Slashdot Mirror
Obamacare Could Help Fuel a Tech Start-Up Boom
dcblogs writes "The arrival of Obamacare may make it easier for some employees to quit their full-time jobs to launch tech start-ups, work as a freelance consultant, or pursue some other solo career path. Most tech start-up founders are older and need health insurance. 'The average age of people who create a tech start-up is 39, and not 20-something,' said Bruce Bachenheimer, who heads Pace University's Entrepreneurship Lab. Entrepreneurs are willing to take on risks, but health care is not a manageable risk, he said. 'There is a big difference between mortgaging your house on something you can control, and risking going bankrupt by an illness because of something you can't control,' said Bachenheimer. Donna Harris, the co-founder of the 1776 incubation platform in Washington, believes the healthcare law will encourage more start-ups. 'You have to know that there are millions of Americans who might be fantastic and highly successful entrepreneurs who are not pursuing that path because of how healthcare is structured,' said Harris"
Bachmann said Job Killing Regulations!
You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.
It’s just common sense.
If th e US has a civilized Health Care system, I would start my own business much easier. Or join a start up without worrying about health care.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
One of the things the haters don't get is how big an implicit tax we pay because we don't have universal health care. Other countries pay far less per person, with far less risk. You may not be thinking about it when you're 20 something and healthy, but in a moment you can lose everything because you're not covered.
I've worked in the medical device start-up world for about 10 years now. The 2.3% tax imposed by Obamacare has really hurt. Because it's a tax on gross, not net, it makes it much harder for small companies to turn a profit. So funding has been drying up.
At least in the US. Because of the way the tax is calculated, imported products have an advantage. So funding is shifting OUS.
It's hard to know where best to direct criticism of this arrant, political nonsense. Obamacare, at least for the specious reasons given above, will have zero net effect on people in their late 30s deciding whether or no to begin a startup. MANY startups operate with no health insurance right now, regardless of the age of the participants. I've personally been a part of or otherwise associated with multiple startups with principals in their 50s or older, with existing health conditions, who have intentionally pulled out of employer provided health insurance to begin their startup, or who moved to private (Expensive) healthcare coverage and ultimately had to drop out of it as their startups cratered and they ran out of money. Like any other form of tax, Obamacare's net results will be negative in employment, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something - likely, statism.
My coworker tried to found a startup last year, in Canada. No healthcare issues for him, since we get free healthcare (except for dental, drugs etc, that goes through employer benefits). The VCs were interested, but NONE of them put money down. To get startups off the ground there needs to be a supply of investment, and willing investors. I bet in the US there are plenty of startup ideas and founders RIGHT NOW, but VCs are being too conservative. Healthcare is only a tiny piece of the puzzle.
That simply doesn't wash. While I certainly want everyone to have coverage and to get the best treatment, the fact is, BY LAW in the United States, no hospital can refuse to provide essential care. I have a friend who had breast cancer, and who went through the entire course of treatment without paying a penny. I have another who suffered kidney failure and went through years of dialysis -- without paying a dime.
The real killer is *being*out*of*work. You're so sick, you can't work, so you have no income. For that, health insurance (whether Obamacare or something else) doesn't do a thing. You need coverage to pay the bills while you're out of work.
THAT'S why people go bankrupt.
Not taking sides either way, I'm just pointing that out. The fact is, also under the law, even if you have assets, as long as you pay the hospital what you can afford (even if it's only $5 a week), they can't do anything to you. If they take you to court, you can tell the judge: I was out of work for a year, I can afford to pay them $25 a month and that's it. The judge will almost always agree.
I've been in court and have watched it happen.
Again: you can make an argument for universal health care. But I just wanted to set the record straight about that.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
Lack of universal healthcare is holding back enterpreneurs....so is there any evidence in countries that do currently have some sort of universal healthcare system that this encourages entrepreneurship? Is the UK a hotbed of high tech startups?
It reduces one impediment to people doing something different.
I can't begin to imagine how many people I've worked with over the years that have only worked somewhere because of the health benefits. Make the health benefits no longer an issue and you gain better competition in the market for where people can work. Remove the barrier and all of a sudden a lot of places that previously would not have attracted enterprise class talent open up.
The fact that some of these places are starts ups is largely incidental. Think of it this way, something like 40% of fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants. Why? Because they were hardworking and didn't have anything holding them back.
I know I've turned down employment opportunities for a lack of viable health insurance for my family, I have to imagine that I'm far from the only one. What happens when people are no longer held back by this very practical concern and can go for broke like the immigrant entrepreneur?
Any company in the United States with one or two employees can already obtain guaranteed issue group health insurance. http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/small-group-guaranteed-issue/
A single consultant can create a two person company by hiring their wife. An entrepreneur who is not smart enough to obtain health insurance is probably not smart enough to create a successful company.
How does passing a law that causes individual health plans to increase in cost, incentivize someone to quit their job and and lose their employer subsidized health plan?
true, but they are specifically target a demographic that has traditionally been held back by needing health care.
Frankly, I suspect its' why large corporations don't get behind universal health care. They can't trap employees. At least that's the only reason I can think of since a good national health care system would save them money, and be consist and predicable in the books.
Obviously there could be another reason and I simple didn't find it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/dec2010/sb20101210_839038.htm
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Oh, sure. And we had prosperous booms without computers, too. That people succeeded without something isn't evidence that having it won't help them.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
So... You are planning to risk everything on a start up when you have the added monthly cost of health insurance? This isn't free insurance, and the average price for a family is going up $7,500 because of it. If anything this is going to make people less likely to start up a business then risk loosing employer contributions.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/
Really, "any other form" of tax "will be negative in employment"? Not strong on economics, I think. Reality here, as it usually is, lies in the middle. I'm already on private insurance and welcome Obamacare. If not for me, then for other people who might join any startup I might create.
Broken Window Fallacy
That is a load of bull. Any startup would have to have 50+ employees before being required to offer health care. And then the cost under ACA is much less. Stop spreading your misinformed lies.
If you say, have some disease, and it is cured, and you want health coverage, you are stuck in your present job with it's present health coverage. Change jobs, and ooopsies, it's a preexisting condition. So a friend of my spouse who had breast cancer, is stuck in her job. Because if it recurs, which isn't likely at this point, but possible, she is bankrupt.
