Now I remember why I was an independent all those years.

[LouieB]

Someone please explain the logic behind eliminating the pre-existing conditions thing.

You must not have one......otherwise...

 

LouieB

[embiggen]

No shit norbs... I am absorbing it.

 

 

wow, sorry to hear this. wtfbbq indeed!

[Guest Speed Racer]

One other fun perspective on pre-existing conditions: in a sense, they punish you for having sought treatment. If you treat your kid for something under your insurance (as any reasonable parent would), the kid could be denied treatment if the malady recurs in the future; if you do not seek treatment for the malady for whatever reason, it wouldn't be on the record and then their new insurance company could spend a hell of a lot more on them treating something that could have been taken care of previously, instead of just providing them with maintenance treatment.

[bjorn_skurj]

I would say all health insurance should be provided by not-for-profits, but being an NFP did not stop my HMO from raising our rates like 30 percent.

[Guest Jules]

One other fun perspective on pre-existing conditions: in a sense, they punish you for having sought treatment. If you treat your kid for something under your insurance (as any reasonable parent would), the kid could be denied treatment if the malady recurs in the future; if you do not seek treatment for the malady for whatever reason, it wouldn't be on the record and then their new insurance company could spend a hell of a lot more on them treating something that could have been taken care of previously, instead of just providing them with maintenance treatment.

Huh. Good point.

[Tweedling]

I think that you could exchange "Republicans" with "minority party" in the first sentence and that would generally be true. But I agree, Repubs are better at it the narrower the definition of "Republican" becomes.

 

Also, since I got fired from my job yesterday after 7+ years, I am thrilled that healthcare for all is now law, even though the provision that would help us is years away. I am searching for a good quality, high deductible short term medical insurance policy that will work for our family, and scrambling to get doctor appointments scheduled before the 31st when my current policy is up. Booyah.

 

Their loss!

I'm sorry Edie! I hope you find a job quickly.

[Atticus]

Health premiums could rise 17 pct for young adults

 

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

 

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

 

The higher costs will pinch many people in their 20s and early 30s who are struggling to start or advance their careers with the highest unemployment rate in 26 years.

 

Consider 24-year-old Nils Higdon. The self-employed percussionist and part-time teacher in Chicago pays $140 each month for health insurance. But he's healthy and so far hasn't needed it.

 

The law relies on Higdon and other young adults to shoulder more of the financial load in new health insurance risk pools. So under the new system, Higdon could expect to pay $300 to $500 a year more. Depending on his income, he might also qualify for tax credits.

 

At issue is the insurance industry's practice of charging more for older customers, who are the costliest to insure. The new law restricts how much insurers can raise premium costs based on age alone.

 

Insurers typically charge six or seven times as much to older customers as to younger ones in states with no restrictions. The new law limits the ratio to 3-to-1, meaning a 50-year-old could be charged only three times as much as a 20-year-old.

 

The rest will be shouldered by young people in the form of higher premiums.

 

Higdon wonders how his peers, already scrambling to start careers during a recession, will react to paying more so older people can get cheaper coverage.

 

"I suppose it all depends on how much more people in my situation, who are already struggling for coverage, are expected to pay," Higdon says. He'd prefer a single-payer health care system and calls age-based premiums part of the "broken morality" of for-profit health care.

 

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

 

_ In roughly six months, many young adults up to age 26 should be eligible for coverage under their parents' insurance—if their parents have insurance that provides dependent coverage.

 

_ Tax credits will be available for individuals making up to four times the federal poverty level, $43,320 for a single person. The credits will vary based on income and premiums costs.

 

_ Low-income singles without children will be covered for the first time by Medicaid, which some estimate will insure 9 million more young adults.

 

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

 

The analysis, conducted for The Associated Press, examined the effect of the law's limits on age-based pricing, not other ways the legislation might affect premiums, said Elizabeth McGlynn of Rand Health.

 

Jim O'Connor, an actuary with the independent consulting firm Milliman Inc., came up with similar estimates of 10 to 30 percent increases for young males, averaging about 15 percent.

 

"Young males will be hit the hardest," O'Connor says, because they have lower health care costs than young females and older people who go to doctors more often and use more medical services.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Young people who supported Barack Obama in 2008 may come to resent how health care reform will affect them, Gibbs and others say. Recent polls show support among young voters eroding since they helped elect Obama president.

 

Jim Schreiber, 24, was once an Obama supporter but now isn't so sure. The Chicagoan works in a law firm and has his own tea importing business.

 

He pays $120 a month for health insurance, "probably pure profit for my insurance company," he says. Without a powerhouse lobbying group, like AARP for older adults, young adults' voices have been muted, he says. He's been discouraged by the health care debate.

 

"It has made me disillusioned with the Democrats," he said.

 

Ari Matusiak, 33, a Georgetown University law student, founded Young Invincibles with other Obama campaign volunteers to rally youth support for health care overhaul.

