"... according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation."
The Affordable Care Act... allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.
For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.
Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration. But older smokers could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge.
I got there via
the Isthmus forum, where Meade wrote:
Does that really make sense? Shouldn't it be reversed? Charge higher penalties/taxes to younger smokers as they will potentially have more years to cost society in lost production and "free" health care.
Charge older retired or retiring smokers lower penalties/taxes, encourage them to keep smoking and die sooner. After all, at their age, the older smokers are no longer contributing. The sooner they die, the less they cost the rest of us.
What are the voluntary activities that create the greatest risks for costing the insurance pool money? Why pick on smokers alone? To get the variable premiums concept started, because we're already into burdening smokers? By the way,
"Among Americans, Smoking Decreases as Income Increases/Gradual pattern is consistent across eight earnings brackets." The least well-off people are hit hardest! But — what the hell? — kick the smokers now, and later we can tweak the system and raise the premiums for people who.... well, who would you like to hurt/nudge? How about the fat? Weigh in every year and get your premiums adjusted accordingly, scientifically.
Here's a BMI calculator. Maybe we should charge you $1,000 a year in added premiums for every point above the "normal" range.
Posts
252 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 252 of 252The advent of large scale participation health insurance during WWII is what has driven health cost up, prior consumers had knowledge of actual cost.
We know it won't work because it's been tried in other countries who are a lot smaller than we are. We can read their papers & talk to them.
Samizdata had a great post in the last couple of months about the NHS and every time something bad comes up, and it's usually the same shit, it's always sad, but no one ever sees a pattern of problem in the system itself, it's usually an isolated incident.
But the same things keep happening.
Trying to perfect man or build heaven on earth will bring pain, misery and death to the serfs, not to the ruling class, it always has, it always will.
Lifetime medical costs for women are 150% of those for men. It is therefore appropriate that women pay a 50% surcharge on the healthcare insurance rate that men pay. Given that women voted disproportionately for President Present and by extension, his misbegotten healthcare power grab, it also seems 'fair', which designation should make it an easy sell to the proggies, no?
Why limit a progressive premium to smoking? If premiums are to correlate with risk, then there are many behaviors, including the principal behaviors (e.g. male homosexuality, promiscuity) which engender an increased probability of contracting AIDS and STDs, which should be similarly penalized.
"In the US, if you don't have health insurance, you are fucked."
That's nonsense.
"Obamacare was not my first choice, and as you clumsily note, it was not the only option."
Yeah! If the GOP had broken us in first then Obama wouldn't have needed to be so rough with us. Serves us right. Now, hush. Just lie back and think of the NHS.
Smoking, weight, etc., all has to be taken into account in the current premiums, but they are shared. Why should others have to pay for my bad behavior? Probably insurance companies are not allowed to do it now, but they ought to be able to.
The issue, as I see it, is the change won't be cost neutral. Instead of reducing $ for everyone else, that money is going to be used to subsidize other "worthy" people.
Here "Worthy" is whatever Democrats think will get them re-elected.
"Unworthy" people are whoever the Democrats are targeting at the moment.
"Speech extends to gestures and writing and forms of behavior undertaken as a way to say something (like burning a flag to say I hate America). How far does this idea go? It could go very far.
It could go very far but the constantly expanding raft of laws and regulations will prevent that.
Expressive conduct is protected so long as the non-expressive aspect of the conduct is not illegal. (At least that's my vague recollection of the situation.) Like burning a flag at a gas station to express disagreement with oil-dependent America would not be protected. The more laws and regs, though, the more excuses to find expressive conduct unprotected.
all you have to do is not smoke for 30 days before taking a blood test and you're good to go.
I'm less concerned about costs, and more concerned with law-making that affects consumer choice and liberty.
Send all the fat smokers to France. That'll fix 'em.
The skinny smokers like Obama can stay here.
harrogate
Rather than repeating your charge that I am "shrill", your preferred dismissive epithet, can you read the article I wrote back in 2006 and show me where I was wrong?
I don't think you can, because it's already happened in Canada and England, and will happen here soon.
""In the US, if you don't have health insurance, you are fucked."
Apparently not. My company which offerd a very generous plan at a low cost until the ACA hit, has always had a hard time getting people to take the insurance even though they pay more for their cell phone or cable TV. They just prefer to keep the money, and know they will always will get treatment anyway.
Insurance, like taxes for defense and infrastructure used to be a good deal, and now they took that and ruined it too.
What was so terrible about patient goes to doctor, pays doctor? Only the tiniest sliver of the population couldn't afford that. For genuine budget busting serious conditions there was high deductible catastrophic coverage which had quite affordable premiums. And for the tiniest sliver that the Left has orgasms over there were emergency rooms which turned away no one. What was broken that had to be fixed?
Matt said...
Who here feels sorry for smokers? Goodness.
==================
Turn it around.
Who in other social, political demographics in America feels sorry for gays, and feels they shouldn't pay more in annual health fees because of their lifestyle diseases?
Or fat people?
Or young black males?
------
That is the problem. Once you demonize groups and try to make claims they, and not you, should pay more to reflect their "fair share of societal costs" - you Balkanize America.
You really piss off the people in the targeted groups you hate.
Keep it up, you may set up mass protests, violence, even Civil War.
You shit down the windpipes of ordinary law abiding placid smokers, evangelicals, fat people, gun owners and other groups the Left and the progressive jewish media owners are targeting log enough - you will create large classes of angry, militant, disruptive, even violent people. That ultimately might see the solution being those that oppose them dying in combat.
For the same reason why they have to tell you how much soda you can drink with your breakfast burrito at the Seven Eleven.
They know better than you. They have to tell you what to do. Listen to harrogate and the rest of the useful idiots.
"What difference at this point does it make?"
Why limit a progressive premium to smoking? If premiums are to correlate with risk, then there are many behaviors, including the principal behaviors (e.g. male homosexuality, promiscuity) which engender an increased probability of contracting AIDS and STDs, which should be similarly penalized.
I can imagine the "Are you gay" check-box. Who is going to answer that? And what does it mean? And how would one prove it? With smoking, it's pretty easy to determine whether you've had nicotine in the last week, but unfortunately that doesn't mean you were smoking. So maybe smokers can lie too.
They passed it before they knew what was in it. But hey, what difference at this point does it make?
plan at a low cost until the ACA hit,
Can you say what percent increase to premiums there was, and what percent increase to your company there was?
Seriously, if the press were doing their job, they ought to be all over this.
I Callahan
Why not discriminate against smokers? We already do. No smoking in restaurants or bars in many places. No smoking anywhere near a school - even when it is not in session. No smoking in a movie theatre. No smoking at work. The list goes on. Why not charge smokers more for insurance? They are at a higher risk to die younger or get cancer. Would you not agree?
AJ Lynch
Matt, doctrinaire librul
HAHA. Oh I know EXACTLY the objection you have. It's that old slipper slope argument. Today smoking, tomorrow fat people, or old people etc.... But the fact is insurance companies already DO THIS. Are you aware of that fact? Do you know that some people pay higher rates because they are a higher risk? Or are you just now paying attention because the gov't has it's hand in there?
bpm4532 said...
all you have to do is not smoke for 30 days before taking a blood test and you're good to go.
=================
UNfortunately for that strategy, the insurance moguls that paid Pelosi and Obama can put a rider into the policy that stipulates you agree to a blood test to check for prohibited items like tobacco metabolites. Any found, the policy is invalidated and the insurers don't have to pay a cent.
Could do the same with gays, checking for unprotected sex diseases. But gays are now an officially protected class of the Dem Ruling Elites.
Or have policy that requires in addition to swearing you are a non smoker, you will maintain a BMI within 5% of target in order to force the insurers to pay anything should a major health crisis happen. They can test you for that, too.
Cedarford said...
Once you demonize groups and try to make claims they, and not you, should pay more
Are you just figuring this out? The insurance companies have been doing this for years. Years I tell you.
Cough
Of course you had the choice not buy health insurance then and now the government is going to force you to do it or you pay a fine.
So yeah now is the time to pay attention.
What is so hard to understand?
harrogate said...
Marshal,
For a lot of people, it's been pretty much nothing for a long time. Perhaps you do not know any of these people and so think it's all made up. But nonetheless, it's not made up. In the US, if you don't have health insurance, you are fucked.
Obamacare doesn't cover the people you profess to be concerned about, so this is irrelevant. Which returns us to your original fallacy that medical payment systems consist of Obamacare and nothing.
But at least you're not shrill. You're quite calm while offering irrational reasons for your attacks. Scramble some more and let us know if you can get one single fact on point.
Choice is not just for killing babies!
But the fact is insurance companies already DO THIS.
And they have real live Death Panels. But freedom!
"To reduce health care spending, officials in a single-payer system would likely increase controls over what previously were personal health choices. Traditionally, promoting public health referred primarily to controlling or preventing communicable diseases. However, private behavior is no longer simply private behavior when taxes are paying everyone's health bills.
Sure, but gay male sex, which is costing us hundreds of millions annually, is exempt from this.
Once again you were not forced to buy insurance when you were a young smoking guy. Lot's of them don't. But now the government is forcing them to do it. Or pay a big fine.
