Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[deejaydana]

so did any of the news outlets give much time to Obama quietly delaying the mandate until 2016 this past week? I don't recall seeing much about it but it seems like it should be a big deal because, well where is the funding going to come from now?

[Larry]

Gotta say, I don't get all these delays. I assume they're political. And the only way they make sense politically is if the Democrats think that delaying is better than taking effect.

[mikered30]

Gotta say, I don't get all these delays. I assume they're political.

They have to be political, the delays push it until after the 2016 presidential election.  That should help Hillary and other democrats in tight elections. I didn't see too much of this mentioned in the media, although the missing plane has been the top story for the last week.

[twa]

when ya have lost CURL...damn dude

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/16/curl-we-completely-overhauled-american-health-care/?page=all

CURL: We completely overhauled American health care — to insure 4.2 million people?

[chipwhich]

 

when ya have lost CURL...damn dude

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/16/curl-we-completely-overhauled-american-health-care/?page=all

CURL: We completely overhauled American health care — to insure 4.2 million people?

 

 

Surprise!!!  The majority of people without health care don't actually want to pay for it.  They want the government to pay for it.

My cousin in Tenn doesn't want to pay for the health care they could already pay for through their employer, it's too expensive.

 

Po folk aren't looking for a way to pay hundreds of dollars a month to avoid bankruptcy, they don't have the money to pay for it in the first place.

[Busch1724]

gbear, chip, and WD; thanks for the information. What you guys have said is something I've seen before. I was hoping there would be a loophole or something to look into. The high deductible plans make sense, however catastrophes and other major health events can get expensive if they last a little while...like multiple year cancer treatments.

[gbear]

Sadly, I know all too well how expensive major health events can be.  I have multiple sclerosis and one of my medications is roughly 90 grand a year.  I am lucky as all get out to have good insurance and a copay assistance plan from the pharmaceutical company which manufactures the drug.  Still, I have eaten through the 5k out of pocket maximum from my insurance by the end of April the last two years.  That was why I suggested having the employer commit to putting some of the money saved from not buying the cadilac plans towards deductables.

 

When I wrote in my blog questioning whether maintaining a year of (my) productivity is worth a college education for another person, I know this is a trade off about which I think often.  For me, the one getting expensive treatments, it's great.  For society, it is a tradeoff to which we don't give a second thought.  We can, therefor we do.

[chipwhich]

Sadly, I know all too well how expensive major health events can be.  I have multiple sclerosis and one of my medications is roughly 90 grand a year.  I am lucky as all get out to have good insurance and a copay assistance plan from the pharmaceutical company which manufactures the drug.  Still, I have eaten through the 5k out of pocket maximum from my insurance by the end of April the last two years.  That was why I suggested having the employer commit to putting some of the money saved from not buying the cadilac plans towards deductables.

 

When I wrote in my blog questioning whether maintaining a year of (my) productivity is worth a college education for another person, I know this is a trade off about which I think often.  For me, the one getting expensive treatments, it's great.  For society, it is a tradeoff to which we don't give a second thought.  We can, therefor we do.

 

I have posted this before that we will never be able to pay for health insurance in America if we can't get control of the price of prescription drugs.  Prescription drug costs are out of control.  I couldn't believe it when I saw an MS drug treatment that was $30,000 for 2 prescriptions.

 

On top of that (MS aside) we are an over prescribed country.  The cost of having low copay doctors visits all these years is people being prescribed drugs to cure everything.

Edited March 18, 2014 by chipwhich

[Wrong Direction]

...

That was why I suggested having the employer commit to putting some of the money saved from not buying the cadilac plans towards deductables.

 

When I wrote in my blog questioning whether maintaining a year of (my) productivity is worth a college education for another person, I know this is a trade off about which I think often.  For me, the one getting expensive treatments, it's great.  For society, it is a tradeoff to which we don't give a second thought.  We can, therefor we do.

 

1. Certainly not a bad idea to buy down deductibles to some extent. I'm personally more of a fan of copay/coinsurance than deductibles.

 

2. I seriously hope our country doesn't get to a point where your well-being is put up against someone's college education. Before that, society needs to stop paying for people who don't need help, through all of our programs.

 

I have posted this before that we will never be able to pay for health insurance in America if we can't get control of the price of prescription drugs.  Prescription drug costs are out of control.  I couldn't believe it when I saw an MS drug treatment that was $30,000 for 2 prescriptions.

 

On top of that (MS aside) we are an over prescribed country.  The cost of having low copay doctors visits all these years is people being prescribed drugs to cure everything.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but drug costs are not the worst cost drivers in healthcare. Indeed, many of the biggest hitting drugs are now generic. It's the biologics and other specialty meds that are coming out now which are astronomical. Of course, part of the reason those costs are so high is the market for those meds are often smaller than the big hitters from the past (blood thinners, statins, anti-hypertensives, etc.).

 

Don't get me wrong. PhRMA and BIO have a special place on the hill, but their members also produce advanced products for relatively small populations, and the exclusivity business is a tough nut to crack for many legit reasons.

[Wrong Direction]

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/201136-obamacare-premiums-are-about-to-skyrocket

 

More at the link

 

 

O-Care premiums to skyrocket

 

Health industry officials say ObamaCare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country, countering claims recently made by the administration.
 

The expected rate hikes will be announced in the coming months amid an intense election year, when control of the Senate is up for grabs. The sticker shock would likely bolster the GOP’s prospects in November and hamper ObamaCare insurance enrollment efforts in 2015.

The industry complaints come less than a week after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to downplay concerns about rising premiums in the healthcare sector. She told lawmakers rates would increase in 2015 but grow more slowly than in the past. 
 

“The increases are far less significant than what they were prior to the Affordable Care Act,” the secretary said in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee.
 

Her comment baffled insurance officials, who said it runs counter to the industry’s consensus about next year. 

 

“It’s pretty shortsighted because I think everybody knows that the way the exchange has rolled out … is going to lead to higher costs,” said one senior insurance executive who requested anonymity.

 

The insurance official, who hails from a populous swing state, said his company expects to triple its rates next year on the ObamaCare exchange. 
...
Either way, there will be a slew of bad headlines for the Obama administration just months before the election.

“It’s pretty bad timing,” said one insurance official.

 

Other health experts say predictions about premiums are premature.

 

David Cutler, who has been called an architect of Obama-Care, said, “Health premiums increase every year, so the odds are very good that they will increase next year as well.  None of that is news.  The question is whether it will be a lot or a little.  That depends in part on how big the insurers think the exchanges will be.”
...

Political operatives will be watching premium increases this summer, most notably in states where there are contested Senate races.

 

In Iowa, which hosts the first presidential caucus in the nation and has a competitive Senate race this year, rates are expected to rise 100 percent on the exchange and by double digits on the larger, employer-based market, according to a recent article in the Business Record.

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/18/report-premiums-rising-faster-than-eight-years-before-obamacare-combined/

 

Report: Premiums rising faster than eight years before Obamacare COMBINED

Health insurance premiums have risen more after Obamacare than the average premium increases over the eight years before it became law,according to the private health exchange eHealthInsurance.
 

The individual market for health insurance has seen premiums rise by 39 percent since February 2013, eHealth reports. Without a subsidy, the average individual premium is now $274 a month. Families have been hit even harder with an average increase of 56 percent over the same period — average premiums are now $663 per family, over $426 last year. Between 2005 and 2013, average premiums for individual plans increased 37 percent and average family premiums were upped 31 percent. So they have risen faster under Obamacare than in the previous eight years.

...
An important caveat is that eHealth’s prices don’t include subsidies, so the prices for anyone earning between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level will be lower. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has repeatedly claimed patients will pay as little as $18 per month, without noting the taxpayer cost.
...
But premiums aren’t the only key to health care costs — deductibles and out-of-pocket costs like co-pays are also rising. When it comes to employer health plans alone, four out of five U.S. companies have increased deductibles or are considering doing so. 

 

Edited March 19, 2014 by Wrong Direction

[Wrong Direction]

With those premiums reports, it's worth understanding the implications. There are basically three groups of people in the exchanges.

 

1. Subsidy eligible - not price sensitive, for the most part, but generally sicker.

2. Old - less price sensitive, but generally sicker

3. The Rest - very price sensitive, generally less sick.

 

So, if premiums go up, the people most likely to drop the plans are the people who are generally less sick and able to afford some level of health care. 

 

It's worth noting the reason for the spikes in the first place: the average enrollee is sicker than what people expected. Obama's waivers have basically kept healthier people in their current plans as opposed to the exchanges. This results in higher prices.

 

If premiums spike as noted in those articles, the case mix will get sicker still, causing premiums to continue to spike. Plans will drop out of the exchanges and we'll be left with a few options for poor and sick people. 

 

This program is in real trouble.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Wrong Direction

[mikered30]

Interesting supreme court case in progress about Obamacare and birth control involving Hobby Lobby and a local to me Mennonite owned company named Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation.  They claim Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate violates the religious freedom of the company and its owners and are looking for an exemption. I think dont think they will win, have to wait until June for the ruling.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/hobby-lobby-s-supreme-court-birth-control-case--six-things-you-need-to-know-193706035.html

[Kilmer17]

After Citizens United, I think the Court will apply the same religous protection a person would have to the corporations.

 

I dont agree with it though.  I dont think a "company" can, by its very nature, have a religious belief.  The owners of the company surely can, but not the company itself.

