PPACA allows insurers to charge older customers three times the rate they charge younger people

[antigop]

and the insurance companies are trying to change it to five times...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577497024284229362.html

Representatives of Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Aetna Inc. AET -2.71% and Humana Inc. HUM -2.66% said they will ask Congress to change a provision that requires insurers to restrict how they vary premiums based on age.
---
Under the law, insurers are restricted from charging older customers—who are considered more likely to get sick—more than three times the rate they charge younger ones. The industry wants to be able to charge premiums up to five times higher for older consumers, and plans a fresh public campaign arguing that if premiums are too expensive for younger, healthier people, they won't buy insurance.

[Schema Thing]

1. NO NO NO NO NO goddammit NO!

[antigop]

2. I think it is up to the states as to what each state will allow...

but you know the insurance companies will be lobbying each state...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. The larger states will mandate a lower muliple, the smaller states will allow the triple price

That's my bet

[russspeakeasy]

78. Florida will let it raise. ( as long as ricky gets his cut)

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. I would expect it to be higher, but not three times higher n/t

[sabrina 1]

49. I doubt you are 'sickoftheonepercent' if that is your philosophy.

As a Progressive Democrat I would expect rates for the most vulnerable among us to be LOWER. But then, the 1% has spent a fortune trying to do with any kind of compassion and/or understanding of PEOPLE. It's all about profits now in this country.

Welcome to DU, btw.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

51. Rates have to be higher for someone in order to cover the increased costs for seniors

They can be higher on seniors (non-Medicare) or higher on everyone. I have no problem with higher on everyone, as the increase will be less if spread across the pool. But the costs have to be paid, it's just a matter of who pays them.

But there is a sweet spot that has to be hit, i.e., increase all rates too much, and younger people will opt out and pay the tax, which won't begin to cover the costs. Rates will increase again, more young people will opt out, rates will go up again, and so on and so on.

A balance has to be struck, or the system will collapse on itself.

[sabrina 1]

53. No, they don't have to be higher, unless your goal is profits over life.

No balance needs to be struck with predatory corporations who view human beings as commodities. In fact the exact opposite is what ought to be happening. The proof of that is we are the only 'civilized' country who continues to place our Health Care in the hands of for-profit corporations, proving you wrong.

Our HC system is a disgrace.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

57. Thing is, it isn't just the issue of profits, it's the cost of care

With the ratio laid out in the ACA, 80% or 85% (I've read both, not sure which is accurate) of premiums have to be spent on providing care. I agree that the number should be higher, but until that happens, we have what we have.

That being said, if coverage is now available to a population that statistically needs more healthcare (50-65, pre-Medicare), then it follows that more care means more costs. If premiums don't go up for someone or everyone, then the money isn't available to pay for the necessary care.

We could mandate that 99% of premiums had to be spent on actual care, with 1% for overhead and profit, but if all of the care costs (and these are just made up numbers for the sake of example) are $1 billion and premiums are only bringing in $900 million, then there obviously isn't enough money to pay for the all of the necessary medical care that the population requires.

If ACA is going to be successful until something better is implemented, some combination of the below will have to happen...

- The actual cost of providing care will have to be brought down dramatically
- Populations that incur higher costs will have to pay higher premiums
- Everyone will have to pay higher premiums to cover the cost of care for everyone
- Taxes will have to be increased to pay for the care and keep premiums down for everyone

For the moment, it isn't a case of what we wished we have, but what we actually have. And we need to understand what the options and tradeoffs are so that we can effectively push for the best way ahead.

[sabrina 1]

62. And those are the reasons, the ones you outlined, why we opposed this bill in the

first place, but were told we just didn't 'get it'.

NOW seeing people admit effectively the huge flaws in this bill, is just sad. When we had the chance of a lifetime to do something about our abysmal HC system, we were told to 'stfu'.

How does Canada do it? How do most European Countries do it?

