frep
Established Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 6:44:34 GMT -5
Posts: 386
|
Post by frep on Jun 28, 2012 15:11:15 GMT -5
Each of the examples you've given are of preventing citizens from buying something, not mandating they buy it. Okay, a $5million government study finds that artichokes are a superior food for improving health. Anyone that doesn't buy their monthly allotment of artichokes will have to pay a tax.
|
|
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 15:12:23 GMT -5
How does ACA do anything for reducing costs of healthcare? Certain provisions, like the 80% of all premium money has to be spent on patient treatment, are stabs at trying to control insurance costs. I have no earthly idea whether or not they'll work, but there are some cost inflation measures in this law.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 15:13:47 GMT -5
For those of you that believe this is a good ruling, and a good start, i have a few questions 1. If the government can now mandate you buying something, that you may or may not need, and that you may or may not want, where does this end? Can they tell you that you cant buy beef anymore, because red meat is bad for your health? Can they outlaw large sugared drinks because they contain too many calories? Where does their power end, and yours begin? Do you really believe that this is the end of their quest for power, or just the beginning? The idea, as i see it, was to get as many healthy individuals into the pool along with those that are already there, to lessen the cost per person that the system is paying for health care. For those that will buy into the "pool plans", do you believe that they will provide as good of care, as say blue cross, or an hmo like Kaiser? Or is this the new DMV, where you will wait in line to receive the worst customer service possible? 1. It's neither a beginning or an end of any quest for power. The US has been adjusting its requirements of citizens and businesses since it was formed, for better and for worse. 2. Offering a plan for sale provided by a private business in a marketplace is a lot different than operating a service office like the DMV (which isn't even a federal outfit, btw). Your comparison isn't valid.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:25:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 15:19:05 GMT -5
Yes...we need to change the system.
In my opinion, they went too far, and much too fast. For the "few" that couldnt get insurance before, they have used a very broad brush to wipe away a lot of freedom.
Two quick items would have put an immediate dent in health care costs. One, the ability to buy over state borders, and truly create a free market. The second is to change the tort laws, so that every doctor is not ordering every test under the sun just to rule out the 3% chance of his first diagnosis being wrong. They do this to prevent being sued, but they get sued anyway, and the entire cost per patient has skyrocketed becasue of the expensive tests.
Can you imagine the bloated beauracracy that this new law creates. How many more government agencies, and how many more sucking on the government teat.
And if you think that this is all going to be paid for.....well......sure it is (hey charlie, heres the amex card)
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 15:21:22 GMT -5
|
|
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 15:22:20 GMT -5
The second is to change the tort laws, so that every doctor is not ordering every test under the sun just to rule out the 3% chance of his first diagnosis being wrong. They do this to prevent being sued, but they get sued anyway, and the entire cost per patient has skyrocketed becasue of the expensive tests. Completely agree, however that particular issue is politically a PITA. We all agree that it's a problem when other people do it, but when our own doctor/surgeon screws up then we feel 100% entitled to HUGE damages.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:25:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 15:26:24 GMT -5
Only because the politicians are in bed with the legal lobby
And we all know that the circle jerk goes round and round
Our elected political leaders are bought and paid for....and stopped working for the people decades ago
Now they scratch the back of those that help them get reelected
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 15:26:37 GMT -5
Yes...we need to change the system. In my opinion, they went too far, and much too fast. For the "few" that couldnt get insurance before, they have used a very broad brush to wipe away a lot of freedom. Again, you are still perfectly free to choose to do nothing. At the moment, it will barely cost you 1%, which is your portion of the pooled costs, to choose to do nothing and forego your personal responsibility. 1% is very little to pay toward that possibility that you will end up in the ER at some point and need major medical treatment at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers.
|
|
kindthatjingles
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:06:06 GMT -5
Posts: 622
|
Post by kindthatjingles on Jun 28, 2012 15:28:05 GMT -5
Yes...we need to change the system. In my opinion, they went too far, and much too fast. For the "few" that couldnt get insurance before, they have used a very broad brush to wipe away a lot of freedom. And if you think that this is all going to be paid for.....well......sure it is (hey charlie, heres the amex card) by a few did you mean 10s of millions?
