Get Set For Big Premium Hike!

[Guest oldfella]

Get set for big premium hikes

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

September 13, 2010

President Obama is boasting that his new health law provides "free" preventive care, such as mammograms and colonoscopies. But when you open your mail, you'll find out that's untrue; all he's doing is making you pay for it in advance.

The government isn't going to force you to get a colonoscopy, but being forced to pay for one feels almost the same.

Millions of Americans are getting notices that their premiums are going up to pay for changes required under the ObamaCare law. Section 2713 of the law requires that those premiums include the full cost for such preventive services as Pap smears, mammograms and smoking-cessation programs. Obama's "free" really just means you won't have a co-pay if you decide to get that service. But it's not free -- merely prepaid. When a restaurant charges you $25 for the all-you-can-eat buffet, it can't claim dessert is "free."

Another reason premiums are soaring this fall is the rapid rise in Medicaid enrollment, now up to a record 50 million people nationwide. When Medicaid rolls expand, it's a double whammy for the rest of us; our taxes go up and so do our premiums.

Medicaid pays, on average, 86 cents for every dollar of care provided. Doctors and hospitals are shortchanged. They try to make up the difference by charging privately insured patients more. The average household paid almost $1,800 a year in added premiums to offset Medicaid costs before the recession began. Now, with Medicaid rolls up, that hidden tax increases your premium even more.

Get set for larger premium hikes in 2014. That's when most ObamaCare provisions go into effect.

Before Congress passed the health law, the Congressional Budget Office warned that individual and small-group health premiums would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher under ObamaCare. In other words, Congress members who voted for this law knew it would raise your insurance costs.

A major reason is the one-size-fits-all benefit package, which you'll have to have whether you want it and can afford it or not. It will include things many consumers haven't had to buy in the past, such as addiction treatment for heroin addicts (Sec. 1302).

Another reason is the expansion of Medicaid. Obama said he'd solve the problem of the uninsured by making insurance more affordable, but 60 percent of all those who will gain coverage in 2014 are being put on Medicaid -- which, again, will increase the hidden tax in your premium.

By 2019, 82 million people will be on Medicaid or S-CHIP, the public children's program -- that's more than 28 percent of all Americans under 65.

Obama pledged to "bend the cost curve" on health insurance. But he's bending the truth instead. When you open your mail, you can thank ObamaCare for the premium hike.

Betsy McCaughey, a former New York lieu tenant governor, is author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It." betsy@defendyourhealthcare.us

---

Betsy McCaughey

Defend Your Healthcare

Defend Your Healthcare

PLEASE SUPPORT RESEARCH AND OUTREACH ON THE OBAMA HEALTH LAW. YOUR MONEY WILL BE USED WISELY. THIS IS THE FIGHT OF OUR LIFETIME.

- Betsy

[Kenstaroni]

My premium is going up already. I haven't even filed a claim or been to the doctor since I started my policy. The healthcare bill is all about taxing. I don't even buy the sharing of the wealth, it's just a way to stick it to the middle class. The poor can't afford health insurance and don't deserve it if they aren't going to work. They are proposing taxes on non-diet sodas and other drinks at $0.03 per ounce. Get ready for a 20oz coke that cost $0.89 when I was a kid back in the 90's to cost $2.00+ and that's just a start...who knows what else they will tax that's "un-healthy." They are going to tax us, tell us where we can go to the doctor and when, tax our food because it's un-healthy, and who knows what else. There's absolutely nothing about this healthcare plan that makes any sense.

I can't wait for November!

[Ebow1]

This is turning into 1984, where they tell us what we can and can't eat. I'm a fat kid, plain and simple. When someone tries to legally force me into a specific food intake that's the day there's no longer a place for me in this country.

[daddyo]

Wow, you mean I get to pay even more for my insurance? Thanks, President Obama!!!

[Guest KimberChick]

Wow, you mean I get to pay even more for my insurance? Thanks, President Obama!!!

Being a healthy, non-overweight person, I already do. I kind of always have. I subsidize the bigguns and baby factories in my age group because I pay in way more than I take out.

I'm in a group now but the individual plans are no better. If you do as you should, the only thing you get out of it is the gift of a longer life...and more time to subsidize the folks around you.

I don't wanna tell people what to eat...but I don't wanna have to shoulder some of the premiums for someone who shovels a supersized Double QPC Meal into their piehole 5 times a week either.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Thanks for posting this, oldfella sir.

[Daniel]

Being a healthy, non-overweight person, I already do. I kind of always have. I subsidize the bigguns and baby factories in my age group because I pay in way more than I take out.

