MANDATORY health insurance, part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
:lol: That's funny coming from the two of you, the Kings of fleeing once a question gets too tough :lol:

However, the source conceded: "It is difficult to predict how plans and employers will behave in the coming years, but if plans make changes that negatively impact consumers, then they will lose their grandfather status."

Republican staffers talking about rumors, etc, etc...

A lot of speculation. Personally, I think we'll see some big ammendments before things start going in effect.
 
Personally, I think we'll see some big ammendments before things start going in effect.

Like a complete repeal. :up:

So how's come the "doctor fix" wasn't in the actual Health Care Reform Bill passed earlier this year? Why were Republican amendments to do so defeated?
 
Not a complete repeal, I still don't understand how you of all people don't understand the need for this... but you won't answer THAT question.

Why weren't the Republican "ammendments" defeated? Well to be honest, they sucked.
 
Karl Rove: The Bad News About ObamaCare Keeps Piling Up - WSJ.com

This was brought home to me when I asked the CEO of a major restaurant chain about health reform's effect on his company, which now spends $25 million a year on employee health insurance. That will jump to at least $90 million a year once the new law is phased in. It will be cheaper, he told me, for the company to dump its coverage and pay a fine—$2,000 for each full-time worker—and make sure that no part-time employee accidentally worked 31 hours and thereby incurred the fine.

This reality is settling in at businesses across America. A Midwestern contractor told me he pays $588,000 for health insurance for 70 employees, contributing up to $8,400 a year for a family's coverage. If he stops providing health insurance, he'll pay $2,000 per employee in fines, and the first 40 employees are exempt from fines altogether.

Employees who lose coverage get to select a policy from a government-sponsored insurance marketplace called the "exchange." This will be subsidized by taxpayers. Depending on his income, a worker will have to pay between 8% and 9.8% of the cost.

But there are a few hitches. Employers now pay for employee health plans with pre-tax dollars, but workers who buy into one on the exchange pay with after-tax dollars. Families making less than $30,000 and individuals making less than $15,000 a year will be dumped into Medicaid, widely viewed as second-class health care.

Either Mr. Obama was stunningly blind to these perverse effects when he promised people could keep their coverage, or he felt that admitting his plan would collapse employer-provided health coverage could keep it from passing. Either way—self-deception or deliberate deceit—health reform is going to turn out far differently than was promised. And because more workers will be dumped into subsidized coverage, taxpayers are likely to pay much more than the $1 trillion-plus price tag claimed by ObamaCare advocates for its first 10 years.

It doesn't end there. Another way the new health reform will have consequences that are the opposite of what was promised can be found in new draft regulations (its Interim Final Rule) from the Department of Health and Human Services. The proposed rules could cause as many as half of all workers to lose their existing coverage.

Health-care plans that existed before the new law are "grandfathered" with regard to some of its provisions. The rules released Monday spell out how little these plans can change without losing their protected status.

Health plans would no longer be grandfathered if a business changes insurance companies (a common practice when employers shop for lower prices), raises deductibles more than 5%, drops any existing benefits, or even increases co-pays by as little as $5.

Complying with these new rules would raise costs for companies who provide coverage, reduce competition among health insurance companies, and discourage efforts to make employees more price conscious. The Obama administration itself estimates that these draft rules could cost up to 80% of small employers and 64% of large employers their grandfathered status. This translates to between 87 million and 115 million Americans losing their current coverage.
 
CEO of a major restaurant chain

I think this bit is worth taking into account. I don't exactly have sympathy for CEOs who whine about maybe having to pay a bit more-if they're running major businesses, I'm guessing they're able to afford parting with a bit of their earnings.

And I find it really hard to believe Karl Rove is all that concerned about middle class people like my family (who would be on the lower end of the middle class, upper-middle class we are not).

Also, Medicaid is a "second-class" health program? Again, were it not for Medicaid/Medicare, my family'd be really screwed in terms of hospital bills right now. They helped pay off quite a bit of our burden of bills.

Angela
 
Maybe it will force private sector health insurance and employers to become competitive again. What a concept...

Maybe privatie sector insurance will actually become truly competitive instead of working in cahoots to drive up health costs like they have for decades.
 