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 28, 2012 15:28:28 GMT -5
'Two quick items would have put an immediate dent in health care costs. One, the ability to buy over state borders, and truly create a free market. The second is to change the tort laws, so that every doctor is not ordering every test under the sun just to rule out the 3% chance of his first diagnosis being wrong. They do this to prevent being sued, but they get sued anyway, and the entire cost per patient has skyrocketed becasue of the expensive tests."
I can agree with you on both these points. Boy, it really does suck though when your family member is part of that 3% and they decided not to run a test. Had they done an MRI on my mother instead of giving her pain pills and sending her home she would still be alive today. Of course, we never sued anyone. It was a misdiagnosis - it sucks but it happens. Even though I wish they had run that tests on my mom I still have to agree with you...
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 15:29:10 GMT -5
We all agree that it's a problem when other people do it, but when our own doctor/surgeon screws up then we feel 100% entitled to HUGE damages. It's funny how that always works like this! And honestly, my understandng is that with most Americans getting their insurance through work, the amount of people who will actually be affected by the personal mandate or the exchanges will probably be a lot less than some think.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jun 28, 2012 15:29:30 GMT -5
For those of you that believe this is a good ruling, and a good start, i have a few questions 1. If the government can now mandate you buying something, that you may or may not need, and that you may or may not want, where does this end? Can they tell you that you cant buy beef anymore, because red meat is bad for your health? Can they outlaw large sugared drinks because they contain too many calories? Where does their power end, and yours begin? Do you really believe that this is the end of their quest for power, or just the beginning? I wonder where this is leading us.... I hope it's leading us to single-payer system. I would have been fine if SCOTUS had dumped the mandate on the condition that they also overturned Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act which was passed under Reagan. Giving people in this country the option to have health insurance of some sort should entitle hospitals to have the option of providing treatment. Given that so many hospitals are drowning in red ink because they are treating patients who can't pay.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:25:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 15:30:20 GMT -5
That same someone (Government) is the one who constantly overspends and can't decrease the National Debt, but somehow you trust that they can magically implement solid "cost savings"? That's funny.
|
|
DVM gone riding
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:04:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,383
Favorite Drink: Coffee!!
|
Post by DVM gone riding on Jun 28, 2012 15:32:31 GMT -5
For me it means yet higher premiums as the government forces my insurer to provide things I was ok without getting, and I get no benefit whatsoever---I thought they were going to do something about cost....
|
|
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 15:33:19 GMT -5
That same someone (Government) is the one who constantly overspends and can't decrease the National Debt, but somehow you trust that they can magically implement solid "cost savings"? That's funny. What's your solution then? Let the insurance companies do it? We've already seen their solution; sell insurance to healthy people and tell sick people to go suck an egg. Which granted, would have worked, if hospitals weren't required by law to treat people regardless of their ability to pay.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 15:34:09 GMT -5
That same someone (Government) is the one who constantly overspends and can't decrease the National Debt, but somehow you trust that they can magically implement solid "cost savings"? That's funny. Requiring companies to pay more for preventative care is doing the wrong thing? Requiring that companies spend more of the purchaser's dollar on actual care rather than admin is doing the wrong thing? How so?
|
|
nalto
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:31:54 GMT -5
Posts: 777
|
Post by nalto on Jun 28, 2012 15:34:35 GMT -5
I hope it's leading us to single-payer system. To everyone who wants this, why? Has it worked anywhere else? Not trying to be snarky, I just don't see it as being the most successful option...