I'm in a group now but the individual plans are no better. If you do as you should, the only thing you get out of it is the gift of a longer life...and more time to subsidize the folks around you.

I don't wanna tell people what to eat...but I don't wanna have to shoulder some of the premiums for someone who shovels a supersized Double QPC Meal into their piehole 5 times a week either.

Good post.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Body fat may have negative correlation with health for young folks (Higher body fat == poorer health and vice-versa).

I could be mistaken, but some recent studies show that fat old farts tend to live longer than skinny old folks, and tend to survive surgeries better, etc. So once somebody survives past a certain age, the fatties seem to have an advantage in longevity.

However, if the govt is paying for the care, taxpayers might still prefer old folks to be skinny, because that would mean the old folks would not live as long, and would not cost the taxpayer as much money over the skinny person's shorter lifetime.

[Daniel]

Dont get me wrong, I could lose several myself. I am just agreeing that overall healthy lifestyle people are and have been picking up slack for others for quite awhile now.

[Guest KimberChick]

Dont get me wrong, I could lose several myself. I am just agreeing that overall healthy lifestyle people are and have been picking up slack for others for quite awhile now.

Yeap...among other American socioeconomic demographics. It doesn't pay to be healthy, single, gainfully employed and childless in America...

And there's a difference between skinny old folks who are bedridden and frail(likely the study group's targets) and skinny old folks who are up at 5am jogging or walking before breakfast.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yeap...among other American socioeconomic demographics. It doesn't pay to be healthy, single, gainfully employed and childless in America...

And there's a difference between skinny old folks who are bedridden and frail(likely the study group's targets) and skinny old folks who are up at 5am jogging or walking before breakfast.

Dunno the params of the studies. I think some of them were just population studies.

Some folks do pay more and get back less from the 'system'. No argument. If you are healthy and happy and don't have to pay as much of yer disposable income on "too many" kids, then you enjoy many benefits from yer lifestyle regardless whether you don't get back your share of what you pay in. On the other hand, if you get hit by a truck while jogging and become paralyzed, and then collect govt bennies for the next 40 years, then instantly you switch from a 'surplus' category to a 'deficit' category.

Healthy athletic folks have higher risk of injuries I'd wager. I'm not especially athletic, but ran up some heavy medical bills maybe 20 years ago when I herniated a disk taking a bad fall while "walking for my health". Wouldn't have herniated that disk if I'd been sitting on the couch!

There ars some contradictions in social policy if you (a) Don't think it is the govt's business to legislate personal behavior "for their own good" and ( Look at it from a cost-benefit perspective.

For instance, we punish smokers with sin taxes and in some cases higher health insurance rates. However, smoking is pretty well demonstrated to shorten lifetime. Because Social Security is just a tax and not a retirement plan, if you die off before retirement age, you lose ALL your social security and medicare taxes and don't get any of it back. So if some 2 pack a day smoker keels over before retirement age, it makes that feller's money available to some prudent non-smoker who survives long enough to collect social security. So maybe smokers, alcoholics and meth-heads should be applauded and rewarded, rather than being demeaned? Over their shorter lifetimes they will cost the state less money!

There is also the notion that an active person with no bad habits is "morally superior" to an inactive person with bad habits. However, various people have differing natural energy levels and 'vital force'. A person who is not naturally energetic, would need MORE discipline to exercise and eat right and such, compared to a naturally energetic person who stays active because she just naturally feels like it.

The biggest key to long life and health, is to choose your parents wisely. If you chose parents who were healthy, active, and long-lived, then you will most likely live longer than some person who happened to choose unhealthy short-lived parents. My wife's ancestors lived a lot longer than my ancestors, and it is probable that she will live longer than me. She made a wiser choice of parents!

I'm not advocating lots of govt welfare programs however. But once we are saddled with public-funded social programs, the need to save money directly pushes toward govt regulation of personal behavior, and bitterness of the 'naturally healthy' against the 'naturally unhealthy'. But those taxes you pay taking care of the 'naturally unhealthy' are limited by the fact that the unhealthy ones won't be on the dole as long as the healthy ones.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Lester Weevils

[Guest KimberChick]

Sounds like it boils down to personal responsibility and choice. I choose not to be a couch-dwelling lardass. I should also be able to choose not to pay into a program(Social Security) that I'll likely never see a dime of as I'm an awfully long way from 62..or 67...or 70. That's another thread entirely, so back to the topic at hand...

