Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

What situation?

The current "situation", mandated healthcare for every person where everyone is mandated by Federal Law to buy something from commercial enterprises, well except those who can curry favors via the Obamy connections, and the rest of us. Here is the deal.... There is no fall back "Government Option" for the cheap rates to fall back on.... and as I stated NUMEROUS times, what would stop companies, like McDonald's, from dumping their low cost insurance plans onto the "Government Option"? vs, just paying the penalty? Or conversely, just doing the right thing and giving the workers the insurance they should have been giving them all along? Oh, nooooooooo.... fuck that, let the public pic up the tab and pay the fine....

Well guess what, right now there is no public option. This is nothing more than an attempt to set up the stage to push us to that very thing. Not only a public option but a total Government take over of the industry (Read here: my conspiracy theory). I believe it. In 10 years call me a crack pot, or if there is complete control by the government of health care, call me a Visionary. Whatever. I don't care. Eventually, IMHO, if Obama is re-elected, there will be a Gov Option Health Insurance Plan, and that is, IMHO, one step away from a Socialized Medicine design like Canada or the UK. There is no doubt this is exactly what this Administration envisions. If nothing less they are in bed with the insurance companies to force people to buy insurance so they can say everyone is insured. At what cost? So my single dau who can't get a waiver is forced to buy insurance that she cannot afford? While a Public Section Union worker who has lived off the tit of the American Taxpayer for years gets a "Waiver"?!?!? WTF?

This system is domed to fail.

Anyone but Obamy in 2012.

Oh and Pelosi is still a cunt.

[TheMercenary]

A perfect example of what a load of shit Pelosi, et. al. pushed through for Obamacare.....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6596282.story

[SamIam]

So says the Op Ed page of the LA Times, a venue known for its accurate dissemination of scientific information. Honestly, Merc, you of all people should know better.

It is a well known fact that junk food costs less than healthier food items. People from lower economic groups have real difficulty affording to put nutritious meals on the family table.

From the Christian Science Monitor's NON op ed page:

It turns out that the kind of diet that complies with the Department of Agri*cul*ture's official dietary guidelines is un*affordable for many Americans.

A researcher at the University of Washington found that an income level that qualifies a family for food stamp assistance makes it nearly impossible to put healthy and balanced meals on the table. Though food stamp benefits are calculated to allow families to buy the lowest-cost foods that are still nutritious, the USDA's own research shows that food prices vary widely across the country. That means if you live in a region with high prices (such as the Northeast), it may be unaffordable for you to feed your family healthy meals.

So just what part of making healthy food more affordable to low income Americans do you have a problem with? Why are you opposed to measures that could reduce rates of obesity? What's your problem with fresh veggies and fruit appearing on the plate of a growing child?

Afraid that if that if the lower socio-economic groups get healthier, they might have the energy to take a greater part in the American democratic process and make life uncomfortable for the right wing fat cats?

[TheMercenary]

Healthy eating is actually cheaper. Most people are just fat lazy asses who can't be bothered to make wholesome foods for their families. Oh, don't get me wrong, McDonald's doesn't make it any easier with $2 value meals. It is all marketing. And the American, and world public for that matter, have bought it, literally, hook, line, and sinker. No shit.

Really, don't whine about the cost of a raw potato in the store vs a bag of McDonald's fries. But there is a difference between government mandates that force people to do something and free will. Where is the balance. Bigger Government is NOT the answer to idiots who choose not to make the right lifestyle choices.

[classicman]

What is the set up with insurance companies in Gb and/or Canada compared to the US.?

[TheMercenary]

WoW! Imagine this. No one on here predicted this would happen! Not.....

30% of companies say they’ll stop offering coverage

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fir...vey-2011-06-06

[BigV]

Yes, I saw that story too. What is your opinion?

I'll tell you my take on it.

The insurance companies won't want to lose their customers, so they'll offer coverage to the individuals. This is a good thing, letting people be more in control of what they want in an insurance package. When I was working, our insurance choices were just ONE. One company only. I had no choice, despite how well or poorly it fit me. I like the idea of being able to pick from among a few choices.

I read a couple interesting things in the article. Though one study says 30% of companies will drop coverage, another study says they won't. Both are trying to predict the future, we'll just see. Also, I noticed that there is an expectation that employees will see their compensation rise if the benefits are taken away.

I think this story talks about something that probably will happen, though to what degree is impossible to say at this point. I also think that given the individual mandate, there will be a much larger percentage of people covered. This will have two likely benefits. More people will be covered, this is good all by itself. Fewer people will have to rely on emergency care, the kind of care that is expensive and often represents uncompensated care by the provider (the kind that drives up the costs for the other payers, as we've discussed). Also, given the larger pool of payers, it will be easier to offer lower rates/lower marginal rates to maintain their profit margins for the insurance company. I don't have so much interest in how much they make (within reason) but I am interested in the lower rates.

[TheMercenary]

Well a lot of companies are moving to more of an Independent Contractor aka 1099 model of hiring. They don't have to provied benifits, pay the taxes, or anything else and can pretty much fire you at a whim if it suits them. The only way they could drop them is if there is a government option offered or they get some sort of waiver. I think most people and businesses caught in the waiver groups are praying for an eventual government option or something similar where they can dump the people who need insurance. As I stated numerous times over the years, unless the penalty for not providing insurance is high enough most companies will pay the penalty vs paying for the insurance. All the details have not been worked out and and that is the problem with Obamacare, there are still to many unanswered questions.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

All the details have not been worked out and and that is the problem with ANY MAJOR CHANGE, there are still to many unanswered questions.

ftfy

[BigV]

Thanks for the reply. Let me unpack what I hear you saying.

The companies that might move to an employment model of independent contractor, they'll have some new "freedoms", like ability to fire you at a whim, and of course no benefits, and no taxes.

Ok, I agree that companies that hire independent contractors can do these things. But so what? These conditions are already in place practically everywhere. Washington is an "at-will" employment state.

Is it legal for a worker to be fired from their job without any notice?

The law does not require a business to give a worker notice before terminating their job. Nor does the law require workers to give notice before quitting. However, the business may make payment of benefits (such as vacation pay) a condition of the worker giving notice.

Is it legal to be fired from a job for no good reason?

Yes. Washington is what's called an "at will" state. Businesses may fire "at will." There are no laws regarding dismissal, so businesses are not required to give warnings or follow any particular steps.

Also in Washington, there's no requirement by law that benefits be offered to the employee. Lots of places hire people in circumstances that don't involve benefits, like scheduling the workers so they don't qualify as "full time" employees and are thus excluded.

I don't know any place that can hire employees, not contractors mind you, and be exempt from paying taxes. Some do, of course, but that's already a crime. Look at the cases of "nanny-gate" you hear from time to time about people who fail to *pay taxes* for their domestic help.

Yes, there are exceptions to this here in Washington and across the country, but mostly these conditions are already in place. My question is this: what does this have to do with the continuing rollout of PPACA requirements?

As for "dropping them" I think you mean, businesses dropping employees/contractors from the insurance rolls. And that these people will still want insurance. I think that ... I dunno. Might could happen, don't understand this well. But the core of what you're saying, that the law's intention is to get more/all people insured and that the structure for encouraging compliance via penalties for NOT having/buying insurance is flawed, since the offender will make a cost/benefit analysis of the decision to "pay or play", so to speak, and decide to pay instead of play. I agree. I think this kind of analysis happens every day for everybody. The decisions aren't always rational, and they're not always consistent, and they're not always made for the long term, and they're not always in the best interest of the decider. But they're always being made, by all of us.

Maybe getting full enrollment by making the penalty at some level isn't going to succeed. Perhaps we can talk about how to improve the result, but tossing out the law isn't the answer. We have the ultimate penalty--capital punishment--for some actions, and yet people still murder. That doesn't mean we should toss out the law making it illegal.

I agree with you friend that there are many unanswered questions about how the new law will affect businesses and employees, totally agree. It's a big goddamn deal, and we're working it out, as planned.

[TheMercenary]

Someone please show me where the Insurance Exchanges have worked, are currently working, or will work in the future.

According to my knowledge, there are no working Exchanges in existing as described by Obamacare.

So, someone tell me with surety, that this nation has hung it's hat on this notion that everything will work out as described. There are some 27 States that say they are not playing....

[Fair&Balanced]

The Exchanges are to modeled after the federal employees program (FEHB), which provides insurance for federal workers including members of Congress. Federal employees can choose from 10-15 private insurance plans in FEHB.

I'm not sure what you mean by goverment option in earlier posts, but ithe Exchange is not a government option. It will be a network of private insurance carriers competing to offer a vareity of options at different levels of pricing and services. People will be able to choose a plan with higher deductibles and co-pays but lower premiums, or a higher cost plan with lower per-incident fees or other options. HMOs, PPOs, fee-for-service plans and other options will all be available through private insurance companies.

More than anything else, the program promotes greater competition among private insurance providers. It certainly is not a government takeover as many on the right still like to characterize it.

Where a state opts out, residents/employers of that state will shop on a national exchange.

To discount it completely and suggest it wont work is a bit premature and, IMO, probably motivated by being opposed to the program from the start and having an interest in seeing it fail.

added:
To expect any major program of this size and scope, public or private, to work exactly as envisioned in the planning stages is disingenous. All such programs go through periods of tweeking and fixing.

[TheMercenary]

To date there are none of these Exchanges that exist in the form propsed. None. The thought that competition will in some way lower costs is false as evident by the run away increases occuring everyday since Obamacare was first imposed on the people. So basically this whole plan is based on an unproven premise and assumption that it will work. So far no good.

[TheMercenary]

Wonder where I have heard this before?

Doctors representing small physician practices gave Congressional representatives on the House Small Business Committee's Healthcare and Technology subcommittee an earful as they spoke of the significant barriers to the adoption of health information technology (IT) and the potential consequences that this could have on the healthcare sector. These barriers include regulations, financial penalties, an unpredictable marketplace, and concerns over interoperability between different IT systems, and the most prominent barrier of all--costs.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/.../EMR/230500066

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

To date there are none of these Exchanges that exist in the form propsed. None. The thought that competition will in some way lower costs is false as evident by the run away increases occuring everyday since Obamacare was first imposed on the people. So basically this whole plan is based on an unproven premise and assumption that it will work. So far no good.

Competiton breeds savings and comes from insurance companies competing for millions of new customers.

As to the run away increases, they have been occuring for the last 10-15 years, not just since the Affordable Care Act was signed. To suggest a direct causation as a result of the new act is stretching the facts quite a bit.

http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?ch=1545

IMO, it is a plan that is based on sound economics.

Will it work 100% as planned; probably not.

Is that a reason to write it off before it is fully implemented; definetly not, unless you are so opposed ideologically that you are not willing to at least give it a chance.