Obamacare

[sgreger1]

So I just did the math on my current insurance situation, and this is what I found:

I would be required to pay a fine of $83.00 a month, or 1,000 a year based on my current income if I decide to go without health insurance.

Currently I pay about 98$ a check for health insurance, so $196 a month.

So I could then immediately save over $100 a month by canceling my insurance, then when I get sick and go buy insurance, I get free government money to help me pay for it again at the time of sale. So I could pay basically 83$ for my family of 3 and be legit forever???



I could stand to save thousands here.

[sgreger1]

Some funny news articles of the day:

Tea partier tries to publish home adddress of Congressman who voted for health bill, but publishes relative's address instead. Fark: he's sure it can't be wrong because he took journalism at Liberty University

The special bribes, er, deals needed to win Democratic health care votes are trickling out, and they're absolutely shameless

Rush Limbaugh 'clarifies' pledge to move to Costa Rica if health care bill passes. No word on whether there is a planned move to an oxycontinent

Good point in this article, allowing people with pre-existing conditions to get care will help currently disabled people get jobs in the future:
Health care reform may launch a new wave of entrepreneurs

Disappointed Republicans and Tea Partiers take defeat graciously, regroup to fight another day. Just kidding, they're throwing bricks through Democratic campaign office windows

Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin to the GOP on their procedural objection to "fixes" bill: STFU, GBTW

Tips on how to prepare for the time when the government takes over your medical care

The uninsured react to health care reform: "It's just going to be like Christmas." Yep. And everybody else is getting coal

Always the standard bearer of circumspect, rational conservatism, NRO calls for civil war over heathcare reform

Obama and Pelosi sounded like the parents of a girl being forced into an arranged marriage: Americans may hate Obamacare now, they'll learn to love it later

[snupy]

Realistically, the fine is so low, I don't see this happening to many people.

Exactly, which leaves us wondering why some in our society are making wild claims that one will be jailed if they don't buy insurance.

It's still got a way to go, as many states don't want this:

Twelve state attorneys general, all of whom are Republican, have already filed suits to block the health care billon the grounds that its requirement that everyone have health insurance is unconstitutional. Four state legislatures have already passed laws blocking the bill. On Wednesday, Virginia's GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell will sign the bill into the state's law, making it illegal for the federal government to require Americans to purchase health insurance.

1.The present administration isn't worried about these lawsuits.At the White House today, press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration is confident the bill will withstand legal challenge.

"I think that for many decades, the Supreme Court has recognized Congress’s authority under the commerce clause to regulate activities relating to interstate commerce," Gibbs said.

He added, "My advice from counsel is that we'll win these lawsuits."

2. They need to get some Dems on board in this lawuist, otherwise it could easily come across to a judge as mere political grandstanding and a waste of the court's time.

Already, Pelosi's approval has dropped to 11% and Reid's dropped to 8%. This is going to get ugly.

Immaterial.

Those who wish to save money by buying high deductible plans (for those who odn't goto the Dr often) or those who wish to have low limetime caps in exchange for lowert premiums are out of luck.

Those who wish to buy cars without catalytic converters are out of luck. What's your point? I do admit, however, this is one part of the bill I would like to see changed, at least as far as the high deductible plans. At the same time, I can understand why it exists. If you purchase a high deductible plan, but have no way to pay for the high deductible when you need it, then either or both of the hospital and the taxpayers get screwed again.

Investors business daily has a good piece on it (20 reason why it sucks):

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

Seriously, if you can't afford to pay $62.50 per month in your new business to cover the penalty, you might wish to look for a career in fast food. And this is coming from someone who ran one business as an independent contractor for 14 years, ran another business as an independent contractor for 3 years, and also set up a corporation for a previous boss in 6 weeks time.

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

GOOD! That's EXACTLY the section that gets rid of rationing by pre-existing conditions:

A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based on any health status-related factors (as defined in section 2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act) in relation to the individual or dependent.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

And if you could buy a policy with lifetime limits, then you get cancer, and the necessary treatment costs MORE than the lifetime limit in your policy, why should the hospital OR the taxpayers, be left footing the bill?

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

Uhh, section 2712 is titled "Prohibition on rescissions" and states NONE of the above:

"A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not rescind such plan or coverage with respect to an enrollee once the enrollee is covered under such plan or coverage involved, except that this section shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage. Such plan or coverage may not be cancelled except with prior notice to the enrollee, and only as permitted under section 2702(c) or 2742(b)."

