What's new
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 II - Love it or Lose it!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

You know, if you stop willfully misinterpreting my posts, you'd be a lot less bitter. It's not my fault you tried to make a fallacious point about my 500 closest friends. My 500 closest friends don't share any number of demographic characteristics as the country as a whole, so expecting the rest of the country to act like them is silly. Do you really think your friends are demographically representative of the country as a whole?


Hey you get what you deserve for willingly misrepresenting the data. You came off as an elitist who has a superior work ethic to everyone else. I'm just calling you out on that assumption. My friends and family aren't a bad representation as I live in a wealthy city but come from a poor one, so I've seen a cross section of humanity. Even I can name a moocher here and there but for the most part people want to work, and in my experience the moochers tended to come of age in the 60's-70's when mooching was considered "cool".
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Going to 28 hrs is a reality in the retail world. So there are companies that will keep part timers to below the ACA threshold
Same for wage-payroll workers at some universities. Rumor is that is going to happen here, and we're not happy.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Going to 28 hrs is a reality in the retail world. So there are companies that will keep part timers to below the ACA threshold
They may. But let's think about it.

First, large employers, and even companies like mine, don't offer health insurance out of the goodness of our hearts. We do it to attract employees. We need to do it to stay competitive and attract better workers.

But let's say a bunch of companies who had 60 full time 40hr/wk employees decide to go all part time, say 3 days/week, for 24 hours. Gets them below the 50 mark and they don't have to offer insurance.

First, isn't that company now going to have to hire 100 part time employees to fill the 2400 hours of work? So there will actually be more job openings available, albeit with fewer available hours/job?

I just don't see most employers going that route. No one wants the human resource hassles of doubling your employees for the same number of hours, at least not the employers I work with.
 
Going to 28 hrs is a reality in the retail world. So there are companies that will keep part timers to below the ACA threshold

That kind of shiat was already happening well before the ACA. The ACA just gives them an added and convenient excuse. The current trend in retail employment is "just in time" labor, where you are supposed to remain available for 8 hours but may only get called in for 3. And they do it in a way to skirt labor laws regarding on call status and having to pay for it (where they aren't outright breaking them). Another favorite is not giving people set schedules, preventing them from getting a second job since they may work lunch rush two days but dinner the next three but then alternating open and close the following week.
 
Last edited:
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Hey you get what you deserve for willingly misrepresenting the data.
How so?
You came off as an elitist who has a superior work ethic to everyone else. I'm just calling you out on that assumption.
I said nothing about my own work ethic. You're reading what you want to hear.
My friends and family aren't a bad representation as I live in a wealthy city but come from a poor one, so I've seen a cross section of humanity. Even I can name a moocher here and there but for the most part people want to work, and in my experience the moochers tended to come of age in the 60's-70's when mooching was considered "cool".
Do you have any idea how much you sound like a cranky old Republican claiming not to be racist because he has a black friend? I grew up in the heart of Appalachia going to a high school with a 25% dropout rate, so any time you want to compare lists of moochers we can merely "name"...
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

I just don't see most employers going that route. No one wants the human resource hassles of doubling your employees for the same number of hours, at least not the employers I work with.
You probably don't work in the retail world. I'm talking companies that already have lots of part time folks, the managers have been told no more than 28 hours for their part timers. While the trend before ACA was to have as few full timers as they could, there is more emphasis on it now. This certainly isn't all companies but I'd bet its wide spread in retail. I know it is in Maine
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

You probably don't work in the retail world. I'm talking companies that already have lots of part time folks, the managers have been told no more than 28 hours for their part timers. While the trend before ACA was to have as few full timers as they could, there is more emphasis on it now. This certainly isn't all companies but I'd bet its wide spread in retail. I know it is in Maine

Fast food has been documented as getting employees into a "labor sharing" sort of deal. The McDonald's owned by Holding Company A hires Jim and has him work 20-25 hrs/week. The Wendy's owned by Holding Company B will then hire Jim to do the same. Then you look across the whole staff, and about 60% are working for both companies. While this practice isn't entirely new, it's certainly grown, and the hours each kid works at each restaurant have shrunk.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Quick Question for those smarter than I, which is most of you.

