News:

Welcome to week4paug.net 2.1 - same as it ever was! Most features have been restored, but please keep us posted on ANY issues you may be having HERE:  https://week4paug.net/index.php/topic,23937

Main Menu

Healthcare Content (Protest Instructions) >>>>>

Started by sophist, August 06, 2009, 09:48:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rowjimmy

My firm's health care premiums for 2012 have gone down for the first time in more than a decade.

Enjoy.

antelope19

Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 07:40:42 PM
My firm's health care premiums for 2012 have gone down for the first time in more than a decade.

Enjoy.


Congrats!


Do you know why?

It's because alot of the healthcare reform stuff has fallen off the table.  There was SO MUCH uncertainty with healthcare reform a few years back that the carriers put major premium increases to make up for the possibility(what they thought was a sure thing) of major loss on their part.  We have slowly seen a downward trend(at least in our area) in premiums over the last year with the biggest decreases seen this 3rd and fourth quarter.  The rates are finally starting to check back to what they would have been all along. 

That didn't just happen because they like you OR because of the legislation(well, technically it WAS because of the legislation, but that's only because you've been paying more than you probably should have over the last few years).  YMMV based on the size of your company, health issues, average age and underwriting guidelines in your state.   
Quote
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lotta that comes from bad judgment

rowjimmy

Quote from: antelope19 on November 16, 2011, 07:43:50 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 07:40:42 PM
My firm's health care premiums for 2012 have gone down for the first time in more than a decade.

Enjoy.


Congrats!


Do you know why?

It's because alot of the healthcare reform stuff has fallen off the table.  There was SO MUCH uncertainty with healthcare reform a few years back that the carriers put major premium increases to make up for the possibility(what they thought was a sure thing) of major loss on their part.  We have slowly seen a downward trend(at least in our area) in premiums over the last year with the biggest decreases seen this 3rd and fourth quarter.  The rates are finally starting to check back to what they would have been all along. 

That didn't just happen because they like you OR because of the legislation(well, technically it WAS because of the legislation, but that's only because you've been paying more than you probably should have over the last few years).  YMMV based on the size of your company, health issues, average age and underwriting guidelines in your state.

I actually think it's because several of the really old people (70+) finally got the hell off of our plan in the last year.

runawayjimbo

Bump'd for Supreme Court oral arguments starting tomorrow.

It should be an interesting case but lawyers suck (sorry especially bvaz) so I'm sure they'll find a way to shit the bed. I'll take "they punt on ruling on the case until 2015 when the first person pays the tax" for $1000.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-280_162-57404212/historic-review-of-healthcare-law-at-high-court/

Quote
Historic review of healthcare law at High Court

(CBS News) The stage is set for the opening on Monday: three days of historic Supreme Court arguments over President Obama's health care law, the Affordable Care Act.

It is a case that has divided the American public, and lower courts.

CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford reports that the final word could now rest with the Supreme Court.

On Friday, people started lining for a coveted spot inside the courtroom, but the justices will start the massive case Monday morning not with the big constitutional issues but with a basic legal question: Is it too soon for the courts to take up this law?

This is an issue because the key part of the law-the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes-doesn't take effect until 2014.

One federal appeals court ruled the lawsuits should wait until that actually happens. But even if the Supreme Court agrees, the justices this week will go ahead and hear all the other arguments against the law.

Tuesday is the ballgame. That's when the justices will take up the so-called "individual mandate," the controversial requirement that Americans have to buy insurance.

The question: Can Congress force people to buy something?

The opponents, including 26 states, argue Congress has no power under the Constitution to order people to buy anything-and that if the law stands, Congress will have sweeping new authority to dictate our behavior.

On Wednesday, the justices will turn to more technical though equally important questions-including: If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, does that mean the entire law is struck down?

One lower court rejected the individual mandate but said the rest of the massive law could remain, including provisions that keep insurers from dropping people with pre-existing conditions or raising premiums based on medical history.

Also on Wednesday, the court will look at how Congress expanded health care law for the poor by imposing new requirements on the states, another huge question of Congressional power. This case really has it all. That's why some legal experts say it will be the most important set of rulings since the justices reviewed FDR's New Deal programs 70 years ago.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

VDB

Well Jimbo, looks like they didn't punt. I think the semantic argument of "tax vs. penalty" is missing the point. Let's say, hypothetically, there's an unconstitutional law that someone wants to challenge in court. Why should some poor sap have to get tangled up in it before the court can step in and say, "Yup, that's unconstitutional, that guy never should have gotten tangled up in it." Seems pretty simple to me.

Interestingly, here's an economist opining that the defeat of the law (win for conservatives) would precipitate a collapse of the private-insurance industry and ultimately push us into a single-payer system (win for liberals).
Is this still Wombat?

runawayjimbo

Sounds like it. I'm very happy to have been wrong about that. And yes, it was a ridiculously arcane law that really had no business in the discussion (except that the justices hired a guy to argue it for them to make sure they had an out). The individual mandate today is the ballgame.

Regarding the link, I don't think he's saying defeat of the law would force a single payer, he's saying if only the mandate is unconstitutional the private industry is doomed (assuming they are required to continue offering guaranteed issue and community rating). That's why the severability question tomorrow is just as important as the mandate.

I did take issue when he said "pick up the tab through significantly higher health insurance premiums and government subsidies." The surcharge premium attributable to the uninsured is (I believe) around 5-10%. That's not nothing, but I don't know that "significant" would be the word that I'd use.

This caught my eye and it is something the law's defenders rarely admit:

Quote
The individual mandate in ObamaCare was just a political deal between the administration and insurance companies—the latter will get millions of new healthy policyholders and attendant profits.

Pharma's hands are all over it too. That's one of the reasons I just can't think of the law as reform.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

twatts

Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 27, 2012, 10:49:10 AM

Quote
The individual mandate in ObamaCare was just a political deal between the administration and insurance companies—the latter will get millions of new healthy policyholders and attendant profits.

Pharma's hands are all over it too. That's one of the reasons I just can't think of the law as reform.

ITs been a couple of years and since Cody has been born, I really haven't been keeping up... 

But I seem to recall the buy-in mandate being a compromise between the Admin's want of a single-payer, and the GOP's want of no gov't provider as competition to private insurers.  The compromise was the private insurers would also be the gov't provider. 

It was a crappy deal for OB, but one that was needed to get the broader deal passed... 

Terry


Oh! That! No, no, no, you're not ready to step into The Court of the Crimson King. At this stage in your training an album like that could turn you into an evil scientist.

----------------------

I want super-human will
I want better than average skill
I want a million dollar bill
And I want it all in a Pill

VDB

Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 27, 2012, 10:49:10 AM
I did take issue when he said "pick up the tab through significantly higher health insurance premiums and government subsidies." The surcharge premium attributable to the uninsured is (I believe) around 5-10%. That's not nothing, but I don't know that "significant" would be the word that I'd use.

I'd say 5-10% of total healthcare spending would count as "significant." And, just based on the anecdotes I hear of what medivac trips and hospital stays and procedures cost for some people, I'd say that percentage is a significant sum for them as well. I don't know what the answer is, but somehow or another, the costs of caring for the uninsured have to be addressed. Ironically, the people who would be most against a government-run, taxpayer-funded system for caring for (everyone, or at least the poor) are also the most vocal critics of the current plan, which attempts to reduce the burden of subsidizing care for the uninsured by the insured. One way or another, we are all paying for it. Aside from the personal liberty issue, you'd think conservatives would be all about the individual mandate, since it aims to stop all those "freeloaders" from mooching off their premiums.*


Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 27, 2012, 10:54:22 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 27, 2012, 10:49:10 AM

Quote
The individual mandate in ObamaCare was just a political deal between the administration and insurance companies—the latter will get millions of new healthy policyholders and attendant profits.

Pharma's hands are all over it too. That's one of the reasons I just can't think of the law as reform.

ITs been a couple of years and since Cody has been born, I really haven't been keeping up... 

But I seem to recall the buy-in mandate being a compromise between the Admin's want of a single-payer, and the GOP's want of no gov't provider as competition to private insurers.  The compromise was the private insurers would also be the gov't provider. 

It was a crappy deal for OB, but one that was needed to get the broader deal passed... 

Terry




I could be wrong here but I would doubt this was a compromise with the GOP since they oppose the plan anyway and they were such a minority in congress at the time that their votes weren't needed to pass the legislation.

Obama probably figured he'd have less resistance working within the private-insurance system rather than blowing it up and going single payer. And yes, I'd assume pressure from the insurance industry itself had a role there.



* I forgot, they already have an answer for that.
Is this still Wombat?

runawayjimbo

Quote from: twatts likes ghoti on March 27, 2012, 10:54:22 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on March 27, 2012, 10:49:10 AM

Quote
The individual mandate in ObamaCare was just a political deal between the administration and insurance companies—the latter will get millions of new healthy policyholders and attendant profits.

Pharma's hands are all over it too. That's one of the reasons I just can't think of the law as reform.

ITs been a couple of years and since Cody has been born, I really haven't been keeping up... 

But I seem to recall the buy-in mandate being a compromise between the Admin's want of a single-payer, and the GOP's want of no gov't provider as competition to private insurers.  The compromise was the private insurers would also be the gov't provider. 

It was a crappy deal for OB, but one that was needed to get the broader deal passed... 

I don't think Obama ever pushed for single payer (even during the Campaign of Promises). It was certainly never on the table during the healthcare discussions. There was the dustup about whether or not to include the public option, but not single payer.

During the debate they put in that insurers could not exclude for pre-existing conditions (or for any other reason) and that you can't underwrite your insureds and charge different prices for different risk factors. It's not to say that these aren't laudable goals that seem "fair", but the health insurers said (like VDB's link suggested) that forcing these regulations alone would lead to severe unprofitability and the marketplace would be very quickly crowded out by Medicare on steroids. So, in order to appease the health insurance companies, the administration had to deliver 50M new subscribers which are generally younger and healthier than the national average. Thus, the mandate was born (there were some clips floating around of Obama attacking Hillary and John Edwards (remember him?) for supporting a mandate which was pretty goddamned hilarious to watch now).

And to be clear, this wasn't a compromise brought about by the pesky GOP refusing to go along with everything Obama does. It was brought about by Obama's refusal to challenge the system and bring about the change he so believed in. Don't want to tackle employer based health care, fine. Then fight for single payer. I don't agree with it, but at least it is a substantive change. This whole process just became a big shady backroom deal that Obama was supposed to represent the end of (remember the Louisiana Purchase? Cornhusker Kicback?). Yes, I know that's idealistic. It just fucking sucks to expect so little of the people we elect to represent us.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

DoW

Music is meant to be heard
***Support Bands That Allow Taping/Trading***

http://archive.org/search.php?query=taper%3A%22Brian%20V.%22&sort=-publicdate

runawayjimbo

Sounds like it was a bad day for the mandate.

Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

sunrisevt

Funny thing is, while there's a legitimate constitutional objection to the individual mandate, a single-payer national system would face no such challenge. (It would face other challenges, sure--but not that one.)
Quote from: Eleanor MarsailI love you, daddy. Actually, I love all the people. Even the ones who I don't know their name.

sls.stormyrider

#312
imo the debate over single payer would make this look like a birthday party.
None of the candidates in 08 were for single payer (maybe Edwards, but I doubt it)

I get the argument "the govt shouldn't be able to make me buy insurance" but you WILL get sick and require health care at some point in your life, unless you die suddenly. Health care providers are required by law (and ethics) to treat everyone, regardless of ability to pay. People who use the system but don't pay in raise the cost of health care for everyone. People who delay treatment because they can't afford it only wind up getting sicker and costing the system more money.
The "interstate commerce" argument may seem like a copout, but hospitals in MA side of the  MA - NH border (MA has Romneycare, just about the same thing as Obamacare) are getting stuck with people from NH w/o insurance. We all travel across state lines and sometimes need to utilize the health care system. Some people are employed by a company in a different state.

to me, the individual mandate makes "common sense". If health insurers had to cover everyone and not exlude pts with pre existing conditions (they applied it to neonates with congenital disease), premiums would skyrocket unless everyone had to buy in. I don't care about the insurance companies, it would cost all of us a ton more $ in premiums if there wasn't a mandate.
ETA: regardless of whether we had employer based care, non employer based care, or single payer, the only way to make it affordable is for the requirement that everyone purchase insurance

As far as Obama's compromise, the main one he made was the public option. There were other compromises, but the bottom line here is that upwards of 96% of US citizens are covered by this, which is a substantial improvement over the situation as of 2009.

btw, if you ever were able to make a significant business deal w/o a compromise, you either were negotiating with a fool who gave you everything, you were a fool who gave everything, both of you had your interests almost perfectly aligned, or one of you had incredible power over the other.
"toss away stuff you don't need in the end
but keep what's important, and know who's your friend"
"It's a 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses."

aphineday

Quote from: slslbs on March 27, 2012, 01:07:17 PM
imo the debate over single payer would make this look like a birthday party.
None of the candidates in 08 were for single payer (maybe Edwards, but I doubt it)

I get the argument "the govt shouldn't be able to make me buy insurance" but you WILL get sick and require health care at some point in your life, unless you die suddenly. Health care providers are required by law (and ethics) to treat everyone, regardless of ability to pay. People who use the system but don't pay in raise the cost of health care for everyone. People who delay treatment because they can't afford it only wind up getting sicker and costing the system more money.
The "interstate commerce" argument may seem like a copout, but hospitals in MA side of the  MA - NH border (MA has Romneycare, just about the same thing as Obamacare) are getting stuck with people from NH w/o insurance. We all travel across state lines and sometimes need to utilize the health care system. Some people are employed by a company in a different state.

to me, the individual mandate makes "common sense". If health insurers had to cover everyone and not exlude pts with pre existing conditions (they applied it to neonates with congenital disease), premiums would skyrocket unless everyone had to buy in. I don't care about the insurance companies, it would cost all of us a ton more $ in premiums if there wasn't a mandate.

As far as Obama's compromise, the main one he made was the public option. There were other compromises, but the bottom line here is that upwards of 96% of US citizens are covered by this, which is a substantial improvement over the situation as of 2009.

btw, if you ever were able to make a significant business deal w/o a compromise, you either were negotiating with a fool who gave you everything, you were a fool who gave everything, both of you had your interests almost perfectly aligned, or one of you had incredible power over the other.
Well said. Exactly what I've been trying to figure out how to put into words. It helps that you live out that way, and have more first-hand experience, but thanks for finding a way to say what I was thinking!
If we could see these many waves that flow through clouds and sunken caves...

runawayjimbo

Doesn't sound like it went much better for ObamaCare from this morning's arguments about whether or not the law can exist without the mandate.

Quote
Jeffrey Toobin ‏ @JeffreyToobin
At #scotus, still a train wreck, maybe also a plane wreck for @barackobama.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story

Quote
Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law

Reporting from Washington— The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama's healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court's conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a "wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be "extraordinary" for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents' insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, "2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls," said Edwin Kneedler.

The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.

But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.

The justices are scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to debate the law's Medicaid expansion.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.