Obamacare cost...

[il Padrino Ute]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2086[/ATTACH]

* doesn't apply to those that don't want health insurance or apparently parents making health decisions (like getting a second opinion) for their children.

Yet another lie that only fools would believe.

[Uncle Ted]

How does employers keep their government mandated health insurance benefit costs down? Simple, require employees to disclose their health information (and fire the fat, unhealthy ones)...

Employees at one of the nation’s largest drugstore chains must disclose personal health information -- including their weight -- or pay a $600-a-year fine, according to a published report.


CVS Caremark Corp. is requiring workers to reveal the information to their company’s insurance carrier or pay an extra $50 a month for health coverage, according to the Boston Herald.

[...]

Proponents, including companies that are anxious to reduce spending on medical coverage, say it holds down costs borne by all employees and encourages people to get healthier.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar...eight-20130320

[All-American]

How does employers keep their government mandated health insurance benefit costs down? Simple, require employees to disclose their health information (and fire the fat, unhealthy ones)...


http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar...eight-20130320

Another answer to the question, "What's wrong with employer-provided healthcare?"

[calicoug]

Our small business employs 25. Insurance premiums go up 25% on our fiscal turnover (July 1). The CBO is guessing, at best.

You aren't going to like this answer, but the CBO's analysis doesn't really pertain to your company either. They are focused on employers who are large enough that they are required to provide insurance to employees under the law. Businesses with 25 employees are generally exempt.

The more employees a company has, the more immune it will be from changes in rate hikes. Smaller companies will see more dramatic changes- although that would also be true without Obamacare.

[calicoug]

Another answer to the question, "What's wrong with employer-provided healthcare?"

I didn't think it was legal for companies to charge different prices for the types of factors discussed above. They can for smoking, but I don't think they can for factors such as weight. I'll have to try to look this up.

I agree employer-based care isn't a good idea. It's one of my biggest complaints with Obamacare. I know working within the entrenched employer-care system was much easier than radically transforming healthcare (which probably wouldn't have been politically feasible anyways, particularly given Obama's statements that you can keep the doctor you have), but employer-based coverage is bad policy and is in part what is driving health care costs higher.

[All-American]

I didn't think it was legal for companies to charge different prices for the types of factors discussed above. They can for smoking, but I don't think they can for factors such as weight. I'll have to try to look this up.

I agree employer-based care isn't a good idea. It's one of my biggest complaints with Obamacare. I know working within the entrenched employer-care system was much easier than radically transforming healthcare (which probably wouldn't have been politically feasible anyways, particularly given Obama's statements that you can keep the doctor you have), but employer-based coverage is bad policy and is in part what is driving health care costs higher.

Divorcing employers and healthcare was one of the prominent features of the Bennett-Wyden bill that never got much traction, since the Obamacare bill got the support of the Democratic Party. It's too bad they picked that horse to back and not the one that went [closer] to the heart of what's wrong with healthcare in this country.

[Uncle Ted]

Another answer to the question, "What's wrong with employer-provided healthcare?"

Nothing as long as it is simply a benefit to attract high quality employees. Google gives their employees food prepared by very good chefs. Apple provides buses equipped with wifi for their employees to ride to work which is nice. So should the government require employers to provide the same benefits to their employees as well?

[calicoug]

Divorcing employers and healthcare was one of the prominent features of the Bennett-Wyden bill that never got much traction, since the Obamacare bill got the support of the Democratic Party. It's too bad they picked that horse to back and not the one that went [closer] to the heart of what's wrong with healthcare in this country.

Bennett-Wyden had a 0% chance of passing. The choice was between status quo and Obamacare. There was no political traction or possibility for anything else- and as history shows it took a massive effort that virtually fell short just to get what we have done. Now if about 10 Republicans had signed on to Wyden-Bennet, we might be having a very different conversation.

[calicoug]

Nothing as long as it is simply a benefit to attract high quality employees. Google gives their employees food prepared by very good chefs. Apple provides buses equipped with wifi for their employees to ride to work which is nice. So should the government require employers to provide the same benefits to their employees as well?

Totally disagree. There is a lot wrong with employer-based care- not the least of which is that it removes all incentives by the individual to identify a health plan that makes sense for that individual on an economic and coverage basis and increases incentives to push for added coverage irrespective of cost to the employer.

[All-American]

Bennett-Wyden had a 0% chance of passing. The choice was between status quo and Obamacare. There was no political traction or possibility for anything else- and as history shows it took a massive effort that virtually fell short just to get what we have done. Now if about 10 Republicans had signed on to Wyden-Bennet, we might be having a very different conversation.

At least five Republicans were willing enough to fight for it that they signed this op-ed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080402523.html

But I won't get into a fight over revisionist history or whether the bill could have possibly passed had it received the administration's backing. It didn't get that support because the administration thought ending employer-provided health care was too much to try. It's enough to say that the bill died when it did because it attempted to do the one thing that needed to be done, and still needs to be done.

[calicoug]

At least five Republicans were willing enough to fight for it that they signed this op-ed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080402523.html

But I won't get into a fight over revisionist history or whether the bill could have possibly passed had it received the administration's backing. It didn't get that support because the administration thought ending employer-provided health care was too much to try. It's enough to say that the bill died when it did because it attempted to do the one thing that needed to be done, and still needs to be done.

Recall that over a dozen Republicans had also previously strongly supported a mandate as well as insurance exchanges. It was easy to pen an op-Ed for a bill they all knew would never pass. The political climate was (and remains) toxic.

But yes- I would love to see a break from employer care. I think Wyden Bennett had some real issues and could have even been better but it was irrelevant anyways.

[Eddie]

Over the weekend I heard stories from 2 more people stating that their employer is telling all employees not identified as "full-time" at the time of their hire that they will be limited to working 28 hours per week.

So now these people not only don't have insurance, but they also are suppose to live on less income too.

Thanks Obamacare!!!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Over the weekend I heard stories from 2 more people stating that their employer is telling all employees not identified as "full-time" at the time of their hire that they will be limited to working 28 hours per week.

So now these people not only don't have insurance, but they also are suppose to live on less income too.

Thanks Obamacare!!!

I am seeing this also. In fact, it is based on an annual average, so if someone has worked more than 28 hours per week since last October, they will be furloughed and not allowed to work at all over some or all of the summer.

Thanks, Obama.

[Indy Coug]

The maddening thing about these anecdotes is this was entirely foreseeable.

[byu71]

The maddening thing about these anecdotes is this was entirely foreseeable.

Yes, but can we blame Obama? He has warned us over and over about the greedy SOB capitalists who have more than they need. They don't have to save the money, they could just take the hit and be greatful they are doing good for their fellow countrymen.