Wow! Thanks, Obamacare!
07-23-2012, 07:13 PM
#1
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
Wow! Thanks, Obamacare!
So, as many of you know, I am one of the so-called "Job creators" that you've been hearing about lately. Among other things, this means that I pay for 100% of my own health insurance coverage.
Well, it turns out that Obama's Affordable Care Act finally did something beneficial even to a rich, fat-cat like me. As a result of the so-called 80/20 provision in the Act, I received this check in the mail today from my insurance company, a rebate on a portion of what I paid for insurance in 2011:
I gotta tell you- that 84 cents is really gonna make all the difference for me.
Well, it turns out that Obama's Affordable Care Act finally did something beneficial even to a rich, fat-cat like me. As a result of the so-called 80/20 provision in the Act, I received this check in the mail today from my insurance company, a rebate on a portion of what I paid for insurance in 2011:
I gotta tell you- that 84 cents is really gonna make all the difference for me.
Reply
0
0
07-23-2012, 10:44 PM
#7
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
On a related note, JPMorgan is our work-credit card company and they have some fucked-up policies. I had to pay out of pocket $2700 about 2.5 years ago, then when work reimbursed me, they sent it to the card. I've been trying to get that money back for almost two years but JPM has a policy where I can only get a refund after 3 billing cycles of zero activity or I can pull it down out of the ATM and pay the ATM fees.
Well, I recieved a notice that I did not pay the $6.74 bill this month and it was going to my credit if I didn't pay the bill +$15 for a rush payment. lol, I love this ----.
Well, I recieved a notice that I did not pay the $6.74 bill this month and it was going to my credit if I didn't pay the bill +$15 for a rush payment. lol, I love this ----.
Reply
0
0
07-24-2012, 07:51 PM
#8
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
two quotes from the news:
Business owners will pay $4 billion more in taxes under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) than the Congressional Budget Office had previously expected.
Around one in 10 employers in the U.S. plans to drop health coverage for workers in the next few years as the bulk of the federal health-care law begins, and more indicated they may do so over time, according to a study to be released Tuesday by consulting company Deloitte.
Reply
0
0
07-30-2012, 11:02 AM
#10
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
more quotes form the news:
The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that in less than three years the country will be almost 700,000 doctors short.
Dr. G. Richard Olds, the dean of the new medical school at the University of California, Riverside, said, “We have a shortage of every kind of doctor, except for plastic surgeons and dermatologist.”
Dustin Corcoran, the chief executive of the California Medical Association, which represents 35,000 physicians, said:
"It results in delayed care and higher levels of acuity. (People) access the health care system through the emergency department, rather than establishing a relationship with a primary care physician who might keep them from getting sicker."
"It results in delayed care and higher levels of acuity. (People) access the health care system through the emergency department, rather than establishing a relationship with a primary care physician who might keep them from getting sicker."
With the huge expansion of Medicaid patients under ObamaCare, the results could be catastrophic. Temetry Lindsey, the chief executive of Inland Behavioral & Health Services, which provides medical care to thousands of low-income residents, said,
“We know we are going to be overrun at some point.” She estimated that the number of patients would bulge from 10,000 to 25,000 residents by 2014.
“We know we are going to be overrun at some point.” She estimated that the number of patients would bulge from 10,000 to 25,000 residents by 2014.
Medicare officials predict that enrollment will grow from its present 50.7 million to 73.2 million in 2025.
And the Obama Administration will be billing you for all of this.
And the Obama Administration will be billing you for all of this.
The Times reluctantly admits: “But the provisions within the law are expected to increase the number of primary care doctors by perhaps 3,000 in the coming decade. Communities around the country need about 45,000.”
Originally Posted by HHS
“From program inception, the cost of Medicaid has generally increased at a significantly faster pace than the U.S. economy. In 1970, combined Federal and State expenditures for Medicaid represented 0.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but this percentage grew to 0.9 percent in 1980, 1.2 percent in 1990, 2.0 percent in 2000, and 2.7 percent in 2009. As illustrated by the actuarial projections in this report, Medicaid costs will almost certainly continue to increase as a share of GDP in the future under current law.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, will substantially reduce the number of people in the U.S. without health insurance. Much of this reduction will occur as a result of expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid, which we estimate will increase the number of Medicaid enrollees by about 20 million in 2019. Medicaid provides a relatively low-cost way to increase the number of people with health coverage, since its payment rates for health care services and health plans are low compared to other forms of health insurance. Even so, aggregate Medicaid costs will increase significantly as a result of the Affordable Care Act, due to the very large number of additional enrollees starting in 2014.”
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, will substantially reduce the number of people in the U.S. without health insurance. Much of this reduction will occur as a result of expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid, which we estimate will increase the number of Medicaid enrollees by about 20 million in 2019. Medicaid provides a relatively low-cost way to increase the number of people with health coverage, since its payment rates for health care services and health plans are low compared to other forms of health insurance. Even so, aggregate Medicaid costs will increase significantly as a result of the Affordable Care Act, due to the very large number of additional enrollees starting in 2014.”
