- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 30, 2012 at 7:48 pm #762344
JanSParticipantand those employers of over 50 people? They will pay a fine for each person, equal to giving that employee a raise, the way I understand it. So, double the amount paid out for not insuring?
and..from the official word:
“Shared Responsibility. Beginning in 2014, most individuals will be responsible for maintaining minimum essential coverage or paying a penalty of $95 in 2014, $495 in 2015 and $750 in 2016, or up to two percent of income by 2016, with a cap at the national average bronze plan premium. Families will pay half the amount for children up to a cap of $2,250 for the entire family. After 2016, dollar amounts will increase by the annual cost of living adjustment. Exceptions to this requirement are made for religious objectors, those who cannot afford coverage, taxpayers with incomes less than 100 percent FPL, Indian tribe members, those who receive a hardship waiver, individuals not lawfully present, incarcerated individuals, and those not covered for less than three months.
Any individual or family who currently has coverage and would like to retain that coverage can do so under a „grandfather‟ provision. This coverage is deemed to meet the individual responsibility to have health coverage. Similarly, employers that currently offer coverage are permitted to continue offering such coverage under the „grandfather‟ policy.
Employers with more than 200 employees must automatically enroll new full-time employees in coverage. Any employer with more than 50 full-time employees that does not offer coverage and has at least one full-time employee receiving the premium assistance tax credit will make a payment of $750 per full-time employee. An employer with more than 50 employees that offers coverage that is deemed unaffordable or does not meet the standard for minimum essential coverage and but has at least one full-time employee receiving the premium assistance tax credit because the coverage is either unaffordable or does not cover 60 percent of total costs, will pay the lesser of $3,000 for each of those employees receiving a credit or $750 for each of their full-time employees total.”
you have scenarios in your head that you THINK might happen. You present it like it WILL happen, like it’s a fact…
June 30, 2012 at 7:52 pm #762345
JanSParticipantnope..not a PCP…I am considered a “specialist”…and I will admit, I have no idea how this will affect me in a couple of years. But, then, I have no ideas if I’ll even be alive in a couple of years. We shall see. But..I’m not making stuff up, saying it, scaring people who are too dumb to go look things up.
June 30, 2012 at 8:06 pm #762346
kootchmanMemberNo Jan… that’s not the math… what employers will do is a one time raise at their option..some won’t… and then wave good bye to the hassle of dealing with employee healthcare.
In 2014, the monthly penalty assessed to employers who do not offer coverage will be equal to the number of full-time employees minus 30 multiplied by one-twelfth of $2,000 for any applicable month. After 2014, the penalty payment amount would be indexed by the premium adjustment percentage for the calendar year.
500 employees.. minus 30 = 470 FTE’s the “fine” is 1/12 of 2000 dollars per month. so it would be… 470 (.08) (2000) in this case with 500 employees… the fine would be $160 per month, per employee… or… $1,920 per year per employee.
Around $960,000 per year… compared to $4,500,000 for the average healthcare plan $ $ 9,000 per year. Now would you pay a 960K fine or a 4.5 million dollar insurance policy? Not a hard choice. Dobro… a 50% tax credit on a small group policy with pre-existing, and all the goodies? I don’t think it will do it.
Employers as Bostonman has alluded, may for the first year, give a raise to cover the individual mandate… to keep harmony… but.. healthcare costs are going to rise faster than wages… the employee will pay increasingly more of the burden as rate adjustments are made… inflations, bad budget forcasts etc..roughly the way it penciled out B’Man? It’s a growth killer for sure… the burden is lighter if you have less than 50 employees.
June 30, 2012 at 8:18 pm #762347
kootchmanMemberYea there is access here… Obamacare hasn’t hit. My doc already told me.. no Medicaid. $180 cash per visit or my current healthcare.
June 30, 2012 at 8:25 pm #762348
kootchmanMemberWe need healthcare reform. No one doubts it. Not the most conservative conservatives I know dissent on that. This build up of a government Goliath…? No. Fiscally it can’t stand. I don’t see it. 2.7 trillion to get it launched? No way.