I shouldn't be penalized because, as of yet, I have chosen to forgo life choices that will consume more of my disposable income by having to bear the cost of those who have decided otherwise, via welfare and insurance funding. The unhealthy people might not be on the dole as long, but I'd bet they'll cost more over their short lifetimes than many healthier people will over their long ones. If and when I decide to make a change towards a more costly lifestyle, then I'll gladly pony up my fair share to support it. These folks could enjoy the same "benefits" I have currently, with regard to my income and expenses...save for the choices they made.

I cannot stand the morally superior ones either. Lefty, Prius driving vegans...pfft. I (and Halfpint has witnessed it) will eat whatever the hell I want to eat. I probably eat about a third more than he does. However, I recognize that in order to maintain a healthy body, I must augment my caloric intake with an appropriate amount of exercise activity. That boils down to self control.

There will always be sick people. I don't mind carrying the weight of people who have a verified, legit medical condition. But those made "sick" by their own life choices....tough noogies.

[Punisher84]

Sounds like it boils down to personal responsibility and choice. I choose not to be a couch-dwelling lardass. I should also be able to choose not to pay into a program(Social Security) that I'll likely never see a dime of as I'm an awfully long way from 62..or 67...or 70. That's another thread entirely, so back to the topic at hand...

I shouldn't be penalized because, as of yet, I have chosen to forgo life choices that will consume more of my disposable income by having to bear the cost of those who have decided otherwise, via welfare and insurance funding. The unhealthy people might not be on the dole as long, but I'd bet they'll cost more over their short lifetimes than many healthier people will over their long ones. If and when I decide to make a change towards a more costly lifestyle, then I'll gladly pony up my fair share to support it. These folks could enjoy the same "benefits" I have currently, with regard to my income and expenses...save for the choices they made.

I cannot stand the morally superior ones either. Lefty, Prius driving vegans...pfft. I (and Halfpint has witnessed it) will eat whatever the hell I want to eat. I probably eat about a third more than he does. However, I recognize that in order to maintain a healthy body, I must augment my caloric intake with an appropriate amount of exercise activity. That boils down to self control.

There will always be sick people. I don't mind carrying the weight of people who have a verified, legit medical condition. But those made "sick" by their own life choices....tough noogies.

I smoked and drank heavily this past weekend at the bike rally and now I have a cold...can I have 10 bucks?

Of course I jest, but you may use that as an example for your statements if ya like. Statements that I wholeheartedly agree with. Very well put.

[xRUSTYx]

My fiance's and mine premium's already went up by about 12%

[Guest BEARMAN]

Take two DAMNITALL'S and get a good nights sleep... call Doc Bear, in the morning.

We are all screwed...with these Obamacare shinanigan's. FWIW

[Oh Shoot]

...

I could be mistaken, but some recent studies show that fat old farts tend to live longer than skinny old folks, and tend to survive surgeries better, etc. So once somebody survives past a certain age, the fatties seem to have an advantage in longevity.

Wistful thinking, I wistfully think.

- OS

[Kenstaroni]

I have an HSA and after January 1 2010 Obama has made it law that HSA's can no longer be used to pay for over the counter medicine and the penalty for withdrawl for non-medical related purchases is going from 10% to 20%. The main reason I have an HSA is so I can go to Walgreen's and buy over the counter medicine when I'm sick. This is very helpful during alergy season as I have two to three months where I have to take allergy medicine. So how in the world is this going to cut down on healthcare costs...now if I get sick it will make more sense to go to the doctor....rediculus!

I'm considering converting to a traditional insurance policy and withdrawing the 2k I have in my HSA. That will pay for my premium for over a year. I see no real benefit in keeping my HSA after December 31 of this year.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Wistful thinking, I wistfully think.

- OS

Hi OS

Dunno if it is wishful thinking or not. Here is an example, but I can't guarantee its veracity--

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/722161

"Objectives: To examine in an older population all-cause and cause-specific mortality associated with underweight (body mass index (BMI)<18.5), normal weight (BMI 18.5–24.9), overweight (BMI 25.0–29.9), and obesity (BMI≥30.0).

Design: Cohort study.

Setting: The Health in Men Study and the Australian Longitudinal Study of Women's Health.

Participants: Adults aged 70 to 75, 4,677 men and 4,563 women recruited in 1996 and followed for up to 10 years.

Measurements: Relative risk of all-cause mortality and cause-specific (cardiovascular disease, cancer, and chronic respiratory disease) mortality.

Results: Mortality risk was lowest for overweight participants. The risk of death for overweight participants was 13% less than for normal-weight participants (hazard ratio (HR)=0.87, 95% CI=0.78–0.94). The risk of death was similar for obese and normal-weight participants (HR=0.98, 95% CI=0.85–1.11). Being sedentary doubled the mortality risk for women across all levels of BMI (HR=2.08, 95% CI=1.79–2.41) but resulted in only a 28% greater risk for men (HR=1.28 (95% CI=1.14–1.44).

Conclusion: These results lend further credence to claims that the BMI thresholds for overweight and obese are overly restrictive for older people. Overweight older people are not at greater mortality risk than those who are normal weight. Being sedentary was associated with a greater risk of mortality in women than in men."

"Two systematic reviews and a meta-analysis of selected articles on BMI and mortality spanning 1966 to 2004 have concluded that BMI in the overweight range is not a risk factor for all-cause mortality in older people,[9,10] but methodological differences complicate the comparability of individual studies.

The objective of this study was to examine a major unresolved question;[11] what level of BMI is associated with the lowest mortality risk in older people? A secondary objective was to determine whether the relationship between BMI and mortality risk differed between older men and women. Two large representative population-based cohorts of community-dwelling older Australians, followed for a decade or until death (if sooner), were used. To the authors' knowledge, this is one of the most detailed studies of its kind conducted, particularly in people aged 70 and older."

[Oh Shoot]

Hi OS

Dunno if it is wishful thinking or not. Here is an example, but I can't guarantee its veracity--

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/722161...

Well, hell, maybe I should put on a pound or two a year as I get older!

Not really, though, still trying to get the last 20 or so OFF that I've accumulated in last few years

Thanks for that though...it IS interesting.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Sounds like it boils down to personal responsibility and choice. I choose not to be a couch-dwelling lardass. I should also be able to choose not to pay into a program(Social Security) that I'll likely never see a dime of as I'm an awfully long way from 62..or 67...or 70. That's another thread entirely, so back to the topic at hand...

I shouldn't be penalized because, as of yet, I have chosen to forgo life choices that will consume more of my disposable income by having to bear the cost of those who have decided otherwise, via welfare and insurance funding. The unhealthy people might not be on the dole as long, but I'd bet they'll cost more over their short lifetimes than many healthier people will over their long ones. If and when I decide to make a change towards a more costly lifestyle, then I'll gladly pony up my fair share to support it. These folks could enjoy the same "benefits" I have currently, with regard to my income and expenses...save for the choices they made.

I cannot stand the morally superior ones either. Lefty, Prius driving vegans...pfft. I (and Halfpint has witnessed it) will eat whatever the hell I want to eat. I probably eat about a third more than he does. However, I recognize that in order to maintain a healthy body, I must augment my caloric intake with an appropriate amount of exercise activity. That boils down to self control.

There will always be sick people. I don't mind carrying the weight of people who have a verified, legit medical condition. But those made "sick" by their own life choices....tough noogies.

The so called morally superior ones( the lefties who came up with the Obamacare) are the ones playing the ends against the middle.

Unfortunate, isn't it? Self control is a better way to live. Great post!

[Dolomite_supafly]

My 18 year old son, who is in perfect health, just had his premiums go up over 30%. Tjis is for catastrophic coverage, not regular medical coverage.

I can not get insurance, I would gladly pay for it but now I get denied for pre existing conditions. In the past I have asked for a writer to remove those from the policy and most say that they would not because it would take too much to determine if a new ailment was part of the pre existing conditions.

Recently I did find one company that did agree to write out the pre existing conditions but when they found out I travelled outside of the US as part of my employment they refused to cover me but said if I were home at least 1 year they would. Now that I am home for the foreseeable future because of an injury that occured overseas I can't get coverage again. The same company now says they will not cover me because of the medications I take daily can cause additional health problems.

I have tried everything humanly possible to get insurance for my wife and I but no company wants us unless we are in perfect health with no pre existing conditions. They refused my wife because she was is not a US citizen and overweight. She is in perfect health other than the age related weight some people put on. She is in the process of loosing a bunch of weight trying to rectify the situation.

Forget about the extra cost or putting in writers, I have found no company that will insure us.

Dolomite

[Daniel]

So how do you feel about the Health Care Bill that was passed and now will ensure you receive health insurance like any able bodied person?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Sounds like it boils down to personal responsibility and choice. I choose not to be a couch-dwelling lardass. I should also be able to choose not to pay into a program(Social Security) that I'll likely never see a dime of as I'm an awfully long way from 62..or 67...or 70. That's another thread entirely, so back to the topic at hand...

