The Senate health committee has approved its version of a health care bill, largely tracking the House version requiring Americans to get health insurance, with some subsidies to the poor to help them afford coverage.
The Senate finance committee, where the going is likely to get a lot rougher, has yet to act. They have to figure out how to pay the tab and still garner at least a couple of Republican votes.
The health committee bill would establish a number of stringent federal health insurance rules to replace the hodge-podge of state regulations. Insurers couldn't deny coverage to people because of their claims experience or sex. Coverage couldn't be denied because of pre-existing conditions either.
And what about age? Here comes the rub -- there's something called "age rating" that has sparked all-out warfare between groups that advocate for older Americans. We're not talking about those old enough for Medicare -- they're likely to remain largely untouched by whatever is approved.
It's the "young old" -- those between 50 and 65 -- who are going to get zapped big time if age rating goes into effect. Essentially it means older folks will pay some multiple of the premiums charged to younger people for the same coverage, just because of their age. Since everybody knows older people are more likely to have pre-existing conditions, it's a back door way to replace exorbitant premiums for prexisting conditions with exorbitant premiums for being older.
But it still ain 't fair. A healthy 55 year old who works out and watches what she eats could be asked to pay double what a 30 year old 350 pound person with diabetes and arthritis would get hit for.
The Leadership Council of Aging Organizations (LCAO), a coalition of 60 national not-for-profit organizations concerned with the well-being of people over age 50, has sent a letter to the Senate finance committee arguing that age rating should be ditched altogether. They point out that for most people of modest means who wouldn't qualify for subsidies, the age-rating schemes could push premium costs to as much as 25% of pre-tax income.
The letter was signed by about half of LCAO's member groups -- not including the 900 pound gorilla AARP. Seems AARP wants to allow this blatantly age discriminatory policy to go forward. True, they would limit it to maybe having 50-somethings pay no more than twice the premium of younger people for the same coverage.
Sounds like they're saying a little bit of age discrimination is ok, as long as it doesn't go too far.
The Older Women's League fought hard to get enough sign-ons to send the letter. That's because the plans would particularly affect older single women, already lower on the income scale and less likely to have employer coverage. They rightly pointed out that if gender rating was on the table, every women's group would be raising holy hell.
So where are the rest of the advocates for those over 50? AARP already rakes in megabucks from its supplemental insurance business - you figure it out.
Profits over people - it's the American way.
It is sad. Fifteen years down the road, and we are looking at another potential failure of polictical nerve. (Clinton health care reform all over again.)
The only real reform that would cover everyone and reduce costs would be a single payer financing, and the pols, both Democratic and Republican, are so in thrall to the insurance companies that they won't even consider it, despite its popularity with the people. Sad, sad, sad that we are so far behind the rest of the world. It's downright immoral.
When all the advertising started, my husband asked me to call to check into it and I said NO. It started being fraudulant 12 years go and apparantly has gone down hill ever since.
I can't really complain too much about Medicare, except like many women my age, I have no savings or extra income and can't even find a PT job at 68, therefore, I don't buy supplemental coverage which would take about half my SS check. Over 1/3 of SS recipients rely exclusively on SS--I'm one of them. I live with my 50 yr old son and he has NO medical coverage--can't afford it.
BTW, AARP solicits you right before your 50th birthday, not your 55th. And it IS all about insurance, insurance, insurance and the assumption that older people have decent jobs, retirement, investments, etc.
There is also an assumption that all elderly make more $$ than the young. This is incorrect. Sometimes our aging population needs the most help with affordable health care and penalizing for something they can't help (and that will happen to all of us) is why we need health care reform in the first place.
Bravo to the Older Women's League for taking on this Goliath and exposing their conflict of interest!
I also agree with the comment that if we don't age rate health insurance, then we shouldn't age rate car insurance. Let's see what Martha Burk thinks of that idea!
Am I wrong? Wasn't the original idea behind insurance that the financial risk would be shared? With everyone paying the same, they are assured that the burden would be affordable for everyone. Dividing everyone up to try to come close to paying what they are expected to cost obviates the very raison d'etre for insurance in the first place. The ultimate result of accurately predicting everyone's risk would be charging everyone the amount they actually used, plus the insurance company's take, of course.
For those clamoring that everyone should be charged the same rate should this also apply to car insurance? Young people pay much more for the same coverage compared to older people and boys pay more than girls. Should we jack up everybodies rates to that of teen boys?
Why should we fund research into congenital diseases. We've already had our children.
Why should we fund recreational facilities? We have so many health problems, we can't use them anyhow.
Sounds like someone missed kindergarten the day they learned about sharing.
Buddy, how about joining the rest of the community. We're all in this together.
Why should we fund recreational facilities? We have so many health problems, we can't use them anyhow.
Now that I think about it, when RightWingMarine is an oldie, if I'm still around I'll be subsidizing his VA health care (just like I am paying for his armed forces health care now). Why should I do that?
Oh! I remember. It's because marines and veterans need health care like the rest of us. Just like educating children, etc., we do it because it's the right thing to do and it makes our country a better place for all of us.
Sounds like someone missed kindergarten the day they learned about "sharing".
Buddy, how about joining the rest of the community. We're all in this together.
If this mess ends up being age rated, and there's a mandate, it will be the most profitable windfall the insurance companies have ever had - sure hope their campaign contributions are enough to make congress feel good about trashing the American people.