Why would it cost companies more to insure their workers under the new law?
 
I think this bit is worth taking into account. I don't exactly have sympathy for CEOs who whine about maybe having to pay a bit more-if they're running major businesses, I'm guessing they're able to afford parting with a bit of their earnings.

Maybe they can afford it, maybe not. Smaller companies are less able to afford it. But in the end it's simply cheaper to pay the fines and dump their employees' coverage. It's reality and it's incentivized under this legislation. It calls into question the promise that you can keep your own insurance if you like it.

Also, Medicaid is a "second-class" health program? Again, were it not for Medicaid/Medicare, my family'd be really screwed in terms of hospital bills right now. They helped pay off quite a bit of our burden of bills.
Angela

True, but doctors increasingly turn away Medicaid patients due to the poor reimbursement rate. Particularly specialists. A doctor's office can't run at a loss.

What about the promise not to increase taxes to families making under $250K? Or $200K, or $175K...how far was the bar lowered? The individual mandate is a new tax for everyone.
 
It calls into question the promise that you can keep your own insurance if you like it.

But really, employer-provided insurance really isn't MINE to begin with. What assurances did I have that my employer wouldn't choose to drop coverage for me prior to this law?
 
True, but doctors increasingly turn away Medicaid patients due to the poor reimbursement rate. Particularly specialists. A doctor's office can't run at a loss.


my cardiopulmonologist has just announced that they will be unable to accept my private insurance.

there's another doctor i see who likewise refuses my private insurance.
 
and there's this:


Maine predicts cost savings with new health reform law
6/15/10 | 30 comments
By Mal Leary
Capitol News Service
AUGUSTA, Maine — A state analysis of the impact of the new federal health reform law indicates it will cost Maine in the near term, but will save the state tens of millions of dollars a year after it is fully implemented in 2014.

“This is a far-reaching projection and it assumes what we know today,” Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Brenda Harvey said. “There are also some policy decisions that will need to be made that will impact these estimates.”

If the state adopts all of the changes assumed in the analysis, which was conducted by DHHS, the net savings to the state in 2014 is an estimated $31.8 million.

The new health law makes major changes in the Medicaid system that provides health insurance coverage to the poor — including the working poor. The changes are funded through several changes in tax law and a requirement that drug companies rebate a larger percentage of the cost of drugs sold to the Medicaid program.

Trish Riley, director of the Governor’s Office on Health Policy, said Maine has done a good job in obtaining drug rebates through the program, but the feds are not sharing any part of the increase in rebate revenue. It will cost Maine an estimated $3.5 million a year.

“It takes effect in this year so we will be submitting a change in the supplemental budget to reflect this and we will make changes in the budget proposal going forward,” Harvey said.

The drug rebate is the one area that costs the state over the implementation period of the new health law and continues to cost the state as the new law takes effect.

In total, there are three program areas that will increase state costs by about $6.4 million a year after 2014, according to the DHHS analysis. Those areas are the drug rebates, the cost of covering new Mainers served by Medicaid, and a provision in the law that extends health insurance coverage for people in the state’s foster care system to age 26.

But, depending on decisions made by the next governor and Legislature on how to offer health care to children, childless adults and parents with incomes over 133 percent of the federal poverty level, the state could save tens of million of dollars a year. The current 133 percent of poverty income cap for a family of four is about $29,000 a year.

For example, Riley said, continuing the Children’s Health Insurance Program will save the state nearly $13 million in 2014 because the matching rate for the program will be far better under the new federal law.

Under the new law, the federal government will pay 98 percent of the cost. Were it not for the temporary increase in matching rates under the recovery act, Maine would get about two federal dollars for every dollar it spends on Medicaid.

Expanding Medicaid to cover all childless adults under the new federal health law increases the state’s match rate for those Mainers and would save the state over the current program that caps enrollment. The estimated savings in 2014 are $14.6 million.

Another major area of savings would be if the state shifts its coverage of parents with incomes over 133 percent of the federal poverty level from Medicaid to the new health insurance exchange set up under federal law. In 2014, that change is projected to save the state $10.6 million by shifting those costs.

Riley stressed that the state analysis uses conservative assumptions, and that the state could realize significantly larger savings based on other estimates.

Maine predicts cost savings with new health reform law - Bangor Daily News


chess, not checkers.
 
For example, Riley said, continuing the Children’s Health Insurance Program will save the state nearly $13 million in 2014 because the matching rate for the program will be far better under the new federal law.

Under the new law, the federal government will pay 98 percent of the cost. Were it not for the temporary increase in matching rates under the recovery act, Maine would get about two federal dollars for every dollar it spends on Medicaid.

Expanding Medicaid to cover all childless adults under the new federal health law increases the state’s match rate for those Mainers and would save the state over the current program that caps enrollment. The estimated savings in 2014 are $14.6 million.

Another major area of savings would be if the state shifts its coverage of parents with incomes over 133 percent of the federal poverty level from Medicaid to the new [federally subsidized] health insurance exchange set up under federal law. In 2014, that change is projected to save the state $10.6 million by shifting those costs.

Multiply this by 49 and what exactly does this do to the federal debt? And who will ultimately pay for this with higher federal taxes? Mainers !!

Madness !!
 
Multiply this by 49 and what exactly does this do to the federal debt? And who will ultimately pay for this with higher federal taxes? Mainers !!

Madness !!



oh, i see, a bunch of poors and minorities get health care, and now we're worried about federal debt, not when we were shipping off kids to go get TBI's in the desert so that we might see the continuation of the Bush Oedipal Complex.

from a debt perspective, the present system was far worse, a ticking time bomb.
 
Maybe they can afford it, maybe not. Smaller companies are less able to afford it. But in the end it's simply cheaper to pay the fines and dump their employees' coverage. It's reality and it's incentivized under this legislation. It calls into question the promise that you can keep your own insurance if you like it.[/B]

He's the CEO of a major restaurant chain, so if they're major they're likely raking in some nice money, so I should think they'd be able to properly cover people. If the fines are indeed cheaper to pay, though, then I guess get stiffer on the fines, perhaps?

Someone clarify, what exactly are going to be the rules for smaller businesses in terms of health coverage? I know they wanted to try and ease the burden on them, just how much have they been or will they be able to do that?

And ditto BVS's question.

True, but doctors increasingly turn away Medicaid patients due to the poor reimbursement rate. Particularly specialists. A doctor's office can't run at a loss.

Didn't seem to be a problem for us. Meanwhile, when my dad had private insurance when we lived in Colorado (and he had a fairly good private insurance program), it was a lot harder for him to see doctors because there were certain things that they just wouldn't be able to cover, and so instead of go and get important procedures done, he sometimes had to opt out because if he went that just meant one more massive bill for us to pile on. The fact that he also had to often drive two hours to Denver to get anything done because the hospital that was closer to him didn't have a lot of the facilities or treatments necessary for what he needed didn't help matters, either. Too many costs all around.

Angela
 
oh, i see, a bunch of poors and minorities get health care, and now we're worried about federal debt, not when we were shipping off kids to go get TBI's in the desert so that we might see the continuation of the Bush Oedipal Complex.

from a debt perspective, the present system was far worse, a ticking time bomb.

I read through the interesting Bangor Daily article you posted, a few times actually. Much of the the state's savings seem to come from shifting costs to the federal government.
 
But really, employer-provided insurance really isn't MINE to begin with. What assurances did I have that my employer wouldn't choose to drop coverage for me prior to this law?

About the same amount of assurance that you actually have a job with your employer. Many of us could be downsized tomorrow.

You asked why it would cost more to insure workers under the new law. I'd encourage you to look at the article I posted.
 
About the same amount of assurance that you actually have a job with your employer. Many of us could be downsized tomorrow.

You asked why it would cost more to insure workers under the new law. I'd encourage you to look at the article I posted.

Which is my whole point. Employer-provided insurance is NOT guaranteed pre-Obamacare.

I did read your article, and I read the full text at the link you provided and it does not explain why costs to employers are going to skyrocket. It simply states that it will. I want to know where the increased costs are going to come from.

Also, on a more careful reading, the small business owner who spends about $8000 per employee appears to be spending that amount NOW. Its not a projected amount that the owner will have to spend when the Health Care Reform law kicks in. However, the owner will eventually be able to pay a $2000 fine and avoid having to spend the larger amount he or she currently spends. But right now the owner ISN'T required to provide insurance for his or her employees so why is the owner doing it? They could just stop providing insurance right now and it wouldn't cost them anything until the new law kicks in.
 
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Obama Admin. Argues in Court That Individual Mandate Is a Tax

Obama Admin. Argues in Court That Individual Mandate Is a Tax

By Philip Klein on 6.17.10 @ 2:04PM

In order to protect the new national health care law from legal challenges, the Obama administration has been forced to argue that the individual mandate represents a tax -- even though Obama himself argued the exact opposite while campaigning to pass the legislation.

Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven't presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government's ability to collect taxes.

The Act, according to a DOJ memo supporting the motion to dismiss, says that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed." The memo goes on to say that it makes no difference whether the disputed payment it is called a "tax" or "penalty," because either way, it's "assessed and collected in the same manner" by the Internal Revenue Service.

But this is a characterization that Democrats, and specifically Obama, angrily denounced during the health care debate. Most prominently, in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Obama argued that the mandate was "absolutely not a tax increase," and he dug into his view even after being confronted with a dictionary definition:

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but...

OBAMA: ...what you're saying is...

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it's a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.


At the time Obama made that statement, the Senate Finance Committee had just released its own health care bill, which clearly referred to the mandate penalty as an "excise tax." But in later versions, the word "tax" was stripped, because it had become too much of a political liability for Democrats. The final version that Obama signed did not describe the mandate as a tax, and used the Commerce Clause -- not federal taxing power -- as the Constitutional justification for the mandate.

The individual mandate was absolutely not a new tax according to the president, but now it is?

This health care bill continues to be a debacle. The fuzzy-math finances, the alleged savings, and the annual doc fix bill that blows all savings out of the water. The process shows a complete lack of executive experience, over one year of an unconvincing campaign by the president. So, the bill had to be crammed down to us by a parliamentary procedure, unprecedented for this kind of sweeping legislation. The public was against this, and months later, is still surprisingly against it.

From the president's clear misrepresentations, to the administration's ridiculous congressional bribes and back-room deals, we should be ashamed of this government. It's not hope and change. It's hack Chicago politics on steroids.
 
This health care bill continues to be a debacle. The fuzzy-math finances, the alleged savings, and the annual doc fix bill that blows all savings out of the water. The process shows a complete lack of executive experience, over one year of an unconvincing campaign by the president. So, the bill had to be crammed down to us by a parliamentary procedure, unprecedented for this kind of sweeping legislation. The public was against this, and months later, is still surprisingly against it.

From the president's clear misrepresentations, to the administration's ridiculous congressional bribes and back-room deals, we should be ashamed of this government. It's not hope and change. It's hack Chicago politics on steroids.

I'm ashamed that a certain portion of the American public has shifted far right, remains uninformed and gets their talking points straight from Hannity and the like. It's a shame that these individuals couldn't even answer the simplest of questions regarding the current system of healthcare two months ago, yet now feel they are so informed. It's actually pretty damn scary.

We shall continue to ask, and we shall continue to have our questions skirted or ignored. :shrug:
 
the long game.

AP-GfK poll: Public thumbs up for Obama health law
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and TREVOR TOMPSON (AP) – 3 days ago

WASHINGTON — The vital signs are improving for President Barack Obama's health care plan.

The latest Associated Press-GfK poll on Obama's top domestic achievement finds support for the new overhaul has risen to its highest point since the survey started asking people about it in September — six months before it became law.

The results now: 45 percent in favor, 42 percent opposed. That's a significant shift in public sentiment considering that opposition hit 50 percent after Obama signed the health plan into law in late March and that in May, supporters were outnumbered 39 percent to 46 percent.

"I thought when people began to realize what was in the health care package that they would see it's a good, solid program and that would dispel some of the misinformation," said Brigham Young University English professor Claudia Harris, 72, of Orem, Utah.

Electrical contractor Kerry Eisley of Moscow, Pa., said he thinks people are starting to get nuts-and-bolts information on how the law affects them.

"If we can insure more people across the United States and get the cost of health care down, I think that's a better thing," said Eisley, 43, a Republican who supports the plan, which passed without the vote of any GOP lawmaker.

