Thanks Democrats...daughter will have to quit job to stay on insurance.

[Revere]

Well, it seems none of those mandates were this families problem, so?? Maybe it was the corporate insurance mandate to un-ass excess baggage? Huh?

In fairness, the proposed repeal-and-replace bill eliminates annual and lifetime limits and extends dependent coverage (to 25), as well; these are bipartisan ideas. Eliminating cost-sharing for evidence-based preventive care, however, apparently is not.

Which Republicans voted for them?

If you explanations like this for why your health insurance coverage is going to hell, keep voting for Democrats.

 

[shintao]

Coverage for pre-existing conditions, elimination of lifetime caps, coverage of 26 year old dependents, and preventative care mandates.

Well, it seems none of those mandates were this families problem, so?? Maybe it was the corporate insurance mandate to un-ass excess baggage? Huh?

Yeah, it was. It forced her kid's college to look for ways to throw people off the plan.

The college didn't force anyone off any plan. The insurance company did. That is not an unusual happening anyway. You can't double-dip insurance companies.

 

[sangha]

Found a link that describes the rule:

"However, the rules allow an exception for employer-sponsored health plans that were in existence on March 23, when President Obama signed the health care bill. In general, such health plans can exclude adult children of workers until 2014 if the children have access to insurance through another employer-sponsored health plan. That might occur, for example, if a 24-year-old child is working for a business that offers health benefits to employees."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/health/policy/11health.html

If your plan was not in effect on March 23rd, then this exception does not apply. It also does not apply beginning 2014. I think you will find that your plan will be revised to meet other requirements and this exception will not apply then.

The HCR bill removed a restrictive regulation. The free marketeers should be pleased!!

 

[sangha]

No, they were pushed into doing it because of government mandates.

Really? What government mandates would those be?

Coverage for pre-existing conditions, elimination of lifetime caps, coverage of 26 year old dependents, and preventative care mandates.

None of those apply to your daughter

 

[sangha]

Incorrect. If government did no harm, they could keep what they have. Government forced her plan sponsor's hand.

That is impossible. Its all about profits, and getting rid of the luggage.

The profit margin for health insurers is 3-4%.

Is that excessive?

If wingnuts didn't make stuff up, they'd have nothing to say

No one knows what their profit margins are because they don't open their books

 

[Greenbeard]

Which Republicans voted for them

For eliminating annual and lifetime caps and extending dependent coverage through 25? In the House, all of them. Except Tim Johnson in Illinois.

 

[shintao]

Well, it seems none of those mandates were this families problem, so?? Maybe it was the corporate insurance mandate to un-ass excess baggage? Huh?

In fairness, the proposed repeal-and-replace bill eliminates annual and lifetime limits and extends dependent coverage (to 25), as well; these are bipartisan ideas. Eliminating cost-sharing for evidence-based preventive care, however, apparently is not.

Almost all insurance companies ask you, "do you have other insurance that will cover these costs?" That is nothing new & has nothing to do with the National Health Care, outside of the same language I assume was added to that care. The idea is, only one insurance comany is going to pay the bill, not two.

 

[sangha]

Coverage for pre-existing conditions, elimination of lifetime caps, coverage of 26 year old dependents, and preventative care mandates.

Well, it seems none of those mandates were this families problem, so?? Maybe it was the corporate insurance mandate to un-ass excess baggage? Huh?

Yeah, it was. It forced her kid's college to look for ways to throw people off the plan.

No, it didn't. There is no law that required them to throw off the OP's daughter. The HCR bill did include a rule that ALLOWED them to throw off the OP's daughter, and that's what they did

The free market hypocrits like you think that the govt should continue to interfere in the free market by forcing the insurers to cover the OP daughter at a reduced rate. The USSR proved that communistic central control of prices doesn't work.

 

[Gunny]

Thanks to the GREAT Health Care Reform...there is now a loophole in which insurance companies can drop coverage on college students IF THERE IS AVAILABLE COVERAGE (NO MATTER HOW BAD) through an employer, even if it is a part-time job that has horrendously bad insurance.

So...even though my daughter is a full time student, as long as she is working to help pay for college and that part-time job carries some minimal crap insurance - her solid coverage she has through us is gone.
So her choice is to either quit the job or stay insured.

The reason companies are dropping the coverage is due to the higher expense of coverage due to the reform. (the only stipulation before the health care plan was that the child must be a full time student)

Thanks

What;d I say? Sore losers are about as welcome as gloaters.

 

[uscitizen]

Incorrect. If government did no harm, they could keep what they have. Government forced her plan sponsor's hand.

That is impossible. Its all about profits, and getting rid of the luggage.

The profit margin for health insurers is 3-4%.

Is that excessive?

How much profit in the health care industry overall? Pharma, hospitals, medical device manufacturers, etc?
It is mainly not the insurance companies but the health care industry driving cost increases.

We pay $30 for a pill here that sells for $5 in another country and many of the pills are not even made here.
We import a large percentage of the ingredients or finished pharma products from China and india.

ahh that old what the market will bear. Well the market is being fleeced bare.

 

[uscitizen]

btw it is a moral imperative to keep HCR in place until at least Rush moves to Puerto Rico like he promised

 

[shintao]

[How much profit in the health care industry overall? Pharma, hospitals, medical device manufacturers, etc?
It is mainly not the insurance companies but the health care industry driving cost increases.

