Replies

You're not correct.

FR does NOT have a good feel for this world. The reason is most FReepers are getting a group plan through their jobs. The problem with this is it corrupts FR's perspective of normal American life -- which are the self employed, employees of very small businesses who can't offer health insurance, and a growing additional group are early retirees -- who by definition are not yet 65 and can't get Medicare yet.

Group plans do NOT exclude pre-existing conditions. Repeat. Group plans generally do not exclude pre-existing conditions.

Individual plans can. Insurers won't take on that risk.

The world is changing, people. Retirees are almost NEVER provided health insurance as part of an early out package. They have to find their own -- and if during those years they were part of a group plan they developed a health problem then they have a pre-existing condition and No Insurer Will Cover Them.

As for the idea of taxing superb health coverage, that generally will focus on senior executives who go to hyper thorough physicals that cost 10's of thousands of dollars. The cost of that is paid by the company and the company is now currently taking it as a deduction from its generic sales revenue. So this would not really be a tax increase. It would be more of a closing of that loophole of the company.

People, FR has to get calibrated on this. Health Insurance is likely going to be a bigger issue in 2008 than Iraq. Iraq will be done as a victory or done as a defeat by then.

The problem of pre-existing conditions is crushing. Early retirees face risks to their life savings by not being able to get insurance. The boomers are aging and this group is growing.

"The problem of pre-existing conditions is crushing. Early retirees face risks to their life savings by not being able to get insurance. The boomers are aging and this group is growing."

It's not nearly as bad as it once was and we've made enormous strides in addressing this problem, however it's a state issue and every state is different. Pre ex is largely waived if you've had continuous coverage however individual carriers may decline you outright since they can't attach pre ex. California and many states have addressed this by offered guarantee issue policies for early retirees however at a greater expense. We also have 36 monhts of COBRA so we're really talking about folks who retire pre age 62 with health conditions who have to pay a mark up for the guaranteed product. I think we've come a long way in this area and could solve this issue separately.
I agree this is in no way a tax increase and more resembles the efforts to reduce the marriage penalty. He's talking about reducing the deduction for group insurance, not eliminating it and correspondingly increasing the deduction for private individual insurance. This is a glaring gap that's existed far too long and strikes me as a no brainer. Groups need to continue increasing their deductibles and decreasing their deductibles. I'm on a HSA as of Jan. 1 and I can't tell you enough about how efficient it is.

Early retirees? What age do you consider being an early retiree? I mean, I don't want to sound rude, but for many Americans the only reason they work is for health insurance. So why should early retirees be any different? At least the retiree as something like 18 months of cobra. Then, at 65, they get Medicare...what am I missing here?

The problem of pre-existing conditions is crushing. Early retirees face risks to their life savings by not being able to get insurance. The boomers are aging and this group is growing.
------
Yes, this is a major problem. So what is your idea for a solution?? What can early retirees do? Should the government disallow rejection for pre-existing conditions, or allow targeted Medicare coverage for pre-existing issues for those not yet 65 who have thier own policies...the latter sounds like a fair idea to me.

the "normal american life" you cite does include those groups yiu mention - but also includes a boatload of people in the private sector EARNING health coverage as part of their compensation. My employer doesn't GIVE me health coverage, I EARN it. and now I have to pay a new tax on it?

the hell with this.

if this tax passes, the republican party can kiss the votes of middle class private sector wage earners with health coverage - goodbye.

What you say is true. Getting health insurance these days can be a nightmare for our kids.

But you don't solve the problem by piling more and more bureaucratic layers on top of it. That road was taken by Canada and Europe, and it is destroying their economies and medical systems.

One reason why healthcare is so expensive is that the lawyers and insurers are getting more and more of the money and the doctors less and less. Paperwork is crushing, too. Where a small group practice used to have one secretary, they now have to hire five, just to fill out all the required forms.

Hillarycare failed, but clinton managed to pile a number of reforms on anyway. It's noticeable that costs have skyrocketed ever since, and a lot of huge insurance buildings were built with the proceeds.

_hg

The problem of pre-existing conditions is crushing

There is a way around this. Until just recently I would have agreed with you. I'm preparing to move my permanent residence back to the Kansas City area and would prefer to live on the Johnson County Kansas side of the city where I spent most of my adult life both working and living. However, during the last 15 years my residence of record has been Lake Ozark Missouri and I have had Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Missouri.

If I move back to Kansas I have to change insurers. It will still be BC/BS but of Kansas instead of of Missouri, a different policy and hence, my diabetes will be considered a pre-existing condition and will no longer be covered.

Essentially, I thought I would be a prisoner of the state of Missouri the rest of my life. But the exception is this: AARP offers group medical insurance that appears to be as good as my private Blue Cross at a group price. Any doctor I want, same deductibles etc. And one can join AARP at age 50.

Dear Owen,

"Group plans do NOT exclude pre-existing conditions."

I think that varies from state to state and plan to plan, as well as, on the size of the plan.

My small business buys small group health insurance. Because we're in Maryland, the insurance company may not exclude pre-existing conditions. Also, we have community rating in Maryland, so we can't be charged more for a relatively sicker small group.

However, over the river in Virginia, I believe that for small groups, they can exclude pre-existing conditions, subject to the conditions of federal law (which, I believe, generally prevent pre-existing exclusions for folks who have been continuously insured for some length of time). As well, in Virginia, small groups can be rated for the health of the group. Thus, one person with a serious illness can cause significantly higher premiums for the group.

"Early retirees face risks to their life savings by not being able to get insurance."

For folks who have been continuously covered by health insurance, I'm pretty sure that HIPAA mandates that pre-existing condition exclusions will be reduced, even to nothing.

Thus, if someone retires from a company where they were continuously covered by health insurance for years, if they're no longer eligible for any sort of group insurance, and they arrange for individual health insurance to pick up continuously, or nearly so, from the end of their former employer's group coverage, their new insurance policy must cover pre-existing conditions from the start.

The real difficulty is in the cost of individual health insurance, especially as folks age.

In the state of Maryland good coverage for a family with a middle-aged head of household is easily over $1,000 per month.

Ouch.

sitetest

Early retirees who take advantage of the HIPPA mandate which requires any company selling individual policies in a state to issue a policy notwithstanding pre-existing conditions, don't have the immediate threat to their life savings. Unfortunately, there's a specific time limit on the ability to do this, and many aren't aware of it. For those who are, and do, the issue's the cost of the individual policy rather than the availability.

A tax break for health insurance is a good idea. Why not let people deduct the cost of it off their tax return like they do their mortgage payments? People shouldn't be forced to choose between their health and eating dog food.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

As for the idea of taxing superb health coverage, that generally will focus on senior executives who go to hyper thorough physicals that cost 10's of thousands of dollars.

BS. Already, good insurance plans hit the 7.5k/15k limit (remember, the part nominally paid for by your employer counts). In a few years, inflation will push any insurance worth having over that limit.

This is just another tax increase.

The idea of treating self-obtained and employer-obtained insurance identically has merit, but should be balanced with spending cuts, not new taxes.

Retirees are almost NEVER provided health insurance as part of an early out package.

I took early retirement and have medical, dental, and vision coverage for life.

As for the idea of taxing superb health coverage, that generally will focus on senior executives

Of the 10,000 employees who took early retirement with me, we all have the same superb health coverage for which we will now be taxed. I'm getting as sick of this President as my liberal Democrat friends.