Where's the HC reform thread?

[FUDU]

Would like to bump it, seeing as enrollment for the new year HC is coming up for most employers.

I'm being lazy and IIRC we/you didn't title it "HC reform thread".

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I go back and read the e0y vs Poove fight thread about once a month.

[FUDU]

I go back and read the e0y vs Poove fight thread about once a month.

I reread some as well.

[FUDU]

I'll make my point here in case the thread in ? is too hard to find.

New HC package from my employer is open for enrollment, they are self insured, I use the HSA, it went up 23% from last year. 30% in past two. Anticipated rise of 20% for next year as well.

Brilliant work jackasses.

[Ziner]

No man, Obama said it would reduce cost. Insurance companies are gauging you. They would never pass along the future costs of covering more people for less money to their customers. Must be a mistake. I'd call them, I am sure they'll adjust it.

[jb]

I'll make my point here in case the thread in ? is too hard to find.

New HC package from my employer is open for enrollment, they are self insured, I use the HSA, it went up 23% from last year. 30% in past two. Anticipated rise of 20% for next year as well.

Brilliant work jackasses.

Come correct. HC cost were rising like crazy before, and they now are moe. Something has to pay to keep profits up. That something is you and I. Blaming that on issues that won't kick in until 2014 is just stupoid FUDIU, and you ain't stupid.

Way, way too soon.

It hasn't even kicked in yet in reality. It may never. Too soon to know shit about it.

If you think the loobies that opposed it would do better, ye the jackass.

[FUDU]

JB you are not only being naive if you do not see the current increases as being in part directly related to the future results of the HC bill but you are being intellectually dishonest as well.

Yeah HC costs were rising already, so are the costs of televisions, cars, fat free yogurts, and electricity, got a point?

Bottom line is as with so many other things (unlike televisions, cars and fart free yogurt) you and I are paying for others HC costs, still. All under the guise that this approach will improve matters and cost less, yet here we are, before any of the changes are in full effect and the providers and such are already passing on expected increases, including a decrease in choices (at least with my employer).

So is that the catch, HC costs will be cheaper in 2014, cheaper than they are in 2013 after 3 straight years of 20%+ increases? We've been duped and we haven't even been duped yet. ETA: not to mention the letter head sent out to all employees started out by addressing the current HC climate and the HC reform coming in less than 1000 days.

I'd buy you a fat free yogurt any day of the week, but it has to be my choice to do so.

SSDD as the chosen one will be long gone from office when the fucking starts.

If you talk to him while he is in India or China, ask him to say hello to our jobs and money would ya.

[hebner20]

I'll make my point here in case the thread in ? is too hard to find.

New HC package from my employer is open for enrollment, they are self insured, I use the HSA, it went up 23% from last year. 30% in past two. Anticipated rise of 20% for next year as well.

Brilliant work jackasses.

Come correct. HC cost were rising like crazy before, and they now are moe. Something has to pay to keep profits up. That something is you and I. Blaming that on issues that won't kick in until 2014 is just stupoid FUDIU, and you ain't stupid.

Way, way too soon.
It hasn't even kicked in yet in reality. It may never. Too soon to know shit about it. If you think the loobies that opposed it would do better, ye the jackass.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Here's why.

Under 27 children can get on parents health care is in effect

No lifetime limit on amount covered is in effect

No rating of risk allowed so the healthy subsidize the unhealthy is in effect – goodbye consumer driven health care

An employer CAN keep his current plan but can only make minimal changes or the grandfather clause is over. Can’t pass on more than 5% additional cost to employees, change co-pays by more than $5 etc Effectively, means employers will be forced to drop coverage, pay the fines and go to the government option – this is also in effect

States under threat of heavy fines are already putting the infrastructure of the exchanges into place as they go into effect in 2011

Now that the above is in effect it is going to be hard to repeal the law - when has an entitlement ever been taken back? Doesn’t happen often.

That is the problem. It is so criminally insidious that not many people realize what is going on. The common thinking by most people is either; “what is so wrong with the health care plan, it has passed and nothing has happened yet” or “nothing kicks in until 2014 and they can always fix it before it rolls out” problem is it is here NOW and the ground work has been laid to make American business even more uncompetitive.

Sorry, but those are facts and soon people will understand this. Many business owners don't realize it yet. I just had this explained to me by someone in the insurance industry and really gave me a wake up call.

[FUDU]

The only thing I question hebner is the passing along of ONLY 5% of additional costs, are you confident that is accurate?

[jerryroche]

Here's the deal.

If your employer pays at least part of your health care, thank your lucky stars.

I'm self-employed, in the 55+ age range, pay my own $5,000-deductible health insurance, single coverage. And here's a letter I got from my beloved insurance company this week:

At times, we need to raise premium rates when costs rise due to the increased use of medical services and prescription drugs, an aging population, legally mandated benefits, medical malpractice insurance, expensive new technologies, and other factors.

Current Monthly Premium: $451.62
New Monthly Premium (effective Dec. 1): $593.74

Need I say how much that blows? A 31% increase for next year -- and, if news reports are right, it will REALLY go up when Obamacare kicks in.

[hebner20]

The only thing I question hebner is the passing along of ONLY 5% of additional costs, are you confident that is accurate?

This is what i was told but the 5% was perhaps inaccurate. I should have said 5% change in amount withheld from employees paycheck. In other words, going from 60% employer pays to 55% employer pays is ok but going from 60% to 54% is not allowed. Perhaps this may clarify the situation some.

[FUDU]

Obama takes another hit, for now. Virginia court rules HC mandate unconstitutional.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html

IMO no doubt this ends up in the SC. They'll find a way to cram it down our throats.

[gotribe31]

Obama takes another hit, for now. Virginia court rules HC mandate unconstitutional.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html

IMO no doubt this ends up in the SC. They'll find a way to cram it down our throats.

And now Florida. Obamacare now 0-2 in the courts, and 2-3 in Congress after the (meaningless) House repeal.

I'm not an economist. I don't know just how much this will cost (but it seems like a lot). My arguments against universal healthcare have always been the absolute disgrace of "constitutional" footing they based the law on. Federal regulation of interstate commerce cannot extend to regulating the lack of commerce. Period. Because if we get headed down that slippery slope, God only knows what's next.

[GodHatesClevelandSport]

1-2 in the courts.

[gotribe31]

1-2 in the courts.

How do you figure?

[jb]

1-2 in the courts.

How do you figure?

Right, becasue it is 2 - 2.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-02-01-healthcare01_ST_N.htm?csp=34news
It would be fascinating to see how a SCOTUS built allegedly based on the antithesis of activism will rule. But I wouldn't be shocked if they duck out and refuse to hear the case.

Question: Is it possible to parse out the elements of the insurance reform act for a specific discrete discussion rather than looking at the whole act as a monolith based on preconceieved political orientations, using reputable middle of the road sources?

[jb]

Obama takes another hit, for now. Virginia court rules HC mandate unconstitutional.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html

IMO no doubt this ends up in the SC. They'll find a way to cram it down our throats.

And now Florida. Obamacare now 0-2 in the courts, and 2-3 in Congress after the (meaningless) House repeal.

I'm not an economist. I don't know just how much this will cost (but it seems like a lot). My arguments against universal healthcare have always been the absolute disgrace of "constitutional" footing they based the law on. Federal regulation of interstate commerce cannot extend to regulating the lack of commerce. Period. Because if we get headed down that slippery slope, God only knows what's next.

Al, states routinely require auto insurance for drivers becasue of the collective good. Is your issue of requiring health insurance that it is federal gov't based or on all gov't rquirements philosophically? Or is it a matter of details as far as how they will go about enforcement (waivers, types of taxes, etc?)

[gotribe31]

Obama takes another hit, for now. Virginia court rules HC mandate unconstitutional.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html

IMO no doubt this ends up in the SC. They'll find a way to cram it down our throats.

And now Florida. Obamacare now 0-2 in the courts, and 2-3 in Congress after the (meaningless) House repeal.

I'm not an economist. I don't know just how much this will cost (but it seems like a lot). My arguments against universal healthcare have always been the absolute disgrace of "constitutional" footing they based the law on. Federal regulation of interstate commerce cannot extend to regulating the lack of commerce. Period. Because if we get headed down that slippery slope, God only knows what's next.

Al, states routinely require auto insurance for drivers becasue of the collective good. Is your issue of requiring health insurance that it is federal gov't based or on all gov't rquirements philosophically? Or is it a matter of details as far as how they will go about enforcement (waivers, types of taxes, etc?)

But JB, driving a car is a choice. Life is not a choice. They are requiring people to buy health insurance or be fined. If I really have heartburn against auto insurance, I can walk, take the bus or buy a horse. If I don't want to buy health insurance, I have to die or pay a fine.

And if I hit you or your with my car, I should be held liable for that. And I should have a way to pay, even just for liability. Is my health insurance now going to pay for your doctor bills if I punch you in a bar? Not you specifically of course, but you get the idea.

Again, the issue for me lies within the constitutionality of the bill. If the goverment can force you to buy something by regulating the act of non-commerce, where does it stop? Can the government force Americans to buy a GM car? Can they force every home to purchase an alarm system to try and reduce break-ins? Can they force everyone to buy a pink flamingo for their front yard so people in Parma feel normal? Sounds insane, but where does it stop? If the Constitution allows the federal government to force us to purchase something, that worries me. And I work for the federal government. I know just how f'ed up some (most) parts of it are.

[gotribe31]

1-2 in the courts.

How do you figure?

Right, becasue it is 2 - 2.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-02-01-healthcare01_ST_N.htm?csp=34news
It would be fascinating to see how a SCOTUS built allegedly based on the antithesis of activism will rule. But I wouldn't be shocked if they duck out and refuse to hear the case.

Question: Is it possible to parse out the elements of the insurance reform act for a specific discrete discussion rather than looking at the whole act as a monolith based on preconceieved political orientations, using reputable middle of the road sources?

Yes, 2-2. I apologize, I actually didn't see the other VA and the Michigan rulings. I hate how the judge in the FLA ruling referenced tea. Smacks of judicial activisim. I wish he'd just looked at it, said he found it unconstitutional, and said why. No reason to editoralize.

I'm against judicial activisim on both sides. I want the three branches of government to remain seperate but equal. I don't see any way this doesn't make SCOTUS at some point.

Answer: Sure. I'm not against heath care for people who can't afford it. I'm against forcing people to buy something under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, and I'm against the government dictating to business how they have to operate.

[jb]

But JB, driving a car is a choice. Life is not a choice. They are requiring people to buy health insurance or be fined. If I really have heartburn against auto insurance, I can walk, take the bus or buy a horse. If I don't want to buy health insurance, I have to die or pay a fine.

I think you make a great, albeit theoretical point. And I'd agree with you if they'd enact the health insurance like this: you either carry it or you sign a fully binding waiver that in the event you need health care you sign a financing plan up front and that once it appears likely that you will never realistically be able to finance the amount of care required, you agree to be cut off and just let your ass die.

Now who is gonna do that and mean it when catastophe knocks at the door? That's the bitch aout this to me, Al. Health care is different. And that is becasue it should be a human right, not a commodity, really. I don't mean liposuction, but I do mean a stent in the ER if your heart is revving. It is an inelastic good or service, and all that really matters is making it available and affordable for society overall.

I have no idea if all 20,000 pages of the law were perfect. I doubt it. heck, I know it isn't. It is the government, so implimentation is probably badly flawed and lobbied into borderline crookedness. But I do doubt all the caterwalling on every single aspect of this whole thing and would like to see the brainpower here harnessed better than the mediots wearing red and blue jerseys. there's probably parts that are really freaking good ideas.

And this borders on partisan, but I'd like to see one cogent fact that can delineates what Romney did in Mass from the insurance reporm act's mandate. I don't get that.

[gotribe31]

But JB, driving a car is a choice. Life is not a choice. They are requiring people to buy health insurance or be fined. If I really have heartburn against auto insurance, I can walk, take the bus or buy a horse. If I don't want to buy health insurance, I have to die or pay a fine.

