Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I'm going to pay possibly up to 5X more because I'm older???

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Are_grits_groceries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:28 AM
Original message
I'm going to pay possibly up to 5X more because I'm older???
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 06:33 AM by Are_grits_groceries
Under the Baucus bill, insurers wont be able to charge more if you are sick, but they will be able to charge more if you are older asking you to pay five times as much as a young invincible. (Under the House bill, HR3200, premiums for older customers are capped at twice what insurers bill younger Americans.) If you are a single parent, you pay 80 percent more than a single adult a pretty stiff penalty for single parenthood since children usually need substantially less health care. Finally, there is a 50 percent surcharge for smokers.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/gradi... /

They can bite me! This isn't reform. It's robbery. I have pre-existing conditions, and I'll bet more older people do. That will screw me too.

It is said this is a done deal. Screw all of them. I want to be supportive, but I'm supposed to eat this??? If a bill is passed that is filled with these proposals, then they truly are willing to pass anything and claim victory.

And their horses!!! :rant:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. I will not cooperate, and I will fight it if they try to garnish my wages or
seize my savings.

Civil society can't work without cooperation from citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a la izquierda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. This plan is a train wreck
and I'm not "older". I'm only 32, but I have a pre-existing condition as well (2, actually). Generally, I'm healthy, but will a new plan allow me to continue to see a neurologist when I need to??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Poison Pill is the term
Some thing guaranteed not to pass because it would destroy the Dem Party 100%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
51. Yup, it's DOA
It won't even get out of Baucus's committee.
No need to even discuss this piece of legislative garbage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:43 AM
Response to Original message
3. The plan was written by Aetna, Cigna, and the Blues
What did you expect :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
4. This plan will not pass
It's crap
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
5. President Obama will be rallying for health insurance reform today, is this the bill
he'll be rallying for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Are_grits_groceries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. This article gives me agita:
From Finance Chief, a Bill That May Weather the Blows
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. Ditto :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a la izquierda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #13
29. I never hear anyone say "agita"
unless they're Italian. Yay!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Are_grits_groceries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. I learned that from
Joy Behar when I watched The View. I have found it to be a very useful term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a la izquierda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. My mom's family is Sicilian, so it gets lots of usage...
in my house. I love it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #29
53. I say agita and I'm Jewish. I guess when you've had a couple of Italian men in your life
agita rubs off. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a la izquierda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. Yeah, Italian men give me agita...
which is why, to my grandparents' dismay, I didn't marry one. :evilgrin: I'm related to enough of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #54
65. lol!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #54
77. Actually, the actor, Nick Apollo Forte, sang a cool song
about agita in the Woody Allen movie, "Broadway Danny Rose" in 1984.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
7. the line for free beer forms over here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trayfoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
8. So, now, we are going to institutionalize age discrimination?????
NO.......I DO NOT support what I have heard about this bill!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Insurance already does this -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #8
19. All the bills also further enshrine discrimination against GLBT families
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. Aside from (I assume) not recognzing our marriages
what does it do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #25
83. They speak of subsidies for families
but those families must have 'spousal rights' which no one with a civil union has. They use the word 'spouse' constantly and with direct intent to defraud GLBT Americans in order to benefit the ruling majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #83
87. Until they repeal the marriage discrimination act
that isn't going to change - this doesn't make it any better or worse (and using "spouse") means that it will automatically catch up once the marriage discrimination act is repealed.

Here it doesn't seem to make any difference - or makes one that favors at least "single" parents with only one child.

My family would only pay 2.8 times the single rate (1.8 for a single mom with child, and 1 for the other adult). If our marriage was recognized, we would have to pay 3 times the single rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
9. How do you pay for your current insurance - is it that good of deal?
Or are you not covered and it will be better to keep it that way. I know I have good insurance at work ie 8000 per year or more and I will have to pay 35% of that in taxes if it passes so about 3000 more in taxes each year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:00 AM
Response to Original message
10. I got diabetes, I bet I pay 5X too!
Buck Faucus before he Yucks Fou!

SINGLE PAYER YES, MAXICARE NO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
23. No surcharge for pre-existing conditions
(Not saying I like the bill - but it does prohibit charging more for pre-existing conditions.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. Just wait till the Supreme Court guts it!
Like that will survive a court challenge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #28
33. No basis for the Supreme Court to overturn that provision
and it is the same provision that is in every bill that has been introduced by Democrats (I haven't seen Republican bills introduced - but that is not a provision that is generally controversial - so if there are any it is likely to be in those bills (if there are any) as well.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #28
60. On what possible basis?
I could see mandates not passing Constitutional scrutiny but regulation on what premiums can be charged for what conditions?

