Posted on 11/08/2009 9:18:16 AM PST by listenhillary
One of the most interesting questions about the health care overhaul now moving through Congress is how it would affect young adults. That legislation would force most or all Americans to purchase health insurance (an "individual mandate") and would impose price controls on health insurance ("community rating") that would limit insurers' ability to offer lower premiums to low-risk enrollees.
Those provisions would drive premiums down for 55-year-olds but would drive them up for 25-year-olds—who are then implicitly subsidizing older adults. According to the Urban Institute, many young people could see their premiums double, whereas premiums for older adults could be cut in half.
Massachusetts benefits from another type of subsidy that props up its regime of mandates and price controls: large subsidies from the federal government. In contrast, the United States as a whole has no external party it can exploit to subsidize a nationwide Massachusetts-style health care overhaul—unless Congress finances that overhaul through additional deficit spending, which is really just another way of taxing the young to subsidize the old.
The irony is that Barack Obama won the presidency with 66 percent of the vote among adults aged 18 to 29. That's a larger share than any presidential candidate has won in decades. Yet his health care overhaul could impose its greatest burdens on young adults.
Link to the entire briefing paper. http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/html/bp115/bp115index.html
This is the age group that will not get insurance and will wind up in jail for a year at a time ... what a great thank you from BAM
Well, my congratulation to them.
Must be nice to be young and have all the answers, huh?
In the final bill, I heard they can get coverage under their parents plan up to age 27. Contradicts this article I suppose.
At the same time the ObamaFacist and the PelosiFacist are also repealing Medicare.
Collectively, America is so freaking stupid it boggles the mind.
I am not in their age group and i am not getting insurance.
Can you send me chocolates and a pack of cigarettes from time to time? /s
Of course if their parents are on the Gubm’nt Option...
Good, you reap what you sow. Truth is a lot of these ne’er do wells could afford insurance but don’t want to cut into their latte and beer money. They thought they were going to get free healthcare paid for by the rich. HA!
They asked for it—no—they demanded it!
No irony at all when you realize the majority of youngsters believe that this is FREE government healthcare. In fact I'll bet that if you asked the average Obamanite what this bill meant they'd say free government healthcare. That's the mentality we're fighting. By the time they figure out how bad this is on so many levels it'll be too late.
Not to worry— I’m sure with all those jobs being saved or created, we’ll all be “the rich” soon enough! /s
The youngsters are about to get mugged by reality. Or, in this case, liberalism. This could convert millions to conservatism as a result.
We keep seeing this discussed and it’s no doubt true. But young people who find good jobs will have health insurance with their employment. Those on welfare or in low paying jobs will pay little or nothing for coverage. So, who is left that will actually have to pay for their own insurance coverage?
That question is valid (if this monstrosity passes) for the early months of such a plan. Who knows what might happen if large numbers of employers begin dropping employee coverage. But still there would be a question of which young people would be in a position of having to purchase their coverage or pay a fine.
‘’Change you can live with.’’ sarc
Yeah I hope the obots are happy now. lol
All the socialist college students paying out the yang yang.
Serves ‘em right.
O.K. but then again WHO is ObamaCare good for other than the politicians and b’crats it empowers? Of course if we end up with this dreck the 18-29 y.o. will get the life saving surgery and medicines while the old geezers that voted for McCain will get two aspirin and told NOT to call the doc in the A.M. So schadenfreude for 18-29s may be the real irony.
O.K. but then again WHO is ObamaCare good for other than the politicians and b’crats it empowers? Of course if we end up with this dreck the 18-29 y.o. will get the life saving surgery and medicines while the old geezers that voted for McCain will get two aspirin and told NOT to call the doc in the A.M. So schadenfreude for 18-29s may be the real irony.
As I posted on another thread if you want to see what you are looking to get and what it will cost you look to Europe.
I live in Germany and here everyone WORKING pays between 14-15% of their gross pay to “the public option”. So if you and the wife both work, you both pay in a large chuck of your paycheck. Unemployed or uneducated and have a menial job, no problem, you pay little or no and get the same health care as the folks paying full freight.
But the problem with Germany, and most of Western Europe, is that the population is aging quickly and there is not a lot of job creation so each year more and more take more and more from the fewer who are working.
Hopefully, the Senate version of any Health Care Bill will never see the light of day, or be so objectionable to the liberals in the House that this whole proposition dies a slow, deserved, death.
