The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

You can't tailor health insurance to everyone's moral code.

Yet, this law is attempting to define a moral code...

[Rover]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

But, if the law mandates coverages that you feel are against your moral code, do you cease to provide the insurance (and then let the employees get the exact same coverage in a gov't health plan). It makes no sense, but then again, very little in this law makes sense.

Then to take it further, if I get dropped, can I find a health plan that does not cover items I feel are offensive? Give me some Advil (oops, that's not covered - have to get the generic)!!

Since the world doesn't revolve around you, you're s # i t out of luck! You can't tailor health insurance to everyone's moral code.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Your logic doesn't make sense.

um...it's not "my" logic. It is an explanation of other people's thinking that is quite common and widespread. Go debate them, not me. Good luck!

[joecct]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Employers currently offer health plans to attract quality workers. In 2014, quality workers will still demand either a health care plan or a commiserate increase in salary to offset the lack of a health plan.

Your logic doesn't make sense.

But, if the law mandates coverages that you feel are against your moral code, do you cease to provide the insurance (and then let the employees get the exact same coverage in a gov't health plan). It makes no sense, but then again, very little in this law makes sense.

Then to take it further, if I get dropped, can I find a health plan that does not cover items I feel are offensive? Give me some Advil (oops, that's not covered - have to get the generic)!!

[unofan]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Because if he drops the insurance now, he leaves his employees uninsured; while if he drops the insurance in 2014, he merely shifts his employees from one health plan to another health plan.

Employers currently offer health plans to attract quality workers. In 2014, quality workers will still demand either a health care plan or a commiserate increase in salary to offset the lack of a health plan.

Your logic doesn't make sense.

[Rover]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

There actually is some logic in what you say, because if someone is already paying the benefit, assuming that the cost and benefit are the same, it doesn't make sense to drop it, unless you need to do so for another reason, such as reducing expenses.

However, the statement I placed in bold is an issue that is causing the argument, because this is not an assumption that can be made. Let me ask this: Does the Massachusetts plan require that health organizations either provide or refuse specific services, and at the cost to a specific party in the transaction?

I believe the state requires all insurances covering Mass residents to cover the same procedures as part of their coverage. How much they charge for that coverage which I believe is more generous than most states I'm not 100% sure. You also can choose a plan with different deductable vs monthly premium rates but my experience is confined to the coverage I'd had myself. Perhaps les can shed more light.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/27/6/w576.full

Also this snipet for the next link:

Another reason the law remains popular may be that so many Massachusetts residents receive insurance through work and have been largely untouched by its penalties. The Blue Cross Blue Shield study found 68percent of non-elderly adults received coverage through their employers in 2010, up from about 64percent in 2006.

The study also found no evidence to support one fear lawmakers had when they approved the law -- that employers or workers might drop coverage because of the availability of public coverage.

http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Bus...ethru_ST_U.htm

Ball's in your court Fishy.

There actually is some logic in what you say, because if someone is already paying the benefit, assuming that the cost and benefit are the same, it doesn't make sense to drop it, unless you need to do so for another reason, such as reducing expenses.

However, the statement I placed in bold is an issue that is causing the argument, because this is not an assumption that can be made. Let me ask this: Does the Massachusetts plan require that health organizations either provide or refuse specific services, and at the cost to a specific party in the transaction?

[Rover]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Where's your evidence that it hasn't? to use your own standards, without a link it cannot be true, right?

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/27/6/w576.full

Also this snipet for the next link:

Another reason the law remains popular may be that so many Massachusetts residents receive insurance through work and have been largely untouched by its penalties. The Blue Cross Blue Shield study found 68percent of non-elderly adults received coverage through their employers in 2010, up from about 64percent in 2006.

The study also found no evidence to support one fear lawmakers had when they approved the law -- that employers or workers might drop coverage because of the availability of public coverage.

http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Bus...ethru_ST_U.htm

Ball's in your court Fishy.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

the math just doesn't work, and to fix the math, now the feds will have to increase taxes substantially. that's the problem with "free" stuff, it is always very expensive!

Thank you for scientifically proving the two statements I've been making the past few months:

1. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
2. Socialism only works so long as you have someone else's money to take.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Why hasn't this happened in Massachusetts then?

Where's your evidence that it hasn't? to use your own standards, without a link it cannot be true, right?