What Constitutional right exists that prevents "infringement" by govt on setting acceptable policies for granting insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dugaresa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:00 AM
Response to Original message
11. legitimizing the robbery, it is ridiculous, Baucus is an ass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
14. We've seen the rebellion of the insane lately.
Now it's time for the sane to do the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
15. A 50% surcharge if you smoke.
A 5 time increase if you dare get over 50 years old.

An 80% increase if you are a single mother.

They should also add a surcharge if you are fat or promiscuous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. The "GANG" that came up with this are a
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 07:34 AM by Hubert Flottz
GANG of MOTHERS!

Edit...The Gang wants to starve Granny to death. This is Gang warfare against the weakest people in the country. Gangsters and predatory animals all operate the same way. Survival of the fittest, the law of the fang and claw. Max BoinkUs is anything but progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal In Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #15
26. I'm surprised there isn't a surcharge for skydivers, people with boats,
bicycle and motorcycle riders. Almost any human activity could theoretically could put you into some kind of higher risk group.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
populistdriven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #15
40. lets call it 500%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aroach Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
76. What happens if...
You are a single mother, over 50, who smokes?

Hey, it could happen. I'm a 43 year old mom who still smokes. My youngest will be 13 when I turn 50. I'm married now but he could croak or leave me or be abducted by aliens. You never know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
16. The Bill Is A Poison Pill...
I had a chat with a lifelong friend and Democrat who brought up an interesting scenario here. The Baucus bill, while being in an important committee, was bait, a test, to see if any rushpublicans would come over. Methinks Baucus and Conrad were sure they could lure a Snowe and test where their limits were. Would they accept a clause making canellation due to a pre-existing condition illegal? President Obama knew early on that the GOOP had no proposals...thus there were trial balloons flown here that couldn't be done elsewhere. It went nowhere and in the end Baucus wrote a bill that not only wouldn't pass on the floor but was so poisoned it may not get out of committee. And so be it.

That sets up a different game in the Senate as the Health Committee (Senator Kennedy's) Bill is the only one that has passed out of committee and can be called up for a vote. If this bill dies in committee, then there will only be bills with Public Option and all set for reconcillation. Finally, there will be a cloture vote to move the bill to reconciliation (50 votes)...and here's where the whip will be cracked. Elements of the Baucus bill will be included, cut it won't be THE bill, but enough to satisfy Baucus, Conrad, Nelson and others to at least vote for cloture and then add ammendments and or vote against parts of the bill when it shifts to a 50 vote threshold.

As has been said before, this is a chess game...played against egos and big money. But President Obama has picked people who know this game and how to move the pieces. When push comes to shove...and it will soon...those who stand in the way of what the President wants will get steamrolled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. like to place a bet?
this scenario is just silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #22
32. And Your Scenario Is?
Curious minds want to know...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #32
39. follow the money -
if lucky - a meager PO - subsidized for those that are uninsured

little reform elsewhere -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. How About Pre-Existing Conditions
There's also the proposal that would detach insurance from employers...making policies transferable. Those are very big things for millions who are currently "insured". Subsidies are better than nothing, but I see the determination for a more robust PO as the driving force as this thing meanders between the House & Senate.

And this is definitely a work in progress...adjustments will be needed and I suspect, if President Obama wins a second term, we'll be back to this debate then.

Yes, follow the money...$1.4 million or so a day being spent on lobbying against reform but also follow the polls. Final votes will happen just as next year's election begins to heat up. Right now I see some pandering for the money, but then they'll need to pander for the votes.

Cheers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. I don't think we will see a deviation from the current employer-based system
that would be dramatic - and until we have a universal PO, I don't see it happening. And we know a universal PO is DOA.

Not sure how pre-existing conditions will shake out - but guarantee it will not cut in to insurers profits. Subsidies? Increased premiums? I just don't see the insurers giving up a dime on the reformed plan - and they are winning this battle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #43
47. They'll Make It On Umbrella & "Cadillac" Plans
The dirty secret of a public system is that it won't cover every little thing. It won't cover a private room and there will be a limit as to how much can be expended per quarter. Thus I see a big "after market" if you will in umbrella policies. Also there will surely be a move toward "boutique" plans for those who wish to stay with a private insurer. The pool of risk for these companies is sure to drop as they will be able to weed out all who are high risk...keeping profits high and even using the public system to handle their higher risks and then just covering a small overhead for a large premium. Be assured, even in a robust PO world, they'll find a way to create a profit. It won't be the big stash they're making now, but we won't be needing a tag day for any of them.

