rovo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,628
|
Post by rovo on Jun 28, 2012 13:49:01 GMT -5
That's one part I can't figure out. Why are we punishing companies for providing good healthcare to their employees? That's simple. Equality.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 28, 2012 13:50:52 GMT -5
Now, it boils down to the issues of a) how do people feel about being lied to from the get-go about this NOT being a tax and b) do they still want the bill after realizing it's a tax? Are you joking? People in this country love being lied to. Knowing the truth is very scary for some people. That's why they elect on "Hope and Change!" Let's also not forget the whole weapons of mass destruction thing as well. ETA: I am an independent - I don't care what party anyone is affiliated with. All politicians lie
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 28, 2012 13:51:17 GMT -5
Communism
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 2:55:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 13:51:47 GMT -5
My car insurance would cover that.....but whatever. Wait, so you're whining about being forced to buy health insurance, but you have car insurance? What the hell dude. Stick to your principles. Don't let the man push you around like that. This is a free country dammit! And again....pay close attention and focus.....If I didn't own a car, I WOULDN'T have car insurance.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 28, 2012 13:53:25 GMT -5
And again....pay close attention and focus.....If I didn't own a car, I WOULDN'T have car insurance. So the answer is simple; get rid of your body and you won't be forced to buy health insurance. You choose to keep it, and the thing breaks down every so often which is expensive, so why shouldn't you be forced to carry an insurance policy on it? Instead of the rest of us being forced to cover the costs of caring for the body that you choose to keep?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 2:55:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 13:53:41 GMT -5
Are you joking? People in this country love being lied to. Knowing the truth is very scary for some people. That's why they elect on "Hope and Change!" Let's also not forget the whole weapons of mass destruction thing as well. ETA: I am an independent - I don't care what party anyone is affiliated with. All politicians lie Just because I'm from Texas doesn't mean I'm a 'Dubya' supporter. I actually voted for Obama because I couldn't stand the thought of voting for McCain. I'm also an Independent.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 28, 2012 13:54:01 GMT -5
"Yes, but you have a choice in whether or not to buy the cigarettes and alcohol. With this, you have no choice and that's what I am objecting to. The government is forcing us to make a purchase."
Yep, I can totally see this going even further.
Don't buy a hybrid? Pay more taxes.
Don't buy solar pannels? Pay more in taxes
Don't recycle? Pay more in taxes.
The possibilities are endless....
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 28, 2012 13:54:37 GMT -5
There is a lot of hearsay in this post. Someone says that their boss says that someone told him that their insurance is so good that the government was going to punish them? I would like to see "someone" with actual knowledge of the new law explain why this plan is "so good."
I wouldn't be surprised if the problem with this particular health plan is the $3000 payment for any non-well care before any payouts begin. Granted, I had a plan like that and I really, really liked it. However, people who didn't have a $3,000 cushion and had more medical problems than me hated it. They often had to choose between seeing a doctor and buying groceries. Although I believe they should prepare a little better for that, and that $3k part really helped the group collectively prioritize health services - I could see how some people would feel this is not a great clause for the people at greatest risk.
I doubt the poster's company will be fined. I would suggest that the insurance company they work with will modify the plan to get it into compliance. (If, in fact, it is not. I'm still wondering if that telephone-game type message has been misinterpreted.)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 2:55:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 13:55:08 GMT -5
And again....pay close attention and focus.....If I didn't own a car, I WOULDN'T have car insurance. So the answer is simple; get rid of your body and you won't be forced to buy health insurance. I've had family members that were healthy their entire lives and died in their sleep at an old age without ever requiring anything other than yearly physicals and check-ups. Not EVERYONE has to use expensive services.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 28, 2012 13:58:06 GMT -5
As I understand the bill, I can go ahead and drop my health insurance. I'll get a "fine" but if I don't pay it they can't really do anything to me. If I do get sick I can go ahead and get insurance and they can't deny me because I'm already sick because that would be a pre existing condition.
