FYI...a timely discussion considering Don and Mary's plight and the
costs involved.

TMT

http://www.aarp.org/health/health-ca...explained.html

Health Care Reform Explained

The New Health Care Law and Annual and Lifetime Coverage Limits
Your questions answered

by: Susan Jaffe | from: AARP Bulletin | August 23, 2010

— Red James/Getty Images
Q. Does the new health care reform law eliminate annual and lifetime
limits on health care coverage in insurance policies?

Yes. On Sept. 23, lifetime limits are effectively banned for all plans
that begin or are renewed after that date. Insurance companies can no
longer cut off policy holders when their medical expenses reach a
lifetime limit. Annual limits on coverage will be phased out over the
next few years, beginning this year.

Currently, more than 100 million Americans have insurance that stops
when medical claims exceed their policy’s lifetime limit. The new rule
especially will help people with serious diseases that require
expensive treatment. Ten percent of cancer patients surveyed recently
said they hit their lifetime limit and their insurers would not pay
for further medical care. Federal health officials mention the example
of an Indiana teenager battling leukemia who reached the $1 million
lifetime limit on his family’s policy in a couple of months. To pay
for his bone marrow transplant, his desperate parents appealed to the
public for donations and raised more than $500,000.

The law phases out these annual limits over a period of three years:
in the first year, insurers must cover medical expenses up to at least
$750,000. That coverage rises to $1.45 million after Sept. 23, 2011
and increases to $2 million after Sept. 23, 2012. Limits will be
completely banned starting Jan. 1, 2014.

The ban on annual and lifetime limits applies to employer-sponsored
and individual plans, but only for the cost of what the law calls
“essential health benefits.” The law provides examples of these
benefits, but the specifics will be spelled out in regulations to be
issued by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Patient
advocacy groups are hoping that the government will decide that a wide
range of health care services must be covered.

There are other exceptions to the ban. It doesn’t apply to so-called
“grandfathered” plans, which are insurance policies in existence when
the health care reform bill was signed into law March 23, 2010 that do
not significantly raise premiums or reduce benefits.

• Are Medicare supplemental and Medicare Advantage plans also
prohibited from limiting coverage?

Yes, for the most part, but not because of the health care reform
law’s ban. Medicare supplemental insurance (medigap) and Medicare
Advantage plans are regulated by earlier laws that already prohibit
annual and lifetime limits. However, medigap policies sold before 1992
can impose limits.

Medicare Advantage plans have no lifetime limits because they have to
offer coverage that is at least as good as traditional Medicare, says
Vicki Gottlich, senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare
Advocacy in Washington, D.C. “There has never been a cap on the total
amount of benefits for which Medicare will pay,” she explains. So
Medicare Advantage plans have to follow suit.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 00:06:45 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

FYI...a timely discussion considering Don and Mary's plight and the
costs involved.

TMT


Don already stated that he is able to provide for his family's medical
expense needs without any welfare from Obama, such as the type that is
needed by liberals.

Why don't you substitute your own sorry family into the story instead,
as an example, so the rest of us can better understand how sad it is
to be a sorry assed liberal?

On Mar 6, 12:17*pm, Boris Kapusta wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 00:06:45 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools

wrote:
FYI...a timely discussion considering Don and Mary's plight and the
costs involved.

TMT

Don already stated that he is able to provide for his family's medical
expense needs without any welfare from Obama, such as the type that is
needed by liberals.

Why don't you substitute your own sorry family into the story instead,
as an example, so the rest of us can better understand how sad it is
to be a sorry assed liberal

Facts are facts.

Don refused to discuss the cost that Mary's ongoing care is costing
both him and society.

That is his choice and I have respected it...and I do still wish Mary
the best.

Considering that cancer will affect many of us...

http://www.cancer.org/Research/CancerFactsFigures/index

......knowledge of how Obamacare has and will positively affect one's
finances is valuable to know.

Whether or not you want to admit it or not, Mary is benefitting
directly from Obamacare NOW.

And the cancellation of Obamacare would adversely affect Mary and her
continuing care....along with millions of other Americans in the same
situation.

Now if you have something positive to offer to the discussion, then
please contribute it.

But so far you are the one who is the "sorry assed" individual...par
for the course.

TMT

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 18:58:08 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:



Whether or not you want to admit it or not, Mary is benefitting
directly from Obamacare NOW.

Wrong. Mary is benefitting from Medicare which dates back to 1965 and
into which we both contributed for decades. We've paid our dues.
Beyond that, she is benefitting from private supplemental insurance
which we have carried since retirement.

And the cancellation of Obamacare would adversely affect Mary and her
continuing care....along with millions of other Americans in the same
situation.

You obviously know little about Obamacare, nothing about Mary's
situation, or both. Obamacare is/will be of no benefit to Mary or
millions of other Americans in the same situation. Quite the contrary.
It will make some meds more expensive due to fees and taxes on
branded drugs and medical devices, and will make our supplemental
insurance more expensive due to annual fee on insurance providers.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 18:58:08 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:



Don refused to discuss the cost that Mary's ongoing care is costing
both him and society.

