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

[twa]

what they are allowed to deny is based on the compelling need/justification to require it.

 

but it's always nice to see someone else set the religious values for another.....us bigots like company 

[NoCalMike]

Of course because birth control and preventative services are not compelling in the slightest. 

[twa]

Of course because birth control and preventative services are not compelling in the slightest. 

 

That mean we can compel their use?

Seems only fair

[NoCalMike]

The power of birth control compels you!

[skinsmarydu]

Hubby's colonoscopy was $1800 only 5 years ago.

Last week, he had one, 7 benign polyps removed. Cost? $0.00.

[Slateman]

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.

What? Of course religious employers have the right to impose their religion on employees. Do you know how many churches won't employ you unless you're a member of that church? The person looking for employment waives their freedom when they sign the contract for employment.

Hubby's colonoscopy was $1800 only 5 years ago.

Last week, he had one, 7 benign polyps removed. Cost? $0.00.

You're welcome. So glad that the rest of us could pick up the cost for that.

[skinsmarydu]

You're welcome. So glad that the rest of us could pick up the cost for that.

So far, it's covered in our Humana plan as preventive care. We were made to understand that there would only be a "per polyp" removal charge (if any), but when he called afterwards to make payment he was told there wasn't any payment due. I'll update if anything changes, and hope that your plan offers the same. You're welcome.

[GoSkins0721]

So far, it's covered in our Humana plan as preventive care. We were made to understand that there would only be a "per polyp" removal charge (if any), but when he called afterwards to make payment he was told there wasn't any payment due. I'll update if anything changes, and hope that your plan offers the same. You're welcome.

 

Yeah, anyone over the age of 50 who hasn't experienced the joy of a colonoscopy owes it to themselves to have one. The prep work is something that shouldn't be missed.

 

In all seriousness, it is one of the most powerful weapons for preventing colorectal cancer.

[skinsmarydu]

Yeah, anyone over the age of 50 who hasn't experienced the joy of a colonoscopy owes it to themselves to have one. The prep work is something that shouldn't be missed.

 

In all seriousness, it is one of the most powerful weapons for preventing colorectal cancer.

LOL!!! And seriously, we're damn glad he got these polyps in time.

[Larry]

What? Of course religious employers have the right to impose their religion on employees. Do you know how many churches won't employ you unless you're a member of that church? The person looking for employment waives their freedom when they sign the contract for employment.

Really? Hobby Lobby is a church?

But thank you for your blanket (and completely unsupported) assertion that, when two people sign an employment contract, that one of them abandons all rights whatsoever, and the other one's rights expand to grant them the right to exert their rights over the other person.

[Slateman]

Really? Hobby Lobby is a church?

But thank you for your blanket (and completely unsupported) assertion that, when two people sign an employment contract, that one of them abandons all rights whatsoever, and the other one's rights expand to grant them the right to exert their rights over the other person.

Any organization/company that is religiously affiliated should be protected. I don't consider the Hobby Lobby any less of a church than LDS, Catholic Church, or Liberty University.

 

And yes, if you sign a contract saying you waive your rights, then you have abandoned them within the confines of your employment. So if you sign a contract that requires you to only have sexual relations within a marriage, or you sign a contract saying that you will not use any form of birth control, you signed of your own free will. You have chosen to give up those rights.

[Slateman]

So far, it's covered in our Humana plan as preventive care. We were made to understand that there would only be a "per polyp" removal charge (if any), but when he called afterwards to make payment he was told there wasn't any payment due. I'll update if anything changes, and hope that your plan offers the same. You're welcome.

So let me get this straight:

 

Previously, you had to pay for this preventive care.

 

Now, you've "changed" plans, and this doesn't cost anything. Yet they didn't drop anything else. So who is it you think payed for it?

 

It was all the people who are also in your same company (and it's subsidiaries) whose premiums increased, as well as all the tax payers who payed for the subsidies to the company.

[skinsmarydu]

It's the law that changed, I think, not our plan. His company of 30 years pays his premium, and we pay for mine.

He did just get home from an endoscopy that he paid $875 for, however.

[chipwhich]

It's the law that changed, I think, not our plan. His company of 30 years pays his premium, and we pay for mine.

He did just get home from an endoscopy that he paid $875 for, however.

 

I hate to break it to you but your husbands polyps weren't removed for free because of Obamacare.

 

I am happy that you have good insurance now.