The poll found support increased since May among men (from 36 percent to 46 percent), people in their prime working years (from 35 percent to 49 percent among 30-49 year-olds) and Republicans (from 8 percent to 17 percent.) The uptick among Republicans comes even as party leaders are calling for the law's repeal.

The changes coincide with a concerted effort by the Obama administration, congressional Democrats and their allies to sell the immediate benefits of the law.

Among the selling points: coverage for young adults on their parents' plan until they turn 26; a $250 rebate check for older people with high prescription costs; tax credits for some small businesses that cover their employees; and federal money to train more primary care doctors and nurses.

"They are clearly making progress in convincing more Americans that this bill is the right way to go," said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University public health school professor who tracks opinion trends on health care.

Despite the gains, the prognosis for Obama and the Democrats is guarded.

"In my view, they can claim victory if it gets a majority," Blendon added. "The country is so polarized, it just might not make it."

The $1 trillion, 10-year health care remake puts the nation on a path to coverage for all. Starting in 2014, everyone in the U.S. will be required to carry health insurance. The government will provide tax credits to help middle-class people not covered at work buy a policy through new competitive health insurance markets. Medicaid will be expanded to help low-income people. The plan is paid for through a combination of Medicare cuts and tax increases.

One complication for the president is that older people remain opposed to the law. Just last week, Obama answered questions at a televised town hall meeting in a senior center, but his assurances seem to be having little effect. The poll found that 56 percent of people 65 and older don't like the new law.

"I don't know if it's sustainable, and that's got us worried," said Audrey Guillot, 69, whose family owns a general store in Pierre Part, La. "How much can we borrow? How long before other countries start calling in our debts? Medicare is about to go broke — when do you address that? How many bridges to nowhere can we build?"

The poll found that 51 percent trust Democrats to do a better job of handling health care, an issue that more than three-fourths rate as personally important to them. By comparison, 38 percent said they trusted Republicans.

Daniel Lowery, 23, a shipper at a Lowe's distribution center in Ohio, said he thinks Democrats "are headed in the right direction, for the most part." But he complained they haven't clearly explained how the complex law works.

"I think people would be more for it if they actually explained what they're giving us, because I barely know, and I watch news every day," said Lowery, who lives in Fostoria, south of Toledo.

The AP-GfK Poll involved landline and cell phone interviews with 1,044 randomly chosen adults and was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications from June 9-14. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.

The Associated Press: AP-GfK poll: Public thumbs up for Obama health law



i'm also not terribly concerned if the country goes back to Clinton-era tax levels so that 40m people can get health insurance. taxes are historically low after 8 years of slashing taxes, increasing spending, and starting wars.
 
The poll found support increased since May among men (from 36 percent to 46 percent), people in their prime working years (from 35 percent to 49 percent among 30-49 year-olds) and Republicans (from 8 percent to 17 percent.) The uptick among Republicans comes even as party leaders are calling for the law's repeal.

Republicans? That's an interesting, and nice, surprise. I wonder how the Republican Party will deal with that tidbit of information?

I honestly think the reason opposition was so high at one point among many was because we got to watch the sausage-making process at work, if you will, and it got really tiring and frustrating and long. I think most Americans didn't care what resulted, they just wanted a result as soon as possible, and just got tired of watching the petty bickering and the long, drawn-out means of creating the bill. Some of the opposition is definitely from people who have personal issues with the idea, but I really believe that was the main issue for most people. And now that something actually resulted from all that, something with some very good ideas in it, most people are pretty happy.

As for taxes, yeah, as I understand it, again, the people who may see themselves paying more in taxes are generally going to be the upper-class folks. I know Obama and the Democrats were trying to make sure that middle-class and low-income families wouldn't have to be paying more than they could afford to pay. But regardless, I'll gladly pay in what I can afford to pay in if it means making sure people can actually be able to go to a doctor now and get the best treatment possible so they can live long, happy lives.

Angela
 
Yes, speaking of that. Could you clarify how the new law will allegedly cause employers to spend more on health insurance for their employers?