June 30, 2012 at 10:18 pm #762349
DBPMember>>My doc already told me.. no Medicaid. $180 cash per visit or my current healthcare.
What does this mean? Your doc is just not going to take anyone who gets insurance under the new program? How will that work? How will he know?
June 30, 2012 at 10:37 pm #762350
DBPMemberFrom Bostonman:
I was just asked yesterday to do a cost analysis of eliminating insurance for our company of 54 and instead paying people an extra 2 or 3k a year. I was also asked to come up with a plan to be able to get rid of 5 people to bring us under the 50 person minimum.
—OK, so I take it that what your boss is planning on here is to stop providing health insurance for employees. Right? So then they’d have to get coverage for themselves? That’s what the extra 3k is for . . .
As I see it, there are two possible reasons your boss might do something like that. The first is that the ACA is really going to be a burden and he’s trying to shelter himself from it. OK, that’s understandable.
The second possible reason is that your boss is being devious. He’ll come out ahead both politically and economically by dumping his existing employee coverage and then blaming Obama.
But how do we know which one is the real reason, Boston? Based on some other comments you’ve made about your job, it seems like your boss can be a pretty ruthless guy. My inclination is to assume that he’s more worried about his bottom line than about doing what’s right for his employees. But I could be wrong.
***************************************************************************************
This same question applies to any doctors who “opt out” of the program, like kootchman’s doctor, for example. How do we know they’re not doing that for idealogical reasons rather than economic ones?
The way some people talk about the ACA makes me think they just hate it on principle and they’ll do anything to sabotage it.
Â
June 30, 2012 at 11:14 pm #762351
kootchmanMemberDPB.. does it make a difference? The fact is the barn door is wide open. Look, let’s not hold any illusions here… businesses respond to making or saving money. That’s what they do. Jesus H Christ… the whole Obamacare is built on coming out ahead politically… for Democrats. It’s like Citizens United… as long as labor unions delivered the goods, nothing wrong with those contributions… then when business does the very same damn thing… everyone gets their panties in a bunch. Obama wasn’t going to raise his billions from lunch money from the middle school kids. And…what if it is idealogical? My doc says the paperwork bullshit for Medicare and Medicaid is too expenisve…right now. he is e-copying my and every single patient he cares for, medical records to send to HHS… as required by law. He doesn;t want to deal with federal aid, reimbursements, guidelines, reporting, audits… all the crap ya get from bureaucrats. No Medicaid, Medicare, none of em. Is his boss being devious? Hell no.. he is protecting his business interests… the engines you love to tax to pay the freight.
There is a great gap in understanding here. Businesses are run for profits. It’s what they do. They are not great instruments to express social justice… they are too busy keeping abreast of technology, watching competitors, serving customers, trying to keep the books straight, going to and challenging fraudulent workmans comp claims, filing the state quaterlies, taking inventory for B&O taxes… you don’t see or understand the burdens you impose cost them time and money…. as was posted.. over 90 per cent have fewer than 50 employees, not 160,000 with a full compliment of lawyers, You are drowining them. If they can dump off healtcare as one less worry… good riddance. And if ya don’t have to listen to employees telling tou your health plan sucks or is inadequete … and he can shrug it off and say … hey, that’s the government not me.. take it up with your congressperson…perfect.
But here’s the problem for Obamacare… he promised if you liked your health plan you can keep it. And damned if 78 per cent of covered employees rate their satisfaction as good to excellent..and they lost it or think they will because of the Obamacare Tax which they will now have to pay… ouch!
Justice Roberts may have handed over the keys. Stack that uo against the “benefits” of keeping your 26 year old perpetual adolescent on your plan. we may yet get a high risk pool for pre-existing.. republican had that, tort reform, and interstate purchasing of insurance all on the table. Until Pelosi slammed the door shut. November will tell. Roberts threw the wet cat right back where it belonged.. now we will have a national referendum on the Obamacare Tax Increase.