[gbear]

Chip and slate,

As I understand it, it is possible for people's insurance costs to go down simply because there are more people in a plan.  With more people, the insurance company does not have to charge as much per person to cover the outlier expense (like my MS).  I was under the impression this was one of the reason the federal employee insurance plans all seem to cover so much in comparisson to similarly priced insurance plans offered by other employers.  There are a lot of government workers to spread the costs of covering the risks. 

 

You are quick to assume somebody else paid for the procedure because it costs less now.  To an extent, you may be right on an individual procedure basis, but as part of a bigger risk pool, he is paying in for more stuff than he was before too.  It is why there was so much concern about getting enough people to sign up for insurance in the exchanges.  It's why I chuckled when  everyone said "Look Home Depot (I think it was them but may have been another large employer) is dropping their employee healthcare and just providing money for their employees to buy on the exchanges.  They are showing why these plans can't compete."  I kept thinking that the more companies which do this, the better the odds are for success because the insured pool will be big enough. 

[Larry]

Any organization/company that is religiously affiliated should be protected. I don't consider the Hobby Lobby any less of a church than LDS, Catholic Church, or Liberty University.

I can certainly understand the notion that fundamental rights should be interpreted broadly. Been known to advocate that notion a time or two, myself.

On the other hand, I do see there's various shades of "religiously affiliated".

I don't think that

1) a Catholic Church

2) a catholic school, next door to the church

3) a hospital, owned by the Catholic Church

4) investment property (say, the Watergate), owned by the Catholic Church

5) a 7-11 that's owned by a Catholic.

all deserve the same level of exemption from society's laws.

For example, there seems to be a lot of precedent that #1 should be exempt from property taxes. But I think that ought to end, somewhere around #3 or so.

I can see the notion that a church should be allowed to discriminate based on race. I don't think the hospital should be.

And yes, if you sign a contract saying you waive your rights, then you have abandoned them within the confines of your employment. So if you sign a contract that requires you to only have sexual relations within a marriage, or you sign a contract saying that you will not use any form of birth control, you signed of your own free will. You have chosen to give up those rights.

My social studies class mentioned this concept, quite some time ago.

Said it was called "liberty of contract". The notion that anything an employee agrees to, is just fine.

It was overturned.

In the 18th century.

I hate to break it to you but your husbands polyps weren't removed for free because of Obamacare.

Of course, if her plan had been cancelled, or if her rates had gone up, THAT would have been because of Obamacare.

[Slateman]

Chip and slate,

As I understand it, it is possible for people's insurance costs to go down simply because there are more people in a plan.  With more people, the insurance company does not have to charge as much per person to cover the outlier expense (like my MS).  I was under the impression this was one of the reason the federal employee insurance plans all seem to cover so much in comparisson to similarly priced insurance plans offered by other employers.  There are a lot of government workers to spread the costs of covering the risks. 

 

This is a very broad assumption. Who was it that wasn't in the plan before but are now? There were far fewer healthy people who enrolled in the exchanges than people with previous conditions. The idea that somehow insurance went down because more people enrolled is naive at best, and illogical at worst. Do you not think there was a reason these people were not on an insurance plan before?

I can certainly understand the notion that fundamental rights should be interpreted broadly. Been known to advocate that notion a time or two, myself.

On the other hand, I do see there's various shades of "religiously affiliated".

I don't think that

1) a Catholic Church

2) a catholic school, next door to the church

3) a hospital, owned by the Catholic Church

4) investment property (say, the Watergate), owned by the Catholic Church

5) a 7-11 that's owned by a Catholic.

all deserve the same level of exemption from society's laws.

For example, there seems to be a lot of precedent that #1 should be exempt from property taxes. But I think that ought to end, somewhere around #3 or so.

I can see the notion that a church should be allowed to discriminate based on race. I don't think the hospital should be.

My social studies class mentioned this concept, quite some time ago.

Said it was called "liberty of contract". The notion that anything an employee agrees to, is just fine.

It was overturned.

In the 18th century.

Of course, if her plan had been cancelled, or if her rates had gone up, THAT would have been because of Obamacare.

It was not "overturned." The courts simply ruled that restrictions had to be based on equitable concerns and reasonableness and, sometimes, certain "inalienable rights." Of which, BC is definitely not one of them.

 

This is why companies are free to fire employees for talking to the media, bringing a gun to work, as well as subjecting their vehicles and personal items to searches on their property.

 

A private hospital should be  able to do whatever the heck they want. Should they choose to not admit people of a certain race, religion, ethnicity, sexual  orientation, gender, etc, they should simply lose government subsidies.

