The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[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

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?

[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.

[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

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

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.

[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.

[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)!!

[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!

[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.

[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...

[FreshFish]

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

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

um, isn't that exactly what Sandra Fluke and Kathleen Sebelius are doing????

or are you saying it is okay to tailor health insurance to your moral code but not to a moral code you don't agree with??

[Rover]

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

um, isn't that exactly what Sandra Fluke and Kathleen Sebelius are doing????

or are you saying it is okay to tailor health insurance to your moral code but not to a moral code you don't agree with??

Fishy, buddy, this issue was settled in the 1950's by the SCOTUS. Birth control is legal and millions of women use it. Now perhaps your situation doesn't bring you in touch with this fact, but that's your problem (and frankly answers a lot of questions). 10 crankly knuckledraggers upset because they haven't gotten laid in years can't use that frustration to deny millions of women a legal product. I'd suggest you invent a time machine, get transported back to the 1920's, study law, graduate at the top of your class, and then get appointed to the SCOTUS in time to help hand down that decision if you don't like it.

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Fishy, buddy, this issue was settled in the 1950's by the SCOTUS. Birth control is legal and millions of women use it. Now perhaps your situation doesn't bring you in touch with this fact, but that's your problem (and frankly answers a lot of questions). 10 crankly knuckledraggers upset because they haven't gotten laid in years can't use that frustration to deny millions of women a legal product. I'd suggest you invent a time machine, get transported back to the 1920's, study law, graduate at the top of your class, and then get appointed to the SCOTUS in time to help hand down that decision if you don't like it.

Just because something is legal doesn't force someone to provide for it. Guavas are legal, but I know plenty of grocery stores that don't sell them. If you want a guava, but the store you walk into doesn't sell guavas, you go to another store that does. The same thing is true with medicine. If you want a birth control pill, but a certain location doesn't sell them, you go to another location.

[Rover]

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

Just because something is legal doesn't force someone to provide for it. Guavas are legal, but I know plenty of grocery stores that don't sell them. If you want a guava, but the store you walk into doesn't sell guavas, you go to another store that does. The same thing is true with medicine. If you want a birth control pill, but a certain location doesn't sell them, you go to another location.

The people decide Flag. If like minded people such as yourself would like to either 1) restrict/ban birth control access, or 2) pass laws denying coverage, be my guest. I don't like your electoral prospects with a stance like this, but go for it. The American public have it in their power to toss Obama out of his job in a few months if they'd like. That's the beauty of living in a democracy.

For kicks though, tell me why having your insurer cover birth control harms *anybody*. Nobody's forcing people to use it, anymore than coverage for a heart transplant doesn't make you get one if you don't need it.