Doc Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 I just had an employee walk into my office and say he wants to discontinue his health insurance because he's eligible for about $250 per month in a subsidy. He'll save money by doing this. Looks like Obamacare is working. He gets part of his premium paid for and he'll keep voting for the guys and gals that provide that for him. It may be working to save him money. But that's temporary and he'll have a hard time finding a doctor.
IDBillzFan Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 I just had an employee walk into my office and say he wants to discontinue his health insurance because he's eligible for about $250 per month in a subsidy. He'll save money by doing this. Looks like Obamacare is working. He gets part of his premium paid for and he'll keep voting for the guys and gals that provide that for him. That's great news. Did he compare deductibles and caps or just his out of pocket cost for coverage?
keepthefaith Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 Isn't the exchange for people that don't have employer-provided insurance available? Not for people that have it but simply don't want it? He's in an unusual situation. He buys coverage for his kids through an Illinois program that has been around for years that heavily subsidizes that cost. The state program pays about 80% of the cost. His wife was covered by a plan they bought separately because "family coverage" through us was pretty expensive compared to the cost to buy a plan for her only separately, and he wanted to keep the subsidized plan for the kids. We will go over all the coverage and cost details tomorrow and I'd wager that he's not looking at this apples to apples. As of now he can get three subsidies. One through the state for his kids and one through Obamacare for he and his wife plus whatever stipend we offer if he declines our coverage altogether.
Nanker Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 He's in an unusual situation. He buys coverage for his kids through an Illinois program that has been around for years that heavily subsidizes that cost. The state program pays about 80% of the cost. His wife was covered by a plan they bought separately because "family coverage" through us was pretty expensive compared to the cost to buy a plan for her only separately, and he wanted to keep the subsidized plan for the kids. We will go over all the coverage and cost details tomorrow and I'd wager that he's not looking at this apples to apples. As of now he can get three subsidies. One through the state for his kids and one through Obamacare for he and his wife plus whatever stipend we offer if he declines our coverage altogether. We look forward to his appearance in the balcony at the next State of the Union address by King Obama. He always likes to have a few representative examples of how his largess enriches the lives of millions of the American faithful on hand to stir the crowd. It's good for ratings.
B-Man Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 For Democrats in 2014, the Web site is not the problemby Marc A. Thiessen Democrats are praying that this weekend’s relaunch of the Obamacare Web site will save them from an electoral bloodbath in 2014. Their hopes are misplaced. Here are five numbers that suggest that public anger over Obamacare will only grow as Election Day 2014 approaches: 5.5 million. That is how many people the administration needs to sign up in just 23 days because Obamacare drove them out of their health-care plans. That’s some 240,000 sign-ups every single day, just to break even. 50 million. That is how many Americans will be surprised to find their employer-based health plans dropped or substantially changed next year because of Obamacare. Some will see their plans canceled; others will lose their doctors and see premiums or deductibles rise dramatically. If Democrats think the public is mad about 5.5 million cancellations in the individual market today, imagine the outrage when tens of millions lose their plans in October 2014, right before Election Day. 53. That is the percentage of Americans who now say that President Obama is not “honest or trustworthy.” Americans are not just questioning Obama’s competence, they also are questioning his integrity 12. That is the number of Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2014 who are complicit in Obama’s lie. They are on record (and on YouTube) making the same false promise. 7. That is the number of states with vulnerable Democratic-held senate seats that also have Republican governors. Why is this important? Because Obamacare premiums are set to skyrocket next year (because the exchanges are signing up many older, sicker people and not enough of the young, healthy people needed to subsidize the others). No wonder the president moved next year’s Obamacare sign-up date to 11 days after Election Day. The flaw in his plan is that the nation’s governors will know the new rates before Election Day. In blue states, Democratic governors may keep the secret, but in red states, such as Alaska, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, New Mexico and South Dakota, Republican governors won’t. So not only will millions of Americans get hit with cancellations next October, many also will learn that they cannot afford new coverage under Obamacare either — right before they go to the polls. In other words, Democrats who are obsessing over the failure of the Web site are focused on the wrong problem. Americans are not just angry about a broken Web site; they are angry about a broken promise. They are angry about being told they could keep their health plans but finding out that pledge was never meant to be kept. More (on each number) at the link: http://www.washingto...ae21_story.html
IDBillzFan Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 Good news, everyone! The web site is fixed. No. Really. Bob Shlora of Alpharetta, Ga., was supposed to be a belated Obamacare success story. After weeks of trying, the 61-year-old told ABC News he fully enrolled in a newhealth insurance plan through the federal marketplace over the weekend, and received a Humana policy ID number to prove it. But two days later, his insurer has no record of the transaction, Shlora said, even though his account on the government website indicates that he has a plan. “I feel like this: My application was taken … by a bureaucrat, it was put on a conveyor belt and it’s still going around, and it’s never going to leave the building,” he said. “I’ve lost hope. If it happens, great.” Lost hope? How about some change?
B-Man Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 Video: Sticker shock greets those who successfully navigate Healthcare.gov “Now that those glitches have been taken care of,” Newsnet 5′s Debora Lee reports, one Ohio woman finally went shopping for health insurance on Healthcare.gov — and wishes she hadn’t. “I thought it was supposed to help,” Liz Binns told Lee, but now she asks, “How can I pay this kind of money out?” Welcome to the (kinda) fully functional ObamaCare White House ready to go on offense over ObamaCare or something FTA: If they know that the next eight weeks, at least, will be filled with more ObamaCare landmines exploding — and they will be — then they’ve got three options. They can stand around waiting for them to go off and then hem and haw their way through the wreckage when they do. They can try to change the subject to some other area of policy, like Iran, and hope somehow that the media remains fixated on it hour-by-hour until, er, February. Or they can swallow hard and try to defend the law, if only to force reporters to squeeze a little “ObamaCare has good intentions” pap into news stories about people suffering lapses in their coverage next month because they can’t get the farking website to work or can’t afford their new premiums. {snip} Update: Indeed: Again, no matter. The crisis that these errors will create in January is January’s problem. Today’s crisis, one of internal cohesion within the Democratic Party, is more acute. The left demands that caution be abandoned in favor of a hollow display of force. These panic-inspired offensive operations against ACA opponents are not designed to achieve any strategic objective. They are politically inspired and are aimed at achieving a political goal. Each has had the temporary effect of increasing Democratic unity, but the president cannot overcome the static conditions of the terrain on which they are fighting. The underlying problems associated with the ACA are fracturing the Democratic Party. So long as the ACA remains unreformed, the Democrats are in a losing position. .
B-Man Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 LOL............IowaHawk......of course. David Burge @iowahawkblog20h Good news! New improved http://Healthcare.gov queuing system makes sure you go straight to the Fuh Queue. Expand Collapse Bonus: David Burge @iowahawkblog 6h We handed the healthcare system of the world's largest economy to the Harvard Prom Decorations Committee. #GoodJobAmerica .
4merper4mer Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 LOL............IowaHawk......of course. Bonus: David Burge @iowahawkblog 6h We handed the healthcare system of the world's largest economy to the Harvard Prom Decorations Committee. #GoodJobAmerica . LOL............IowaHawk......of course. Bonus: David Burge @iowahawkblog 6h We handed the healthcare system of the world's largest economy to the Harvard Prom Decorations Committee. #GoodJobAmerica . But they are really smart.
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 So let's see if I've got the math straight here: My health insurance, which is pretty middle-of-the-road, costs about $1200/mo, of which my employer picks up about $700/mo. In addition, I contribute about $150/mo to a FSA. Because of the premiums (not the coverage), under the ACA that's considered a "Cadillac plan" (note that it wouldn't be if I were female, which is ironic considering I'm required to carry maternity care). The amount of the premiums - employer plus employee paid - above $10,200, PLUS the amount contributed to the FSA is subject to a 40% excise tax. That's 40% of $6,200 = $2,480 my employer owes in excise taxes. PLUS the $8,400 they pay in premiums. Next year my health insurance will cost my company $10,980. And what's the penalty for offering no coverage? $2,000. Assume I'm an outlier and divide the difference by 2, then multiply by the 6,000 people my company employs. That's $25M they save not offering health insurance. Why the hell would ANY company offer health insurance to employees under those terms?
boyst Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 So let's see if I've got the math straight here: My health insurance, which is pretty middle-of-the-road, costs about $1200/mo, of which my employer picks up about $700/mo. In addition, I contribute about $150/mo to a FSA. Because of the premiums (not the coverage), under the ACA that's considered a "Cadillac plan" (note that it wouldn't be if I were female, which is ironic considering I'm required to carry maternity care). The amount of the premiums - employer plus employee paid - above $10,200, PLUS the amount contributed to the FSA is subject to a 40% excise tax. That's 40% of $6,200 = $2,480 my employer owes in excise taxes. PLUS the $8,400 they pay in premiums. Next year my health insurance will cost my company $10,980. And what's the penalty for offering no coverage? $2,000. Assume I'm an outlier and divide the difference by 2, then multiply by the 6,000 people my company employs. That's $25M they save not offering health insurance. Why the hell would ANY company offer health insurance to employees under those terms? you're an idiot. They hired you. They're idiots. So they might This nonsense provided to you by one funny dude
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 This nonsense provided to you by one funny dude Then let him post it next time.
