The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: The WSJ on the contradictions in Osamacare

  1. #11
    Senior Member JDogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MRGV New Mexico
    Posts
    3,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nor_Cal_Angler View Post
    The only thing I see with this scenerio is a smart business owner saying...

    "Good, less I have to pay out, means the MORE FOR ME"

    Thats what I would do, and thats what Americans will do.

    Americans are doing 1 of 2 things right now and probally for the next 3-5 years.

    1. SAVING

    2. Paying down DEBT.

    neither of which boosts/increases productivity or the GDP...

    NCA
    So, NCA. Give unto us your well earned wisdom. what are you doing? Saving, or paying down your debt, or both?

    JD
    One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

  2. #12
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    The bill is not designed to kill off private plans although it will restrict them from excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions and from canceling coverage based on medical condition if premiums are being paid. The bill assumes that the bulk of all coverage will continue to be provided through private insurers. In fact, private insurers are thinking that their business will improve dramatically because more people will be buying.
    AAAARRRRGGGH!! You are just like Obama when it comes to misstatement of facts. Insurance companies cannot cancel nor give an individual a 1000% rate increase to run them off if they have an ongoing medical condition. Stop saying they can when they can't. As far as pre-existing conditions are concerned, how many people (the poor insured) do you think that go to the Doc and find out they have a condition and then try to buy insurance to cover that condition. Kinda like buying homeowners insurance after your house in on fire. Give me a break!
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  3. #13
    Senior Member JDogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MRGV New Mexico
    Posts
    3,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M&K's Retrievers View Post
    AAAARRRRGGGH!! Insurance companies cannot cancel nor give an individual a 1000% rate increase to run them off if they have an ongoing medical condition. Stop saying they can when they can't. As far as pre-existing conditions are concerned, how many people (the poor insured) do you think that go to the Doc and find out they have a condition and then try to buy insurance to cover that condition. Kinda like buying homeowners insurance after your house in on fire. Give me a break!
    What planet, what planet?

    JD
    One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

  4. #14
    Senior Member Nor_Cal_Angler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburg, Ca
    Posts
    660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogger View Post
    So, NCA. Give unto us your well earned wisdom. what are you doing? Saving, or paying down your debt, or both?

    JD
    I have never claimed to be wise, but what I do have has been EARNED..something the masses, that believe in entitlement should look into.

    I am SAVING......just so you know. I dont have DEBT, my father who is wise told me never dig a hole you can't get out of.

    Good try, I'll give you credit (ha-ha)

    NCA

  5. #15
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labraiser View Post
    Jeff,

    i think you need to lok at pg 16 of the house bill. It is craftly stated that if you leave a job that offers you private ins, then you next ins plan will have to be from the pubic option period. I also have one question, If it's cheaper for a company not to offer you private insurance and you are forced into the goverment plan, where is all the money going to come from to cover all the new people in the pubic goverment option? Estimates are 84 million will be forced in to the public plan. I never had heard this question asked of the president, maybe because the BS Pres can't handle tough questions, he only answers planted quetions in his so called town halls.
    You would need to provide a quote indicating what you mean. Page 16 addresses the grandfathering in of employer plans that do not meet the minimum standards for qualified plans. It never mentions the public option at all. In fact, in the entire bill, there is no distinction between public and private options except for those that limit the ability of larger employers to elect to purchase coverage through the public option to protect the competitive position of private plans.

    With respect to companies deciding it's cheaper to force employees into government plans....

    I'm not sure what the issue is. Companies can now save money -- and many are choosing to do so -- by simply terminating their existing medical plans. Today, a company paying 10% of payroll on health care can reduce its labor costs by 10% by simply terminating insurance. Under the House bill, a (larger) company terminating coverage would not save 10%, because it would still have to pay the 8% tax. That makes it less likely, not more, that companies will terminate coverage they now offer. With respect to the proposed public option, the House bill requires that this be self supporting. It will charge premiums for coverage that are sufficient to pay all claims and administrative costs and maintain suitable insurance reserves to protect against fluctuations in payments. To the extent that an individual/family is entitled to a financial subsidy to pay a portion of the cost of coverage, that subsidy is equally available regardless of whether the individual purchases coverage through the public option plan or through a purely private plan. The proposed "Health Exchange" provides an open marketplace in which companies offering plans that meet at least the minimum standards for coverage may offer their plans to the general public. Both individuals and companies can use the exchange, if they desire, to purchase any plan at rates set by the provider. The Exchange will theoretically include tools to make it easier for purchasers to compare the costs and services offered by each available plan.

