|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 28, 2011 7:42:09 GMT -5
Ms Oped the article is in today's San Francisco Chronicle and when I tried to repost it from their webpage I got this message: This story is exclusive to the Chronicle's Monday print edition and will not appear on SFGate.com until 12:01 AM on Wednesday, March 30. To Read more: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/27/BAMH1I4857.DTL#ixzz1HthoGRkfHealth insurers to fight Calif. coverage mandates Victoria Colliver, Chronicle Staff Writer So as you are probably know, I think some states are figging Obamacare and don't want those dam "Mandates" I think a few state governors have said and I am paraphrasing "Mandates, We don't want your stinking Mandates!!"...so you will have to wait a few days and remind me to post the link for you OK and hope this meets with your standards of excellence when reporting about Obamacare..??
|
|
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 Mar 28, 2011 7:48:42 GMT -5
Why you might ask? Well here is why Insurers have to provide more coverage as required by the Federal Obamacare mandates and will include: Acupuncture, Mammograms, Tobacco cessation, maternity care, expanded mental disorders, pain medication for special circumstance, fertility preservation, autism treatments to name just a few... Shouldn't HI policy requirements be a states rights issue, not a federal mandate?
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 28, 2011 7:51:13 GMT -5
I'm sorry... how does paying a salary inflate a tax bill? ... Paying a salary decreases a tax bill... The person who receives the salary pays taxes on that salary.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 28, 2011 7:54:41 GMT -5
Why you might ask? Well here is why Insurers have to provide more coverage as required by the Federal Obamacare mandates and will include: Acupuncture, Mammograms, Tobacco cessation, maternity care, expanded mental disorders, pain medication for special circumstance, fertility preservation, autism treatments to name just a few... Shouldn't HI policy requirements be a states rights issue, not a federal mandate? In CA it is both, I think ...CA is not only adding all of the Federal Mandates but some they want as well...which is going to drive up the costs for health care when businesses and customers cannot afford it...there are already demonstrations on this so I think the same thing will happen in other states as well who don't opt out of Obamacare.. Meanwhile Blue Shield and Blue Cross see nothing but dollar signs on their websites these days..and they will definitely support Obamacare and Obama when he runs in 2012...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 13:26:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2011 8:12:13 GMT -5
Overhead- ha ha- I'd say they do when they have to cough up 10-20 million bucks for ONE PERSON"S SALARY! Then you have to pay for lobbyists, PR campaigns to try and convince people you care about your customers, lawyers to fight customers' claims you don't want to pay,etc. The hell with them. As I put on another thread- VT is giving them the finger for good- single payer is going into law there- can't wait to see the fight from the right. www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2011/03/24/vt_house_resumes_debate_on_health_care_bill/Whoa!!! If that's ONE person's SALARY, imagine what their corporate TAX BILL must have been!!! Maybe we need to free up all that tax on profits for patient care? Sorry... this is what i was referring too... Paul was talking corporate tax bill, not indivdiual income tax... Paying a huge salary would actually decrease taxable income for the corporation...
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 28, 2011 8:35:44 GMT -5
Re: Do You Support The ObamaCare Requirement
Suggest you also read my thread Re: OBAMACARE IS A HOAX to learn about what effect adding mandates will cost in your states
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 28, 2011 8:55:31 GMT -5
"So what good is it for a person in MA to buy a policy sold in CO?" And obviously they have to have local relationships with 'in network' providers... ? And how much easier it must be to handle claims cross country... "none of which really requires a permission slip, or any kind of involvement by the state. " And yet the state extends you a lot of benefits based on that status... It works in all kinds of other areas of business. The good news is that "we" don't have to figure it out. "we" don't have to worry about it at all. We'll let the insurance carriers and their customers figure it out. BTW- I see no need for an insurance company to have "relationships" with anyone. Write the policy, pay the claims. Not hard. Easy.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 28, 2011 9:03:31 GMT -5
Most politicians would rather put our entire navy into mothballs than to allow SS to fail. If there is one thing you can count on, it's that the elderly like to vote. And boy will they ever ... The vast majority of people would prefer to privatize, at least partially privatize SS now. Imagine how they'll feel when retirement is at 75 and it's a third of what they expected. The bottom line, is that there's no guns or butter "choice" here. It's $135 trillion. There isn't enough wealth in all the nations of the earth right now to pay the promised SS benefits. So, as I said before-- it's not whether or not the program will collapse, or whether or not we'll keep the program in exchange for giving up something else? The question is, "How are we going to deal with the inevitable collapse of the entitlements?" The choices are: easy way-- ease into it, up the age, decrease the benefits, raise the taxes, but do it in the context of accepting reality and gradually phasing out entitlements-- or, do it the hard way- keep right on ignoring the problem until the program collapses and the entire country is bankrupt.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 28, 2011 9:10:54 GMT -5
pay the claims. Not hard. Easy. Sure- they just love paying claims- no problem at all. The across state lines argument is a load of crap- carriers will do what the credit card industry did- locate to a state with the least amount of consumer protections and peddle a lot of garbage policies- it won't work- at least for the people who purchase the policies- it will work quite well for the industry scumbags. Plus- remember state's rights? I thought that was sacred to the pubs- which it is when it suits them- but when it comes to something they are at odds with the federal government is a much better option.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 13:26:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2011 9:15:02 GMT -5
"The vast majority of people would prefer to privatize, at least partially privatize SS now"
Where do you get your information? lol...