I will not address the rest of the points in this article since the above clearly demonstrates the author of the article very obviously did not do his homework.

[snupy]

Are the Republicans FINALLY waking up and coming to their senses?

In the wake of the passage of health care reform, nearly the entire slate of Republican senatorial candidates seems ready to run on a repeal of the bill. But now, the lawmaker overseeing their election strategy is softening the message. Rather than promising to scrap the bill in its entirety, the GOP will pledge to just get rid of the more controversial parts.

In a brief chat with the Huffington Post on Tuesday, National Republican Senatorial Committee chair John Cornyn (R-Tex.) implicitly acknowledged that Republicans are content with allowing some elements of Obama's reform into law. And they'd generally ignore those elements when taking the fight to their Democrat opponents as November approaches. "

I wonder what caused them to put down the crack pipe? Did they finally realize repeal was impossible due to not having enough open seats to make repeal happen? Did they realize repeal would require presidential signature, which was NEVER going to happen? Are they finally going to quit sitting on the sidelines and whining? Isn't it a bit late for this? If they have constructive criticism to offer, shouldn't that have been done BEFORE the bill was passed?

[sgreger1]

Exactly, which leaves us wondering why some in our society are making wild claims that one will be jailed if they don't buy insurance.

Yah I doubt anyone will be jailed for this, unless they have been evading taxes for years, but nothing new there.

1.The present administration isn't worried about these lawsuits.At the White House today, press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration is confident the bill will withstand legal challenge.

"I think that for many decades, the Supreme Court has recognized Congress’s authority under the commerce clause to regulate activities relating to interstate commerce," Gibbs said.

He added, "My advice from counsel is that we'll win these lawsuits."

2. They need to get some Dems on board in this lawuist, otherwise it could easily come across to a judge as mere political grandstanding and a waste of the court's time.

Honestly I doubt any of these lawsuits will win anything. I am sure the dems figured this would happen beforehand as all big legislation always meets legal challenges. The dems have lawyers too.

Seriously, if you can't afford to pay $62.50 per month in your new business to cover the penalty, you might wish to look for a career in fast food. And this is coming from someone who ran one business as an independent contractor for 14 years, ran another business as an independent contractor for 3 years, and also set up a corporation for a previous boss in 6 weeks time.

Well the amoun would depend on your revenue. If you have more than 50 employees than your revenue is probably pretty legit, and insuring them would be expensive, and 8% isn't that high. I am wondering if big employers will choose to take the penalty over having to pay for everyone's care? I sure hope mine doesn't.

Uhh, section 2712 is titled "Prohibition on rescissions" and states NONE of the above:

I will not address the rest of the points in this article since the above clearly demonstrates the author of the article very obviously did not do his homework.

I did not reseach anything in that article, but it appears while they mis-cited the section number, what they stated was correct. You can no longer buy plans that don't include preventive care, as preventive services are now required as part of the minimum coverage, as detailed on pay 106m line 14:
(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—Subject
23 to subsection (d), the items and services described in this
24 subsection are the following:

14 (8) Preventive services, including those services
15 recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task
16 Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vac17
cines recommended for use by the Director of the
18 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


Either way i think preventive services are integral to the healthcare system and preventive care will provide a cost savings in the long run.

EDIT: I didn't put that smiley face there, the snuson software just interpreted the ( 8 ) as a smiley face lol.

[sgreger1]

Are the Republicans FINALLY waking up and coming to their senses?

In the wake of the passage of health care reform, nearly the entire slate of Republican senatorial candidates seems ready to run on a repeal of the bill. But now, the lawmaker overseeing their election strategy is softening the message. Rather than promising to scrap the bill in its entirety, the GOP will pledge to just get rid of the more controversial parts.

In a brief chat with the Huffington Post on Tuesday, National Republican Senatorial Committee chair John Cornyn (R-Tex.) implicitly acknowledged that Republicans are content with allowing some elements of Obama's reform into law. And they'd generally ignore those elements when taking the fight to their Democrat opponents as November approaches. "

I wonder what caused them to put down the crack pipe? Did they finally realize repeal was impossible due to not having enough open seats to make repeal happen? Did they realize repeal would require presidential signature, which was NEVER going to happen? Are they finally going to quit sitting on the sidelines and whining? Isn't it a bit late for this? If they have constructive criticism to offer, shouldn't that have been done BEFORE the bill was passed?

