Effort to Assist Older Voters May Raise Costs for the Young

[TheWebHead]

Source: Wall St. Journal

A provision in the House health-care bill sets up a stark choice for Democrats between the interests of younger voters and older ones.

The bill would limit how much insurers can vary premiums based on the age of the person buying the policy. The narrower the range, the lower the premiums for older people, a help to those who currently pay some of the highest rates for insurance and often need coverage the most. But such a limitation tends to raise premiums for younger folks, who are sometimes reluctant to buy coverage.

...a calculator on the Kaiser Family Foundation Web site gives a rough sense. It suggests that under the House's 2-to-1 cap, a 20-year-old would pay $3,169 in annual premiums and a 60-year-old would pay $6,339 for comparable plans, if they both had incomes above the subsidy-eligible level. Under a bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee, which had a 4-to-1 age-rating ratio, the 20-year-old would pay $2,258 and the 60-year-old would pay $8,357.

"We are going to tell every young American who has decided that they don't want to pay those premiums, they want to save up to get married or to buy a home, that, by golly, they are going to have to take insurance. And they are going to pay three to four times what they would under the current system because there is only a 2-to-1 ratio," said Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas) during the weekend House debate.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125781093620739883.html

---

For those young voters who came out in large support for Obama and Democrats last November, this seems like a kick in the mouth as a thank you. I'm guessing the largest percentage of people by age that don't purchase health insurance are those under 25, and not only would they have to buy it under the new plan, the existing rates would skyrocket because of the 2:1 limitation.

[Demeter]

1. That's Okay--The Young Have No Jobs Anyway

Of course, their parents don't either. So everybody qualifies!

[54anickel]

2. Must keep the masses divided against themselves. Otherwise, they may wise up and

demand corporate and wealthy taxes be raised to, oh let's say, HALF of what they were before Reaganomics set in.
Damned fools are going to kill the fodder units that laid their golden eggs. I suppose they figure there's an entire globe to exploit...

[Vinca]

3. A day will come when the young are old and they will need what we now need.

The point of sharing risk is to make it affordable for everyone, not just the young and the healthy.

[FlaGranny]

4. That's fine as inevitably

the young will one day be old and will then reap the benefits of their earlier contributions. That's what it's all about. Just like putting their money into a savings account.

[madrchsod]

5. the problem would`t exist if we had medicare for all...

[iamjoy]

6. Oh, Now They're Worried

I mean, gosh, they talk about how Health Care reform is about killing granny, than they lament that the high cost of caring for granny is going to be passed on to the young.

Would they make up their minds?

[Kolesar]

7. And Social Security recipients get COLA raises bigger than inflation

Because they can vote it for themselves.

[laughingliberal]

10. Most Social Security recipients are on Medicare nt

[Kolesar]

15. That is true, but I don't get your point...eom

[FlaGranny]

17. Seniors have it really easy.

I guess that's why at 70 and 80 and more, many have to keep on working.

"The Senior Citizens League notes that “seniors receive a small increase in their Social Security checks, intended to help them keep up with the costs of inflation.” But since 2000, the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) has increased average benefits just 31% while typical senior expenses have risen more than 58%. According to the Senior Citizens League, a senior with the average Social Security benefit in 2000 received $816 per month, a figure that rose to $1072.30 by 2009. However, that senior would require a Social Security benefit of $1,288.60 per month in 2009 just to maintain his or her 2000 lifestyle."

"One looming problem: The Congressional Budget Office is projecting no COLA increases from 2010 th"rough 2012. And that, according to the Senior Citizens League, means seniors will likely fall even further behind as medical costs continue to climb as forecast."

http://www.bca-finance.com/four-ways-older-americans-can-deal-with-higher-inflation-rates.html

[Rage for Order]

19. Probably should have saved for retirement then

Social Security was never intended to be one's entire nest egg for retirement, hence the name: Supplemental Security Income, or SSI. If you're getting $1,000 monthly from SSI and kick in $2,000 monthly from your savings over 50 years of working then you're at $3,000 monthly, which isn't too bad.

[laughingliberal]

20. SSI is not the same as Social Security

Here's a link:

http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/

Also, with the stagnation of wages over the past 30 years leaving working people with less over time, saving has been a problem.

50 years of working? Let's see. If you leave high school and go right to work, you can have 50 years in at 68. If you go to college for 1 4 year degree and finish in 4 years, find a job right away and don't suffer any periods of unemployment (good luck with that) you will have 50 years in at 72.

[laughingliberal]

18. My point is that people on SS do not figure in the problem under discussion here

The issue is how much more an older person can be charged for an insurance policy than a younger person. People on SS are not at issue. They have Medicare.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Single Payer Medicare for All

Does not have these divisive aspects. Hence, it is too good for Americans to even consider.

[katkat]

9. wingnuts try to divide and conquer

This isn't the first crap I've seen from the WSJ and elsewhere that tries to pit old against young.

Any wedge the opponents of heathcare think they can drive between supporters, they'll do it.

One of the most surprising and disappointing was a blog on DemConWatch which said the elderly were unaffected by the current financial crisis, and if they were they could just get a job. Hello? Calling Arcturus?

So here are a few home truths:

1. Most elderly who do not live totally on Social Security have their savings mostly in CDs or passbooks with a smaller amount, at least according to standard financial advice, in reputable mutual funds.

Those mutual funds have tanked. The CD rates have dropped by 50% in the last year or two. So most seniors have had their non-Social Security income cut by 50%.

2. Get a job? Where are these wonderful companies who think 50 year olds are over the hill but are going to hire a 70 year old? And how many 70-80 year olds are physically up to a job? The DemConWatch dimwit must never be around old people, and so have no concept of their physical abilities.

3. She was feeding the old preying on the young by getting Social Security myth as well. People on Social Security now have paid far more into the SS system, counting the amounts they've been taxed over forty years or so and compound interest on that amount, than they will ever see back in benefits. Why is the SS system in trouble? Well, it's not for nothing that Al Gore wanted to put the SS trust fund into a lockbox.

4. Consider the sources. The Wall Street Journal? Kaiser, which last I heard was being sued for turning someone away from their ER who then died on their front lawn?

[TheWebHead]

11. if you purchase your own health insurance

look at the rate card... it should be about 4 to 1 plus or minus depending on the plan between the <25 and +60 groupings scaling up with 5-year age groups in between. Since we're on the back half of the baby boom, that older set is about equal in population as the younger set, so you to make up 2 to 1 you bump up the youngest group 50%, the 30-somethings 25-30%, you probably get about parity in the 45-49 group, and begin saving at 50+.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of young DU members who purchase their own health insurance...

[katkat]

12. next up

Charging more for people with pre-existing conditions, because it's unfair to those without them. Oh, wait.

[Demit]

13. Here's the real kick in the mouth for you, WebHead: you will get old.

And then you will need what old people need.

[optimator]

14. great political strategy

punish the young and deny women equal health care.

[FlaGranny]

16. Geeze, punish the young?

You do realize if they're lucky all the young will get old some day? When they get old do you want them to start paying double just at the time they can no longer work? Sounds like Republican thinking. Think of it like saving money for a rainy day.