Brilliant.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 13:58:30 GMT -5
The status quo doesn't do that No, the status quo lets you choose to go without insurance, forces the hospital to treat you when you need it, then the local, state, and federal government has to reimburse the hospital for your stupid choice if you can't pay, and since those government agencies only raise revenue by taking it from the rest of us in the form of taxes, we're all stuck paying for your stupid choice. As one of those people paying for the stupid choices of others, I'd much rather have you be "forced" to just buy a damn insurance policy and be done with it. If that's somehow unfair to you, then I don't want to be forced to pay for the consequences of your stupid choices. So, if we repeal Obamacare I'd like to replace it with a system where a hospital can tell you to go suck an egg if you need care and have chosen not to get coverage. Either extreme seems to me to be about the fairest way that we can start changing our existing system. Except, if you buy a high deductible policy the hospital could still be completely stiffed if you weren't injured enough for the costs to go over the deductible. (I know limits were placed on HD but I'm not clear on what they are and if it would mitigate that instance) I'm not convinced that the government would take the money that's now being spent on the uninsured, use it for the subsidies and NOT raise taxes more. And I'm not convinced adding the whole list of preventative visits, tests, and prescriptions that insurance companies now have to cover 100% won't raise healthcare premiums and by extension taxes because they need more money to give out as subsidies. (Unless cutting overhead down to 20% would cover this expense. Though there have been several studies that preventative care is not always cheaper and that Obamacare will cost more than what they say so I'm still not convinced cutting down to 20% will cover it). And, as I've said before, I'm not saying our healthcare system doesn't need to be revamped, I'm just saying I don't trust the government for shit when it comes to healthcare when you look at their track record for Medicaid and Medicare.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 28, 2012 13:59:21 GMT -5
I've had family members that were healthy their entire lives and died in their sleep at an old age without ever requiring anything other than yearly physicals and check-ups. I've had family members that walked seven miles to school through three feet of snow (in the summer, in winter it got really bad) and it was uphill both ways. They started smoking a pack a day at ten, two packs a day at 12 when they got their first full time job, and added drinking at 16 when they were working two full time jobs. Then they took a break for a couple years to go fight a war where they were wounded at least a dozen times and killed well over 50 people... counting just the ones they took out with their bare hands or a trench knife after they ran out of ammo. Etc., etc., etc. And they never saw a doctor in their lives.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 2:55:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 14:01:31 GMT -5
I've had family members that were healthy their entire lives and died in their sleep at an old age without ever requiring anything other than yearly physicals and check-ups. I've had family members that walked seven miles to school through three feet of snow (in the summer, in winter it got really bad) and it was uphill both ways. They started smoking a pack a day at ten, two packs a day at 12 when they got their first full time job, and added drinking at 16 when they were working two full time jobs. Then they took a break for a couple years to go fight a war where they were wounded at least a dozen times and killed well over 50 people... counting just the ones they took out with their bare hands or a trench knife after they ran out of ammo. Etc., etc., etc. Well...at least one of our posts is reality.
|
|
Sharon
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:48:11 GMT -5
Posts: 11,145
|
Post by Sharon on Jun 28, 2012 14:02:08 GMT -5
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 14:05:11 GMT -5
There is a lot of hearsay in this post. Someone says that their boss says that someone told him that their insurance is so good that the government was going to punish them? I would like to see "someone" with actual knowledge of the new law explain why this plan is "so good." I wouldn't be surprised if the problem with this particular health plan is the $3000 payment for any non-well care before any payouts begin. Granted, I had a plan like that and I really, really liked it. However, people who didn't have a $3,000 cushion and had more medical problems than me hated it. They often had to choose between seeing a doctor and buying groceries. Although I believe they should prepare a little better for that, and that $3k part really helped the group collectively prioritize health services - I could see how some people would feel this is not a great clause for the people at greatest risk. I doubt the poster's company will be fined. I would suggest that the insurance company they work with will modify the plan to get it into compliance. (If, in fact, it is not. I'm still wondering if that telephone-game type message has been misinterpreted.) I have no idea what the government has deemed as a "Cadillac" health insurance, but there is a tax for employers that give their employees too expensive of insurance. www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/march/18/cadillac-tax-explainer-update.aspxThat's the first article I found explaining it well. It's old, but came out after the bill was finalized so I'm assuming it's still correct. (But I could be making an ass out of myself ) According to it "Cadillac" plans are determined by the amount of the premiums not specifics of the plans (copays etc) and employers will be taxed 40% on the amount over the threshold, which according to the article is $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family. Which doesn't seem like a whole hell of a lot if you ask me.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 28, 2012 14:09:04 GMT -5
Sounds like the intention of that part of the bill is to keep insurance companies from jacking up the rates to a million dollars per person.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 2:55:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 14:09:31 GMT -5
And again....pay close attention and focus.....If I didn't own a car, I WOULDN'T have car insurance. So the answer is simple; get rid of your body and you won't be forced to buy health insurance. You choose to keep it, and the thing breaks down every so often which is expensive, so why shouldn't you be forced to carry an insurance policy on it? Instead of the rest of us being forced to cover the costs of caring for the body that you choose to keep? I could also ask you this: So you're saying that it's okay for the government to tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies? How does the Pro-Choice crowd feel about this stunning development?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 28, 2012 14:09:42 GMT -5
It will sure be interesting. I think a lot of employees that are used to having medical coverage will find that they now get to cover themselves or cover more of their own care. I'm sure mine will go up and I'm healthy dammit.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 28, 2012 14:11:12 GMT -5
So you're saying that it's okay for the government to tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies? They aren't telling you to do anything with your body. You're free to never see a doctor if you want. They're saying that since the things break relatively easily, and are expensive to fix, you need to have insurance on them. They aren't forcing you to use the insurance though.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,510
|
Post by chiver78 on Jun 28, 2012 14:11:50 GMT -5
And again....pay close attention and focus.....If I didn't own a car, I WOULDN'T have car insurance. So the answer is simple; get rid of your body and you won't be forced to buy health insurance. You choose to keep it, and the thing breaks down every so often which is expensive, so why shouldn't you be forced to carry an insurance policy on it? Instead of the rest of us being forced to cover the costs of caring for the body that you choose to keep? I could also ask you this: So you're saying that it's okay for the government to tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies? How does the Pro-Choice crowd feel about this stunning development? nobody is saying you have to USE the coverage.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 28, 2012 14:12:55 GMT -5
I think a lot of employees that are used to having medical coverage will find that they now get to cover themselves or cover more of their own care. Could be, but the flip side would be true too. A lot of companies that drop insurance to save a buck will find their employees asking for larger salaries to offset the cost difference.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,224
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 28, 2012 14:13:11 GMT -5
My company has been slowing changing the entire time to conform to the new laws. I haven't seen my premiums shoot sky high.
Some coverage changed, like the mental health coverage. We had better coverage and now it's subject to deductible. But otherwise I have not noticed a huge shift in coverage compared to when I started.
I suppose it remains to be seen if major changes will happen now that it is law, but I just got an email saying they've already been changing this entire time and I never noticed, so I doubt the rug is going to be pulled out from under me.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 28, 2012 14:13:43 GMT -5
I'm not pleased about it.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jun 28, 2012 14:15:29 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 2:55:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 14:15:36 GMT -5
And again....pay close attention and focus.....If I didn't own a car, I WOULDN'T have car insurance. So the answer is simple; get rid of your body and you won't be forced to buy health insurance. You choose to keep it, and the thing breaks down every so often which is expensive, so why shouldn't you be forced to carry an insurance policy on it? Instead of the rest of us being forced to cover the costs of caring for the body that you choose to keep? I could also ask you this: So you're saying that it's okay for the government to tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies? How does the Pro-Choice crowd feel about this stunning development? seeing as I have insurance through my employer, I'm good - thanks.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 14:16:06 GMT -5
Sounds like the intention of that part of the bill is to keep insurance companies from jacking up the rates to a million dollars per person. Insurance companies don't get fined for offering those plans. If companies won't buy them, they won't offer them so I guess they get punished that way. I just hope there's some inflation built into how they determine the Cadillac threshold, though currently premiums are going up faster than inflation. If my current plan goes up by 10% a year, by the time it goes into effect in 2018 my plan is over the threshold.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 28, 2012 14:18:40 GMT -5
Okay - I'll rephrase to cover the exact logic you just followed.
Sounds like the intention of that part of the bill is to keep a strong financial and business incentive in place for both employers and insurance companies to not jack up the rates to a million dollars per person.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jun 28, 2012 14:23:46 GMT -5
This makes me angry, sad and sick to my stomach. The ONLY people who will get "affordable care" will be the people who are not paying for it. Not paying for it now, and won't pay it in 2014. People who are paying for it - the last thing it will be for them is affordable
Lena
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 14:24:12 GMT -5
Okay - I'll rephrase to cover the exact logic you just followed. Sounds like the intention of that part of the bill is to keep a strong financial and business incentive in place for both employers and insurance companies to not jack up the rates to a million dollars per person. Ok, but what about the plans now that are currently over the threshold because an employer decided that they'd like to offer their employees low copays and low deductibles? Have they "jacked up the rates to a million dollars" for those policies? I would think limiting the percentage premiums can rise per year would be more apt to keep rates from jacking up large amounts. I just don't see why the government wants to punish companies that are doing right by their employees by offering really good coverage when they're simulatenously raging against companies that don't offer any health insurance.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 28, 2012 14:25:20 GMT -5
I think this policy will be revamped a hundred times over before it sees the light of day so I think the freak outs are little premature.
|
|