Are Americans so incompetent, or maybe so indoctrinated, they cannot imagine a better way?

What you don't fight for you don't get. Maybe we do get the Corporate Government we deserve.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

64. I don't disagree with anything you said

And if seems like I'm shilling for the insurance companies or trying to bankrupt seniors, I apologize, because neither is my intent. But cold, hard numbers are what they are, and with the system we now have, including under ACA when implemented, somthing is going to have to give...it's just a matter of what.

[Tansy_Gold]

5. Originally the argument was

that by forcing, er, I mean requiring younger people to obtain insurance (and this includes dependent children who statistically may have virtually no claims in comparison) even when they may not think they'll need it, the revenue to the insurance parasites, er, I mean corporations would offset the higher payouts to older people.

But of course, this has all been forgotten in the jubiliation of "Thank God it passed!"

[xchrom]

6. +1

[jannyk]

9. you got that right!

[Raine]

10. EXACTLY! nt

[Tansy_Gold]

11. And next thing you know

They'll want to charge higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions!!!

[L0oniX]

14. Obama will never let that happen.

Hey ...want to buy a slightly used bridge?

[Tansy_Gold]

24. Hey, wait a minute!

This is the GD forum, isn't it? I thought all you "bad" DUers weren't allowed here?


Tansy Gold, proud "bad" DUer quietly heading back to the safe house

[Zalatix]

34. In other words, the "I told you so" effect is already setting in.

[Tansy_Gold]

56. that would be a yes

[Leopolds Ghost]

106. +1 Tansy Gold

I.T.Y.S.??

[Tansy_Gold]

107. I. Told. You. So.

It's a rubber stamp I had made years ago. I carry it in my purse.

My kids were always doing things, like jumping out of the swings or whatever. I'd say, "Don't do that, you'll break your arm." After five or six times of ignoring me, he jumped out of the swing and broke his arm. So I told him to stick his hand out and I was going to stamp it with ITYS so maybe he'd remember. Eventually it became a family joke, and whenever it got to the "I told you so" part, I'd make them stick out their hand for the rubber stamp. Except of course it was only an imaginary rubber stamp.

Finally, I happened across a custom-made rubber stamp shop and got this one. And yes, I really do carry it in my purse.

[Leopolds Ghost]

108. Nice! ^-^

[Ruby the Liberal]

7. Who didn't see this one coming?

plans a fresh public campaign arguing that if premiums are too expensive for younger, healthier people, they won't buy insurance.

Yeah, so rather than 3x what they charge those in their 20s, they are planning to set rates based on age 58 and then divide by 3 - making it "too expensive" for young people.

Let the games begin...

[Autumn]

20. The games have already started

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577497024284229362.html

Shall we get a pool going on who the winner will be?

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. Nice find.

A pool would be a great idea. I mentioned earlier that we should start compiling a list. I think imma do that...

[HiPointDem]

50. Some posters keep saying that HCA will evolve into single-payer. Seems more like it's going to

evolve into just a mandate to buy health-care insurance, with the insurance structured just like it was before HCA.

"Let's face it, this law is going to be amended and adjusted for years and years to come," said Rick Pollack, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, a lobbying group.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577497024284229362.html

[Autumn]

68. We didn't get health care reform, as Obama said, it's insurance finance reform.

To me insurance finance reform means we reformed the way we pay for insurance.

[HiPointDem]

70. basically turned it into an 'entitlement' program for the health insurers. like the entitlement

program for the auto insurers.

[girl gone mad]

79. Ding, ding, ding!

This was always the goal.

[CleanLucre]

80. HCA will evolve into single-payer

the way TARP evolved into corporations providing jobs for Americans
and the way the banksters fixed the financial system they ruined

[joshcryer]

85. They want to move it to 5x because 3x is 22% lower than what the older currently pay.

We'll see if the Obama administration caves. Hopefully they will not. Young people paying more is a good thing, it will force the system toward a low margin public option.

