Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I thought Obamacare was supposed to be so wunnerful for students ?

Posted 2 years ago on June 4, 2012, 11:05 p.m. EST by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Big Changes in College Health Plans

Schools Are Raising Premiums Sharply or Dropping Offerings Altogether as Low-Benefit Options Are Disallowed

By LOUISE RADNOFSKY, The Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2012

Some colleges are dropping student health-insurance plans for the coming academic year and others are telling students to expect sharp premium increases because of a provision in the federal health law requiring plans to beef up coverage.

Colleges are dropping student health-insurance plans due to a federal health-law provision requiring plans to offer more substantial coverage. Louise Radnofsky has exclusive details on Lunch Break.

The demise of low-cost, low-benefit health plans for students is a consequence of the 2010 health-care overhaul. The law is intended to expand coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, but it is also eliminating some insurance options.

Many students already have coverage through their parents and aren't affected by the changes. Parents who get insurance from an employer have traditionally been able to enroll dependents on their plans up to the age of 22 if they are full-time college students, and about two-thirds of students have that kind of coverage, according a 2008 study by the Government Accountability Office. The health-care law has since increased the age at which children can be on their parents' coverage to 26.

Around 600,000 students, about 7% of the total number of 18-to-23-year-olds in college, bought their own insurance, generally plans arranged by schools for which students pay all the premiums, the GAO study said.

Bethany College in Lindsborg, Kan., this past year offered a 12-month plan that cost students $445, while capping payouts at $10,000. For the 2012-13 academic year, the Obama administration said the payout cap must be at least $100,000. Bethany said students would have had to pay more than $2,000 to get that new level of coverage.

"We decided not to offer coverage for our students next year given the proposed increase in premium," said Bob Schmoll, Bethany's vice president for finance.

Mr. Schmoll said his school wished it could have kept the limited-coverage plan, which he said was a "fairly robust program for the type of need that most students of that age have." Even the old premium was "for many a struggle to pay," he said. Students previously had to sign up for the school's plan if they didn't have other insurance. Now students won't be required to have health coverage.

The new rules are likely to affect a broad swath of American colleges, particularly small ones. Some 60% of schools' plans had coverage of $50,000 or less for specific conditions, and almost all of the rest had some sort of payout caps that they will have to do away with by 2014, the GAO study found.

The Obama administration argues that the most-limited-benefit plans colleges previously offered hardly counted as coverage at all.

"Given today's health system," the plans "wouldn't represent a good value," said Michael Hash, director of the Office of Health Reform at the Department of Health and Human Services. Plans with caps starting at $5,000 or $10,000 "would likely not begin to cover the first day in the hospital," he said.

The 2010 federal health law aims to ensure that all Americans have solid insurance coverage, whether from their employer, a government program or other source. Starting in 2014, people will have new options to buy insurance through exchanges or enroll in the Medicaid program.

Most people will also be required to carry a set level of insurance or pay a penalty. That provision is at the heart of the constitutional challenge to the law, which the Supreme Court is set to rule on by the end of June.

Should the law survive, it will put an end to insurance plans that limit the amount of money they pay out for covered health benefits, and most plans currently have to offer at least $1.25 million in coverage.

Some unions and employers can still offer plans to lower-wage hourly workers that have limited benefits similar to those of the student plans, because they were given waivers by the administration allowing them to continue those plans until 2014. Schools can't apply for the same waivers for student plans.

In all, millions of Americans are likely to be affected as insurance premiums are adjusted in response to new coverage requirements.

Lenoir-Rhyne University of Hickory, N.C., the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Wash., and Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa—all private liberal-arts colleges—have told students they are dropping school-sponsored limited-benefit insurance plans starting in the fall. The three colleges said students' premiums would have gone up roughly tenfold, and they said they could no longer justify making students sign up if they didn't have their own insurance.

Smaller colleges and those serving lower-income students typically have had the skimpier plans, and they are among the first to announce significant changes. Some schools are still deciding what to do next year.

Catholic colleges are concerned about a separate requirement for their insurance plans to start covering contraception without out-of-pocket costs. Two, Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, and Ave Maria University in Florida, have cited both the birth-control requirement and the elimination of lower-benefit plans as reasons they are dropping coverage.

Obama administration officials said they expected only a few schools to drop health-insurance plans entirely.

The administration is phasing in the requirements for the student plans. In the 2013-2014 school year, plans must cover at least $500,000 in medical expenses, and the year after that plans can't have any payout cap.

For those colleges that choose to keep their health-insurance plans, students may see sharply rising premiums.

The State University of New York at Plattsburgh said its 2011-2012 premium was $440 for a plan that covered up to $10,000 for each injury or sickness. Officials said the premium for the coming year would be $1,300 to $1,600 for a plan that meets the new requirements. The school will continue to require students to carry insurance, either through the school or not.

Oregon State University currently arranges a plan for students but doesn't require them to carry coverage. Last year, when the plan covered up to $50,000 in benefits, it cost $2,421 for 12 months, a figure that the school expects to rise.

George Voss of Oregon State's student health service said he worried that increased premiums could lead to fewer healthy students signing up, leaving only the sicker ones and triggering a death spiral of higher premiums and even lower enrollment. "At some point it becomes untenable to have a plan," he said.

Backers of the limited-benefit plans said they enabled students to see doctors and fill prescriptions without significant out-of-pocket costs, and few ran into difficulty because young people rarely have big-ticket medical expenses.

However, those who did "were finding themselves left out in the cold," said Jen Mishory of Young Invincibles, a group that encouraged the Obama administration to move quickly in introducing stiffer coverage requirements. "We wanted to make sure that student health insurance had these protections as soon as possible."

Write to Louise Radnofsky at louise.radnofsky@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303506404577444410947791758.html

65 Comments

65 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

All good reasons to eliminate all health insurance and use Medicare for all - but the republiclans and their owners won't allow it

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Now that would be universal healthcare.

[-] 3 points by votasaurus (62) 2 years ago

Yes

[-] -2 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

And the Democrats WILL? They share ownership with the Republicans, so aside from populist theatrics I doubt that. Post your proof, or pull your post.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

You take that Captain crap pretty seriously don't you? Post your proof, or pull your post. Aye aye Sir! LMFAO.... thanks I needed the laugh.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I'll put my money where my mouth is - I'll bet you $100 - If we get a Democratic majority in the house and Senate and a Democrat in the white house in 2013 - things will change big time
Sure there are rich Democrats too - why are they not in Alec with the kochs?

[-] 3 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

your right things will change for the worst. democrats are the new republicans, they just pass a law with democratic approval mind you sign by obama making protesting in certain area's a felony offense. see things are already changing without a majority.

the problem can't be the solution

[-] 0 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

I see now why other posters here have outed you as a Democratic Party operative, bensdad. First of all, the Democrats had the White House AND a majority in both houses for the 2008 cycle and nothing "changed". Second, it is insanity to do the same thing over and over again expecting different results - like selecting the lesser of two corporate-controlled evils in rigged elections. And third, Democrats in at least 26 states ARE in ALEC:

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/04/11474/pccc-pressures-democratic-members-drop-alec

You are lying here, and you were lying above when you claimed "All good reasons to eliminate all health insurance and use Medicare for all - but the republiclans and their owners won't allow it." Obamacare enriches private insurance companies, and Obama knew that from the gitgo. He's a corporate puppet just like Clinton, Bush, Romney and the rest.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

exactly what date did the Democrats have 60 Democrats in the senate?


I never said NO Democrats were in ALEC You seem very familiar with ALEC can you report the number of Rs & Ds in the membership [ not the corps ]


"but the republiclans and their owners won't allow it." If you take an oath to uphold the Constitution & an oath to grover - who is your owner?

[-] 0 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago
  1. You lie again: I said majority, not 60.

  2. "The number" comes right out of the first paragraph of the link I gave you. Open it. Read it.

  3. "Grover" has nothing to do with the context of this thread. You are all spin and no substance.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

and how could the Democrats get anything done without a "SENATE" defined majority of 60 to stop a filibuster?i

[-] -2 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

This BS about a gridlocked Congress is a farce. The Democrats and Republicans differ only on the wedge issues needed for theatrics to perpetuate the false left-right dichotomy that keeps people fighting each other rather than their corporate fascist oppressors. Bills like AUMF 2001, the USA Patriot Act, NDAA 2012, HR347, HR658, HR3606 and soon NDAA 2013 always sail through with sweeping bipartisan support.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The parties are vastly different on, Fin reform, healthcare public option, citizens united, corp personhood, Voter suppression laws, immigration, gay rights, tax fairness, living/minimum wage, To push the fallacy that the parties are the same minimizes the republican crimes, and serves the 1%.