 

Age rating fails as a wedge issue because the pluses of the new law outweigh the minuses for young adults, Matusiak says.

 

"And we're not going to be 26, 27, 33 forever," Matusiak says. "Guess what? We're going to be in a different demographic soon enough."

 

Nationally representative surveys for the Kaiser Family Foundation have consistently found that young adults are more likely than senior citizens to say they would be willing to pay more so that more Americans could be insured. But whether that generosity will endure isn't clear.

 

"The government approach of—we'll just make someone get health care and pay for someone else—definitely NOT what I want," says Melissa Kaupke, 28, who is uninsured and works from her Nashville home.

 

In Chicago, Higdon says he supports the principles of the health care overhaul, even if it means he will pay more as a young man to smooth out premium costs for everyone.

 

"Hopefully I'll be old someday, barring some catastrophic event. And the likelihood of me being old is less if I don't have a good health plan."

[plasticeyeball]

If my health insurance would only increase 17% between now and 2014 I would jump for joy. Small business health insurance premiums have risen more than that on several occasions in one year over the last 10. This year they went up 18%. 10% last year, 15% the year before, etc...

 

If I go back 10 years, our rates have increased 130%.

 

It's funny too, I had 5 hospitalized surgeries and one long term (30+ days) hospital stay between the age of 20 and 30. Then I had none between 30 and 45.

[Good Old Neon]

When individuals other than conservative psychos react violently or inappropriately to something they don’t like republicans call it acting irresponsibly, however, when conservative psychos react violently or inappropriately to something they don’t like, republicans call it justified – especially when the anger is directed at democrats and/or liberals, as you’re about to learn in the following Daily Show clip.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/jon-stewart-returns-and-r_n_518216.html

[Tweedling]

I think we can all agree there are psychos on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Guest Speed Racer]

When individuals other than conservative psychos react violently or inappropriately to something they don’t like republicans call it acting irresponsibly, however, when conservative psychos react violently or inappropriately to something they don’t like, republicans call it justified.

 

So, I assume you didn't want any coverage of any Republican National Convention, like, ever, then?

[Gobias Industries]

I think we can all agree there are psychos on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

Sure, I agree, but I think there's something inherently more psychotic (and therefore frightening) about one side implicitly advocating the use of arms over an issue rather than, say, mailing your representative or calling them. You know, doing something not crazy or violent.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Is the use of arms more reprehensible than violent mass vandalism, molotov cocktails and pipe bombs?

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Health care is important and I fundamentally agree that provisions need to be made for those unable to afford health insurance. I also agree that there needs to be a fundamental adjustment and reform in hospital pricing and insurance company practices. I'm not convinced that the bill passed addresses the problems in a fundamental and effective manner.

 

However, there is another health care problem that is never addressed. There are a large number of people who are in dire need of dental care and are unable to afford either insurance or dental care. Dental insurance suffers from many of the same provider and insurance company shell games (Insurance companies enact ridiculously low standards for payment of care and Providers work the system and ovebill). However, there is no great hue and cry for dental care reform.

 

 

A certain part of me wants all these issues addressed; however, another part of me is repelled by the intrusion of the 'nanny state'.

With the great erosion of the middle class over the last 40 years, the question becomes "who pays"?

 

I have a feeling that eventually it will be four guys named Herb and me paying for everything. Guess I can always get a third job. Who needs sleep?

[Gobias Industries]

Is the use of arms more reprehensible than violent mass vandalism, molotov cocktails and pipe bombs?

 

Is this referring to my comment? I use arms in the broader sense of the term, so everything you just mentioned above is included.

[Guest Speed Racer]

However, there is another health care problem that is never addressed. There are a large number of people who are in dire need of dental care and are unable to afford either insurance or dental care.

 

I agree entirely, though I would also argue that dental-care-awareness is also lacking. Preventative care is actually rather affordable for those with healthy teeth, and those with unhealthy teeth can receive free/discounted care at dental schools (provided they're willing to wait, but still).

 

In general, I think the people in the United States have a disinterest in preventative care, not only because some people believe (whether true or not) that they cannot afford it, but because they have the "if it's not broke, don't fix it" mentality. My preventative care averages about $150/year out of pocket, if I do two dental visits (I don't have dental insurance) and an annual check-up. Nevertheless, people at my office are shocked I manage to squeeze in one or two dental appointments AND a check-up every year - same health care plan, and I'm definitely toward the bottom of the pay scale.

[Good Old Neon]

Is the use of arms more reprehensible than violent mass vandalism, molotov cocktails and pipe bombs?

 

No, but my point is that some republicans are sort of defending or at least explaining away threats of that type of behavior by turning it around, and blaming democrats for forcing this bill down the throat of Americans. It’s not so much what the tea baggers are saying or doing, they’re just ignorant assholes, it’s the fact that the Republican Party cannot just come out and state that threatening a politicians life is simply wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

 

Of course, this is the same group of people who, above all else, ramble on and on about personal responsibility, and how we’re all responsible for our own actions and behavior, but then, turn around and claim that the democrats, and not just the assholes making the threats, are also to blame for someone else’s behavior.

