there are the folks who just want to see Dems fail,
and will do and say anything.

I don't appreciate it this shit at all.

I'm going to send this fucked up article to Media Matters.

[johnaries]

121. First of all, for people in their 20's most of them NOW can still be covered

under their parents' insurance.

As for the rest of them, they can at least buy low-cost "catastrophic" insurance which they need to have. Those who do not drive up costs for the rest of us when the "unthinkable" happens to them and they have to go to the emergency room.

Bottom line, there is no reason that I should have to pay more because of the short-sightedness of those who are hoping to get free emergency care and charge it to those who are actually responsible.

If you don't have health insurance, you are screwing the rest of us who do. I'm sick of paying for your arrogance. Pay up. Face your responsibility.

[frazzled]

127. We couldn't cover our kids once they graduated from college

And both of them spent time uninsured at some point during the several years after graduating (in 2003 and 2006). In the last few years, I understand a few states have allowed this age group to stay on their parents insurance--but not everywhere.

At one point my daughter was turned down from Blue Cross/Blue Shield for an individual policybecause of a pre-existing condition. She has had to stay at a job when she wanted to make some changes because of the insurance situation. My son (age 25) is in graduate school, and so gets insurance through the university. If he were not, he would not qualify to be on our insurance in Illinois.

[Zomby Woof]

129. Yeah, the right-wing AP is pushing the story without proper context

Naturally.

17% over 4 years is just over 4% a year, which is likely much lower than what percentage increases have been the previous four years. Plus, there will be tax credits to offset the increases. This kind of article is meant to stir the pot. Cracks me up when the "left" on here uses right-wing sources like the AP to stir up shit in their own way. I guess "by any means necessary" to justify the ends, huh?

Yes, single payer would be best. We know, we know. A public option would be the next best thing. We get it already.

But this is what we got.

Whatever flaws this new law has (and it has them), or will be revealed, this projected increase is not one of them. Not compared to the pre-law status quo.

It would cost us more, under the way things were before this new law, to subsidize the 24 year old who thinks he will live forever, when the time comes he needs sudden hospitalization, and can't afford the enormous bills.

Really, this kind of journalism, and this kind of promoting of it on here, is reaching.

[Vinca]

133. I'm no fan of the bill, but premiums would go up anyway just based

on insurance company greed.

[Mass]

136. This is called solidarity. And yes, it works this way with a single payer.

Young people do not get a pass because they are young. They pay according to their revenue (by taxes), so this is not different.

The fact there is no single payer or public option is a problem.

The fact that young people pay more than they consume to be sure older people do not get the stick because their health is worse is the basis of universal healthcare. I am not surprised to see the MSM try to push this as a bad thing, but it is not, except in this country.