obamacare to have a surcharge for smokers

[Trajan]

Which will effectively price them out of the insurance market.

ObamaCare slams smokers with sky-high premium costs, could backfire | Fox News

Unlike drug addicts, alcoholics, or the obese -- all of whom represent higher-than-average medical costs -- smokers are the only such group with a pre-existing condition that ObamaCare penalizes. It allows insurance companies to charge smokers up to 50 percent more than non-smokers for an identical policy.

For example, premiums for a 64-year-old non-smoker, according to the Kaiser Health Calculator, cost $9,000 a year for a standard "silver" insurance plan.

The same policy for a smoker could cost $13,600.

When "affordable" health care is 33% to 50% of your income, it isn't so affordable any more.

Only stupid people smoke.

Obama smokes.

doesn't matter...he made sure he, the Veep and the lords of the congress will continue to get a subsidy even though they are supposed to be on the exchanges, get the exchange 400% poverty line formula and make way more than any exchange would grant a subsidy for ala their income......

 

[Trajan]

so, I guess theres a 'behavior' clause somewhere in the aca?

 

[dblack]

But wait, obomacare is a tax, the surcharge is an additional tax so the smokers cost of healthcare is covered.

There then can be no excuse for the sin taxes placed on tobacco.

That OK?

I repeat. The ACA does not require that premiums should be higher for smokers. The insurance companies set their premiums. If they chose to do so, they could set the premium the same for smokers and not smokers.

The only way to make sure the companies charge the same premium for smokers and non-smokers is through legislation.

Exactly. Because our right to simply say 'no thanks' has been stolen from us by Congress.

 

[Pop23]

But wait, obomacare is a tax, the surcharge is an additional tax so the smokers cost of healthcare is covered.

There then can be no excuse for the sin taxes placed on tobacco.

That OK?

I repeat. The ACA does not require that premiums should be higher for smokers. The insurance companies set their premiums. If they chose to do so, they could set the premium the same for smokers and not smokers.

The only way to make sure the companies charge the same premium for smokers and non-smokers is through legislation.

You must be the only one I know that does not understand that the ACA is a tax. Nothing more, nothing less

 

[Zoom-boing]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...vy-smoker-gets-great-deal-with-obamacare.html

So, what is the Republican plan to get insurance companies to stop charging more for smokers?

Never mind. I already know the answer to that.

Get rich feeding out of the public trough working only one third of the year. Works for Boehner.

As long as you're wanting to charge more for various behaviors, how about his skin-cancer-causing-tanning-bed-addiction. Matter of fact, there's not much he does that could be called healthy and us tax payers get to foot the bill.

Now you're catching on.

Private insurance charging more is one thing, gov't doing it and joe taxpayer foots the bill ... hell, then we will all be wanting a say in what others do, what behaviors they engage in.

I just noticed the rest of this -

Insurance charged/charges more. Not government. Don't pretend you don't know that.

Yes, taxpayers have subsidized congress' health care all along. That was government mandated. Why didn't that bother you all these years?

You moron, our insurance just went up 44% BECAUSE GOVERNMENT NOW MANDATES CERTAIN COVERAGE. Stop with the bullshit.

Congress should pay for their own damn insurance.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Post the part of the bill that says 'government charging smokers more'.

People get screwed over by their employers and they blame Obama. Or their insurance company charges the for smoking and they blame Obama.

Every one of you know better but not one of you will admit it.

I didn't say smokers, did I? Gov't is charging everyone who does not have a p/e more so those with p/e's get to 'pay the same'.

Again, have you NOT read any of my posts??? We pay more because the hubs smokes, and that's as it should be.

ZoomBoing, you post variations of the same thing over and over and over.

No, I didn't read all your posts.

If you did you wouldn't look like such a dorp when you respond to me.

I notice you ignore the point I make so I repeat it. Just for you. Often.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Exactly.

Why should I pay higher premiums to make up for the sick smokers?

BUT

Why would anyone think this has anything at all to do with ObamaCare? Surely people know that insurance companies have been charging more to smokers for some time now.

