The health-reform law is changing the health-insurance marketplace in big ways. The first changes—those that happen right away—take effect Sept. 23, 2010, six months after the health-reform bill was signed.,, Consumer Reports offers a free health-insurance guide [.pdf] to how the new law affects you.

If you get health insurance through work, your coverage will likely remain pretty much the same, but with some new consumer protections. Lifetime caps on coverage are banned, for example, and insurers will have to adopt new procedures allowing workers to appeal coverage denials.

According to the new Patient’s Bill of Rights insurers can no longer do the following: Cancel your coverage if you get sick; set lifetime limits on coverage; put annual dollar limits on coverage (this is phased in over three years); deny coverage to children under age 19 who have pre-existing conditions; and impose barriers to or refuse to pay for emergency care even if it’s at a hospital outside the insurer’s network.

Young adults can stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26 instead of being taken off when they graduate from high school or college. Also, if you have been uninsured for six months and have a pre-existing medical condition, you can apply for coverage through new high-risk pools being set up in each state. The program will last until 2014, when other options kick in and insurers cannot discriminate on the basis of health status.

Small firms don’t have the bargaining clout big companies do, and they can be vulnerable to stiff premium hikes if a single employee needs expensive care. Thus, they often pay more for health insurance. Starting this year, businesses with up to 25 workers and average wages per worker up to $50,000 per year can get tax credits to offset the cost of insuring their employees…

Starting in 2011 states will be responsible for enhanced review of health-insurance company rate increase requests. Also, insurers will have to spend 80 to 85 cents out of every premium dollar on medical care. If they don’t, they have to rebate the extra amount to consumers.

I suggest you download the brochure – via the link up top — and find out what you’re supposed to hate and fear. This week.




  1. Greg Allen says:

    >> faxon said, on September 21st, 2010 at 8:43 am
    >> The majority of Americans did not want Obamacare, and the thing is a monstrosity.

    Yeah, they LOVE the current conservative system which is so insanely complex that doctors spend more time on paperwork than they do on care.

    We liberals wanted super-simple single payer but you conservatives ABSOLUTELY DEMANDED that we had to keep the for-profit insurance companies who created this monstrosity.

    So, can we agree? Single payer? Medicare for all?

  2. greyangel says:

    You can be in the pro or the con section. It doesn’t matter. There is no plan so good that people can’t and won’t screw it up. The republican denialists that claim all these “current” changes are going to mess up our country must have not been paying attention in the past. I can’t argue with Obama that the hole we were in will take a very long time to fix. Assuming of course that we were going to fix it. Since I’m a non partisan cynic, I already know that no matter who is in the whitehouse, human nature will prevail. You do got to give it to the Repubs though, they can sling the crap louder than anybody else from what I’ve seen.

  3. Dallas says:

    @ #30 Good luck with that. The GOP doesn’t have the spine to repeal it – even if they want to (they don’t). It’s all foaming at the mouth to get Teabagger sheeple votes.

    Same foam, different soap, when the GOP does their Miami pilgrimage for the Cuban Sheeple vote and then does shit.

    The fact is, tough domestic decisions are done by democrats

  4. Guyver says:

    35, Dallas,

    The GOP doesn’t have the spine to repeal it – even if they want to (they don’t).

    They only need to kill funding ObamaCare should the Democrats lose control of Congress after this November. Effectively it’s almost the same thing until a non-Democrat gets into the White House.

  5. bobbo, words should elucidate not obscure in error says:

    Guyver–I don’t think you can “not fund” a government program that gives rights to the people? Of course you can “do it” but lawsuits would require the government to follow the law.

    I don’t know, I’m just asking.

  6. Dunestrider says:

    So, what is up with the (formerly) esteemed John C. Dvorak? He is begging for donations to support his blog? How sad! What a loser! John, if you need money, get a job at McDonald’s. They hire washed-up has-beens like you.

  7. Guyver says:

    Bobbo,

    We have a difference of opinion on what government’s role is with respect to a person’s right and how a right differs from an entitlement I suppose.

    The House has every right to kill funding a government program that you’re referring to as a “right”. This also applies to wars. The question is would it be politically in their favor to do so? If Missouri is any indication, 70% of the people who voted in the recent primaries want nothing to do with it (and they’re a bellwether state).

    But even if the Democrats lose control of Congress this November, the Republicans will not potentially have enough people to override an Obama veto for a repeal of the Health Care legislation. Their only option will be to kill funding it.

  8. Hyph3n says:

    I predict that the Supreme Court on a 4 to 5 ruling will say that the gov’t can’t force people to purchase health care. But before you Libertarians types get all excited, it will magically not apply to anything else.

    It’s a win-win for Republicans. They can claim they killed it to one group; while claiming they had nothing to do with it to another. And it clears the way for all their schlock-fest legislation (but lucrative for corporations) like selling insurance across state lines. It’s a Scalia for the win!

  9. bobbo, words should elucidate not obscure in error says:

    Ah Yea–spinning, running, and hiding as best you can: I will read the link with interest although I will have to suppress my gag reflex on the specious logic you lead with. Requiring a super majority to overcome the Puke Filibuster is in some way not a Republican obstruction to the passage of Universal Healthcare/Single Provider?

    Puzzle me this Ah Yea: if Obama could have had a simple majority vote for his healthcare program, what do you think he would have gone for?

    Idiocy: being the only one doing something, getting bad results, and thinking you are on the right track: See Healthcare and what every other civilized country is doing: those without a Republican/Wingnut/Religiously Captured Tea Bagging Media.

    But on now to the fascinating links. “I’ll be back.”

  10. MikeN says:

    Bobbo, Congress declared war, kind of against Iraq, and there is no precedent of Congress undeclaring war. But even that was not needed, they could have just defunded the war. Sure parts of the bill require repeal, but there are many government agencies formed, that could simply not be funded. For that matter, a national health care ID card for all Americans is a matter of law, for three decades now. Do you know anyone who has one? It doesn’t exist because Congress has blocked the funding every year.

  11. bobbo, words should elucidate not obscure in error says:

    Guyver==that is an excellent distinction you make and I did not have it in mind. I will do some googling on this “defunding” question. Its good to know the actual options that are available–to use, or threaten to use?

    I agree Congress can “defund” a war, but that seems entirely different as does defunding most other “regulatory agencies” but rights/entitlements iss qualitatively different which may or may not make a difference?

  12. msbpodcast says:

    #35 “tough domestic decisions are done by democrats”.

    Not strictly speaking true.

    Nixon was shamed into setting up the HMO law, to the advantage of Humana of course but the choice of doing nothing was untenable as people were being bankrupted back in the seventies by health care costs before being turned out to die naked in the street from health-for-profit hospitals. (Check out the Wikipedia entry on Humana.)

    Nixon’s plan was flawed in that you had to be EMPLOYED.

    Most of the advances in health-care have occurred over the past century and brought about by military spending.

    Then there is the the AIDS research projects brought about by Ronald Reagan being himself shamed into it by people, like Rock Hudson, dying in the street. (Granted he was going back on his own word to do it, [since he like Nancy just wished people would “Just Say NO!” since it meant that the gummint wouldn’t be spending a dime on it.})

    The work in health care that happened since the end of the first world war has been started by the military and by republicans who were up against it and shamed into doing it.

    Unfortunately, we had almost a decade of Bush who had no shame whatsoever, started two wars, gave away all of the goodies in the pantry to the Chinese (too stupid to know that he should wash his hands instead of licking his fingers,) and accountants who can justify anything as fiscally sound, or not. (Deficit spending didn’t matter under Bush… He borrowed from “now” to pay for “then” and the rich have been shamed into giving most of it back [Philanthropy is a poor substitute for having a conscience in the first place.])

    So we’ve got this mess that Obama has tried to address with health care reform because HE is being shamed into it.

    MILLIONS of people are being shoved out in the street naked, possibly to die of disease because they’ve lost their jobs, through no fault of their own.

  13. t0llyb0ng says:

    In 2014 will the health insurance companies at least be not-for-profit corporations? I never get an answer to that simple question. The answer is no, huh. It is the for-profit aspect which is at odds with the public interest. For-profit health insurance does not work. We have to realize that first, before any meaningful change can happen. We are far from that realization That first, tiny, crucial step is decades away.

  14. Jim Thorton says:

    The PDF states that insurance companies “can’t” deny coverage to this or that. Of course they can! People “can’t” speed on the highways either, right? The question is what’s the penalty? A $100 per day fine is certainly cheaper than actually paying out the benefits. And as for “death panels”, you can’t seriously argue that money is no object for keeping a 90 year old vegetable alive indefinitely, are you? Otherwise, somebody has to make that decision, hence, “death panel”.

  15. Smith says:

    I’m a conservative Republican, but…

    The health care system is broke. Free enterprise/competition doesn’t exist because heavy government regulations guaranteed that only the big boys can play. Neither the patients, doctors, nor hospitals had any significant say in product or cost; that function was reserved for the insurance providers. In other words, there was no “free market” in the health industry. Tort reform, though needed, wasn’t going to be the silver bullet for THIS problem.

    And yet the insurance industry cried, “It isn’t us! We only make a measly 5% profit.” Quick, someone hand me a Kleenex. Oh, wait a minute … that’s 5% profit on ALL transactions involving 19% of our entire economy! Oh cry me a river — not even Exxon has it this good.

    Meanwhile, the annual insurance options my employer offered kept diminishing while my premiums kept increasing. Last year, the total cost of my family’s health insurance was $10,000 and I still had to deal with co-pays, deductibles, and my 20%. I’ve been paying insurance premiums for 40 years, and now I’m unemployed.

    So what good did 40 years of premiums do for me? I believe my family recouped about $25,000 in medical cost during that period — or about 1/10th of the premiums received by the insurance companies. So who gets to pay for the hefty medical bills that remain in my future? The taxpayer — the insurance company wins again!

    Given this state of affairs, I wasn’t against nationalizing health care; I was just against participation in the program by the insurance companies. I never understood our representatives’ preoccupation with the welfare of the insurance industry, when an insurer’s survival/demise was irrelevant to the patient, provider, or taxpayer. Medicare-for-All is what I wanted to see and fuck the insurance companies.

    Do I believe the government can do a better job of running health care? No, but I find it hard to believe they could do much worse. And it doesn’t really matter because the vast majority in this nation are going to end up where I am now, having to depend upon the government for my health care anyway. It’s just too bad the $250,000 in premiums paid over my life time isn’t going to be there when my medical bills sky rocket.

  16. GigG says:

    I swear if Obama crapped on Eideard’s head he would thank him for the hat.

  17. ECA says:

    I have to contest the name..
    I dont think its Obama care, after 300 other idiots added 3000(?) pages to the original bill, Cut/wrapped/WARPED/changed/augmented/added/reduced/.. and totally Changed the original bill.
    That is as bad as saying Bush won the war on terrorism..

  18. MikeN says:

    What rights or entitlements did you have in mind?

    They can’t defund insurance companies must cover or people must buy insurance.

  19. Mextli says:

    #57 “It’s actually pretty good: if you’re sick you know you can go to a doctor for free and get the drugs he prescribes you for free.”

    So Doctors and Drugs are free in Italy. No one pays anything? That’s good trick.

  20. Sales Geek says:

    “On separate note: Since when have adults of 26 years of age become children? That is perfect example of what is wrong with OC. People are not life long infants in need of Govt. protection. Particularly at cost of others. Who knows how much of my health care premium goes to fund to provide lazy slob adults of over-18-under-26 on their parents plans.”

    Lots of reasons. When they do military tours at 19 and then return to live with their families to go to school, for example. My son took five years to get through college but he transferred from one school to another mid-stream (better school) and then took an extra semester to graduate (cum laude) with two degrees instead of one. We had to pay his health insurance out-of-pocket for the last year.

    Like many of his colleagues, he is now a well-employed taxpayer and more so is working mostly overseas as a consultant as part of a business that brings hundreds of millions a year back into the United States instead of sending it to China/Brazil/India/Russia.

    Do you not know anyone in this age group? Or do you just enjoy talking out of your “hat?”

  21. Mextli says:

    #43 “See Healthcare and what every other civilized country is doing: those without a Republican/Wingnut/Religiously Captured Tea Bagging Media.”

    Look at the VAT they need to pay for it. That’s OK it’s for the public weal.

  22. Mextli says:

    #35 “Same foam, different soap, when the GOP does their Miami pilgrimage for the Cuban Sheeple vote and then does shit.”

    Sorta reminds you of Harry Reid and the Latino vote except when he is ogling Kirsten Gillibrand doesn’t it?

  23. Glass Half Full says:

    @1 “And higher premiums.”

    ROTFLMAO. SO naive and childish, it’s amazing to listen to the anti-science anti-reality Republican party. Higher Premiums? What magical fantasy world have YOU lived in for the last 20 years? We’ve BEEN doing your idea of “free market” health care for the last many decades, and it’s failed horribly. Premiums HAVE GONE UP far far far faster than inflation for the last 20 years. We’ve BEEN trying the Republican experiment of just letting monopoly health care companies set prices as they see fit (to benefit their shareholders) and look what we’ve got.

    Your ideas sucked. They didn’t work. Let’s TRY this and give it 10 years to see how it worked. We gave your horrible useless “do nothing” approach decades to ruin health care, so lets give this approach a least more than 6 months. Fools.

  24. freddybobs68k says:

    #43 mextli

    “Look at the VAT they need to pay for it. That’s OK it’s for the public weal.”

    However they pay for it – they pay less than (typically half or less) than the average American pays for as good or better results.

    From an article in national geographic…

    http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e0098226918833012876a6070f970c-800wi

  25. faxon says:

    “I swear if Obama crapped on Eideard’s head he would thank him for the hat.”

    I think he would look up to him.

  26. MikeN says:

    > what good did 40 years of premiums do for me? I believe my family recouped about $25,000 in medical cost during that period — or about 1/10th of the premiums received by the insurance companies.

    That number gets worse with the government mandate to buy insurance. All the more reason to have people not have to go through their employers to get insurance. The businesses are looking for what’s cheapest for them. The insurance companies just want to spread costs around. You are stuck paying for more than you need.

  27. Mextli says:

    #63

    I would have to read the article. For example I have seen diet cited as a contributing factor to Japanese life expectancy. I think “health care costs” is a catch all as well. For example, Does it include elective surgery? In some countries that might mean paying for some guy to drive nail in your head to let the demons out.

  28. Thomas says:

    Again I say to all you lovers a Federal single-payer system, why not do it your own State? There is absolutely ZERO reason it must be done at the Federal level. If you think single-payer is so great, implement it in your own backyard first and let’s see how it goes. We have States that have more people that some European countries that have single-payer systems. There is no reason this must be done at the Federal level especially when there is no track record of it working successfully in this country. Want a public option? Great, implement one in your own State and let’s see how it goes. If it is as great as everyone suggests, it should become evident rather quickly and other States will want to implement it.

    #57
    It’s actually pretty good: if you’re sick you know you can go to a doctor for free and get the drugs he prescribes you for free.

    First rule of economics: there are no free lunches. Nothing is truly free. You are paying for it in taxes, rationing, quality and availability of procedures and drugs and so on. Now, that said, even if you add all those items up, it is probably still cheaper and perhaps better than here in the States which brings me to one big element we have that you may not: lawyers. Insurance companies and doctors can and do get sued all the time which drives up the cost of insurance and care itself.

  29. Howard Beal says:

    Thomas do you live in and have you always lived in the same State you were born in?

    wow that could be more crippling to people moving to where the jobs are than being under water on your mortgage

    Still it will come for more and more States Don’t you just hate it that so many other countries are so much better at something than the USA?

  30. Sparky_One says:

    I am 56, with two chronic illness that are currently in stage four. Not quite bad enough to kill me, yet, so no medicare. I have not been employed or had access to affordable health care since I was let go by a fortune 250 company 22 months ago.

    Like this tax BS currently be debated (screamed about)

    The death tax and my demented father. Bring back the death tax and you force me to use my new tax strategy, euthanasia before 01-01-2011.

    Congresspukes should think these things through before they vote, you would like to hope


2

Bad Behavior has blocked 5380 access attempts in the last 7 days.