[-] 0 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

What the Democrats and Republicans agree on is far more damaging and dangerous than the wedge issues on which they supposedly don't. By focusing on those wedge issues, you help keep the people divided and the 1% in power. You're doing all the work for them...

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Fin reform, tax fairness, healthcare public option, citizens united, corp personhood, are not wedge issues! These are the issues that are at the center of the problems in America. These issues allow the 1% to dominate the government. These critical issues have allowed the 1% to steal our government and rig the system against the 99% and to benefit only themselves. To call them wedge issues minimizes the reality and serves the 1%.

[-] 0 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

If you're gonna copy and paste the same comment over and over, then I will reciprocate:

What the Democrats and Republicans agree on is far more damaging and dangerous than the wedge issues on which they supposedly don't. By focusing on those wedge issues, you help keep the people divided and the 1% in power. You're doing all the work for them...

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I haven't cut and paste anything. But if you are gonna just repeat yourself then you obviously have nothing else of value to say. The issues I mentioned are not wedge issues! You and I disagree.! What issues do you think matter to the 99%?. Which issues do dems and repubs agree on? Which issues help the 1%? are you against the 99%? Do you support OWS?

[-] 0 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

The Democrats and Republicans differ only on the wedge issues needed for theatrics to perpetuate the false left-right dichotomy that keeps people fighting each other rather than their corporate fascist oppressors. Bills like AUMF 2001, the USA Patriot Act, NDAA 2012, HR347, HR658, HR3606 and soon NDAA 2013 always sail through with sweeping bipartisan support.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Another cut and paste. The issues you mention are all military related. The problems we (the 99%) have is the class war perpetrated by the 1% on the 99%. Military issues have had 2 party support because the left have lost the backbone to stand up to the right wing. The right has created the "endless war on terror". The left has feared the "soft on defense" label that the right has successfully attached to them. The left has moved towards the right for 30 years. We can pull the left back. We (OWS) can get the left to vote against these issues if we protest constantly, continually. The left has begun to undo the endless war on terror mentality and the fear mongering the right created. Once the left succeeds at that effort (will take years) we can undo these bad laws. Besides the good efforts of the left we have to take it upon ourselves to bring court cases against these bad laws, and protest. Support OWS. Agreed?

[-] -2 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

Reply to VQkag2:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-thought-obamacare-was-supposed-to-be-so-wunnerfu/#comment-755341

What the Democrats and Republicans agree on is far more damaging and dangerous than the wedge issues on which they supposedly don't. By focusing on those wedge issues, you help keep the people divided and the 1% in power. You're doing all the work for them...

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

When the Dems controlled house and senate in 2008 the repubs obstructed with an historic use of the filibuster. The health insurance corps do benefit from the health insurance mandate in Obamacare but that was the compromise dems had to agree to in order to get the 2 or 3 repub votes they needed to defeat the filibuster repubs used.! The dems were pushing the public option. And indeed that is where we are going. The repubs know it, the insurance criminals know it, and you know it. It will come because it is the only way to help the middle/working class. We got our foot in the door now.

[-] 0 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

By "we" you mean the Democratic Party, correct?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

By "we" I mean working/middle class American people now have our foot in the door. Our effort to create another successful gevernment program to protect the people from corp abuse. Social Security, madicare and now Health care for all. It has serious shortfalls, but so did Social security, and we will improve it. If we can stand up and defeat the 1% tools in the repub party.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

the 99%

[-] -1 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

"If we can stand up and defeat the 1% tools in the repub party."

Liar. By "we" you clearly meant the Democratic Party. You're just another partisan plant.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No need for name calling. I told you what I meant by we. I stand by that truth! To expand on the obvious. I believe "WE" (the middle/working class) can make the dems serve us (the 99%) in standing up to the 1% tools (repubs) by protesting in a growing, vibrant, constant movement (OWS) to take this great country and our (99%) government back! OK?

[-] -1 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

The Democratic Party is owned by the same global corporate fascist elite that owns the Republican Party. It cannot be co-opted. You know that, but you just keep right on posting your partisan propaganda garbage over and over and over again, counting on Goebbels' Big Lie theory to be correct.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Goebbels"? That is over the top. We have rules against nazi references. The parties are vastly different on the issues that matter to the 99% Fin reform, health care public option, tax fairness, living/minimum wage, citizens united, corp personhood, Womens equality, immigration, gay rights, To suggest the fallacy that they are the same minimizes the crimes of the repubs and serves the 1%. Your name calling is just schoolyard bullying tactics like your candidate Romney uses. Intimidation doesn't work on line. It simple betrays the weakness in your argument.

[-] 0 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

Just how many times are you going to copy and paste this drivel? You again claim Romney is "my candidate" when everything I post proves neither he nor his twin Obama are "my candidate" as "my candidate" is Nobody! You are a pathetic broken record.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And you continue your abusiveness. Take a breath. We disagree! Thats all. I say Romney is your candidate when you use his schoolyard bullying tactics! Sorry it is what I believe. I identify you as a republican when you push the fallacy that the parties are the same, because that fallacy minimizes the crimes of the republicans against the 99%, and serves the 1%. We disagree. Your name calling doesn't change that!

[-] 0 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

This is an OWS forum. Not a MoveOn.org, Democratic Party or Re-Elect Obama forum. You are a partisan propagandist, and your propaganda is not welcome here.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I can express my opinion just like republican partisans (like you). You are more interested in silencing me than discussing the issues that help the 99%. Silencing people is republican tactics (suppressing the vote) Are you against the 99%? Do you support OWS?

[-] 0 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

Reply to VQkag2:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-thought-obamacare-was-supposed-to-be-so-wunnerfu/#comment-755322

Again you LIE by calling me a republican partisan when anyone reading my posts here will clearly see that I hate the Republicans and the Democrats equally and for the same reasons. You need to stop insulting peoples' intelligence here. That won't get you any votes for Bushbamney...

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I speak for the 99% not the dem party. I am independent! And I believe the duopoly of the American political system requires us to attempt to co opt the party closest to the agenda of the 99%. Who would that be.?

[-] -1 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

Liar... Only an Obamapologist plant like you would post a ridiculous comment like this:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/amerika-neither-land-of-the-free-nor-home-of-the-b/#comment-755384

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No need for name calling! We just disagree. You are republican, and I am independent that believes the dems can be made to serve the 99%

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

LIAR! Calling me a Republican is like calling Jesse Owens a Nazi. You are a paid plant for the Odrona re-election campaign. And if there is a God, I hope he has no mercy on you OR your mass-murdering boss!

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

More childish name calling. Please use your big boy words. And I disagree with the secret drone attacks we are engaged in. I also know that our current military casualties pale in comparison to your boy nixons millions killed in the late sixties in vietnam/laos, Nixons millions killed in South America, and cambodia in the early seventies, millions more slaughtered in east timor by ford, millions killed in central america by reagan in the 80's. Bush I hundreds of thousands in iraq, Bush II millions in Iraq/afghan! To compare the few dozen killed by Pres Obama to those millions is simply an effort to minimize the repub crimes of real mass murder. I'm against our secret drone bombings but I know it represents an improvement. Why don't you rail against your repub friends on the congressional house committee that should be attempting to end these actions.? because you are clearly a repub plant.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Good thing they will be receiving healthcare insurance from their jobs.

http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=1618

Or they may be covered under insurance provided by their parents place of employment. Kinda looks like your argument requires a narrow field of view and omission of any relevant data.

[-] -2 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

OR NOT.

Try again, you're reaching AND FLAILING.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

the new law requires employers to carry health insurance for employees. The new law also allows kids to stay on their parents healthcare insurance until they are 26. Typing in caps won't change reality.

[-] -2 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

Which is why rates are going up so GD much that employers are dropping plans altogether and leaving employees without any coverage.

Being stupid won't change that reality.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Then they can pay the tax penalty :D

[-] -1 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

Won't happen. A stake will be driven through it's heart by SCOTUS !!!

[-] 2 points by GringoFrijolero (38) 2 years ago

We need more health care professional and facilities. Medical education and health care should be free (paid for by the rich).

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

ohhhh ... poor Peacup ... u are so scared .... get past the fear ... and do some research ... it's All about helping the poor ... not helping the rich

[-] 1 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 2 years ago

Low income students will get a subsidy to pay for most of the premium (depending on income). They will have to go out and get their own plan if the college chooses to drop it. But the coverage will be much better than what they currently have for less money (if they are low income). And if they make less than $15,000 they will get free Medicaid coverage.

[-] -1 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

No, you don't know if the coverage will be better or not. You're just shooting in the dark because you don't know what else to say and how to defend the failures of obamacare, so you just make it up as you go along.

[-] 1 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 2 years ago

I'm just stating facts that refute the Wall Street Journal story. I'm not making anything up. The fact is students will have free Medicaid coverage if they make less than 15k. That is better then them paying 440 a year for coverage that the max payment is only 10,000 per illness or injury. What is it that I am making up?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

it helps students cause they can stay on the parents insurance until they are 26. if you are a student past the age of 26.. too bad.. you are grown now.

[-] 1 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

So you found a small gap to make in a plan that ensures coverage for many more Americans than once had it. You could replace 90% percent of this post by cutting the giant copy paste and just ask, how can we get student 27 and above affordable coverage.

If you want to bash ObamaCare, don't bash the numbers receiving coverage because more will have it now. If you want to bash it (which I'm sure you're seeking any excuse), bash it for having no fundamental cost controls.

[-] -1 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

I'll bash it because it's a 2000+ page POS bill that no one read and got rammed through in the dead of night instead of paying attention to the sinking economy. He did it for votes, PERIOD. He needs to be defeated and sent packing (as well as that senile fool Harry Reid and that half-assed fluzzy Nanceee Pelosi).

[-] 2 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

"rammed through in the dead of night"? lol. Seriously, quit quoting talking points from commercials and think. It was debated and discussed publicly before ever going though the house or senate. It was a pretty damn public process.

So what is your problem with the bill. Be specific. And keep in mind the one upside is more people are covered. And keep in mind also that the mandate came from a Republican think tank, and Obama opposed the idea in 2008 while the GOP defended it.

[-] 0 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

It was voted on and passed at 2am. It was not at all public. It was crafted behind closed doors and as Pelosi stated "We have to pass the bill SO you can see what's in it".

My problem with the bill are all the mandates and subsidies that government has put in place when they have no right to. They need to stay the fook out of the private market.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

Why does young college-aged person need health insurance anyways? I make it point to stay away from doctors. Not because I think I'm invulnerable, but because I know they'll just fabricate a diagnosis. Then they'll prescribe with a medication that harms my body and I'll be back to the clinic in no time with actual health problems. That's just one way they make their money.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by justiceforzim (-17) 2 years ago

Obamacare is the epitomy of Hope and Change. Cannot believe how he suckered the folks that voted for him. Find it incomprehensilble that these folks are gonna double down on him. Fool me once.....

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

The more he does, the worse things get. See how that works?

[-] 1 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Kind of like how bad things got in Mass. when Romney was Governor?

[-] -1 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

How bad did they get? Did the Charles River become lined with the tents of unemployed auto workers?

Don't get me wrong: Romney is a corporate puppet just like Obama. Just don't try to suggest here that one is less worthless and corrupt than the other.

[-] 2 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

30-47th in the nation for job creation. Ouch!

[-] -2 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

You're doing it wrong:

You say "30-47th in the nation for job creation."

I say:

What is your source (link)?

Define "job creation" and disclose your metric for measuring it.

30th to 47th? Helluva variation, no?

If the state had full employment, that would be great but his "job creation" rank could be no higher than 50th.

Get it, Grasshopper?

[-] 3 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Go Google it. Don't be lazy.

Or just do whatever you need to do to convince yourself that Mittens wasn't a failure, who just happens to be in bed with the 1%. Why support someone who a) sucks at creating jobs, and b) is a 1% bully? Perhaps you are the grasshopper...

[-] -2 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

Quoting myself from earlier in this thread: "Romney is a corporate puppet just like Obama. Just don't try to suggest here that one is less worthless and corrupt than the other."

Now crawl back into your egg shell, Grasshopper. You hatched too soon.

[-] 0 points by CaptainTony (-145) 2 years ago

Just as it was with Dubya before him, Slick Willy before him, etc ad nauseum.

[-] -2 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

Bu...bu....but....but...but...but...C H A N G E ????????????