Reply
0
0
07-30-2012, 11:48 AM
#12
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Gov't "regulates" by granting monopoly to AMA. Which is a barrier to entry for individuals wanting to enter medicine. Result: Fewer, more expensive doctors. Proposed solution: more regulation aka Obamacare, which will impose price controls. Result: Shortages.
Reply
0
0
07-30-2012, 07:56 PM
#15
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
While the AMA certainly wields political influence, this is by virtue of their strong lobbying organization, not by fiat. The AMA has not been granted any authority whatsoever by the "Gov't." Rather, they are essentially an amalgam of a modern professional union and an ancient trade guild.
Furthermore, the education and licensing of physicians in the US is not regulated by the federal government. This power is vested entirely within the medical boards of the individual STATES, which from what I understand is something that you're generally supportive of. The AMA does exert influence within the state medical boards, however this is entirely by virtue of their political lobbying and generally beneficial self-regulation (eg: scholarly research, general suppression of quackery, etc.)
Further-furthermore, the AMA has a long history of running at odds with the federal government. In fact, they have strongly and vocally opposed nearly every effort by the Fed to regulate the healthcare industry. They opposed Medicare during both the Eisenhower (R) and Kennedy / Truman (D) presidencies, just as they opposed AHCAA under the Obama administration.
In short, stop blaming the government for everything; it's a sad cop-out that says "I'm either too lazy or too feebleminded to think critically about important issues, so I'll just blame 'the government' for all of my woes." The Fed is no more responsible for the AMA than for the Screen Actors Guild or the Writer's Guild of America.
Reply
1
1
07-30-2012, 08:34 PM
#16
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
While the AMA certainly wields political influence, this is by virtue of their strong lobbying organization, not by fiat. The AMA has not been granted any authority whatsoever by the "Gov't." Rather, they are essentially an amalgam of a modern professional union and an ancient trade guild.
Gov't is in the protection racket.
Reply
0
0
07-30-2012, 08:39 PM
#17
---- just got real. Jason's now arguing against monopolistic practices and trying to claim the AMA is a monopoly while at the same time denying a monopoly and/or said practices can exist previously.
P.S. AMA has virtually zero government "protection", and competing organizations exist. So, in essence, you are trying to argue a free market monopoly Jason, and this is going to get GOOD to see considering the AMA has between 15 to 27 percent of the medical professionals in the US within it. Only state medical boards can license a doctor, the AMA can't and has little to do with medical professional supply. Hell, even the federal government has little to do with the supply of doctors when you compare them to the affect of state medical boards - which are regulated at a state level, not federal.
Last edited by blaen99; 07-30-2012 at 09:18 PM.
Reply
0
0
07-30-2012, 09:26 PM
#19
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
And further-further-furthermore:
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway, rounding the horn into Ritalin Bay on our way back to Topicville:
Since everybody, including Jason (especially Jason?) missed the point of this thread, here it is in convenient Reader's Digest formay:
The reason I got this check was because my insurance company (Anthem) violated the 80/20 rule (aka, the Medical Loss Ratio rule) in 2011. Put simply, this is a provision of the Affordable Heathcare Act which requires that a private insurance company must spend at least 80% of all premium revenues on actual healthcare, and may spend no more than 20% of it on administrative costs, salaries, profits, etc. If it exceeds this ratio, the balance in excess must be refunded. So, since Anthem only spent 79.99% of its revenues on healthcare, it had to refund 0.01% of revenues back to its policyholders.
Now, this is a stupid idea, and the reason why has nothing to do with the administrative cost of mailing out eighty-four cent checks.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that I am an insurance company. Furthermore, we’ll assume that I’m smart. I pick and choose my customers, and tailor premiums carefully. In 2010, I collected $1,000,000 in revenue from policy premiums, and spent only $700,000 in disbursements. I kept 30% (or $300,000) to pay my employees, distribute dividends, pay hookers to clip my toenails while I'm stoned out of my head on cough syrup and submerged up to my nostrils in a bathtub filled with Pepto-Bismol, etc.
Now, the Fed says I can’t pocket any more than 20% of premiums. Well, I sure don’t want to take a $100,000 hit in my profits (that's a lot of Pepto-Bismol), but what choice do I have?
Well, for starters, I can increase my premiums! I desire $300,000 in profits, which means I have to spend at least $1,200,000 in payments, which means that my total revenue needs to increase to $1,500,000. That’s a 50% increase! Sure, I’ll be paying out a lot more, but who cares? I’ll just massively increase my reimbursement rate. The hospitals will get richer, and I’ll stay rich. Everybody wins.
Well, everyone except for the customers. But who cares about them?
Obviously I won’t be able to do it all at once (the Fed says I can’t hike rates more than 10% at a time) buy you better believe I’ll get back to my desired bottom line, and with a little extra for my trouble and legal costs.
Reply
1
1
07-30-2012, 11:19 PM
#20
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
And further-further-further-furthermore, the AMA is a CORPORATION!
Wait a sec...
You (Jason) cannot POSSIBLY be arguing that We The People, in the form of our government, should restrict or otherwise interfere with the activities of a private corporation?
Wait a sec...
You (Jason) cannot POSSIBLY be arguing that We The People, in the form of our government, should restrict or otherwise interfere with the activities of a private corporation?
Reply
0
0
