Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
With Obamacare making it mandatory to cover children already covered by private insurance, within a few weeks, insurance companies are starting to drop child-only plans due to cost and Obamacare regulation compliance issues. As other Obamacare benefits come on line additional premium hikes will be coming from your healthcare provider. If you have private insurance being offered by your employer it may be coming to an end with the higher premiums the employer or you may have to pay.
Obama did promise change and he has not gone back on his word.
With Obamacare making it mandatory to cover children already covered by private insurance, within a few weeks, insurance companies are starting to drop child-only plans due to cost and Obamacare regulation compliance issues. As other Obamacare benefits come on line additional premium hikes will be coming from your healthcare provider. If you have private insurance being offered by your employer it may be coming to an end with the higher premiums the employer or you may have to pay.
Obama did promise change and he has not gone back on his word.
I've briefly dodged the bullet. Insurance companies have to get approval from the state in order to increase rates. Tufts wanted to increase our rates something like 18%. Massachusetts rejected the request stating that the 18% increase was not justified.
At least that's a letter we received from Tufts last month.
In the end though, the health care bill with serious F over the middle class.
Should be friggin IMPEACHED but the American public is too much in love with him and his DB wife.
Looks like I'm going to have to bite the bullet and go on Mass Health. All you guys will be paying my health insurance from now on. State says I can afford $232/month based on what I made last year.
HOWS THAT FEEL TO YA!
Food Stamps and subsidized oil next. If ya can't beat em, JOIN EM.
Health care law’s price
Job-related benefits to go?
By R. Alonso-Zaldivar THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — The new health care law wasn’t supposed to undercut employer plans that have provided most people in the U.S. with coverage for generations.
But last week a leading manufacturer told workers their costs will jump partly because of the law. Also, a Democratic governor laid out a scheme for employers to get out of health care by shifting workers into taxpayer-subsidized insurance markets that open in 2014.
While it’s too early to proclaim the demise of job-based coverage, corporate number crunchers are looking at options that could lead to major changes. Gov. Phil Bredesen, D-Tenn., said the economics of dropping coverage are “about to become very attractive to many employers, both public and private.”
That’s just not going to happen, White House officials say.
“The absolute certainty about the Affordable Care Act is that for many, many employers who cover millions of people, it increases the incentives for them to offer coverage,” said Jason Furman, an economic adviser to President Barack Obama.
Yet at least one major employer has shifted a greater share of plan costs to workers, and others are weighing the pros and cons of eventually forcing employees to strike out on their own.
“I don’t think you are going to hear anybody publicly say ‘We’ve made a decision to drop insurance,’ ” said Paul Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. “What we are hearing in our meetings is, ‘We don’t want to be the first one to drop benefits, but we would be the fast second.’ We are hearing that a lot.” Deloitte is a major accounting and consulting firm.
“My conclusion on all of this is that it is a huge roll of the dice,” said James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, which represents big company benefits administrators. “It could work out well and build on the employer-based system, or it could begin to dismantle the employer-based system.”
Employer health benefits have been a middle-class mainstay since World War II, when companies were encouraged to offer health insurance instead of pay raises. About 150 million workers and family members are now covered.
When lawmakers debated the legislation, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected it would only have minimal impact on employer plans. About 3 million fewer people would be covered through the job, but they’d be able to get insurance elsewhere.
Two provisions in the new law are leading companies to look at their plans in a different light.
One is a hefty tax on high-cost health insurance aimed at the most generous coverage. Although the “Cadillac tax” doesn’t hit until 2018, companies may have to disclose their exposure to investors well before that. Karen Forte, a Boeing spokeswoman, said concerns about the tax were partly behind a 50 percent increase in insurance deductibles the company just announced.
The tax is 40 percent of the value of a plan above $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for a family plan. Family coverage now averages about $13,800.
White House adviser Furman said blaming a cost increase next year on a tax that won’t take effect for eight years “stretches credibility very far past the breaking point.”
Bigger questions loom over the new insurance markets that will be set up under the law.
They’re called exchanges, and every state will have one in a few years. Consumers will be able to shop for coverage among a range of plans in the exchange, with a guarantee they can’t be turned down because of an existing medical problem. To help make premiums affordable, the law provides tax credits for households making up to four times the federal poverty level, about $88,000 for a family of four.
Bredesen said last week that employers could save big money by dropping their health plans and sending workers to buy coverage in the exchange. They’d face a fine of $2,000 per worker, but that’s still way less than the cost of providing health insurance. Employers could even afford to give workers a raise and still come out ahead, Bredesen wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.
Employers are actively looking at that. “I don’t know if the intent was to find an exit strategy for providing benefits, but the bill as written provides the mechanism,” said Deloitte’s Keckley, the consultant.