That's right.

That is his choice and I have respected it...and I do still wish Mary
the best.

But you continue to bandy our names about and snidely label her care
as "a cost to society" ignoring the fact that we paid into society
(FICA, Medicare, etc) via regular significant payroll deductions for
45 years.

--OBTW Blue Cross just raised our rates again: 15% this time. Had my
secretary run the numbers: since 2000 Blue Cross has raised the rates for me
and my wife by 350%!! Wanna know where the recession came from? There's your
answer.

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Steel, Stainless, Titanium:
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : Guaranteed Uncertified Welding!
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

On Mar 6, 3:06*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
FYI...a timely discussion considering Don and Mary's plight and the
costs involved.

TMT

http://www.aarp.org/health/health-ca...010/hcr_explai...

Health Care Reform Explained

The New Health Care Law and Annual and Lifetime Coverage Limits
Your questions answered

by: Susan Jaffe | from: AARP Bulletin | August 23, 2010

— Red James/Getty Images
Q. Does the new health care reform law eliminate annual and lifetime
limits on health care coverage in insurance policies?

Yes. On Sept. 23, lifetime limits are effectively banned for all plans
that begin or are renewed after that date. Insurance companies can no
longer cut off policy holders when their medical expenses reach a
lifetime limit. Annual limits on coverage will be phased out over the
next few years, beginning this year.

Currently, more than 100 million Americans have insurance that stops
when medical claims exceed their policy’s lifetime limit. The new rule
especially will help people with serious diseases that require
expensive treatment. Ten percent of cancer patients surveyed recently
said they hit their lifetime limit and their insurers would not pay
for further medical care. Federal health officials mention the example
of an Indiana teenager battling leukemia who reached the $1 million
lifetime limit on his family’s policy in a couple of months. To pay
for his bone marrow transplant, his desperate parents appealed to the
public for donations and raised more than $500,000.

The law phases out these annual limits over a period of three years:
in the first year, insurers must cover medical expenses up to at least
$750,000. That coverage rises to $1.45 million after Sept. 23, 2011
and increases to $2 million after Sept. 23, 2012. Limits will be
completely banned starting Jan. 1, 2014.

The ban on annual and lifetime limits applies to employer-sponsored
and individual plans, but only for the cost of what the law calls
“essential health benefits.” The law provides examples of these
benefits, but the specifics will be spelled out in regulations to be
issued by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Patient
advocacy groups are hoping that the government will decide that a wide
range of health care services must be covered.

There are other exceptions to the ban. It doesn’t apply to so-called
“grandfathered” plans, which are insurance policies in existence when
the health care reform bill was signed into law March 23, 2010 that do
not significantly raise premiums or reduce benefits.

• Are Medicare supplemental and Medicare Advantage plans also
prohibited from limiting coverage?

Yes, for the most part, but not because of the health care reform
law’s ban. Medicare supplemental insurance (medigap) and Medicare
Advantage plans are regulated by earlier laws that already prohibit
annual and lifetime limits. However, medigap policies sold before 1992
can impose limits.

Medicare Advantage plans have no lifetime limits because they have to
offer coverage that is at least as good as traditional Medicare, says
Vicki Gottlich, senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare
Advocacy in Washington, D.C. “There has never been a cap on the total
amount of benefits for which Medicare will pay,” she explains. So
Medicare Advantage plans have to follow suit.

Additional information related to the subject..

TMT

Ranks of cancer survivors growing fast, CDC says
By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer Mike Stobbe, Ap Medical Writer
Thu Mar 10, 1:02 pm ET

ATLANTA – The number of cancer survivors in the United States is
increasing by hundreds of thousands a year, and now includes roughly
one in 20 adults, health officials said Thursday.

More people are surviving cancer, in part, because of earlier
detection and better treatment, they said.

In 2007, there were about 11.7 million Americans with a history of
cancer, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. Forty
years ago, the number of cancers survivors was about 3 million. That
increased to 10 million in 2001 and to 11.4 million in 2006.

Healthy eating, less smoking and other preventive steps may also be
playing a role in the increase, health officials said.

"There are some cancers that we can't prevent and they are terrible
tragedies," said CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden. "But there are many
that are preventable, or if caught early can result in much longer
life."

Demographics are a factor in the survivor increase, too. Cancer is
most common in people 65 and older, and the nation's elderly
population is growing. The CDC said 7 million — 60 percent — of the
cancer survivors were 65 or older.

Women diagnosed with breast cancer made up the largest share of cancer
survivors, at 22 percent, followed by men with prostate cancer, at 19
percent.

The estimates from the CDC and the National Cancer Institute were
based on information from nine U.S. cancer patient registries.

The survivor count includes anyone who had a cancer diagnosis,
including people who had been successfully treated as well as those
still getting treated or who may be dying from the disease. About 65
percent had survived for at least five years, and 40 percent for 10
years or more.

___

Online:

CDC report: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr