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

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Can someone please educate me here, as I understand Obamacare consists of the following:

1 - People with insurance are unaffected

2 - People without insurance that can afford it are penalized (most likely fines/taxes)

3 - People without insurance that cannot afford it are provided with healthcare (fully? or are they given a discounted rate?)

Where does the money come for option 3 ?

$500 billion was reallocated from medicare to medicaid expansion to the states to help pay for the poor. Also, there are some accounting tricks, for sure, and there is some projection that with more people buying into health insurance, health insurance will become cheaper per rata.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Tulane Skins Fan

[twa]

Can someone please educate me here, as I understand Obamacare consists of the following:

1 - People with insurance are unaffected

2 - People without insurance that can afford it are penalized (most likely fines/taxes)

3 - People without insurance that cannot afford it are provided with healthcare (fully? or are they given a discounted rate?)

Where does the money come for option 3 ?

1 only unaffected if it is not a cadillac plan or a waiver granted

2 Yes small fine

3 Kinda up in the air as we have to see how the Medicaid and exchanges shake out

it is expected to be funded through the fines to both individuals w/o ins(above the earning limit) and companies,as well as tax/fine on cadillac plans....and expected savings from reforms(yeah,right :silly:)

[NavyDave]

It seems like only yesterday that real men and some liberals would feel shame to be on welfare, move back in with their mommy and daddy, and look to government to take care of their wants at other peoples expense.

My heart goes out to the Dora the Explorer generation, because the current entitlement culture (that has infected the left) which embraces the recent huge expansion of big government is going to leave them with a massive debt to deal with.

[pez]

$500 billion was reallocated from medicare to medicaid expansion to the states to help pay for the poor. Also, there are some accounting tricks, for sure, and there is some projection that with more people buying into health insurance, health insurance will become cheaper per rata.

So they are shifting funds that provide health insurance for elderly and disabled to the new healthcare system...

I am assuming that these folks will now be provided for by the new health care system?

Edited June 28, 2012 by pez

[Wrong Direction]

For all of those here saying conservatives are stupid for saying people will lose their insurance, you're just wrong, and it's acknowledged by the CBO, no less.

Today, companies hire employees and pay something like 1/2 of their insurance costs, with the employees paying the other half. To do this, companies need to hire staff to administer their programs, who then hire insurance brokers, who then negotiate benefits packages with various insurance companies, the winner of which enters into an agreement with the employer. Company benefits managers manage, health benefits, ongoing costs, tax documents, etc., and re-negotiate through the broker every year. It's a big headache for employers, and a big cost.

With the exchanges and "essential health benefits" (coverage mandates) in place, companies lose the ability to negotiate better rates for their employees because they have to meet certain cost sharing and network standards. Furthermore, there just isn't that big of an employment market involved in more rich benefits.

So, the company can go through all of the machinations involved above, or they can save themselves money by just paying the fine and not covering 1/2 of the premium + administrative costs. The choice is obvious. Companies will save themselves the headache of dealing with healthcare at all because the government is now doing it for them. They'll just pay the tax and improve their bottom line.

The CBO anticipates as much in their score. My assertion is that the CBO's estimates of companies who will drop coverage are flawed on the low end because they used an uncomparable Part D model in creating their score. Through Part D, employers have dropped coverage for retirees, but it's happening somewhat slower than will happen when the employer gets to unload their whole healthcare departments, IMO. There are greater incentives for companies to unload coverage now, so more will do so, particularly with low fines for doing so in the first few years.

There's a point that some here aren't grasping. Republicans are saying that many will lose "their" plan. That's true. That doesn't mean they won't have access to insurance. It means the plans they have now will 1) become more expensive because of new coverage mandates, with variance by state, or 2) go away altogether, with those employees probably given a small financial incentive by their employers to purchase through the exchanges. So, the employees (likely many millions) will be forced to change their coverage to the government mandate-heavy system between 2014 and about 2017, or simply pay the tax and go without coverage.

If you don't agree, don't tell me, tell the CBO. It's just a matter of degree, not a matter of whether this will happen.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

For all of those here saying conservatives are stupid for saying people will lose their insurance, you're just wrong, and it's acknowledged by the CBO, no less.