Seriously. Is there even one person who does not already know this? (Well, obviously, the OP ... )

And is there anyone who does not already know that its the insurance companies who do it? (Well obviously, not the OP ...)

As I posted, even alcoholic, chain smoking, tan addict, 64yo Boehner knows that.

But, smokers could talk to their insurance company about lowering their rates.

Did you even bother to read the rest of my posts?

I have ZERO problem with people who are higher risk paying more because they are higher risk. Period. Not just smokers ... people with any type of pre-exsiting condition. We pay more because the hubs smokes, as it should be. The problem with obamacare is that now those who have any type of pre-existing condition will not pay more even though they are more of a risk to insure. I have a HUGE problem being forced to pay more so that those with pre-exsiting conditions don't have to, so they get to 'pay the same'. That is bullshit.

question Zoom....should someone who develops a disease while insured..... at that point have their premium raised?...

People who are a higher risk should pay more than those who are less of a risk. Just as a 16 yr old new driver pays more than a 30+ yr experienced driver. Have a couple of accidents, you're more of a risk to insure, your rates go up. Get sick, you're more of a risk, your rates go up. Not mine, not someone elses.

 

[Flopper]

But wait, obomacare is a tax, the surcharge is an additional tax so the smokers cost of healthcare is covered.

There then can be no excuse for the sin taxes placed on tobacco.

That OK?

I repeat. The ACA does not require that premiums should be higher for smokers. The insurance companies set their premiums. If they chose to do so, they could set the premium the same for smokers and not smokers.

The only way to make sure the companies charge the same premium for smokers and non-smokers is through legislation.

You must be the only one I know that does not understand that the ACA is a tax. Nothing more, nothing less

So the additional revenues that insurance companies collect from smokers is a tax? That's certainly a novel idea, not correct but certainly novel.

 

[dblack]

I repeat. The ACA does not require that premiums should be higher for smokers. The insurance companies set their premiums. If they chose to do so, they could set the premium the same for smokers and not smokers.

The only way to make sure the companies charge the same premium for smokers and non-smokers is through legislation.

You must be the only one I know that does not understand that the ACA is a tax. Nothing more, nothing less

So the additional revenues that insurance companies collect from smokers is a tax? That's certainly a novel idea, not correct but certainly novel.

When we are forced by law to buy their product? Yeah, that's basically a tax.

 

[Care4all]

This has nothing to do with Obamacare and everything to do with the State you live in and their governing this issue....

there are 16 states who do not permit insurance companies to charge more for smokers...if you live in one of those 16 states then the insurance companies in those states can not charge more if you are a smoker, with or without Obama care....

And even if you live in one of those States who made it legal for insurance companies to charge you more for your plan if you are a smoker, you still have the possibility of getting insured without the surcharge for being a smoker....as example in my State, there are only 2 insurers on the Exchange, blue cross blue shield and a Maine community coop, blue cross blue shield charges more for smokers, BUT the Maine healthcare coop on the exchange DOES NOT charge more for smokers for the 10 plans they are offering on the exchange....

so, it depends on the State one lives in and it depends on the Insurance company, as whether to charge more or not....

If you do NOT LIKE THIS, then where you need to begin to complain and get things changed is with your own State legislators!

 

[dblack]

This has nothing to do with Obamacare and everything to do with the State you live in and their governing this issue....

there are 16 states who do not permit insurance companies to charge more for smokers...if you live in one of those 16 states then the insurance companies in those states can not charge more if you are a smoker, with or without Obama care....

And even if you live in one of those States who made it legal for insurance companies to charge you more for your plan if you are a smoker, you still have the possibility of getting insured without the surcharge for being a smoker....as example in my State, there are only 2 insurers on the Exchange, blue cross blue shield and a Maine community coop, blue cross blue shield charges more for smokers, BUT the Maine healthcare coop on the exchange DOES NOT charge more for smokers for the 10 plans they are offering on the exchange....

so, it depends on the State ones live in and it depends on the Insurance company, as to whether charge more or not....

If you do NOT LIKE THIS, then where you need to begin to complain and get things changed is with your own State legislators!

Yep, lobbying government is the only way to avoid getting fucked by the insurance companies, now that we are all mandated to be their 'customers'.

