Danny A

I just thought you would all like to no this. It is part of a new bit of heath care legation that has been put in place my Barack Obama. Starting for September 2010.
It goes:

Insurance companies cannot deny group or new (non-grandfathered) individual coverage to children under age 19, due to a pre-existing condition.

And

Young adults able to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college

I think these Count for my daughter.

And for my wife:

Uninsured adults with pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.

Effective as of 2014:

Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

The further is bright.

If you would like to no more please look at this as it will affect everyone in the USA, hope it help’s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...reform_efforts

Danny A

I no I doubled posted. but I thought this need a new thread.

Octang Frye

Thanks, Danny. As far as a I know, there isn't a tax on words - yet - so please feel free to use all of the letters. Words look so much better dressed when complete, you know?

dbj1000

No, but he nos... or is that no's?

p.s. Ugh, my no's is blocked - u no I thin I migh be getng a col.

Mummy in the foothills

But is there a limit to what they can charge you for this cover? I have a feeling they won't deny you insurance but individuals wanting it with pre existing conditions will pay dearly.

Sally Redux

I've noticed a lot of people doing that recently - just got used to it when someone answered 'know' to a question. It was in the Barbie though.

ironporer

Don't give 'em any ideas, PLEASE!!!

Giantaxe

"Beginning in 2014, all insurers must accept everyone who applies for coverage and cannot charge higher premiums based on health status or gender."

They can, however, charge more based on age, although this too is capped. I think the cap is that the oldest age group can't be charged more than four the youngest, but don't quote me on that!

Prior to 2014, the picture is much less helpful. There are interim high-risk pools being set up, but these seem very limited and inadequate:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...delayed_reform

Englishtart

Does that stop them from putting up the premiums before 2014 though? They are going to pass the costs on to their customers somehow

SDDep

Be you in Devon or Essex..or Scotland for that fact...

I wouldnt expect to be welcomed with open arms here if you plan on moving here and then skiving off the Health care system at (other) taxpayers expense..plenty of other folks doing that...

If you plan on working and buying health insurance like most other legal immigrants than by all means...welcome in advance...

Giantaxe

There are various provisions in the law that make that tricky. For example, a requirement that a percentage (80%?) of premiums be used for actually paying medical expenses.

The "grand bargain" here is that the individual mandate will deliver insurance companies lots of new (and skewed towards younger and healthier) customers that should keep premium costs per-individual down. We'll see whether that works out in practice.

scrubbedexpat099

You would have to, or go bust.

In my State premiums are regulated, and changes have to be backed by actuarial numbers.

For example:

Say the average cost of healthcare for this age group is $5,000 pa

But the annual cost of Healthcare for somebody in their 60's is $30,000.

If you can only use a multiplier of 4 you have to charge the younger group $7,500.

$7,500 might be very good value for somebody with pre existing conditions, so they would buy it. Somebody fit and healthy is going to think long and hard and many will not. So you have to charge more as your average is skewed. The more you charge, the fewer low risk people will join so the more you have to charge and so on.

It is not really insurance, more a tax/cross subsidy wrapped up in the guise of insurance.

Theoretically the Insurance companies do not care, the important thing to them is that they get their margin. The more people in their portfolio, the more money passing through their books, the more money they make.

traceym

I'm having a really bad day therefore I am allowing myself the pleasure of saying this...............KNOW is spelt KNOW, ok rant over!

Sally Redux

I don't think the new system is going to offer free healthcare.

Giantaxe

Which is the position we're currently in without reform: as premiums increase. more younger and healthier people drop coverage, meaning the insured pool comes more unhealthy, creating a vicious cycle of ever-increasing premiums and ever-decreasing numbers insured.

The individual mandate is an attempt to break that cycle, and specifically increase the insured pool of younger and healthier people, who currently form a disproportionate share of the uninsureds. Those folks will then effectively subsidize those that either can't get or pay a lot for coverage due to pre-existing conditions. The multiplier has been chosen in an attempt to coax younger people to buy insurance - with the help of government subsidies for those with incomes up to four times the poverty level - whilst at the same time not making it prohibitively expensive for the oldest age group. So your example needs to take account of the actual cost to an individual rather than the total cost of the insurance. With the subsidies, I suspect a lot more young people will think it's worthwhile buying the insurance.

Insurance is essentially a cross subsidy by definition in that it attempts to pool risks.