Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » How much will ObamaCare cost? (Page 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 20 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  18  19  20   
Author Topic: How much will ObamaCare cost?
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And just to clarify: I don't think it's wrong of them to not include potential cost savings in their own projections. They are, after all, actuaries, and speaking as somebody who currently works for a health insurance firm I understand completely why they do not as a rule project from anything beyond established tables. If the figures aren't there on cost containment, they can't come up with reliable tables.

One thing that should be a concern, though, is this: because they cannot generate reliable tables until costs are finalized, insurers will almost certainly set the costs of their plans based on the old figures. This will mean that there will be a dramatic increase in cost for the first three years of the new program for non-corporate buyers, since the estimated cost of coverage will be the old value, not the new one. While there might be some competitive advantage to adapting quickly to new costs, I suspect we'll see oligarchic behavior instead.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The nation's largest movie theater chain has cut the hours of thousands of employees, saying in a company memo that ObamaCare requirements are to blame.

Regal Entertainment Group, which operates more than 500 theaters in 38 states, last month rolled back shifts for non-salaried workers to 30 hours per week, putting them under the threshold at which employers are required to provide health insurance. The Nashville-based company said in a letter to managers that the move was a direct result of ObamaCare.

“In addition, some managers have requested guidance on what they should tell those employees negatively impacted and, at your discretion, we suggest the following,” read the memo obtained by FoxNews.com. “To comply with the Affordable Care Act, Regal had to increase our health care budget to cover those newly deemed eligible based on the law's definition of a full-time employee.”

“To manage this budget, all other employees will be scheduled in accord with business needs and in a manner that will not negatively impact our health care budget,” the message continues.

This affects thousands of employees.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think the government will ever manage to enact (in time to prevent disaster anyway) meaningful legislation that will have many positive effects on this problem. "ObamaCare" seeks to end some of the worst abuses by employers and insurance companies but it does nothing to address rising costs.

There is just too much money involved and big business will never let anything pass which will reduce their profits. There isn't nearly as much money to be made keeping you from getting sick and curing you as there is from keeping you on medications for the rest of your life and keeping you coming back to the hospital for expensive tests and treatments that you don't need. It is downright shameful that this goes on and we just watch it happen.

Physical Therapy for example is a much more appropriate long term solution for many physical/pain related problems than dangerous drugs like Oxycontin and all its derivatives... but insurance won't generally cover more than a couple sessions.... meanwhile they give away dangerous narcotics like candy creating an epidemic of drug addicted people who keep desperately returning again and again seeking more and more diagnoses for imagined illnesses and pain to fuel their addictions. Americans consume 80% of the world's pain killers, more than 110 tons of addictive opiates each year, and it continues to rise at an alarming rate.

We have a serious problem in this country and the government is sitting by doing nothing while costs continue to escalate... they only answer they have is to cut reimbursements, which obviously you don't have to be a mathematician to see where it will lead.

Lots of people think they have keep eating like crap and popping cholesterol lowering drugs... well, guess what? That crap is still bad for you and heart disease, liver damage, diabetes, obesity, etc, etc, will all still result.

ObamaCare has some nice ideas and they would be great if they were part of a comprehensive plan for meaningful reform, but as it stands it will only ever be a distraction which will prolong the ever growing problem we have, and it is unclear whether it will actually be any better than just doing nothing. Right now I have zero confidence that anything useful will be accomplished for decades to come. It will only happen once the system has completely and utterly failed to the point where we have no choice but to make drastic change. Until then, they'll keep whistling the same tune.

[ April 22, 2013, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: LinuxFreakus ]

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LinuxFreakus:
I don't think the government will ever manage to enact (in time to prevent disaster anyway) meaningful legislation that will have many positive effects on this problem. "ObamaCare" seeks to end some of the worst abuses by employers and insurance companies but it does nothing to address rising costs.

It perhaps doesn't do enough to address them, but it's not true to say it does nothing. The Independent Payment Advisory Board set up by the bill has a significant amount of potential to make intelligent adjustments to Medicare reimbursement policies based on direct evidence without needing to politicize the adjustments (Congress and the President would need to explicitly block it from changing policies) There are also a number of different cost control pilot programs which could grow into larger policies; one very promising one is to try out block payments by condition and outcomes, rather than payments by procedure. Rather than encouraging additional procedures since each one translates to more money, it shifts the motivation to finding the lowest cost way to fix the condition, to not run over the block amount, and especially to ensure that the patient is not readmitted for the same condition within 30 days (which currently represents a significant cost) because the hospital would, at that point, effectively be required to correct the problem on its own dime.

The ARRA also put a very promising program in place to do independent comparative effectiveness research on medication and provide that information to doctors, so that they're better able to see if the price of any given medication is actually worth paying for in comparison to other alternatives. Right now all they have to work with is a combination of information provided by the manufacturers of the drug (which have the motivation to upsell the effects and to avoid showing that there are cheaper, more effective alternatives) and personal experience, which is heavily colored by subjective bias.

It's not nearly enough, but there is some movement in that direction.

On the other hand, the past few years have seen a sharp decline in the rate at which medical costs have been growing. It's entirely possible that the doomsday projections that assume past growth rates will continue isn't right, and rather we might have been seeing a short term correction, perhaps driven by shifts in the level of access and certain new technologies being incorporated, similar to what happened in the wake of WWII, where we had a combination of increased access to care and a switch from anyone who could mix up a bottle of opium being able to call themselves a doctor to requiring professional certification and standards for care that caused a sharp rise in the cost of medical care. Medicine costs more than quackery in that case but it's a price adjustment not a long term escalation. New standards brought on by improved technology can have similar effects, as can taking certain conditions more seriously, as has happened with mental and pain-based issues over the past couple of decades. Similarly, the long term predictions of disaster disappear if all we were seeing is a price correction and not an actual long term trend in growth of costs.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
There are also a number of different cost control pilot programs which could grow into larger policies; one very promising one is to try out block payments by condition and outcomes, rather than payments by procedure. Rather than encouraging additional procedures since each one translates to more money, it shifts the motivation to finding the lowest cost way to fix the condition, to not run over the block amount, and especially to ensure that the patient is not readmitted for the same condition within 30 days (which currently represents a significant cost) because the hospital would, at that point, effectively be required to correct the problem on its own dime.

Such pilot programs have already happened, and such policies have already been in place in other countries. Cost saving results have been negligible and there are negative consequences such as not treating patients who are going to cost more the same as patients who are likely to recover quickly. Also, hospitals will mostly not be recovering costs on their own dime, instead the effect will be higher fees, and insurance plans will also use it as an excuse to cover less, which leaves consumers holding the bag... and since most of the consumers won't be able to afford the care that means hospitals will have to write off the care as charitable, etc... and tax payers will end up paying for it all the same way we are paying for uninsured people to receive care already.

You have to look at the entire picture, and unfortunately I don't see how anything in ObamaCare could possibly result in significant change, it is nothing more than a shell game and they are hoping people will just loose track of where the costs are going with all the shuffling.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

On the other hand, the past few years have seen a sharp decline in the rate at which medical costs have been growing.

I don't believe this is true. Please provide sources. I haven't seen evidence that the true cost is slowing, only accounting games which shift the costs elsewhere.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently Obamacare boosts costs so much that the members of the inner and outer parties would like to exempt themselves:
quote:

Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.
The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said.

what's stopping them? Sure as hell isn't a ethical concern or worries about fairness:
quote:
Yet if Capitol Hill leaders move forward with the plan, they risk being dubbed hypocrites by their political rivals and the American public. By removing themselves from a key Obamacare component, lawmakers and aides would be held to a different standard than the people who put them in office.
Gee, ya think?

Why would they risk this kind of blowback? What's driving it?

quote:
There is concern in some quarters that the provision requiring lawmakers and staffers to join the exchanges, if it isn’t revised, could lead to a “brain drain” on Capitol Hill, as several sources close to the talks put it.
The problem stems from whether members and aides set to enter the exchanges would have their health insurance premiums subsidized by their employer — in this case, the federal government. If not, aides and lawmakers in both parties fear that staffers — especially low-paid junior aides — could be hit with thousands of dollars in new health care costs, prompting them to seek jobs elsewhere. Older, more senior staffers could also retire or jump to the private sector rather than face a big financial penalty.

Plus, lawmakers — especially those with long careers in public service and smaller bank accounts — are also concerned about the hit to their own wallets.

Hit with thousands of dollars in new healthcare costs. Read that until it registers on you. Hit with thousands of dollars in new healthcare costs.

I hope they do it.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yet if Capitol Hill leaders move forward with the plan, they risk being dubbed hypocrites by their political rivals and the American public. By removing themselves from a key Obamacare component, lawmakers and aides would be held to a different standard than the people who put them in office.
That's rather absurd- the vast majority of people who put them into office get healthcare from their employers; that is part of the system that Obamacare incorporates. The weird exception would be a large employer discontinuing its health plans and forcing its employees onto the individual market, particularly without offering up the current employer portion of the healthcare premium as a subsidy, instead of just offering an employer coordinated health plan.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Linkie.

G3 also omits the reason for this crisis on Capitol Hill:

quote:
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said if OPM decides that the federal government doesn’t pick up “the 75 percent that they have been, then put yourself in the position of a lot of entry-level staff people who make $25,000 a year, and all of a sudden, they have a $7,000 a year health care tab? That would be devastating.”
(Emphasis mine.)

So the problem is not the Health Care Registeries themselves, but that the government changing the amount it covers.

And it is not absolutely clear that it will happen, either:

quote:
Waxman thinks there is confusion about the content of the law. The Affordable Care Act, he said, mandates that the federal government will still subsidize and provide health plans obtained in the exchange. There will be no additional cost to lawmakers and Hill aides, he contends.
If the law mandates it, the only way those on Capitol Hill can suffer is if they exempt themselves from the law. [Smile]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't believe this is true. Please provide sources. I haven't seen evidence that the true cost is slowing, only accounting games which shift the costs elsewhere.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/us/politics/sharp-slowdown-in-us-health-care-costs.html

Is a quick pull for a start.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/us/politics/sharp-slowdown-in-us-health-care-costs.html

Is a quick pull for a start.

That only looks at one variable. Obviously if they are cutting reimbursements then the amount they spend on Medicare will go down. The source does not say anything about whether the cost of the services actually went down (or that the rate of increase has slowed), and the evidence shows that it has not, as more and more Doctors are going bankrupt because they cannot continue to comply with regulations and all the associated costs and provide the services if they do not get enough reimbursement to cover it. Instead they either go bankrupt, or refuse to take Medicare patients.

[ April 27, 2013, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: LinuxFreakus ]

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More developments:
quote:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has gone hat in hand to health industry executives, asking them to make large financial donations to help with the effort to implement President Obama’s landmark health-care law.

Her unusual fundraising push comes after Congress has repeatedly rejected the Obama administration’s requests for additional funds to set up the Affordable Care Act, leaving Health and Human Services to implement the president’s signature legislative accomplishment on a shoestring budget.

Sebelius has, over the past three months, made multiple phone calls to health industry executives, community organizations and church groups and directly asked that they contribute to non-profits that are working to enroll uninsured Americans and increase awareness of the law, according to a Health and Human Services official familiar with the Secretary’s outreach who spoke on condition of anonymity.

so obviously the advertised costs were a lie or Sebelius would not need more money. But I guess anyone not totally a fool knew that. But what's really interesting here is she's soliciting donations for the cause from the very people/businesses she'll have direct regulatory authority over.

What do these calls sound like, "Hi I'm HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. You may recall I have tremendous discretionary power over your company and entire industry. Would you like to donate to my favorite cause? You would? Thank you so much."

This walks the line between merely unethical and illegal. Given the current regime's willingness to use the IRS to attack opponents, this should give everyone a serious concerns. However, I'm sure the usual suspects will voice their full support.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
so obviously the advertised costs were a lie or Sebelius would not need more money.
Or the house might be refusing to pass the expected appropriations that are needed to implement it. Your claim there isn't logically coherent. The ACA established what would be done, the actual appropriations to pay for it are a separate congressional process, and the House has been actively trying to starve the bill by refusing to make the appropriations that it requires. (And that's even without the cuts to existing appropriations from the sequester.)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Benefits advisers and insurance brokers—bucking a commonly held expectation that the law would broadly enrich benefits—are pitching these low-benefit plans around the country. They cover minimal requirements such as preventive services, but often little more. Some of the plans wouldn’t cover surgery, X-rays or prenatal care at all. Others will be paired with limited packages to cover additional services, for instance, $100 a day for a hospital visit.

Federal officials say this type of plan, in concept, would appear to qualify as acceptable minimum coverage under the law, and let most employers avoid an across-the-workforce $2,000-per-worker penalty for firms that offer nothing. Employers could still face other penalties they anticipate would be far less costly.

What?!? Business taking the route that most reduces cost? Crazy! That's just, well, unheard of:
quote:
We wouldn’t have anticipated that there’d be demand for these types of band-aid plans in 2014,” said Robert Kocher, a former White House health adviser who helped shepherd the law. “Our expectation was that employers would offer high quality insurance.”
[DOH]
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Linkie to article.

quote:
Part of the problem: lawmakers left vague the definition of employer-sponsored coverage, opening the door to unexpected interpretations, say people involved in drafting the law.
Once you let the lawyers in... [Frown]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's amusing to actually go to a G3 source (that he naturally won't link to) and discover when you read it in its entirety that the very text he snipped and clipped like a tailor making a fine suit so often says something very different from the material he wanted us to see. That really is the reason he doesn't include links. He assumes that we are all as lazy about knowing the truth as he is disinterested in it.

But he performs a useful purpose even so. Reading what he writes shows how some hard-right wing ideologues actually think about the rest of the world. He also gives us access to the festering world of hate politics that I would never otherwise run into.

It would be interesting if people like him really did run the country for a day. They would use their principles of freedom and individuality to crush anyone who formed an opinion outside of their narrow band of blind-eyed narcissism.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you have a link to what you are talking about, Al?
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This was a general comment. I should probably have posted it in a different thread where I did exactly that, as I don't have a WSJ subscription and can't read the article he snips from above. Go here, for instance. As a result of him doing that so often, I have no faith in his so-called honest reporting ability, especially when he snips disjoint portions from his source. When I read what he posted above, my first thought was, "I wonder what he left out?"

[Edit: Hmmm, by googling myself instead of following Wayward's link, I was able to access the article. I'll read it later and offer comments if it seems relevant.]

[ May 21, 2013, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What?!? Business taking the route that most reduces cost? Crazy!"

OK, I read the article. G3 didn't mischaracterize it, only twisted the implications in order to attack Obama for it. In other words, employers who *already* offer insurance are going to drop as much of their health care coverage as the new law will allow solely to save themselves a lot of money. They would do that even though it will deny their valued employees of a needed benefit that most of them had always thought justified. The rest apparently are just looking for another way to screw their workers. G3 apparently approves.

What exactly does that say about the motives of those employers? And what are the employees supposed to do now?

It apparently is just a game to G3. How can people thwart Obama, because thwarting Obama means "I win!"? Do you really think people with marketable skills will really want to work at companies that so blatantly put maximizing their profits against even the health of their employees?

G3 is apparently well off, based on hints he has dropped along the way congratulating himself on the financial coups he's managed for himself. If he owned a company with 100 employees, I wonder which way he would go.

Yuck, never mind. I don't want to think about that.

[ May 21, 2013, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The answer seems to be much less than the worst case estimates, as long as states make a good effort to get competitive bids for rate levels:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/24/unexpected-health-insurance-rate-shock-california-obamacare-insurance-exchange-announces-premium-rates/

quote:
“The Congressional Budget Office predicted back in November 2009 that a medium-cost plan on the health exchange – known as a “silver plan” – would have an annual premium of $5,200. A separate report from actuarial firm Milliman projected that, in California, the average silver plan would have a $450 monthly premium.”

The actual costs?

Kliff continues, “On average, the most affordable “silver plan” – which covers 70 percent of the average subscriber’s medical costs – comes with a $276 monthly premium. For the 2.6 million Californians who will receive federal subsidies, the price is a good deal less expensive…”

As you can see, the actuaries missed by a huge percentage.


Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That means much of the burden of the law will be on the hipster generation of Americans in their 20s and 30s, who will have to choose between paying a tax or paying for insurance they may not want. …

Under current law, a 25-year-old hipster living in San Francisco’s Mission District could purchase plans for as cheap as $95 per month through the website eHealthInsurance.com.

But according to Covered California, the entity that runs the California exchanges, in 2014, the cheapest qualifying plan in the state will be $162 per month — or nearly 60 percent higher.

Younger individuals would stop being eligible for subsidies after earning $32,000 per year. At 26, they would no longer have the option of remaining on their parents’ insurance policies, and at 30, they could no longer legally purchase cheaper, catastrophic health insurance.

It's for their own good.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now that it's passed, the AP starts to read:
quote:
The law is complicated, but essentially companies with 50 or more full-time workers are required to offer coverage that meets certain basic standards and costs no more than 9.5 percent of an employee’s income. Failure to do so means fines for the employer. (Full-time work is defined as 30 or more hours a week, on average.)

But do the math from the worker’s side: For an employee making $21,000 a year, 9.5 percent of their income could mean premiums as high as $1,995 and the insurance would still be considered affordable.

Even a premium of $1,000 — close to the current average for employee-only coverage — could be unaffordable for someone stretching earnings in the low $20,000′s.

With such a small income, “there is just not any left over for health insurance,” said Shannon Demaree, head of actuarial services for the Lockton Benefit Group. “What the government is requiring employers to do isn’t really something their low-paid employees want.”

I know, I know, you're all thinking about those wonderful tax credits that are supposed to offset all this. Think again. You don't get those if your employer has offered you “affordable” coverage and you've turned it down ... and “affordable” coverage being what is described above. So you got that going for you.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now even the unions are coming out against Obamacare. They stopped drinking the party koolaid to realize that 40% tax on Cadillac plans applies to them.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It'll get fixed for them. The inner party takes care of the outer party.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder how long until the dems try proposing to exempt themselves and their Congressional staffs again from Obamacare?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323335404578445042307824784.html

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Probably before the end of the year:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obamacare-lawmakers-health-insurance-92691.html?hp=f2

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I know, I know, you're all thinking about those wonderful tax credits that are supposed to offset all this. Think again. You don't get those if your employer has offered you “affordable” coverage and you've turned it down ... and “affordable” coverage being what is described above.
Which is why they should take that coverage, thus qualifying for the tax credits which make it affordable. Note that with the tax credits, the total personal cost of that coverage falls -- for someone making $20K a year -- to $200.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Affordable Health Care for America Act was a big political win for Owebama. Too bad it won't benefit we the people in the real world.

I work in a rural FQHC in the hazy state of Washington, and the poor have suffered mightily under this gooberment monstrosity. Maybe they will finally benefit in 2014??

Meanwhile, Pelosi is still waiting to find out what is in the bill.

http://blog.sfgate.com/djsaunders/2012/10/11/nancy-pelosi-says-she-read-obamacare-bill/

[ June 14, 2013, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, DJ, can I ask that you spell the president's name correctly?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can you also please spell the word "government" correctly?

I'm not asking you to respect the government, I'm asking you to respect standardized spelling.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I know, I know, you're all thinking about those wonderful tax credits that are supposed to offset all this. Think again. You don't get those if your employer has offered you “affordable” coverage and you've turned it down ... and “affordable” coverage being what is described above.
Which is why they should take that coverage, thus qualifying for the tax credits which make it affordable. Note that with the tax credits, the total personal cost of that coverage falls -- for someone making $20K a year -- to $200.
Which, of course, is not accurate. Let's check:
quote:
Even those who have available insurance through an employer might be eligible for subsidized health care. If premiums cost more than 9.5 percent of one’s household income – or if the plan pays less than 60 percent of the cost of covered benefits – one could buy health care through the exchange and receive the government subsidy.
So the example given above is 100% accurate and your assertion about the subsidy is completely inaccurate.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*sigh* G3, you continue to misunderstand this. And I don't think I have the energy to explain it to you again, on yet another thread. Do you really want me to, or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears another time?

[ June 14, 2013, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
I wonder how long until the dems try proposing to exempt themselves and their Congressional staffs again from Obamacare?

Where, by "exempt
you actually mean "remove confusion that might accidentally exempt them from getting the subsidies or employer provided premium support that everyone else is entitled to". Of course Congress could have also simply continued to offer an employer provided health plan, which is completely within the bounds of coverage the ACA supports and not any kind of exemption.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
*sigh* G3, you continue to misunderstand this. And I don't think I have the energy to explain it to you again, on yet another thread. Do you really want me to, or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears another time?

Your problem is that you continue to misrepresent this and insist the facts are not true. Be as condescending as you like, makes no difference, you still don't know what you're talking about and your opinion will not magically become actual fact.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am currently working as the SQL administrator for a health insurance company. As such, I've had to sit in on literally weeks of seminars on this very topic.

Whereas you are, IIRC, self-employed. Your relationship to and familiarity with health insurance is at best ephemeral.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ooooohhhh. You're a database admin at a health insurance company. Well hell man, why didn't you say so?!? [Roll Eyes]

I am mostly self employed (it's complicated) and my company and all of its employees are directly affected by this complex and vague law to which there are significant penalties for non-compliance. As such, I've had to sit in on literally weeks of seminars on this very topic.

[DOH]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's odd that you're so ill-informed, then. Can I ask who was conducting the seminars, and what your role will be in interpreting insurance law for your company?

I ask because I absolutely need to know how it's all intended to work, since I'm the last stop for data analysis and the guy our lawyers go to when we need to produce info for discovery. Are you in a similar situation?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So the example given above is 100% accurate and your assertion about the subsidy is completely inaccurate.
It's misleading though, because the higher price is the exchange price- as pointed out, those employees will be looking at the $1k employer provided coverage price, not the actual cap rate.

That is an issue, but i't not an ACA related issue, but a pre-existing one that it didn't manage to cover. That's an issue that should be more directly solved by giving people more real ability to walk away from such jobs unless the employer picks up enough of the price to make the compensation level more worthwhile, whether by paying a little more or by picking up a larger part of the premium.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It's odd that you're so ill-informed, then.

And I don't find it all odd that you're so ill-informed.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Can I ask who was conducting the seminars, and what your role will be in interpreting insurance law for your company?

Nope, some required NDA's and digging who that is just not gonna happen for this purpose. I can tell you than some were small business organizations, there was a couple of hospitals in there and even some insurance companies (in particular the one I use for the company - they have conducted several workshops).

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I ask because I absolutely need to know how it's all intended to work, since I'm the last stop for data analysis and the guy our lawyers go to when we need to produce info for discovery. Are you in a similar situation?

I find that hard to believe. The lawyers are going to ask you for specific information and you'll provide it. You can try to drop your deep legal analysis on them along with the requested data but I suspect after one or two times they'll ask you to stop that.

I am the first and last guy lawyers will go to should we need to produce anything for discovery.

[ June 14, 2013, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Hey, DJ, can I ask that you spell the president's name correctly?

Ask away, but The One has lost my respect. I will follow the laws, but nothing more.

I refused to vote 2 cycles ago, because of Palin. While I admire her conviction, she did not have enough experience to be one heartbeat away. And the current Prez still does not have enough experience, IMO. Besides, even Owebama believes our total lack of financial self-control is "unpatriotic" at a minimum. I agree with him on that.

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
... and what your role will be in interpreting insurance law for your company?
Missed that answer, compound questions are easy to miss.

We have a core group of 4 "executives", for lack of a better word. I and one other core member will be involved in determining a recommended strategy for mitigating the disaster of ObamaCare. Two of us because we want to collect differing perspectives and there's more than one person can be reasonably expected to absorb and there's not enough to have more than 2 do it - somebody still needs to focus on day to day needs. The 2 of us will hammer out our understanding and strategy based on all the seminars, workshops, documentation, legal advice etc we have been forced to attend/collect in order to digest this horror show and present it to the other 2. And then they'll disagree and we'll go round and round for a bit before we finally decide what makes the most sense for the health of the business.

Right now, it very much looks like we will finesse things to get below the 50 person cutoff (still under discussion though). It's so much simpler that way.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 20 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  18  19  20   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1