What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Fishy, this got covered during the Louisiana Purchase.

There is nothing in the law barring the feds from making the same contribution to employee coverage once they're on the exchanges as they were when the feds were covering the insurance themselves. Read that as many times as you need to.

Back when most conservatives were mere toddlers, President Thomas Jefferson negotiated the massive land purchase from the French. Although the Constitution has no provision for acquiring land, it also has no provision preventing it, hence its legality. Don't like that? Take it up with Jefferson. Since he's been dead 200 years though, you might have trouble reaching him. :D
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
Either that article is deliberately mendacious, relyinng on tortured technical sophistries, or it was written earlier than the news cycle from which I derived my information, or it is just plain wrong.

From Reuters:

By David Lawder



Now, under PPACA, people with the income levels of Congressional staffers and members of Congress who are required to purchase insurance on exchanges are not eligible for any subsidy when they purchase insurance on the exchanges. Yet members of Congress and their staffers get 75% of their premium costs covered?

This is straightforward simple English: if you have income of $xxx,xxx, and are required to purchase insurance on exchanges, and do NOT work for Congress, you get 0% subsidy. If you have identical income of $xxx,xxx, and are required to purchase insurance on exchanges and DO work for Congress, you get 75% subsidy.

If the Republicans had any principles, they'd be trumpeting this news as loudly as they could. Yet all we hear from them is silence. Typical career politicians.

If the Democrats had any principles, they'd be embarrassed: they claim to be the party of the "common folk" yet they get a sweetheart deal not available to anyone else who is required to purchase insurance on exchanges.

Bah to both parties here.
Click to expand...

They get covered because the federal govt is their employer, just as you or I get our insurance subsidized by our employers. You just posted an article a few days ago about Walgreens doing the exact same thing.

I would think an insurance actuary would understand that simple concept. Apparently not.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Res Ipso Loquitor:

Less than two weeks before the launch of insurance marketplaces created by the federal health overhaul, the government's software can't reliably determine how much people need to pay for coverage, according to insurance executives and people familiar with the program.

If not resolved by the Oct. 1 launch date, the problems could affect consumers in 36 states where the federal government is running all or part of the exchanges. About 32 million uninsured people live in those states.

Four people familiar with the development of the software that determines how much people would pay for subsidized coverage on the federally run exchanges said it was still miscalculating prices. Tests on the calculator initially scheduled to begin months ago only started this week at some insurers, according to insurance executives and two people familiar with development efforts.

"There's a blanket acknowledgment that rates are being calculated incorrectly," said one senior health-insurance executive who asked not to be named. "Our tech and operations people are very concerned about the problems they're seeing and the potential of them to stick around."
Click to expand...
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

You've got a little over a week left Fishy. If cannabalism doesn't break out on Oct 1st when Obamacare goes into effect you better man up and come out here to take your lumps. Something you were less than willing to do post-election day mind you.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Just for information-I was just notified by my Medicare Part D carrier that my drug coverage policy premium for 2014 will increase(by 18%). I can hardly wait to see what my secondary gap insurance policy will do(Medicare is my primary). At the same time, my wife who is not of medicare age and has her own personal insurance has been notified that starting next month her premium has been increased 19%. But that will only last for one year as she has also been notified that that policy will not be able to be renewed by Horizon Blue Cross of NJ due to government enforced regulations(their words) and that she will have to choose from some other options that they will offer her. I am pretty sure the coverage will be less comprehensive but will cost more.
Oh, in spite of these escalations-I am seeing indications that the government has computed the COLA for my social security(and my wife's) will rise by only 1.5% for next year. I suppose inflation is tame if you do not include anything that has risen faster than 1.5%(insurance premiums, energy, food, cable bills, telephone bills, etc). With our bank paying us 0.4% interest on a one year CD, the interest should just about cover the postage for paying our health insurance premiums.:eek:
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

DrDemento said:
Just for information-I was just notified by my Medicare Part D carrier that my drug coverage policy premium for 2014 will increase(by 18%). I can hardly wait to see what my secondary gap insurance policy will do(Medicare is my primary). At the same time, my wife who is not of medicare age and has her own personal insurance has been notified that starting next month her premium has been increased 19%. But that will only last for one year as she has also been notified that that policy will not be able to be renewed by Horizon Blue Cross of NJ due to government enforced regulations(their words) and that she will have to choose from some other options that they will offer her. I am pretty sure the coverage will be less comprehensive but will cost more.
Oh, in spite of these escalations-I am seeing indications that the government has computed the COLA for my social security(and my wife's) will rise by only 1.5% for next year. I suppose inflation is tame if you do not include anything that has risen faster than 1.5%(insurance premiums, energy, food, cable bills, telephone bills, etc). With our bank paying us 0.4% interest on a one year CD, the interest should just about cover the postage for paying our health insurance premiums.:eek:
Click to expand...

PSE&G is paying a 5%+ dividend...
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

joecct said:
PSE&G is paying a 5%+ dividend...
Click to expand...

