Wow! Thanks, Obamacare!
01-22-2013, 12:27 PM
#101
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
No one thought it would be different; that's the point. Obamacare is going to destory the entire industry so everyone HAS to buy into a single payer system--this was the whole plan to begin with.
Reply
1
1
01-22-2013, 12:29 PM
#102
Elite Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,593
Total Cats: 1,259
The article talks about "unintended consequences". However, those of us arguing against it saw this coming. We were shouted down. After all, who doesn't want free healthcare?
Morons getting exactly what they voted for. No sympathy.
Morons getting exactly what they voted for. No sympathy.
Reply
0
0
01-22-2013, 01:04 PM
#103
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,023
Total Cats: 6,591
Being self-employed, I pay for my own health insurance through Anthem / Blue Cross. I am in plan code 040, which is a PPO plan with prescription coverage, "ClearProtection Plus 3500." My annual deductable is $3,500, my annual out-of-pocket maximum is $3,500, and my monthly premium is $117, if I recall correctly.
This has not changed, in either direction, since the enactment of the affordable care act. The only way that law has affected me in any way is the 84 cent check that started this thread.
TL;DR: I hear a lot of conspiracy theories, a lot of whining about how this is going to "ruin healthcare" and "bankrupt everyone." And yet as one of the few people around here who is actually responsible for 100% of his own healthcare coverage, I have seen absolutely zero change.
Mind explaining to me, in greater detail, what the big deal is?
Reply
0
0
01-22-2013, 01:08 PM
#104
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
This laws are to change how large companies providing large quantities of employees coverage works. It's not about you paying your own way. Eventually when the rest topples, the gov't will be forced to "fix" the problem they crated by establishing a signle payer system that youll ultiamately have to join.
give it a few years, give it ten years, i dunno, but when the masterplan has completed, and everything sucks, we'll talk about it again then.
Reply
0
0
01-29-2013, 10:10 PM
#109
Elite Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,642
Total Cats: 36
Here's my data point:
I get 'Memos of Understanding' any time I get a raise and also when I started in my job. I have received two modest raises and a bump in hours in my 3 yearsish, mostly because I work with some high quality human beings who seem to tolerate my BS exceedingly well.
But I digress.
These Memos outline more or less what it costs them to employ me. This includes the cost of my health insurance. My coverage has not changed during my employment. I have gotten two checkups, and had no issues at all with my health. I have run a marathon with my coworkers if that maters.
Reported 12-31-10
FY 2010 (Estimate, I started during 2010) - $3228
FY 2011 (Estimate) - $3298
Reported 10-1-12
FY 2011 - 3306 - So pretty close to the estimate on 12-31-10
FY 2012 - 3859 (estimate, but made in October 2012)
Reported 1-1-13
FY 2013 - 4552 (Estimate, keep in mind.)
So where's the savings?
I get that I'm working on estimates here, but that's one hell of a trend line.
Obamacare is not going to destroy private insurance. Its going make the ******* rich. It's the essence of crappy Republican thinking, not socialism. That's the problem and also my point. Boohoo, they must spend 80% on actual care. First off, good luck with prosecutions on that rule. Secondly, they can always just charge more to make the other 20% bigger. And don't spout the whole 'competition' line either. The investors will go to the company that can project big profits. And once a real oligopoly forms (and it will, just like with cars and mobile phones) they don't have to worry about being usurped by some upstart, regardless of an opened up market. They can just buy them out anyway, using the massive capital they already have combined with capital from investors who see a sure thing.
Again, that's just me. But speaking for me, this is pretty much why I hate both parties. A democrat is going to impose one of the worst republican ideas I have ever seen.
I get 'Memos of Understanding' any time I get a raise and also when I started in my job. I have received two modest raises and a bump in hours in my 3 yearsish, mostly because I work with some high quality human beings who seem to tolerate my BS exceedingly well.
But I digress.
These Memos outline more or less what it costs them to employ me. This includes the cost of my health insurance. My coverage has not changed during my employment. I have gotten two checkups, and had no issues at all with my health. I have run a marathon with my coworkers if that maters.
Reported 12-31-10
FY 2010 (Estimate, I started during 2010) - $3228
FY 2011 (Estimate) - $3298
Reported 10-1-12
FY 2011 - 3306 - So pretty close to the estimate on 12-31-10
FY 2012 - 3859 (estimate, but made in October 2012)
Reported 1-1-13
FY 2013 - 4552 (Estimate, keep in mind.)
So where's the savings?
I get that I'm working on estimates here, but that's one hell of a trend line.
Obamacare is not going to destroy private insurance. Its going make the ******* rich. It's the essence of crappy Republican thinking, not socialism. That's the problem and also my point. Boohoo, they must spend 80% on actual care. First off, good luck with prosecutions on that rule. Secondly, they can always just charge more to make the other 20% bigger. And don't spout the whole 'competition' line either. The investors will go to the company that can project big profits. And once a real oligopoly forms (and it will, just like with cars and mobile phones) they don't have to worry about being usurped by some upstart, regardless of an opened up market. They can just buy them out anyway, using the massive capital they already have combined with capital from investors who see a sure thing.
Again, that's just me. But speaking for me, this is pretty much why I hate both parties. A democrat is going to impose one of the worst republican ideas I have ever seen.
Reply
0
0
01-29-2013, 10:46 PM
#110
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,023
Total Cats: 6,591
Obamacare is not going to destroy private insurance. Its going make the ******* rich. It's the essence of crappy Republican thinking, not socialism. That's the problem and also my point. Boohoo, they must spend 80% on actual care. First off, good luck with prosecutions on that rule. Secondly, they can always just charge more to make the other 20% bigger.
... which is pretty much where we started, back on page 1 of this thread:
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.
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
0
0
01-30-2013, 08:33 AM
#111
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
It is a perfect example of the Mitchell's Law: Bad Government Policy Begets More Bad Government
Romneycare was simply a response to the federally mandated law: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, passed in 1986. A federally passed law that put all the burdens on the state.
It's not a horrible law when you think of it--MA hospitals could not afford to provide all the free service any longer, and the state was suffering due to a mandate by the gov't into the ecomonies of states, so the response was to require all their citizens to have health insurance. The end. It's as simple as that.
It's like a 2-page state bill at most. It's not a 2,700 page tax code for the IRS.
The only similarities between obamacare and romneycare is that they have the word "care" in them.
Last edited by Braineack; 01-30-2013 at 08:46 AM.
Reply
0
0
01-30-2013, 08:38 AM
#112
The Oligopoly already exists. They call themselves the AMA. They are a government supported Oligopoly. Whenever the AMA wants more money, they simply put a death threat on your head, and voila, you pay them more money. You can't stop this Oligopoly because the politicians who force it to remain the Oligopoly in power are worried about death threats too. When is the last time these death threats were reported to the executive branch? I would suggest that it's probably never happened.
Reply
1
1
01-31-2013, 12:00 PM
#114
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Detroit (the part with no rules or laws)
Posts: 5,677
Total Cats: 800
No one is talking about this in here??
What are these medical devices?
Pelosi, Feinstein ,and Reid should be tried for treason.
An Infowars reader sent along an image of a sales receipt from Cabela’s, a popular sporting goods store.
The receipt (pictured at left) spells out what Obama and the feds want to keep secret – the middle class is being heavily taxed despite all the fatuous rhetoric of Democrats who invariably play the class warfare card to sell their confiscatory taxation policies.
“The 2.3% Medical Excise Tax that began on January 1st is supposed to be ‘hidden’ from the consumer, but it’s been brought to the public’s attention by hunting and fishing store Cabela’s who have refused to hide it and are showing it as a separate line item tax on their receipts,” the email states.
The receipt (pictured at left) spells out what Obama and the feds want to keep secret – the middle class is being heavily taxed despite all the fatuous rhetoric of Democrats who invariably play the class warfare card to sell their confiscatory taxation policies.
“The 2.3% Medical Excise Tax that began on January 1st is supposed to be ‘hidden’ from the consumer, but it’s been brought to the public’s attention by hunting and fishing store Cabela’s who have refused to hide it and are showing it as a separate line item tax on their receipts,” the email states.
Q1. What is the medical device excise tax?
A1. Section 4191 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes an excise tax on the sale of certain medical devices by the manufacturer or importer of the device.
Q2. When does the tax go into effect?
A2. The tax applies to sales of taxable medical devices after Dec. 31, 2012.
Q3. How much is the tax?
A3. The tax is 2.3 percent of the sale price of the taxable medical device. See Chapter 5 of IRS Publication 510, Excise Taxes, and Notice 2012-77 for additional information on the determination of sale price.
A1. Section 4191 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes an excise tax on the sale of certain medical devices by the manufacturer or importer of the device.
Q2. When does the tax go into effect?
A2. The tax applies to sales of taxable medical devices after Dec. 31, 2012.
Q3. How much is the tax?
A3. The tax is 2.3 percent of the sale price of the taxable medical device. See Chapter 5 of IRS Publication 510, Excise Taxes, and Notice 2012-77 for additional information on the determination of sale price.
What are these medical devices?
Manufacturers Taxes
The following discussion of manufacturers taxes applies to the tax on:
Sport fishing equipment;
Fishing rods and fishing poles;
Electric outboard motors;
Fishing tackle boxes;
Bows, quivers, broadheads, and points;
Arrow shafts;
Coal;
Taxable tires;
Gas guzzler automobiles; and
Vaccines.
The following discussion of manufacturers taxes applies to the tax on:
Sport fishing equipment;
Fishing rods and fishing poles;
Electric outboard motors;
Fishing tackle boxes;
Bows, quivers, broadheads, and points;
Arrow shafts;
Coal;
Taxable tires;
Gas guzzler automobiles; and
Vaccines.
Pelosi, Feinstein ,and Reid should be tried for treason.
Reply
0
0
02-11-2013, 10:04 AM
#120
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
State lacks doctors to meet demand of national healthcare law - latimes.com
derp:
derp:
"We're going to be mandating that every single person in this state have insurance," said state Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina), chairman of the Senate Health Committee and leader of the effort to expand professional boundaries. "What good is it if they are going to have a health insurance card but no access to doctors?"
Reply
0
0