Sadly I do see where employers will remain the conduit for healthcare for millions for the forseeable future. It masks many from the real costs and allowed the insurance companies to create the smokescreens that have made healthcare reform a major priority.

Last thought...and that's about tort reform. For years I worked with my father's medical practice. I can recite many stories about fighting with insurance companies who were playing god...but also with frivolous malpractice suits that led to high premiums that are passed along. There needs to be a reigning in of the liabilities doctors face that lead to those high premiums that surely will see a major decrease in overall costs. I know, I'm dreaming now...

Cheers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #47
52. tort reform extends beyond this huge issue, unfortunately
I have no problem with umbrella or cadillac plans. Why not - if you can afford an add-on - good for you. But - basic care should be universal . . . it should be seen as a right. I don't know why we do not have that thought universally. (I have spent time in a shared room - but I never felt slighted.)

There has been a positive aspect to the employer-based plans - I have never heard of an age-bias in premiums. The employers have been successful, whether consciously or not, in this. This has been extended to not only the insured, but also the covered dependents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillbillyBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #52
67. I am not sure what you are meaning about tort reform
To clarify. The cost of lawsuits and insurance represents only a portion of 1% of the total cost of health care and insurance.
This is the favorite bugaboo of the right to disallow folks who get screwed up by the profession making sure they get 0$ for pain, suffering and cost of reparation therapies for drs mistakes or accidents in hospital.
Now I agree that attorneys get too large a cut, but they tort reform they want is to disallow any suits to be brought. They say to cap at 100,000,
a remodel of your home to accommodate wheel chair access get cost that much or in home medical devices or nursing adds up quickly as does nursing home care. Say you are paralyzed and have a special van to accommodate your wheel chair, build a ramp for it, widen all the doorways, make an accessible tub or shower. I learned this when I got out of surgery a few months ago and find when I got home that none of the doorways will accommodate my walker let alone a wheel chair. The same goes for kitchen getting in and out of bed..
What is really killing us is the cost of insurance both for health and for the drs malpractice ins, they are getting gouged..by the same companies..seems like double dipping no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. do the doctors get malpractice insurance from health insurers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
verges Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #22
80. It seems elaborate and risky, but....
so does the bill itself. Could semi-intelligent people actually write such a bad bill? A high school government class could have come up with something better!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:08 AM
Response to Original message
17. You have pre-existing age and could pay 7.5X as much.
Oh, for an overly bloated price tag to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
21. I believe the lobbyists wrote this bill outright...
There are so many insane tidbits in this birdcage liner, no wonder the stocks jumped yesterday.

The bill will ban denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions BUT these folks can be put in a "high risk" pool. And then what, drowned?

I think the idea of bi-partisan reform should be euthanized; let the Dems craft a decent bill, grease it up with petroleum jelly & insert it into the GOP debate.

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. They did. Many of Baucus's former staffers are lobbyists for the
health insurance industry. They had a seat at the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
27. fuck that shirt; let's roll back Bush's tax cuts for the rich and fully fund single payer. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #27
49. Like Obama promised he would, campaign promises=zero. LOL!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Chump change
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
verges Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #49
81. Obama never promised
single-payer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
30. It isn't clear what happens with multiple children...
Two adults and one child pay 3 times the cost of a single person (so no discount for children)
Two adults and (apparently) an unlimited number of children still pay only 3 times the cost of a single person (every child after the first is free)

A single adult with a child pays 1.8 times the cost of a single person (so a 20% discount for the child) - a benefit a married couple with one child doesn't receive.

The summary I found didn't set a premium for a single adult with more than one child - my guess is that would be a family plan - and the discount for the first child is gone since that a family plan is 3 times the cost of a single person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
queenjane Donating Member (258 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #30
46. My health plan has tiers like this
I work for a large private university / med center. We have 4 different plans to choose from, and within each plan are 4 tiers:
a. single
b. one adult plus covered spouse
c. one adult plus covered children (no limit on # of children)
d. one adult covering spouse AND children

This makes sense, as in each tier you're covering more people. And I must disagree with the poster above who says children rarely get sick. The kids I know are ALWAYS sick, always going to the doc, etc. Me, I'm 48, healthy as the proverbial horse, and rarely need to see a doc for anything save normal checkups. I cost our health insurance very little. Makes sense I should pay less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #46
50. It's a relatively standard tier
What isn't clear from the summary is where one adult + multiple children fits.

