Healthcare Hypocricy?

[Smooth007]

The major changes in the law will be implemented in 2014. The premise behind lowering premiums is due to increased competition and the SHOP exchanges. Why would you expect the current rates to drop (or remain steady) when exchanges have not been developed?

No need for anecdotal evidence, factually premiums are rising steadily due to our current crappy system. Nothing to do with the Health Care reform act.

Isn't this modled after what they did in MA? Costs continue to rise there, why am I to believe that if done on an even larger scale it'll change?

There is no evidence to suggest that this is better than our current system and all evidence suggest health care costs will rise. At what rate, nobody knows. I hope that it will be better than our current system but have doubts. It is very possible that if we have a new president in 2013 most of the provisions in the law will be revoked. Even so, I can't factually judge the new system until some far away date like 2016.

[RoyalShock]

The major changes in the law will be implemented in 2014. The premise behind lowering premiums is due to increased competition and the SHOP exchanges. Why would you expect the current rates to drop (or remain steady) when exchanges have not been developed?

No need for anecdotal evidence, factually premiums are rising steadily due to our current crappy system. Nothing to do with the Health Care reform act.

The ballpark numbers I heard was a family premium going up nearly 75% in once case and co-pays increasing 200% (that's triple!) in another case.

If true, that's far more than the usual annual increases we've become accustomed to.

And while the plan doesn't start paying out benefits until 2014, doesn't the mandate begin sooner than that?

[SB Shock]

The major changes in the law will be implemented in 2014. The premise behind lowering premiums is due to increased competition and the SHOP exchanges. Why would you expect the current rates to drop (or remain steady) when exchanges have not been developed?

No need for anecdotal evidence, factually premiums are rising steadily due to our current crappy system. Nothing to do with the Health Care reform act.

Isn't this modled after what they did in MA? Costs continue to rise there, why am I to believe that if done on an even larger scale it'll change?

There is no evidence to suggest that this is better than our current system and all evidence suggest health care costs will rise. At what rate, nobody knows. I hope that it will be better than our current system but have doubts. It is very possible that if we have a new president in 2013 most of the provisions in the law will be revoked. Even so, I can't factually judge the new system until some far away date like 2016.

Your probably right since it is clear nobody has figured out all the ramifications yet.

We need to pass this bill to see what's in it. -- Nancy Pelosi

But I don't really think we have to wait to 2016 to figure this out. Just look at what the democrats are really saying (at least among their allies).

There is a presentation by FamiliesUSA (an advocate for the health care bill) and Herndon Alliance (associated with labor) and some democratic pollsters and they have put together a strategy and talking points for going out and changing public opinion in support of health care reform

The presentation's final page of "Don'ts" counsels against claiming "the law will reduce costs and [the] deficit."

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_pp.html

So if the democrats are saying this...well come to your own conclusion.

[Maggie]

The major changes in the law will be implemented in 2014. The premise behind lowering premiums is due to increased competition and the SHOP exchanges. Why would you expect the current rates to drop (or remain steady) when exchanges have not been developed?

No need for anecdotal evidence, factually premiums are rising steadily due to our current crappy system. Nothing to do with the Health Care reform act.

A couple of minor points:

If you what you are saying is truly defensible, then why won’t Democrats who voted for this legislation simply say so? Why attempt to shift the focus away from costs savings, etc.?

Also, in terms of over all costs – I don’t think the CBO agrees with you. Under the current legislation I believe the CBO estimated the cost from 2014-2024 or so to be well over two trillion dollars. So what they are saying, in effect, is the legislation won’t cut costs nor will it help reduce the deficit: Two of the major selling points of this legislation.

As for the “exchanges” – I think you need to focus on how this will actually play out in reality before you necessarily conclude the set up will foster the type of competition you appear to think it will.

Also, didn’t your former Governor step in and implement a portion of this law immediately? I am thinking about the provision forbidding insurance companies from refusing to cover children if they have a pre-existing condition (if I recall correctly her action was necessary because our “betters” in Washington didn’t include a time trigger for this provision – I guess that is what happens when you pass a 2,500 page bill no one bothers to read). Whether you agree with the provision or not – don’t you think this would have an impact on premium rates?

[Smooth007]

The major changes in the law will be implemented in 2014. The premise behind lowering premiums is due to increased competition and the SHOP exchanges. Why would you expect the current rates to drop (or remain steady) when exchanges have not been developed?

No need for anecdotal evidence, factually premiums are rising steadily due to our current crappy system. Nothing to do with the Health Care reform act.

The ballpark numbers I heard was a family premium going up nearly 75% in once case and co-pays increasing 200% (that's triple!) in another case.

If true, that's far more than the usual annual increases we've become accustomed to.

And while the plan doesn't start paying out benefits until 2014, doesn't the mandate begin sooner than that?

Those are crazy scary numbers if true. I really feel for the families that work for the company.

The act specifies a layering of implementation by years. Some items started in 2010 (small business credit, adoption credit, change in dependent coverage age to 26 and pre-existing conditions limitation for children change) Some items start in 2011 (increased reporting requirements, increased medicare payroll tax - wages over $250,000, increased tax on investment income). However, 2014 is the key implementation year for SHOP exchanges, penalties to businesses and fines to uninsured Americans).

[ISASO]

The Administration is defending its Constitutionality, now declaring that IT IS A TAX.

Everyone who sponsored this or voted for this should be immediately removed from office.

[SubGod22]

I've also heard a number of businesses will save money by simply dropping coverage and paying the fine and leaving the employees to rely on the wonderful care of the gov't.

I've heard many younger people will be better off by refusing coverage and paying the fine as well, then since insurance companies will have to start taking everybody they can sign up when they need it. I haven't checked into that but have heard it a number of times from multiple sources over the past month or two.

The best way for costs to come down would have been to promote real competition. But as per usual, the gov't thinks they know how to take care of us (even though that's not thier job) and will only make things worse. Hopefully this whole thing get repealed or enough Republicans can get into office to at least prevent funding for all of this to take place and save the people/tax payers a lot of money and headaches.

[Smooth007]

I've also heard a number of businesses will save money by simply dropping coverage and paying the fine and leaving the employees to rely on the wonderful care of the gov't.

I've heard many younger people will be better off by refusing coverage and paying the fine as well, then since insurance companies will have to start taking everybody they can sign up when they need it. I haven't checked into that but have heard it a number of times from multiple sources over the past month or two.

The best way for costs to come down would have been to promote real competition. But as per usual, the gov't thinks they know how to take care of us (even though that's not thier job) and will only make things worse. Hopefully this whole thing get repealed or enough Republicans can get into office to at least prevent funding for all of this to take place and save the people/tax payers a lot of money and headaches.

1)The first paragraph is obviously true. On average my company pays $14,000/year/per person for insurance benefits. I can assure you that a $2,000 penalty/per person/per year and a $5,000 raise per person will look appealing to many businesses. That is why they will have to increase the fine for the legislation to have a chance to work.

2) The second paragraph is generally true also. Younger people are generally healthy and don't use major medical like others do. Even so, get sick without major medical and it can ruin your life. The penalty would start at $95/mo and rise up to 2.5% of earnings by 2016.

3) Promoting competition is the best solution and allowing interstate insurance competition is definately a positive step with this legislation. I don't know what the answer is, but the current system is broken.

[SubGod22]

I disagree about the current system being broken. It could definitely be improved, but the gov't taking over like they are is not the way to do it. Interstate competition would do much more on it's own than what the Dems have cooked up and forced upon us.

[Smooth007]

If you what you are saying is truly defensible, then why won’t Democrats who voted for this legislation simply say so? Why attempt to shift the focus away from costs savings, etc.?

I can't tell you why other people do what they do. Honestly, I think all politicians care about are their special interests that pay the bills and allow them to be re-elected.

