MANDATORY health insurance, part 2 - Page 30 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-28-2010, 09:21 PM   #581
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,297
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Sometime around 2014 one of the multitudes of new commissions, boards, agencies or panels will issue mandates that ALL health insurance policies must comply with. If yours does not... you will lose your current coverage. Assuming, of course, your employer has not already chosen to pay the minimal tax fine and dropped health care insurance for its employees.

Unintended consequence # 35 of Obamacare.
All plans will have to cover a minimum set of procedures, abide by a minimum standard, etc. That includes employer sponsored plans. That is if they want to participate in the exchanges, which every insurance company will have finanical incentive to do so beacuse of all the now uninsured or underinsured people who will be buying in them.

There is no "does not." They comply at the policy level, the employer does not factor into the decision to comply with the minimum coverage standard. The employer doesn't say "hell no, I can't comply with that" and then Obama drops your employer's coverage. At the same time, the insurance policy originator(the insurance company) has every DISINCENTIVE to not comply as they would miss out on some 30 million customers with a conservative estimate.

The employers will have very little incentive to drop coverage they are currently providing as workers will just go work somewhere else. It will be easier, not harder for employers to provide coverage under this bill. Also, unlike the token Massachusetts fine on employers who do not comply, the fine in the health reform bill actually has teeth. Dropping coverage and paying the fine is not a very attractive alternative,especially given the fact that the fine buys you nothing and the health care plan buys you a healthy and loyal workforce. I am sure you understand that employers do not provide coverage because they are boy scouts, they do it to attract the employees they need to get their work done and profit. They don't just drop coverage becuase a fine that gets them nothing in terms of workforce productivity is cheaper.

What is the fine or tax for not providing coverage right now if you are an employer?

Nothing, while health care is expensive. So even with this equation, 98% of employers offer coverage. Now, think of an individual mandate, which will only increase the attractiveness of a firm providing health care to a job applicant and a fine per employee if you do not offer coverage. The incentive is much greater for the employer to offer coverage under health care reform, and for this reason, employer provided coverage has expanded in MA.

Even in MA, where people thought this would be a major issue, we have not had the unintended consequence you speak of.Consumer Reports Health Blog: Will my employer drop my coverage? Unlikely.

The bill owes alot of the reason it is a net positive to Massachusetts. We did it first, and I feel Obama took the positive aspects of our plan while also making sure to point out and not repeat the numerous mistakes that were made. Romney and the 2 dingbat Democratic leaders(one of whom is on his way to jail) wrote far from a perfect bill, and Obama made sure to hammer home that point in the primaries. For example, MA mandated coverage without addressing costs, this bill has alot of cost containment measures in it.

The whole reform is mostly a set of incentives, and it was thought out alot better than detractors claim. Peter Orszag, the OMB director for Obama is probably the foremost health economist in the country. I have heard alot of doom and gloom predictions from the likes of Palin, Beck and O'Reilly but among the people that actually have credibility in the area, nothing. Groups representing employers, doctors, health care providers, nurses, small businesses, etc almost unanimously say that a)they were listened to and b)the bill is, on balance, a positive.

You can find your group here and there that opposes it, just as you can certainly find groups and people supporting it that have squabbles with individual provisions. Myself included. No bill is perfect, given the fact that they are written by 535 humans who have all the same flaws and competing desires and interests as the rest of us.

Indy, just as you certainly would not have written every provision in there, neither would I have.
__________________

U2387 is offline  
Old 03-28-2010, 09:28 PM   #582
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Who said anything about weeding out 'bad" insurance. Maybe if you're 28 you want a high deductible plan. Maybe if you're a practicing Mormon or Baptist you don't need coverage for alcohol & drug abuse treatment.
I said inferior.

Once again, you don't think this happens now? Why do you pretend this isn't the case now? Denial, denial, denial...

Have you ever seen an insurance package(especially employee provided) that priced alcohol and drug seperately? Most of the time it's packaged in with a lot of other psychological coverage. And those that aren't it's seriously like a few dollars difference.

Why do you believe age won't play a factor anymore? What are you basing this(or anything else for that matter) on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
because they were mandated to and couldn't buy (cheaper) insurance from another state.
We've talked about this ad nauseum, I'm sorry you don't get it.
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 03-28-2010, 09:40 PM   #583
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,297
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Who said anything about weeding out 'bad" insurance. Maybe if you're 28 you want a high deductible plan. Maybe if you're a practicing Mormon or Baptist you don't need coverage for alcohol & drug abuse treatment.