And despite all the hate, there is a lit fuse in the present system. People without health care do get treatment for their illnesses and minor issues. They go to the Emergency room. There, they get the most expensive treatment available to people - emergency room care. Before my father passed away last year, he was in the emergency room three times. And it was a little strange. Most of the people there just seemed to have minor problems, like sore throats, colds, sick kids. I'd asked about that, and the eanswer was "it's poor folk with no insurance." But rest assured that it is paid for, by your's and my premiums, and by Government.
The problem is, as insurance costs go up, and people drop off the rolls, the emergency room will become more and more used for more and more people. A real positive feedback loop, Eventually no one except people who can pay for their medical bills out of hand will afford health insurance. Then, unless we are going to force peole to go without medical treatment, we'll have a bizzare form of universal coverage. Not a good idea at all.
Reading the opposition plan, it is some bafflegab about doing the same thing as we are doing now, except for more bafflegab about affordability.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If you have a stable job, don't burn any bridges too soon. The two paths this will take will be vaporware or custerfluck. Neither of which are desireable options for the dutifully-employed.
If you're unemployed, can code, and don't already do consulting for scraps - make sure the scope of what you take on is well defined. This behemoth will not be easily scoped or contained.
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
A new startup might produce less than 133% of the federal poverty rate of income for the founder, initially. That would force the founder to either go on Medicaid (which is by any objective measure, sub-par coverage*), or pay full price on the exchanges (the founder, no matter how little he/she makes, will not be eligible for subsidies because Medicaid is available to him/her.
So, health insurance may still be an unaffordable luxury for someone trying to found a new company, especially in the early stage where finances are very tight. Our hypothetical founder also cannot wait until he/she is ill to then try to get insurance on the exchange-- the law only provides for a short open enrollment period with the only exceptions for major life events like a new baby, or losing ones employment.
* Medicaid is not accepted by most physicians (except pediatricians). Those on Medicaid must go to a few low-income health clinics. Several reports of a study come up in the first page of a google search for "cancer outcomes medicaid" (w/out quotes). If the results of the study are valid, then having Medicaid and cancer is _worse_ than being uninsured with cancer.
People who start tech companies is 39 is because they get laid off and replaced with a know-nothing 23-year-old when they are 38.
I would expect a refund for each day this gubmint is shut down !! And by all means do NOT pay those 'leaders' who caused this !!
Vigorously Defends It From Man Who Understands 5%
Healthcare is one major reason I decided to move back to Canada and work in a self employed situation. Here people can work two part time jobs if they want, or start a business and not worry about having to buy into basic health care plans. Many companies do offer supplementary insurance though. Even our own family company is thinking of doing that.
Obviously freedom means different things to different people. Guess at least half the republican party sees things differently.
lol at this quote from your article:
So what's different in Europe that might account for the better relative performance of small business? First, taxes are lower. After Japan, the U.S. has the next highest corporate tax rate among industrialized nations and a higher rate than all of Europe.
The paranoia certainly has fueled profits for right-wing talk and "news" shows.
Table-ized A.I.
What exactly do they mean by tech startup? The 40 year old project manager for a software company that leaves to consult with an existing customer base to increase freedom/pay? Or the Elon Musk starting a new billion dollar venture? I guess they're both tech, and they're both startups, but the current industry definition of tech startup only really applies to the latter, while the age of the people being mentioned are the people that go into small time consulting after they're tired of the corporate world and realize that the company is charging the customer $200/hr while you're being paid $50/hr to render service
I suppose capital which will enable startups will fall from the
sky once all Americans are "insured" ? Yeah, sure. We will all
be able to finally devote our time to that startup we have dreamed
of creating, because somehow the US economy will magically become
so much healthier that loans will be easily available to anyone who wants
a loan. Of course this is false, and the idea that Obamacare will somehow
result in an increase in startups is equally false.
Regarding Obamacare and how well US citizens will be taken care of under it,
here is a dose of reality :
There are a great many people who won't be able to afford either the high insurance payments
required to be able to have a low deductible, or if they pay only the smaller payments they
can afford, they will have a deductible which is so large that it will be tantamount to having no
insurance whatsoever because they won't be able to pay the cost of the deductible.
It is all nothing more than another lie which has been used to screw the average citizen
yet again. Obamacare is a tax in disguise and won't benefit anyone but health care providers.
AS this fiasco is at the start projected to be 1.5 Trillion short after the first year..... So get that big new money you are expecting all loaded up to pay the extra tax that will have to paid soon....because since the IRS is essentially controlling administrator...and they have hired over 1000 extra law enforcement types....they will be coming for that money....one way or the other.
Everything subsidized goes up in price. Communism and socialism do not work no matter how many people are enslaved. I'm looking forward to all the communists and socialist being run out of America on a raft. One will have obama on it headed back to Indonesia...
The article you linked to makes no mention of healthcare being a factor, but *gasp* lower taxes, lower regulatory barriers, and better access to capital.
You may want to read things before using them to justify your position, or you end up looking silly.
Read the laws again. The law merely requires facilities that accept Medicare and provide emergency care to provide "stabilizing" treatment to emergency conditions without regard to ability to pay. Once you are stable, it is perfectly legal to toss you out the door. Your friend likely found a facility that was willing to cover her cancer under their charitable care program (some level of unpaid care is required in most states for non-profit hospitals.) If your friend had needed a transplant, she would have discovered the limits of that care. (People routinely die due to inability to get transplants covered; they are just too expensive for most hospitals to write off.) Dialysis is ALWAYS covered by Medicare as soon as four months elapse, no matter your age. But you need to find somebody to cover those four months, unless you want to head to the ER every time you crash. This is by no means guaranteed. You most certainly can be refused "essential" care, as long as you are not in danger of dying right there in the lobby. (As in, they'll treat you if you are about to fall into a diabetic coma, but aren't at all required to provide you with a monitor and strips (much less insulin) long-term to keep it from happening again.)
Next, there is no law saying that hospitals (or anybody) cannot collect on debt as long as you are making minimal payments. They can pursue debt collection equal to the efforts of any other unsecured creditor. And yes, if you show up and offer up what you can, the judge may take you up on your payment plan... but that's not set in stone and varies widely by state.