[twa]

This is a very broad assumption. Who was it that wasn't in the plan before but are now? There were far fewer healthy people who enrolled in the exchanges than people with previous conditions. The idea that somehow insurance went down because more people enrolled is naive at best, and illogical at worst. Do you not think there was a reason these people were not on an insurance plan before?

I

 

 

Yes it depends on how much those signing up are subsidized,and of course lower claims.

That is why it is imperative the youth sign up and Cadillac plans get taxed.

 

The HomeDepot crowd will probably be a drain once ya add in subsidies and subtract the penalty the company will pay.

[GoSkins0721]

So let me get this straight:

 

Previously, you had to pay for this preventive care.

 

Now, you've "changed" plans, and this doesn't cost anything. Yet they didn't drop anything else. So who is it you think payed for it?

 

It was all the people who are also in your same company (and it's subsidiaries) whose premiums increased, as well as all the tax payers who payed for the subsidies to the company.

 

That's a pretty broad brush to use to paint 'preventative care'. The trend the past 30+ years is to have more preventative procedures be covered by insurance companies.

 

Hell, I've had dental x-rays covered by my dental insurance since the early '80s. Once a year, I think, and then the panoramic x-ray paid for once every 2 or 3 years. Mammograms, pap smears, flu shots, etc.etc.etc. have all been part of the move to preventative care. And, I hope the trend continues as more & more tests are developed. Because this is much cheaper than paying for the associated illness (or dying).

 

And, yeah, these have to be paid for through increases in premiums. But it's not new & unique to Obamacare.

 

Edit: Damn, I'm slow. I forgot what hasn't been mentioned: While the cost of these preventative care procedures increases the premiums, I don't know where or who has the data to determine how much LOWER the premiums are because something was caught at an early stage.

 

That is, if it's caught earlier & can be prevented, there is less future costs incurred to deal with the medical condition prevented.

 

Any idea how to factor those costs that didn't occur into the premiums people pay?

Edited March 26, 2014 by GoSkins0721

[Larry]

It was not "overturned." The courts simply ruled that restrictions had to be based on equitable concerns and reasonableness and, sometimes, certain "inalienable rights." Of which, BC is definitely not one of them.

Oh, agreed. That's why I think this particular mandate is doomed.

There's no compelling case for why society needs to mandate this.

It's pretty well established that fundamental rights can be restricted, if there's a good enough reason to do so.

Making contraception cheaper, IMO, isn't a good enough reason.

 

 

A private hospital should be  able to do whatever the heck they want. Should they choose to not admit people of a certain race, religion, ethnicity, sexual  orientation, gender, etc, they should simply lose government subsidies.

 

 

Ah, now we've gone from "all employees lose all rights when they become employed", to "all anti-discrimination laws should be eliminated". 

 

(I will also point out, in a timid voice, that Obamacare doesn't say that businesses have to pay for employee's contraception.  It says that they have to, if they want to deduct it on their taxes.) 

[gbear]

Slateman,

I notice goalposts keep moving.  The most recent numbers I have seen suggest the percentage of uninsured in the U.S. is at an all time low.  Now you might argue all those without insurance must have had a reason to not have insurance so covering that reason must surely cost a lot.   The rebuttal is those people were already getting care, subsidized by the rest of us with insurance.  It's a large part of why medical bills are so expensive.  Either the hospital has to make up for those who pay nothing by jacking up the bills of those who pay or the state eats the bill with medicaid or medicare.  Either way, you and I were already paying for the procedures. 

 

Now I still come back to the size of the risk pool matters.  An insurance company has to be able to stay solvent while paying for the outlier bills.  That means everyone is charged a portion of the terrible bills even when there is no terrible event.  Having more people in the pool means a smaller charge for the outlier events.  Why is a family insurance plan less than simply multiplying the inital person's fee by the number of people?  Insurance companies don't do this out of the goodness of their heart.  For the same reason, large employers get better insurance deals because they bring a bigger pool to share risk.

 

At first Americans for Prosperity was running a bunch of ads about how terrible the ACA was for most people.  Of course it isn't a benefit for all people, but they have stopped a lot of those ads or changed the wording because it turned out most people they picked to tell the story of the "horrible Obamacare" ACA actually benefited when their stories were fact checked.  

 

The simple truth was our healthcare sector was a horribly inefficient drag on our economy.  Now it's just bad.  How about we stop trying to say it fails in a purely partisan effort and start trying to improve it?  My feeling on the ACA was and is "Well at least now we have shown healthcare can be a topic in politics instead of just a third rail."  Still, it seems so many can't get over the insurance mandate proposed by the heritage foundation as the last hope for private insurance in the U.S. and initially implimented by a Republican Governor.  The irony is they can't just take credit for the idea and say "thanks for caving" to the Dems, many of whom want(ed) a single payer system.  Politics some/most times boggles my mind.

