Americans Also Enjoying Trade Offs That Come With ObamaCare
President Obama's new budget proposal notes that 'Americans are already enjoying many of the protections put in place" thanks to the 2010 health care overhaul. But the White House appears less keen to mention the trade offs that those alleged benefits entail. For example, the proposal notes that "young adults under age 26 can now stay on their parents' policies." This is true, but what the report doesn't note is that this requirement contributes to the rising cost of insurance. The same goes for the budget's brag that "all new private market health insurance plans now must cover critical preventive care services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, copay, or coinsurance." Despite how ObamaCare boosters have described this policy, the preventive care mandates in the law are far from free to the patient, and, as Cato Institute health policy director Michael Cannon has noted, not likely to be cost effective either. The budget also touts changes to children's health insurance regulations: "Because of the ACA, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children under the age of 19 due to a pre-existing condition." And because of that rule, many big-name health insurers have decided to simply stop offering child-only health insurance policies altogether. Somehow I suspect that parents looking for individual health insurance policies for their children aren't exactly enjoying this so-called protection.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
the vast majority of 26 & under civilians dont require expensive medical care.
Fine, then you can pay for them.
i am for my kids & for uninsured families that go to the ER. thx for playin
Shut up you big dummy-
"Despite an individual mandate covering almost everyone in Massachusetts, the cost of emergency care has risen 17 percent over the past two years, while ER visits rose 7 percent."
Link-
http://www.boston.com/news/loc.....mb/?page=1
derp de derpity derp
happy Valentine's day! Do you wanna look for some bilover to hook up tonight?===Datebi*c/O'm=== is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.
You forgot to account for the extra #40dollars
A solution for your red herring alert AKA 6% of the market
There is a potential fix. First, the insurers are lobbying the federal government to change the rules so that child-only policies can be offered only during a once-a-year "open enrollment" period. This would reduce the chances of people waiting until a child gets ill before obtaining coverage. California also has a potential fix in the form of Assembly Bill 2244, authored by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, which would not only create an open enrollment period but ban insurers who don't offer child-only policies from the state's individual market for five years. By then, the federal law provision that would require most Americans to have health insurance and prohibit insurers from denying coverage to adults and children alike would be in place.
Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.
Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
That was funny:)
Nonsense. Everyone knows that whenever Team Blue wants something, the money just magically appears.
Magically out of my paycheck.
/Bitter about the percentage taken out of the bonus I got today
Well, it doesn't magically appear, but they get the Fed to just print more of it.
Holy smokes, I need booze.
Holy booze, I need smokes.
That jsut doesnt make a whole lot of sense dude.
http://www.Dot-Privacy.tk
"all new private market health insurance plans now must cover critical preventive care services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, copay, or coinsurance."
Cartelization FTW!
Simple solution to the Healthcare crisis that solves both the Democrat desire to give everyone an equal shot quality care and the Republican desire to make sure everyone takes responsibility for themselves:
1. Universal healthcare provided by the government for all pregnant women and children up to age 26.
2. After age 26, universal coverage for all conditions developed before age 26 and all complications resulting from those conditions.
3. After age 26, you're on your own. No requirements, no regulations, no taxes or tax deductions, etc. Emergency rooms don't even have to treat you if they don't want to. It's all up to you.
What say you, Reasonites?
You realize step 4 is implantation of red crystal clocks that start flashing at age 30, right?
Funny stuff:) Gotta a bunch of comedians today.
"Light day! Renew! Renew!"
I prefer the libertarian solution which gets government out of healthcare which would cause prices to drop.
I think if you look at the problems that were originally trying to be addressed you have : uninsured, uninsurable (pre-existing conditions), underinsured (major calamity lead to insurance running out). We already have a heath care program for those without the capacity to pay, it's medicaid. Why not use that same program to deal with those problems with some modifications. If you don't qualify for medicaid because you make too much but find yourself in one of the situations above you should not get free health care, but you could get some help or relief. You could apply for a form of medicaid where your meidical bills would get paid but you would be required to pay back a reasonable amount within a payment plan based on income. For those who were uninsured or underinsured, there should be an insurance penalty if it is determined that you could have afforded the insurance but choose not to. The penaly should be steep enought to ensure no one choose to free ride. If you want to make your own arragngement with the hospital to pay, you should feel free to be able to do so, however, since hospitals are required by law to treat everyone, they should have the option of forcing you into that program if you are not meeting your obligations. For those with a preexisiting condition you would pay a reoccuring amount based on income for as long as that condition exist and once all of your bills have been reimbursed within reason. The goal would be to recooperate all cost if possible without putting people in an impossible financial situation. There have been a lot of great ideas about on the cost cutting side such as HSA's, buying insurance across state lines, etc. that should all be explored as well.
First, back that "age 26" down to age 18.
Adults is adults.
Second, get rid of that "universal healthcare provided by government for all pregnant women and children". Universal healthcare gives government a license to control what you do that affects your health. No thanks.
Number three has possibilities. Get rid of the "after age 26", and I think we can agree.
These gloves came free with my toilet brush!
"Enjoying" is a relative term. I'm sure the bureaucrats are enjoying it a lot.