My out of work kid (thank you, Older Generation at the helm of Wall Street) with his $250,000 college bills does not agree with you.
Those provisions would drive premiums down for 55-year-olds but would drive them up for 25-year-olds
Another contradiction, according to a WSJ article the other day our premiums would double. We are in the 55 category and currently pay over $10k per yr. According to WSJ our premiums will double.
Just looks like everyone will get the screw.
My understanding is they will be covered up to age 27 if they are considered a dependent.
So, all you older guys get on out there and find yourself a new honey. You can trade her in when she reaches 26 1/2.
They will be forced to buy health insurance at artificially high rates. lol.
Thanks for the vote idiot.
Not really whoever’s policy their on will have inflated prices.
What kind of education did he/she get for $250,000? just wondering...
2013, employers will be dumping their employees into the public option en masse
How would people like this for AUTO insurance?
Bad drivers get the subsidy!
If that is what it takes to wake up the young people, I hope it triples their rates and then, just maybe, they will realize the error of their vote.
That won't be known until we know all the details of a fSome successful firms will probably continue providing insurance as a positive benefit for their employees. And, it depends on the size of any differential between the cost of providing insurance and the tax on employers who don't provide it.
Not enough is known yet.
But I often wonder who all the young people with no medical insurance now are, and what sort of work they do.
I wonder how the gangsta segment of the population will be enjoying being forced to purchase this, OR sign up for government (which most would like to avoid the government except to get the baby mama to sign up for bennies)?
Same for the college students who were so thrilled to be a part of history.
Same for the trailer parks (interject the paragraph above about gangsta segment of population)
This bill punishes companies that pay more than a certain amount for their employees healthcare too, or who buy “cadillac” health plans.
LAW!
Equal misery for all. Unless you are a congress critter.
I'm totally against this bill and all of Obama's agenda. But I still wonder who this current group of young people, who have no medical insurance, have good incomes and can afford insurance but decline to purchase it, just who are they and what sort of work do they do?
If they don't exist, or their number is being greatly exaggerated, then the Obamacare supporters are scamming us about all the new money that group will provide the health care system by being required to purchase insurance.
Jail/prison is smoke free.
Couldn't have happened to a better group. Most of the youth have been indoctrinated by an hard left liberal educational system. Instead of thinking for themselves. A sad awaking is in store for them when they find that their precious liberal education will not find them a job that they thought their degree would just hand them. Killing the capitalistic system kills the very job market that is probably 80% of the market.
If the fines and taxes go into effect starting next year I foresee a rather large group of Regan Democrats much like we saw in 1980 when I first voted for President.
dems always break their promises like the ones they make our Military!
TRI CARE FOR LIFE
This from a google search:
http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html
This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf
Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options (Pelosi breaks word to Rep Buyer no amendments)
REPUBLICAN PRESS RELEASE ^ | November 6, 2009 | Rep Buyer abd Rep McKeon
Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options
Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries
Washington, D.C. — Today, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Ranking Member Steve Buyer and House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Howard P. “Buck” McKeon offered three amendments to the Pelosi healthcare bill that would protect America’s Veterans and military TRICARE beneficiaries. The healthcare legislation, which is expected to be voted on in the full House in the coming days limits veteran’s and service member’s health care choices and places veterans and military health care unnecessarily at risk by not clearly excluding military and veterans health care from the requirements of the bill.
“In addition to being fundamentally opposed to a sweeping government takeover of health care, I also strongly object to the bill that was unveiled today because it would limit veterans’ ability to choose a health care provider,” said Rep. Buyer. “The liberty and freedom upon which our nation is founded was paid for through the sacrifices of veterans, and I find it outrageous that the government veterans defended would presume to dictate where and how they obtain health care. This is not the type of government veterans have fought and died for.”
“America must remain vigilant in our efforts to provide the necessary support to our Veterans, military retirees, and current military personnel,” said Rep. McKeon. “The Democrat healthcare bill that will be voted on in the coming days creates unnecessary uncertainty for our Veterans and military families that their healthcare options will be unfairly limited. Our amendments make certain—in the strongest terms possible—that our nation’s heroes will continue to have options, while protecting their rights to maintain their current high-quality options if they so choose.”
Reps. Buyer and McKeon offered the following three amendments to ensure that our veterans, servicemembers, and their families are not hurt by the bill:
· Buyer/McKeon Amendment #001: Would add a new subsection to provide explicitly that veterans enrolled in the VA health care and TRICARE beneficiaries may choose additional health insurance through the “Health Insurance Exchange”, along with care provided by VA or DOD.
The bill reads: “(a) ACCESS TO COVERAGE. – In accordance with this section, all individuals are eligible to obtain coverage through enrollment in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan offered through the Health Insurance Exchange unless such individuals are enrolled in another qualified health benefits plan or certain other acceptable coverage.” [page 156, line 11-16].
Under H.R. 3962, VA health care and TRICARE would be deemed "qualified" coverage. The problem with the language is that it is ambiguous and can be interpreted to disqualify individuals enrolled in VA health care or TRICARE from participating in the exchange.
This amendment was accepted at the Energy and Commerce Committee markup, but the Democratic Leadership failed to include it in H.R. 3962.
· Buyer/McKeon Amendment #002: Would ensure that the authority of the Secretary of VA and Secretary of DOD could never be challenged or obstructed by any provision in the bill or by a secretary or commissioner from another part of government.
As currently written, H.R. 3962 would provide that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of VA retain sole authority over their respective health care systems only with respect to Subtitle A, the Health Insurance Exchange. This was the original Buyer Amendment adopted in Energy and Commerce Committee. However, it was limited to “Subtitle A” because of germaneness requirements. The intent was that as the Committee bills were merged, the language would be revised to encompass the entire bill.
The section-by-section analysis on the Energy and Commerce Committee Website states that Section 311 “makes clear that nothing in this act interferes with the Department of Veterans Affairs or Department of Defense’s existing authorities.”
In fact, this description is incorrect and our amendment would provide that the bill conform to the website’s assertion.
· Buyer/McKeon Amendment #003: Would amend section 342 of the bill to allow individuals enrolled in VA health care and TRICARE to be eligible for affordable tax credits. Currently, H.R. 3962 defines an “affordable credit eligible individual” as one who is not enrolled in acceptable coverage – which would exclude individuals enrolled in VA health care or TRICARE.
A woman caller on C-Span said that she was for the public plan as long as she didn't have to pay out of pocket for health care.
Can a dependent be employed and still remain a dependent? How many families, that will be struggling, just kick their butts out to earn their own way. I know two families right now can't wait until their last two siblings are 18 and hit the road jack.
I remember pleading with my daughter a week before the election. I told her, "You're not getting this! This guy is not a typical presidential candidate -- he and his people despise your country. Do not bring this down on your country and yourself, you will regret it. Do not be part of this -- it has badness written all over it! If anything, just simply abstain."
They are both going to get slammed by this bill, if it becomes law. The worst part is that their decisions to vote for Obama, which I largely chalked up to their youthful idealism, (and stupidity), can't be undone, and it will likely cost them dearly for the rest of their lives.
What a freaking drag. . .
A large percentage of young people are not healthier in mind and body, they *used* to be. See recent statistics for further information.
Yes, as long as someone else (parent, guardian, spouse) provides over half of their support.
So, guys, go out there and get that hot new 20 yo wife. She can stay at home or only work part-time. You can enroll her and the kiddies in the government program and only insure yourself.
I am 27 and did not vote for him. Thanks a lot ZERO.
EEEKKK....going to have to tell my niece to reconsider her educational goals...!!! Or, at least make sure it doesn’t cost that much!
The reason so many in all age groups struggle with health insurance is because it costs so much. Instead of waging a generational war or acting like nazis, get the cost down and make it more affordable for everyone. The Repub plan would do this and the govt can pick up those who have *pre-existing conditions* who also deserve insurance. States can offer *temporary catastrophic policies* at low cost for those who lost work, including self employed and homeowners. (They are having big problems right now.)
Include good phys ed programs in schools, which we benefitted from, and stop giving kids such large quantities of food in the free meal programs. That is nothing but a racket now and they are as fat as little pigs. We didn’t eat that much and we were as healthy as colts. Give them hot cereal in the morning and cute lunchboxes with a sandwich, apple, cookie and milk or juice. If a healthy breakfast and lunch were good enough for us, it’s good enough for them.
Seems like a good bipartisan compromise to me.
Send me a patch then, please.
It's all part of the Conspiracy. The Schools have convinced everyone that "an Education is absolutely necessary to get on in life." Collectively, they are a monopoly supplier of a GOOD Education. Ergo they set their own price (and raise it every year) and altogether, they have a good life. Socialist philosophy at work!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.