Haven't seen this posted yet.
http://triblive.com/local/valleynew...ld-require-students-to-carry-health-insurance
http://triblive.com/local/valleynew...ld-require-students-to-carry-health-insurance
PSU may require students to obtain insurance (link)
- Thread starter nitanee123
- Start date
From the article: For those students not covered by their parents who have chosen to pay the uninsured fee mandated by the Affordable Care Act instead of carrying health insurance, that option will effectively be removed by the university's requirement that they carry coverage.
____________________________________
Ah, the reason most students choose to pay the uninsured fee is because they can't afford the mandated health insurance.
SMFH stupid
I am "never-endingly" amazed at the ability of the empty suit douchebags in charge of this University to create ever deepening trenches of "stoopid".
It is truly a remarkable achievement.
When I was in Germany at school back in the late 1970s, I was required to have insurance--in fact that was part of our room and board etc. package. At tOSU, I had insurance at the student health center as part of my TA job. And I used it--had nasal surgery (at tOSU Hospitals) and wisdom teeth removed. I don't think this is a bad idea.
The question of whether it is "good or bad to have health insurance" is an entirely different question from whether or not it makes any kind of sense for PSU to get into the "mandating insurance coverage" business (which - it should be obvious to a blind man - it does not)
I was required to have insurance or get it through school both at Cal Berkeley and UPenn. I am actually surprised PSU did not require it.
The requirement for Health Care Insurance is not new to higher education. My son had to have proof of insurance at Miami Univ when he enrolled in 2010.
The University automatically added the almost $700 per semester cost on the first freshman billing and was only removed when proof of insurance was filed.
When you think of all the accidents and epidemics that hit College age adults the requirement makes sense to protect both the student and the Institution.
I'm not sure but I believe I paid a $35 dollar a year fee at U Park in '76-'79 for medical. No Obamacare back then.
As far as the comment that PSU is mandating insurance coverage it should be understood that PSU mandates many aspects of the agreement between the individual and the Institution. You may not agree with the requirements but need to need to fulfill them if you wish to participate in the program.
So, I'd say per the quoted poster I'm a blind man that sees a different reality.
LOL
Plenty of schools "mandate coverage". Does that make it a good idea?
Who is going to pay for it? Is PSU going to subsidize it? (I believe they may already do that for "internationals"....but I'd have to check to be 100% sure)
Who is going to administer the programs?
Who is going to administer compliance?
Who is going to administer penalties and punitive actions?
Are they going to expel students who's health insurance lapses or is cancelled?
Are they going to provide medical care within the University for a student who lapses coverage?
With all of the costs, bureaucracies, and other issues - including potential liabilities (cough, cough, FRATERNITIES, cough, cough) - - - - - - - why in the world would PSU Leadership decide - "Yep, lets stick our noses in even deeper".
For what benefit?
______________
Who is this going to effect?
98% of incoming students are already covered by someone's insurance (usually the "parents")
90% of the rest are covered via ACA.
NONE of those folks are effected one way or the other by the current system.
So - - - - the bottom line of the proposed mandate is:
Require the small fraction of the (potential) student body that neither has health coverage, nor can afford health coverage (according to the Federal guidelines) to acquire health coverage
- From where are they going to acquire this coverage?
- With who's money?
No one addresses those questions - not surprisingly
So:
The fraction of a percent who are left are kids who have been determined to be "indigent" (for lack of a better word) and can not afford any of the Health Insurance options out there....... so - if they can't afford it - does PSU deny admission to these "indigent" students?
Is that a POSITIVE?
Does Penn State force everyone else to underwrite health insurance coverage for those "indigent" students?
Is that Penn State's "mission"?
The inability/refusal to think through the logic of the situation is bewildering (actually, not really
, more like "par for the course")MOST IMPORTANTLY:
What mission of the University - those missions supposedly being teaching, research, and outreach - is being served by creating a mandatory health care program? (when someone can answer THAT question, a reasonable discussion can ensue
)Anyway - this is a topic that is just BEGGING to be invaded by a lot of anecdotes and "I walked to school three miles, uphill, both ways" nonsense.
I'll abstain.
Last edited:
LOL
Plenty of schools "mandate coverage". Does that make it a good idea?
Who is going to pay for it? Is PSU going to subsidize it? (I believe they may already do that for "internationals"....but I'd have to check to be 100% sure)
Who is going to administer the programs?
Who is going to administer compliance?
Who is going to administer penalties and punitive actions?
Are they going to expel students who's health insurance lapses or is cancelled?
Are they going to provide medical care within the University for a student who lapses coverage?
With all of the costs, bureaucracies, and other issues - including potential liabilities (cough, cough, FRATERNITIES, cough, cough) - - - - - - - why in the world would PSU Leadership decide - "Yep, lets stick our noses in even deeper".
For what benefit?
MOST IMPORTANTLY:
What mission of the University - those missions supposedly being teaching, research, and outreach - is being served by creating a mandatory health care program? (when someone can answer THAT question, a reasonable discussion can ensue
Anyway - this is a topic that is just BEGGING to be invaded by a lot of anecdotes and "I walked to school three miles, uphill, both ways" nonsense.
I'll abstain.
I have, for the most part, agreed with most of what you post. But damn this is beyond sanctimonious! Who died and left you to define when 'a reasonable discussion can ensue'? If you would get your holier than thou head out of your sanctimonious ass you would realize this is being discussed in order to protect students! There are many students who come to this country who do not follow proper hygiene, do not have vaccinations, etc that lead to rapid spread of illness.
As to your questions - most likely they haven't been addressed since this is just in the discussions infancy stages.
I hope you have good insurance and you have yourself strapped to that high horse rather securely. The fall could be devastating to your ego.
Sanctimonious? You may want to re-read the post..... because it is - if anything - the OPPOSITE.
So much the "opposite", that unless someone can explain how it is part of "Penn State's Mission" to dictate health care choices, "Penn State" should stay the hell out of it..... which is a philosophy that kinda' defines "the opposite of sanctimonious"
And Good Lord, the last thing I would do on this board - or would want to do - is get into a global "socialized/centralized/mandated health care" debate - either "pro" or "con".
Ain't done it.....ain't never gonna' do it. Ever.
I don't think I have ever visited the oft-mentioned "Test Boards"..... but from what I've read here - I don't think I ever want to.
But, anyway, this is a topic bound for a completely off-topic CJ.... and - as I said (and should have strictly followed
) - I'll abstain.
Last edited:
What business of a university is it whether a student has Health Insurance or not?
Their job is to educate, and if the student is a resident, provide a clean functioning dorm and some level of cafeteria style food.
No more. No less.
LOL
Plenty of schools "mandate coverage". Does that make it a good idea?
Who is going to pay for it? Is PSU going to subsidize it? (I believe they may already do that for "internationals"....but I'd have to check to be 100% sure)
Who is going to administer the programs?
Who is going to administer compliance?
Who is going to administer penalties and punitive actions?
Are they going to expel students who's health insurance lapses or is cancelled?
Are they going to provide medical care within the University for a student who lapses coverage?
With all of the costs, bureaucracies, and other issues - including potential liabilities (cough, cough, FRATERNITIES, cough, cough) - - - - - - - why in the world would PSU Leadership decide - "Yep, lets stick our noses in even deeper".
For what benefit?
______________
Who is this going to effect?
98% of incoming students are already covered by someone's insurance (usually the "parents")
90% of the rest are covered via ACA.
NONE of those folks are effected one way or the other by the current system.
So - - - - the bottom line of the proposed mandate is:
Require the small fraction of the (potential) student body that neither has health coverage, nor can afford health coverage (according to the Federal guidelines) to acquire health coverage
- From where are they going to acquire this coverage?
- With who's money?
No one addresses those questions - not surprisingly
So:
The fraction of a percent who are left are kids who have been determined to be "indigent" (for lack of a better word) and can not afford any of the Health Insurance options out there....... so - if they can't afford it - does PSU deny admission to these "indigent" students?
Is that a POSITIVE?
Does Penn State force everyone else to underwrite health insurance coverage for those "indigent" students?
Is that Penn State's "mission"?
The inability/refusal to think through the logic of the situation is bewildering (actually, not really
MOST IMPORTANTLY:
What mission of the University - those missions supposedly being teaching, research, and outreach - is being served by creating a mandatory health care program? (when someone can answer THAT question, a reasonable discussion can ensue
Anyway - this is a topic that is just BEGGING to be invaded by a lot of anecdotes and "I walked to school three miles, uphill, both ways" nonsense.
I'll abstain.
From an administrative standpoint, this isn't that big a deal. Whether PSU should require it is another question. I've not seen a case made that a school itself benefits from its students having health insurance. So at the end, PSU imposes its will because it can.
It appears the HC provider of first resort is the University. I am sure they are going to treat everybody whether they have insurance that will cover, or not. So the issue is how can they protect the University from going broke providing free health care?
It is interesting to note that if pre-existing conditions spike the premiums of the disabled student, under some new HC regime, then the students most affected will be those with disabilities.
So PSU is saying "you can come here, but only if you are healthy." Seems unworkable, given the Americans with Disabilities Act.
It is interesting to note that if pre-existing conditions spike the premiums of the disabled student, under some new HC regime, then the students most affected will be those with disabilities.
So PSU is saying "you can come here, but only if you are healthy." Seems unworkable, given the Americans with Disabilities Act.
They probably will (extend the bureaucracy), but this can be largely done by computer.
Since this gets into a different topic:
ICYMI:
Penn State's costs (which GREATLY impact tuition) have been absolutely EXPLODED by greater and greater numbers of "administrators".
The number of the administrative head count - relative to teaching and research head count - has nearly doubled.
At this months BOT meeting, Barron bloviated on the fact that PSU has reduced projected future costs (by a relatively insignificant figure, about $12 Mill) - not by reigning in the ever bloating layers of administration - but by REDUCING TEACHING/RESEARCH head count costs (by replacing longer-term tenured positions with more TAs, Instructors, Adjuncts, and Associates - - - - instead of full-time tenured faculty).
ie - as per the precepts of the "Brave New World":
Ignoring/feeding bloated administration, while reducing/starving the folks actually performing the missions of the University.
All of our Stewards (Trustees), including those who proffer to understand the foundations of Academia, nodded their heads in silent approval.
Does PSU's ability to provide healthcare extend beyond the limited functions one would expect to find in a university health care service/infirmary? If not, I don't see it incurring significant cost in caring for ailing students.
Well, since they are associated with Hershey Med Center, I was thinking that this is playing into it. University Med centers have reached out and taken over quite a bit of the HC function in a lot of states.
For example UPMC owns Hamot Medical Center in Erie, and bunch of other facilities across Western PA. WVU Hospital System is not only the largest Hospital/HC provider in the state, it owns all the biggest hospitals in the State now, AND, sadly, is the state's largest employer, edging out Walmart last year.
If the Medicaid expansion falls these U hospital systems are gonna fail. So the issue won't be "where do I get insurance," but "How many hours' drive is it to the nearest hospital?"
FWIW, UPMC is not owned by Pitt. The two entities have an affiliation agreement which, among other things, allows UPMC to use the "University of Pittsburgh" name, but Pitt isn't on the hook for any financial deficits UPMC may run. The same is true of many, if not most, university medical centers.
PSU, on the other hand, does own Hershey Medical Center. I would venture to guess, though, that if a PSU student had an issue that was beyond the ability of PSU's health service to handle, the student would be first referred to Mt. Nittany, which, I believe, is not owned by PSU.
FWIW:
I have asked for (but, not surprisingly, haven't received
) information wrt PSU's "Health Services".......essentially to try to dig down to whether or not they are financially self-sustaining.I do not know if they are a "deficit" item or not - - - - - but, at least as far as Main Campus is concerned, with MNMC just a couple hundred yards up the road - and at least a couple of "urgent care" centers in town, there is no reason for PSU (with tuition dollars) to underwrite a separate health care provider (again, assuming the current set up is not self-sustaining).
It is something that - one would think - members of the governance board (the BOT) would be interested in.
TTBOMK, ain't none of them informed on the issue.... nor even shown any concern or interest.
FWIW:
I have asked for (but, not surprisingly, haven't received
I do not know if they are a "deficit" item or not - - - - - but, at least as far as Main Campus is concerned, with MNMC just a couple hundred yards up the road - and at least a couple of "urgent care" centers in town, there is no reason for PSU (with tuition dollars) to underwrite a separate health care provider (again, assuming the current set up is not self-sustaining).
It is something that - one would think - members of the governance board (the BOT) would be interested in.
TTBOMK, ain't none of them informed on the issue.... nor even shown any concern or interest.
I'd be stunned if they were self sustaining.
How does health services generate revenue? It isn't through the pharmacy--reimbursement rates are so low that they're making peanuts. Sure, they do testing & such too--but there again you run into a reimbursement rate issue.
Well, I don't think Pitt has to worry about UPMC going broke. In the unlikely even that it does, it won't be from the unreimbursed costs it incurs in caring for Pitt students
FWIW:
I have asked for (but, not surprisingly, haven't received
I do not know if they are a "deficit" item or not - - - - - but, at least as far as Main Campus is concerned, with MNMC just a couple hundred yards up the road - and at least a couple of "urgent care" centers in town, there is no reason for PSU (with tuition dollars) to underwrite a separate health care provider (again, assuming the current set up is not self-sustaining).
It is something that - one would think - members of the governance board (the BOT) would be interested in.
TTBOMK, ain't none of them informed on the issue.... nor even shown any concern or interest.
Doubt that PSU's helath service is self-sustaining, but can't imagine that it runs a huge deficit, either. Assume that the net cost incurred is buried in some fee that PSU already charges.
I would assume so (on all points).
I also doubt that the cost is a worthy enough hill to spend a lot of time fighting over (and so, I haven't) - - - - - though it would be nice to KNOW, rather than suppose, what those figures may be.
Knowing those figures would be especially important if - after the new requirements go into effect - one wanted to calculate the costs/benefits associated with the new mandate (though, based on past history, those types of issues are of little importance to our "leaders"
)Same way that most medical practices/facilities do; through insurance reimbursements and/or direct payments from students or their parents. I'm going to guess that most PSU students are covered by their parents' health insurance policies already.
I would assume so (on all points).
I also doubt that the cost is a worthy enough hill to spend a lot of time fighting over (and so, I haven't) - - - - - though it would be nice to KNOW, rather than suppose, what those figures may be.
Knowing those figures would be especially important if - after the new requirements go into effect - one wanted to calculate the costs/benefits associated with the new mandate (though, based on past history, those types of issues are of little importance to our "leaders"
Yeah, but you never know. Would not surprise me if this is just another nickel-and-dime scheme by PSU to raise money. That's the only level on which these people are capable of thinking.
Great. Now we can look forward to an AAD in charge of health insurance compliance. Wait, that's not part of the Athletic Department. Ah, who cares?
Some kind of coverage probably should be required, but $700 per semester for a 19 year old is ridiculously high. It wasn't that long ago that I could sell a major med policy for someone that young for under $200 per year.
My wife is a Nurse Practitioner at University of Delaware Student Health Services. Here's how U of D does it:
- all students are required to have health insurance
- if a student can't provide their own policy, they can purchase a Highmark BC/BS policy through the University. This is a very small number of students. This is essentially an 80/20 plan. Cost is $1273/year
- the University charges a student health fee of $250 per semester. So, a student without health insurance is looking at less than 2k per year for health insurance and student health fee
- Student Health Services is financially self sustaining through the Student Health Fee
From a healthcare expense perspective, college students as a whole are very healthy. Here's what you get with the fee:
- primary and urgent care
- women's health care
- 24 hour inpatient care
- Imaging services
-immunizations
- full spectrum of counseling services relevant to college students
- nutritional services
- STD testing
- birth control and contraceptives. Both of these are sold at cost
- laboratory testing services
My wife did her grad and undergrad work at Penn. She doesn't remember the costs but the student health fee included specialty care as well as hospital care. The residents at Hospital of University of Pennsylvania provided the care so you had just about every specialty available. There are advantages of having a giant teaching hospital on campus! Not sure if this is still the case since she finished her gad work in 1997.
- all students are required to have health insurance
- if a student can't provide their own policy, they can purchase a Highmark BC/BS policy through the University. This is a very small number of students. This is essentially an 80/20 plan. Cost is $1273/year
- the University charges a student health fee of $250 per semester. So, a student without health insurance is looking at less than 2k per year for health insurance and student health fee
- Student Health Services is financially self sustaining through the Student Health Fee
From a healthcare expense perspective, college students as a whole are very healthy. Here's what you get with the fee:
- primary and urgent care
- women's health care
- 24 hour inpatient care
- Imaging services
-immunizations
- full spectrum of counseling services relevant to college students
- nutritional services
- STD testing
- birth control and contraceptives. Both of these are sold at cost
- laboratory testing services
My wife did her grad and undergrad work at Penn. She doesn't remember the costs but the student health fee included specialty care as well as hospital care. The residents at Hospital of University of Pennsylvania provided the care so you had just about every specialty available. There are advantages of having a giant teaching hospital on campus! Not sure if this is still the case since she finished her gad work in 1997.
Similar threads