|
|
greenstone
Established Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 13:57:20 GMT -5
Posts: 353
|
Post by greenstone on Jun 28, 2012 15:40:19 GMT -5
In my opinion, they went too far, and much too fast. For the "few" that couldnt get insurance before, they have used a very broad brush to wipe away a lot of freedom. I don't think so. IMO, health care is a basic necessity of life, like shelter, food and clothing. If you don't acquire a home for yourself, you can be fined/arrested for vagrancy. If you don't acquire clothing, you can be fined/arrested for indecency. If you don't eat and cause harm to yourself, you can be detained against your will to determine if you are of sound mind. If someone will pick up the costs for you then great, but if not you must pay for these items yourself. Health care is different because it is not a daily requirement but I still believe able-bodied people need to provide it for themselves. I still feel free.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:25:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 15:47:24 GMT -5
If you don't acquire a home for yourself, you can be fined/arrested for vagrancy. Holy crap...I was completely unaware that we have eradicated the homelessness problem in our country! That is great news to hear! Hooray. Oh....wait.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:25:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 15:51:47 GMT -5
Requiring companies to pay more for preventative care is doing the wrong thing? Requiring that companies spend more of the purchaser's dollar on actual care rather than admin is doing the wrong thing? How so? Do you even understand how a business works? By "requiring the companies to pay more", that generally means those same companies are going to CHARGE MORE. Again..Cost savings? Are you aware what the profit margins are for insurance companies? It's in the range of 3%-5%. Do you vilify Apple for making a much bigger profit margin?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:25:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 15:54:31 GMT -5
Yes...we need to change the system. In my opinion, they went too far, and much too fast. For the "few" that couldnt get insurance before, they have used a very broad brush to wipe away a lot of freedom. And if you think that this is all going to be paid for.....well......sure it is (hey charlie, heres the amex card) by a few did you mean 10s of millions? Tens of millions are uninsured.....how many by CHOICE How many people that wanted insurance truly couldnt get it under the old system if they were willing to pay for it Yes...some were denied coverage...but not tens of millions I stated that earlier those needed to be addressed And i have insurance, of all types. But i am a corporate controller, and i am trying to get all the information together now, so i can tell the owner what he "should" do. Not what i want him to do. Not what i think is the right thing to do. My job is to tell himwhat is the most prudent thing for him to do. And at this point, that is to cancel the insurance for 135 employees once this fully goes into effect. Pay the 40k penalty( i believe i read that number) and give each employee a 3-4% raise. And that, based upon what i know this minute, is what i will propose to him. This could change as my knowledge changes, or adjustments get made....but these are the types of decisions that this law will force.
|
|
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 15:56:37 GMT -5
My job is to tell himwhat is the most prudent thing for him to do. And at this point, that is to cancel the insurance for 135 employees once this fully goes into effect. Pay the 40k penalty( i believe i read that number) and give each employee a 3-4% raise. Since the law hasn't even gone into effect yet, why wasn't it prudent for him to do that decades ago and not even pay a penalty? Have you been giving him bad advice this entire time?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,411
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 28, 2012 15:58:36 GMT -5
Did you poll each employee and ask them if health insurance is a benefit worth staying for? Because if it isn't, he should cancel it now. But if it is, it still will be in 2014.