I shouldn't be penalized because, as of yet, I have chosen to forgo life choices that will consume more of my disposable income by having to bear the cost of those who have decided otherwise, via welfare and insurance funding. The unhealthy people might not be on the dole as long, but I'd bet they'll cost more over their short lifetimes than many healthier people will over their long ones. If and when I decide to make a change towards a more costly lifestyle, then I'll gladly pony up my fair share to support it. These folks could enjoy the same "benefits" I have currently, with regard to my income and expenses...save for the choices they made.

I cannot stand the morally superior ones either. Lefty, Prius driving vegans...pfft. I (and Halfpint has witnessed it) will eat whatever the hell I want to eat. I probably eat about a third more than he does. However, I recognize that in order to maintain a healthy body, I must augment my caloric intake with an appropriate amount of exercise activity. That boils down to self control.

There will always be sick people. I don't mind carrying the weight of people who have a verified, legit medical condition. But those made "sick" by their own life choices....tough noogies.

Hi KimberChick

There are tweaks that might benefit the health insurance situation, but the one-size-fits-all approach of the current health bill seems unhelpful and ultimately anti-freedom. It will be difficult to repeal, but maybe we'll get lucky and a part of it will be found unconstitutional. Supposedly the democrats wrote the monster without a severability clause, thinking that the mess won't really work unless all parts stay in there. So if one feature of the bill is unconstitutional, the entire thang goes down in flames.

PrairiePundit: Health care law lacks severability clause

If we can get out from under this bill and start over, we should have the freedom to buy the plan we want. I'd personally prefer a high-deductible catastrophic major medical + tax-sheltered medical savings account where you get to keep any money you don't spend on medical bills. Wouldn't mind it if you eventually pay tax on what you don't spend, but if you luck up after a couple of decades with thousands of extra bucks in the account, you ought to be able to keep it and spend it on non-medical purposes.

But somebody else might like paying thru the nose for a policy that pays just about everything. Freedom to choose.

If the law gets tossed and we can start over, a couple of my peeves--

* Pharmacies, doctors, hospitals should not be allowed to charge the self-insured any more than they charge insurance companies. I self-insured self-employed off'n'on, and it burns to get charged more than an insurance company.

Ferinstance, had a recent emergency room visit and the doctor charge was $591. The blue cross contractual adjustment was $401, so me and blue cross had to divvy up an actual payment of $190. OF COURSE the doctors would tend to get stiffed charging uninsured customers $591. But they would be a lot more likely to get paid if they charged the same as they charge blue cross!

* Insurance companies should be able to offer any kind of policy they like, but for any specific policy package, the insurance company would have to take any customers who have the money to pay, regardless of age or pre-existing conditions (with a 1 year latency on pre-existing conditions maybe). And the insurance company would have to charge everybody the same rate on that policy package.

This would make the rate higher for the very healthiest youngest individuals, but it would spread the load, and it would be easy enough for the insurance company to set a reasonable price where they don't lose money.

The very healthiest youngest individuals in the pool won't stay the healthiest or youngest forever, so they would pay "too much" early on, for the benefit of being able to afford the premiums or even get insurance later in life. What goes around comes around.

=====

I agree that people should be allowed to make their own choices, and accept the consequences of the choices. But the entire issue of choice is a little bit fuzzy. For instance, to choose to behave in a successful way, first an individual would have to give a dam, and I'm not certain a person would choose whether or not to give a dam, in the ordinary definition of what we consider intentional choices. Or maybe a person's idea of success is to do as little work as possible, and being a leech on society is the pinnacle of success for such a person.

Folks are all just different. I have an old aunt pushing 90 who eats like horse and has always been an ideal weight. She still works part time, and is naturally energetic and would find it almost impossible not to be doing something all the time. I don't think she ever made a choice to have almost the ideal metabolism or be too nervous to just sit doing nothing. Similarly there are low-energy people who realistically cannot choose to be motivated to be anything but lazy lard-asses.

I agree people should be free to choose and live with the results, but it isn't always cut-and-dried that it is a person's fault if they are a lazy lard-ass.

[Mike.357]

I dunno, but if you start charging healthcare based on people being lard assed or whatever how big of a leap is it to have different rates for all lifestyles.

What kind of a safety rated car do you drive? When jogging for your health where do you do, paved track or in the woods? Hmmm, have you ever a beer and get behind the wheel? Do you handle firearms often? Gas or electric appliances in your house? How many steps to get up to the front door?

Do you live in the city or in a less polluted area? How about a college education?

It is a very slippery slope.

[Garufa]

You pay a different insurance rate based on what kind of car you drive, what type of home you have and where it's located. Hell, I don't get a discount on my insurance becuse I smoke.

If you're not on a group plan then you pay higher rates the older you get.

Why should lard-asses not pay a higher premium when the health risks of obesity are clearly known?