I believe it was Dobro.. forgive me if I am wrong… but Mass is at this very juncture hitting up the unions for more concessions on wages and benefits..one factor being their medical costs are rising at almost 505 faster than the national average.. Romney care hurt the state Treasury. How is California going to come up with 10% of the cost of the exchanges? Moodys and D and B both say about 25 to 35 per cent of every city is in “emergency” fiscal crisis. That means, the state is in no fiscal shape to absorb 2,5 billion in shared costs.. they will have to opt out. Or raise taxes. How is that going to play in California to the taxpayer? NY same, Ill, same, MI, same, Ohio same, PA same… and the republican states? They have had enough federal intervention in the last three years… it will be a long time before AF-1 gets met on the Tarmac with open arms, So far, Fl says no, Bobby Jindal says no, Indiana says no, PA says we can’t, ND has said no, NC says no, Sc says no, WI says probably not.. sorta blows big holes in the CBO mark up when they were told all 50 states will pick up 10% of the costs.
It’s no moral shortcoming to oppose it on principal.. even if that is the motive.
July 1, 2012 at 12:16 am #762352
JanSParticipantoh, my, yes, the sky is falling…”if” this happens, “if” that happens..
my advice? If you’re gonna be on medicaid, Kootch, go look for a doc who takes it. Many very good docs, do…I had to find them. It wasn’t too difficult.
Oh, you have health insurance already? Then, what’s your complaint? You get to keep that, and all it entails. It doesn’t affect you. Geez.
July 1, 2012 at 12:42 am #762353
JanSParticipantJuly 1, 2012 at 1:19 am #762354
HMC RichParticipantKootch, basically they gamed the system when they could and got lucky with the Supreme Court.
When enough time passes and when there isn’t enough money to help everyone, then they might see what you are talking about.
Nice try, but the part about freedom and liberty is not part of the their socialist paradigm.
They bitch about Republican obstructionism, but as I said before in other posts, the Republicans were powerless in this one. The Dems got lucky with timing, numbers, and Justice Roberts. Perfect Storm against the right. The RINO’s sold us out and we are now going to get chased by the IRS if we don’t comply.
This isn’t as bad as Roe v Wade yet because the panels that decide your fate are not in place yet. Roe v Wade has a death count of over 50 million. And that hasn’t been overturned either.
So Democrats continue to kill the unborn so that they can have sex without guilt and forced healthcare without guilt too. The door has been flung wide open to steal more of your Liberty and privacy with the aid of a Federal Government that is more and more intrusive and is bankrupting us.
Thanks a lot. Doesn’t smell like freedom to me.
July 1, 2012 at 3:22 am #762355
DBPMemberkootch: You’re darn tootin’ it matters whether your objection to ACA is idealogical or economic. Especially if you’re a doctor.
Lookie here. If my doctor griped about ACA because there’s too much paperwork, I’d sympathize.
If he griped because he doesn’t like the government second-guessing his treatment decisions, I’d be totally on his side.
Buuuut . . . if he told me he was going to drop me ‘cuz he thinks health care is a privilege not a right, then I’d go: Dude! WTF! Were you gone the day everyone else took the Hippocratic Oath, or what? Because you clearly don’t get what that’s about.
****************************************************************************************
Notice that John Boehner and the rest of the official naysayers have been careful not to put THEIR objections in idealogical terms. At least they are savvy enough to cast this as solely an economics/freedom-of-choice issue. Think of how it would sound if they came right out and said: We don’t think middle-class and poor people deserve to have affordable health care.
But I get the sneaking suspicion that that’s what’s really at the heart of it for Boehner and his ilk: They don’t care about poor people.
Congress got theirs; they’ve all got insurance. Everyone else can just ‘uck off, right? Health care’s juuuust too expensive to be giving away to the plebs.
Right . . . .
Ordinary Americans don’t wanna hear that noise, see? And this is why I think Romney’s gonna lose in November.
(Yes, it’s gonna be close, but he’s still gonna lose.)
***************************************************************************************
Democrats continue to kill the unborn so that they can have sex without guilt
—HMC Rich
Aren’t you just a tad confused there, big fella? Last time I checked, sex was supposed to feel good.