[Guest Speed Racer]

For starters (if you'll pardon me), a lot of Tea Baggers identify as independents. Simply because they do not support Obama, why should the GOP make any sort of statement against them? Many of the RNC protestors also identified as independents, which is the same reason why I don't recall a blanket dismissal of them on the part of the Democrats.

[bjorn_skurj]

Left-wing violence in this country died out with the Weather Underground, except for those people who hassle the cops at WTO meetings.

[Good Old Neon]

For starters (if you'll pardon me), a lot of Tea Baggers identify as independents. Simply because they do not support Obama, why should the GOP make any sort of statement against them? Many of the RNC protestors also identified as independents, which is the same reason why I don't recall a blanket dismissal of them on the part of the Democrats.

 

The tea baggers have a few things in common with 9/11 Truthers, among them, a profound inability to sort fact from fiction, but, and please correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t recall prominent democrats taking to the air to justify the insane claims and demands of the 9/11 crowd. You’re correct, many tea partiers identify themselves as independents, however, unlike the GOP, I haven’t seen the Democratic Party go out of its way to gain their support or seek their favor – I think at this point, they’d be happy if they could get them to simply re-embrace reality.

 

Suggesting Bush wasn’t always telling the truth, when in fact, he wasn’t, would get you branded as a loony lefty – you might even find yourself diagnosed with Bush Derangement Syndrome by the same group of republicans who have encouraged, either openly or through their silence, the idea that Obama, with the help of his fellow democrats, is trying to destroy this country – which, unlike the charges levied against Bush (torture, falsifying evidence, etc), is a work of fiction on par with the Easter Bunny.

 

This whole equivalency thing, that both sides are equally at fault, that all arguments have two equal sides drives me a bit batty. I’m not a democrat, and a I disagree with them and the president on many issues, but honest to christ, the republicans almost look as though they’re auditioning for the role of the mustache twirling villain.

[austrya]

Those people who they raided (about 20 miles from my house, eek) were Ron Paul supporters according to an interview with the ex-fiance of one of the guys.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex_cgeDA7Iw

 

Here's the story:

 

http://www.lenconnect.com/newsnow/x1009763095/Five-Lenawee-County-residents-among-nine-indicted-this-morning

[Guest Speed Racer]

You’re correct, many tea partiers identify themselves as independents, however, unlike the GOP, I haven’t seen the Democratic Party go out of its way to gain their support or seek their favor – I think at this point, they’d be happy if they could get them to simply re-embrace reality.

 

Perhaps because most of the Tea Baggers lean right? You can lean right and not identify as a Republican and still vote Republican, therefore it makes sense that the GOP would court you. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

 

Suggesting Bush wasn’t always telling the truth, when in fact, he wasn’t, would get you branded as a loony lefty – you might even find yourself diagnosed with Bush Derangement Syndrome by the same group of republicans who have encouraged, either openly or through their silence, the idea that Obama, with the help of his fellow democrats, is trying to destroy this country – which, unlike the charges levied against Bush (torture, falsifying evidence, etc), is a work of fiction on par with the Easter Bunny.

 

You know that it's a lot more complex than that - getting branded as a loony lefty, that is. A lot of us VCers didn't believe Bush was telling the truth all the time, and I can count on one hand the number among us who were branded by others as loonies. Don't ruin this by oversimplifying everything.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/is_america_yearning_for_fascism_20100329/?ln

[Moss]

The level of shrillness and paranoia on the right for what is basically a pretty moderate piece of health care legislation astounds me. If nothing else, the right is still really good at propaganda.

[Good Old Neon]

Perhaps because most of the Tea Baggers lean right? You can lean right and not identify as a Republican and still vote Republican, therefore it makes sense that the GOP would court you. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

 

True, but many truthers lean left. I don’t know, I wouldn’t go out of my way to seek the support of a group of people who conduct themselves the way the tea baggers (or truthers) have – some things are more important than votes. Unless, of course, you’re Michelle Bachman and you actually believe this shit – shit like, the current census is a precursor to internment camps and any other crazy shit you can think up and then convince yourself is real in an effort to appeal to your base, even if your base is nearly clinically insane.

 

 

You know that it's a lot more complex than that - getting branded as a loony lefty, that is. A lot of us VCers didn't believe Bush was telling the truth all the time, and I can count on one hand the number among us who were branded by others as loonies. Don't ruin this by oversimplifying everything.

 

I was referring to the climate outside this board. Right wing radio, and their brothers in arms, the Republican Party, spent eight years belittling anyone who dared question or criticize Bush’s motives and/or honesty. But you're right, real life is complex, but you might not know that if you're a fan of Rush Limbaugh, etc.