We pay $30 for a pill here that sells for $5 in another country and many of the pills are not even made here.
We import a large percentage of the ingredients or finished pharma products from China and india.

ahh that old what the market will bear. Well the market is being fleeced bare.

My ladies made me a turkey today. By thanksgiving I am all turkeyed out. LOL!


Here is my Turkey I kept from last year. I only took a right wing and drum stick last year, and will probably have the other wing and drum stick this year. LMAO!!

 

[Flopper]

Found a link that describes the rule:

"However, the rules allow an exception for employer-sponsored health plans that were in existence on March 23, when President Obama signed the health care bill. In general, such health plans can exclude adult children of workers until 2014 if the children have access to insurance through another employer-sponsored health plan. That might occur, for example, if a 24-year-old child is working for a business that offers health benefits to employees."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/health/policy/11health.html

If your plan was not in effect on March 23rd, then this exception does not apply. It also does not apply beginning 2014. I think you will find that your plan will be revised to meet other requirements and this exception will not apply then.

That's three+ years off. You're screwed until then.

No, your plan has to be revised to take into account the changes in the law which should occur this year. As I understand it, once the plan is changed, the exclusion will no longer apply. I'm not an insurance expert but that's the way the rule reads.

I can see no reason why insurance companies would resist this change. They can increase premiums to cover their cost and they would be covering the healthiest age group.

 

[Revere]

Found a link that describes the rule:

"However, the rules allow an exception for employer-sponsored health plans that were in existence on March 23, when President Obama signed the health care bill. In general, such health plans can exclude adult children of workers until 2014 if the children have access to insurance through another employer-sponsored health plan. That might occur, for example, if a 24-year-old child is working for a business that offers health benefits to employees."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/health/policy/11health.html

If your plan was not in effect on March 23rd, then this exception does not apply. It also does not apply beginning 2014. I think you will find that your plan will be revised to meet other requirements and this exception will not apply then.

That's three+ years off. You're screwed until then.

No, your plan has to be revised to take into account the changes in the law which should occur this year. As I understand it, once the plan is changed, the exclusion will no longer apply. I'm not an insurance expert but that's the way the rule reads.

I can see no reason why insurance companies would resist this change. They can increase premiums to cover their cost and they would be covering the healthiest age group.

The insurance companies aren't resisting. They are tossing members or raising costs.

Were those features of Obamacare honestly sold to Americans?

 

[Flopper]

That's three+ years off. You're screwed until then.

No, your plan has to be revised to take into account the changes in the law which should occur this year. As I understand it, once the plan is changed, the exclusion will no longer apply. I'm not an insurance expert but that's the way the rule reads.

I can see no reason why insurance companies would resist this change. They can increase premiums to cover their cost and they would be covering the healthiest age group.

The insurance companies aren't resisting. They are tossing members or raising costs.

Were those features of Obamacare honestly sold to Americans?

Insurance companies will benefit from the healthcare law. That's why when Congress dropped the single payer plan all resistance from the insurance companies disappeared.

Also that's when nearly half the Democrats turned against the Healthcare Bill.. That's something the Right prefers to ignore. About 40% of those who were against the bill believed it didn't go far enough since it didn't include a single payer system.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Well, I must say that's a pretty silly loophole.

But if I were her, I'd be loving it. OISAdhSPdoiDShPDSoa

 

[wyomingpatriot]

obviously, in the eyes of big insurance, making money is more important than the welfare of its customers.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The comprehension and use of context among liberal posters here is as bad as I have seen anywhere else.

1) Full coverage of students has been provided by this major carrier for over 20 years. (Free market system whereby this is used as enticement to attract and keep good employees)
2) The 20 years ended when the government enacted forced coverage upon them that forced them to make significant changes to reduce costs....naturally the fastest way to do that is to reduce those they cover to make up for the new ones they have to cover.
3) If HCR never happened...we wouldn't be in this position.

So...the net result for 5500 families in just this ONE single example...is coverage is being removed for kids going to college and paying all or a portion of their way...to make way for government forced coverage to basement living 25 year olds who are not in college and has no job.

Period.
You can argue semantics all day long - this is the RESULT.

 

[Ravi]

Well, it seems none of those mandates were this families problem, so?? Maybe it was the corporate insurance mandate to un-ass excess baggage? Huh?

Yeah, it was. It forced her kid's college to look for ways to throw people off the plan.

No, it didn't. There is no law that required them to throw off the OP's daughter. The HCR bill did include a rule that ALLOWED them to throw off the OP's daughter, and that's what they did

The free market hypocrits like you think that the govt should continue to interfere in the free market by forcing the insurers to cover the OP daughter at a reduced rate. The USSR proved that communistic central control of prices doesn't work.

Yep. Also, it seems to me the daughter has three choices. Work and have her employer pay her insurance. Not work and have Mommy and Daddy pay her insurance through their policy. Not work and have Mommy and Daddy pay her insurance through a college offered fund.

Such whiners!

 

[Truthmatters]

I bet she can find a job with no coverage pretty easily.


Now why are you using this "horrible bill" to your advantage?

Remember you hate it and it will help NO ONE