If it feels bad, then you’re prolly doin’ it wrong. ;-)
Â
July 1, 2012 at 4:57 am #762356
HMC RichParticipantTrue enough DBP, you made me smile, but there are consequences that may happen from sex. I am allowed to rant once in awhile.
I am not against affordable health care and I have always been for coverage for children and seniors. It’s just that I would have preferred a more bi-partisan bill so to speak. We didn’t get to play this time and didn’t like the shindig.
Listen, Social Security has expanded but it was pay as you go. The pols always said it was a trust fund. But it ain’t. It’s losing steam. In a few years we will have Jack Sh*$, and Jack left town (to go see Ayn Rand I think!)
Anyway, I truly believe in the long run many Americans will have lost something that they may not be able to get back.
If it works, great. I will admit I am wrong but I am not certain. No one is right now however much they assert they are.
I don’t like legislation that can also harm people. That was my point. I fear for our elderly. I really do.
July 1, 2012 at 6:13 am #762357
JanSParticipantyou honestly think that’s why women get abortions…guess we know what you think of us, huh..thanks Rich..
“The sky is falling, the sky is falling”
You all have no clue what could happen in the next two years. If Mr. Boehner and his ilk would tell me what they will replace this with when they “repeal” this, maybe we’d all listen to them a little more (you know, a solid plan that isn’t just for rich folk and corporations). But they don’t have a plan, they have no effing clue. But if Obama did it, it must be bad.
Laughable..
July 1, 2012 at 12:46 pm #762358
kootchmanMemberJuly 1, 2012 at 12:46 pm #762359
kootchmanMemberJan.. business is all about “what if:.. what if no clients want your services? what if you are too sick to provide them? The world of commerce is perpetual “what if”… then comes probability and avoidance, DPB.. your ortho surgeon expects to make 500K or better.. that was why he invested 8 years and a quarter million for his/her education, Every doctor in this city has a list of insurance providers they will or won’t accept. Some rejected for low reimbnursement rates, some for slow pay, some for being second guessed too much, some for too much hassle…!!! Mine is tired of the hassle of Medicaire and Medicaid, and the extra staff he has to hire to deal with it. He wants to practice medicine…not serve as a document clearing house.
You have no clue what this program will do or cost either JaN .. ya got a few talkie points a la Dobro style. That’s as intelligent a dialogue as the public will tolerate. It always gets to the same place.. I asked JoB dozens of times.. ok then.. if everyone is to get “basic healthcare” what is that basic level? No answer. How are you going to pay for it? no answer.
The problem is .. the sky IS falling. I do believe liberals will never address it.. Those who don’t want to fund abortions from the public purse.. hold life over your personal reasons. I won’t weigh in on that. But the issue will never die, there will be a majority that takes the funding out of the federal budget. Obamacare was opposed by MOST taxpayers and they pressed on. A crack of opportunism opened and they took it. They also paid for it. Obama’s “plan” is not a plan… even today they are writing it as they go along. YOU havent read it,,, I haven’t read it, because it is so riff with pork, exceptions, regulations, it’s larget than the US tax code!!!! At least the tax code took 100 years to get this bloated.. Obamacare started out bloated… good god what will it look like it 20 years?
DBP.. they are dropping patients because their objection is… I am practicing medicine… I am not a data processing center for the ACA or HHS… and when it gets in the way of that profession I am disassociating. You are pretending there is not a doc shortage … there is. You are pretending docs are still open arms embracing Medicare and Medicaid patients, they aren’t, when the MA Medical Association says the average wait time has blown up to 48 days,,, pay some friggin attention! I can call my doc… Monday morning… under his concierage program.. I will be in his office in 48 hours. I use health insurance for tests, labs, the annual executive physical. To his credit, he has kept some of his legacy patients who transitioned to Medicare/Medicaid. The most severe cases with complications? He can’t afford it, what a moronic statement…. “if Boehner had a plan maybe we would listen”… you didn’t even know what was in the ACA …. it was done in secret.. behind closed doors. Let’s not be hypocritical here… How about if Boehner pulled a Pelosi? Just elect us, then you get to see the plan, but first (twitch tick, twitch)… you have to elect us. That was ok then …
There is a hell of a lot more to the ACA than the Dobro talking points… if that is all there was to it, we could have posted it on the front page of the NY Times… they hope and are probably right,, that the distilled version of self interest talking points will carry the day. On this forum .. it would.