As a financial analyst, it is easy to get the wrong results from running the numbers.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jun 28, 2012 16:03:29 GMT -5
by a few did you mean 10s of millions? Tens of millions are uninsured.....how many by CHOICE How many people that wanted insurance truly couldnt get it under the old system if they were willing to pay for it Yes...some were denied coverage...but not tens of millions I stated that earlier those needed to be addressed And i have insurance, of all types. But i am a corporate controller, and i am trying to get all the information together now, so i can tell the owner what he "should" do. Not what i want him to do. Not what i think is the right thing to do. My job is to tell himwhat is the most prudent thing for him to do. And at this point, that is to cancel the insurance for 135 employees once this fully goes into effect. Pay the 40k penalty( i believe i read that number) and give each employee a 3-4% raise. And that, based upon what i know this minute, is what i will propose to him. This could change as my knowledge changes, or adjustments get made....but these are the types of decisions that this law will force. For your sake I hope he doesn't take your advice. When the job market turns around there will be a mass exodus and guess who they will look at when that happens. And I agree with Dark and others who said why didn't you advise that before the new law? It would have saved the company even more money before the tax because there was no "penalty" then. Other than good employees not wanting to work where there are no benefits - that is. That would be a much bigger penalty than the tax IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:25:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 16:07:19 GMT -5
My job is to tell himwhat is the most prudent thing for him to do. And at this point, that is to cancel the insurance for 135 employees once this fully goes into effect. Pay the 40k penalty( i believe i read that number) and give each employee a 3-4% raise. Since the law hasn't even gone into effect yet, why wasn't it prudent for him to do that decades ago and not even pay a penalty? Have you been giving him bad advice this entire time? Because i have already spoken to a number of my colleagues And they are thinking the same thing Will we be the first to pull the trigger cancelling the plan....no But if other do, we will follow suit And sometimes....the numbers make the decision easy
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 16:07:45 GMT -5
by a few did you mean 10s of millions? Tens of millions are uninsured.....how many by CHOICE How many people that wanted insurance truly couldnt get it under the old system if they were willing to pay for it Yes...some were denied coverage...but not tens of millions The truth is that we really don't know the full situation every uninsured person finds themselves in. But I will tell you that most of the uninsured people around me or the uninsured employees when I worked in payroll are uninsured because the cost of premiums was more than they could afford. They would love to get insurance. So if they have the choice to find insurance they can afford, whether it be by qualifying for subsidies or hopefully finding better prices on the exchanges or qualifying for expanded government coverage, many of them would love to stop playing the roulette wheel with their health. Give them an option, and I think many people will be thrilled to be able to afford to take less risks.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 16:08:56 GMT -5
My job is to tell himwhat is the most prudent thing for him to do. And at this point, that is to cancel the insurance for 135 employees once this fully goes into effect. Pay the 40k penalty( i believe i read that number) and give each employee a 3-4% raise. Since the law hasn't even gone into effect yet, why wasn't it prudent for him to do that decades ago and not even pay a penalty? Have you been giving him bad advice this entire time? Because i have already spoken to a number of my colleagues And they are thinking the same thing Will we be the first to pull the trigger cancelling the plan....no But if other do, we will follow suit And sometimes....the numbers make the decision easy So what is preventing him from cancelling the company insurance right now? And what specifically do you expect to be the item that makes it more prudent to pay the $40k and drop company coverage?
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 28, 2012 16:09:38 GMT -5
I know some people (not a lot though I suspect there are some others) in their late 50's and early 60's who are currently only working because they need health insurance. They could retire tomorrow if they had a viable and affordable option to health care. I wonder how this might effect the job market in the aspect of people retiring and opening up more jobs. Just thinking out loud here - well, writing out loud I guess
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 16:10:26 GMT -5
I know some people (not a lot though I suspect there are some others) in their late 50's and early 60's who are currently only working because they need health insurance. They could retire tomorrow if they had a viable and affordable option to health care. I wonder how this might effect the job market in the aspect of people retiring and opening up more jobs. Just thinking out loud here - well, writing out loud I guess Ooh, that's an interesting idea! Economy boost via healthcare coverage. Intriguing...
|
|
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 16:12:27 GMT -5
Because i have already spoken to a number of my colleagues
And they are thinking the same thing
Will we be the first to pull the trigger cancelling the plan....no
But if other do, we will follow suit
And sometimes....the numbers make the decision easy Uh huh. So as it stands right now it costs a company not a single cent to cancel insurance coverage but your whole field thinks that doing so is a bad idea. However, if the government puts a penalty on cancelling coverage, so it would cost the company money, you all think it's a good idea to do so and pay the penalty. Don't take this the wrong way, but do you guys get your corporate controller degrees from cereal boxes?
|
|