[Rover]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Last week, in another thread, UNOFan exposed how the math behind PPACA cannot work.

He posted an article from an employer who said that he currently is paying $7,000 for employee health insurance, but in 2014 he can pay a $2,000 "tax" and thereby save $5,000. He asked, "why not drop the health insurance now and save $7,000 instead of $5,000?"

Because if he drops the insurance now, he leaves his employees uninsured; while if he drops the insurance in 2014, he merely shifts his employees from one health plan to another health plan.

Of course, merely shifting the employees from one health plan to another does nothing to change the underlying economics; however, if the "tax" is $5,000 less than the cost, then where will the rest of the money come from? The employees are promised subsidies to help pay for their new coverage, after all.

the math just doesn't work, and to fix the math, now the feds will have to increase taxes substantially. that's the problem with "free" stuff, it is always very expensive!

Why hasn't this happened in Massachusetts then Fishy? Funny how you knucks' never answer that question.

No worries though. I'm sure a Romney landslide victory will solve all these problems...

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Last week, in another thread, UNOFan exposed how the math behind PPACA cannot work.

He posted an article from an employer who said that he currently is paying $7,000 for employee health insurance, but in 2014 he can pay a $2,000 "tax" and thereby save $5,000. He asked, "why not drop the health insurance now and save $7,000 instead of $5,000?"

Because if he drops the insurance now, he leaves his employees uninsured; while if he drops the insurance in 2014, he merely shifts his employees from one health plan to another health plan.

Of course, merely shifting the employees from one health plan to another does nothing to change the underlying economics; however, if the "tax" is $5,000 less than the cost, then where will the rest of the money come from? The employees are promised subsidies to help pay for their new coverage, after all.

the math just doesn't work, and to fix the math, now the feds will have to increase taxes substantially. that's the problem with "free" stuff, it is always very expensive!

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

That's not really the right question to ask. If you have a Black Card and are adding thousands to the balance every month but are making the minimum payment, then you are technically "paying your bills." The US hasn't defaulted on any debt yet, so we ARE paying our bills. The question is whether we'd ever be able to pay the balance down to zero. The answer is, "probably not," at which point the only remaining question is "how much, if at all, does that matter?" Reasonable people can definitely disagree about that one.

Actually, it seems to me that the essential question to ask is "what does the national balance sheet look like?"

We only see part of the picture.

I have no clue what kind of valuations there are on the "asset" side of the ledger. I know we have national parks, federal timberland, grazing rights, oil and gas royalties, broadband spectrum rights, plenty of assets, but what is their valuation? Are we living in a house whose mortgage exceeds its market value? or is our mortgage a comfortable fraction of the value of the house? who knows?

Second, on the "liability" side of the ledger, we have the national debt, plus the net present value of future liabilities, not only under Social Security and Medicare, but also under things like government guarantees for SIPC, the pension guarantee fund, deposit insurance, things like that.

As long as the economy is growing faster than the national debt, we should be okay; however the growth of the economy is being deliberately restrained in the name of some other higher cause. that is so myopic! There is so much ingenuity waiting to be tapped, to use innovation to addresss those other higher causes in a productive, growth-oriented way. this president has no clue on how to rally the private sector to promote public welfare. to him nothing happens unless there is a command first. I wonder what happens when one of his daughters says "daddy i want to do it myself!" You think he says "okay"? I do. why is it so hard for him to do the same thing with the rest of us???

[unofan]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

So do you think we can pay our bills or don't you? If yes , how do you think Washington is going to be able to do that? And I'm talking about paying the total debt, including unfunded liabilities.

Yes, and we'll do it with a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. We almost had a good start on that last year til the Tea Party scuttled it. I'm sure we'll get a crack or 200 at it again, and hopefully people will be more willing to comprimise in at least some of those times.

[LynahFan]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

So do you think we can pay our bills or don't you? And I'm talking about paying the total debt, including unfunded liabilities.

That's not really the right question to ask. If you have a Black Card and are adding thousands to the balance every month but are making the minimum payment, then you are technically "paying your bills." The US hasn't defaulted on any debt yet, so we ARE paying our bills. The question is whether we'd ever be able to pay the balance down to zero. The answer is, "probably not," at which point the only remaining question is "how much, if at all, does that matter?" Reasonable people can definitely disagree about that one.