July 1, 2012 at 4:23 pm #762360
redblackParticipantbostonman:
Anyone who things this is going to lower premiums is in dreamland. Its a tax plain and simple. Roberts pointed out that congress has taxing ability and that was his justification for leaving it in place ergo its a tax.
if you look at it that way, you either pay premiums or you pay the tax.
this is what conservatives don’t understand. or pretend not to understand. you run around with your hair on fire as if the ACA imposes a tax on everyone. it doesn’t.
ideally, if we opened medicare to everyone, we and our employers would never have to pay another premium. sure, it’s a tax increase. but it eliminates a monthly bill, and it’s cheaper, because the pool of insured is bigger.
in simpler terms, yes it’s a tax. but it eliminates premiums. no one will be paying both a tax and an insurance premium.
and to follow up on DP’s comment, it sounds like your boss has plenty of time to send you off on pointless jobs trying to figure out how to either screw the government or screw his employees.
July 1, 2012 at 6:25 pm #762361
kootchmanMemberRest easy… Roberts may have done us a great favor. See, now it is a tax. That means there will not have to be a 60 vote repeal in the Senate. It will take 51 votes to strip out the 20 taxes associated with the the Obamacare Tax Increase Plant under budget reconciliation..no money in means your powder horn is dry…. or as it wlll now be dubbed OTIP. Looking at the map, with the trial vote the house will push through, and all those Democrats up for reelection in the Senate… this is going to be political theater of the highest order.
redblack..”in simpler terms, yes it’s a tax. but it eliminates premiums. no one will be paying both a tax and an insurance premium.” Yes you will… there are over 20 taxes in Obamacare… medical devices.. 10% federal charge.. as an example. If your employer drops your coverage.. you will pay one of the other. Either way, or whatever you want to call it.. get the checkbok out. The government sets the reimbursement rates low, increases the demand load, and you think adding 35 million more is going to increase access? That’s why Canadians who can afford to.. they come to the USA for treatment.
DBP.. while you may consider healthcare a “right”… not a privelage.. I can’t find that “right” anywhere in the comstitution. Do you have a reference for which amendment it is contained in?
Don’t ya think, that in the micro experiment that is Masss. when the number of providers who will play is getting so sparse. The Gov had to threaten or is threatening to take away the medical license to practice in Mass? Mass is screaming.. we have a care provider shortage… the cost of interference in the market.. Are you going to march the docs into their office at gunpoint and force them to see patients? As Andrew Jackson famously said… “Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.” what would the federal government do if the AMA took a play from unions… and went on strike? Took in no federal payment patients to protect their income and practices?
Or, we going to drive yet another business offshore? Want a hip replacement? Perfect. Your insurance company will refer you to a provider in Singapore. wait til hospitals lose half their revenue from surgeries .. bye bye nursing jobs, bye bye, hospital service workers… wonder if those surgeons can than harbor their earnings offshore? Right? I mean those earning were offshore. They can spend a week in the USA, charge for office visits and schedule the surgeries in Singapore, Taiwain.. etc… or India, Brazil, Caribbean… etc etc. Pay income taxes in the USA for office visit fees and pay offshore countries for the surgical fees. You know it will happen. Government price controls have never, ever worked. we are getting rationed healtcare now… when demand for service exceeds the supply of service providers, that is rationing.
Your perspective is a little short sighted…redblack. You are pitting the brains of congress and the government against business and profits, lawyers, doctors, scientists? How many times do you have to be on the short end of the stick to figure it out? If an employer puts 3 million in his pocket by dumping healthcare coverage and never has to deal with it again? That is not wasted time… that’s his or her business savvy at work.
