They can charge older people 3 times more based on age!!!!!!!1!!!111

[Egnever]

Thats freaking ridiculous!

Oh wait according to the insurance industries own study....http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/2009IndividualMarketSurveyFinalReport.pdf
They are currently charging 4+ times more for older people than people just over 18 and thats an average. Some of those folks are getting hit for a lot more based on "previous conditions" which will be gone as a criteria under the senate bill.

Sounds like an improvement on what we have now.

[lamp_shade]

1. And for some, it's as much as 25 times more. I agree... it's a big improvement.

And I'm old.

[boston bean]

2. wouldn't you have to wait to determine the actual amount charged

for "younger" people before you proclaim it is less.

3x1000 might be less than they are paying now.

but

3x8000 might be more than they are paying now.

[Egnever]

5. Interesting point!

but I am pretty sure the CBO thought it would be less.

[boston bean]

6. yes, for what it being charged now. but there are no controls

on the insurance companies prevent them from raising costs.

The problem with the x3 or x2 or percentages is you don't know what the starting and end point is.

And my experience tells me that when a company is forced to make a particular percentage of profit they jack up the costs.

[Egnever]

8. there are some controls

sort of. The provision providing for them to only spend 15% on overhead is sort of a control but not really on max premiums. But I do know there is a provision for setting up non profit providers inside the exchanges. That should help and the exchanges themselves one would hope would provide a downward pressure on the rates expanding.

Weak to be sure but its not nothing at all.

[karynnj]

17. True and the exchanges were given the power to negotiate with

the plans and tools to make them more efficient - a similar provision brought MA plans down 6%. This is the provision Dean praised, but mistakenly thought it was not included.

[seabeyond]

31. that they can is something of a slap. having had insurance i pay for almost three decades

and using only bare minimum. one child i paid cash. one child isurance. paid more cash with insurance child.... to now at an older age be told all i put in over the years without using matters not. will just charge me 3x's more "in case". well, they charged me a lot before and i didnt use. 3'xs more and not use? hard one

yes, it is a wait and see kinda thing

but on the surface, slap in the face

[fasttense]

3. No "previous conditions" wont be gone.

You merely can't be turned down for insurance because of "previous conditions". No where does it say they can't charge you more for the insurance.

There is a little trick I've heard used to determine the source of legislation. If the bill is long, elaborate, vague and confusing, than it was very likely written by lobbyists and their lawyers. If it is simple, to the point and easily understood, than it was likely written by congress.

[Egnever]

7. yes actually it does say they cant charge you more.

SEC. 2701. FAIR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
7 ‘‘(a) PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATORY PREMIUM
8 RATES.—
9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the pre10
mium rate charged by a health insurance issuer for
11 health insurance coverage offered in the individual
12 or small group market—
13 ‘‘(A) such rate shall vary with respect to
14 the particular plan or coverage involved only
15 by—
16 ‘‘(i) whether such plan or coverage
17 covers an individual or family;
18 ‘‘(ii) rating area, as established in ac19
cordance with paragraph (2);
20 ‘‘(iii) age, except that such rate shall
21 not vary by more than 3 to 1 for adults
22 (consistent with section 2707(c)); and
23 ‘‘(iv) tobacco use, except that such
24 rate shall not vary by more than 1.5 to 1;
25 and
81
1 ‘‘(B) such rate shall not vary with respect
2 to the particular plan or coverage involved by
3 any other factor not described in subparagraph A

[watrwefitinfor]

9. This is the best example I've seen yet

of the way this bill is being skewed by the Chicken Littles here on DU.

I just read another post on the Greatest Page, still whining and wailing about how it didn't matter one bit that pre-existing conditions were to be covered, since there was nothing to stop the insurance companies for charging whatever they want. Time and time again that has gone up in post after post. I've never seen it challenged by a quote from the actual bill until now.

Thank you, Egnever, for this quote, and for maintaining your sanity and reason through all the attacks here against your sanity and reason.

Wat

[Egnever]

10. In fairness there was really nothing to qoute

Till a day or so ago.

You can read it yourself if you like http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

Its not really that hard to read and the index at the begining lets you jump to parts you are interested in learning about fairly easily. Theres some really good stuff in this bill.

Its not as strong as I would like it to be to be sure but...

[boston bean]

11. This op berates those who talk about a 3-1 ratio

yet, uses the ratio to defend his/her pov, and there are truly no COST controls.

The 3-1 ratio could be a huge boon, depending on how much a policy for a "younger" person (whatever that means) is.

And since there are no cost controls, the argument this OP is trying to make is a fruitless exercise. And quite disingenuous.

[Egnever]

14. Except the CBO says the plans should cost less than doing nothing

and curently the insurance industry has a 4 to one ratio. So if the CBO is to be believed then it will be an improvement.