 

edit to add:

GoSkins, the preventive care actually increases costs according to the GAO and CBO reports.  It turns out hte preventive care increases life spans allowing us to incur more costs over a life time.  Personally, I don't have a problem with the result of living longer, but sadly nothign is free, not even more trips aroudn the sun.

Edited March 26, 2014 by gbear

[Slateman]

You mean that after they passed a law saying that everyone had to have health insurance and now the percentage of uninsured is at an all time low?

 

Medical bills are expensive because they can be. It won't change unless you go to single payer. Which I would never trust the US government to run efficiently.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Slateman,

I notice goalposts keep moving.  The most recent numbers I have seen suggest the percentage of uninsured in the U.S. is at an all time low.  Now you might argue all those without insurance must have had a reason to not have insurance so covering that reason must surely cost a lot.   The rebuttal is those people were already getting care, subsidized by the rest of us with insurance.  It's a large part of why medical bills are so expensive.  Either the hospital has to make up for those who pay nothing by jacking up the bills of those who pay or the state eats the bill with medicaid or medicare.  Either way, you and I were already paying for the procedures. 

 

Now I still come back to the size of the risk pool matters.  An insurance company has to be able to stay solvent while paying for the outlier bills.  That means everyone is charged a portion of the terrible bills even when there is no terrible event.  Having more people in the pool means a smaller charge for the outlier events.  Why is a family insurance plan less than simply multiplying the inital person's fee by the number of people?  Insurance companies don't do this out of the goodness of their heart.  For the same reason, large employers get better insurance deals because they bring a bigger pool to share risk.

 

At first Americans for Prosperity was running a bunch of ads about how terrible the ACA was for most people.  Of course it isn't a benefit for all people, but they have stopped a lot of those ads or changed the wording because it turned out most people they picked to tell the story of the "horrible Obamacare" ACA actually benefited when their stories were fact checked.  

 

The simple truth was our healthcare sector was a horribly inefficient drag on our economy.  Now it's just bad.  How about we stop trying to say it fails in a purely partisan effort and start trying to improve it?  My feeling on the ACA was and is "Well at least now we have shown healthcare can be a topic in politics instead of just a third rail."  Still, it seems so many can't get over the insurance mandate proposed by the heritage foundation as the last hope for private insurance in the U.S. and initially implimented by a Republican Governor.  The irony is they can't just take credit for the idea and say "thanks for caving" to the Dems, many of whom want(ed) a single payer system.  Politics some/most times boggles my mind.

 

edit to add:

GoSkins, the preventive care actually increases costs according to the GAO and CBO reports.  It turns out hte preventive care increases life spans allowing us to incur more costs over a life time.  Personally, I don't have a problem with the result of living longer, but sadly nothign is free, not even more trips aroudn the sun.

 

 

Fair enough.  But before we can improve it, it must first be implemented.   As we all know, it's not and while I find the reading on the topic entertaining, we all know the full impact of this bill will not be felt until after the mid-term elections.   I don't think any reasonable person can even start to suggest exactly how broken this entire effort is until we actually see it.   It won't be pretty.

[chipwhich]

Chip and slate,

As I understand it, it is possible for people's insurance costs to go down simply because there are more people in a plan.  With more people, the insurance company does not have to charge as much per person to cover the outlier expense (like my MS).  I was under the impression this was one of the reason the federal employee insurance plans all seem to cover so much in comparisson to similarly priced insurance plans offered by other employers.  There are a lot of government workers to spread the costs of covering the risks.

 

More people in a plan doesn't mean cheaper.  As my insurance brokers told me, 10% of the participants in the plan drive the cost of the plan.

The problem in Obamacare is a large population of uninsured, those who can't obtain coverage.  The expectation is a larger than 10% population that will drive cost.

[ABQCOWBOY]

More people in a plan doesn't mean cheaper.  As my insurance brokers told me, 10% of the participants in the plan drive the cost of the plan.

The problem in Obamacare is a large population of uninsured, those who can't obtain coverage.  The expectation is a larger than 10% population that will drive cost.

 

This.

 

Not just uninsured, which is really not true for Obamacare.   I think I saw a figure that suggest that of the 5 million (?) only 14% of these who have signed up were unisured prior to Obamacare.   Of those who are signing up, a very large number of them are people who have very expensive pre-existing conditions and that's a huge cost driver in all of this.  

 

Too few healthy Americans and way too few who have signed up and actually paid.