Today, companies hire employees and pay something like 1/2 of their insurance costs, with the employees paying the other half. To do this, companies need to hire staff to administer their programs, who then hire insurance brokers, who then negotiate benefits packages with various insurance companies, the winner of which enters into an agreement with the employer. Company benefits managers manage, health benefits, ongoing costs, tax documents, etc., and re-negotiate through the broker every year. It's a big headache for employers, and a big cost.

With the exchanges and "essential health benefits" (coverage mandates) in place, companies lose the ability to negotiate better rates for their employees because they have to meet certain cost sharing and network standards. Furthermore, there just isn't that big of an employment market involved in more rich benefits.

So, the company can go through all of the machinations involved above, or they can save themselves money by just paying the fine and not covering 1/2 of the premium + administrative costs. The choice is obvious. Companies will save themselves the headache of dealing with healthcare at all because the government is now doing it for them. They'll just pay the tax and improve their bottom line.

The CBO anticipates as much in their score. My assertion is that the CBO's estimates of companies who will drop coverage are flawed on the low end because they used an uncomparable Part D model in creating their score. Through Part D, employers have dropped coverage for retirees, but it's happening somewhat slower than will happen when the employer gets to unload their whole healthcare departments, IMO. There are greater incentives for companies to unload coverage now, so more will do so, particularly with low fines for doing so in the first few years.

There's a point that some here aren't grasping. Republicans are saying that many will lose "their" plan. That's true. That doesn't mean they won't have access to insurance. It means the plans they have now will 1) become more expensive because of new coverage mandates, with variance by state, or 2) go away altogether, with those employees probably given a small financial incentive by their employers to purchase through the exchanges. So, the employees (likely many millions) will be forced to change their coverage to the government mandate-heavy system between 2014 and about 2017, or simply pay the tax and go without coverage.

If you don't agree, don't tell me, tell the CBO. It's just a matter of degree, not a matter of whether this will happen.

You're missing a big point in that analysis. The CBO was saying that people would CHOOSE to drop their jobs because the only reason they are working is to keep their health insurance. However, with the new exchanges people would be able to buy cheaper insurance by pooling themselves in these exchanges. So, people wouldn't "lose" their insurance. They would "choose" to not have the same insurance and to retire earlier.

[LadySkinsFan]

Frankly it sickens me to hear various Republicans drone on and on about how this law will come between patients and their doctors and they have no compunction whatsoever to have politicians and their laws come between women and their doctors. That's just hypocritical.

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 05:03 PM ----------

You're missing a big point in that analysis. The CBO was saying that people would CHOOSE to drop their jobs because the only reason they are working is to keep their health insurance. However, with the new exchanges people would be able to buy cheaper insurance by pooling themselves in these exchanges. So, people wouldn't "lose" their insurance. They would "choose" to not have the same insurance and to retire earlier.

Single payer, public option. It gets businesses, especially small businesses out of the healthcare insurance business. And aren't the Republicans all about "helping" small businesses? People could just get the company's contribution to the healthcare benefits as part of their salary, more taxes (higher adjusted gross incomes), and people could just buy the public option.

Edited June 28, 2012 by LadySkinsFan

[Wrong Direction]

You're missing a big point in that analysis. The CBO was saying that people would CHOOSE to drop their jobs because the only reason they are working is to keep their health insurance. However, with the new exchanges people would be able to buy cheaper insurance by pooling themselves in these exchanges. So, people wouldn't "lose" their insurance. They would "choose" to not have the same insurance and to retire earlier.

Both will happen. CBO doesn't limit this to individuals who choose not to work. Now we're into the politics of the issue. No politican from either party will tell people they'll have to lose their insurance under his plan. Obama explicitly told people, and still tells people, that they'll be able to keep their plans. Technically, under law, that's true. In reality, companies also have a choice and the law will exacerbate their decision to kick people out of their plans. The only question is how quickly this happens.

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 05:11 PM ----------

Single payer, public option. It gets businesses, especially small businesses out of the healthcare insurance business. And aren't the Republicans all about "helping" small businesses? People could just get the company's contribution to the healthcare benefits as part of their salary, more taxes (higher adjusted gross incomes), and people could just buy the public option.

Single payer, public option, has pricing made by congress.

This is one thing in the ACA that is definitly better than it could have been. Politicians aren't answering to lobbies every single day about how much they're being paid. They still have to listen to lobbies, but in the context of coverage mandates, not necessarily payment rates.

In Medicare, lobbies rule the day. It's gross.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Wrong Direction

[skinsmarydu]

When we got married, and after the ACA was passed, I applied to my husband's company plan when they changed plans to Humana. I was asked 3 questions...my height, weight, and date of birth. That was it. And now I have coverage. Good coverage, and not overpriced. Love it!!

[Wrong Direction]

For what it's worth...

I've said this before, but I am in favor of ending employer based coverage. I think it's a bad model with a ton of inefficiencies. I don't totally hate the ACA, but contrary to Tulane SF's opinion, I do envision a more market oriented system. I don't like that this whole thing is administered at the federal level, with oversight on state exchanges and coverage mandates. If the feds did want to mandate something, I'd prefer it be limited to major medical services, rather than everything from cancer treatments to birth control pills. If the fed's role, for example, was limited to an actuarial role putting a dollar figure on what constitutes major medical, I'd be much happier. This would mandate that the expensive stuff is covered, while taking our politicians out of the crossfire from the big lobbies.

I'd also allow people to buy insurance across state lines, and that would include association health plans. As long at that major medical mandate was in there, nobody could claim that insurers would just go to North Dakota and offer nothing to people. In this system, the major stuff would be covered, and the competition would really focus on the needs of various groups, rather than the whims of the government.

IMO, the ACA is better than many Democrat alternatives would have been, but with just a few changes on the federal role I think it could be much better, and much less likely to result in a bloated system built by lobbyists.

[Major Harris]

i am a public employee with very good (i think at least) insurance. we pay 199.00 a month for my family of four. someone educate the dumb, how will i be affected?

[tiger187126]

has anyone actually seen someone say that they're moving to canada because of this. that's all i saw on twitter and facebook today.

i never actually saw a reference to someone saying they're moving to canada because of this, just people saying "haha, stupid conservatives wanting to move to canada"

[mistertim]

i am a public employee with very good (i think at least) insurance. we pay 199.00 a month for my family of four. someone educate the dumb, how will i be affected?

You won't be.

[sportjunkie07]

it is expected to be funded through the fines to both individuals w/o ins(above the earning limit) and companies,as well as tax/fine on cadillac plans....and expected savings from reforms(yeah,right :silly:)

what is the limit?

[Duckus]

has anyone actually seen someone say that they're moving to canada because of this. that's all i saw on twitter and facebook today.

i never actually saw a reference to someone saying they're moving to canada because of this, just people saying "haha, stupid conservatives wanting to move to canada"

Rush Limbaugh said if ACA passed and upheld he would move to Costa Rica.

Big problem is Costa Rica has a Single Payer system . . . ..

As for others, there was a blog (I can't find it right now) that listed tweets by people saying they would move to Canada.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Duckus

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm still trying to figure out how Justice Roberts ( who by many is regarded as one of the best Constitutional minds) is wrong in his majority decision. Seriously, there can be no doubt that Roberts is one of the best minds on the bench and his move is obviously not a political move to favor the Right, so when exactly will we admit that his decision is correct, whether or not we agree with the law. The Right has screamed for years now that the Affordable Care Law was unconstitutional and now one of the most Conservative justices has swung the vote to uphold the law? Why? I REALLY want someone from the Right to explain this to me.

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 05:56 PM ----------

Rush Limbaugh said if ACA passed and upheld he would move to Costa Rica.

I'll help him pack!!!

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 05:57 PM ----------

i am a public employee with very good (i think at least) insurance. we pay 199.00 a month for my family of four. someone educate the dumb, how will i be affected?

You'll be living in a Communist Socialist country.

