Wow

[Gary M]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101024/ap_on_bi_ge/us_employer_health_plans

 

[Nanker]

Single payer. Change you can be lied about to in and out of campaign season.

[pBills]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101024/ap_on_bi_ge/us_employer_health_plans

 

 

 

 

HAHAHA!! People act like plans would not have gone up 10%, 20% each year even if the healthcare bill wasn't passed.

[BillsFanNC]

Open enrollment is about to start with my company and the new rates just came in the mail last week. My employer is covering the same percentage of the plan cost they always have, but if I want to keep my same coverage my share will go up 40%. But that type of increase was coming anyway, right? I tell ya, that's just what the doctor ordered in the year of a company wide salary freeze!

[/dev/null]

Tennessee Gov. Bredesen said last week that employers could save big money by dropping their health plans and sending workers to buy coverage in the exchange. They'd face a fine of $2,000 per worker, but that's still way less than the cost of providing health insurance. Employers could even afford to give workers a raise and still come out ahead, Bredesen wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

 

Employers are actively looking at that. "I don't know if the intent was to find an exit strategy for providing benefits, but the bill as written provides the mechanism," said Deloitte's Keckley, the consultant.

 

A spokeswoman for the senators who wrote that part of the law says she's confident that when companies do the math, they'll decide to keep offering coverage.

 

That's because employers get to deduct the cost of workers' health care from the company's taxes. Take away the health plan and two things happen: Employers lose the deduction and they'll probably have to pay workers more to get them to accept the benefit cut. Not only will the company's income taxes go up, but the employer will also face a bigger bill for Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. So it's not as simple as paying $2,000 and walking away.

 

Or what will happen is employers will off plans where they only pay $2000 and pass the rest on the employee. Thereby not paying a penalty and keeping the tax benefit.

[pBills]

Open enrollment is about to start with my company and the new rates just came in the mail last week. My employer is covering the same percentage of the plan cost they always have, but if I want to keep my same coverage my share will go up 40%. But that type of increase was coming anyway, right? I tell ya, that's just what the doctor ordered in the year of a company wide salary freeze!

 

 

Maybe not 40%, I am sure that 10%-20% would be fitting. Then another 10%-20% next year. Let's hope the republicans gain power and rescind the healthcare bill so since everything will be fine.

[Magox]

HAHAHA!! People act like plans would not have gone up 10%, 20% each year even if the healthcare bill wasn't passed.

You didn't even read the article did you?

 

 

 

I found this to be interesting, we spoke about this happening and low and behold:

 

Also, a Democratic governor laid out a scheme for employers to get out of health care by shifting workers into taxpayer-subsidized insurance markets that open in 2014.

While it's too early to proclaim the demise of job-based coverage, corporate number crunchers are looking at options that could lead to major changes.

 

"The economics of dropping existing coverage is about to become very attractive to many employers, both public and private," said Gov. Phil Bredesen, D-Tenn.

 

Tennessee Gov. Bredesen said last week that employers could save big money by dropping their health plans and sending workers to buy coverage in the exchange. They'd face a fine of $2,000 per worker, but that's still way less than the cost of providing health insurance. Employers could even afford to give workers a raise and still come out ahead, Bredesen wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

 

Employers are actively looking at that. "I don't know if the intent was to find an exit strategy for providing benefits, but the bill as written provides the mechanism," said Deloitte's Keckley, the consultant.

 

You have a Democratic governor that is basically telling businesses that it would be wise to drop their coverage and pay the small fine, which of course sends everyone to the subsidized government exchanges which means that the total cost of the health insurance legislation is going to well surpass their expectations.

 

Yeah, "deficit neutral" my ass.

 

"I don't think you are going to hear anybody publicly say 'We've made a decision to drop insurance,' " said Paul Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. "What we are hearing in our meetings is, 'We don't want to be the first one to drop benefits, but we would be the fast second.' We are hearing that a lot." Deloitte is a major accounting and consulting firm.

 

"My conclusion on all of this is that it is a huge roll of the dice," said James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, which represents big company benefits administrators. "It could work out well and build on the employer-based system, or it could begin to dismantle the employer-based system."

 

Maybe not 40%, I am sure that 10%-20% would be fitting. Then another 10%-20% next year. Let's hope the republicans gain power and rescind the healthcare bill so since everything will be fine.

And yes, repealing the law would be much much better than this abortion of a law. The majority of Americans and businesses want the law repealed, the proof is in the pudding.

[pBills]

You didn't even read the article did you?

 

 

 

I found this to be interesting, we spoke about this happening and low and behold:

 

 

 

You have a Democratic governor that is basically telling businesses that it would be wise to drop their coverage and pay the small fine, which of course sends everyone to the subsidized government exchanges which means that the total cost of the health insurance legislation is going to well surpass their expectations.

 

Yeah, "deficit neutral" my ass.

 

 

 

 

And yes, repealing the law would be much much better than this abortion of a law. The majority of Americans and businesses want the law repealed, the proof is in the pudding.

 

 

 

You call it an abortion of a law. Fine. But aren't you curious on why republicans have never taken on the healthcare industry? Do you think they will in the future if they gain power? It's not surprising that some companies are moving the costs from themselves to the employees. Moves like that and the industry raising their rates 40% or more is doing EXACTLY what the industry wants it to do. They gain more money and they piss people enough to vote a way that will help them out in the future.

 

Bottom line is that something needed to be done. Is the law that was passed perfect. No. Do I oppose the law having amendments made? No. I'm sure that you are completely fine with everything the way it was.

[Gary M]

The majority of Americans and businesses want the law repealed, the proof is in the pudding.

 

That's because Obama hasn't explained it well enough yet.

 

Maybe if Nancy took some time to read it, she could expain it to us, then we would like it.

 

Single payer. Change you can be lied about to in and out of campaign season.

 

And some how out of all this we will still have a "choice"

[pBills]

That's because Obama hasn't explained it well enough yet.

 

Maybe if Nancy took some time to read it, she could expain it to us, then we would like it.

 

 

 

And some how out of all this we will still have a "choice"

 

 

Since you hate everything that has been done so much. Would you change anything with the system and if so how?

[Magox]

You call it an abortion of a law. Fine. But aren't you curious on why republicans have never taken on the healthcare industry? Do you think they will in the future if they gain power? It's not surprising that some companies are moving the costs from themselves to the employees. Moves like that and the industry raising their rates 40% or more is doing EXACTLY what the industry wants it to do. They gain more money and they piss people enough to vote a way that will help them out in the future.

 

Bottom line is that something needed to be done. Is the law that was passed perfect. No. Do I oppose the law having amendments made? No. I'm sure that you are completely fine with everything the way it was.

First, I don't happen to believe that the healthcare industry are made up by a bunch of malignant and sinister group of bogeymen that liberals would have you believe. The facts don't support their arguments, we do know that their profit margins are less than 3.5%, which is much much lower than the majority of businesses, so the argument that they are raising premiums to fatten their pockets doesn't hold water. Second, do people really believe that they drop peoples coverage for pre existing medical conditions just to be spiteful and evil? Is that what people actually believe?

 

The reason why they drop some peoples coverage is because they know that if they keep more sick people on the risk pools that everyone else's premiums will have to rise even further. It's a risk management tool, you can't blame the insurers for not trying to raise everyone elses premiums.

 

What I believe there should be is a government subsidized health insurance plan for people with pre existing medical conditions. This would draw sicker people into these pools and in effect would lower everyone elses premiums because the risk pools would be comprised of healthier people. That would make sense

 

In regards to the GOP's proposals, it's not impressive whatsoever, sure there are some provisions that would be positive, the net effect would be lower premiums, but not a huge difference. It's definitely better than what the libs have passed, that's for sure. As I've said, if you truly want to reform healthcare, then you have to focus on the human body and medical care, not the one's who provide coverage for medical care. It's only logical.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Magox

[Gary M]

Since you hate everything that has been done so much. Would you change anything with the system and if so how?

 

 

First I would not lie to every one and call it health "CARE" reform, because it is health insurance reform, and it's not really reform, it is government subsibizing health insurance.

 

Then I would explain that not life is not fair and some people are going to have finacial hardships due to bad health.

 

I would allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. Competition is always good.

 

Then they could create a pool for the remaining 3 million "uninsured"

 

They did not need to change everything to get to there stated goals, but their stated goals and what they really wanted are two totally different things.

[pBills]

First I would not lie to every one and call it health "CARE" reform, because it is health insurance reform, and it's not really reform, it is government subsibizing health insurance.

 

Then I would explain that not life is not fair and some people are going to have finacial hardships due to bad health.

 

I would allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. Competition is always good.

 

Then they could create a pool for the remaining 3 million "uninsured"

 

They did not need to change everything to get to there stated goals, but their stated goals and what they really wanted are two totally different things.

 

 

Ok, really to call how they a "lie" is a bit ridiculous and over the top. Selling across state lines is a great idea... no doubt. I would not tell everyone hey life deals you crap at times, deal with it. Especially when some of those financial hardships can be fixed by reform. Not hand outs... reform.

[IDBillzFan]

HAHAHA!! People act like plans would not have gone up 10%, 20% each year even if the healthcare bill wasn't passed.

Only liberals could spend a trillion taxpayer dollars to stop something that was going to happen anyway , and then be genuinely stupid enough to think that, when questioned about why they spent a trillion dollars to stop something that happened anyway, they can just reply with "It was going to happen anyway."

 

It's amazing your party even exists, let alone controls everything.

[Gary M]

Only liberals could spend a trillion taxpayer dollars to stop something that was going to happen anyway , and then be genuinely stupid enough to think that, when questioned about why they spent a trillion dollars to stop something that happened anyway, they can just reply with "It was going to happen anyway."

 

It's amazing your party even exists, let alone controls everything.

 

What is even more amazing is that they manage to convert others to their way of thinking!!!!

[Magox]

What is even more amazing is that they manage to convert others to their way of thinking!!!!

Not this year

[Doc]

Only liberals could spend a trillion taxpayer dollars to stop something that was going to happen anyway , and then be genuinely stupid enough to think that, when questioned about why they spent a trillion dollars to stop something that happened anyway, they can just reply with "It was going to happen anyway."

 

It's amazing your party even exists, let alone controls everything.

Come now! It takes some talent to spend a trillion dollars and make rates, that were "going to rise anyway," rise even faster.

[pBills]

Only liberals could spend a trillion taxpayer dollars to stop something that was going to happen anyway , and then be genuinely stupid enough to think that, when questioned about why they spent a trillion dollars to stop something that happened anyway, they can just reply with "It was going to happen anyway."

 

It's amazing your party even exists, let alone controls everything.

 

 

Yes, and your party has tossed out so many ideas. Oh wait a minute... ummm that didn't happen.

 

It's like the kid bitching about the playbook when they weren't even allowed to play. I know more, I know more!! I'm better!!

[IDBillzFan]

Yes, and your party has tossed out so many ideas. Oh wait a minute... ummm that didn't happen.

 

It's like the kid bitching about the playbook when they weren't even allowed to play. I know more, I know more!! I'm better!!

So in conclusion, you justify your own stupidity because no one else offered up a different solution.

 

Paul Ryan will be surprised to hear this.

[OCinBuffalo]

HAHAHA!! People act like plans would not have gone up 10%, 20% each year even if the healthcare bill wasn't passed.

The promise was "If you have health care, you can keep your plan and keep your doctor".

 

I heard it, hell, we all heard it.

 

The reality is "not if your employer drops your plan".

 

This was a lie from the get go, and many of us, especially those of us who have worked in the health insurance market, knew it was a lie the second it was read from the teleprompter.

 

Now you want to talk money? Buddy, there's no way you can add a massive amount of demand to a economic model, not increase supply, and have prices go down. There, in one sentence I have described the fundamental flaw of this idiocy, and you cannot refute it.

 

So in conclusion, you justify your own stupidity because no one else offered up a different solution.

 

Paul Ryan will be surprised to hear this.

If Ryan keeps going like he has, I wouldn't be surprised if ends up at least as a cabinet secretary, possibly higher.

 

Obama would be a genius to hire him to take over HHS and reform it from within. Obama would be a super genius if he made Ryan an entitlement Czar, and had him fix SSI, Medicare and Medicaid. Hey, if Obama wants to hire all these czars instead of working within the system, why buck the trend? I don't like all these czars, but what the hell else can we hope for?

 

Obama would be an idiot to keep trying to take Ryan on in public debates. Ryan has already smoked him once, and if Obama uses his head instead of his ego, he won't let that happen again.

 

Notice how the Democrats never say anything bad about Ryan in public? They are scared schitless of him, and they should be.