Obamacare: Smokers May Get Break From Penalties.....

[MMC]

Obamacare: Smokers' penalties may be temporarily limited by glitch caused by conflicting rules.

A conflict in the Affordable Care Act has led to an unexpected glitch that may take up to a year to correct, and in the meantime, older smokers could face lower premiums, or younger smokers could face higher ones.

Under Obamacare, insurers can charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premiums to offset their risk.

But another provision prevents insurers from charging older customers more than three times what they charge the youngest adults in the pool.

The conflict has led to a system in which a 65-year-old smoker's premium can't be processed if it is more than three times the premium of a 21-year-old smoker.

Until the system is updated, the Obama administration suggested insurers limit the penalties across all age groups, citing a Department of Health and Human Services report that proposed a 20 percent penalty.....snip~

Read more: Obamacare: Smokers may get break from penalties - UPI.com


Another hit by Obamacare.....young smokers will take most of the brunt. Just another glitch huh? All fair eh? Now all will get the break.

 

[GottaGo]

Besides asking who actually read the bill, I wonder who proof-read the thing.....

Good job, people, good job.... *shakes head sadly*

 

[MMC]

Besides asking who actually read the bill, I wonder who proof-read the thing.....

Good job, people, good job.... *shakes head sadly*

Heya GG. :2wave: How you like that report from Health and Human Services. They suggested a 20% penalty all across the board.

 

[GottaGo]

Heya GG. :2wave: How you like that report from Health and Human Services. They suggested a 20% penalty all across the board.

I don't have an issue with smokers paying a slightly higher premium, and yes it should be straight across the board.

BUT

If smokers are going to be penalized, then how about known drug users? Alcoholics? People with pre-existing conditions? Overweight/underweight? People who don't eat their veggies.....

(do I have to spell out where I'm going with this?)

 

[MMC]

I don't have an issue with smokers paying a slightly higher premium, and yes it should be straight across the board.

BUT

If smokers are going to be penalized, then how about known drug users? Alcoholics? People with pre-existing conditions? Overweight/underweight? People who don't eat their veggies.....

(do I have to spell out where I'm going with this?)

Well, you saw what we had up on the Obesity Counseling. Exchanges, Businesses with over 50 employees, Smokers, the 15 man panel, and Doctors closing up shop and or not taking any more patients. Wonder when Obama will start calling the glitches.....Gremlins.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't have an issue with smokers paying a slightly higher premium, and yes it should be straight across the board.

BUT

If smokers are going to be penalized, then how about known drug users? Alcoholics? People with pre-existing conditions? Overweight/underweight? People who don't eat their veggies.....

(do I have to spell out where I'm going with this?)

Why not is obvious - PPACA sets "private" medical care insurance premium rates on a "fairness" basis not on an actuarial risk basis. Smokers are a smaller minority than those overweight or outright obese.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I wonder if my bumming a cig maybe once a month when I'm out drinking with friends who are smokers makes me a smoker under their eyes?

 

[GottaGo]

I wonder if my bumming a cig maybe once a month when I'm out drinking with friends who are smokers makes me a smoker under their eyes?

Only if they can charge you more for it.... :wink:

 

[GottaGo]

Why not is obvious - PPACA sets "private" medical care insurance premium rates on a "fairness" basis not on an actuarial risk basis. Smokers are a smaller minority than those overweight or outright obese.

There was a wee bit of sarcasm in there.

Generally, if you're going to rate one health condition, then you should be rating them ALL.....

 

[ttwtt78640]

There was a wee bit of sarcasm in there.

Generally, if you're going to rate one health condition, then you should be rating them ALL.....

Of course you should, but PPACA says that "private" medical care premium rates may be based only on age and smoking tobacco status, and that their overhead (including profit) may not exceed 15% for large insurance companies and 20% for small insurance companies.

 

[GottaGo]

Of course you should, but PPACA says that "private" medical care premium rates may be based only on age and smoking tobacco status, and that their overhead (including profit) may not exceed 15% for large insurance companies and 20% for small insurance companies.

I do understand that, but I think you and I are kicking the same beast, lol. For the government to dictate that one, and only one 'condition' should be considered for rating pretty much paints the picture.

 

[Thrilla]

smokers get a penalty.. but fat people don't, even though obesity is worse than smoking.... makes perfect sense.

well, it's not like I expected medical science to get in the way of politics....

 

[MMC]

There was a wee bit of sarcasm in there.

Generally, if you're going to rate one health condition, then you should be rating them ALL.....

So are you saying we should look for the next glitch to be with medical marijuana and cancer treatments GG? That Obama will want to get them all in on the good **** too.

 

[clownboy]

More boneheaded thinking from the Obamacare set. Let's see, one of the objectives of the mandate was to require medical insurance to lessen the use of emergency rooms as primary care. So what the heck, let's take the folks who figures say will require more expensive care in their latter years, and make health insurance even less affordable for them, forcing them to use the most expensive form of health care, the emergency room, as primary care.

Yeah, that's makes sense, right?

 

[GottaGo]

So are you saying we should look for the next glitch to be with medical marijuana and cancer treatments GG? That Obama will want to get them all in on the good **** too.

Not so much the treatments, as far as I've read, I haven't seen restrictions in the actual bill for treatments. I will be curious to see what the plan documents from the insurers say, however.

 

[Ikari]

I don't have an issue with smokers paying a slightly higher premium, and yes it should be straight across the board.

They already do. Over 50% of the cost of cigarettes are taxes and the reason they put them there was to offset the additional costs smokers have on the healthcare system (without evaluating what effects they have on pension plans and corporate profit). They already pay.