Healthcare reform

[Balta1701]

One of the first amendments the Republicans have offered to the Senate bill (offered by Capitol Hill Hooker guest David Vitter) is a bill to de-fund the group known as "ACORN".

[whitesoxfan101]

One of the first amendments the Republicans have offered to the Senate bill (offered by Capitol Hill Hooker guest David Vitter) is a bill to de-fund the group known as "ACORN".

 

But ACORN is disbanding.

[southsider2k5]

president or precedent

 

Bah. Me No Speaky English.

 

precedent

[vandy125]

With the exception of those who legitimately can't afford it, I'm not sure I understand why people wouldn't want to buy healthcare if they could. I do see the point on how forcing people to buy it is constitutionally questionable at best though.

 

IMO, it's a matter of cutting corners when money is tight. What do you pull out when you are tightening the belt? As an example, what percentage of people have life insurance and are protecting their families in the event of a sudden death when they can afford it? Do they hold onto those policies when money is tight?

 

We are a country of the here and now where it seems like a lot of people would rather spend money on their cell phone plan than make sure that they are taking care of long-term needs.

[Balta1701]

But ACORN is disbanding.

You think that would stop the Senate Republicans?

[Balta1701]

Wow, we've got a bill signed, and I'm still learning things about arcane government procedure. Did you know that the Senate can only operate after 2:00 p.m. EST if there is an agreement to waive the rule saying that it can't do so? A couple scheduled committee hearings were cut short or outright canceled today unexpectedly.

 

(You can probably guess which party has decided to resist waiving that rule to shut down the senate after 2:00 every day).

[whitesoxfan101]

You think that would stop the Senate Republicans?

 

Well it makes no sense. That's not even beating a dead horse, it's beating a horse that isn't there anymore because it disappeared.

[kapkomet]

The only way I can see this not working is if a bunch of people choose to pay the fine instead of buying insurance. That's a hell of an assumption though, people aren't numbers. If I didn't have insurance, and I suddenly can afford it, I'm buying insurance, not looking to save a couple hundred dollars. s***, my whole family is healthy now, but do you see me putting that $400 some-odd dollars a month in my pocket? No...

 

That said, yeah, the fees the insurance companies are going to pay will come out of that new pool of profits they'll have - this was their idea since it was their lobbyists that were involved in writing it, not some evil socialist.

 

 

There's a TON of businesses that are already planning on dropping coverage and just paying the "taxes", er I mean "fine". Which means the curve goes nowhere but up, but I'm sure that 'tis all good cause Barackus the Great, Nancy, and Harry told us so.

[Texsox]

There's a TON of businesses that are already planning on dropping coverage and just paying the "taxes", er I mean "fine". Which means the curve goes nowhere but up, but I'm sure that 'tis all good cause Barackus the Great, Nancy, and Harry told us so.

 

Really? Companies are going to eliminate a popular benefit? Where did you pick up that information?

[kapkomet]

props to the stevie wonder title.

 

Personally, I wanted to change it to "this is a big f***ing deal"...

 

But, this one's pretty good, too.

[kapkomet]

Really? Companies are going to eliminate a popular benefit? Where did you pick up that information?

 

 

Um, sure, because they are just going to let the government take care of it. Ultimately, it's "cheaper" that way.

 

And, remember: no raises to make up for that lost benefit.

 

Besides, why would they offer a plan that's now going to get the s*** taxed out of it? The government plan won't tax, but almost all of the plans that exist out there today that's being paid will be taxed to the individual, unless you're union or goverment workers.

[lostfan]

I'm actually in the group that you want to get insurance. I'm healthy, young, and single. So, I would definitely take a closer look to see if I actually do need it. You are probably right that I would go ahead and get it. However, there are plenty of people in just this same situation who won't. I now have a choice here that I can make a pretty significant case for both sides.

 

Before this, it was always the case that you made sure that you had insurance if possible at all because of the pre-existing conditions issue. Now, that is not clear cut at all. If you are young and healthy, your risk has just dropped a ton with not getting insurance and you can save money too. I'm not sure that there is a strong enough push to get and keep the young and healthy in the insurance pool.

I don't really need insurance, I have it because I want it. Well, also because I have kids and I'm responsible for other people, but even if it was just me (and it would only cost me like $1200 a year or something in that case, I'd have to look at the tables) I'd still have it. Like bmags said, why would I pay a fine of $700 for nothing, when I am spending a few hundred more, and actually go to the doctor, get checkups, get stronger allergy medicine instead of just toughing it out, etc.?

 

Living life without health insurance, you pretty much have to go undefeated. It's like playing Super Mario Bros. with one life left.

Edited March 24, 2010 by lostfan

[lostfan]

Just a FWIW comment - LASIK is not covered well by most health plans. I have a good one and if I choose LASIK they only cover something like 15%. It's considered elective so most plans (that I know of) don't or won't cover it.

Mine doesn't either - that kinda sucks, I really wish it did

[lostfan]

Um, sure, because they are just going to let the government take care of it. Ultimately, it's "cheaper" that way.

 

And, remember: no raises to make up for that lost benefit.

 

Besides, why would they offer a plan that's now going to get the s*** taxed out of it? The government plan won't tax, but almost all of the plans that exist out there today that's being paid will be taxed to the individual, unless you're union or goverment workers.

Ok, I'll bite here. If my employer (very unlikely but let's just say for the sake of argument) drops that benefit and pays the fine, I go and get my own insurance through an exchange or whatever at some comparable cost. They don't give me that money back in pure salary, and keep it as profit. Using the same logic that conservatives use for tax cuts (which I think has a point of diminishing returns that we've passed but that's another topic), wouldn't this money be used to hire new employees? What am I missing here?

[Texsox]

Um, sure, because they are just going to let the government take care of it. Ultimately, it's "cheaper" that way.

 

And, remember: no raises to make up for that lost benefit.

 

Besides, why would they offer a plan that's now going to get the s*** taxed out of it? The government plan won't tax, but almost all of the plans that exist out there today that's being paid will be taxed to the individual, unless you're union or goverment workers.

 

That will be interesting. I wonder how that will affect employee moral. And you say tons of companies are already planning this. Where have you heard that?

[Texsox]

Why are companies offering health insurance benefits to begin with?

[lostfan]

Why are companies offering health insurance benefits to begin with?

If Company A offers me, say, $50k, and Company B offers me the same job and same salary but with insurance benefits, well guess where I'm going?

[Texsox]

If Company A offers me, say, $50k, and Company B offers me the same job and same salary but with insurance benefits, well guess where I'm going?

 

Exactly what I was thinking. But suddenly, tons of businesses will all stop. It seems to me that will piss off their employees quite a bit. And I'm not certain if tons of businesses will do that. Perhaps all of the GOP owned ones will.

[bmags]

then the individual market will become a lot more affordable, in no short part to this bill.

[kapkomet]

Ok, I'll bite here. If my employer (very unlikely but let's just say for the sake of argument) drops that benefit and pays the fine, I go and get my own insurance through an exchange or whatever at some comparable cost. They don't give me that money back in pure salary, and keep it as profit. Using the same logic that conservatives use for tax cuts (which I think has a point of diminishing returns that we've passed but that's another topic), wouldn't this money be used to hire new employees? What am I missing here?

 

No, because it becomes a zero sum. Instead of the money that they have set aside for benefits, it now goes straight to the government in the form of a new tax ("penalty"). Since the money totally bypasses insurance and goes straight to the government... guess what happens?

[kapkomet]

then the individual market will become a lot more affordable, in no short part to this bill.

 

 

Really? Okay, say it does. But now you have to ration the s*** out of your care because you now have a flood of people at a "lower cost", when in fact it isn't going to go any lower. Do you get a substantially lower cost on anything without a cut in quality or service? Inflation alone makes this a pretty stupid arguement... "bending cost curves" doesn't happen without a radical change in service.

[lostfan]

No, because it becomes a zero sum. Instead of the money that they have set aside for benefits, it now goes straight to the government in the form of a new tax ("penalty"). Since the money totally bypasses insurance and goes straight to the government... guess what happens?

But the whole purpose of them dropping that benefit and paying the fine was because they were saving a significant amount of money, so there is a benefit to paying the fine instead, and they pocket that extra money...? If it was really zero sum then they might as well keep the benefit.

 

But like Tex said in a roundabout way, now you as an employer look less attractive... it'd be the same thing as offering a lower salary.

[lostfan]

Really? Okay, say it does. But now you have to ration the s*** out of your care because you now have a flood of people at a "lower cost", when in fact it isn't going to go any lower. Do you get a substantially lower cost on anything without a cut in quality or service? Inflation alone makes this a pretty stupid arguement... "bending cost curves" doesn't happen without a radical change in service.

And if the attempt to transition off fee-for-service works and makes the system more efficient doesn't that kind of make the point moot?

 

(actual question, not snarky remark, and for the record I really wanted them to go more aggressively after this, but political reality meant this wasn't going to happen)

[southsider2k5]

But the whole purpose of them dropping that benefit and paying the fine was because they were saving a significant amount of money, so there is a benefit to paying the fine instead, and they pocket that extra money...? If it was really zero sum then they might as well keep the benefit.

 

But like Tex said in a roundabout way, now you as an employer look less attractive... it'd be the same thing as offering a lower salary.

 

Think of it this way... How many companies offer a pension? It died when the government stepped in with social security. History tells me that the same thing will happen here.

[bmags]

guess what guys, many research says that the dropping was going to happen anyways - beginning in this decade, accelerating in the next, it's one of the reasons a lot of steps were created to help the individual market. Employer given health insurance was getting sicker.