Obamacare and the Supreme Court

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Cali, where do you get this shit from? Yeah it was largely targeting union health plan? Lol.

[calicoug]

Cali, where do you get this shit from? Yeah it was largely targeting union health plan? Lol.

Simply put, they are more likely than most groups to have a Cadillac plan. Unions knew this of course and fought back and obtained delayed implementation of the tax on union plans. But they knew what this meant for them. It caused quite a bit of consternation among unions when this issue came up.

[NorthShoreCoug]

I overheard the other day that ObamaCare is likely done because of this. The governors of Florida and Louisiana have said the same thing. The argument I overheard indicated that given the Supreme Court decision, the feds can't do anything to stop them. And since the primary mechanism for funding is the establishment of the exchanges, it'll die when, in the end, 15 to 20 of the states refuse to go along.

I admit to being fairly uninformed on the issue of ObamaCare and the Supreme Court's ruling, and I wasn't in a position to question those who were discussing this issue. Is this true?

[ERCougar]

Cali's right on the cadillac plan tax hurting unions.

Cadillac plans are terrible for health care costs. When you introduce that kind of force into the market, prices raise for everyone. Really, this excise tax is one conservatives should be able to get behind, in principle anyway.

Of course, it seems like it would make a lot more sense just to remove the tax protection on healthcare benefits.

[Moliere]

Simply put, they are more likely than most groups to have a Cadillac plan. Unions knew this of course and fought back and obtained delayed implementation of the tax on union plans. But they knew what this meant for them. It caused quite a bit of consternation among unions when this issue came up.

So what's the rationale for unions getting a deferral? Seems odd that one group gets a pass on this legislation while others have to abide by it. Well, it seems odd until you realize they are the major backer of the Dems.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Cali's right on the cadillac plan tax hurting unions.

Cadillac plans are terrible for health care costs. When you introduce that kind of force into the market, prices raise for everyone. Really, this excise tax is one conservatives should be able to get behind, in principle anyway.

Of course, it seems like it would make a lot more sense just to remove the tax protection on healthcare benefits.

Why are they so bad for health care costs?

[All-American]

First of all, you sound like a guy the day after he claimed to have seen aliens complaining that just a day ago his friends thought he was rational.

Second, in no way did I agree with you one page ago. You've been off your game since you tried arguing terrorists were rational and would be scared off if we only had a bigger military. Take a day. Recover. Then get back in the saddle. Remember- it's not falling off the horse that people will remember.

You got me; it wasn't a page ago. More like three.

Agreed. For something like this, the ballot box is exactly where the matter should reside, and that's precisely what Roberts said.

And I didn't argue that it was the size of our military that mattered-- it was how we used it.

[ERCougar]

Why are they so bad for health care costs?

I'm guessing that you're asking for more detail than the sentence following?

Essentially, the recipient of benefits bears doesn't directly bear the costs, which is a terrible model for economic decision making. Of course you're going to want the MRI of your sore knee--it's free!

[calicoug]

I overheard the other day that ObamaCare is likely done because of this. The governors of Florida and Louisiana have said the same thing. The argument I overheard indicated that given the Supreme Court decision, the feds can't do anything to stop them. And since the primary mechanism for funding is the establishment of the exchanges, it'll die when, in the end, 15 to 20 of the states refuse to go along.

I admit to being fairly uninformed on the issue of ObamaCare and the Supreme Court's ruling, and I wasn't in a position to question those who were discussing this issue. Is this true?

It doesn't work like that. If the states don't implement the law the Feds are empowered to do it for them (which will likely be in a way the states don't favor). These governors are showboating at the expense of their states.

[calicoug]

So what's the rationale for unions getting a deferral? Seems odd that one group gets a pass on this legislation while others have to abide by it. Well, it seems odd until you realize they are the major backer of the Dems.

Your last sentence is the reason. But at least the Dems still implemented the tax- even if it is with a deferred impact.

[Guest]

I'm guessing that you're asking for more detail than the sentence following?

Essentially, the recipient of benefits bears doesn't directly bear the costs, which is a terrible model for economic decision making. Of course you're going to want the MRI of your sore knee--it's free!

Why slight the consumer? I'm sure the local clinic or hospital is above unnecessarily ordering that MRI, right?

My company is dumping our plan next year – the excise tax is too large. It's a "Cadillac" plan - and we're no union shop. The current plan is as good as any healthcare coverage in the country, and big tool in recruiting.

It will be interesting to see how compensation can be adjusted to keep a recruiting advantage in a very competitive talent market.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm guessing that you're asking for more detail than the sentence following?

Essentially, the recipient of benefits bears doesn't directly bear the costs, which is a terrible model for economic decision making. Of course you're going to want the MRI of your sore knee--it's free!

Gotcha. Thanks.

[ERCougar]

Why slight the consumer? I'm sure the local clinic or hospital is above unnecessarily ordering that MRI, right?

My company is dumping our plan next year – the excise tax is too large. It's a "Cadillac" plan - and we're no union shop. The current plan is as good as any healthcare coverage in the country, and big tool in recruiting.

It will be interesting to see how compensation can be adjusted - to keep a recruiting advantage in a very competitive talent market.

Very few medical tests fall into absolutely necessary or unnecessary categories. There's a whole range of gray in between. Your knee MAY represent a torn ligament, but odds are 98% that it doesn't. If you're paying for it and you're not a professional athlete, you'll probably wait it out and see if it gets better on its own; if it's free, you want the MRI. Everyone else does the same thing, and suddenly that insurance plan gets more and more expensive, because they ultimately have to pay for all of these MRIs.

On the other side of things, the doctor has a patient for whose care he's actually going to be paid--the kind of patient he'd like to keep--so he'll do about anything to keep that patient happy. At the same time, if he misses something (it's impossible to not, short of ordering every test on every patient, and even then, things will be missed), he faces a possible lawsuit. So he orders the MRI.

I know how compensation can be adjusted. Raise salaries.
I'm guessing that most of the people on this board are net losers with respect to their health care benefits (i.e. you're "paying" more than you're getting).

[Indy Coug]

I'm guessing that most of the people on this board are net losers with respect to their health care benefits (i.e. you're "paying" more than you're getting).

That's a safe bet.

[NorthShoreCoug]

It doesn't work like that. If the states don't implement the law the Feds are empowered to do it for them (which will likely be in a way the states don't favor). These governors are showboating at the expense of their states.

Yes, ObamaCare gives the states the choice of setting up an exchange or letting the federal government do it - but in the law as written, there is no funding for the federal government to do so. So Congress would have to find a source of the funding, and given the current (and likely post-election) situation, they are very unlikely to do so. So what happens then?

I'm not trying to argue, I really feel I don't have enough knowledge on the situation to do so, I just found this line of reasoning interesting, and at least some of the people who were discussing it are generally well-informed.