[Vinca]

12. Am I reading that right? Smokers also up for 3X the premium?

I don't smoke, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of sympathy for those of us looking at paying 300% because . . . according to the talking point . . . it's so much better than what we might already have. Except most of us in that boat jumped off long ago because we couldn't afford it.

[Egnever]

15. I think smokers are 1.5 x

‘‘(iii) age, except that such rate shall
21 not vary by more than 3 to 1 for adults
22 (consistent with section 2707(c)); and
23 ‘‘(iv) tobacco use, except that such
24 rate shall not vary by more than 1.5 to 1;
25 and
1 ‘‘(B) such rate shall not vary with respect
2 to the particular plan or coverage involved by
3 any other factor not described in subparagraph
4 (A).

[karynnj]

18. Wrong - they can't refuse them and can't charge them more.

As to the comment on the complexity of the writing - it is always wordy to write something completely unambiguous that spells out each and every case. Many of the best Senators are lawyers and all of the Senators have staff - the bill itself has to be written very precisely.

[newlib]

4. i'm just gonna keep jogging & cross my fingers. maybe one

day, our values will shift from profits for the few to protection from profiteers for all.

[Kahuna]

13. Wouldn't that make older folks eligible for the subsidies?

:shrug:

[Egnever]

16. I dont think theres an age restriction on the subsidies

I havent read all of the bill though.

[Kahuna]

19. I'm saying that if by letting the cost be three times more for older folks

like myself, it would likely put the cost of coverage over the affordability guidelines and therefore cause older folks to be eligible for subsidies.

[Egnever]

22. It might

the subsidy stuff is hard to wap my head arround. You could be absolutely right in your assumption though. I am sure it will push more people into subsidies.

[ipaint]

20. When you look around to other countries with a form of universal care

these ridiculous industry coddling charges are insane. But we are "uniquely american" in that we have a large chunk of the populace that will make any excuse to justify corporate greed. Take a charge that's unaffordable and lower it to unaffordable and voila...problem solved.

I don't know anyone over 50 that can pay 3x the rate of young people. But I'm sure the fact it is unaffordable to a lesser degree will be comforting to them.

[Egnever]

21. none of your friends over 50 have insurance?

Cause if they do they are likely paying 4 times the rate of young people or more already.

[ipaint]

26. No, I don't know many not in the comfy middle class that are able to afford overpriced ins.

The one's that are lucky enough to have ins. get it from their employers. I don't know a person over 50 that can or will be able to afford to pay for health ins. even at three times the going retail rate. Like me they don't have another house or rent payment plus some to hand over to ins. companies every month.
Seems we run in different circles.

[MineralMan]

23. Sounds to me like you don't know anyone over 50.

They're already paying way more than that.

[Political Heretic]

24. Improvement on what we have now should not be the only measurment.

It's one measurement, but it can't be the only one.

Because in some cases, a marginal improvement on something that is utterly unacceptable is still....utterly unacceptable.

Is this one of those instances? Well, you decide. But just because it can be shown that something is marginally better than what currently exists does not necessarily make it good. Because you've seen how difficult health care is.

You pass a bad bill now, and we're not coming back to it next year, five years from now, or even ten years from now. It'll be a generation before we get another serious shot at it, because all political will for such a bruising battle will be gone.

[Egnever]

28. I agree

There are multiple facets to contemplate This is just one but theres a lot of screaming about this one as if it were somehow an abhorrent provision despite the fact that it is actually an improvement over the current situation and a vast improvement for many.

[dysfunctional press]

25. then they'll most likely raise the rates on the younger ones, not lower them for the oldsters.

nt.

[Egnever]

29. LOL

people like you must work for the insurance companies. You are great at trying to figure out ways they can try to screw us.

[TheWebHead]

27. they can charge based on usage of services

and 3/1 or 4/1 is probably fair on that basis. If you set a single price with a mandate, you'd be forcing young adults out of college who helped get Obama and Democrats elected to have their insurance premiums triple... probably not a good idea. One of the many things Howard Dean was disingenuous about when arguing about this bill last week - cost spread by age isn't pre-existing.

[Egnever]

30. Really? I havent seen that yet.

Any idea where that is covered in the bill? I would like to read it.

[TheWebHead]

33. I'm referring to the existing spread by age set by the various insurance co's

which is around 4 to 1 from youngest to oldest... older people use more healthcare services, setting a 3 to 1 cap reflects that reality, though it will push up rates for the youngest set by about 25%, not as much as the house bill would at 2 to 1.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. You might have a point if the current system weren't so totally f_cked

It's kind of like the combined nuclear arsenals of Russia and the U.S. We can blow up the world 5 times over. Life wouldn't fare much better if it blew up the world 3 times over instead.

Meanwhile with mandates added in, my own choices shrink and the ones remaining are all worse. I describe my situation here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7287585