It would be like the governor of Wisconsin forcing everyone to root for the Green Bay Packers or pay a fine. You can root for those losers if you want to but what business is it of the government to force you to do so?
(Of course he couldn't do that because he will be in jail soon)
garage
Your point is that it's no worse than insurance companies? Really? Do you hear yourself?
But the fact is insurance companies already DO THIS. Are you aware of that fact?
Hey stupid shit:
Insurance companies DO NOT DO THIS AT THE COERCION OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Can you grasp such a simple fact?
He can't hear himself. He is listening to old Vince Lombardi pep talks on his victrola.
But nonetheless, it's not made up. In the US, if you don't have health insurance, you are fucked.
Oh bullshit.
There are 10's of millions who go without health insurance are not "fucked" in any way.
However, you have no brain. So you're certainly fucked in that sense.
Matt said...
Are you just figuring this out? The insurance companies have been doing this for years
The fact you can't seem to understand the significance of government mandating this speaks volumes about your intelligence.
Matt said...
HAHA. Oh I know EXACTLY the objection you have. It's that old slipper slope argument. Today smoking, tomorrow fat people, or old people etc...
I bet you're one of these idiots who goes about proudly shouting "keep the government out of our bedroom" and that an abortion should be between a woman and her doctor.
While totally defending this.
Of course you're not intelligent enough to understand your cognitive dissonance.
All of the "they can go to the emergency room if they don't have insurance; they'll be fine" caterwaulers have something in common. They have health insurance.
Meanwhile, in case anyone forgot, bagoh20 is a Noble Job Creator!
"Can you say what percent increase to premiums there was, and what percent increase to your company there was?"
Typically, in the past we were getting single digit increases. Last year in anticipation of the ACA they went up about 12% and they expect another 16 -20% this year. They also showed us tables that showed that people outside of good plans were getting 50 -100% increases.
Now they might just be taking advantage of the excuse of the ACA, but if they are, everyone is, because no other companies were competitive either. We shop it around aggressively every year. When they show you what is now required of them, it's pretty clear that the increases are at least mostly necessary due to the ACA.
As they showed us the upcoming challenges, what was really startling was how completely screwed up the law is written. There are just a bunch of loose ends that are nonsensical, not at all thought out, or completely up in the air. It's really a mess at this point, and most people have no idea. Hell, the people who passed it have no idea what they voted for.
One huge problem is a very large expected shortage of providers, especially doctors. It's gonna be very disappointing to a lot people. Apparently there will also be no unicorns as promised.
Insurance companies DO NOT DO THIS AT THE COERCION OF THE GOVERNMENT
Yep! That would be like Hitler or something then.
This exchange:
"But the fact is insurance companies already DO THIS."
"And they have real live Death Panels. But freedom!"
Hahahahaha. That's not bad, right there.
Can't sue the government, can sue the insurance companies.
A poster from The Belmont Club:
I just went to a gathering that was addressed by former NY Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, author of “Beating Obamacare,” a book detailing the coming Brave New World our Insect Overlords [in Homer Simpson-speak] have planned for us.
It reminds me of a cut-rate version of the 1976 movie Logan’s Run. A grim business (check it out: a cautionary tale for our times).
McCaughey has read, and studied, the Whole Thing. Brought the HUGE binder to the event. She warned us that:
–buying major medical/”catastrophic” insurance policies will no longer be Allowed; nor will private policies: all will become The State Policy. NO exceptions, except the rich who can buy medical care a la carte
–the State will decide what kind of medical care we are allowed, even within their framework some will be denied “covered” services if they see fit
–old people on Medicare will be thrown to the dogs, because the new laws have harsh punishments for hospitals and doctors who spend money on old folks (CAPITATION is baaaack, folks! but its old foes are all for it, now)
–the State will have a Little List of prying questions that have naught to do with health, for your doctor to ask you; the answers they will be forced to relay back to the Insect Overlords
–all private health insurance policies will be forced to cover a full Rolls-Royce menu of services, including stuff like acupuncture, which you will have to pay for whether you like it or not
–there is a BS distinction between “Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum!” policies, but the only difference will be the copays you pay: it’s the same menu on each
But the fact is insurance companies already DO THIS.
Not for our workplace plan (similar to what, 80% of covered Americans?). There is no individual health questionnaire to be filled out by employees nor any penalties for individual health choices under the group plan.
they expect another 16 -20% this year
Same with our company. We''l end up having to scale back on what has, for 40 years, been fully employer-funded health insurance for our blue-collar work force.
Jay said...
But nonetheless, it's not made up. In the US, if you don't have health insurance, you are fucked.
Oh bullshit.