Erin Shields, a spokeswoman for the senators who wrote that part of the law, says she’s confident that when companies do the math, they’ll decide to keep offering coverage.
That’s because employers get to deduct the cost of workers’ health care from the company’s taxes. Take away the health plan and two things happen: Employers lose the deduction and they’ll probably have to pay workers more to get them to accept the benefit cut. Not only will the company’s income taxes go up, but the employer will also face a bigger bill for Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. So it’s not as simple as paying $2,000 and walking away.
“It is clearly cheaper for employers to continue providing coverage,” Shields said.
Another wrinkle: the health insurance tax credits available through the law are keyed to relatively Spartan insurance plans, not as generous as most big employers provide. Send your workers into the insurance exchange, and valuable employees might jump to a competitor that still offers health care.
MIT economist Jon Gruber says it’s impossible to create new government benefits without some unintended consequences, but he doesn’t see a big drop in employer coverage.
Obama care has crushed big hospitals, led to major HMO contract renegotiations, and major medicare cuts. Less reimbursement at my work caused no merit increases for a couple years, and 2% merit increases for 2011.
I need to go back to business as usual. At least with Bush I had more money coming into the house and I was 10x more apt to spend.
3M has dropped their drug plan for their retirees. They will have no choice
but to go to Part D of Medicare to cover them and guess where the $$ comes
to pay for that? Right out of all our pockets.
Honeywell will no longer offer Group HC to retirees so guess who will be
picking up the tab for that.
This is just the beginning as companies drop their plans and turn them
over to Obama-care.
What happened to Obama's promise that you can keep your own plan
if you choose?
WHAT own plan, as companies bail out in a domino effect?
Companies have been cutting benefits for retirees for years. This is nothing new. I think my father had his drug benefits eliminated at least five years ago and he's a retired exec at a large company.
For all the talk of rising costs due to obama, how much of this was happening anyway? Seems like increases of 10-25 percent were becoming pretty common over the last decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit
And so the HC Debacle continues.
3M has dropped their drug plan for their retirees. They will have no choice
but to go to Part D of Medicare to cover them and guess where the $$ comes
to pay for that? Right out of all our pockets.
Honeywell will no longer offer Group HC to retirees so guess who will be
picking up the tab for that.
This is just the beginning as companies drop their plans and turn them
over to Obama-care.
What happened to Obama's promise that you can keep your own plan
if you choose?
WHAT own plan, as companies bail out in a domino effect?
Companies have been cutting benefits for retirees for years. This is nothing new. I think my father had his drug benefits eliminated at least five years ago and he's a retired exec at a large company.
For all the talk of rising costs due to obama, how much of this was happening anyway? Seems like increases of 10-25 percent were becoming pretty common over the last decade. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
so what Spence is trying to say is despite the countless hours spent by our congress and the president and the additonal debt and tax burden, this healthcare bill will do nothing to change YOUR expenses. Things are going down hill and will continue to. So lets make sure we dont return to "the failed policies of the GOP"
I don't smoke so I really don't care but all tobacco users will pay higher Healthcare premiums in 2011 at my company because they use tobacco (even an occasional Cigar on the Golf Course). If they say they don't use and get caught, they can be terminated.
People who participate in "Extreme Sports" as hobbies carry a higher premium too, sky diving, motor cycle riding, mountain climbing, skiing, etc (fishing isn't on there yet). If you say you don't do these things to not pay the higher premium and get hurt doing them, you are not covered by insurance. I guess the saft bet is to sit on the couch and watch TV all day.
Where will it end?? I can tell you that the fat people I work with are getting nervous because they will be next. "You are overweight and you are a health risk so your premium will now cost more"
What about drinking a beer? Will that be next too?
The reason for these changes is all because the dink in the oval office wants some of the people to pay for healthcare for all of the people.................sounds socialist to me
"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
I don't smoke so I really don't care but all tobacco users will pay higher Healthcare premiums in 2011 at my company because they use tobacco (even an occasional Cigar on the Golf Course). If they say they don't use and get caught, they can be terminated.
People who participate in "Extreme Sports" as hobbies carry a higher premium too, sky diving, motor cycle riding, mountain climbing, skiing, etc (fishing isn't on there yet). If you say you don't do these things to not pay the higher premium and get hurt doing them, you are not covered by insurance. I guess the saft bet is to sit on the couch and watch TV all day.
Where will it end?? I can tell you that the fat people I work with are getting nervous because they will be next. "You are overweight and you are a health risk so your premium will now cost more"
What about drinking a beer? Will that be next too?