Also, in terms of over all costs – I don’t think the CBO agrees with you. Under the current legislation I believe the CBO estimated the cost from 2014-2024 or so to be well over two trillion dollars. So what they are saying, in effect, is the legislation won’t cut costs nor will it help reduce the deficit: Two of the major selling points of this legislation.

The slow-down of costs refers to Congressional Budget Office released estimate. Not total costs but US health spending as a % of GDP. In 2010 they estimate 17.7% of GDP is spent on health care and will rise to 21% by 2020. They project a 1.5% slowdown (ie. 19.5% of GDP) under the legislation. Under the Nixon, Carter and Clinton plans they projected the same slow-down had they been successful.

As for the “exchanges” – I think you need to focus on how this will actually play out in reality before you necessarily conclude the set up will foster the type of competition you appear to think it will.

I don't know how the exchanges will play out and I don't believe you do either.

Also, didn’t your former Governor step in and implement a portion of this law immediately? I am thinking about the provision forbidding insurance companies from refusing to cover children if they have a pre-existing condition (if I recall correctly her action was necessary because our “betters” in Washington didn’t include a time trigger for this provision – I guess that is what happens when you pass a 2,500 page bill no one bothers to read). Whether you agree with the provision or not – don’t you think this would have an impact on premium rates?

Pre-existing condition clauses will drastically increase premium rates. Less than 1% of the population causes 50% of the costs. Even so, we are already paying that bill like it or not. In Colorado, they have a no pre-existing clause rule and on average their premiums are 60% higher based on another class I took.

[Maggie]

Smooth – I don’t have time to respond to you today, this weekend, or in all likelihood next week – unfortunately work has me traveling quite a bit over the next ten days. Perhaps someone else can step in – there are a lot of bright people that post.

In any event, I will try, if you like, because it appears that you, unlike many, have actually taken the time to attempt suss out all this mess – and it is a complicated mess. And you should be commended for doing so and thank you for posting.

And no, I don’t know everything but at least I am willing to admit it.

One thing I know we agree on is that the system, prior to this legislation, was not ideal. I have posted numerous times regarding this issue. The real question is what is to be done – this legislation solves none of the big problems. Period. QED.

It was never, for the leaders of the Congressional branch, about quality health care but more about control and power.

As an aside, I think we should attempt to address the merits rather than the politics.

[1979Shocker]

I thought this thread was a good place to put this.

Twenty two Kansas businesses and unions are among the first group accepted into a federal program that will help these entities provide health insurance coverage for early retirees.

Wichita-based Koch Industries Inc. is on the list as are others with local ties, such as Westar Energy, Waddell & Reed Inc. and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas Inc.

Created by the federal health care law, the program serves as a bridge to 2014 when health insurance exchanges will be formed. The early retiree initiative provides $5 billion in federal aid to employers and unions to help them maintain coverage for people age 55 and older who are not yet eligible for Medicare.

Read more: Wichita’s Koch Industries approved for federal early retiree program - Wichita Business Journal

[WuDrWu]

What is your point?


It is a smear tactic by the left, and specifically the newspaper, to intimidate the Kochs who happen to be sworn enemies of Obama.


If you have a point, make it, otherwise this is a NON story.

[1979Shocker]

What is your point?


It is a smear tactic by the left, and specifically the newspaper, to intimidate the Kochs who happen to be sworn enemies of Obama.


If you have a point, make it, otherwise this is a NON story.

I don't know if it's a smear by the left or what. The paper only mentioned 22 Kansas companies that had applied for the funds, Koch Industries being one of them.

My point was that I put it in this thread because the title was "Healthcare Hypocricy?" and the Kochs were spending all this money against the healthcare reform (also known as Obamacare) and now have applied for and been approved for what they are against. I thought that was pretty clear.

[SubGod22]

Why am I not surprised..... GAO Finds Sebelius Misleading Taxpayers on Health Reform

In fact, according to the GAO, the brochure, which cost $18 million in taxpayer dollars to publish and emanated from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, presented a view of the health reform law that is “not universally shared,” that it “overstated the benefits” of health reform,” and that it failed to note the possibility of less generous Medicare benefits and higher costs.