What it means is that you want it to cost more for those who want their insurance to cover, say, birth control. Or, say, testicular cancer.
Is that such a bad thing, Peggy? Basing premiums on risks across a population is commonplace in every other kind of insurance. Why not for health insurance.
Young men pay more for car insurance because statistically, they're greater accident risks.
Self-employed, working-age men pay more for short-term disability insurance because they tend to get hurt more often.
Middle-aged and old men pay more for life insurance because they don't live as long as women.
It's also true that working-aged boys and men pay more, in effect, for Social Security and Medicare while they're working because statistically, they don't live as long to enjoy the benefits once they retire.
So why is it unfair for health insurance premiums to take into account little facts like a man's inability to become pregnant, or a childless single person's (or a childless married couple's, for that matter) not needing pediatric coverage?
The other problem with the scope of coverage is that it's just too broad and includes too many things that are more lifestyle choices than medical necessities. Maybe some of these things are "nice to have," but they're certainly not medically necessary.
I include pretty much everything lumped under the heading of "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" in this category. I say this as someone who actually uses some of those treatments. For example, I use quite a few herbal remedies (with my doc's approval) rather than synthetic derivatives. That's a personal decision on my part, and I don't expect other people to pay for it. Why should I have to pay for their yoga lessons? Why not add faith healing why we're at it?
You mentioned a woman's dilemma regarding her insulin pump earlier. That's a medical necessity. That would be covered under any halfway-decent basic or major medical policy. Unfortunately, she's not allowed to buy a basic / major medical policy anymore because Big Brother says so. How does that make any sense?
Just for the sake of argument... if Big Brother simply
must mandate a level of coverage, why not make that coverage deep in the areas of basic and major medical, so it will cover things that are truly necessary for the vast majority of people; rather than broad in terms of covering things like chiropractic, acupuncture, yoga, and so forth that most people won't need? If they do want that coverage, let them pay for a rider.
I personally don't know anyone for whom either their rates haven't gone up dramatically under Obamacare, or whose coverage hasn't been canceled. Even the policy the local Chamber of Commerce used to offer has drastically increased in cost. Ironic, huh, considering that this law is officially titled the "Affordable Care Act?"
Here's another interesting and sad thing that's happening. I know a lot of young people at the college whose parents have informed them that they're taking them off their health insurance policies because they simply can't afford it under the new rates. They're
allowed to keep their kids on the their policies until they're 26, but they have no legal
obligation to do so; and many of them simply can't afford to.
Apparently, as best as I can determine from this confusing mess, this doesn't apply if parents also have minor dependents covered under their policies. The adult child, in that case, continues to be covered along with the other children. But if their only "dependent" is the adult college student, more than a few parents are canceling their dependent coverage, and telling the adult children that they're on their own.
So being healthy young people, what are these students doing? Many of them are saying, "Screw it," and not buying any health insurance at all. And frankly, that's the smart decision. They're unlikely to become seriously ill, they can't be turned down, and driving-related injuries would be covered under their car insurance; so why bother with health insurance? For the great majority of them, it's just money down the drain every month.
When I first attended college, there were cheap health plans available to students. Typically they covered basic health care at the campus clinic, major medical coverage at a few local hospitals, and emergency care anywhere. These policies were dirt cheap: I think I paid something like $12.00 a month for mine. But they were perfectly adequate for a typical college student. Alas, those policies are illegal now, as well.
Somewhere along the line, the focus of this law morphed from "affordability" to something quite the opposite. And ironically, there were perfectly good models, that could have worked, that were ignored.
New York's HealthyNY program, for example, used to be an excellent program. It provided excellent basic medical, major medical, and prescription drug coverage -- but nothing else -- through a private company of the insured's choice. The coverage was identical no matter which insurer you chose, but the premiums and doctor / hospital choices varied from company to company. I used it for a year or two when I first went into business for myself, until my business outgrew the income parameters. I was very happy with it.
The coverage offered under HealthyNY was excellent, but because of its limited scope (basic medical, major medical, and prescription drug), it was very cheap. I just checked my old records, and the premiums were $153.00 a month for singles, $226.00 / month for couples, and $256.00 / month for families when we signed up. Kids got some additional benefits that adults didn't get, but I don't remember what they were offhand. I think dental and eyeglasses, but I wouldn't swear to it.
Here's some irony for you. Out of curiosity, I just checked the HealthyNY Web site to see how they are affected by Obamacare. And guess what: All individual and sole prop HealthyNY policies
are being canceled effective December 31 of this year.
Ain't that a slap in the mug. Even the State of New York's very excellent, very successful, model health insurance program for individuals and sole proprietors isn't exempt from the Obamacare axe.
The demise of HealthyNY is actually pretty sad to me. Although I haven't had HealthyNY coverage in quite some time, I always considered it an example of something that the government actually got right. It cost the taxpayers very little. The low cost of the coverage was mainly a result of its scope being limited to essential services.
Even though I no longer use it, I'm very disappointed that this program will soon be no more. It should have been the model for Obamacare, not a casualty of it.
-Rich
.
.
.
.