Doc Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 So let's see if I've got the math straight here: My health insurance, which is pretty middle-of-the-road, costs about $1200/mo, of which my employer picks up about $700/mo. In addition, I contribute about $150/mo to a FSA. Because of the premiums (not the coverage), under the ACA that's considered a "Cadillac plan" (note that it wouldn't be if I were female, which is ironic considering I'm required to carry maternity care). The amount of the premiums - employer plus employee paid - above $10,200, PLUS the amount contributed to the FSA is subject to a 40% excise tax. That's 40% of $6,200 = $2,480 my employer owes in excise taxes. PLUS the $8,400 they pay in premiums. Next year my health insurance will cost my company $10,980. And what's the penalty for offering no coverage? $2,000. Assume I'm an outlier and divide the difference by 2, then multiply by the 6,000 people my company employs. That's $25M they save not offering health insurance. Why the hell would ANY company offer health insurance to employees under those terms? There is no reason for companies not to drop employees. Which is what is coming in mid-2014, to the tune of 50-80M people. And while Barry has decided to delay enrollment for 2015 until after the election (So 50-80M people will have to sign up in a month and a half?!), Governors will get the new price information, and the Repub ones are expected to announce them right before the mid-terms.
TheMadCap Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 So let's see if I've got the math straight here: My health insurance, which is pretty middle-of-the-road, costs about $1200/mo, of which my employer picks up about $700/mo. In addition, I contribute about $150/mo to a FSA. Because of the premiums (not the coverage), under the ACA that's considered a "Cadillac plan" (note that it wouldn't be if I were female, which is ironic considering I'm required to carry maternity care). The amount of the premiums - employer plus employee paid - above $10,200, PLUS the amount contributed to the FSA is subject to a 40% excise tax. That's 40% of $6,200 = $2,480 my employer owes in excise taxes. PLUS the $8,400 they pay in premiums. Next year my health insurance will cost my company $10,980. And what's the penalty for offering no coverage? $2,000. Assume I'm an outlier and divide the difference by 2, then multiply by the 6,000 people my company employs. That's $25M they save not offering health insurance. Why the hell would ANY company offer health insurance to employees under those terms? Exactly my position as well. when the excise tax on Cadillac plans kicks in in 2015, my employer cannot afford to cover us. I cannot imagine any other reason this was written into the law except to purposely force people into the exchanges. I work for a Fortune 500 and they can't afford it, what hope does anyone else have?
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 I cannot imagine any other reason this was written into the law except to purposely force people into the exchanges. Another key point in support of that being: "Cadillac" is defined by premiums not coverage. As premiums go up (which they will), more plans will become "Cadillac" plans. But the truly interesting point, I thought, was how much more money this puts into the pockets of corporations. $25M is a significant chunk of change in my company. In any other context, the very idiots who passed this law would be calling this "corporate welfare."
Doc Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 Another key point in support of that being: "Cadillac" is defined by premiums not coverage. As premiums go up (which they will), more plans will become "Cadillac" plans. But the truly interesting point, I thought, was how much more money this puts into the pockets of corporations. $25M is a significant chunk of change in my company. In any other context, the very idiots who passed this law would be calling this "corporate welfare." And those evil insurance companies could make out by getting premiums for the same prices as before, but with the government subsidizing it for people, and paying doctors Medicaid wages.
Koko78 Posted December 3, 2013 Posted December 3, 2013 And those evil insurance companies could make out by getting premiums for the same prices as before, but with the government subsidizing it for people, and paying doctors Medicaid wages. Doctors need to pay their fair share and work for slave Medicaid wages.
Doc Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Doctors need to pay their fair share and work for slave Medicaid wages. Good luck with that.
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 4, 2013 Posted December 4, 2013 Exactly my position as well. when the excise tax on Cadillac plans kicks in in 2015, my employer cannot afford to cover us. I cannot imagine any other reason this was written into the law except to purposely force people into the exchanges. I work for a Fortune 500 and they can't afford it, what hope does anyone else have? The perks will remain as fringe benefits for folks like me. As always, it's the middle class who suffers. Nothing about my comp plan or insurance will change. My support staff? They're !@#$ed.
Recommended Posts