The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Surprise!!!! More$$$$$

  1. #1
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,732

    Default Surprise!!!! More$$$$$



    Obamacare Pre-Existing Condition Fee To Cost Companies $63 Per Person


    By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR 12/10/12 02:47 PM ET EST



    WASHINGTON -- Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. It's a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

    The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.

    Employee benefits lawyer Chantel Sheaks calls it a "sleeper issue" with significant financial consequences, particularly for large employers.

    "Especially at a time when we are facing economic uncertainty, (companies will) be hit with a multi-million dollar assessment without getting anything back for it," said Sheaks, a principal at Buck Consultants, a Xerox subsidiary.

    Based on figures provided in the regulation, employer and individual health plans covering an estimated 190 million Americans could owe the per-person fee.

    The Obama administration says it is a temporary assessment levied for three years starting in 2014, designed to raise $25 billion. It starts at $63 and then declines.

    Most of the money will go into a fund administered by the Health and Human Services Department. It will be used to cushion health insurance companies from the initial hard-to-predict costs of covering uninsured people with medical problems. Under the law, insurers will be forbidden from turning away the sick as of Jan. 1, 2014.

    The program "is intended to help millions of Americans purchase affordable health insurance, reduce unreimbursed usage of hospital and other medical facilities by the uninsured and thereby lower medical expenses and premiums for all," the Obama administration says in the regulation. An accompanying media fact sheet issued Nov. 30 referred to "contributions" without detailing the total cost and scope of the program.

    Of the total pot, $5 billion will go directly to the U.S. Treasury, apparently to offset the cost of shoring up employer-sponsored coverage for early retirees.




    The $25 billion fee is part of a bigger package of taxes and fees to finance Obama's expansion of coverage to the uninsured. It all comes to about $700 billion over 10 years, and includes higher Medicare taxes effective this Jan. 1 on individuals making more than $200,000 per year or couples making more than $250,000. People above those threshold amounts also face an additional 3.8 percent tax on their investment income.

    But the insurance fee had been overlooked as employers focused on other costs in the law, including fines for medium and large firms that don't provide coverage.

    "This kind of came out of the blue and was a surprisingly large amount," said Gretchen Young, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, a group that represents large employers on benefits issues.

    Word started getting out in the spring, said Young, but hard cost estimates surfaced only recently with the new regulation. It set the per capita rate at $5.25 per month, which works out to $63 a year.

    America's Health Insurance Plans, the major industry trade group for health insurers, says the fund is an important program that will help stabilize the market and mitigate cost increases for consumers as the changes in Obama's law take effect.

    But employers already offering coverage to their workers don't see why they have to pony up for the stabilization fund, which mainly helps the individual insurance market. The redistribution puts the biggest companies on the hook for tens of millions of dollars.

    "It just adds on to everything else that is expected to increase health care costs," said economist Paul Fronstin of the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute.

    The fee will be assessed on all "major medical" insurance plans, including those provided by employers and those purchased individually by consumers. Large employers will owe the fee directly. That's because major companies usually pay upfront for most of the health care costs of their employees. It may not be apparent to workers, but the insurance company they deal with is basically an agent administering the plan for their employer.

    The fee will total $12 billion in 2014, $8 billion in 2015 and $5 billion in 2016. That means the per-head assessment would be smaller each year, around $40 in 2015 instead of $63.

    It will phase out completely in 2017 unless Congress, with lawmakers searching everywhere for revenue to reduce federal deficits decides to extend it.

    As we read it, we find out what's in it!!!!
    Stan b & Elvis

  2. #2
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,800

    Default

    Just more of this socialist's redistribution crap. OBAMA THE SOCIALIST shows his true colors again!
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    Just more of this socialist's redistribution crap. OBAMA THE SOCIALIST shows his true colors again!
    Your other choice was Romney who already had SOCIALIST ROMNEYCARE in place, on this issue they are the same. I can't stand the thought of either of them believing that they have the right to shove their plans down our throats, but as for the article the guy most be a moron if he actually believe this is a "unexpected expense".

  4. #4
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    Your other choice was Romney who already had SOCIALIST ROMNEYCARE in place, on this issue they are the same. I can't stand the thought of either of them believing that they have the right to shove their plans down our throats, but as for the article the guy most be a moron if he actually believe this is a "unexpected expense".
    You mean you knew about this?
    Stan b & Elvis

  5. #5
    Senior Member menmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    Just more of this socialist's redistribution crap. OBAMA THE SOCIALIST shows his true colors again!
    If he was a socialist...it wouldn't cost you anything.

    Don't buy into this rhetoric...insurance providers using it as an accuse to raise rates. They keep this up and a bunch of new providers will show themselves

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    You mean you knew about this?
    Yes, I knew about this and I believe 95% of people were well aware of the fact that there would be a huge expense for including people with per-existing conditions. It seems to me that the only ones that are shocked by this was the the author and the expert in the article:
    "This kind of came out of the blue and was a surprisingly large amount," said Gretchen Young, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee,
    If she would have been reading POTUS for the last 6 months it might not have sneaked up on her. Any way I found a picture of Grectchen Young and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR .

  7. #7
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    Yes, I knew about this and I believe 95% of people were well aware of the fact that there would be a huge expense for including people with per-existing conditions. It seems to me that the only ones that are shocked by this was the the author and the expert in the article:
    If she would have been reading POTUS for the last 6 months it might not have sneaked up on her. Any way I found a picture of Grectchen Young and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR .
    OOPS, wrong picture, that's Obama and Hillary in regard to Bengahzi!!!!

    No biggie!
    Stan b & Elvis

Posting Permissions

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