That's one of the problems with Romneycare and why premiums have soared in MA. People had to buy more insurance then they want or needed because they were mandated to and couldn't buy (cheaper) insurance from another state.
You want a high deductible plan, you've got it. They're not outlawed unless I missed that memo. Alcohol and drug abuse treatment is not what they had in mind when they say minimum standard. Think the policies that make you pay $400 out of pocket for an allergic reaction to bee sting, and will not help out at all. Or the ones that don't provide specialist care, even though their premiums are the same or comparable to companies that do. The basic standard is really not forcing Cadillac plans and "vice lifestyle" plans on anyone.

Romneycare, while far from perfect is certainly not the reason premiums have skyrocketed. That has been a national trend, and you can find the same or greater increases in other states since 2006. Premium announcements were just made about a month ago by most companies and I think the biggest percentage increase both as an average and for 1 company's individual policy was in California. People in MA have more insurance options than they did before our health bill passed. Everyone will have even more in 2014.
U2387 is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 08:18 AM   #584
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. More than a dozen GOP attorneys general are determined to challenge the requirement in federal court as unconstitutional.

Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program or by buying it directly. That year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.

Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.

Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans – the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits – two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received – by the George H.W. Bush administration.

"It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn't," said Pauly. "Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it."

Obama rejected a key part of Pauly's proposal: doing away with the tax-free status of employer-sponsored health care and replacing it with a standard tax credit for all Americans. Labor strongly opposes that approach because union members usually have better-than-average coverage and suddenly would have to pay taxes on it. But many economists believe it's a rational solution to America's health care dilemma since it would raise enough money to cover the uninsured and nudge people with coverage into cost-conscious plans.

Romney's success in Massachusetts with a bipartisan health plan that featured a mandate put the idea on the table for the 2008 presidential candidates.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who failed in the 1990s to require employers to offer coverage, embraced the individual requirement, an idea advocated by her Republican opponents in the earlier health care debate.

"Hillary Clinton believed strongly in universal coverage," said Neera Tanden, her top health care adviser in the 2008 Democratic campaign. "I said to her, 'You are not going to be able to say it's universal coverage unless you have a mandate.' She said, 'I don't want to run unless it's universal coverage.'"

Obama was not prepared to go that far. His health care proposal in the campaign required coverage for children, not adults. Clinton hammered him because his plan didn't guarantee coverage for all. He shot back that health insurance is too expensive to force people to buy it.

Obama remained cool to an individual requirement even once in office. But Tanden, who went on to serve in the Obama administration, said the first sign of a shift came in a letter to congressional leaders last summer in which Obama said he'd be open to the idea if it included a hardship waiver. Obama openly endorsed a mandate in his speech to a joint session of Congress in September.

It remains one of the most unpopular parts of his plan. Even the insurance industry is unhappy. Although the federal government will be requiring Americans to buy their products – and providing subsidies worth billions – insurers don't think the penalties are high enough.

Tanden, now at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, says she's confident the mandate will work. In Massachusetts, coverage has gone up and only a tiny fraction of residents have been hit with fines.

Brown, whose election to replace the late Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy almost led to the collapse of Obama's plan, said his opposition to the new law is over tax increases, Medicare cuts and federal overreach on a matter that should be left up to states. Not so much the requirement, which he voted for as a state lawmaker.

"In Massachusetts, it helped us deal with the very real problem of uncompensated care," Brown said.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 05:16 PM   #585
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced this afternoon that he will join a lawsuit with other state attorneys general, challenging the new federal health care law.

Zoeller said last week that he and attorneys general in at least 13 other states were pondering the legal challenge, but today said that he has reviewed the new law and thinks it is unconstitutional. He says the law requires people to buy health insurance and encroaches on states’ sovereignty by forcing them to set up health insurance exchanges.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 05:19 PM   #586
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Quote:
Sarkozy backs U.S. health plan

By Verena Dobnik and Angela Charlton

Associated Press
NEW YORK - Visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy, shedding diplomatic protocol, plunged into the U.S. health-care debate yesterday - endorsing the controversial law.

"Welcome to the club of states who don't turn their back on the sick and the poor," Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. health care overhaul signed by President Obama last week.

From the European perspective, he said, addressing hundreds of students and faculty at New York's Columbia University, "when we look at the American debate on reforming health care, it's difficult to believe."