 

I dont think the Justices will agree with me though.  I think they will issue a blow to Obamacare.

[Larry]

Interesting supreme court case in progress about Obamacare and birth control involving Hobby Lobby and a local to me Mennonite owned company named Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation. They claim Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate violates the religious freedom of the company and its owners and are looking for an exemption. I think dont think they will win, have to wait until June for the ruling.

http://news.yahoo.com/hobby-lobby-s-supreme-court-birth-control-case--six-things-you-need-to-know-193706035.html

I could see arguments for ruling either way.

On one hand, you have religious freedom. (Although I can see arguments against that argument, too. Do religious employers have the right to impose their religion on employees? There's TWO people's religious freedoms involved, here). Something that's really important, in society.

And opposite that, there really isn't any overpowering societal need or mandate. Society will NOT collapse, if employer-funded health insurance does not cover contraception.

I dont think the Justices will agree with me though. I think they will issue a blow to Obamacare.

Oh agree with you. If I were predicting which way this court will rule, it's pretty certain. (Although they have surprised me, some times. Don't remember what it was about, but it has happened.)

[twa]

not sure where a company imposing religion comes into not paying for birth control, the employees freedom is not restricted

 

neither the job nor the birth control is a entitlement.

 

if a business chooses to close for religious holidays or on Sunday are they imposing?

[Kilmer17]

I think you have it backwards. The argument is that obamacare is violating their right by making them provide contraception in their plan.

Similarly, if the govt required them to be open on Sundays, it would be violating the same.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the company is imposing there beliefs

[twa]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the company is imposing there beliefs

 

Larry seemed to think it had merit, I'm aware of the argument before the court.

 

As a business I certainly hope the court recognizes religious freedom exists for us too.

[Larry]

I think you have it backwards. The argument is that obamacare is violating their right by making them provide contraception in their plan.

Similarly, if the govt required them to be open on Sundays, it would be violating the same.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the company is imposing there beliefs

Uh, yes, somebody is.

"If you want this job, then you will comply with my religion" is imposing their beliefs.

Employment is a deal reached between two parties.

It's debatable whether the employer has freedom of religion, but the employee certainly does.

And my freedom of religion includes the right to be free from yours. (Yours does not include the right to impose it on me.)

When there's a conflict, on that debate, it's a conflict between two sets of religious freedoms.

Now, having made that observation, though?

Having the government step in, and mandate that that conflict of religious freedom must always be made in the direction of "pro contraception"?

I would assert that that adds an additional wrong to the conflict.

When it was just the employer and the employee arguing, it was a debate between two individuals. Bring the government into it, and it's an argument between one individual and the government.

(Although, to make things even more hypothetical, is it still wrong, if the government's position is that "whenever the religion of employer and employee conflict, the employee's religion shall prevail"? Now the government isn't weighing on for or against one religion in the debate, they're weighing in to protect the interests of the person who is less powerful.)

[twa]

Is not providing a benefit imposing their religion?

[Wrong Direction]

I think the state versus federal subsidy case is stronger than this one. I'm not sure how I feel about this particular case. If it was as simple as whether the government could require a business to pay for it, I'd say they government can. However, the claim is this violates a law which requires the government to take the least imposing position.

 

So the argument isn't really over whether the government can force people to pay for birth control. It's whether it needs to in this particular case, or whether they could have achieved the same means in a less intrusive manner. As a matter of policy, I think it's clear that Obama didn't need to make birth control totally free for all women in order to achieve his goal of making sure the small % of women supposedly without access to birth control could gain access. As a matter before the court, I have no idea.

[Larry]

Is not providing a benefit imposing their religion?

Well, if you want to claim this isn't a matter of the employer's religion, that's peachy with me.

We could close the case right now.

I think I've already expressed my opinion of people trying to tell other people how to run THEIR lives, and claiming that MY religion says it's OK.

[twa]

imposing by not providing what they are not entitled to?......insanity

[Larry]

imposing by not providing what they are not entitled to?......insanity

Imposing by making decisions which affect YOU, based on MY religion.

[twa]

Imposing by making decisions which affect YOU, based on MY religion.

 

Like closing on Sunday or Christmas?...or Saturday for the old school

Not selling liquor?

 

you ain't central nor controlling

[NoCalMike]

Does Hobby Lobby import any items from China, ya know the place that forces abortion via policy?  How does that jive with their religious principles, or does " happening way over there" not count?  Maybe when it helps the bottomline, there is room for it in religious harmony?
 

This case is about a lot more than access to birth control. It's basically opening the door for corporations to deny anything they want in the name of religious freedom.  Hell, one could deny coverage period because "Jesus is the only Dr. you need"

Edited March 26, 2014 by NoCalMike