Posts Tagged ‘insurance’

Medicare for All Rallies in Sacramento & Los Angeles to Celebrate Lobby Day, Feb. 11

February 4th, 2013

From Campaign for a Healthy California:

Insurance companies are raising their rates on individual policy holders by 20%. It’s time to tell legislators to PUT PEOPLE FIRST!
Lobby Day/Rally

February 11 at Noon, Join the Campaign for a Healthy California in supporting the California Health Professional Student Alliance Lobby (CaHPSA) rally for single payer!
Free bus rides to Sacramento available from Bay Area locations. Please call to reserve!

Noon Join the students on the north steps of the Capitol
1:00 PM March to the California Association of Health Plans at 14th and L Streets.
(A bus will be available for those unable to walk that distance.)

■ San Francisco: San Francisco Main Library, Larkin and Fulton at 9 am. Reserve a seat through Don Bechler at Single Payer Now, 415-810-5826.
■ Richmond: Target, 42nd and MacDonald Avenue at 9:45 am. Reserve a seat through Cara at 510-663-4086.
■ Berkeley: Ashby Bart at 9:15 am. This bus will pick up in Richmond after the Berkeley stop. Reserve a seat through Cara at 510-663-4086.
■ San Jose: South Bay Labor Council, 2102 Almaden Road at 9:00 am. Reserve a seat through Greg Miller – (408) 254-3311.
■ Grass Valley: KMart, 111 W. McKnight Way at 9:30 am. Reserve a seat through Mindy’s email.
■ Roseville: UDW office, 800 Sunrise Avenue Suite C at 10:15 am. Reserve a seat through Diana at 916-435-9760.
■ Fresno: Mervyn’s Parking Lot, Ashlan and Shields at 7:30 am. Reserve a seat through Judy Hess – 559-907-0279.
■ Modesto: Old Krispy Kreme, Briggsmoore at Highway 99 at 9:15 am. Reserve a seat through Carol Bailey at 209-951-0499.
■ Stockton: Clarion Hotel, Highway 99 at Waterloo at 10 am. Reserve a seat through Carol Bailey at 209-951-0499.

Email Questions (info@Healthycaliforniacampaign.org) or call 800-745-3090

Share the ENGLISH flyer
Share the SPANISH flyer

Information below for Los Angeles satellite rally:

hc-cahpsa-rally-la-0211132

 

Palm Desert woman gets socked with $106 rate hike for 10-mile move

December 19th, 2012

Can health insurance companies get any more brazen? Unfortunately, yes. Check out this outrageous story, from the Los Angeles Times:

Joan Swope, 62, moved recently from Cathedral City, just down the road from Palm Springs, to nearby Palm Desert.
She informed her insurer, Anthem Blue Cross, of the change of address. A few weeks later, Anthem responded with a notice stating that, because of the move, Swope’s monthly premium on her individual policy will increase to $524 from $418.

This kind of arbitrary rate increase is legal, according to the Times, because insurance companies have divided the state into rate zones based on the average cost of local doctors and hospitals. Move into another rate zone, and your premiums can go up. This just looks like another way to gouge citizens in their time of need, and stuff corporate pockets with more of people’s hard-earned money. It has absolutely nothing to do with providing good health care. If California could implement a universal, publicly-financed health system, you would never have to worry about how your premiums will be affected if you relocated. Because your premiums would be $0.

Sylvia@californiaonecare.org

Are federally sponsored health plans the camel’s nose under the tent?

October 31st, 2012

The Obama administration has just announced that it will offer federally-sponsored health benefits to the public as part of the health exchanges due to open up in 2014:

These multistate plans were included in President Obama’s health care law as a substitute for a pure government-run health insurance program — the public option sought by many liberal Democrats and reviled by Republicans. Supporters of the national plans say they will increase competition in state health insurance markets, many of which are dominated by a handful of companies.

The federal health plans are run by private insurance companies, but the government can negotiate the benefits and premiums. So this move by the Obama administration is a far cry from a public option. But that didn’t stop one conservative from sounding the alarm.

Robert E. Moffit, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he worried that “the nationwide health plans, operating under terms and conditions set by the federal government, will become the robust public option that liberals always wanted.”

Although many on the left supported the public option, many single payer advocates vehemently opposed it, preferring instead an automatic expansion of Medicare to all Americans. So it’s telling that something far less than single payer would make Mr. Moffit a bit nervous. Why would he (and perhaps other free-market advocates) be so concerned that these private health benefits, under contract with the federal government, could suddenly morph into an entirely public plan? Maybe the idea of a public health plan has broader appeal than free marketers want to admit. The Government Employees Health Association, the organization that oversees federal employee health benefits, consistently gets high marks for patient satisfaction. And Medicare – a true single payer program – is immensely popular.

If large numbers of Americans end up choosing the federal plans in the health exchanges over other types of plans, that might take the steam out of a lot of anti-government rhetoric. If the majority of Americans find that they like their health benefits regulated by the government, it just might be easier for them to make the mental leap to accepting a system where health care is provided by the government. And that’s a very scary prospect for proponents of profit-driven health care.

Sylvia@californiaonecare.org

 

 

 

Don McCanne, MD: Six million will face penalties under the Affordable Care Act

October 8th, 2012

Payments of Penalties for Being Uninsured Under the Affordable Care Act

Congressional Budget Office

September 19, 2012

Beginning in 2014, the Affordable Care Act (comprising Public Law 111-148 and the health care provisions of P.L. 111-152) requires most legal residents of the United States to either obtain health insurance or pay a penalty tax. That penalty will be the greater of: a flat dollar amount per person that rises to $695 in 2016 and is indexed by inflation thereafter (the penalty for children will be half that amount and an overall cap will apply to family payments); or a percentage of the household’s income that rises to 2.5 percent for 2016 and subsequent years (also subject to a cap).

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated that about 30 million nonelderly residents will be uninsured in 2016, but the majority of them will not be subject to the penalty tax. Unauthorized immigrants, for example, who are prohibited from receiving almost all Medicaid benefits and all subsidies through the insurance exchanges, are exempted from the mandate to obtain health insurance. Others will be subject to the mandate but exempted from the penalty tax—for example, because they will have income low enough that they are not required to file an income tax return, because they are members of Indian tribes, or because the premium they would have to pay would exceed a specified share of their income (initially 8 percent in 2014 and indexed over time). CBO and JCT estimate that between 18 million and 19 million uninsured people in 2016 will qualify for one or more of those exemptions. Of the remaining 11 million to 12 million uninsured people, some individuals will be granted exemptions from the penalty because of hardship, and others will be exempted from the requirement on the basis of their religious beliefs.

After accounting for those who will not be subject to the penalty tax, CBO and JCT now estimate that about 6 million people will pay a penalty because they are uninsured in 2016 (a figure that includes uninsured dependents who have the penalty paid on their behalf) and that total collections will be about $7 billion in 2016 and average about $8 billion per year over the 2017–2022 period. Those estimates differ from projections that CBO and JCT made in April 2010: About two million more uninsured people are now projected to pay the penalty each year, and collections are now expected to be about $3 billion more per year.

Most of the increase—about 85 percent—in the number of people who are expected to pay the penalty tax stems from changes in CBO and JCT’s baseline projections since April 2010, including the effects of legislation enacted since that time, changes in the economic outlook (primarily a higher unemployment rate and lower wages and salaries), and other technical updates. A small share—about 15 percent—of the increase in the number of uninsured people expected to pay the penalty results from the recent Supreme Court decision. As a result of that decision, CBO and JCT now anticipate that some states will not expand their Medicaid programs at all or will not expand coverage to the full extent authorized by the ACA. Such state decisions are projected to increase the number of uninsured, a small percentage of whom will be subject to the penalty tax.

Among the uninsured individuals subject to the penalty tax, many are expected to voluntarily report on their tax returns that they are uninsured and pay the amount owed. However, other individuals will try to avoid payments. Therefore, the estimates presented here account for likely compliance rates, as well as the ability of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to administer and collect the penalty.

CBO and JCT have also updated their estimates of the distribution of those penalty tax payments by income category. Table 1 (in PDF available at link) shows how much of those payments are projected to be made by or on behalf of people who are uninsured in 2016 (which the IRS will collect in 2017) in each of several income categories, measured as percentages of the federal poverty level (FPL). In general, households with lower income will be subject to the flat dollar penalty (with adjustments to account for the lower penalty for children and an overall cap on family payments), and households with higher income will owe a percentage of their income. In 2016, households with income that exceeds 400 percent of the FPL are estimated to constitute about one-third of people paying penalties and to account for about two-thirds of the receipts from those penalties.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43628

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

When it was decided to use the purchase of private plans as the model for insuring everyone, it was clear that the law must include a requirement to purchase plans and that the threat of assessing a penalty would have to be included to ensure compliance, otherwise adverse selection would have driven insurance premiums up even higher than their current intolerable levels. It was also clear that this still wouldn’t ensure universality because of various exceptions and non-compliance.

We now have a reasonably reliable estimate from the Congressional Budget Office that tells us that 30 million people will remain uninsured and that 6 million of them will be assessed penalties. That is a terrible outcome when considering that a single payer system would have covered everyone automatically, obviating the need for penalties.

Some will note that the penalty is not as onerous as it might have been since two-thirds of the total amount will be paid by households with incomes over 400 percent of the federal poverty level. The fact that more lower income households will be exempt from the penalty is hardly a reason to celebrate when considering that the price they do pay is remaining uninsured.

Re-posted with permission from pnhp.org.