Standard plans are usually like yours or one of these other options: (1) single; couple (roughly 2 x single premium); family (roughly 3 x single premium) or (1) single; family (usually less than 3 x single premium).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
34. couldn't HR3200 conceivably force some into homelessness? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #34
59. No. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
populistdriven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
35. Can we call it 500% for 50 year olds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
populistdriven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
36. .
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 08:03 AM by populistdriven
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustABozoOnThisBus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
38. When are the Democrats going to announce their plan
This one is obviously the Republican plan

Too bad we don't have majorities in the Congress, then we'd see some really good plans ... er, wait ...

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnfound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
42. Older and a single parent here.
It's hard to understand why 1 kid wouldn't cost 20% more instead of 80% more, if being older will cost 5 times as much. Plus single parents are disproportionately women, so is this also a way for insurance companies to collect on the higher costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth?
I hate insurance companies. Give us an option to go public if we want to, and I will be part of the mass exodus, just on principle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
44. Yes, all that and age discrimination in hiring too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
45. It's hard to find rate comparisons -
but one I found was about a 4.3 x more for a 60+ male than an under 18 male - a little lower than they would be allowed under Baucus, but not that much higher.

(Insurance companies like to hide the rate tables so you can't really do comparison shopping) - but under every bill I've looked at BUT the Baucus bill, the age differential is lower than the current (free market) differential.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
48. Don't you understand that we are facing a crisis in executive compensation?
Tax the workers now! No more unfunded mandates!


:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
55. I doubt it will ever pass like this, the seniors are a huge block, and they vote
Congress is scared to death of the seniors as a group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #55
64. Remember - seniors from a health care perspective
pretty much stop at Medicare age. That makes this bunch a very different senior grouping than the one they have been scared of in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
56. What has happened in Massachusetts with a 2-to-1 age rating...
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 10:13 AM by slipslidingaway
Health Reform Lessons from Massachusetts, Part V
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/health_reform_lessons_...
http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2009... /

"...After hearing from older readers who complained they were having a tough time with the mandate because they could not afford a policy, Lazar reported on the problems with age rating. Massachusetts may require insurers to cover the sick, but it doesnt force them to sell affordable policies. Rates for an older person can be twice as much as that for a younger person, requiring them to pay several hundred dollars more.

To fit premiums into tight budgets, some residents have purchased policies with less coverage and more out-of-pocket costs. Some forty-two percent of people buying their policies through the Connectors shopping service choose policies that generally require more cost sharing. Another irony: State data show that as residents get older they choose cheaper, less comprehensive plans just when they need medical care the most. The Senate Finance Committee draft would allow insurers to charge older people up to five times more than younger people, a provision that will likely mean older people in other states will face the same problems as those in Massachusetts. Will an insurance policy always give someone a chair in the doctors office?..."


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1914876,0...
Old thread...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"...Insurers have agreed to discontinue practices like turning down customers in the individual and small-group market who have expensive pre-existing conditions and basing premium rates on health status and gender. But one variable that will persist is age, since older enrollees represent more health risks than younger enrollees, and insurers are doing their best to retain the most flexibility in that area. Current reform legislation in the House and the Senate Health, Education Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee would allow insurers to vary premiums on the basis of age only by a factor of two, meaning insurers would be allowed to charge older enrollees premiums that are twice as high as those for younger ones. (In the health-policy world, this is known as a 2-to-1 age rating.) That may sound like a huge concession to private insurers, but they insist it would lead to only one of two scenarios: financial ruin for private insurers or exorbitantly high premiums rates for young Americans.

"You couldn't do business at 2 to 1. The younger people's premiums would just be too high," says Charles Kahn, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a lobbying group for investor-owned hospitals, and a former lobbyist for the insurance industry during Bill Clinton's health-care reform battle in the 1990s. Essentially, a wider "age band," like the 5-to-1 ratio insurers favor, would allow them to charge higher amounts to middle-aged people not yet old enough to qualify for Medicare, while keeping younger people's premiums much lower.
In a recent letter to Henry Waxman chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of five congressional committees with jurisdiction over health reform the president and CEO of Blue Shield of California wrote, "Given the systematic consequences of imposing such a tight band, we strongly urge you to widen it."