There are 10's of millions who go without health insurance are not "fucked" in any way.
==================
Unfortunately, that requires people to carefully spend all they have from paycheck to paycheck, forgoe car and home ownership, and save and invest nothing, have no retirement account.
Health Insurance is bankruptcy insurance for anyone who has forgone pleasures of today to accumulate some financial worth for the future.
If we start discouraging savings even more...we are wrecked as a nation. As the person to emulate turns out to be the black drug dealer living large without a cent hospitals, doctors, or the Obamites can take from him for not having health insurance.
Yes, why have health insurance if they have nothing to take from you.
BTW - In most states the charges for uninsured are triple to quadruple that of insured people for all aspects of health care because the insurers and government funders of the healthcare needs of the indigent have negotiated "health care cost discounts" that some uninsured person with financial assets lacks.
harrogate and garage don't care that their leaders fed the US a shit sandwich, in fact they enjoy the fact.
" We'll end up having to scale back on what has, for 40 years, been fully employer-funded health insurance for our blue-collar work force."
Here too because, now we will need to cover people who didn't even want coverage, we will likely either scale our coverage down substantially or drop it for everyone. After tripling our payroll in the last three years we have NOW stopped hiring, and are refocusing on automation. Machines don't need insurance. We were trying to employ as many people as possible, and stay profitable. The ACA is re-aiming out efforts at just one target now, staying profitable. This hurts most companies who employ the most. A brilliant strategy when unemployment is your biggest social problem.
" A brilliant strategy when unemployment is your biggest social problem."
Obama thinks our biggest social problem is that the proles aren't poor enough yet.
Odd how Inga isn't in this thread shitting all over it, but yet you will find her squatting her giant ass in a women in the military thread and she's a nurse... But hey, what difference, at this point, does it make?
Dude don't do that.
Don't you know if you mention the Devil's name he shows up.
Or she shows up. So to speak.
I am depressed to have been sooo vehemently correct. I will be so glad in a gallows humor kind of way when they "tease" more info out of those wretched unstudied pages. This reminds me of a few unanswered questions from back when I had hope:
1. So will those with Cadillac coverage that were granted a waiver, that unions among others ran to get, can they smoke? ( perhaps Harrogate is in that group so what him worry)
2. Am I paying for the difference in costs for those waivered, in addition to absorbing the costs of their Cadillac plans? (b) am I also paying for their share of the (sob!) poor wretched ones that never had health care?
3. Perhaps it disappeared, it was never discussed later, but in the middle of the ruckus, there was a ? $10 million or $10billion (WDDIM?) payout to cover the pitiful bookkeeping of BigLabor Plans that had so over promised and underdelivered. Did that stay in? Has it already been paid out?
A few cobwebby questions that I lost heart pursuing.
Are you just figuring this out? The insurance companies have been doing this for years. Years I tell you.
Notify me when The Hartford passes a law telling me what size beverages I can drink.
The ACA is re-aiming out efforts at just one target now, staying profitable.
I don't see how this can do anything but lead to ever increasing outsourcing to those countries that do not have such expensive entitlement systems as the US.
Frankly, it seems highly misquided to me to bring in a bunch of low skilled, entitlement consuming people whose progeny eschews education, as a whole. We could have brought in tons of Indians back in the day, but now they are setting up shop over there for high skilled labor.
This guy came over, but his wife wants to go back. Supposedly, it's not so much that they can't afford to buy a house, here, but the wife is upset they can't afford servants.
Well, as they used to tell us, the reason for importing all these people is so we can have fresh vegetables. I say, move AG to mexico, or better yet get obamaphone lady out there picking the crops.
wait. isn't the state responsible for paying the additional health care costs for smokers? that was the rationale for the Master Settlement Agreement that the government has been collecting billions from since the 90's, not to mention Obama's tobacco tax increase.
The actual rationale was the states in question saw a big fat legal target in tobacco companies. there's no downside to suing companies that are one step above pedophiles in the minds of the public.
States don't spend more money on tobacco users. They tend to die before they can get expensive stuff like cancer and dementia. There's a small time-value-of-money benefit to having people stay healthy longer, but from a strict green eyeshades perspective the entire thing was a fraud. In any event, after squeezing the tobacco companies they states spent the money on just about everything but health care and smoking cessation programs.
The people who really ought to have gotten that money were smokers and their heirs, but they were never more than props.
I see that "health care experts" are already suggesting charging the obese more.
Its complete bullshit. For years cigerettes are pushed on us and as common as pepsi. Now if you smoke your are penalized and your money is taken. Guess who the majority of smokers are? POOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES THAT VOTED FOR OBAMA. Way to go, dumbasses.
Post a Comment