also evt... people fail to realize that most of the bigs already play in most states... Blue Cross or Blue Shield anyone?
|
|
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 Mar 28, 2011 9:46:56 GMT -5
In CA it is both, I think ...CA is not only adding all of the Federal Mandates but some they want as well...which is going to drive up the costs for health care when businesses and customers cannot afford it.... So why didn't CA impliment these mandates prior to Obamacare? How is it ok to trample states rights with new fed policy mandates but not ok to purchase an out-of-state policy? Don't both issues come down to states rights? Of course they will. We are heading towards single payer and they know it....what we're seeing the last gasps of the dying HI industry and these companies are going to go out with their pockets full of other people's money....IMHO of course.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 28, 2011 10:38:56 GMT -5
They also fail to realize there is nothing stopping any insurer from selling a policy in any state- the crux of the across state lines issue is what law will govern. I guess a good part of the reform effort is all policies will have a minimum standard, and as long as no state requirements are tighter the issue becomes moot.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Mar 28, 2011 10:41:10 GMT -5
If it's awful, so let's get to fixing it. Boehner? ... Boehner? Is the "national emergency" of NPR fixed yet? So is this what's the boards going to be like for at least the next year or so? Will it be a bunch of WAH!!!! OBAMA!!!! I HATE OBAMACARE!!!!! threads saying about the same thing. Oh yeah, and it'll be done by a bunch of "independents." Let me guess, you never had an outrage for legislators not telling you what was in bills until 2009. Any more double standards to put on the list? Why don't you provide a link as to who said that. Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass? Hyuk! Hyuk! Wait, I thought nobody read the bill. Wow, you told them how taxes work. Did you explain to them how water is wet and they shouldn't accept wooden nickels? Also be sure they know what shinola is so they don't get it mixed up with something else a lot less pleasant. Where does it specifically state that?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 28, 2011 10:46:54 GMT -5
Why don't you provide a link as to who said that. Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass? Hyuk! Hyuk!
Wow, you told them how taxes work. Did you explain to them how water is wet and they shouldn't accept wooden nickels? Also be sure they know what shinola is so they don't get it mixed up with something else a lot less pleasant
mkittty FYI....* Profanity is permitted as long as it's not excessive.
*So the question to ms mkitty are we there yet??
good morning Ma'am I was referring to the comments made by both Barack and Nancy when he signed Obamacare...I don't think we have to provide links just for you or jump through hoops to satisfy your excessive vulgarity/profanity and continuous requests for data re: Obamacare Is A Hoax...I suggest your read what the AGs in @ 20 states think about it. You might then learn that my views are tame compared to those legal beagles.
Hope this answers you questions if not then what can I say except to have a nice day ..and no I did not just pull that out of the air it is common knowledge in all due respects Ma'am..
So why didn't CA implement these mandates prior to Obamacare? How is it ok to trample states rights with new fed policy mandates but not ok to purchase an out-of-state policy? Don't both issues come down to states rights?
Don't ask me such tough question this early in the AM I have no idea except Jerry Brown has been wrestling with Obamacare mandates out here along with other mandates added by the Dem legislators for their constituents and as you rightly surmised; Blue Cross and Blue Shield are laughing all the way to the bank..
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 28, 2011 16:56:07 GMT -5
Are you saying that health insurance shouldn't cover this stuff? No maternity care, no mammorgrams? It seems to me that requiring health insurance to actually cover health care costs isn't a bad thing. Otherwise you just end up with cheap, but useless, insurance.
You are forgetting the other side of the equation - there will be a larger insurance pool, which will help to bring down costs. Also, consider that good insurance covered most of this stuff anyway, so those plans shouldn't see a big cost increase just because of these mandates.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 28, 2011 20:30:43 GMT -5
You are forgetting the other side of the equation
Not really and are you forgetting the word "mandated" and are you forgetting about those below a certain income level will also qualify for federal funded subsidies to help pay for their coverage. And the federal government will only pay for what they require...
Are you OK with that Ma'am?
My point of contention is that the Obamacare mandates will require insurance coverage that will cost both the state and the insurers. So who do you think ends up paying for these added health insurance costs?? Health insurance premiums were not supposed to raise this much if you believed the hype and spin last year by Obama and Pelosi...
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 28, 2011 23:19:13 GMT -5
Premiums have been rising an average of 15% for years. That's how they doubled just under BOOOSH. If you don't like insurers gouging, add a provision. Something has to be done, it's pretty obvious Pubs will never do anything but kiss insurer butt, if you hadn't noticed. And yes, the 85% thing, the transparent exchanges and the low cost clinics etc DO cut costs, with more to come. Don't be duped!! ty
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 29, 2011 11:45:21 GMT -5
Yes, it may not be perfect, but the healthcare reform has a lot of good points. I haven't seen republicans actually come up with any better ideas. They seem to be mostly wasting their time arguing about federally funded abortions & making a big show of repealing the whole thing. So, until someone comes up with something better, then this plan is definitely better than doing nothing.
Mine barely budged this year, I think it changed a few dollars. Best year I've had in the last five. Healthcare costs were jumping long before this reform & it will take a few years to actually see the full impact on premiums.
|
|