Insurers are also keenly aware that they can afford to offer coverage to everyone who applies only if coverage is truly universal. "If there's a requirement that everyone will participate, it's possible to do these market reforms without cost skyrocketing," says Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for Ignagni's group, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)..."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #56
73. As a fifty something person, I found this post of yours
Very interesting. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #73
86. My pleasure :) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
57. Let's call this what it is: a BACK DOOR TAX, regressive in application.
It hurts those least able to afford it, and it is done to fund health care.

This is not about extending health care to anyone. This whole thing is about squeezing more cash out of the bottom 80% to pay for overall health care costs PLUS profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
58. 5x seems excessive.
From what I read of the Baucus bill, the overall ratio can't exceed 7.5:1

I think that some degree of age rating is appropriate, but I'm not defending the Baucus bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. 7.5 would be smoking + highest age bracket. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #62
72. People will go uninsured, pay the yearly fine, and go to the ERUpdated at 5:52 PM
then just not pay the bill..

If you don;t HAVE anything of value to take, what are they gonna do?

If you've lost your house or rent, have a shitty job, and are broke what can they do to you :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #72
78. If you have a shitty job, you will most likely be eligible
for a subsidy that would make the premium lower than the fine. Might as well buy the insurance and not have debt collectors chasing you. (Assuming by shitty job you mean low paying.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
61. Baucus Bill is DEAD ON ARRIVAL, will not move forward. Baucus I think is a GOP double agent.
That is all I can come up with to explain his actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
63. "This isn't reform. It's robbery." AMEN
MAX BAUCUS YOU INSURANCE WHORE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
66. This is how private insurance works. What did you expect?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
69. I guess if the Dems are hoping to lose the votes of an entire demographic.
They'll certainly lose my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
70. Think we can get age-discrimination passed into corporate taxation?
The older the corporation gets, the more it's taxed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Libertas1776 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
71. It is highway robbery
and nothing less. Some pretty fucked up stuff has passed through our Congress in the past, but I really cannot conceive how this piece of shit could ever pass. Then again, stranger things have happened, and if it does, Baucus and the rest of the DINOs will really feel a groundswell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
74. I am very very afraid that this is a done deal.
I mean, when the Powers that Be want something, they get it. They wanted a war in Iraq; we took to the streets, several millions of us, and we not only didn't stop any war - we didn't even get media coverage.

No, Obama will just give us another mesmerizing speech, and then the media will announce that every single person is now on board and then we will have this awful awful REFORM!! Congress has already been bought an paid for, and that it's it. The Bill i s done. We are screwn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
75. You know that statistic about "older americans have x amount of wealth"?
Edited on Fri Sep-18-09 02:38 AM by Hannah Bell
This is how financial corps will take it from you before you die, so you can't leave it to your struggling, indebted kids.

Instead of Medicare, this is the future of health insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
79. pssst... bill ain't gonna pass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
verges Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
82. If the final bill looks anything like the Baucus Bill...
I predict a lot of freshman representatives in 2011. And they'll be Repubs. Same for senators. I also predict a Democratic challenger to the White House in 2012, and an eventual loss to the Republicans. I also see bankruptcies soaring through the roof!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
84. Ill dump the lousy catastrophic care I have now if they do that
and live without insurance. and take my chances. Im not paying 5 times more. I dont have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
85. So much I do not accept as true
The young are not invincible. I watched large numbers of my peers die in youth. Younger people get many injuries. I hear an awful lot about juvinile diabetes being on the rise.
I just wonder if there are stats to back up this idea that children need substantially less health care. I do not see that as true at all. From our rather shabby infant mortality rate onward, our children seem to have lots of medical needs. Entire hospitals exist that serve only children. I am always told that many kids are on lots of medications, too many in fact. I also hear that there is an obesity 'epidemic' with children. Heart problems and other issues are on the rise in that age group, they say.
I watched a peer die of lukemia while in High School. Dozens of AIDs before 30. One of an anurism in an instant at 24. Several hurt terribly in accidents, including the premanently messed up kid who lived because he landed on my cousin's body when they crashed while riding, with youthful wisdom, in the back of a speeding pickup at night with a drinking driver. Were these not people? Is that not the human condition?
I just don't buy that humans are invincible at any age, nor that one age group has a corner on medical needs. Not at all. All I know is that they make tiny little coffins, in sizes from 0-6X as well as in adult sizes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 30th 2014, 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC