Raising Costs, Fewer Options

• Higher Premiums: Requiring insurance plans to have certain benefits
inevitably raises the cost of providing insurance, which is passed
onto policyholders. Regence Blue Cross/Blue Shield in Oregon cited
Obamacare for 3.4% of its 17.1% rate increase, while Celtic Insurance
Company of Wisconsin and North Carolina said half of its 18% rate jump
was because of Obamacare mandates.

• Dropped Child-Only Plans: Obamacare’s requirement that insurers who
sell child-only plans offer coverage without considering pre-existing
conditions had unintended consequences. Insurers in at least 34 states
have dropped child-only insurance plans, and 20 states no longer have
child-only plans sold in their insurance marketplaces.

• Will I Get to Keep My Plan? Despite assurances that health insurance
plans wouldn’t change, there have been several reports of confusion and
inconsistent rulings regarding the “grandfathering” status for current
health plans. The federal government has enormous power to arbitrarily
select policies it deems in violation of the law. So far, the Administration
has estimated that anywhere from half to 80% of small-employer plans,
up to 67% of large-employer plans, and up to 67% of individual plans
won’t be grandfathered in by the end of 2013.

Waivers, Waivers, Waivers

• A Rash of Waivers: Federal regulations on mini-med plans, which offer limited annual health benefits, resulted in a multitude of companies, unions, and organizations seeking waivers. These allow employers to opt out of the provision that they offer health plans with “essential benefits” that don’t have annual limits on coverage. To date, more than 1,000 waivers have been granted—the largest going to the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a public-sector union with 351,000 enrollees.

• And More Waivers: Many state insurance commissioners have also applied for waivers to opt their states out of the medical-loss-ratio requirement. This dictates to insurers how much of their premiums must be used to pay out claims and make quality improvements. The rule is expected to reduce the oversight work that insurers do to prevent fraud and abuse from occurring. Plus, the medical-loss-ratio requirement could further destabilize the market, driving insurers out of the small-group and individual markets.

A Shell Game

• More Bailouts: More than 5,000 plan sponsors were approved to receive federal funds to provide early-retiree benefits to workers. Of the total $535 million paid out to date, almost $300 million has gone to government plans, with a union health benefit program getting the largest allotment of $58 million. This is one more program that shifts costs of unsustainable promises onto federal taxpayers.
• Unpopular High-Risk Pools: Prior to Obamacare’s passage, 35 states had high-risk pools. Obamacare pushed states to create new high-risk pools, which the Administration expected would enroll 375,000 Americans by the end of 2010. But as of February, approximately 12,500 people (a scant 3% of that estimate) had signed up for coverage.

Quote:Waivers, Waivers, Waivers

• A Rash of Waivers: Federal regulations on mini-med plans, which offer limited annual health benefits, resulted in a multitude of companies, unions, and organizations seeking waivers. These allow employers to opt out of the provision that they offer health plans with “essential benefits” that don’t have annual limits on coverage. To date, more than 1,000 waivers have been granted—the largest going to the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a public-sector union with 351,000 enrollees.

• And More Waivers: Many state insurance commissioners have also applied for waivers to opt their states out of the medical-loss-ratio requirement. This dictates to insurers how much of their premiums must be used to pay out claims and make quality improvements. The rule is expected to reduce the oversight work that insurers do to prevent fraud and abuse from occurring. Plus, the medical-loss-ratio requirement could further destabilize the market, driving insurers out of the small-group and individual markets.

The waiver are what get me. Just another example of the special club for me, but not for thee.....

(11-11-2011 11:50 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:Waivers, Waivers, Waivers

• A Rash of Waivers: Federal regulations on mini-med plans, which offer limited annual health benefits, resulted in a multitude of companies, unions, and organizations seeking waivers. These allow employers to opt out of the provision that they offer health plans with “essential benefits” that don’t have annual limits on coverage. To date, more than 1,000 waivers have been granted—the largest going to the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a public-sector union with 351,000 enrollees.

• And More Waivers: Many state insurance commissioners have also applied for waivers to opt their states out of the medical-loss-ratio requirement. This dictates to insurers how much of their premiums must be used to pay out claims and make quality improvements. The rule is expected to reduce the oversight work that insurers do to prevent fraud and abuse from occurring. Plus, the medical-loss-ratio requirement could further destabilize the market, driving insurers out of the small-group and individual markets.

The waiver are what get me. Just another example of the special club for me, but not for thee.....

I really only posted this thread so people would see my new signature. I think its pretty funny. I saw a lone protester today while out to lunch in Charlotte with my wife. He was wearing a sandwich board that I couldn't read and his mouth was duct taped shut. And people think the Tea Party were loons...

How about it is unconstitutional

(11-11-2011 01:48 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  How about it is unconstitutional

No? Say it isn't so! Do you mean the Government doesn't have the right to require me to purchase health insurance? Have you lost your mind?! When they are the sole provider will they require me to purchase brocoli, spinach and other vegetables to keep my BMI in check? I guess the nationalized healthcare loons haven't really thought that through? What if they require poor people like RobertN to puchase electric cars and if they can't afford one they are forced to ride the bus? Anyone else care to throw out a few examples of what the government could make us buy?

Car insurance

Not true
If you don't drive, you don't need insurance
If you do, you only need to protect others from the risk you represent to a very limited amount. You don't need to insure yourself, and certainly not unlimited coverage

Why stop with mandatory insurance? Why not eliminate everything that could cause injury or illness and let us all live longer and spend less money?

(11-11-2011 10:24 PM)Elite Coalition of Ignorance Wrote:  Car insurance

1) State Government
2) You are not required to buy a car, you are required to breath

(11-11-2011 10:24 PM)Elite Coalition of Ignorance Wrote:  Car insurance

Nice try. I think others on here have already responded well enough to make this comment look silly.

It should be repealed not because of what it is (which is an unconstitutional and poorly thought out bill), but because of what it is leading to. As it is written, costs are going to become astronomical. The end-game for Obama and the left is to inflate prices to such a point that we are forced into a single payer system. Obamacare is not the end, but the means to the ultimate end...a single payer system.

Taking 500$ billion from Medicare, from people who already paid for it, starting a new plan, giving it to people who did not pay for it.

Cutting payments to Dr. That accept Medicare patients. What do you think Dr. Are gonna do?

The individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Giving unelected bureaucrats control of the healthcare is wrong.

(11-12-2011 08:24 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-11-2011 10:24 PM)Elite Coalition of Ignorance Wrote:  Car insurance

1) State Government
2) You are not required to buy a car, you are required to breath

1) Government nonetheless - he didn't specify.
2) But, if you buy a car, you have to buy car insurance.

I understand my response is flawed for the reasons others have identified but that's a result of the question.

(11-12-2011 09:24 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(11-11-2011 10:24 PM)Elite Coalition of Ignorance Wrote:  Car insurance

Nice try. I think others on here have already responded well enough to make this comment look silly.

ok, how about....health insurance. Not looking good in the courts right now.

Either way, I agree with you. I'm more on the side of fixing the current system.

there's a difference between applying fees, licenses and other requirements like age and vision to choices.... and requiring the purchase of something merely because you live here

For discussion.

I wish we would equate health care to utilities. You need electricity and you need health insurance. No one thinks twice about paying their electric bill and probably somewhere in there we are subsidizing someone who can't float their own boat. I was invited to a Notre Dame game a couple of weeks back and for four hours I had to defend Obamacare to a vanload of conservatives. I find it easier to defend it against the old system where there was a cap on your insurance and the only people paying for THE WHOLE system were the ones with insurance who themselves were sick or had a sick child. It's not a perfect system by any means, but if you had a child who ran over their cap. This is by far a better system than the one before. When it's repealed or reformed I don't think we will go back to having caps on insurance. I think our cell phones have a tax on them that pays for people who can't afford them either. That's the tack liberals should take.

(11-13-2011 08:04 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I think our cell phones have a tax on them that pays for people who can't afford them either. That's the tack liberals should take.

If you can't afford a cell phone, why should you have one? Since when is that a need?

PS: I've started listening to "urban" radio to broaden my musical influences. They often advertise for WIC, SNAP (food stamps rebranding), and this free cell phone program. This is something I've heard on any other genre of radio station. :presented without commentary:

I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying we do it now and no one complains. But something that really is life or death, Health Insurance, we can't find common ground. i find that interesting and sad.

speaking of urban radio...... Back in the day some of my players were jamming out to Bones Thugs and Harmony during the break in between two a day practices. A song called "first of the month" came on and they were blaring it. I though to myself. I've heard it all now. A gd damn welfare carol.

(11-13-2011 08:04 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  For discussion.

I wish we would equate health care to utilities. You need electricity and you need health insurance. No one thinks twice about paying their electric bill and probably somewhere in there we are subsidizing someone who can't float their own boat. I was invited to a Notre Dame game a couple of weeks back and for four hours I had to defend Obamacare to a vanload of conservatives. I find it easier to defend it against the old system where there was a cap on your insurance and the only people paying for THE WHOLE system were the ones with insurance who themselves were sick or had a sick child. It's not a perfect system by any means, but if you had a child who ran over their cap. This is by far a better system than the one before. When it's repealed or reformed I don't think we will go back to having caps on insurance. I think our cell phones have a tax on them that pays for people who can't afford them either. That's the tack liberals should take.

What do you think is going to happen if another ' too big to fail' institution is created? Name one govt agency that is efficient? Obabba Care is out of control stupid. They should have thrown you out of the van. Or under it.