And yes, being out of work drives people to bankruptcy, but so do unaffordable co-pays and deductibles, policies with horrible annual limits, policies with limited coverage, unaffordable drugs, sudden catastrophe without insurance (it doesn't take much), etc. The paths to medical bankruptcy are many.
If you have a "serious" pre-existing condition (and the criteria for what that means is VERY broad), absent Obamacare, it's VERY difficult (and in many cases impossible) to obtain insurance. And what insurance is available is often utterly unaffordable and or horrible. (Any pre-existing condition you have will usually be outright excluded, along with childbirth.)
With Obamacare, those in excellent health will indeed pay more for coverage, but those in anything less than excellent health will now be able to obtain usable insurance outside of an employer group plan.
This is a bullshit stretch. Because Obamacare is forcing people out of a full time job does not mean that those affected will spur an innovation.
The more pragmatic look at this paradigm is that people will look for other part-time jobs to fill the revenue void. The downside tp this is that they will not be of any real value to society.
Yeah, just like Buffett's line of (paraphrased) "Nobody ever decided not to earn another dollar because they would have to pay tax on it".
That my mom is paying 750+ a month in medical coverage, and would've been paying 1300+ on the equivalent of the plan she had in 2000 when it only cost 150, yeah it almost *IS* a death sentence, especially if you're not as well as she was financially (Quite a bit less now that before, given that they've spent a few hundred thousand on medical insurance for the past 10ish years and mostly gotten stiffed on actually getting the testing and other preventative steps they should've gotten early to help avoid longer-term issues.) Additionally family members with the exact same plan but also old enough to qualify for medicare got *MUCH* better service because they could bill all the extra tests against medicare allowing them to profit handsomely.
This is with Kaiser BTW.
Go on then - tell us what your interpretation of the doubleplusgood Randian word "statism" means in equivalent English. Feel free to use big words like "authoritarianism" or "philosophy" if you've picked them up since graduation from every child wins a prize school.
I'm sick of personal definitions that can even go as far as reverse meanings for the same thing elsewhere. If you are going to shove such a thing in somebodies face, expect them to guess how it's been twisted this time, and then have a go at them for not picking up the twist by telepathy then expect to be called out on it until you explain what you actually mean. Such petty bullying is annoying but you were hoping it would only be read by people with zero self esteem didn't you?
The problem is the medical system itself uses ineffective and cost inefficient methods favored by certain suppliers e.g. the pharmaceuticals.
I have a family member with stage IV cancer, once considered hopeless. Cost at this point is normally $1-2 million and certain death by 1-2 years ago. We used family science capabilities to identify, choose and use foreign, off-label and natural treatments. Some are not even allowed in the USA because, get this, they were not toxic enough for the FDA. Our cost to date? Under $40,000, alive and doing well several years later.
How much is Obamacare worth to us? Nothing, wouldn't pay most bills, so actually a negative value, subsidizing insistently dangerous interference. Better to just pay cash.
This is exactly why the Freelancer's Union exists. Saying that ObamaCare is going to spawn a tech start-up boom is just grasping for straws.
Great, you guys managed to identify a small subset that may benefit. So specifically, those with PEC's may benefit from leaving their job to found a startup. Everyone else is disincentivized with higher costs to pay for other's PEC coverage, particularly the younger crowd who is more likely to found a startup. Chances are, someone with a PEC will end up paying more than they would through eployer based coverage.
The level of the taxes is not really important. What is at stake is what you get for the taxes. If taxes pay for education and healthcare, businesses get educated and healthy workers. If it pays a war in Iraq, it just benefits businesses linked to defense (well.. I should say war instead of defense).
A bit of FUD in the article about pre-existing conditions, but it is a typical misunderstanding. You aren't assigned Pre-X unless you previously didn't have insurance. The idea is to prevent everyone else on the plan from paying for a dead-beats who only buy in when they get sick. Health insurance isn't a payment plan, the idea is to insure before you get sick. To this end you can expect the changes to Pre-X to cause your own health coverage to increase in cost, as you now have to cover the costs of people who never paid the first dollar into the plan. The main reason people don't have health coverage isn't because of they might have a few months of pre-x assigned, it is because they can't afford it because health insurance is absurdly expensive. Health insurance is expensive because health care is expensive, it isn't a complex concept. At this point I don't think anyone is operating with the delusion that obamacare was intended to decrease the costs of healthcare.
The real harm in obamacare is the play-or-pay provision. It attempts to force employers to cover full time employees. Sadly, on variable hour employees, the law specifies that a company has to offer coverage for employees working more than 30 hours per week on average. Which makes more financial sense to you, pay for healthcare coverage for a 32 hour employee, or reduce them to 29 hours per week? My company develops software to manage benefits plans for large employers, and I've yet to see a company choose the former option as opposed to the latter.
Obamacare slightly reduces the cost of insurance for older people (like me) but then materially increases the cost for young males and in other ways in practice. Ever look at the demographics of a tech startup beyond a founder? At my startup, we pay for good insurance for our employees and while maybe my individual insurance is slightly cheaper, that is apparently buried in the noise floor of the increasing costs for the total employee pool. And the small difference in individual cost for older individuals does not materially alter the risk calculus for the individual in terms of whether they'll start a tech company.
It would be nice to see a little honesty that the law as written will be terrible for a lot of people. Including, empirically, tech startups. The percentage increases per employee are not small at all going forward and I know a lot of tech startups that are trying figure out if and how they can bury those new costs. I'm sure there are many policies that would reduce the direct costs for startups but this wasn't it, and predictably so. Perhaps media spin artists can contrive politically palatable scenarios where it reduces some startup's cost slightly while out here in the real world there has been a substantial increase in the cost of providing health insurance at tech startups.
Consequently, the idea that this reality will fuel a tech startup boom is some pretty strained reasoning. It may have some benefits but this won't be one of them. Obamacare might have helped some people but tech startups do not seem to be among them.
