Study predicts health law will raise premiums on young adults Read more: http://theh

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Actually, I think a 42% increase on adults aged 21 to 29 is a fantastic thing. They voted for this clusterfuck so they can feel the consequences of their ignorance and stupidity.

The study says a provision linking prices for older and younger patients could raise costs on the young.

Young adults will see higher health insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because of a provision that links prices for older and younger patients, according to a new study.

Actuaries at management consulting firm Oliver Wyman predicted the law's age rating restrictions could mean a 42 percent hike in premium costs for people aged 21 to 29 when they buy individual coverage.

"This means that close to 4 million uninsured individuals … can expect to pay more out of pocket for single coverage than they otherwise would, even given the availability of premium assistance," study authors wrote.

President Obama's signature healthcare law limited the amount insurers can charge older people for their health insurance to a maximum of three times the amount younger people pay.

Supporters say age rating restrictions are necessary to ensure seniors are charged fairly for health insurance.

Critics of the law argue the requirement will raise costs for young adults and lead them to forgo health insurance, destabilizing the individual market for coverage.

Study predicts health law will raise premiums on young adults - The Hill's Healthwatch

 

[earlycuyler]

Actually, I think a 42% increase on adults aged 21 to 29 is a fantastic thing. They voted for this clusterfuck so they can feel the consequences of their ignorance and stupidity.

The study says a provision linking prices for older and younger patients could raise costs on the young.

Young adults will see higher health insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because of a provision that links prices for older and younger patients, according to a new study.

Actuaries at management consulting firm Oliver Wyman predicted the law's age rating restrictions could mean a 42 percent hike in premium costs for people aged 21 to 29 when they buy individual coverage.

"This means that close to 4 million uninsured individuals … can expect to pay more out of pocket for single coverage than they otherwise would, even given the availability of premium assistance," study authors wrote.

President Obama's signature healthcare law limited the amount insurers can charge older people for their health insurance to a maximum of three times the amount younger people pay.

Supporters say age rating restrictions are necessary to ensure seniors are charged fairly for health insurance.

Critics of the law argue the requirement will raise costs for young adults and lead them to forgo health insurance, destabilizing the individual market for coverage.

Study predicts health law will raise premiums on young adults - The Hill's Healthwatch

Already there. I canceled ours, and will take a job in the oil patch for benefits. It just cost WAAAAAY to much.

 

[AmyNation]

The next 4 years are going to be hard. I don't think repealing the ACA is possible, so I will try to only hope lawmakers are able to keep up with the unintended consequences of the ACA.

 

[dblack]

The next 4 years are going to be hard. I don't think repealing the ACA is possible, so I will try to only hope lawmakers are able to keep up with the unintended consequences of the ACA.

Oh, I think most of them were quite "intended", depending on whose intentions we're talking about.

 

[Avorysuds]

WHAT! But Obama and his team gave the CBO very selective information and numbers to run that don't show an increase in costs!

Honestly I'm a bit shocked Obama ran for a second term, past the fact that he said he wouldn't if the economy was still chit, but I guess politicians lie right... But mainly because things have gotten so bad and are going to get so much worse under his watch. Maybe Obama really does believe the crap he spews, but Bush ran for a second term and I know that dumb fuck didn't believe a thing he said.

 

[waltky]

States surrendering to accepting Obamacare...

States surrender to health care law, set up exchanges
Sunday, January 6, 2013 - President Obama’s signature health care reforms are accelerating into the new year, with a growing number of state-run insurance markets getting the green light from the federal government, even as critics decry the law as a dagger to small businesses and a tea party icon attempts to repeal it for the 34th time.

In recent weeks, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has trumpeted its approval of health care “exchanges” — virtual marketplaces of insurance plans — that state officials will run on their own or in conjunction with the federal government. So far, 17 states and the District have obtained conditional approval for in-house exchanges. On Thursday, officials provided conditional approval to state-based exchanges in California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Vermont and Utah, while Arkansas received conditional approval to operate an exchange in a state partnership with the federal government.

Other states, such as Virginia, decided to let the federal government run the exchanges for them, citing problems with the law or an inadequate amount of time to set up a state-based exchange after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law in June and Mr. Obama’s re-election dampened critics’ hopes for a repeal. But Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, appears to be undeterred by the law’s momentum. The former presidential candidate introduced a bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as “Obamacare,” on the first day of the 113th Congress.

Nearly three dozen prior attempts have taken up “at least 80 hours on the House floor, or two full workweeks, since 2010,” according to a CBS News report in June. The measures are largely symbolic because the Democrat-controlled Senate would not support a repeal and Mr. Obama would veto the bill if it did. Through a spokesman, Mrs. Bachmann decried portions of the health care law such as an excise tax on medical devices “that is pushing American companies overseas, taking their life-saving technology with them.” “As Obamacare is further implemented, it will mean more job loss, less innovation, higher premiums and bigger government,” spokesman Dan Kotman said Friday. “This is still a bad bill, as the American people are finding out more and more, and it still needs to be repealed.”

Read more: States surrender to health care law, set up exchanges - Washington Times

See also:

State appeals order to pay for special autism treatment
Sunday, 01.06.13 - Faced with a judge’s order that it pay for a special treatment for autistic children covered by Medicaid, the state seeks to have the ruling overturned.

Already facing sharp criticism over policies that have resulted in the rationing of care to severely disabled children, Florida healthcare regulators are challenging a federal judge’s order that the state provide a costly — but potentially life-changing — treatment to children with autism. Last spring, U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard struck down the state’s refusal to pay for applied behavior analysis (ABA) for autistic children, calling the state’s policy “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.” The court case involved three autistic youngsters — then-5-year-old K.G., 2-year-old I.G. and 4-year-old C.C. — whose efforts to obtain behavioral therapy had been denied by the state’s Medicaid insurance program for needy and disabled people. Lenard ordered that the three children be given the care they sought — and that the state provide such care to other autistic children, as well.

The state Agency for Health Care Administration has appealed the order, and, in a pleading submitted in November, argued that the ruling strips the state of its ability to weigh requests for the therapy on a case-by-case basis to ensure the treatments are “medically necessary.” “There is no evidentiary support for the district court’s conclusion that [behavior analysis] services are medically necessary for all autistic Medicaid recipients under 21,” the brief said. “In fact, the evidence established that ABA treatment is not medically necessary, or even effective, in all cases. Some children do not respond to ABA treatment at all, and, in all other cases, the efficacy of ABA treatment diminishes rapidly after early age.”

Autism, typically diagnosed around age 2, is one of the most common developmental disabilities, afflicting about one in 88 children, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The neurological disorder often affects a child’s ability to speak, learn and interact with others. In her March order, Lenard described as “outrageous” AHCA’s position that the behavioral therapy is not widely accepted by experts in the field. Though AHCA had for years refused to pay for the treatment for impoverished families, state law already requires commercial carriers to provide it to Floridians with private insurance — meaning children from poor families were being denied services to which more-affluent families had access.

Behavioral analysis is designed to improve the behavior, language and cognitive development of autistic children so they can lead more-normal lives. “It is imperative,” the Miami judge wrote, “that autistic children in Florida receive [behavior therapy] immediately to prevent irreversible harm to these children’s health and development.” Florida’s system of care for disabled and medically fragile children has generated significant controversy in recent months. In September, the U.S. Justice Department accused the state of systematically cutting in-home nursing care for disabled children, resulting in hundreds of youngsters being warehoused in geriatric nursing homes.

Read more here: State appeals order to pay for special autism treatment - Florida - MiamiHerald.com