While your right about how they could never repeal it, I hate to hear people try and claim that they never offered solutions or constructive criticism. It's not like they just said no, they'r input was just no wanted. Obama even endorsed some republican ideas and said he would ask they be included in the bill, but they were not. So it's not fair to say they didn't TRY to contribute, but that doesn't abstain them from the fact they didn't do anything from 2000-20008.


What a butt-hurt republican senator up for re-election may look like:

[snupy]

Well the amoun would depend on your revenue. If you have more than 50 employees than your revenue is probably pretty legit, and insuring them would be expensive, and 8% isn't that high. I am wondering if big employers will choose to take the penalty over having to pay for everyone's care? I sure hope mine doesn't.

Health insurance for employees is an employee expense, which means there MUST be some sort of tax deductions the business can take for those expenses.

You can no longer buy plans that don't include preventive care, as preventive services are not required as part of the minimum coverage, as detailed on pay 106m line 14:
(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—Subject
23 to subsection (d), the items and services described in this
24 subsection are the following:

14 (8) Preventive services, including those services
15 recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task
16 Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vac17
cines recommended for use by the Director of the
18 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Ahhh! Do you mean to tell me our leaders actually wrote law based on the Centers for Disease Control recommendations? Funny how the article didn't mention that, but I am glad to hear our leaders are listening to the EXPERTS when writing legislation. I wonder how that will affect the 'evil witch' caricature of Nancy Pelosi.

Either way i think preventive services are integral to the healthcare system and preventive care will provide a cost savings in the long run.

Ehh, there are studies which show preventive care RAISE costs, although it varies by disease or condition and can even vary according to the age of diagnosis.

[sgreger1]

Health insurance for employees is an employee expense, which means there MUST be some sort of tax deductions the business can take for those expenses.

Employer paid premiums are generally 100% tax deductible, which is why large employers with a huge tax bill tend to offer insurance. Health insurance can also help reduce absenteeism due to illness. When your employees feel able to see a doctor when they need to, they not only stay healthier, they cost you less not only in improved productivity and less absenteeism, but also in health insurance, workers compensation claims and disability claims.

Ahhh! Do you mean to tell me our leaders actually wrote law based on the Centers for Disease Control recommendations? Funny how the article didn't mention that.

Lol, you knew it was a smear piece right off the bat. Most of what it says is true though, but the thing about them requiring you to have preventative services in your coverage seems like a no-brainer to me. Saves money in the long run. good job dems.

Ehh, there are studies which show preventive care RAISE costs, although it varies by disease or condition and can even vary according to the age of diagnosis.

It really depends on what you mean by preventative care. There are so many ways to go about it it's hard to tell.

Having someone get checked up 3x as often and getting diagnostic testing like CT scans on every visit obviousely will be more expensive. However when someone comes into the ER witha massive headache that is unbarable, instead of just giving them an aspirin, doing the CT scan may find a brain tumor in it's early stages.

There are no rules on what kind of preventive care so we will see whether this saves money or not. I still maintain that doing it right could save money, but I have a feeling they will not do it right.

[snupy]

Yeah so for a $100,000 dollar surgery with 80% coverage you will have to come up with $20,000 still. This means you will need a expensive item like a sports car, cabin or extra house to have on hand by the time you are 40 to unload quickly.

What's wrong with financing it?

[truthwolf1]

Yeah so for a $100,000 dollar surgery with 80% coverage you will have to come up with $20,000 still. This means you will need a expensive item like a sports car, cabin or extra house to have on hand by the time you are 40 to unload quickly.

What's wrong with financing it?

Absolutely nothing as long as the price is right. Prices are already inflated and guaranteed to only rise even under this current plan.

Am I missing something that existing insurance plans will have to move from shelling out 50-80 percent to being responsible for a 100?? Is that not what they call the Cadillac plan?

I have paid my share of the difference all my life so that would be A-OKAY as long as my salary kept up with the premiums.

[sgreger1]

Here's all I know:

Medical costs are so high because the existance of insurance companies artificially increases them. Since they know these companies have ot pay, they charge more. Same things happens in colleges, since they get governmetn grants, they can charge more since they know the gov will pay.

Giving everyone insurance is probably the single easiest way of making health care costs more expensive. Then couple it with the fact that people are recieving government money to buy insurance and I can guarantee that Dr's will start charging more.

They have to somehow hire the staff to cover 40 million new customers, and they know that they will all have insurance, so prices will rise. I don't see any possible way around that.

[RedMacGregor]

get an HSA, offer to pay your doctor in cash. he'll give you a deeeply discounted rate for a cash price. use your HSA debit card when paying him.

[snupy]

offer to pay your doctor in cash. he'll give you a deeeply discounted rate for a cash price.

I've done this for years. But also, take charge of your own health. Just because a doctor tells you you need a surgery that costs 5 grand, does not mean you must have surgery. Often times, there are other ways to treat a condition, that cost less money. I know, because I have done it. In the end I avoided surgery, although it did take a bit longer to solve the problem. The cost was considerably cheaper.

Additionally, don't go with what a doctor first tells you. I know a guy who's doctor wanted to put him on blood pressure meds, which were probably still under patent and thus outrageously expensive. The guy refused, and told the doctor to give him two months and he could test again. For two months the guy changed his diet and started working out. When he saw the doctor again, his blood pressure was normal and the doctor DIDN'T recommend blood pressure meds. And this is a major reason health care costs are out of control. We would rather take a pill, than make changes in our own habits, that could easily control so many health issues.

[sgreger1]

get an HSA, offer to pay your doctor in cash. he'll give you a deeeply discounted rate for a cash price. use your HSA debit card when paying him.

From what I understand this new bill is not very friendly to FSA and HSA's.

Beginning January 1, 2011:

You will no longer be able to use Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs) or Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) to pay for over-the-counter drugs not prescribed by a physician.
If you use an HSA or Archer MSA account to pay for over-the-counter drugs, they will be considered non-qualified medical expenses. Withdrawals for these non-qualified expenses will be taxed at 20% rather than the current 10% for an HSA and 15% for an Archer MSA.

The Reid bill also assaults health savings accounts, or HSAs, which allow individuals to accumulate tax-free funds for future medical expenses when coupled with low-premium, high-deductible insurance. The Reid bill changes tax provisions to make HSAs less attractive, but the real threat comes via increased regulation.

These insurance products will likely be barred from the insurance "exchanges" that will demolish and supplant today's individual market. Employers will also find them more difficult if not illegal to offer once the government has new powers to "define the essential health benefits" that all plans must eventually offer. Plans that focus mainly on catastrophic health expenses, instead of routine procedures, aren't generous enough for Democrats.

Flexible spending accounts are an important part of many employer plans. Flex accounts let employees set aside some portion of their pre-tax pay for out-of-pocket costs or medical services that their insurance plan doesn't cover, such as a child's orthodontics or testing supplies for diabetics. The Reid bill caps these now-unlimited accounts at $2,500 per year and imposes new restrictions on qualifying medical expenses, raising some $5 billion by exposing income above the non-indexed cap to taxes.

[sgreger1]

offer to pay your doctor in cash. he'll give you a deeeply discounted rate for a cash price.

I've done this for years. But also, take charge of your own health. Just because a doctor tells you you need a surgery that costs 5 grand, does not mean you must have surgery. Often times, there are other ways to treat a condition, that cost less money. I know, because I have done it. In the end I avoided surgery, although it did take a bit longer to solve the problem. The cost was considerably cheaper.

Additionally, don't go with what a doctor first tells you. I know a guy who's doctor wanted to put him on blood pressure meds, which were probably still under patent and thus outrageously expensive. The guy refused, and told the doctor to give him two months and he could test again. For two months the guy changed his diet and started working out. When he saw the doctor again, his blood pressure was normal and the doctor DIDN'T recommend blood pressure meds. And this is a major reason health care costs are out of control. We would rather take a pill, than make changes in our own habits, that could easily control so many health issues.

OMG THIS x1,000

I can't even tell you how many times this exact situation has happened to me. I don't trust any of my Dr's anymore because they are all like this. They want to put me on medication even if I say I don’t want to. If I have trouble sleeping they demands I take a sleep med that is also an anti-depressant. When I was younger I had a cough and thy diagnosed me with asthma, and said I would have to use the inhaler for life. I threw it away and went through a stint in the military JUST FINE and have never used that inhaler. For another military related thing they tried giving me anti-depressants which absolutely wrecked something in my body which now has (seemingly) permanently affected my eating patterns and other chemical processes in my body.

When you go to the Dr, 90% of the time the problem can be fixed by adjusting your daily lifestyle or exercising more, eating right. If they want to reduce healthcare costs, make Dr's stop doing this and use more conservative treatment. No oxycontin for a small injury. This is a repeated thing I see in my line of work where the Dr's will have a patient on all kind of unnecessary crap and heavy narcotics for every little thing.