There's nothing you can do to fix healthcare. Just look at how much it takes up of our GDP. It's like that way because the powers that be want to keep it that way. Remember BlueCross BlueShield? Now they're just a laughing stock of what they actually cover. Too many clinics game the system and make sure that you foot most of the bill. They don't care who you are. Healthcare is a joke for the most part. Consider yourself extremely lucky if you find a primary care that is not self-absorbed and will actually provide useful services and information to you.
Well he IS called Scareduck afterall.....
I can't wait. I have spent a decade without it, with no employer willing to fund it. Changing jobs, working more hours, additional education, more years of experience, etc. never helped. Save for a few months years ago, I have not been able to afford the self insurance premiums.
Tomorrow I can.
They/we may need medical insurance but this isn't it. Just because I'm dying of thirst in the desert doesn't mean that I am going to drink the glycol with water out of the radiator.
--------
The problem is the medical system itself uses corrupted, ineffective and extraordinarily cost inefficient methods favored by certain suppliers e.g. the pharmaceuticals.
I have a family member with stage IV cancer, once considered truly hopeless. Cost at this point is normally $1-2 million and certain death, usually gone 1-2 years ago. We used family science capabilities to identify, choose and use foreign, off-label and natural treatments. Some are not even allowed in the USA because, get this, they were not toxic enough for FDA approval !! Our cost to date? Under $40,000, alive and doing well several years later.
How much is Obamacare worth to us? Nothing, wouldn't pay most bills, so actually a negative value, subsidizing insistently dangerous interference. Better to just pay cash.
This is universal law. Everything you get for "free" and every subsidy you get must be paid for by someone else.
If you say, have some disease, and it is cured, and you want health coverage, you are stuck in your present job with it's present health coverage. Change jobs, and ooopsies, it's a preexisting condition. So a friend of my spouse who had breast cancer, is stuck in her job. Because if it recurs, which isn't likely at this point, but possible, she is bankrupt.
HIPAA which passed in 1997 made it so that no insurance could consider something a pre existing condition if you've had less than 63 days since you last had health insurance. You're hyperbolic example has been false for 15 years. That beneficial treatment is exactly why the expensive COBRA bridge option exists and why people pay for it.
And while I support Obamacare, I also agree that since the government has seen fit to delay so many of the parts that required insurers to do things then the right thing to do is to delay the rest of it until such time as the government is prepared to enforce ALL parts of the law.
I disagree. I for one don't want to work any harder because the rate of return becomes too low. It's just not worth my time. Losing half of your income to taxes is very demoralizing (6% state, 25% federal, 8% sales tax, ~10% home property tax, ~1% car tax).
This is just another case of conservatives (this time the slashdot variety, but that isn't terribly important) trying to jockey for position to take credit if the Health Insurance Company Bailout Act of 2010 works out well for anyone beyond just the insurance industry. They are planting the ideas of possible potential benefits so that they can say "we told you so" if they pan out. As much as they are bitching (read: exhibiting massive grandstanding) on capital hill right now, the conservatives put themselves in the ultimate can't-lose position here; if it works they can say it was based on what Romney did and if it doesn't they can say it was overreaching.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
By keeping workers as serfs to their and their children's medical needs the capitalists have kept wages down and mobility on their side, even during the tech boom, how much knowledge and experience was kept in billion dollar corporate hands instead of joining a startup or founding a company not due to free choice but rather the need to make sure little timmy got his braces and little Susie got her insulin pump.
job security is already a goner, pensions are an endangered species in the private sector and the oblong box in the corner of the room keeps the people mystified and jealous of public workers who hung on to their pensions and insurance instead of being pissed that theirs were stolen to buy another private island for the CEO.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
A million do nothing middle layer people shuffling papers around that won't actually help anyone get any better healthcare.
Yeah thats something alright...
Health is a risk for any entrepreneur and their family. If we could spread that risk across everyone for potential entrepreneurs (i.e. Insurance), we cultivate entrepreneurs. In my management class 101 (if my education is relevant), there are the traditional 3 resources: land, labor, & capital. The fourth is entrepreneurship. Cultivating entrepreneurs is like growing a garden, stewarding land, enabling labor, and freeing up capital. Here are the risks: environment (hurricanes or blight for example), disease (think of plague, cancer), lack of investment markets (think of safety, information honesty, insider trading), and health to entrepreneurs (among other things). But, the question remains, does healthcare improve health? What is health anyway? Isn't prevention of health issues the goal (think of entropy, the body never heals back to the same way even if it can heal). As a very seasoned and young developer, it comes down to tip-toeing up to the problem. It's not a good idea to declare widespread solutions without empirical evidence. You creep up on it. That means, the Affordable Care Act, though it may be beneficial, needs to be tested in more places than Massachusetts (sp?) before you should install it on larger systems.
Tech start-ups in the US? Really? Why would any country use American technology now that the NSA has their fingers in everything? I don't think the ease of creating start-ups will offset the amount of market our paranoid government has pissed away.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
There's one born every minute.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"People who get sick' aren't really a small subset.
How many people do you think live to old age without ever having to see a doctor?
And yet, the "younger crowd" seem to support Obamacare. Either they're wrong or you are. PPP shows that the 18-34 group are most likely to support Obamacare of all age demos.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You don't need the IRS to tell you if you are sick or not.
Furthermore, there is not enough doctors, by any measure of the term, to do anything but send the vast majority of you home with aspirin with a hopeful "We are reviewing your case, and will get back to you." If this was really a bill about Health Care, provisions would have been put into the bill to provide qualified medical school people incentives to become a Doctor instead of a Wall Street Broker.
If this so called Health Care Law has anything to do with your health, it would address the enourmous shortage of facilities and doctors to care for the gigantic intake of patients that are going to come streaming into the hospitals from not just in the USA, but in Canada and Mexico for certain procedures.
With the stroke of a Pen, it is now impossible not to be in debt. If you don't pay, rich or poor the IRS can seize your assets for the Wall Street Bankers and their cronies under the guise of Health Care.
This has nothing to do with Health Care, but a tax on everyone to insure assets are controlled and seized.
Like all things, this has nothing to do with Health and much more to do with money. Nobody on earth, including your representatives would want any sort of care from this law.
What they want is exemption from the confiscation of assets.
Which is the reason why none of them have it and are legally exempt from confiscation of assets for non-payment..
-Hackus
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
how corrupt and dangerous the current "Medical" industry is... at least when you're talking healthcare.
MOST of the issues people are facind healthcare wise are due to the horrible food supply in this country. It's sick how difficult it can be to get "REAL" food in the USA.
The hospitals are full of people who are genetically unable to process the artificial foods and 'natural flavors' that are used prolifically.
The "HealthCare" industry kept me sick. Real information on the body and wellness has made me HEALTHY. Wow. Who'da Thunk It?
Obamacare can suck it! Why would I ever pay for something that my family will NEVER USE?
Ok, I'm a sucker for a good surgeon in an emergency, but that's as far as I'll go these days. Surgeons go through a completely different medical training process.
Most people are healthy and only need to learn to stay healthy. Most are better off with a medical savings account than with medical insurance. Why give money away for someone else to make billions off of it while you get little more than weak promises that in the event something bad happens, you might get minimal care?
We live in such a debt financing society we've all completely forgotten how to save money for bad days. Does a credit card really substitute for a savings?
With a firm grip on Manifest destiny in one hand, and and the promise of state mandated healthcare in the other, the settlers crossed the vast prairies and scaled the seemingly insurmountable mountains for their shot at the American Dream. Many failed, but those who didn't built a nation.
And then the liberal wakes up and realizes how pathetic he is.
There are some well educated people here at Slashdot, but for the most part it's a land of sheep waiting for their turn to be shorn.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
The cut back in coverage started around 2000. Obama was a Senator then for god's sake. The part time work started after the banks exploded from the mortgage bubble.
My HSA is still tax free. 1099s are mostly a tax dodge, taking advantage of desperate people or both. Companies hire 1099s for what's really full time continuous work and call them 'contractors'. The taxes are lower because you're not hiring an employee you're paying for work. The reason you can't get a 1099 is the gov't is cracking down on that. It's only good for you in the short run. In the long run they'll cut your wages and benefits while underfunding the safety net you'll need sooner or later.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"People who get sick' aren't really a small subset.
How many people do you think live to old age without ever having to see a doctor?
And yet, the "younger crowd" seem to support Obamacare. Either they're wrong or you are. PPP shows that the 18-34 group are most likely to support Obamacare of all age demos.
What does that have to do with any of this? Again, how does making insurance more expensive incentivize people to quit their jobs, forgo their employer coverage, and found a startup?
I am 35, healthy, and actually founded a startup last year. In 2012, I paid $187 a month for good individual coverage. This year that coverage went up to $200 a month. I just got a letter from my insurer, offering to change the date of my insurance year to begin on Dec 1st. I can renew my current plan at $223 a month. They warned me that if I renew normally next March, my insurance will be considerably more expensive because the ACA rules will be in effect. In Wisconsin, estimates are that individual coverage for a 35 year old healthy male will increase %80. I fit the criteria of someone who is most harmed by the effects of this law.
Of course they told me that I can buy insurance on the Exchange, but rates and coverage options are not available yet. I'm sorry, I thought someone told me that I could keep my insurance if I like it. That someone forget to say that it would become so expensive that I won't be able to afford it. To all you people who supported this law, knowing that it wouldn't affect you, go to hell.
You might want to read today's Wall Street Journal report on startup investing. The SEC regulations for VC funding have become much more onerous that many angel investors are getting out of the game. You have to be an "accredited" investor and you have to be able to prove that fact. Startups have to do a lot more work to ensure that they are only getting funding from accredited investors.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323309404578611543232094874.html
..speaking of which, does TFA bother to address what happens to costs once the start-up grows beyond 49 employees?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Not quite true. Look back at the punitive tax rates in Britain in the 1960s, where above a certain point the effective marginal tax rate was better than 100%. It was one of the reasons many British rock stars left the place. (Although with the sanity introduced by e.g. the Thatcher government, many moved back.)
And the republicans are doing their damnedest to destroy the economy.
Democrats cut spending; Republicans Cut taxes.
Slick willy had a tax surplus going; until shrub gave it away and then spent even more.
Now the Randians, like Greenspan, are happy to keep the economy unstable, because when the economy is good, workers leave jobs for more money, and their executive cronies have to pay people more to replace them.
Yeah, the 80s were a great time of economic growth; if you happened to be an executive.
I you were a working asshole, you had cycles of unemployment to look forward to, and insurance: it wasn't too bad if the company actually gave you a full time job with benefits. But frequently they just offered you a contract job with hourly wadges and no benefits.
Well that's absolute proof then, that the program that starts tomorrow is so bad that it went back in time and caused your insurance company to raise your rates. Because insurance rates never went up until Obamacare was passed.
I feel your pain. My dog never had worms before and now he's got worms. Goddamn Obama...
Because you live in a state where the governor and legislature put their fingers in their ears since 2010 and said, "We're not going to obey the law". First they were waiting for the Supreme Court, and then they were waiting for Romney to get elected so it could be repealed.
Call your governor and ask why they haven't set up the exchanges yet. If you lived in my state, you'd be able to go sign up for care at less than your $187/month tomorrow morning.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The ACA made it entirely optional for states to set up exchanges. In cases where states choose not to create an exchange, the ACA created a federal exchange as an alternative. They have now had 3.5 years to create that exchange. I don't want a shitty exchange health plan. I want to keep my current coverage. After doing a little more research it turns out some are predicting that an individual plan in Wisconsin, for a healthy young male could triple. Again, go to hell.
Well that's absolute proof then, that the program that starts tomorrow is so bad that it went back in time and caused your insurance company to raise your rates. Because insurance rates never went up until Obamacare was passed.
I feel your pain. My dog never had worms before and now he's got worms. Goddamn Obama...
In the period leading up to the passage of the ACA in march 2010, were we not told repeatedly that coverage would be better, and less expensive? Fuck you.
18-26 year old "children" are now allowed to stay on their parents plan. I notice that makes up half of your age range. The writers of the law knew that it would put the cost of private insurance out of young people's reach, and that was their solution to a large chunk of the problem. I'm actually 35, so I have outgrown my brainwashed formative years finally.
I don't know what to laugh at first. We will mandate an expense and then... Call in 10 years.
