The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[geezer]

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

I love how the federal government owning a decent percentage of the land in many of the red states means that they're being funded by blue states. Don't want to sell that land, eh? You might actually get some production in this country.

I can't tell if you just started taking drugs, or just stopped taking ones you should have kept up.

[joecct]

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

Well, we were about 2/3s free. We didn't secede, but about 1/3 of enlistments went to Team Aryan.

It took Federal troops in the State House in Annapolis to ensure that Maryland did not leave the Union....

And until November, the loony right is still running my district.

*****http://www.politics1.com/news/moon-bartlett.jpg******

(a) Did you sign the petition to get the repeal of the gerrymander on the November ballot?
(b) DO YOU WANT TO GO TO THE MOON!?!?!? DO YOU WANT TO GO TO THE MOON?!?!?!?!

[Bob Gray]

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

Kissing Jan Brewer's rear end? I don't think that counts...

Oh, try to come up with something new for once.

[FreshFish]

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

I've been told that [Social Security]'s accounted for separately and is in a lock box, and all. Have I been misled?

Well, yes, and no,

You see, Bob, it is in a lock box; but unfortunately it is all counterfeit. No "real" money there at all, just IOUs from the US Treasury.

100% investment in one security for the fiduciaries of the Trust fund is a violation of the "Prudent Investor" rule in all 50 states, you know.

and for any entity to invest its pension money exclusively in securities issued by the same entity is a violation of Federal law as well.

I wonder who we contact to investigate these egregious violations of state fiduciary responsibility laws, and federal pension and securities laws....maybe we can call Eric Holder and ask him to investigate?

[dxmnkd316]

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

So how many companies do we think will drop coverage for their employees? Its pretty simple math. They can either pay $18K to cover them or pay a $2K tax.

How many people are going to skip buying coverage until they need it? For them its either pay a $700 tax or pay thousands to get coverage.

Can anyone else see how this whole thing is going to blow up?

I'd say close to zero companies. You want the best employees? You better dam* well offer a good insurance plan.

[unofan]

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

So how many companies do we think will drop coverage for their employees?

There's nothing compelling them to offer it now, and yet they do so despite a penalty of $0. So I'm going to guess...none of them.

Your grasp of economics never ceases to amaze.

[joecct]

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

There's nothing compelling them to offer it now, and yet they do so despite a penalty of $0. So I'm going to guess...none of them.

Your grasp of economics never ceases to amaze.

Dunno -- I think the idea now is there is no available affordable coverage. However, in 2014 there is via the insurance exchanges. So a corporation will not need to worry if its employees can't get coverage.

So if a corporation can save $5K (guesstimate) per employee, why not? Who knows, they may be able to hire an additional employee or 2 with the savings.

[dxmnkd316]

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

Dunno -- I think the idea now is there is no available affordable coverage. However, in 2014 there is via the insurance exchanges. So a corporation will not need to worry if its employees can't get coverage.

So if a corporation can save $5K (guesstimate) per employee, why not? Who knows, they may be able to hire an additional employee or 2 with the savings.

Because a corporation would see an exodus if they dropped medical coverage. That's a basic benefit.

[walrus]

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

Because a corporation would see an exodus if they dropped medical coverage. That's a basic benefit.

With unemployment the way it is, would they still have issues getting employees?
I doubt Fortune 500 companies drop insurance but small employers might?

[5mn_Major]

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

Some states have said they don't plan on implementing the ACA...even though it passed all three branches of the federal government. There is no direct punitive measures.

It does appear that this is another level of political confrontation the GOP is playing (which not surprisingly, we didn't see much of during W). If a GOP administration goes to war, is it fine to have dem leaning states say 'naw, we'll take a pass on this one'?

In terms of weapons available to the federal govt, it will be interesting to see if the feds pull out the stops such as federal tax allotments to states. It wouldn't suprise me if they did...at some point, the federal govt needs to assert its authority to stop the USA from ending up like a rudderless, conflicted EU.

[amherstblackbear]

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

ACA: first step toward single payer?

Does anyone know the status of medical loss ratios in the final Act? Was it even implicated in the Supreme Court case?

I saw a lot of derpy editorials concerning how ACA was single-payer in disguise. But the one above, which appeared in Forbes, is not so easily dismissed.

My take: the author is somewhat blinded by hope. To me, the actual, if unintended, consequence of a medical loss ratio is to reduce the incentive of insurers to push down provider costs. It also provides a strong disincentive for redcuing -errr, slowing the growth of premiums. If you want to take in more money, as an insurer, you need skyrocketing costs and premiums.

[unofan]

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

With unemployment the way it is, would they still have issues getting employees?
I doubt Fortune 500 companies drop insurance but small employers might?

Yeah, but they might do that anyway. I doubt the existence of an insurance exchange changes that. If it's purely a dollars and cents consideration, they'd be more likely to drop it now when they don't face any penalty at all.

[dxmnkd316]

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

With unemployment the way it is, would they still have issues getting employees?
I doubt Fortune 500 companies drop insurance but small employers might?

Perhaps. I don't think this will change anything for the larger companies (unless they are run by executives wanting to make a specific and purely political statement). Agreed on the small companies.

I was mainly talking about about the large companies since the discussion was focusing around "corporations".

[bronconick]

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

I'm getting a kick out of the numerous people planning to just drop their insurance and pay the penalty because "it's cheaper."

Well, A) You could do that now and not pay anything at all. 2) Enjoy crushing debt when your good luck in health runs out.

I mean, I understand being upset, but the 2016 candidate of the Republican party is only getting billionaire money because everyone else is going to be bankrupt from medical bills because they dropped their insurance to prove that the government can't make them.

[FlagDUDE08]

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

I'm getting a kick out of the numerous people planning to just drop their insurance and pay the penalty because "it's cheaper."

Well, A) You could do that now and not pay anything at all. 2) Enjoy crushing debt when your good luck in health runs out.

I mean, I understand being upset, but the 2016 candidate of the Republican party is only getting billionaire money because everyone else is going to be bankrupt from medical bills because they dropped their insurance to prove that the government can't make them.

You're forgetting one important caveat to why people are choosing to drop coverage: According to the PPACA, a person cannot be denied insurance on account of health status. When the "good luck in health runs out", that is when they will get the "insurance". Once they've gotten better, instead of continuing to pay the premiums, they'll simply drop the coverage, thereby passing the burden to those that continue to get insurance. From what I described, there is absolutely no government collection at all; the only way the government is involved is by regulation.

Eventually, premiums will go so high that the insurance companies will lose so many customers that they'll have to go out of business, thereby destroying the government corporation's competition, and creating a monopoly.

Perhaps the government should be sued under the Clayton Antitrust Act.