On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Max Sawicky <[email protected]> wrote: > For a firm with an existing policy and high premiums, > they are in danger of being taxed, regardless of the incomes > of their employees. I can't imagine what help there would be > for them in the bill. > > There is no preexisting condition issue for a place that already has group > insurance. If my decrepit self takes a job in a place > with group insurance, I will get insurance, but there is nothing as far as > I know to stop the insuror from jacking up premiums for everybody in > subsequent years to take account of my impact on expected costs.
Here's what the House summary has to say about this: "It will end increases in premiums or denials of care based on pre-existing conditions, race, or gender, and strictly limit age rating." http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml I think it allows age-based discrimination in premiums but caps it at at most twice the premium of younger customers or something like that. I am not sure what it means for a particular small workplace with a large percentage of older workers. In any case, surely this is not related to the issue of taxing high-end executive health plans. But I think we are largely in agreement on the taxation issue.. -raghu. -- milli-helen : The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