"The very fact that there should have been such a violent debate simply on the fact that the poorest of Americans should not be left out in the streets without a cent to look after them . . . is something astonishing to us."

Then to hearty applause, he said: "If you come to France and something happens to you, you won't be asked for your credit card before you're rushed to the hospital."

The French leader was accompanied by his wife, ex-supermodel Carla Bruni-Sarkozy.

He is in hot water at home, his poll ratings are at record lows of around 30 percent, and there are cracks in his conservative party.

In New York, though, he basked in the rapt attention of the students and even jettisoned a prepared speech.

"Speeches kill off creativity," he said. "I'm going to speak from the heart."

Perhaps to belie bloggers' reports of strains in their celebrity marriage, the two arrived tightly clutching hands.

The two are to have a private dinner with President and Mrs. Obama today.

bien joue!
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 05:49 PM   #587
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Cheese eating surrender monkeys.
deep is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 05:53 PM   #588
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Swan269's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: HawkMoon
Posts: 3,695
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
bien joue!
well if the French are all for it then hot damn, let me get out my beret
Swan269 is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 06:25 PM   #589
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
"Welcome to the club of states who don't turn their back on the sick and the poor," Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. health care overhaul signed by President Obama last week.
Hey, that's us alright.

What an ignorant and insulting thing to say although I'm sure President "this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless... when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal," is soaking it up.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 06:33 PM   #590
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Cuban leader applauds US health-care reform bill

HAVANA -- It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.
Bravo!
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 06:45 PM   #591
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

What an ignorant and insulting thing to say
How is it incorrect?
BVS is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 07:43 PM   #592
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Hey, that's us alright.

What an ignorant and insulting thing to say although I'm sure President "this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless... when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal," is soaking it up.
Insulting to Republicans who would prefer to turn their backs on the sick and the poor rather than take a political loss?

Maybe the people you support for Congress should have tried to work with Obama instead of going for broke by just saying "No" to it all. But stubbornness is a virtue on the right, isn't it? If it's not, disprove me.
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 07:52 PM   #593
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Swan269's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: HawkMoon
Posts: 3,695
Local Time: 02:36 PM
lets face facts, both sides are stubborn. its washington today.
Swan269 is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 08:08 PM   #594
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Both sides in the Congress are stubborn. But I'd argue that pretty much every conservative is stubborn. Much moreso than liberals.
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 08:53 PM   #595
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
Both sides in the Congress are stubborn. But I'd argue that pretty much every conservative is stubborn. Much moreso than liberals.
Stubbornly carrying out the will of the majority of Americans who; in elections, polls and town halls were screaming, "Kill this bill and start over."
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 09:10 PM   #596
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 01:36 PM
The majority in elections? Really? Not the last time I looked...

The majority are at the town halls screaming "Kill this bill..." Delusion much?

Polls? Now there's a slippery slope.

Does AM radio now speak for the majority?
BVS is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 09:16 PM   #597
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Swan269's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: HawkMoon
Posts: 3,695
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
The majority in elections? Really? Not the last time I looked...

The majority are at the town halls screaming "Kill this bill..." Delusion much?

Polls? Now there's a slippery slope.

Does AM radio now speak for the majority?
no but to think that Big networks do is a reach.
Swan269 is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 09:20 PM   #598
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swan269 View Post
no but to think that Big networks do is a reach.
What do you mean?
BVS is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 10:35 PM   #599
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Stubbornly carrying out the will of the majority of Americans who; in elections, polls and town halls were screaming, "Kill this bill and start over."
So no matter what the majority wants, they get to have it because they scream about it?

And, really, I'm not sure a few Tea Baggers are a majority.

And yes, I'll call them Tea Baggers all I want.
martha is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 10:37 PM   #600
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,934
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
What do you mean?
reads like he's agreeing with you
__________________

coolian2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Dog Lovers.... Part 3 U2Fanatic4ever Lemonade Stand 1019 05-19-2012 03:35 AM
Hell-th Insurance WARNING: LONG POST! BluRmGrl Zoo Confessionals 7 10-26-2006 09:04 PM
On (not) having health insurance wolfeden Zoo Confessionals 14 03-24-2004 11:15 AM
White House seeks control on health, safety Scarletwine Free Your Mind Archive 1 01-13-2004 04:54 PM
Bono today at the conference in Africa U2Kitten Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 9 01-15-2002 09:29 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×