AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 8, 2011 8:38:41 GMT -5
Due to ObamaCare. Thanks, Barry!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 8, 2011 8:40:16 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 8, 2011 8:41:22 GMT -5
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 8, 2011 8:45:16 GMT -5
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 8, 2011 8:50:22 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 8, 2011 9:29:13 GMT -5
You can make smartass replies, but the last paragraph of the article sums it up pretty well. ObamaCare is a disaster. It's the worst piece of legislation in American history- maybe even human history- and it needs to be repealed. Republicans are, and I'm guessing this because I know them, gutlessly deferring to the Courts on this and they need to quit it. They need to repeal this bill. They can get, if they work at it, a bi-partisan majority to repeal this bill. Let Obama VETO it. Then let him in effect, pass ObamaCare twice just before voters go to the polls to decide on giving him another term.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jun 8, 2011 10:19:19 GMT -5
The other thing is how many people will actually lose jobs from the insurance companies going out of business? I guess they can just be employed by the government to help with the new health care, but won't that mean we will just have to pay more taxes to cover there employment and pension benefits? I am sure a lot of those private insurance companies don't give out pensions, most companies have been doing away with pensions. I believe a lot of the government jobs still have pensions involved.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 8, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
We should make insurance truly insurance again
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 10:22:42 GMT -5
Why are insurance companies going out of business? Those who focus on the group market may have to shift focus to the private market, but more people than ever will be insured, so they should do just fine.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 8, 2011 10:28:26 GMT -5
Well,because the poor companies are only operating on a 3 percent margin with younger healthier policy holders,they tell us.When they get the massive flood of high risk elderly boomers dumped on them,It will help them out,and they will lower prices as they compete for their business......and if you believe that ...
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,944
|
Post by bean29 on Jun 8, 2011 10:35:51 GMT -5
Personally I think the Dems need to fix Obamacare but the Repubs are dead wrong on this issue. I think Health Insurance in the US is going to get so expensive that employers will begin to drop it in droves in the next 5-10 years. Repubs just want to burry their heads in the sand.
Place to start is consumers and health insurance companies in the US should pay about what other countries pay for the same drugs from the same companies. Quit protecting Pharmaceutical Companies. We do not need to pay for drug research for the world (if you believe that is where the $$ are going and not in some CEO's pocket).
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 10:38:51 GMT -5
Well,because the poor companies are only operating on a 3 percent margin with younger healthier policy holders,they tell us.When they get the massive flood of high risk elderly boomers dumped on them,It will help them out,and they will lower prices as they compete for their business......and if you believe that ... Where are you getting this? Generally younger, healthier people don't bother with private insurance, they just go uninsured. But now they will be added to the pool. The companies can still vary rates based on age, so they can still charge more if they get an influx of older people. I don't see how more people getting added to the risk pool will put companies out of business, if anything it should help them.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jun 8, 2011 10:44:36 GMT -5
Why are insurance companies going out of business? Those who focus on the group market may have to shift focus to the private market, but more people than ever will be insured, so they should do just fine. I didn't read the health care bill, so I probably don't have a good grasp on the full idea. Lets say I have insurance now through BCBS and when the new healthcare comes into affect, I want to drop it and get that. Is it still going to be supplied by BCBS or is the government going to be running the coverage? If the government is running the coverage, won't BCBS lose a lot of business and money therefor have to pay employees less or lay them off?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 8, 2011 10:48:01 GMT -5
Generally,younger people have employer subsidized coverage. And I was refering to republicans plan to seniors on insurance companies and their claim this would create competion and lower prices.Bull.It will do just the opposite.If they really are operating on a 3 percent margin,as claimed,the risk/reward scales will be tilted drasticaly with the addition of all the boomer seniors.They will not absorb this increased exposure by cutting profits nor all in the seniors premiums.There will be large across the board increases to cover them.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 10:51:52 GMT -5
The govt is not running any coverage, the public option was dropped. So you get dropped by your BCBS employer insurance, then you go look on the health insurance exchange & find a private insurance company for coverage. The govt is not competing against these companies & won't put them out of business by taking their business.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 16:40:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2011 10:52:19 GMT -5
So, Paul's article and others are saying what I heard from employers on talk radio a long time ago-- they can't afford to insure all the employees, even part timers. They are better off paying the per capita fine.... which of course, Obama knows and is doling out exemptions to his friends..STILL people won't believe. Guess they may believe when they get the notice that due to Obamacare cost increases their company insurance is being dropped.. www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/07/1-in-3-employers-will-drop-health-benefits-after-obamacare-fully-kicks-in/According to the survey, at least 30 percent of employers would reap financial gain from dropping coverage even if they compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries. The research notes among the new provisions that could spur employers to drop coverage is a requirement of all employers with more than 50 employees to offer health benefits to every full-timer or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker. Those benefits must also be equal between highly compensated executives and hourly employees – requirements that will increase medical costs for many companies. The findings are distinct from a Congressional Budget Office estimate that only about 7 percent of employees who currently get health coverage through their jobs would have to switch to subsidized-exchange polices in 2014. The group said its variance is so wide because shifting away from employer-sponsored insurance "will be economically rational" given the "law's incentives." The law requires employers to make insurance available to low-income or part-time employees that may not otherwise be covered. The research found that contrary to what many employers feared, most employees -- more than 85 percent -- would stay at jobs that no longer offered health benefits. But 60 percent of employees would expect higher compensation.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 8, 2011 10:52:22 GMT -5
The problems are (again- man does this get old explaining this) with healthcare in America:
1. Insurance isn't insurance. This is a HUGE problem. Insurance covers catastrophic risks. Think about car insurance. It doesn't maintain your car-- YOU maintain your car. We need to get back to the idea that insurance is there when you get "the diagnosis" or break your arm. It's not there for an office visit or prescriptions that cost less than a few thousand dollars a year. Now, I realize that this would cut into the alcohol, cigarette, PS3, and tuner car budget of most young people-- but deal with it.
2. Insurance is primarily a wage subsidy. This (again) happened as a result of the Post WWII boom while there were still GOVERNMENT wage and price controls. First there was a company doctor, then reimbursement, then this bastardization of insurance we have today.
3. Medical care and insurance is viewed as something provided by someone else, and not the responsibility of the individual.
4. The result of all of this is that the end USER is not ultimately the end PAYER or BUYER. If you were, you'd tell them to shove it up their arse when they billed you $90 for a Tylenol. And you wouldn't take their expenses and all that bullshit as an excuse. If YOU had an INCENTIVE to economize-- if insurance and medical care were purchase in the private free competitive market-- costs would come DOWN. Almost instantly. Those that doubt this will have to refer to..I don't know...EVERYTHING ELSE YOU BUY as an example.
Imagine if grocery shopping worked like health insurance- and you had an employer based grocery insurance plan. As long as you have a job, you can get groceries. When you go to the grocery store-- as often as you like; you can select anything you like and you pay a $20 - $50 "co-pay" and the full bill is sent off to a third party for payment. No doubt the grocer will stock plenty of expensive items and have lots of "recommendations" for you.
I know that the minds of liberals are shut tight. I know that the single payer lie is so deeply ingrained that they'd rather commit mass suicide than admit it hasn't worked, doesn't work, and will never work; or admit that this mess has its beginning and end in government deliberately screwing things up, and that the FREE MARKET would work-- but I just thought that for those on the fence this might be helpful (again).
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 10:55:27 GMT -5
Generally,younger people have employer subsidized coverage. And I was refering to republicans plan to seniors on insurance companies and their claim this would create competion and lower prices.Bull.It will do just the opposite. Gotcha - well the republicans idea to put seniors on private plans is a whole other issue & frankly I don't really understand how it is fully going to work. I don't think the republicans really understand either - are private companies going to have a medicare pool with pricing adjusted for them, or do they get added to the general population causing insurance to skyrocket for the young? I believe it has been shown that health care costs to senior will quadruple under the plan, which will cause massive problems. How are seniors going to cover the massive increase?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 8, 2011 10:56:24 GMT -5
You don't really think your insurance company pays whatever the provider wants,do you? The prices are pre negotiated on covered items. Non covered items are not paid for.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 11:01:23 GMT -5
So, Paul's article and others are saying what I heard from employers on talk radio a long time ago-- they can't afford to insure all the employees, even part timers. They are better off paying the per capita fine.... which of course, Obama knows and is doling out exemptions to his friends..STILL people won't believe. What i-bob used to always point out - employers could save money by dropping insurance today. There is no financial benefit to having health insurance for your employees - what employers gain is that they attract better employees by offering these benefits. This won't really change - they will either offer benefits or up salaries to remain competitive within their market. I don't really see a huge downside to employers dropping coverage - they will have to increase pay to remain competitive, but now I have a entire marketplace of insurance options to pick from. I no longer have the single option offered by my employer, but can pick a plan that meets my insurance needs. The idea that it is bad to get away from an employer based healthcare system is silly. It is also silly to point out that employers may save money by not offering insurance, because the exact same thing was true before the reform.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 8, 2011 11:03:17 GMT -5
I don't know many people that see hospital or doctor visits that way.Gee,gallbladder surgery is on sale today...think I will get one..
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 11:06:44 GMT -5
1. Insurance isn't insurance. This is a HUGE problem. Insurance covers catastrophic risks. Think about car insurance. It doesn't maintain your car-- YOU maintain your car. The problem with this comparison is that when the car's engine seizes up because I never changed the oil, I am still responsible. However, when someone has catastrophic health consequences for lack of regular meds & maintenance, then insurance will cover it. It is actually cheaper for insurance to try to be proactive & keep us healthy rather than just pay when we end up in the hospital. This is what I like about HDHPs with HSAs. You start paying a lot more attention to what stuff costs when you are responsible for 100% of the first $4000 or whatever of your healthcare.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jun 8, 2011 11:18:15 GMT -5
The govt is not running any coverage, the public option was dropped. So you get dropped by your BCBS employer insurance, then you go look on the health insurance exchange & find a private insurance company for coverage. The govt is not competing against these companies & won't put them out of business by taking their business. I am not sure how this is going to change anything? I guess I should ask what the main benefit of the bill is. If I am just going from one private insurer to the next, why would the rates change?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 11:25:06 GMT -5
The govt is not running any coverage, the public option was dropped. So you get dropped by your BCBS employer insurance, then you go look on the health insurance exchange & find a private insurance company for coverage. The govt is not competing against these companies & won't put them out of business by taking their business. I am not sure how this is going to change anything? I guess I should ask what the main benefit of the bill is. If I am just going from one private insurer to the next, why would the rates change? Some of the benefits of the bill (IMO) - can't reject someone based on pre-existing conditions, can't lose your insurance due to change in job or health conditions, increases the size of the risk pool for insurance companies, insures a minimum level of insurance, & subisidizes premiums for lower income people. As far as changing rates - now you can choose what type of insurance you want - do you want a high deductable, higher prescription costs, higher copays, etc - then you will have a lower rate - but if you are relatively healthy you might be fine with this. Or you could go with a higher cost plan that will lower your deductable, your copays, etc. Just did a quick search on ehealthinsurance for my age & locations - came up with 81 plans with prices varying from $41/month to $426/month. That gives someone a lot of choices over just having their employers plan available.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 8, 2011 12:23:43 GMT -5
I am not sure how this is going to change anything? I guess I should ask what the main benefit of the bill is. If I am just going from one private insurer to the next, why would the rates change? Some of the benefits of the bill (IMO) - can't reject someone based on pre-existing conditions, can't lose your insurance due to change in job or health conditions, increases the size of the risk pool for insurance companies, insures a minimum level of insurance, & subisidizes premiums for lower income people. As far as changing rates - now you can choose what type of insurance you want - do you want a high deductable, higher prescription costs, higher copays, etc - then you will have a lower rate - but if you are relatively healthy you might be fine with this. Or you could go with a higher cost plan that will lower your deductable, your copays, etc. Just did a quick search on ehealthinsurance for my age & locations - came up with 81 plans with prices varying from $41/month to $426/month. That gives someone a lot of choices over just having their employers plan available. And many stupid people will choose the $41/month policy, spend the rest of their money on crap, and then go into bankruptcy when they get sick because they can't afford the healthcare costs of the policy they chose. So, really, what changes under Obamacare?
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 8, 2011 12:47:40 GMT -5
Gotcha - well the republicans idea to put seniors on private plans is a whole other issue
Can you show me the plan that says seniors (you know those older than 55) would need to be on a private plan?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 12:51:02 GMT -5
Gotcha - well the republicans idea to put seniors on private plans is a whole other issue Can you show me the plan that says seniors (you know those older than 55) would need to be on a private plan? Maybe I am confused, I thought we were talking about Ryan's plan for medicare when we were talking about seniors. It wouldn't change anything for seniors today, but my understanding was that in the future medicare is going to become people purchasing private plans & getting their premiums subsidized. But, I don't know the details & I don't know that the republicans have really figured out the details.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 12:56:57 GMT -5
Some of the benefits of the bill (IMO) - can't reject someone based on pre-existing conditions, can't lose your insurance due to change in job or health conditions, increases the size of the risk pool for insurance companies, insures a minimum level of insurance, & subisidizes premiums for lower income people. As far as changing rates - now you can choose what type of insurance you want - do you want a high deductable, higher prescription costs, higher copays, etc - then you will have a lower rate - but if you are relatively healthy you might be fine with this. Or you could go with a higher cost plan that will lower your deductable, your copays, etc. Just did a quick search on ehealthinsurance for my age & locations - came up with 81 plans with prices varying from $41/month to $426/month. That gives someone a lot of choices over just having their employers plan available. And many stupid people will choose the $41/month policy, spend the rest of their money on crap, and then go into bankruptcy when they get sick because they can't afford the healthcare costs of the policy they chose. So, really, what changes under Obamacare? Well, Obama is limiting your deductable & other stuff, so odds are there won't be a $41 plan anymore, which I disagree with personally, I think high deductables should be encouraged. Also, the $41 plan has a max out of pocket of $10K. So, while it is possible someone might have to declare bankruptcy over 10K in medical bills, it is significantly more likely that they would have to declare bankruptcy had they gone through the same illness/procedure/whatever with no insurance whatsoever. So now instead of the hospital being unable to collect $50K or whatnot in medical bills, they are unable to collect $10K & still get the other $40K. This also will help lower medical costs because often hospitals & have to charge extra to everyone compensate for all the bills that go unpaid.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 8, 2011 12:58:22 GMT -5
No "seniors" would be forced into a private plan, anyone 55 or older keeps what we have now, those younger than 55 get to look for better options. So yes future seniors would need to look, shop and cost compare but, seniors those 55 and over do not. It's this Empower Grandma, Killing Seniors, Forcing the old to eat cat food or take pills BS that has, for the last 15 years not allowed us to logicly and more importantly mathmaticaly look at the real situation.
Fear tactics are all that have keep SS and Medicare the same when for years people have seen the ponzi scheme starting to take it's toll.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 8, 2011 13:04:42 GMT -5
I don't really see a huge downside to employers dropping coverage - they will have to increase pay to remain competitive, but now I have a entire marketplace of insurance options to pick from. I no longer have the single option offered by my employer, but can pick a plan that meets my insurance needs. This makes no sense Angel. Does your company demand that you must purchase their insurance instead of utilizing the entire marketplace of insurance options you currently have now.
|
|