I think you make a great, albeit theoretical point. And I'd agree with you if they'd enact the health insurance like this: you either carry it or you sign a fully binding waiver that in the event you need health care you sign a financing plan up front and that once it appears likely that you will never realistically be able to finance the amount of care required, you agree to be cut off and just let your ass die.

Now who is gonna do that and mean it when catastophe knocks at the door? That's the bitch aout this to me, Al. Health care is different. And that is becasue it should be a human right, not a commodity, really. I don't mean liposuction, but I do mean a stent in the ER if your heart is revving. It is an inelastic good or service, and all that really matters is making it available and affordable for society overall.

I have no idea if all 20,000 pages of the law were perfect. I doubt it. heck, I know it isn't. It is the government, so implimentation is probably badly flawed and lobbied into borderline crookedness. But I do doubt all the caterwalling on every single aspect of this whole thing and would like to see the brainpower here harnessed better than the mediots wearing red and blue jerseys. there's probably parts that are really freaking good ideas.

And this borders on partisan, but I'd like to see one cogent fact that can delineates what Romney did in Mass from the insurance reporm act's mandate. I don't get that.

I'm with you, on a number of levels. Don't want coverage? Fine. But don't come crying to me when you get cancer. I don't get to buy car insurance AFTER I get in a wreck, right?

I don't want to see a 4 year old kid die of a preventable condition because his crackhead momma or daddy didn't have a job that provided heath insurance. I just think there's a better way to go about it than this. I don't think everything in the law is fucked, just like you don't think everything in the law is perfect. But damn if I know what is/isn't, because they crammed this 20,000 page bill down our throats so fast that even the authors don't know what all it contains. Like the 1099 clause for instance. Classic case of a govt earmark. They're getting rid of it, but I bet there's more crap like that in there.

I'll be honest, don't know what happened in Mass. But I'll research and get back to you. On principle though, I'd much rather let the people of Mass vote for a law that effects the people of Mass. I don't want the "representatives" of the people of Mass/Cali/Ohio voting for a law that effects VA/Texas/Illinois.

[Orenthal]

Question: Is it possible to parse out the elements of the insurance reform act for a specific discrete discussion rather than looking at the whole act as a monolith based on preconceieved political orientations, using reputable middle of the road sources?

Probably not. Just off the top of my head the regulation of insurance company profits Link, the individual mandate, child till 26, and no pre-existing conditions seem to be a clever time bomb to blow up the private insurance industry. This will lead to a call/cry out for a universal government program. I'm sure the industry is also getting a whole bunch of subsidy goodness to tow the line.

Yeah probably not...

[jb]

Are you suggesting this is all a concocted poison pill to make it impossible to make a profit in health care insurance?

Even I wouldn't give the gov't that much credit. ;-)

[gotribe31]

Are you suggesting this is all a concocted poison pill to make it impossible to make a profit in health care insurance?

Even I wouldn't give the gov't that much credit. ;-)

Yeah, the govt is too stupid and has too many self-serving shitheads to actually pull of a government conspiracy. This, and of course 100% of the historical and scientific evidence, is why there's no way 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

[jb]

I'm with you, on a number of levels. Don't want coverage? Fine. But don't come crying to me when you get cancer. I don't get to buy car insurance AFTER I get in a wreck, right?

Tough one for me, dude. As much as I don't want to write or believe this, I think there are probably one or two things that are so big and such a drain on society that a greater entity does have to protect people against themselves. One of them is that decision as to whether to invest what it takes to insure themselves against the Big C when they'd rather have the 61 inch big screen instead so I don't have to be the responsible one who ends up carrying their asses.

That's kind of how I see this stuff.

I have much less of an issue with mandating coverage purchases so the aggregate cost is spread out becasue that is how the cost-containment model works than I do perpetual medical welfare giveaways.

[Orenthal]

Are you suggesting this is all a concocted poison pill to make it impossible to make a profit in health care insurance?

Even I wouldn't give the gov't that much credit. ;-)

Yes I belive that to be the long term plan. You don't have to go very far to find all sorts of Obama quotes about hating the insurance industry and a love for single payer. Shit he has a quote basically saying that we have to transition slowly or it won't happen at all.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in ... care-video

^It's dripping in partisan hate but the quotes are there...