Anyone notice the 2 to 1 age variation limit in the bill?

[TheWebHead]

Section 213 Insurance Rating Rules...

I'm looking at a rate chart and see age 60+ at 3.8x those under 25 for my health plan - a lot more than the 2x limit. If you are 55+ looking at insurance this sounds like a good deal, but it sounds like a huge premium increase for young people, the same people who in many cases aren't purchasing insurance. So if you're having the mandate and IRS enforcement, and with this 2:1 provision you're likely going to see 50%+ premium increases within the under 30 age group, I suspect a lot of young voters who came out in droves last November won't be happy with the bill as it stands.

[jaxx]

1. One thing to remember is that lower incomes will be subsidized.

That will help a lot of the younger people.

[MajorChode]

3. and they will be subsidized by the uber rich

[endeavourniche]

10. Explain to me why

the "uber rich" should subsidize low income health care. I still don't get it. Isn't hating the "uber rich" just another form of "penis envy"?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

2. No, not a 50% increase

There are more young people than old in the insurance market place. Lowering the ratio on the old will not shift it 50% on the young. Though, the insurance companies wont surrender that revenue and will make up for it, I agree

[TheWebHead]

14. you might get 10-15% on the age demo

but the no pre-existing and annual inflation would get you to 50% pretty easy.

http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visualizati...

since the back half of the baby boom is in the 55-65 range the drop is pretty minimal.

[truedelphi]

4. We are not supposed to notice things like that.

People who do notice things like that will probably be offered the question:

Why do you hate America??

[FrenchieCat]

5. How can one notice something when they didn't even bother doing the math?

[truedelphi]

8. Methinks that Congress has not bothered to do the math.

Nor have most here on DU done the math.

Many think that because the Federal government wil be spending about 890 Billion bucks on subsidies between 2013 and 2019 that everyone will have their coverage paid for.
Others fail to note that about One Hundred and Seventy Six Billion bucks will be paid through penalties in the same time period./ By average Americans who happen to employ people, or who happen to be self employed.

And it may be that the OP doesn't state the re-distribution of the premiums in the exact way that they may occur, but believe me, The big insurers now own Congress, and are truly aware of the puppet strings trailing along from them down to their lackeys in elected office. And now that they know that they own Congress, there wil be no stopping them.

[provis99]

6. think that's bad? read Sec. 501

wherein anyone who doesn't buy the crappy private insurance, but isn't eligible for public option, will be subject to a 2.5% tax on their gross income over threshold, and will come under Sec 7203 and 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code, which mandates fine up to $250,000 and five years in prison for refusing to pay the tax or get private insurance.

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. The public option is only a way for you to fulfill the mandate...

...it doesn't remove the obligation to purchase insurance. You'd receive the same penalty for not purchasing insurance, from whatever source, public or private.

[regnaD kciN]

11. More G.O.P propaganda-spreading, I see...

and will come under Sec 7203 and 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code, which mandates fine up to $250,000 and five years in prison for refusing to pay the tax or get private insurance

Those IRS sections refer to tax evasion. If you report, say, that you have Aetna health insurance policy 123ABC456OMG798WTF314159LOL8675309, and they find out that you never had the policy you claimed, you'll be charged with tax evasion -- just as if you claimed to have no income in order to not pay tax, and it turns out you had a $100,000 job you failed to report. But that has nothing to do with anything in the health-care bill.

Really, it's amazing to me how credulous Democrats keep regurgitating this particular Repug talking-point. With "friends" like this, who needs Faux?

[vadawg]

13. so i guess if you dont agree that you should have to buy insurance

then you will be taxed at 2.5%, and that amount then comes under the codes that people are talking about, i know its semantics but it basically you are being fined for not getting insurance, and if you dont pay that fine (2.5% tax) then you can go to jail...

[greennina]

15. Prison time for not being able to afford to pay...

is wrong! No matter what. Ii don't know why you're supporting bringing back debtor prisons.

[truedelphi]

17. They had to include jail time or the Smarter people might just start paying the 2.5%

If you are a low income person, but not low enough to be subsidized, then you are better off paying the 2.5 % penalty. (Or would be except for the jail terms facing you.) After all, insurance is supposed to provide coverage. but if at the rate of an income of $ 25K a year, you are required to pay $ 2K for your insurance premiums AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL DEDUCTIBLE of 2K, you probably cannot afford any treatment because after living expenses, and after paying the insurance premiums, you just will not be able to come up with money for any treatment options.

So in essense, this bill INSURES that the lower classes pay premiums for coverage that they cannot step forward and use, as they will not have the deductible money. Then that money from the premiums of those who never use the insurance can offset the treatments and operations for the wealthier people.

It is the same with the Social Security situation. Those who live to collect the full sic years that they are owed by paying Soc Security taxes are usually more affluent than those who pay in for their entire lives but then die before they collect more than a payment or two.

[HughMoran]

7. I'm having deja-vu for some reason

Did you post this before or am I having a wicked clear deja-vu? (I also remember reading one of these responses at that previous time.)

[Junkdrawer]

16. The Senate bill is 5 to 1 or more...

2 to 1 is peanuts compared to what will surely make it to Obama's desk.

People will get sticker shock in 2014....