[Honeycombe8]

8. In other words, they want to start amending the ACA to make it like the OLD way of doing things?

In essence, kill it through a million cuts, as the saying goes?

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. We need to start making a list.

They are going to pull out all the stops, game every loophole and buy the government in 5 months. At least with a list, we will have something to check off as they do it.

[Honeycombe8]

22. Good idea. nt

[magical thyme]

12. they will never give up, which is why

we need to push immediately toward medicare for all / single payer, and put them out of business altogether. Let them offer fringe, boutique, specialty insurance to the 1%.

Basic healthcare should not be profit-driven.

[MadHound]

13. That's the first cut,

By the time this gets done with, the weak ACA will be dead from blood loss. This is what happens when you put corporations in the position to afflict change on the matter, this is why we need single payer UHC, and nothing less, especially a corporate driven, profit driven system will work.

[antigop]

16. More info..The Age Rating Game: Will Older Americans Pay More Under Health Reform?

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/05/28/the-age-rating-game-will-older-americans-pay-more-under-health-reforma/

The Affordable Care Act leaves it to the states to decide whether they want to let insurers charge older Americans more for coverage. If a state takes no action, a 64-year-old buying his own insurance in the individual market will pay up to three times more than an 18-year-old. In the small-group market – if a small business employs an unusually large number of older workers – the same 3:1 ratio applies.

Today, in most states, there are no caps on how much insurers can charge a 60-something forced to purchase his own insurance. In the individual market, only New York State bans age rating altogether, and just three other states limit how much premiums can vary, based on age, to less than 3:1. When insurers sell policies to small businesses, Vermont also prohibits age rating, but only five other states cap increases.

To check whether your state shields older boomers in either of these markets, take a look at these charts. (A checkmark in the right-hand column means that age rating is now unregulated in that state.)

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. I understand the reasoning behind age rating, but 3:1 is excessive n/t

[antigop]

18. Live in New York --- no age rating allowed n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

19. Understood

That just means that the higher premiums are spread out among all age groups instead of concentrating it just the older age group.

[sabrina 1]

58. There should be no discrimination of any kind when it comes to the lives

of human beings. Period. The fact that it is even discussed here, simply shows how successful the Health Profiteers' propaganda has been, filtering even into the 'left', although thankfully in small numbers.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

60. That's fine, don't raise the premiums for seniors

But in order to pay for the care, unless costs are cut dramatically, premiums will have to go up. Spreading it across the pool means lower increases for everyone, but the bills have to be paid.

[antigop]

65. sabrina1, I absolutely agree -- no discrimination of any kind. Period. n/t

[Romulox]

74. Denying care to those not having the ability to pay is the most basic form of discrimination...

That means that discrimination can never be removed from private, for-profit insurance.

(For clarity's sake, I am agreeing with you completely!)

[antigop]

23. kick n/t

[antigop]

25. kick -- important info n/t

[Fumesucker]

26. You say that like it's a bad thing...

Insurance companies need love too and nothing says love more than big chunks of cash every single month..

[antigop]

27. We should charge people more for Medicare the older they are... sarcasm n/t

[RebelOne]

38. I am glad you added sarcasm.

I am on Medicare and darn glad because my premiums are only $110 a month and that amount comes out of my social security payment of only $1400 a month.

[antigop]

39. Well, wouldn't that be the same thing as what is being proposed?

I'm not saying I agree with it, just trying to make a comparison.

If older people can be charged 3 times a younger person per the PPACA, then wouldn't that be the same as charging 90 year olds three times more than 65 year olds on Medicare?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

44. Not at all

The Medicare risk pool is, for the most part, consistent, i.e., the vast majority are over the age of 65. Premiums paid by seniors aren't paying the entire bill for the services rendered - the difference is being made up by payroll taxes of the employed.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing - it's actually a very good thing. But it does distort the true cost of the services.