This is all part of the reason that the market is reacting the way it is. There is virtually no place else to get any sort of interest or dividend yield. Anyone who believes the real inflation rate is anything close to 1.5% is living in a fantasy world. But 18-19% hikes in various medical insurance premiums has to be a bit hard for most to swallow. (BTW Joe-look at the various Deutschebank preferreds like DTK for an even better return in the 7% range). It may sound very simplistic but I can come up with a rather straight forward solution to the rapidly rising medical costs in this country-just have fewer people to treat:rolleyes:
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Health Care was going up by 20% almost every year before Obamacare. I fail to see the correlation.

I do however see that the House while defunding Obamacare is using Obamacare numbers to balance their budget. Mainly the Medicare savings. That's positively hilarious. They can whine and destroy the economy over a law that has already passed through both Houses and the Supreme Court but they can't write a budget with VALID NUMBERS!!!!!!!!

Bone Man, Mr. Jobs Jobs Jobs is the WORST SPEAKER in United States history. It isn't even close. The House is a joke.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

ScoobyDoo said:
Health Care was going up by 20% almost every year before Obamacare. I fail to see the correlation.
Click to expand...
That's odd. This link - LINK - shows that in 2002 the total health insurance premium for family coverage was $8,003. In 2012 it was $15,745. Now, I may not be good at simple math, but I do believe an average increase of 20% would take it from $8,003 in 2002 to $49,552 in 2012. Odd. Last year the increase was 4%, by the way.

I do however see that the House while defunding Obamacare is using Obamacare numbers to balance their budget. Mainly the Medicare savings. That's positively hilarious. They can whine and destroy the economy over a law that has already passed through both Houses and the Supreme Court but they can't write a budget with VALID NUMBERS!!!!!!!!

Bone Man, Mr. Jobs Jobs Jobs is the WORST SPEAKER in United States history. It isn't even close. The House is a joke.
Click to expand...
Who was the Speaker of the House in the year(s) leading up to the Civil War? I'd think that guy did a worse job, on average. After all, he let Congress pass laws and stall bills that led to a freaking civil war.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

My understanding was that health care premiums from the early 2000's to like 2009 were going up close to 9% a year and from that time on have increased closer to 3.9%??? Interestingly enough the widely quoted Simpson-Bowles proposal had significant reductions to Medicare spending as part of the balanced budget over 10 years time. Those have already been achieved with the cut in the growth rate.

So, with apologies to the good doctor, unfortunately some people gain and some people lose out, but in the end the growth rate in spending has been cut by more than half. Yeah, yields suck right now but we are in a global recession and since you can't trust Chinese data as far as you can throw it, really is any country growing that much right now? Oddly enough the US is one of the stronger economies out there, and I wouldn't expect rates to tick up anytime soon as this country continues to carry the rest of the world.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Rover said:
My understanding was that health care premiums from the early 2000's to like 2009 were going up close to 9% a year and from that time on have increased closer to 3.9%??? Interestingly enough the widely quoted Simpson-Bowles proposal had significant reductions to Medicare spending as part of the balanced budget over 10 years time. Those have already been achieved with the cut in the growth rate.

So, with apologies to the good doctor, unfortunately some people gain and some people lose out, but in the end the growth rate in spending has been cut by more than half. Yeah, yields suck right now but we are in a global recession and since you can't trust Chinese data as far as you can throw it, really is any country growing that much right now? Oddly enough the US is one of the stronger economies out there, and I wouldn't expect rates to tick up anytime soon as this country continues to carry the rest of the world.
Click to expand...
Did you just say that the masses struggling with rising health care costs should eat cake?

That's what I thought I heard, anyway. :)
 
LynahFan said:
Did you just say that the masses struggling with rising health care costs should eat cake?

That's what I thought I heard, anyway. :)
Click to expand...

More like spinach!

Actually the doctor brings up a good point. While health care spending overall is trending closer to GDP growth, if there are outliers out there (drug coverage in his example) it needs to be broadcast so something can be done about it. If there's a 19% increase in coverage, I for one would like to know why and see some justification for it.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

St. Clown said:
Who was the Speaker of the House in the year(s) leading up to the Civil War? I'd think that guy did a worse job, on average. After all, he let Congress pass laws and stall bills that led to a freaking civil war.
Click to expand...
"Vote Boehner - Because arguably better than full scale civil war!"
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Rover said:
More like spinach!

Actually the doctor brings up a good point. While health care spending overall is trending closer to GDP growth, if there are outliers out there (drug coverage in his example) it needs to be broadcast so something can be done about it. If there's a 19% increase in coverage, I for one would like to know why and see some justification for it.
Click to expand...

The 19% increase i quoted is for the premium for the Medicare part D prescription coverage from AARP. Other plans that i investigated have increased somewhat more. BTW I got a 30% discount on the premium quote from AARP-for being a member of AARP. Otherwise the quote would be a bit higher. Having been involved in medicine for over 40 years-I and my wife( a nurse) have a pretty good handle on our medical coverage and costs. We have obviously had health insurance in one form or another for a very long time but i am only on medicare a couple years now. Our health insurance premiums have NEVER increased anywhere close to the 19% I am seeing or the 20% my wife was quoted. The largest percentage increase we have seen previously has been 11% once and 9% a few times. The effect is of course magnified now as the amounts involved are significantly higher since we are starting from a much higher base premium(after years of 5-10% increases). Just for comparison-in 2000 my entire office health insurance premium-covering myself and nurse(my wife) and individual coverage for 6 employees(no family coverage involved) was less than what i and my wife will be paying in 2014 for just the 2 of us. Lest anyone conclude that we have the Cadillac(or Mercedes) type of plan-my wife carries a $5000 deductible and a 30/70 copay with a max out of pocket of $10,000 per year. Additionally-in 2000 our drug coverage was all inclusive and covered all branded drugs with a copay of $15 per prescription and all generics with a copay of $5. My new copay-if you can call it that, has 4 tiers. The lowest tier-which of course is the one they advertise-covers virtually nothing save for a few generic drugs that might well be bought OTC soon. Most generics fall in the 2nd tier and carry a copay of $10 for a one month supply.Most brand name drugs(and in spite of what we are being told-often do perform better) carry a copay of $45 for a one month supply. In the years that i have been covered by Medicare part D-I have yet to have a drug i prescribed or any drug prescribed for my own health care fall in tier 1. The drug plan for my wife in 2014(which is unchanged from 2013) is a 50/50 copay and of course the insurance company decides what price they feel is fair and then pay 50%. We are fortunate-we are on minimal medication. But i can just imagine the out of pocket costs for many who take medications for hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, depression, insomnia, chronic back pain, etc.

I am just mentioning all of this for a little perspective on what is going on in the medical world. I am not astute enough to venture a guess as to what are all the reasons for this but the increases in the increases has become very obvious to this observer.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Rover said:
My understanding was that health care premiums from the early 2000's to like 2009 were going up close to 9% a year and from that time on have increased closer to 3.9%??? Interestingly enough the widely quoted Simpson-Bowles proposal had significant reductions to Medicare spending as part of the balanced budget over 10 years time. Those have already been achieved with the cut in the growth rate.

So, with apologies to the good doctor, unfortunately some people gain and some people lose out, but in the end the growth rate in spending has been cut by more than half. Yeah, yields suck right now but we are in a global recession and since you can't trust Chinese data as far as you can throw it, really is any country growing that much right now? Oddly enough the US is one of the stronger economies out there, and I wouldn't expect rates to tick up anytime soon as this country continues to carry the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Not so sure with medical care very many people are truly gaining. What is being offered is care for more and more money. You can decrease your cost by accepting coverage which provides less care. Sort of like what Tiffany and Co. is doing with the introduction of their new metal for jewelry called Rubedo. It sort of looks like a pink gold and it is certainly offered at a cheaper price. But when you do a little research-it is about 8-9 carat gold as opposed to the usual 18kt used in their top line jewelry. Probably OK as long as you know that-but they do not reduce the price accordingly. 9 carat should be about 1/2 of the cost of 18kt(since the melt value is calculated that way). But it is not-the price reduction for the cheaper metal is far less than the 50%. Perhaps not the best comparison-but if i am paying for medical care and coverage, I really do expect to get the 18kt care and not be told that i have to settle for something that is 9kt.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Meanwhile, the Feds Health Insurance is going up an average of 4%.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rker-health-program-to-remain-largely-stable/
(may be behind a paywall)

Here's a PDF of rates for the HMO type plans.. http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/premiums/2014/nonpostal-hmo.pdf

And here it is for fee for service (ala Blues): http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/premiums/2014/nonpostal-ffs.pdf
 
Last edited:
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

joecct said:
Meanwhile, the Feds Health Insurance is going up an average of 4%.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rker-health-program-to-remain-largely-stable/
(may be behind a paywall)

Here's a PDF of rates for the HMO type plans.. http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/premiums/2014/nonpostal-hmo.pdf

And here it is for fee for service (ala Blues): http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/plan-information/premiums/2014/nonpostal-ffs.pdf
Click to expand...

I could live with a 4% increase-and we pay all of the premium. I can't remember any year where we had an increase that was at that low level.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

DrDemento said:
I could live with a 4% increase-and we pay all of the premium. I can't remember any year where we had an increase that was at that low level.
Click to expand...
Some went up 70+%. Some went down 70+%. I'd hate to have the insurance that went up 70+%. But Feds can shop without penalty, so I would imagine that the plans with the big % increases are going to lose subscribers. Mine went up 9.26% for a monthly premium (JN5 if you're curious). We can afford the hit.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

A Fake Filibuster? Negotiated with Harry Reid? Really? This is the great and Wonderful Tea Party man?

What a bleeping joke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top