Single Payer Suitors

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Why exactly will they have to go out of business?

Under the current proposal, the national plan is much more likely to go out of business because the private companies will be able to cut out even more people and accept only healthy 20-30 somethings. Where as the national plan will be paying for all the high-cost people since there won't be an exclusion for pre-existing conditions.

sorry Johnny but you whack Det after making comments like this???

ummm...which govt. program/plan has ever gone out of business???

private companies can't arbitrarily "cut out" people, have you ever seen the state to state health insurance regulations???

only healthy 20-30 somethings??? there aren't that many of those if the private companies decide to "only" insure them and many don't bother with health insurance in that age group anyway, those that are insured are likely under company plans and as Det said, companies will be very quick to move the burden/responsibility to the "government option".....

the national plan will simply refuse you treatment...then where do you go?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

private companies can't arbitrarily "cut out" people, have you ever seen the state to state health insurance regulations???

By cut out, I meant not take new customers. In most states, an insurance company doesn't have to pay for anything related to what they can "prove" as a pre-existing condition. I use "prove" loosely, as they refuse treatment for whatever reason they want and then the customer is force to take them to court.

only healthy 20-30 somethings??? there aren't that many of those if the private companies decide to "only" insure them and many don't bother with health insurance in that age group anyway, those that are insured are likely under company plans and as Det said, companies will be very quick to move the burden/responsibility to the "government option".....

You're correct many don't bother, right now. But they will have to have insurance when this passes. You obviously need to read up on the actual bill as well I see. Companies can't use the government option as a way of not paying for employee health care.

the national plan will simply refuse you treatment...then where do you go?

First, many treatments are frivolous and unnecessary. Second, the current bill does not include anything where the national plan can simply refuse treatment.


Here's the principle issue with your argument.

and as Det said...

Learn the actual facts for yourself. Listening to you guys is like being 12 years old and playing the telephone game, where a person tells you something and then you say the same thing to the person next to you but with one or two words changed.

[fishbones]

You obviously need to read up on the actual bill as well I see. Companies can't use the government option as a way of not paying for employee health care.

JD, I know you don't have much time to do any research, but maybe you should look into the government plan a little yourself. I actually have plenty of time because it's part of my job to be informed on this. The government doesn't want companies to offer private plans.

Sec. 113, Pg. 21-22 of the Health Care (HC) Bill MANDATES a government audit of the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self-insure in order to “ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure”.
Sec. 313, Pg. 149, Lines 16-23 - ANY employer with payroll $400,000 and above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.
Sec. 313, Pg. 150, Lines 9-13 - Businesses with payroll between $251,000 and $400,000 who do not provide public option pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.[/I]

First, many treatments are frivolous and unnecessary. Second, the current bill does not include anything where the national plan can simply refuse treatment.

[COLOR="black"]You're mostly correct in that treatment cannot be refused, but the government can decide what treatment someone can/will receive in most cases.

Sec. 123, Pg. 30 - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE deciding what treatments and benefits you get.
Sec. 142, Pg. 42 - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you.
Sec. 1145, Pg. 272 - Treatment of certain cancer hospitals: Well, let's just hope no one you know gets cancer.[/COLOR]

Learn the actual facts for yourself. Listening to you guys is like being 12 years old and playing the telephone game, where a person tells you something and then you say the same thing to the person next to you but with one or two words changed.

Before playing intellectual superior and bashing others with your own junior high school insults, you should take some time to actually read the bill yourself. Then you could try to see where they are coming from.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

You obviously need to read up on the actual bill as well I see. Companies can't use the government option as a way of not paying for employee health care.

JD, I know you don't have much time to do any research, but maybe you should look into the government plan a little yourself. I actually have plenty of time because it's part of my job to be informed on this. The government doesn't want companies to offer private plans.

Sec. 113, Pg. 21-22 of the Health Care (HC) Bill MANDATES a government audit of the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self-insure in order to “ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure”.
Sec. 313, Pg. 149, Lines 16-23 - ANY employer with payroll $400,000 and above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.
Sec. 313, Pg. 150, Lines 9-13 - Businesses with payroll between $251,000 and $400,000 who do not provide public option pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.[/I]

First, many treatments are frivolous and unnecessary. Second, the current bill does not include anything where the national plan can simply refuse treatment.

[COLOR="black"]You're mostly correct in that treatment cannot be refused, but the government can decide what treatment someone can/will receive in most cases.

Sec. 123, Pg. 30 - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE deciding what treatments and benefits you get.
Sec. 142, Pg. 42 - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you.
Sec. 1145, Pg. 272 - Treatment of certain cancer hospitals: Well, let's just hope no one you know gets cancer.[/COLOR]

Learn the actual facts for yourself. Listening to you guys is like being 12 years old and playing the telephone game, where a person tells you something and then you say the same thing to the person next to you but with one or two words changed.

Where is this from? As it appears to be an interpretation and not the actual bill.

Because my company will potentially fall within the $250k-400k bracket, I have consulted with a few people that deal directly with health care. Combine those consultations with my own research, and my understanding is that companies that don't offer *any* health care and have a total payroll obligation > $250k will have to pay the additional tax.

Before playing intellectual superior and bashing others with your own junior high school insults, you should take some time to actually read the bill yourself. Then you could try to see where they are coming from.

It goes both ways. At least I'm not underhanded about it. Would it be more acceptable if I put some emoticons in my posts as the people my comment was directed at do when they dish out insults?

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Where is this from? As it appears to be an interpretation and not the actual bill.

Because my company will potentially fall within the $250k-400k bracket, I have consulted with a few people that deal directly with health care. Combine those consultations with my own research, and my understanding is that companies that don't offer *any* health care and have a total Wage obligation > $250k will have to pay the additional tax.

Johnny, what is listed after the section and page is what I call a "bumper sticker" version of what the bill states. I wanted to spare everyone all the legalise so I didn't c&p the entire section. Yes, it's my wording, but if you read it all it's what the bill states.

The bill is pretty clear that companies who self insure with private insurance are going to be hit with the payroll tax if they choose not to offer Uncle Sam's HC plan. It's utterly ridiculous that the government can strong-arm a small company by taxing them like that.

I know no one really has the time to read the entire plan, but there is some scary stuff in it. I hope that if the govenment HC plan is ever passed that it is nothing like the current proposal.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Johnny, what is listed after the section and page is what I call a "bumper sticker" version of what the bill states. I wanted to spare everyone all the legalise so I didn't c&p the entire section. Yes, it's my wording, but if you read it all it's what the bill states.

The bill is pretty clear that companies who self insure with private insurance are going to be hit with the payroll tax if they choose not to offer Uncle Sam's HC plan. It's utterly ridiculous that the government can strong-arm a small company by taxing them like that.

I know no one really has the time to read the entire plan, but there is some scary stuff in it. I hope that if the govenment HC plan is ever passed that it is nothing like the current proposal.

Just had my paralegal review the above referenced sections.

The following is according to him:

SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.
"Section 313 deals with Employer contributions to the public plan if the employer does not provide any health coverage, not necessarily the public option."

For people that wish to reference the actual bill:
http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Just had my paralegal review the above referenced sections.

The following is according to him:

SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.
"Section 313 deals with Employer contributions to the public plan if the employer does not provide any health coverage, not necessarily the public option."

For people that wish to reference the actual bill:
http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

sooo, the "public plan" and the "public option" are two diferent things? or are we just changing words to muck things up again?

where may I reference Obamas actual plan? or is that "Obama's option" ?