[antigop]

45. but a 90 year old will typically incur more health expenses than a 65 year old

So we should charge the 90 year old more for Medicare.

<sarcasm>

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. The bottom line is that someone is going to be have be charged more

It's a mathematical fact.

Either rates for seniors (pre-Medicare) are going to have to be higher to cover their higher costs, or the higher costs will have to be spread across the entire pool, so that everyone pays a little more to cover seniors.

Spreading it across the entire pool will mean higher rates for everyone, but the increase won't be steep as if it's confined to seniors. But the balance there is important too - make the rates too high at the lower ends, and people will opt out and pay the tax, which won't come close to covering the expenses, which will result in higher premiums, more people opting out, etc...the spiral will continue.

There's a narrow sweet spot that has to be hit to keep the system from collapsing on itself.

[antigop]

48. You spread it across the entire pool or else all you are doing is a "divide and conquer" n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

52. Spreading it across the pool is fine

But we do need to understand the risks of doing so.

[sabrina 1]

54. Or we could just, as Alan Grayson said about Republicans 'let them, preferably quickly'.

That would save the poor Corporations a lot of money.

The irony of calling this a Health Care system, is amazing. Your notion that when you need HC the most, is when it should less available to you. Take your money while they know it will cost them nothing, then make the cost so high when you need it, that you will end up dying, as 44,000 Americans are doing each year, shamefully.

The lack of ability to put people first and then find a system, as so many other countries have done, to meet the NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE, is not a Progressive Democrat problem. We know how to solve this problem. It is the Right that is married to the idea that HC must provide profits for Corporations. A regressive, shameful notion when talking about the American People's National Security. Allowing citizens to die for profits, is as much of a National Security issue as letting them die for lack of a proper defense system.

[slipslidingaway]

61. Bingo! n/t

[sabrina 1]

75. Well, they could get a job and stop being a burden on the rest of us!

Amazing what I am seeing on DU these days. Support for right wing policies is something I never expected so see here. Maybe it's because a lot of the progressive dems have left or something, but I have the same feeling I used to have when arguing against these same draconian policies years ago with right wingers. It's like deja vu and I stopped bothering trying to change their minds.

[RebelOne]

92. Yeah, right.

Who is going to hire me at the age of 73? And I am not about to become a WalMart greeter.

[sabrina 1]

94. Not to worry, if the predatory Capitalists have their way, cheap labor will

be available in the US as much as it has been in any third world country before long. Senior Citizens will provide a wealth of cheap workers. As we know, Global Capitalists don't like to see anyone, children or the elderly, sitting around all day doing nothing to contribute to their bank accounts. I wish I could say that this will not happen here in the US. But reading this thread doesn't make me feel too optimistic that there are any values left that are not going to be traded away.

I hope you know I am outraged at what is going on, this latest proposal to make the elderly pay more for HC and actually being defended here on DU, only adds to the sense of outrage I feel as corporate greed of such massive proportions rather than being reigned in, is only expanding.

[JDPriestly]

28. It is already much more expensive for older people to get insurance.

That is because older people almost always have pre-existing conditions.

I don't think this will fly, and if it does, you will have older people failing to get insurance because they can't afford it. The net result will be pressure for lowering the Medicare eligibility age -- and the insurance companies will hate that.

Either way, people will begin to press for a more equitable way to share the cost of medical care once they realize that it is good for everyone to have it.

[sinkingfeeling]

29. There's also a pre-retirement assistance to those in that gap from employer

paid insurance and Medicare.
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html

Too often, Americans who retire without employer-sponsored insurance and before they are eligible for Medicare see their life savings disappear because of high rates in the individual market. To preserve employer coverage for early retirees until more affordable coverage is available through the new Exchanges by 2014, the new law creates a $5 billion program to provide needed financial help for employment-based plans to continue to provide valuable coverage to people who retire between the ages of 55 and 65, as well as their spouses and dependents.

Learn more about the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.