 

[Care4all]

Did you even bother to read the rest of my posts?

I have ZERO problem with people who are higher risk paying more because they are higher risk. Period. Not just smokers ... people with any type of pre-exsiting condition. We pay more because the hubs smokes, as it should be. The problem with obamacare is that now those who have any type of pre-existing condition will not pay more even though they are more of a risk to insure. I have a HUGE problem being forced to pay more so that those with pre-exsiting conditions don't have to, so they get to 'pay the same'. That is bullshit.

question Zoom....should someone who develops a disease while insured..... at that point have their premium raised?...

People who are a higher risk should pay more than those who are less of a risk. Just as a 16 yr old new driver pays more than a 30+ yr experienced driver. Have a couple of accidents, you're more of a risk to insure, your rates go up. Get sick, you're more of a risk, your rates go up. Not mine, not someone elses.

Well, people that are older are at higher risk of needing insurance than those who are younger and insurance plans on and off the exchnge do charge more for the "risk" of age....

According to the Kaiser Calculator....in my state, a person who is 30 would pay $3000-$4000 less a year, than a healthy person my age (in my 50's) would have to pay.....I have a 20-30 year History of never being sick and never using more than a couple of hundred dollars worth of Health Insurance for doctor visits in a year...yet my insurance if bought on the exchange would charge me thousands of dollars more than the 30 year old.....according to the calculator....so I have to presume that Insurance companies are considering "age" a risk and are allowed to charge for that "risk".

 

[Pop23]

I repeat. The ACA does not require that premiums should be higher for smokers. The insurance companies set their premiums. If they chose to do so, they could set the premium the same for smokers and not smokers.

The only way to make sure the companies charge the same premium for smokers and non-smokers is through legislation.

You must be the only one I know that does not understand that the ACA is a tax. Nothing more, nothing less

So the additional revenues that insurance companies collect from smokers is a tax? That's certainly a novel idea, not correct but certainly novel.

It is confiscation by force of law!

Think again

 

[Zoom-boing]

question Zoom....should someone who develops a disease while insured..... at that point have their premium raised?...

People who are a higher risk should pay more than those who are less of a risk. Just as a 16 yr old new driver pays more than a 30+ yr experienced driver. Have a couple of accidents, you're more of a risk to insure, your rates go up. Get sick, you're more of a risk, your rates go up. Not mine, not someone elses.

Well, people that are older are at higher risk of needing insurance than those who are younger and insurance plans on and off the exchnge do charge more for the "risk" of age....

According to the Kaiser Calculator....in my state, a person who is 30 would pay $3000-$4000 less a year, than a healthy person my age (in my 50's) would have to pay.....I have a 20-30 year History of never being sick and never using more than a couple of hundred dollars worth of Health Insurance for doctor visits in a year...yet my insurance if bought on the exchange would charge me thousands of dollars more than the 30 year old.....according to the calculator....so I have to presume that Insurance companies are considering "age" a risk and are allowed to charge for that "risk".

What about insurance not on the exchanges? Individual policies? Are they more expensive? I thought the young and healthy (males in particular) were the ones who were getting hit the hardest, to pay for the sicker/older people?

As we age we are more susceptible to disease and illness. However, I do not believe they should charge someone more if that person has never been really sick/disease, they should not charge them more just because they are getting older. Once a person starts getting illnesses and such? Well, now they are more of a risk to insure.

I get how insurance works and yeah, we are all already paying more to help cover the other guy. My point is that people who have p/e's should not get to pay the same as those who do not have p/e's. If you're a higher risk then you foot the bill for that. Is that fair? Yeah, actually it is. A lot more so than everyone else getting jacked and the p/e person paying 'the same'. They're not the same.

 

[GHook93]

Which will effectively price them out of the insurance market.

ObamaCare slams smokers with sky-high premium costs, could backfire | Fox News

Unlike drug addicts, alcoholics, or the obese -- all of whom represent higher-than-average medical costs -- smokers are the only such group with a pre-existing condition that ObamaCare penalizes. It allows insurance companies to charge smokers up to 50 percent more than non-smokers for an identical policy.

For example, premiums for a 64-year-old non-smoker, according to the Kaiser Health Calculator, cost $9,000 a year for a standard "silver" insurance plan.

The same policy for a smoker could cost $13,600.

When "affordable" health care is 33% to 50% of your income, it isn't so affordable any more.

$9K is still astronically high for a SHIT plan! Heck even if the gov covered 50% in s subsidy (which I am hearing those subsidies are hard to come by), it's still a horrendous deal.

If Obaminationcare had a true slogan it would be higher deductibles, higher premiums, expensive benefits most of you don't need, lose your current plan, because in a search for so called "fairness" everyone loses, that is the only true result of the liberal crusade for fairness!

 

[Flopper]

question Zoom....should someone who develops a disease while insured..... at that point have their premium raised?...

People who are a higher risk should pay more than those who are less of a risk. Just as a 16 yr old new driver pays more than a 30+ yr experienced driver. Have a couple of accidents, you're more of a risk to insure, your rates go up. Get sick, you're more of a risk, your rates go up. Not mine, not someone elses.

Well, people that are older are at higher risk of needing insurance than those who are younger and insurance plans on and off the exchnge do charge more for the "risk" of age....

According to the Kaiser Calculator....in my state, a person who is 30 would pay $3000-$4000 less a year, than a healthy person my age (in my 50's) would have to pay.....I have a 20-30 year History of never being sick and never using more than a couple of hundred dollars worth of Health Insurance for doctor visits in a year...yet my insurance if bought on the exchange would charge me thousands of dollars more than the 30 year old.....according to the calculator....so I have to presume that Insurance companies are considering "age" a risk and are allowed to charge for that "risk".

Insurance companies can charge more to older subscribers but depending on your state, not as much as was charged prior to the law. Prior to the law, rates could be as much as 5 times higher for older subscribers in 42 states. Under the new law, premiums can not be more than 3 times the rate charged for younger subscribers. This results in higher premiums for younger subscribers and lower premiums for older subscribers in states where insurance companies actually charged 5 times as much to older subscribers.

There is a huge variation in the cost of individual insurance between states even thou there is little difference in the health of the subscriber base. This is primarily due to the difference in state insurance laws and completion.

America's Health Insurance Plans - Age Rating

 

[Flopper]

You must be the only one I know that does not understand that the ACA is a tax. Nothing more, nothing less

So the additional revenues that insurance companies collect from smokers is a tax? That's certainly a novel idea, not correct but certainly novel.

It is confiscation by force of law!

Think again

One could say the same thing about auto, malpractice, and workman comprehension insurance required by law. You may find it taxing to pay for it, but it's not a tax.

 

[dblack]

So the additional revenues that insurance companies collect from smokers is a tax? That's certainly a novel idea, not correct but certainly novel.

It is confiscation by force of law!

Think again

One could say the same thing about auto, malpractice, and workman comprehension insurance required by law. You may find it taxing to pay for it, but it's not a tax.

It's worse than a tax actually. It's a coerced payment that we have no control over. It's taxation without representation.

 

[Pop23]

So the additional revenues that insurance companies collect from smokers is a tax? That's certainly a novel idea, not correct but certainly novel.

It is confiscation by force of law!

Think again

One could say the same thing about auto, malpractice, and workman comprehension insurance required by law. You may find it taxing to pay for it, but it's not a tax.

Oh brother, this is just sad really

Please link to the federal law requiring car insurance

Please link to the federal law requiring malpractice insurance

Please link to the federal law requiring everyone to carry workmans compensation insurance.

 

[Flopper]

It is confiscation by force of law!

Think again

One could say the same thing about auto, malpractice, and workman comprehension insurance required by law. You may find it taxing to pay for it, but it's not a tax.

Oh brother, this is just sad really

Please link to the federal law requiring car insurance

Please link to the federal law requiring malpractice insurance

Please link to the federal law requiring everyone to carry workmans compensation insurance.

Whether state or federal, there are laws that require the purchase of insurance other than health insurance. Some states require that a divorced parent(s) provide health insurance for the children. Government mandated insurance is nothing new.