Posted on 01/25/2013 8:15:46 AM PST by Orange1998
WASHINGTON (AP) — Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.
The Affordable Care Act — "Obamacare" to its detractors — allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.
For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.
Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration. But older smokers could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge.
Take a hypothetical 60-year-old smoker making $35,000 a year. Estimated premiums for coverage in the new private health insurance markets under Obama's law would total $10,172. That person would be eligible for a tax credit that brings the cost down to $3,325. ..........
But the smoking penalty could add $5,086 to the cost. And since federal tax credits can't be used to offset the penalty, the smoker's total cost for health insurance would be $8,411, or 24 percent of income.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Obama argued Obamacare is NOT A TAX and got it passed. The Supreme Court ruled it is a tax so it’s constitutional. The system was played pure and simple. Just think what would happen if the Democrats controlled the House.
/johnny
Well... now you understand why the National Health Database is being built.
Chances are, the FEDS already know whether you smoke or not.
It’s all theoretical for me. We couldn’t begin to afford the premiums anyway, subsidy or not.
Well... now you understand why the National Health Database is being built.
Chances are, the FEDS already know whether you smoke or not.
I can see people being charged with a federal felony for lying on their application or lying to their doctor. They could devise tests to see if you’re eating candy or beef brisket or potato chips or soda. It won’t stop with smoking. They could make cigarettes illegal right now if they wanted to, if it weren’t for the money they collect on taxes.
Surprise!!! One of many to come
On "guaranteed issue" policies they don't ask health questions. In fact it is not an insurance company's business
If you smoke and have guns, just turn all your money over.
I’m going to be a lone dissenter here, but I don’t care.
You get charged more for insurance if you drive recklessly and get tickets or have accidents that are your fault.
You get charged more if you have a lot of homeowner claims resulting from negligence or disrepair.
We decry that hospital cost shifting occurs and people who have insurance and are of some means are charged exorbitant amounts to subsidize the care given those who have no insurance.
Personally, I don’t give a whit whether someone smokes or eats like a horse or engages in all sorts of risky and unhealthy pursuits, but why should others who try to stay as safe and healthy as possible have to pay for it?
We might as well demand that we can consistently drive 20 miles over the speed limit and dodge and weave in heavy traffic and expect to be charged the same for car insurance as the most conscientious defensive driver.
A person’s freedom to live his/her life any way he/she wants should stop when they reach into my wallet to pay for their poor choices.
Just because it is guaranteed issue doesn’t mean there can’t be tiered premiums based on smoking or anything else.
“Is not one of tenants of conservatism the idea of personal responsibility for your actions? Yes, Obama lied, but personal choices have consequences.”
We have transitioned health insurance from a transfer of risk, to a collectivist system. It is not possible to have individual responsibility in a collective system, which is shown by your cry for individual responsibility by dictating collective behaviour.
Someone just said as much, “Individual liberty requires collective action.”
Doubleplus ungood.
They will take nicotine blood tests. A family member had to take one to work at his new job at a casino. They don’t want smokers working there who might need to take a smoking break at the wrong time.
“They will take nicotine blood tests. A family member had to take one to work at his new job at a casino.”
I’m curious, what’s the name and location of this casino?
So, with millions of potential customers, there will surely be some large company that will cater to this group’s insurance needs. Because of sheer volume, they will probably have to pay lower premiums than the poor saps forced into CommieCare, and they will get better treatment. Another case of unintended consequences caused by the most feckless government in recorded history.
Guess what? Smokers have always paid higher premiums than non smokers. Smokers, through specific taxes, also pay for all the children’s healthcare through the CHIP programs.
So just like everything else you list, smokers not already pay - but pay more above and beyond what is for themselves.
“but why should others who try to stay as safe and healthy as possible have to pay for it?”
Insurance was designed as an opportunity to transfer risk from one party to another. The party that was willing to take the transferred risk specifically set up business models to ensure that they could maintain financial viability and reap a financial reward for assuming that risk. Their business models assumed that some small number of high risk folks would be offset by a much lager number of small risk folks.
The individuals willing to pay them for assuming the risk of a catastrophic financial event understood this business model. Then we had wage caps and employers had to find another way to attract the most qualified job candidates, so they started offering health insurance as a benefit package and over time many services were rolled into that benefit.
Now we have transitioned from INSURANCE to CARE and that benefit is utilized for all sorts of basic medical industry services. We have completed the transition from a transfer of risk product to a complete medical care benefit package and then we are shocked that the costs have skyrocketed!
Ask yourself about car insurance. We buy auto insurance to protect ourselves from financial ruin in the case that we have a catastrophic unforeseen event. What would happen to the cost of your auto insurance policy if society decided that it should cover regular maintenance as well as catastrophic events? If we transitioned auto insurance to include oil changes, repairs, new tires, etc. then we would have unaffordable auto insurance policies!
Then everyone would scream that we need to dictate the type of gas you use or frequency of your long trips to ensure that your maintenance costs did not effect the collective costs!
The transition from health insurance to “health care” has been a wonderful training tool to get folks to agree with collectivization! Don’t fall for their trickery.
Yes tying health insurance to employment (as you said an artifact of WW2 price controls) resulted in a bad outcome.
It divorced the covered person from the costs.
Absolutely right! This country built on individual choices but Obamacare is MANDATORY. You have no choice.
You’re correct. I assume anyone who has had any type of blood test is categorized as yes / no.
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.