Good thing Obummercare will force companies to reduce the older folks to 30 hour part time positions. Then the older workers will start tech companies to try and survive. Yay Obummercare!
Not a single person will lose insurance due to this law. Blatant fearmongering.
You are blatantly incorrect. Scores of thousands have already lost their insurance due to this law:
Ten states where Obamacare wipes out existing health care plans
Trader Joe's Invites Part-Timers Losing Company Coverage To Seek Additional Obamacare Subsidy
Despite Obama Promise, Many Coloradans Losing Their Health Insurance Plans
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let met tell you how it works in Australia. People don't worry about the cost of treatment when they are really sick
Before my son was 5 he managed to cut himself 4 times requiring 2-5 stitches each time and broke his finger. Each time we took him to the emergency department at the local public hospital waited less than an hour to be seen and were out of the hospital within 2 hours. That hospital provides the best healthcare for kids in the city. Total cost: $0. All I need to do was show my medicare card.
We also have private health insurance. Total cost is ~$4,000 year for top level cost (80% of most bills and no costs for hospital). My youngest daughter was born 8 weeks premature and we chose to be treated as a private patient in the public children's hospital. The total bill was around $15,000 of which we paid a few hundred. We could have opted to be admitted as a public patient and the only changes in treatment would have been that the duty registrar would have been the primary contact rather than the private specialist and my wife would have shared a room. If our daughter had been seriously ill, then the specialist would have looked after her anyway. There were babies next to us who were being treated as public patients who received much more expensive treatments at no cost.
The public hospital system falls down when you have a problem requiring "elective surgery" (e.g. hip or knee replacement) where the waiting times can be up to 18 months versus weeks as a private patient. The other deficiency is paying for equipment such as wheelchairs etc. may not be covered by the public system.
If I want to see my local GP, I have to pay a gap of around $20-$30, however if I have a concession card there is typically no gap. To fill a prescription costs either at most $30 or under $6 if you have a concession. Spend more than $1000 in a year and the government covers the rest.
We look at the USA and wonder with so much wealth, how can you be so uncaring?
It's not voters, but those that really control the republic. That's exactly what is happening with the too-big-to-fail bailouts and other recent instances of corporate welfare.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
what's up with this?
it's tongue in cheek, obviously...but re-read it...tongue in cheek to who?
as evidenced by this thread many /.'ers *hate* Obamacare/ACA and Obama in general...based on the stupid misunderstanding of the notion of 'communism'
this is where Michelle Bachmann comes in...and the 'tea party' or w/e you want to call ignorant/easily manipulated white people
no one who understands the concept of 'communism' would call Obamacare 'communism'...communism is essentially a highly totalitarian regime that uses 'leftist' rhetoric
the key is "totalitarian"
Obama and America in general is absolutely not "totalitarian" (trolls engage!)
that's the problem...I think /. is biased to be contrarian to a fault...it's time to call a spade a spade...or in this case...call Obamacare 'socialism' and not 'communism'
got it /. rulers?
Thank you Dave Raggett
Government shuts down at midnight on Monday, but Obamacare will be open online (and open with phonelines as well).
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Mega corps love corporate tax rates in the US because only the little guy pays them. It helps keep competition down.
Play Command HQ online
All of you guys arguing about a system that makes healthcare available to those who don't have it - assume the vulnerable as it seems they are most likely to benefit - sounds like base savagery. I can't begin to imagine that you think the free market is a better fit for such a basic human requirement.
'You have to know that there are millions of Americans who might be fantastic and highly successful entrepreneurs who are not pursuing that path because of how healthcare is structured,' said Harris"
So, the US is going to experience a tech startup boom, because, all the people who wanted to start tech companies, but were afraid, repeat, afraid, are now going to suddently jump head first into entreprenuership ? Please ...
First off, health insurance != health care.
Second, people who are afraid, tend not to do all that well as entreprenuers, since, by definition, it is a risk taking activity.
Third, Obamacare does nothing to lower health care costs. It simply pushes the burden of taking care of the aging boomer population onto the public, as opposed to, the medicare roles. The government horribly mismanaged social security and medicare, and Obamacare alleviates them of that responsibility, and creates a whole new system thats completely and utterly screwed up.
Fourth, there are huge coverage gaps. For example, if you live in Florida, and you make $0, you are not eligable for subsidized insurance, because Florida has opted not to expand its Medicaid coverage. Thats right. If you're an illegal alien, sure, you get low cost subsidized insurance. But if you're jobless in Florida, piss off, you get nothing.
Create all the grand theories about how the world is going to be a wonderful and rosey place thanks to Obamacare all you want, but the truth is, the healthy, and the strong, you know, the types who work 20 hours a day to create companies, are now paying more, to take care of the sick and weaker, you know, the types that sit at home and watch game shows and collect section 8 housing and disability and food stamps, and now, health insurance.
Just because you ask a person what is holding them back, doesn't mean you automatically get an accurate reply.
A frequent post industrial, lack of real experimental science background to contradictory information. Or just a tightly closed mind. A self awarded Darwin award might come your way someday doing that.
> After doing a little more research it turns out some are predicting that an individual plan in Wisconsin, for a healthy young male could triple. Again, go to hell.
The world could end on Jan 1st, 2014. People like Harold Camping *predict* this sort of thing all the time. Should we start planning for this soon?
Instead, we got ourselves a government shut down! THANKS OBAMA!
> In the period leading up to the passage of the ACA in march 2010, were we not told repeatedly that coverage would be better, and less expensive? Fuck you.
It appears that you have made up your mind, well before the final details of the various new plan options are made available to everybody. Not only have you closed your mind to new ideas and information, you have been cursing like a sailor on this page. Is it yet time to grow up?
Your plan cost went from $187 to $200. And you are blaming this on Obama? Have you been sleeping through the Bush years?
Also, as I have said in previous posts. Please tell us what plan (company name and policy) you have so that we can do a proper apples to apples comparison. If Obamacare is really putting the hurt on you, please provide some verifiable details instead of getting your panties in a twist.
Just one reason.
I know there are others.
Having had a serious illness in the past, I was very aware of the "wage slavery" aspect of an employer insurance model.
So I've suspected for a while that one group of businesses are fighting the ACA very hard because it means their employees will be free to retire or start their own businesses.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Here's a list of what can put you in that "small subset":
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/medicine/pre-existing-conditions.htm
It includes just about any diagnosed mental illness, high blood pressure, diabetes, excess weight, asthma, etc.
Oh, and don't forget that horrible malady of having a functioning female reproductive system. You can either pay through the nose for a horrible childbirth rider, or you can risk being driven to bankruptcy if you get pregnant.
The republicans are idiots. The worst thing they could do to Obama would be to let this thing run its course. It's a disaster.
Tragically, you don't seem to understand the Affordable Care act at all.
This is NOT a "government program" i.e. Medicare / Medicade. ObamaCare simply provide a legal framework to organize the free market for insurance. It has three main parts: a purchase mandate to broaden the risk pool, non-discrimination based on health status so everyone can choose and purchase, and subsidies for low-income folks. And the thus created insurance exchanges are already reducing policy costs for most customers. See also http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/obamacare-premiums_n_3984979.html
Clearly, subsidies are effectively redistribution from the wealthy to the poor -- but the only "losers" under this system are a small minority of the much better-off. And even THEY profit from this system because they can't be arbitrarily dropped from existing plans when they get sick.
I suggest you read up on the facts before declaring it a disaster. Straw men not welcome here.
And how do you know exchange plans are "shitty"? Talk to someone who has medicare and ask them if they want to give up their "shitty" medicare.
And "some are predicting" that the overall price curve will be bent downward. You've been around long enough to know that "some are predicting" is Latin for "I'm pulling this outta my ass."
You are welcome on my lawn.
Severing the employment/health insurance link once and for all is the only way the USA will get the business fluidity needed to compete in the modern world. Why should the executive of a startup, or any other company, have to waste bandwidth thinking about employee health care, or child care, or transportation, or retirement plans? Those are issues for society at large and should be resolved by society at large, not the business exec (who BTW is imminently under-qualified to make such decisions). He/She has a business to run, right? with enough product/marketing/financing decisions to fill the day.
"If you're not passionate about your operating system, you're married to the wrong one."
obamacare is not the solution to anything, It is a forced market. when obamacare fails miserabley, it will be used as an excuse to push total socialism.
obamacare is so bad New Hampshire passed a bill in 2010 that states no resident shall be fined or penalized for not having health insurance. I just hope the IRS respects state law.
its so bad congress has voted to exclude them self from participating in obamacare, this alone should be a strong enough indicator that it is not actualy about health care.
The average age of people who create a tech start-up is 39, and not 20-something,' said Bruce Bachenheimer
Source? I find this hard to believe. Does this include every unregistered business, including the ones that fail? Or are talking only about people filing incorporation paperwork? And are we only looking at the age of the peopel filing the incorporation paperwork, or the average age of the employees in the startup?
Even if it did, doesn't mean it's a good thing. And certainly doesn't mean it's the best or right thing.
One thing I never understood. Can we use the exchange to swap the health insurance bought by our employer?
If I could say, go to the exchange and swap my BlueCross for an Oxford for instance, then we would have a real insurance market and this might fix most of healthcare as the insurers would have to be good at their job:
- negotiate good prices for drugs etc. (they currently don't as they will allow the copay for a drug to be a lot more than the real price of that drug in any western country. That's because they don't care about doing a good job of getting me good deals.)
- have a good network
- adjust their profits to a fair share.
That's exactly what is stopping people from starting a company is worry about health care... This is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. If you are going to start a company and plan on it unless you are a totally ill healthcare is last on your mind, it's funding and endless hoops you need to jump through to run your buiness. Never mind that fact that a lot of IT guys may be good IT guys but would suck ass at running a business do to lack of personality traits that lend themselves to running a successfull business. Just because you are great at some aspect of your job does not mean you'll be great at running a business, building partnership and securing funding if need be.
Both terse and wise. Not surprised it's from Seebs. :) Fram fram, bubba.
I'm not going to put forth an opinion on Obamacare but I'm not sure how an insurance change would fuel many startups. When I was starting up my [very small] business, my biggest concern was capital. It was all I could to do to scrape together enough money to go into business on a part-time basis. Insurance would've been a distant third to food and house payments if I'd been foolhardy enough to dive into this head first. Frankly it would be a bigger deal to me if the banks started lending again.
Try not to die....before the beginning of next year.
right...i get where you are coming from (sounds like we'd use similar definitions for these terms)
here's the thing: any fault in the ACA is due to the GOP obstruction in the face of democracy...it's been tested...the people want it
it's not just this *one* time...for *years* the GOP has used every roadblock and systemic stop imaginable, made a few up, even opposed their own bills that they put up!
Republicans are protecting the insurance companies...that's who is doing it...look at the votes. Don't blame Obama for their behavior.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I can jack your "assertion" right in its tracks with my personal anecdote.
After I was laid off from my W-2, 4 years ago, I decided to finally spin my freelance business up. I already had a client on the side and figured I needed only three more clients and I'd be sitting pretty (making more than I was before).
That came all crashing down when I looked into how much it would cost for Health Insurance. My SO had a pre-existing and our daughter needed regular check-ups at the time, so that limited the options. My meds cost $1,500/month without insurance and $500 with the only affordable craptaculus plan I could get.
I had to shelve the whole thing because the health bills would've eaten us alive.
---
Under a #@$@# single payer, it would've been a no-brainer. Even public option would be better.
You, know
Except taxes went up (including investment taxes) so there is less money for investment.
...since I'll be subsidizing their start up costs.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
My Mother-in-law was diagnosed with esophageal cancer 10 months ago. She had recently lost her job, and with it her insurance. We immediately applied for FMIP–put in place by the ACA as a stop-gap before the exchanges become available. She was denied on the grounds that the government "could not verify her citizenship through publicly available records". They had copies of her birth certificate, passport, and Oregon Driver's License. When we pressed FMIP on the denial, they replied that the problem wasn't with her application, or that her citizenship wasn't _verifiable_, but merely that they hadn't gotten around to verifying it.
Her cancer treatment was 100% covered by a local hospital charity. Donations to that charity have dried up in the wake of Obamacare, because who needs charity when you can count on the government to care of everybody?