Look at the shape of Medicare and Medicaid…. and you want to hand over the reins for the whole system that DOES function well, IS profitable, IS the source of most medical innovation, to government? Shudder the thought..
Are you watching California redblack? See how many of your brother and sister union workers are getting their sails trimmed? Now, tell me. how to you expect Obamacare to pile another 2 1/2 billion in year three of Obamacare on the California budget? Have ya watched the migration of business and the tax base to Texas, Utah, and right to work states? Every stressed state and healthcare plan is going to get dumped into Obamacare. Good heavens, they have to vote again in CA for another tax increase…. the state is broke. Let’s not emulate them anymore. Ya can’t collect the eggs from the golden goose if it ain’t nesting in your yard.
Did Justice Roberts just play chess while the liberals applaud his game of checkers?
July 1, 2012 at 9:37 pm #762362
dobroParticipantAn article on the Medical loss ratio from noted socialist publication Forbes…
July 1, 2012 at 11:09 pm #762363
JanSParticipantdoctors go on strike? surely you jest…who would pay the pool boy?
July 1, 2012 at 11:10 pm #762364
JanSParticipantJuly 1, 2012 at 11:12 pm #762365
DBPMemberLook kootch, I don’t believe that every right we have is, or needs to be, enumerated in the Constitution.
Once upon a time, the Constitution said slavery was OK, and the Supreme Court upheld that. Thankfully, common sense overruled both the Constitution and the Court, and we fought a bitter war to abolish slavery once and for all. Then, after the issue was decided on the battlefield, we added an Amendment that recognized the new status quo.
The Constitution is a great document, but it’s not the first source I consult when determining what’s right and wrong. What say you?
July 1, 2012 at 11:12 pm #762366
kootchmanMemberSo, now we have a government that restricts profit margins? Next, your local hardware store can’t mark up drill bits 100%? Let insurance compete interstate… they can “buy” pools randomly selected by the states, say in groups of 20,000. There were finer tools to use than a complete takeover of healthcare. I have 14 insurance options to choose from. I prefer that than Mother Government deciding what to offer. Stay out of business… they are smarter, always get the upper hand, and we get stuck with the tab. There is more power in being a customer than being a citizen.. for sure.
July 1, 2012 at 11:33 pm #762367
JanSParticipantyou know…I’m thinking Mitch McConnell needs to retire…this sure does tell us where his head is at…
July 2, 2012 at 12:27 am #762368
kootchmanMemberI think the constitution was not authored or developed to expand rights other than those enumerated in the founding document. I believe in the Justic Roberts decision he actually recognized the “sovereign” status of states. As I said in a previous post on compromise..slavery was a compromise of expediency to get the southern states, who bore the brun of the fighting in the revolutionary war, to joint the confederation. Adams and the northern states were vehemently opposed to it. But, Washington, and Jefferson, thought we would be too weak without the southern states… remember at that time, we were exporting cotton and tobacco as our primary source of foreign exchange. We would not be an export power until late in the 1800’s as a manufactured goods society. The “will of the people” was intended to be expressed in the soverign states. The constitution was a document to limit, not expand the powers of a centralized government. Jefferson won that intellectual argument with the other framers against the federalists. The constitution is the document to consult when checking the power of the federalist inclinations of, in particular, the democratic party, but the inevitable encroachment of government. It was the underlying rationale of our formation. We as citizens had the government in the framework of limited powers. Right and wrong is not in the constitution. Limited powers was the intent of the document. Those that were excluded from that document, slaves, women, were included to make it universally applicable. It’s not a micro management document or arbitrator of right and wrong. Those powers are resident in the supreme power, the one to be protected … the individual. In fact we were given awesome powers to assure us of that, the second amendment ….. a right never granted to any other people before or since. I consult my conscience first. And while I respect yours… don’t count on it being the same, and don’t count on me to accept yours either. The process to resolve that inherent potential is the vote within the confines of the soverign state of Washington. Universal healthcare is not a right to grant or deny by the federal government.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.