    I'm not sure where your estimate of 84 million enrolling in the public option comes from. I've seen some estimates argue that the government will pay providers lower rates to keep costs down and that private insurers will have to pay providers more as a result. This, they argue, will make the government program cheaper and better than the private plans and people will therefore switch to the public option.

    My own view is that if people flock freely to a public option because it is cheaper and better than private plans, then the private plans will have to figure out how to do a better job or go out of business. That is what competition is about. However, the competition needs to be open. Neither the private plans nor the public plan should receive preferential treatment under the law. In HR 3200, there are phase in provisions designed to limit the ability of employers to shift from private plans to the public option to protect private insurers during a 5 year transition period.
    Last edited by YardleyLabs; 08-23-2009 at 05:49 AM.

  6. #16
    Senior Member tpaschal30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salisbury, MD
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    The bill is not designed to kill off private plans although it will restrict them from excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions and from canceling coverage based on medical condition if premiums are being paid. The bill assumes that the bulk of all coverage will continue to be provided through private insurers. In fact, private insurers are thinking that their business will improve dramatically because more people will be buying.
    Yes it is. When the penalty for not providing health care ins to the employer is 8% of payroll and actual HCI cost percentage of payroll is 15%. What do you think almost every employer will do? If they want to stay competitive drop it, pay the 8%, and lower payroll cost 7%. If they did not want to end the eployer paid option it would be a 15 or 20% penalty.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,895

    Default

    Yardley
    My own view is that if people flock freely to a public option because it is cheaper and better than private plans, then the private plans will have to figure out how to do a better job or go out of business. That is what competition is about.
    Let's go back to the USPS v. Fed Ex. Fed Ex makes money because it cherry-picks the profitable services. The USPS is required to offer those personal letters at 44 cents. Anybody use Fed Ex to send birthday cards? Christmas cards?

    The public plan does the same thing, then mandates the private insurors also offer the same low-income services.

    I believe the private insurors will stay in business by doing the same thing they do with Medicare. Let the govt program take the "basic" coverage, and sell the "gap" insurance as they do with Medicare. In a way, that might work out well for the private insurors. Get out of the basic coverage. Don't worry about having to accept pre-existing conditions, etc. Just sell the "supplemental" coverages with the govt plan picking up the rest.

    So, now the private insurors will accept those gap coverages, even on pre-existing conditions, any guess at what the premiums may be? Will the govt then regulate what the private insurors can charge for those supplemental coverages? Since they won't be able to reject pre-existing conditions, will they be allowed to charge more premium for those cases for supplemental coverages? They can also offer coverage that would pay the first $5000/$10,000 deductible of the govt plan. That should be relatively cheap since exposure is limited to $5000/$10,000.

    My inclination would be that the private insurance industry will get smaller in terms of people employed, but more profitable.

    My larger fear is that the govt way under-estimates the cost of this public option over the long haul. Even though govt removes the "profit" from the bottom line, the govt layers in the bureaucracy, and costly employee benefits for Fed employees.

    As these secondary costs become more evident, the cost of the govt plan will increase; and what they can't get from increasing premiums alone, they'll get in the form of income taxes. If it is accurate that almost 50% of our citizens do not pay any Fed income tax, then those who do pay will pay more. That will hurt the mid-income taxpayer more than the high-income taxpayer. I'd just venture a guess that the fellow making $60K/year has less disposable income than the fellow making $300K/year. A tax increase for the $60K guy may be less in flat dollars, but is likely to "hurt" more.