I've made the opposite suggestion. The new law could actually save employers money. Simply pay the fine and cut your workers loose to a government subsidized exchange. It's incentivized. Do I think every company will do that? No. Do I agree with internal White House rumblings that maybe 50% of workers will not be able to keep their current plan? :yes:

When I said "fuzzy math," I was referring to 10 years of revenue collection for 7 years of benefits. It's unsustainable.

Also, the idea that Medicare will be shored up by cutting it $480 billion, but then spending that same $480 billion on a new entitlement. It's double-counting. You can't have both, and it's half the financing for Obamacare! And speaking of the Medicare cuts, when it really comes time to slash it, do you think our congress will have the stones to do it? It's political suicide.

Not to mention the doc fix supplemental spending. Not included in 'comprehensive' reform because it didn't fit into the marketing campaign that the plan would come in under $1 trillion.

But Sean, back to your question about employers having to spend more. It's not something I've highlighted here, but you asked and I'll address it. Large companies have been writing down earnings in the hundreds of millions because some tax breaks are going away, particularly for drug benefits. It doesn't seem like a lot of money for them in the whole scheme of things, so it's not something I've pushed. :shrug:

On a more indirect level though, health costs in general will surely go up, and insurance costs will follow, as a result of this bill. We're all familiar with supply and demand. We have strong new demand for services coming, and the supply of health providers is staying relatively the same. A doctor's time becomes even more scarce and expensive.
 
oh, i see, a bunch of poors and minorities get health care, and now we're worried about federal debt, not when we were shipping off kids to go get TBI's in the desert so that we might see the continuation of the Bush Oedipal Complex.
That's a new one.
from a debt perspective, the present system was far worse, a ticking time bomb.

Don't 'spose you noticed that as a condition of their bailout by the IMF that Greece is required to privatize their health care system. Seems they REALLY need to bend their cost curve down, not just pretend to.
 
I've made the opposite suggestion. The new law could actually save employers money. Simply pay the fine and cut your workers loose to a government subsidized exchange. It's incentivized. Do I think every company will do that? No. Do I agree with internal White House rumblings that maybe 50% of workers will not be able to keep their current plan? :yes:

When I said "fuzzy math," I was referring to 10 years of revenue collection for 7 years of benefits. It's unsustainable.

Also, the idea that Medicare will be shored up by cutting it $480 billion, but then spending that same $480 billion on a new entitlement. It's double-counting. You can't have both, and it's half the financing for Obamacare! And speaking of the Medicare cuts, when it really comes time to slash it, do you think our congress will have the stones to do it? It's political suicide.

Not to mention the doc fix supplemental spending. Not included in 'comprehensive' reform because it didn't fit into the marketing campaign that the plan would come in under $1 trillion.

But Sean, back to your question about employers having to spend more. It's not something I've highlighted here, but you asked and I'll address it. Large companies have been writing down earnings in the hundreds of millions because some tax breaks are going away, particularly for drug benefits. It doesn't seem like a lot of money for them in the whole scheme of things, so it's not something I've pushed. :shrug:

On a more indirect level though, health costs in general will surely go up, and insurance costs will follow, as a result of this bill. We're all familiar with supply and demand. We have strong new demand for services coming, and the supply of health providers is staying relatively the same. A doctor's time becomes even more scarce and expensive.

BW, can I just thank you for taking the time to answer the question I asked and put some thought into your answer. I mean that in all sincerity.

I understand what you're saying about the fine--that it's cheaper to just pay it than pay for insurance. But pre-health care reform there hasn't been any fine at all right. If you choose not to insure your workers, it costs you nothing, right? So wouldn't a company have even more incentive right now before the law goes into effect to drop coverage for their employees then they would once the law is in effect? The companies that I see that would lose out would be ones that are currently NOT providing healthcare to their workers. For example, the preschool my wife works for doesn't provide health benefits. For a company like that, yes, it would be cheaper for them to just pay the fine. The added expense of the fine is less than the added expense of providing coverage. But of course in this case, the new law isn't causing my wife to "lose her coverage" with her job because she didn't have any to begin with.

What your arguments seems to imply is that right now you CAN'T lose the coverage you have--you are guaranteed to be able to keep the plan you have, but under the new plan you will face the possiblity of not being able to keep the plan you have. And as I understand it, that's simply not true.

Finally, re: the supply and demand. I could see some increase in demand, in the sense that people who just didn't go to the doctor for preventative care or even when something (but not something debilitating) is wrong will now start going. However, the people who are really sick or injured have still shown up at the doctors doorstep. They just went to the ER and we--those with insurance--got stuck with the bill anyway. So I don't think doctors are going to be deluged with a whole bunch of people made sick by the new health reform law. (Unless you were arguing that all those people just died at home and now, dangit we have to treat them--but I don't think you were making that argument). They may get more people coming in at earlier stages in the game, but that could amount to a savings since earlier, preventative care should reduce the super expensive treatment for illness/conditions that have progressed. The one group that will see a huge increase in demand is the insurance companies, but I'm pretty sure they're quite confident and excited to meet that demand.

The one thing that I probably do agree with you on is that the cost of reform is definitely going to be higher than was advertised. I always thought that would be the case and I wasn't excited about it either. However, what's not clear, at least to me, is whether the cost of reform is going to be greater than the cost of doing nothing.

Where the Republicans really dropped the ball is that they failed to provide a viable alternative that would resolve the health care crisis in this country without the huge price tag. I would have been very interested in such an alternative (Despite what some might think--I'm not a "knee-jerk" Democrat or liberal or whatever). Something along the lines of "Hey Obama's plan is going to bankrupt the country--here's OUR plan to cut the cost of health care and make sure everyone in the country has access, and it won't cost near as much." Maybe they had such an alternative, but it was drowned by the tea party naysayers and fearmongers. Maybe the fear tactics made for better TV and the media didn't cover the Republican plan. Or Maybe it's because such an alternative doesn't exist? :shrug: I don't know.
 
This is for AWanderer and BVS and is a continuation of our discussion on infant mortality rates and why statisics and comparisons can be misleading.

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category — the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of
emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive
in the world.
The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality — the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.


How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive — and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth.
That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.

This is clearly what is happening in Cuba. In the United States about 1.3 percent of all live births are very low birth weight — less than 1,500 grams. In Cuba, on the other hand, only about 0.4 percent of all births are less than 1,500 grams. This is despite the fact that the United States and Cuba have very similar low birth rates (births where the infant weighs less than 2500g). The United States actually has a much better low birth rate than Cuba if you control for multiple births — i.e. the growing number of multiple births in the United States due to technological interventions has resulted in a marked increase in the number of births under 2,500 g.

It is odd if both Cuba and the U.S. have similar birth weight distributions that the U.S. has more than 3 times the number of births under 1,500g, unless there is a marked discrepancy in the way that very low birth weight births are recorded. Cuba probably does much the same thing that many other countries do and does not register births under 1000g. In fact, this is precisely what the World Health Organization itself recommends that for official record keeping purposes, only live births of greater than 1,000g should be included.

The result is that the statistics make it appear as if Cuba’s infant mortality rate is significantly better than the United States’, but in fact what is really being measured in this difference is that the United States takes far more serious (and expensive) interventions among extremely low birth weight and extremely premature infants than Cuba (or much of the rest of the world for that matter) does.

Cuba vs. the United States on Infant Mortality | Overpopulation.Com

I could also mention that Cuba has a much higher abortion rate than the U.S. Again, may factors could account for this but no doubt many "troublesome" pregnancies are terminated in Cuba that might not be in the United States.
 
A rather odd site, that hasn't been updated in four years. It seems to have some weird conflicting agendas.

But I agree it's not going to be perfect, you simply can't compare these types of things side by side and get the whole picture. I also don't really think it says all that much.

But the argument you're trying to make with it INDY, it says quite a bit that both are so close to each. Maybe one has a higher number of abortions, maybe one counts mortality rates different(although the WHO defines what they consider and it's not stated if the global number used includes those), but there are other things to factor in. YOUR argument is that social medicine will decrease the quality of doctor and care, so no matter what by YOUR definition this number should be significantly different and not just slightly.
 
Yes, I guess these are the smart Drs.

Of course you do would find it laughable, but you fail do acknowlege the AMA who is on Obama's side and touted often represents less than 20% of the nations's doctors.



thank you

TrainWreck01.jpg

It is less than 18 % now. AMA is done. Just like AARP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom