• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Long-awaited federal rules for
health insurance
plans came out Tuesday, and they make clear that insurance plans that people can buy on the open market next year will look a lot like some of the most popular plans on offer now – with a few big differences.As the 2010
health
reform law requires, insurers will no longer be able to dump patients who are starting to cost too much, they won’t be able to charge women more than men, they have to cover anyone who can pay and they’ll have to pay for maternity care, eye exams for kids and for mental health services.
“Insurers will not be able to charge someone more just because she is sick or because she used to be sick,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters on a conference call.The new rules from the Health and Human Services Department cover the new state exchanges, where people will be able to buy health
insurance
starting in 2014.
The rules lay out how much extra insurers can charge to cover certain groups of people, like smokers and people who are older. They also say when states outline so-called essential health benefits – the minimums of what health insurers should cover – they should use the best existing plans as a guideline. HHS also issued some guidelines for employers and insurers who want to offer wellness programs, which encourage people to keep themselves healthy.

Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules - Vitals


Here we go....We had to pass it to find out what is in it....Unfortunately it doesn't look good.
 
From what I read there, it basically makes the best plan out there the "standard" to which all others are going to be held. Since they can no longer surcharge certain groups of people the way they have in the past, the base rate for EVERYONE is going to be going up.

Real nice. This is going to be an even bigger disaster than I had originally expected.
 
One size fits all insurance.
 
From what I read there, it basically makes the best plan out there the "standard" to which all others are going to be held.

Well then you didn't read it correctly. You can still get just adequate plans with sizable deductibles and lower premiums and stuff like that. In no way does this law make health care plans one size fits all, and it didn't make health care companies stop charging more for some people, it just limits the amount. You have no idea what that amount is and you go off complaining about it without all the facts.
 
Here we go....We had to pass it to find out what is in it....Unfortunately it doesn't look good.

I knew all of these provisions were in the bill when it was passed. There are no surprises in your post. Insurance companies can't dump people (why do you find this to be a bad thing? You think that if I've been paying into health insurance for 20 years they should be able to dump me right when I get a disease? How ridiculous can you be?), it averages the cost of men and women, they can't deny people insurance if they can afford it, no pre-existing conditions etc.

We knew all of this before now J.
 
I knew all of these provisions were in the bill when it was passed. There are no surprises in your post. Insurance companies can't dump people (why do you find this to be a bad thing? You think that if I've been paying into health insurance for 20 years they should be able to dump me right when I get a disease? How ridiculous can you be?), it averages the cost of men and women, they can't deny people insurance if they can afford it, no pre-existing conditions etc.

We knew all of this before now J.

Yea, rescission touted as a huge problem, was nearly nonexistent.
 
So they can charge smokers up to 5x more, but what about obese people, people with diabetes that can be controlled with diet, alcohol drinkers?

No where in the article does it say that they are only charging smokers more, and it does not say 5x more. We need to deal with this rationally and not go off making up numbers Harry.

It said that it will allow insurers to charge a certain amount extra for certain groups that are at higher risk such as smokers and older people. I'm sure obese people also fit in to this category. All it is doing is limiting the amount that can be charged extra to a reasonable amount.
 
No where in the article does it say that they are only charging smokers more, and it does not say 5x more. We need to deal with this rationally and not go off making up numbers Harry.

It said that it will allow insurers to charge a certain amount extra for certain groups that are at higher risk such as smokers and older people. I'm sure obese people also fit in to this category. All it is doing is limiting the amount that can be charged extra to a reasonable amount.

NBC said:
But smokers can be charged premiums that are five times higher under the new rules.

Yea it did.
 
Yea, rescission touted as a huge problem, was nearly nonexistent.

It was touted as a problem, and I know it was. I have two uncles in my family that were both self insured and were cut from their insurance, one after finding out he has a liver disease (never smoked and drank socially) and the other when he got through a bout of cancer. Four months after removing the tumor they cut him.

I'm not saying that it happens to everybody, but if you want to make the claim that it was almost non-existent I think you're gonna need a source to back that up. Do you have the statistics on it?
 
It was touted as a problem, and I know it was. I have two uncles in my family that were both self insured and were cut from their insurance, one after finding out he has a liver disease (never smoked and drank socially) and the other when he got through a bout of cancer. Four months after removing the tumor they cut him.

I'm not saying that it happens to everybody, but if you want to make the claim that it was almost non-existent I think you're gonna need a source to back that up. Do you have the statistics on it?

I was looking for it, but IIRC the numbers were between 10k and 5k people a year.
 
Well then you didn't read it correctly. You can still get just adequate plans with sizable deductibles and lower premiums and stuff like that. In no way does this law make health care plans one size fits all, and it didn't make health care companies stop charging more for some people, it just limits the amount. You have no idea what that amount is and you go off complaining about it without all the facts.

First off, you need to realize that I don't believe the Federal Government actually has the right to implement the AACA under the US Constitution, regardless of what the Supreme Court may say. I also do not believe that Healthcare, whether government run or private is a Right. I believe it is properly a Privilege for those who can afford it and who choose to do so.

Having said that, I have absolutely no faith that the AACA will not increase what these insurance companies (and the employers) are required to provide in their plans. What the Government considers "adequate" and what I do are likely to be two VERY different things. The moment that an insurance company is limited in their ability to surcharge any group of individuals, the general price of the plan has to go up to make up that difference. That's just basic accounting. I don't even what to consider what other little "nuggets" are waiting in the depths of those thousands of pages of legislation.
 
Further looking has shown that, yes obese people can be charged more.
Thank goodness on that, if we're going to get on to people for negative health behavior, we shouldn't just target one group.

Now, lets get to alcohol users.
 
Further looking has shown that, yes obese people can be charged more.
Thank goodness on that, if we're going to get on to people for negative health behavior, we shouldn't just target one group.

Now, lets get to alcohol users.

Definitely. Smokers, drinkers, the obese, etc.... It's time these people start paying for their risky behaviors and take the burden off those of us who do try to keep ourselves relatively healthy; at least to the point that we can.
 
Users.
Alcohol is not a requirement for life, all the positive effects of it are easily negated by the negative effects.

You'll have to show me the negative health effects of having a glass of wine every 3-4 days. I'll be looking forward to you providing a peer reviewed study showing the negative health effects of that.
 
You'll have to show me the negative health effects of having a glass of wine every 3-4 days. I'll be looking forward to you providing a peer reviewed study showing the negative health effects of that.

Just like smokers and obese people, indulging in these things doesn't necessarily mean you'll develop problems, but because people do, and you use it, you need to pay for the added risk.

Oh and alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen.
 
Just like smokers and obese people, indulging in these things doesn't necessarily mean you'll develop problems, but because people do, and you use it, you need to pay for the added risk.

Oh and alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen.

Again, you still have not shown proof of health issues from having a glass of wine every 3-4 days. That isn't an increased risk.
 
No where in the article does it say that they are only charging smokers more, and it does not say 5x more. We need to deal with this rationally and not go off making up numbers Harry.

It said that it will allow insurers to charge a certain amount extra for certain groups that are at higher risk such as smokers and older people. I'm sure obese people also fit in to this category. All it is doing is limiting the amount that can be charged extra to a reasonable amount.

You should not be "sure" that any past rational health risk factors will be used to set individual premium rates. PPACA allows only age and tobacco use to be considered.

See link: http://www.acscan.org/pdf/healthcare/implementation/background/NewFederalRatingRules.pdf
 
While you're at it let the government control exactly how many calories you consume, when you see the doctor for what and how to spend your money. Personal responsibility will no longer have to be learned or a possibility for an independent thinking person, you can be a robot.
 
Ok, now that is settled.
Why should people who use any amount of alcohol be exempted, while tabacco users, of varying degrees, must pay the full price?

Light drinking may relate to increase in risk for certain cancers


Not settled, per your article:

an average reported intake of up to 1 typical drink/day

That's not every 3-4 days. Next? Again when you want to show a PEER reviewd study of a glass of wine every 3-4 days as being a health issue, I will be waiting.
 
Not settled, per your article:



That's not every 3-4 days. Next? Again when you want to show a PEER reviewd study of a glass of wine every 3-4 days as being a health issue, I will be waiting.

The facts are, alcohol is a carcinogen, aka it causes cancer.
Increased premiums for tobacco users don't differentiate between light users and heavy users.

Sorry bud, I know it's easy to let go when your ox isn't being gored, but you need to pay your share of the risk to.

Light Drinking May Cause Dementia - Page 2 - Technorati Lifestyle

Medscape: Medscape Access

Even light drinking increases cancer risk - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent
 
Back
Top Bottom