Was there a provision in the law that prevented insurance companies from large increases in premiums for pre-existing plans? And, if there was is there a way for the insurance companies to get around that by changing the plan a little bit and then jacking the rates anyway?

I thought I had seen Fox report on it (:D) but, I had seen where it had been debunked numerous times as well.

In this case I am specifically referring to people on plans with their jobs and not the individual market.
 
Was there a provision in the law that prevented insurance companies from large increases in premiums for pre-existing plans? And, if there was is there a way for the insurance companies to get around that by changing the plan a little bit and then jacking the rates anyway?

I thought I had seen Fox report on it (:D) but, I had seen where it had been debunked numerous times as well.

In this case I am specifically referring to people on plans with their jobs and not the individual market.
I don't recall hearing about a specific provision like that, but do remember that insurance cos must now disburse 80%(?) of their premiums as actual health care costs, so a company can't jack up premiums significantly without a corresponding increase in health care provided.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Quick Question for those smarter than I, which is most of you.

Was there a provision in the law that prevented insurance companies from large increases in premiums for pre-existing plans? And, if there was is there a way for the insurance companies to get around that by changing the plan a little bit and then jacking the rates anyway?

I thought I had seen Fox report on it (:D) but, I had seen where it had been debunked numerous times as well.

In this case I am specifically referring to people on plans with their jobs and not the individual market.
From what I understand, and this has to do with individuals and employers with fewer than 50 employees, is that once this is all up and running there won't be any difference between the premium you'd pay if you go through the exchange versus contacting an insurance company/agent and buying it direct. You will pay the same premium, and that includes whether you had/have a pre-existing medical problem or not. You will have a choice of types of plans, (gold, platinum, etc...) that will have different levels of deductible, co-pays, etc..., and your cost will vary depending upon the type/level you elect. But a gold plan on the exchange will be the same cost as a gold plan purchased direct from the insurance company, and it won't matter what your history looks like.

The difference will be that if you want to try to qualify for a premium subsidy, you must go through the exchange.

Edit:

I misread Scooby's post. Pre-existing plans (not conditions as I read) I think have to qualify under grandfathered plans. http://obamacarefacts.com/grandfathered-plans.php

I don't think they can change rates, etc..., outside those rules without losing the grandfathered status.
 
Last edited:
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Excellent article here listing all of the Obamacare stories that have been debunked!

Maybe there are no genuine Obamacare horror stories

Another Obamacare horror story that doesn't hold up: Julia Boonstra of Michigan. (Americans for Prosperity)




By Michael Hiltzik
February 21, 2014, 6:10 a.m.



Kevin Drum wonders whether there's a single genuine Obamacare horror story out there, given that virtually every yarn promoted by Republicans or conservatives about people hurt by the Affordable Care Act has deflated like a p ricked balloon on the merest examination.


It's a very good question, inspired by the latest horror story bloomer -- the tale of one Julia Boonstra of Michigan, wholesaled by the Koch-founded conservative organization Americans for Prosperity. In a political ad being run by AFP against a Democratic senate candidate in Michigan, Boonstra asserts that "Obamacare" has made her leukemia treatment "unaffordable" and "jeopardized" her health.

But when Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post checked out her story, he found it didn't hold up. The Affordable Care Act provided her with cheaper coverage than she had before, while allowing her to keep her doctor and maintain her treatment. Kessler didn't mention it, but Boonstra plainly benefits from another provision of the ACA: the ban on exclusions for preexisting conditions. Patients living in the pre-ACA world of individual health insurance with conditions like leukemia were constantly in danger of losing their coverage and becoming uninsurable. That's not legal anymore.

Boonstra's case is just the latest of a very long line of deflatable horror stories. We've debunked a passel of them here, from Florida resident Diane Barrette, who didn't realize she'd been empowered by the ACA to move from a costly junk insurance plan to a cheaper real insurance plan; to Los Angeles real estate agent Deborah Cavallaro, whose "unaffordable" premiums turned out to be eminently affordable; to San Diego business owner Edie Sundby, whose cancer coverage was safeguarded by Obamacare after her insurer bailed out on her for financial reasons; to "Bette," the supposed victim trotted out by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) in her response to the State of the Union message last month, and who turned out to be an ACA "victim" because she couldn't be bothered actually to investigate her options for affordable care on the Washington state enrollment website.

And there are many more, including the extremely dubious personal narratives of House Speaker John Boehner and Sen. Tom Coburn.

What a lot of these stories have in common are, first of all, a subject largely unaware of his or her options under the ACA or unwilling to determine them; and, second, shockingly uninformed and incurious news reporters, including some big names in the business, who don't bother to look into the facts of the cases they're offering for public consumption. (I'm talking about you, Maria Bartiromo.)

What's odd about this is that any reporter who has covered the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, which Lord knows hasn't been perfect, is aware of numerous cases of individuals or families who are paying more for coverage this year than last, and possibly for less coverage than they had before.

These often aren't "horror" stories in the sense of people genuinely left without coverage options, and in almost every case these are people for whom the ACA offers positive improvements in their access to health insurance along with the negatives; often they simply don't discern the positives or don't value them to the same extent that they're dismayed by the price.

Often this is because they're healthy, and healthy people may not recognize how vauable health insurance will be if and when they become ill or injured. The health insurance landscape in the U.S. is very uneven terrain, though plainly less uneven now than it was before the ACA was enacted.

But you don't see these nuanced narratives being offered by the anti-Obamacare lobby, perhaps because they are nuanced. Much easier to gin up a scare story out of whole cloth, exploiting a willing patient and a careless news reader. This is how an American public gets convinced that a program manifestly in their best interests is something bad.



Reach me at @hiltzikm on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ or by email.


MORE FROM MICHAEL HILTZIK


http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...tories-20140220,0,3801120.story#ixzz2tyR75uNR
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Based on my now personal experience with this law and it's absolute kneel down to insurance companies I'd have to call this law the stupidest of all time.

In fact it's so bad I'm considering changing my part affiliation to "none of the above" which matches my true political leanings anyway.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Live by the CBO, die by the CBO I guess....
The CBO always uses appropriate methodology when they agree with the party touting the report. They are irrelevant and utilize outdated methods when they disagree. See minimum wage, ACA, and examples ad nauseam.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

I'm shocked Grover hasn't yet linked the video of his dear fourth in command, Harry Reid, trying to discredit the "horror stories".
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

I'm shocked Grover hasn't yet linked the video of his dear fourth in command, Harry Reid, trying to discredit the "horror stories".

No point in linking Hardball Harry Reid. I already posted the LA Times article that I'm sure he lifted his info from. ;)
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Based on my now personal experience with this law and it's absolute kneel down to insurance companies I'd have to call this law the stupidest of all time.

In fact it's so bad I'm considering changing my part affiliation to "none of the above" which matches my true political leanings anyway.
If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your plan you can keep your plan and the average family will save 2500 bucks a year. All great lies by the beloved Obama
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your plan you can keep your plan and the average family will save 2500 bucks a year. All great lies by the beloved Obama

1. Lie
2. Lie
3. Lie

Yep, I can't disagree.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Aaaaaannnd it looks like The Impotent Boner that USCHO conservatives love so much isn't going to have a vote on that brilliant GOP ACA alternative after all!

So tell me knucks, if there is such a better plan out there, why hasn't the Republican House embraced it since they can pass legislation with no Dem help in that chamber? Anybody? Bueller? Anybody?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/obamacare-alternative-vote-104042.html?hp=r3
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top