[tiger187126]

Rush Limbaugh said if it past and stood he would move to Costa Rica.

Big problem is Costa Rica has a Single Payer system . . . ..

As for others, there was a blog (I can't find it right now) that listed tweets by people saying they would move to Canada.

well looks like we'll be tuning into limbaugh on the coast from now on.

it's not that big of deal, it just looked like one of those urban legends of the twitter-age.

anywho, my stance on all of this is yet again the president has gained more power and yet again the masses see it as a good thing.

edit:

nevermind, someone posted this handy link

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

to be fair a lot of these don't look like stupid people, rather people trolling for attention or making jokes.

[NavyDave]

If you don't buy health insurance you get penalize thru the IRS.

If you don't pay the fines, can they garnish your wages? Can they freeze your accounts or assets, or put you in jail for not paying?

Currently the answer is no.

White people should cry foul and use the race card since they are going to help pay for Obamacare when they use tanning booths.

[Duckus]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

to be fair a lot of these don't look like stupid people, rather people trolling for attention or making jokes.

Agreed. When I saw it, most seemed like folks just messing around. I am sure there are some stupid people who really said it and didn't understand the irony, but in the large scheme of things it is not a big deal.

I will say - Twitter is fun for days like this. The live reactions and awesome creative work (photoshop) and hilarious one liners kept me entertained all day. Then again, had the decision gone the other way I would say Twitter is evil and filled with trolls.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Duckus

[AsburySkinsFan]

to be fair a lot of these don't look like stupid people, rather people trolling for attention or making jokes.

and asking questions about how this decision is deemed wrong by the Right when one of the smartest people on the bench who was appointed by Bush and considered by almost all to be a very conservative justice not only sides with the majority but WRITES the majority opinion which upholds this "unconstitutional law".

[tiger187126]

Agreed. When I saw it, most seemed like folks just messing around. I am sure there are some stupid people who really said it and didn't understand the irony, but in the large scheme of things it is not a big deal.

I will say - Twitter is fun for days like this. The live reactions and awesome creative work (photoshop) and hilarious one liners kept me entertained all day. Then again, had the decision gone the other way I would say Twitter is evil and filled with trolls.

now we all know we should never judge a book by it's cover, but when i see a damn dirty hipster pic next to the profile saying i'm moving to canada i'm going to assume it's tongue-in-cheek.

splash some camo in there and they most definitely believe it.

and to asbury:

did you read the majority opinion? it's not like the man was cheerleading, he just took an unbiased stance that says if this is deemed a tax then it's legal. (obviously the "it's not a tax" proclamation holds no weight in this, strictly law cut and dry.)

like i said, i worry about the power we constantly hand over on what seems like a yearly basis. obama or romney next year won't make a difference, we'll be giving up something else in the name of freedom, safety, equality, welfare of the people, etc. all the while we move away from our checks and balances system.

[mistertim]

like i said, i worry about the power we constantly hand over on what seems like a yearly basis. obama or romney next year won't make a difference, we'll be giving up something else in the name of freedom, safety, equality, welfare of the people, etc. all the while we move away from our checks and balances system.

I've read a lot of this stuff and it really sounds like hyperbole to me because I can't think of a single time I have seen someone give specific, plausible examples. How, specifically, will this bill deprive you of your freedom, your safety, your equality, your personal welfare, etc? I mean specifics, not just vague slogans like "government overreach" or what not.

[Stophovr6]

has anyone actually seen someone say that they're moving to canada because of this. that's all i saw on twitter and facebook today.

i never actually saw a reference to someone saying they're moving to canada because of this, just people saying "haha, stupid conservatives wanting to move to canada"

I don't know for sure, but I think this is what they are referring to. I don't know any of these people so it could just be made up, but I do believe there are plenty of idiots on twitter and it's plausible.

[The Evil Genius]

This just in....conservatives are planning to leave U.S. in mass but can't find a wealthy Western democracy without universal health care to move to.

Edited June 28, 2012 by The Evil Genius

[Guest Spearfeather]

So, basically will people be taxed , for something they never purchased and never owned?

Edited June 28, 2012 by Spearfeather