[antigop]

30. I think that program ran out of money...n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

40. Not according to the healthcare.gov site. They even have a map where

one can select a state and get a list of the employers carrying pre-Medicare insurance for their retirees.

[antigop]

41. Buck Consultants says ERRP funds exhausted

http://www.buckconsultants.com/portals/0/publications/fyi/2012/fyi-2012-0224-Early-Retiree-Rein-Prgm-Funds-Exhausted.pdf

The ERRP Center announced on February 17, 2012 that requests for reimbursement
exceeded the $5 billion funding allocation. As of January 19, 2012, $4.73 billion in payments
had been made, and reimbursement requests were being processed for the balance of the
funds. CMS also issued guidance that stated that plan sponsors are expected to use ERRP
funds as soon as possible, but no later than December 31, 2014.

Only $5 billion was funded.

And from the ERRP website itself:
http://www.errp.gov/newspages/20111209-updated-payment-processing-new-incurred-date.shtml

As of December 2, 2011, the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) disbursed over $4.5 billion to a variety of businesses, including for-profit companies, schools and educational institutions, unions, State and local governments, religious organizations and other nonprofit Plan Sponsors, to help reduce their health plan benefit costs and those of their plan participants, including early retirees and their spouses, surviving spouses, dependents, and active workers.

Given the approach of the $5 billion funding limit, the ERRP Center has instituted an incurred date cut-off as outlined in the Federal Register (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-13/pdf/2011-31920.pdf). Plan Sponsors must not include in their Claim Lists any claim lines for which the incurred date is after December 31, 2011. If health benefit items or services with later incurred dates are submitted, the entire Claim List will be deemed invalid and the Claim List Response File will return errors for those claim lines which have incurred dates after December 31, 2011.

They are not accepting claims incurred after Dec. 31, 2011. So no ERRP for 2012.

<edit to add> That's how I read it.

[shanti]

32. i give thanks

that my employer provided post-retirement medical insurance. without it, i would have been unable to retire at 55. that really is the bottom line!

[antigop]

37. you were lucky. A lot of employers are dropping retiree medical coverage. n/t

[JDPriestly]

91. Great. I hadn't heard that.

[antigop]

97. That program is out of money (Post #41) n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

31. It's also because the older you get, the more medical care you need

There is a valid justification for higher rates, but three times higher? I don't get that at all.

[antigop]

35. Didn't the original House bill have a 2:1 max? n/t

[sabrina 1]

55. No, there is not. But if you keep saying it maybe it will become true.

There is no valid justification for making HC unattainable for any human being, and the solution is simple. See if you can figure out a way to make HC available for all citizens.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

59. Absent single payer, which is nowhere in sight on a national level at this time

Costs for care have to paid and under the current law, it's premiums that pay those costs. If the costs exceed premiums, what do you suggest under ACA in order to continue to provide healthcare?

[sabrina 1]

66. What I suggest is that we reduce the profit margin to 5%.

If they are complaining about costs and using that as an excuse to rip off seniors, then take away the real cost of our out of control HC expenses, the Middlemen.

And I'm being generous. But you do NOT take money from those who do not have it, and if the Health Insurance Profiteers don't like it, then let them find another business and we can finally make our HC system humane like the rest of the civilized world. They are what is costing us so much, NOT seniors who worked all of their lives and now need to be taken care of healthwise, as they did when they were working.

The problem is NOT seniors, the problem is a For-Profit (and they can never get enough) Health Insurance Industry which is totally unnecessary when it comes to providing Health Care. They are not necessary! So any profits we allow them they should be grateful for.

Just inform them now since they raised this as an issue, that we can reduce that profit margin from 20% to 5% and if they don't like, too bad.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

67. I have no problem at all with a 5% overhead/profit

And if the remaining 95% doesn't cover the costs of the care provided, then what? As I said in my previous post to you, if premiums don't go up, where does the money come from to cover the cost of care?

[sabrina 1]

69. Then we go to Medicare for all or a Public Option, preferably

Single Payer. Let them decide. But the government-run Medicaid program had only a 3% overhead cost, so I'm for Medicaid for all done in the same way the hugely successful SS program is run.

THEY are not the solution, they are in fact part of the problem, and if they can't manage with the huge profits they are taking away from actual healthcare, they need to get out of the way.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

71. Again, I don't disagree with you

But it seems that you're avoiding the fact that insurance company profits are not the only problem. The actual cost of healthcare as provided is a huge part of the problem as well. You can take overhead/profits to 1% or .5%, and if the premiums don't cover the cost, you'll still have to raise premiums.

[sabrina 1]

72. We can do what other countries do.

If Canada can do it, France, which has one of the best HC systems in the world, then so can we. The only reason for the high costs here is greed, at every level.

We are among the richest countries in the world, but manage our wealth very, very poorly, funneling most of it up to the 1% every way they can make us do it.

Cutting the military budget would help, ending the wars we seem to have no problem finding extra trillions of dollars for, would also be a good idea.

But there is no excuse whatsoever for the lack of affordable care that is equal across the board for all Americans.

It's not a priority and that is the truth, profits are the priority in every phase of our lives in the US today. And look how well that is working!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

81. Yes, overhauling the entire healthcare system and going to single payer would do it

But at this point in time, that is not a reality. The challenge we right now is how do we pay for the care working within the ACA as it is at this time? Massive changes need to be made, no doubt, but until those changes are made, we still face the same problem, i.e., paying for the care with premiums. And unless costs savings are found in the delivery of care, there is no way to do that without raisiing premiums, as the law is currently written.

***edited to add: You could take insurance company profits to zero, and if the premiums don't cover the costs, then the premiums will have to go up. Both sides of the equation have to be worked, not just one side or the other.

[sabrina 1]

90. So long as the burden is not passed to those least capable of paying.

If that happens, then this entire bill will have failed to do what we are told it will do and people will continue to die for lack of access to HC. And I cannot believe anyone would even think of supporting it.

[Zalatix]

36. That's a bad thing.

[Zalatix]

33. And so it STARTS.

[kestrel91316]

42. Time to start pushing for the Medicare age to be dropped.

Insurance at my age runs $500-1000/mo for a policy that actually covers anything. And I'm ten years out from being able to get Medicare.

[antigop]

43. +1000 n/t

[antigop]

46. kick n/t

[whatchamacallit]

63. I'm sooooooo surprised!

not. The devil is always in the details.

[Romulox]

73. How did you people think PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE works???

It's as if everyone is suddenly realizing that it WASN'T medicare-for-all that we've been fighting for, all this time. It was PRIVATE INSURANCE (for profit!).

[orpupilofnature57]

76. They'll have to buy in to what supports them ,healthy older people.

[CleanLucre]

77. But it's a step FORWARD!!!

after 20 years

[joshcryer]

82. So, PPACA reduces current premiums for the oldest by 22%.

That's good, right?



http://www.gohealthinsurance.com/pdf/GoHealthInsurance-Age-Rating-Study.pdf

I love sound-bite-derived outrage.

[Romulox]

84. You don't understand. People want private, for-profit insurance not based on actuarial principles.

[joshcryer]

87. The article in the OP is really enlightening, it's showing how much corporations hate ACA.

We'll see how much the Obama administration caves on it.

[Romulox]

88. A President can spend, at most, 8 years influencing policy. Blue Cross/Blue Shield told my Great

Grandparents whether or not they could have procedures back in the 1950s...

[joshcryer]

89. I just think it's funny that 3x the amount is 22% less than current premiums.

So all the outrage here is ill informed.

Then you have people picking up the whole "young people will pay more" thing.

Eh, yeah, but if you Google "young people" and "health insurance" you get dozens of hits by right wing rags. If BBI was still here I'm sure they'd be posting them daily.

When you look at the details though the premiums for the same standard of coverage will drop by 15-20%. Of course, the details are just too hard for some people to get their heads around and they enjoy more the sound bite driven discussion.

The Republicans continue to drive the fucking narrative. It's hopeless. I really am tired of trying to explain this stuff to people.

[Romulox]

99. They don't like the VERY CONCEPT of private, for-profit insurance, josh. The percentages aren't the

issue.

[sendero]

83. As a person in his 50s..

... I agree with this and have a hard time understanding people's objection to it. Believe me, your care will cost WAY MORE than 3x than that of a young person. And while I agree that young people should start paying into the system (mandate) before they are old and need care, young people typically make a lot less money than older people to begin with.

This whole thing really couldn't work any other way. Some of you seem somewhat innumerate, and living in a fairyland where nobody has to pay. Well, here is the deal. Until we get costs way down, and the only way I see to to that is SINGLE PAYER and 1 hour surgeries DON'T PAY $10,000 any more, and medical devices don't cost 10X what they should, and anesthesiologists don't get to charge $3,000 for a 1 hour surgery and clinics don't get to charge $5,000 for a freaking colonoscopy - until that happens this is what we got. It's a little better than what we had before ACA, it is an improvement, but only a small one.

[Indykatie]

93. Sendero is Right that 50 Year Olds Medical Costs are easily More than 3 Times That for the Young

Why would we NOT expect the rates to reflect that actuality? Companies are finding that expanding coverage to age 26 as part of the ACA is not adding much to the total health care bill because this age group is typically healthy.

[antigop]

98. and sick people have higher medical costs than healthy people.

So we should charge sick people more than healthy people.

Got cancer? You should pay more.
Diabetes? You should pay more.

[meaculpa2011]

104. Single payer will do nothing...

to control the cost of fee-for-service healthcare delivery. Single provider is the only logical path.

Take the profit out of healthcare!

If it works for the VA it can work for all.

[sendero]

109. I disagree...

... it will control prices by dictating a reimbursement like Medicare does now. We would replace the current "name your price" system whereby many health care providers simply name their price with no checks or balances whatsoever with a fixed payment determined by the system. No more $10,000 an hour surgeon fees, no more absurd prices for medical devices.

If we had "Medicare for all" right now overall costs would drop a lot. Many providers would be pissed and I would advise them to go to Russia or any industrialized country where this is already policy if they don't like it.

[catrose]

86. Last time I checked--

okay, 10 years ago, but it's not like insurance prices have gone down--
The high-risk health insurance in my state (with high deductible and low life-time cap of $1.5 M) was $800/month.

3 times that = $2400/month

5 times that = $4000/month

Many people looking for this coverage are likely to be 50 +, low income, hoping to survive until Medicare.

[bornskeptic]

95. Does everyone realize that the 3:1 ratio only applies to people with incomes over 400% of FPL?

Those with lower incomes pay rates determined as a percentage of income, without regard to age, unless the younger person's premium is less than that percentage.

[uponit7771]

102. No, it's FUDr misinformation day...better to get at older voters cause they have a higher

...percentage of voting than younger ones

[progressivebydesign]

96. They already DO. Where has everyone been??? n/t

[Romulox]

100. This is FOR PROFIT insurance, and older people use way more of it...what's so hard to get here? nt

[dipsydoodle]

101. The basic mistake here is referring to the subject as insurance

.

[uponit7771]

103. ************THIS APPLIES TO A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF HIGH INCOME EARNERS**********

FUDrs are out today on ACA...

Better to get at older voters and low post count DU folk who feign outrage no?

[CreekDog]

105. yes it does, though at a lower ratio than is currently practiced

the higher premiums are charged to those far closer to receiving Medicare benefits than younger people who are not.

the lower premiums for young people are designed to get them to sign up for insurance, especially at a stage in their lives where economically, they earn the least.