Here's how it works.
Dems propose some outrageous spending program. Republicans oppose. Dems call for compromise and idiot Republicans agree to part of the outrageous program.
Result is there is a new program where there was none before.
Then, a year later Dems call for increased spending ( above the already scheduled increase due to Baseline Budgeting). Republicans opposed. Dems call them cold hearted and baby killers. Republicans get hurt feelings and agree to a small increase.
Result, program cots rise above inflation costs and the basis for next years spending increases yet again.
This is how we get 17 trillion dollars in debt.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I've already received multiple java related errors today on my state's obamacare portal, this being the most recent.
Error 500: org.springframework.core.task.TaskRejectedException: Executor [java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor@aee9ec22] did not accept task: org.springframework.context.event.SimpleApplicationEventMulticaster$1@6ae3d673
If they had used COBOL things would have 'just worked'
Obamacare is unconstitutional. The US Supreme court did not adequately scrutinize the case brought before them.
The U.S. Supreme Court rulled that a person cannot be required to have healthcare Insurance, but could be taxed for not having it.
This is the first NON-SALES tax. What is to stop them from taxing you because you did not select all the phone carrier options, or because you did not select a specific cable TV channel group on your cable package? What stops them from taxing you because you failed to buy a hamburger today?
This is such a huge attack on freedom, that the only thing worse is gun control.
don't come here on this thread talking that same, tired old bullshit argument about 'spending' and 'budget crisis'
it's bunk...our country is the **richest the world has ever known**
your whole "Repub's do THIS" while "Dem's do THAT" is reductive and stupid...
you have an infantile understanding of 'debt' and macroeconmics...read up and maybe you can participate in this discussion
Thank you Dave Raggett
*Corporations* always want free shit. *Corporations* always want other people to pay for their shit. *Corporations* always want to borrow money from China, leave the debt to **our** kids, and enjoy an inflated lifestyle.
Which is why the US is a Oligarchy , not a Democracy. The greedy bastards outnumber the normal people now, so of course "the people" demand economic justice. A spoonfull of GREED can corrupt a whole sea of democracy as soon as *Corporations* figure out they can bribe politicians to get legislation passed no matter how it effects the citizenry.
One day, you'll run out of people willing put up with BULLSHIT REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS
Thank you Dave Raggett
Did one thing. They expected about 14 million the first year but because of the Obama scare got that on the first day.
roflmao
i'll keep going Huckleberry/troll
go ahead, make one coherent point...preferrablly with evidence (and not BS GOP talking points about 'debt crisis' voodoo)...
if you are **so sure** you are right then a link should be easy to find to bolster your point
#2 use quotations of what point you are countering from my comment....like this:
editorializations aside, the core of that fragment is correct
if you think you can stop trolling and actually *WIN* this debate using logic, facts, evidence by directly clashing my points then bring it on fuckwad
Thank you Dave Raggett
My company, which has specialized in electronic medical records software for 20 years, has been gearing up for Obamacare for years already. Pieces of the legislation have already gone into effect, such as "meaningful use" standards. Doctors and hospitals have been scrambling to comply with all of the new regulations, and that means lots of business for companies like ours.
If you're just now thinking of starting a company to capitalize on Obamacare, you're already late to the party!
How far will they reach to spin this abomination into a positive?
well...I don't 'win' but it's a stalemate for sure...you don't know the meaning of the terms you use
your notions are hilariously reductive...I used to teach High School social studies and a mainstream 10th grader C student has a more complex understanding of these concepts than you exhibit
anyone reading will see what has happened on this thread...that's all I can really hope for constructively from all this
and to top if off, you quote Margaret Thatcher...sir you can eat my ass
Thank you Dave Raggett
Does your new beta have a way for me to filter out comments with such useless sexual insults? Well, useless except as a diagnostic tool.
yeah...Social Studies...
the subject where you learn what 'Capitalism' and 'Communism' mean
you obviously didn't take it, b/c in your last post, you said this:
gandhi_2 or gandhi_2 is an idiot...
or the EXACT opposite
one or the other is true
Thank you Dave Raggett
look, re-read the thread...I blame the responsible party...my language in the post you responded to was actually me quoting another user mocking his enflamed tone
again, I blame the responsible party...whoever that is...what other way is there?
do you have a point to make?
i won't respond to GOP talking points
Thank you Dave Raggett
While my 'insults' are based on easily disprovable 'facts', yours seem more to be delusions based on your warped perceptions.
Here is a whole bunch of stuff for you to disprove.
My investigations show present pre-existing exclusionary periods all over the map. Indiana is 10 years. Some have unlimited exclusion riders. More on that below. Alabama places no restrictions on the amount an insurance company can charge you - effectly an exclusion. Oklahoma insurance companies are allowed permanent exclusion on any condition, defined as any illness or any injury that occured any time before the insurance policy was taken out. The only protection there is that as long as the insured keeps up their policy payments, the company cannot refuse to renew.
Montana allows for elimination riders. These permit companies to avoid the 12-month look back limit by permanently excluding a pre-existing condition from coverage.
http://www.healthinsurancequotes.com/2012/02/an-overview-of-montana-state-health-insurance-laws/ Link provided as info on th epermanent exclusionary rider.
So do 37 other states. Georgia, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Deleware Note, Indiana can not make permanent exclusion riders, but they can refuse coverage for a Pre-existing condition for ten years.
Info:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/individual-market-portability-rules/
From the web page, in case people don't want to read the link (though I highly suggest it)
Elimination Rider: In many states, health problems disclosed at the time of application may be permanently excluded from coverage by an amendment to the individual health insurance contract called an elimination rider. Once coverage begins, a consumer who makes claims under the policy may be investigated to see whether the health problem was pre-existing. In many states, it is not necessary for a health condition to have been diagnosed prior to the purchase of coverage for it to be considered pre-existing. Depending on state law, insurers can look back months or years prior to the policy's purchase for evidence of a pre-existing condition. This process is sometimes called post-claims underwriting.
There might be some confusion between HIPPA - non group coverage, and non HIPPA coverage.
But there is no question whatsoever that in many cases, a Helath insurance company can include a rider that says they will not pay for a pre-existing condition
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.