The reason for these changes is all because the dink in the oval office wants some of the people to pay for healthcare for all of the people.................sounds socialist to me
Good. You take part in risky behaviors, you should pay a higher rate. I'm 27, hardly ever seriously sick, never broken a bone, fit, eat well, don't smoke and have low cholesterol. Yet I have to pay the same rates as some fat ass who eats at McDonald's every day, smokes a pack of day, gets their exercise by their multiple trips to the fridge, probably has diabetes and heart disease.
They should make it like car insurance, force people with unhealthy habits to pay a surcharge. What's socialist about it is that everyone is treated the same regardless of their health.
They should make it like car insurance, force people with unhealthy habits to pay a surcharge. What's socialist about it is that everyone is treated the same regardless of their health.
Thats how they do life insurance. evil socialist life insurance I guess
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
What's socialist about it is that everyone is treated the same regardless of their health.
And not everyone is treated the same regardless of there wealth. The few pay for the many.......not fair. Pretty soon, there is too many to pay for.
An extreme activity sports person is not driving up health care. It is people who don't take care of themselves.
I pretty much agree with you, but where do you draw the line. We now have DNA testing to see if you are predisposed to cancer. Should everyone get that at birth to see what their insurance should be?
As a side note, take a listen to this clown:
"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Good. You take part in risky behaviors, you should pay a higher rate. I'm 27, hardly ever seriously sick, never broken a bone, fit, eat well, don't smoke and have low cholesterol. Yet I have to pay the same rates as some fat ass who eats at McDonald's every day, smokes a pack of day, gets their exercise by their multiple trips to the fridge, probably has diabetes and heart disease.
They should make it like car insurance, force people with unhealthy habits to pay a surcharge. What's socialist about it is that everyone is treated the same regardless of their health.
Whats socialist about it is that its NONE OF THE GOVTS BUSINESS. Let the market do its thing.
All of this is EXACTLY why government should not be involved in insurance or healthcare. We get dangeroulsy close to infringing on the rights of citizens.
THAT CLOWN DOESN'T EVEN PAY RENT!!!! He was outed several days later that he's stiffed every landlord he's ever had!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator
And not everyone is treated the same regardless of there wealth. The few pay for the many.......not fair. Pretty soon, there is too many to pay for.
An extreme activity sports person is not driving up health care. It is people who don't take care of themselves.
I pretty much agree with you, but where do you draw the line. We now have DNA testing to see if you are predisposed to cancer. Should everyone get that at birth to see what their insurance should be?
I pretty much agree with you, but where do you draw the line. We now have DNA testing to see if you are predisposed to cancer. Should everyone get that at birth to see what their insurance should be?
The line is exactly where I said it should be, for people with unhealthy lifestyles - smokers, drug users, the sedentary and the obese.
The line is exactly where I said it should be, for people with unhealthy lifestyles - smokers, drug users, the sedentary and the obese.
my grandmother is fat, drank and smoked her whole life, she is 84 and lives on her own. Her daughter, my mom, exercised daily, non-smoker, white bread wasnt allowed in my house, alfalfa sprouts were the norm, died at 65 from cancer.
my grandmother is fat, drank and smoked her whole life, she is 84 and lives on her own. Her daughter, my mom, exercised daily, non-smoker, white bread wasnt allowed in my house, alfalfa sprouts were the norm, died at 65 from cancer.
Exceptions to the rule. So the average fat smoker is healthier than the average person that eats well and is fit?
The line is exactly where I said it should be, for people with unhealthy lifestyles - smokers, drug users, the sedentary and the obese.
An unhealthy life style is in the eye of the beholder. Fishing the canal several nights in a row is not very healthy. How about the goverment take care of defense and infrustructure and stay the hell out of my fridge. Damn, they make a killing with "sin" taxes and some think it's great.
Companies have been cutting benefits for retirees for years. This is nothing new. I think my father had his drug benefits eliminated at least five years ago and he's a retired exec at a large company.
For all the talk of rising costs due to obama, how much of this was happening anyway? Seems like increases of 10-25 percent were becoming pretty common over the last decade. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If your Dad is over 62 and covered under Medicare Part D then we have been
paying for his drugs over the last 5 years.
According to research by the Partnership for Health Care Reform, the total government cost is almost twice as high for every enroll-ee to Part D from an employee plan. Five million retirees going into Part D would be an additional cost
of 2.7 BILLION per year.
Now add all the soon to retire" yuppie generation" and i don't want to do the math.
Most of the increases over the last 10 years have come from increase in malpractice insurance, where every Doc will tell you there are 2 groups, those who have been sued and those about to be, and all the new high tech test costs.
Tort reform and across state insurance competition is one way to reduce costs
imho.
Last edited by justplugit; 10-25-2010 at 07:23 PM..
Linear Mode