    FWIW, one of the basic features of employer provided coverage (when I was in that business) was that all employees had to be covered. This meant that the insuror could expect the young, healthy workers to offset the losses on the older, higher-cost (to the insuror) workers. This is also the basic premise of the public plan proposed. By making coverage universally mandatory (or lack thereof penalized with a tax), they get $ from the workers who won't actually be costing the insuror much $ in return for the premium (or tax) paid.

    In the private sector, even with very large companies (with a diverse worker population), the costs grew ever larger due to the advancement of our medical technology. A couple of heart-bypass surgeries could wipe out all the premium profits from those young workers. Why would we expect the laws of mathematics to change?

    If we are going to accept the concept of universal health care coverage, then we also need to accept the fact that it's going to cost a whole lot more than O or our legislators think it will cost.

    With a universal insurance program the govt will have incredible clout to negotiate fees. Right now we know that private payers pay more because fees are set at a level to account for the insurors (public & private) paying less than the billed amount. Will fees simply increase to cope with the increased negotiation clout?

    As someone else mentioned, if these lawmakers are truly interested in private citizens then tort reform has to be part of the whole program from the outset. God knows they put plenty of unrelated amendments on other bills, and tort reform would be relative to this legislation. OTOH, since most of the lawmakers are lawyers, it does give one a feeling of conflict of interest when they don't even mention the issue of tort reform in such legislation.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  8. #18
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tpaschal30 View Post
    Yes it is. When the penalty for not providing health care ins to the employer is 8% of payroll and actual HCI cost percentage of payroll is 15%. What do you think almost every employer will do? If they want to stay competitive drop it, pay the 8%, and lower payroll cost 7%. If they did not want to end the eployer paid option it would be a 15 or 20% penalty.
    Right now employers paying 15% of payroll for HCI (vs the actual average of about 11% for those providing HCI at all) can save 15% pr payroll by getting rid of coverage now. Why aren't they doing that? Under the revised plan, a company paying 15% of payroll for HCI could save 7% (15-8) by getting rid of HCI altogether. Why do you believe they will be more willing to terminate benefits to save 7% than they are now when they could save 15%?

  9. #19
    Senior Member labraiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Penna
    Posts
    384

    Default

    I was stuck on the Pa turnpike a few weeks ago. I pulled over to wait out the accident clean up. I saw the car in front of me was from quebec, Canada. We got talking and i asked them what they thought of their health care since they were from canada. I didn't tell them i was for it or against it. The woman told me the average wait if you go to an emergency room is 6 hrs and if you need non emergency proceedures is about 9-12 month waiting time. This really stunned me. I asked her what the problem was, she said not enought doctors. So cost cutting is going to reduce the amount of doctors. Why choose a profession where your payment is goverment regulated. Is this what people want here? If this is enacted and the libs I meet complain about service, I'll slap each one in the head and say "don't you bitch, you support this crap public option".

  10. #20
    Senior Member tpaschal30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salisbury, MD
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Right now employers paying 15% of payroll for HCI (vs the actual average of about 11% for those providing HCI at all) can save 15% pr payroll by getting rid of coverage now. Why aren't they doing that? Under the revised plan, a company paying 15% of payroll for HCI could save 7% (15-8) by getting rid of HCI altogether. Why do you believe they will be more willing to terminate benefits to save 7% than they are now when they could save 15%?
    It is the bailout. There is a fall back plan(public option) and they don't look like the bad guy. Let's use your numbers of 10%. If you could reduce payroll by 2% and wash your hands of administering a HI plan giving you a leg up on the competition. Who wouldn't? Owners and stockholders don't run a business to fund health care. The point is when Obama says you will get to keep your plan, in the end very few will, except Congress.

Similar Threads

  1. Its all a deathpanel, the truth about osamacare
    By Bob Gutermuth in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-25-2009, 12:22 PM
  2. AARP losing members over support for osamacare
    By Bob Gutermuth in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-19-2009, 05:50 AM
  3. Osamacare dirty secret #2
    By Bob Gutermuth in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-18-2009, 09:47 AM
  4. Gov Palin on Osamacare
    By Bob Gutermuth in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 08-17-2009, 05:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •