Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on June 06, 2011, 02:53:24 PM
-
June 6, 2011, 2:40 p.m. EDT
Firms halting coverage as reform starts: survey
30% of companies say they’ll stop offering health plansStories You Might Like
By Russ Britt, MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/firms-halting-coverage-as-reform-starts-survey-2011-06-06
LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — Once provisions of the Affordable Care Act start to kick in during 2014, at least three of every 10 employers will probably stop offering health coverage, a survey released Monday shows.
While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.
The survey of 1,300 employers says those who are keenly aware of the health-reform measure probably are more likely to consider an alternative to employer-sponsored plans, with 50% to 60% in this group expected to make a change. It also found that for some, it makes more sense to switch.
Click to Play Are profit forecasts too optimistic? A 4% economic-growth rate for 2011 now looks like a pipe dream. In that case, assumptions about corporate earnings may be high, especially with the Federal Reserve's latest bond-buying program winding down. Kelly Evans discusses.
“At least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries,” the study says.
It goes on to add: “Contrary to what employers assume, more than 85% of employees would remain at their jobs even if their employers stopped offering [employer-sponsored insurance], although about 60% would expect increased compensation.”
A number of competitors will emerge in the insurance market once reform provisions start to take effect, according to the McKinsey Quarterly study. These firms will be needed to provide a transition for those moving from employer-sponsored insurance to other coverage options.
Insurers will have to adapt to new realities and look for ways to keep the policy holders they have, the study says, but that shouldn’t be difficult. “Our research shows that more than 70% of employees would stay with their insurer if it offers a seamless transition and appropriate products. Each payer also must understand how changing employer-benefit strategies will shift the risk profile of its membership and set prices appropriately.”
Russ Britt is the Los Angeles bureau chief for MarketWatch.
-
Just face is 333 Obama is kicking you ass!
Healthcare reform aka Obamacare is kicking your ass!
;D
-
This is why I really hate those who still support obama. If you support obama you support collapsing the nation.
-
For all you dipshits who complain about discussions of wiener , fox news, palin, etc and want to talk issues - lets discuss this morons.
-
Medical Insurance shouldn't be tied to employers as it is. That's a dumb idea for both parties.
-
The sooner we move to a single payer system and have health insurance not tied to employment, the better.
-
So let's waste a trillion w bamacare right ?
-
BUMP for the major accomplishment of Obama.
-
The sooner we move to a single payer system and have health insurance not tied to employment, the better.
Why? How about the sooner each person is responsible for his/her own healthcare the better? How about the sooner the Federal Government gets out of the healthcare business the better?
-
June 6, 2011, 2:40 p.m. EDT
Firms halting coverage as reform starts: survey
30% of companies say they’ll stop offering health plansStories You Might Like
By Russ Britt, MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/firms-halting-coverage-as-reform-starts-survey-2011-06-06
LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — Once provisions of the Affordable Care Act start to kick in during 2014, at least three of every 10 employers will probably stop offering health coverage, a survey released Monday shows.
While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.
The survey of 1,300 employers says those who are keenly aware of the health-reform measure probably are more likely to consider an alternative to employer-sponsored plans, with 50% to 60% in this group expected to make a change. It also found that for some, it makes more sense to switch.
Click to Play Are profit forecasts too optimistic? A 4% economic-growth rate for 2011 now looks like a pipe dream. In that case, assumptions about corporate earnings may be high, especially with the Federal Reserve's latest bond-buying program winding down. Kelly Evans discusses.
“At least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries,” the study says.
It goes on to add: “Contrary to what employers assume, more than 85% of employees would remain at their jobs even if their employers stopped offering [employer-sponsored insurance], although about 60% would expect increased compensation.”
A number of competitors will emerge in the insurance market once reform provisions start to take effect, according to the McKinsey Quarterly study. These firms will be needed to provide a transition for those moving from employer-sponsored insurance to other coverage options.
Insurers will have to adapt to new realities and look for ways to keep the policy holders they have, the study says, but that shouldn’t be difficult. “Our research shows that more than 70% of employees would stay with their insurer if it offers a seamless transition and appropriate products. Each payer also must understand how changing employer-benefit strategies will shift the risk profile of its membership and set prices appropriately.”
Russ Britt is the Los Angeles bureau chief for MarketWatch.
333 - do you ever get past the headline before you post these stories
-
Yeah, your point?
When those people have to go buy individual plans that have all the shit loaded in to them due o TraitorCare, and not qualify for group rates, guess what happens straw?
-
TraitorCare
how come it's traitorcare at the national level, but perfectly acceptable at the state level when Mitt did it?
-
how come it's traitorcare at the national level, but perfectly acceptable at the state level when Mitt did it?
It shouldnt be, both suck ass and drive up premiums and costs for families and buinesses
On a technical level he is right, but the ideas suck overall.
Talk to any buisness what they think of ObamaCare.
-
Yeah, your point?
When those people have to go buy individual plans that have all the shit loaded in to them due o TraitorCare, and not qualify for group rates, guess what happens straw?
is the subsidized exhange program the same an being an individual buying a policy today on the open market?
-
It shouldnt be, both suck ass and drive up premiums and costs for families and buinesses
On a technical level he is right, but the ideas suck overall.
Talk to any buisness what they think of ObamaCare.
from the story you posted:
“At least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries,” the study says.
-
is the subsidized exhange program the same an being an individual buying a policy today on the open market?
Are you fucking kidding? Seriously? Because I am beginning to think you are just a gimmick. And maybe people dont want more welfare. Ever think of that? Ofcourse not - because you are a far left socialist freak who worships the welfare state and the idea that govt masters wll lan your life for you.
The "subsidies" dont go to everyone and many will not qualify yet be forced to pay higher and higher premiums due to the mandates in obamacare. So the middle class guy who busts his ass whose copany now has o toss him off group plan gets fucked so that the leeches and parasits obama wants to get healthcare can? Nice - communism you ca believe in.
So whats the fucking point of all this crap?
All they had to do is leave it alone, allow comptetion across state lines, create catastrophic plans for young people, 1099s, contractors, etc and they could have covered millions of people are relatively little cost and disruption to the nation.
-
how come it's traitorcare at the national level, but perfectly acceptable at the state level when Mitt did it?
Try reading the constitution and your question will be answered
-
from the story you posted:
And? they benefit because they will choose to pay the fine instead which is cheaper.
BTW - obama promised a premiuim decrease of 2500% or $2500 of health insurace premiuims. How is that working out? ::) ::) ::)
-
Try reading the constitution and your question will be answered
isn't having a healthly population important for common defence and general welfare of the country?
-
isn't having a healthly population important for common defence and general welfare of the country?
Yeah, but I didnt know that involved me forking over a shit load of money to a private carrier by govt mandate by orders of Dictator Obama.
-
And? they benefit because they will choose to pay the fine instead which is cheaper.
BTW - obama promised a premiuim decrease of 2500% or $2500 of health insurace premiuims. How is that working out? ::) ::) ::)
2500% or 2500 dollars ?
how can something decrease by more than 100%
I'm sure you have that on a a 4 second youtube clip where it is conveniently edited to avoid the part where he clarifies or makes a correction
let's see it
-
Yeah, but I didnt know that involved me forking over a shit load of money to a private carrier by govt mandate by orders of Dictator Obama.
don't you already fork over a shit load of money to a private carrier and I'm guessing you also have a high deductible and high copay
what will change for you under the new plan?
-
2500% or 2500 dollars ?
how can something decrease by more than 100%
I'm sure you have that on a a 4 second youtube clip where it is conveniently edited to avoid the part where he clarifies or makes a correction
let's see it
This lying sack of shit is so clueless its not funny. He's the most bald faced liar I have eve witnessed in public life.
He lied again, and again and again, and again.
-
isn't having a healthly population important for common defence and general welfare of the country?
First look at how Article I Section 8 is written. It starts out with a broad statement then goes on the enumerate the powers after the initial sentence.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Framers were not stupid and knew how the initial though could be interpreted to mean other than what it was intended, so they made it clear.
-
This lying sack of shit is so clueless its not funny. He's the most bald faced liar I have eve witnessed in public life.
He lied again, and again and again, and again.
I'm glad you posted that
classic editing on that clip
why do you choose to still believe this is what Obama actually believes when it was corrected by the White House the very next day
do you just choose to ignore so you can keep ranting and raving like a maniac
A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/17/politics/main6306991.shtml#ixzz1Obk3I2jN
-
First look at how Article I Section 8 is written. It starts out with a broad statement then goes on the enumerate the powers after the initial sentence.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Framers were not stupid and knew how the initial though could be interpreted to mean other than what it was intended, so they made it clear.
I see nothing that prevents us from providing a mechanism for affordable health care
Again, I can make the argument that a healhty population is essential for the common defense and general welfare of the country
-
That is why I said 2500% or $2500 dipshit.
Either way - he was lying, i wrong, and businesses across the board are getting massive premium increases.
No matter how you spin this turn - its a fail for the messiah.
-
I see nothing that prevents us from providing a mechanism for affordable health care
Again, I can make the argument that a healhty population is essential for the common defense and general welfare of the country
::) ::) ::)
Obamacare did and does no such thing.
-
Like i said. It does not make sense for employment and insurance to go hand in hand. It's not good for either party.
I'm not a fan of the current health care legislation, although i do believe it is better than the zero we had before. I am holding out for single payer coverage for all. With no employer paying for it.
-
That is why I said 2500% or $2500 dipshit.
Either way - he was lying, i wrong, and businesses across the board are getting massive premium increases.
No matter how you spin this turn - its a fail for the messiah.
he didn't say either of those things and he corrected an obvious "mispeak" the very next day
only people who are willfully stupid would think it's relevent
-
::) ::) ::)
Obamacare did and does no such thing.
how would you know
almost none of it has gone into effect yet
-
Like i said. It does not make sense for employment and insurance to go hand in hand. It's not good for either party.
I'm not a fan of the current health care legislation, although i do believe it is better than the zero we had before. I am holding out for single payer coverage for all. With no employer paying for it.
it's not good for our country when we're trying to compete economically with businesses in other countries who don't have the burden of providing health care for their employees.
You'd think the so called business savvy Repubs would be all over that one
-
it's not good for our country when we're trying to compete economically with businesses in other countries who don't have the burden of providing health care for their employees.
You'd think the so called business savvy Repubs would be all over that one
The messiah spent the first 1 1/2 years o the turn sandwich called obamacare. this is on him. He could have went a different rout. Stop trying to blame everyone else.
-
The messiah spent the first 1 1/2 years o the turn sandwich called obamacare. this is on him. He could have went a different rout. Stop trying to blame everyone else.
wtf ?
where in my post do you see me blaming someone/anyone ?
I beginning to think it's not willful ignorance on your part and just plain old fashioned ignorance
-
wtf ?
where in my post do you see me blaming someone/anyone ?
I beginning to think it's not willful ignorance on your part and just plain old fashioned ignorance
Obama took an already bad situation and made it far worse with healthcare. He did the worst of both worlds. If you want to argue single payor, medicare for all, fine that is a debate worth having.
If you want to argue complete deregulation, etc etc, fine, that a diferent argument.
However, that is not what he did. He put into place a complicated mess that drives prices even higher, already has been forced to give out 2000 waivers, and is causing chos in the healthcare and employment market.
-
I see nothing that prevents us from providing a mechanism for affordable health care
Again, I can make the argument that a healhty population is essential for the common defense and general welfare of the country
What is it you don't understand about enumerated powers? Why is it OK in Mass, because of the 10th Amendment that's why.
-
Like i said. It does not make sense for employment and insurance to go hand in hand. It's not good for either party.
I'm not a fan of the current health care legislation, although i do believe it is better than the zero we had before. I am holding out for single payer coverage for all. With no employer paying for it.
Again why? Healthcare is no one's responsibility but your own. It is a BENEFIT not a right, and as pointed out above it is not an enumerated power of the federal government. So we just ignore the constitution when it suits our interests? That's worked out great so far ::)
-
Healthcare shouldn't be tied to employers or insurance companies. It is your own responsibility. BTW, costs would drastically decrease if it went back to just a patient/doctor system.
-
it's not good for our country when we're trying to compete economically with businesses in other countries who don't have the burden of providing health care for their employees.
You'd think the so called business savvy Repubs would be all over that one
from the fan boy of the ppl who want to raise corporate taxes even though we are the nation with the 2nd highest corporate taxes in the world...
::)
-
US Healthcare system is completely broken so let's add another 30 million people into it and not address any of the massive problems underlying it. That is SURE to work out. Really.
-
from the fan boy of the ppl who want to raise corporate taxes even though we are the nation with the 2nd highest corporate taxes in the world...
::)
we could just close the tax loopholes so that companies like GE pay their fair share rather than paying NOTHING
-
I see nothing that prevents us from providing a mechanism for affordable health care
Again, I can make the argument that a healhty population is essential for the common defense and general welfare of the country
That's not the argument you need to make. You need to show that it can be applied via the commerce clause and that's obviously not an easily made argument.
Maybe GW or 33 could give a better guess, but IMO it's 50/50 on who's going to win with the SCOTUS.
-
US Healthcare system is completely broken so let's add another 30 million people into it and not address any of the massive problems underlying it. That is SURE to work out. Really.
rising costs, abusive practicies, etc.. were addressed in the legislation
what else were you thinking was not addressed?
-
Ha ha ha ha - tell that to everyone getting massive premium increases.
-
Ha ha ha ha - tell that to everyone getting massive premium increases.
It's better to live in fairy tale land.
-
Ha ha ha ha - tell that to everyone getting massive premium increases.
has the legislation gone into full effect yet?
-
Obviously so since 2000 waiver have been needed so far to friends of obama and pelosi.
-
Obviously so since 2000 waiver have been needed so far to friends of obama and pelosi.
I get quite the kick out of the fact that the liberals on this board go completely deaf, blind and dumb every time someone asks them to explain why Piglosi and co. have been racking up the waivers by the hundreds. After all, it's such an awesome and perfect law!
-
Obviously so since 2000 waiver have been needed so far to friends of obama and pelosi.
then why do I read stuff like this from last week:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-31/news/29621719_1_health-plan-association-leslie-moran-health-care
Health care prices in New York City skyrocket, residents anxious for Obamacare policy to kick in
BY KENNETH LOVETT
DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
ALBANY - For city residents forced to buy their own health insurance, President Obama's sweeping health care law can't take effect soon enough.
Premium rates for personally funded HMOs soared last year as the number of insurers competing for business has dropped dramatically since 2004, the Daily News has learned.
One company, GHI HMO Select, is now charging individuals $3,319 a month. And GHI family coverage is a jaw-dropping $8,463 per month, the state Insurance Department said. Those rates are nearly 8% higher than last year's.
-
And what will the price be afterwards.
-
And what will the price be afterwards.
I thought you said it OBVIOUSLY already was in effect
how about you refrain from bitching about it until you have some actual facts
-
I thought you said it OBVIOUSLY already was in effect
how about you refrain from bitching about it until you have some actual facts
Its being implemented over a number of years. Again why the need for 2000 waivers if it's so good?
-
straw please tell us how this bill is going to drive down costs when a person doesnt need to have insurance b/c the penalties are less than the premiums and there is no pre existing conditions?
insurance is a just in case business when you take out the just in case and you no longer have ppl feeding the bank for those that do get sick, what do you think will happen to those that do try to keep insurance?
-
Its being implemented over a number of years. Again why the need for 2000 waivers if it's so good?
I never said it was "so good"
I thought it was a pretty weak compromise but better than doing nothing
looks like your neighbors in Albany can't wait for it to kick in
-
I just read straws article. Ridiculous. Says nothing at all about obamacare.
-
I never said it was "so good"
I thought it was a pretty weak compromise but better than doing nothing
looks like your neighbors in Albany can't wait for it to kick in
Read your own article.
-
I never said it was "so good"
I thought it was a pretty weak compromise but better than doing nothing
looks like your neighbors in Albany can't wait for it to kick in
wrong sir as usual...again straw please tell us how this bill is going to drive down costs when a person doesnt need to have insurance b/c the penalties are less than the premiums and there is no pre existing conditions?
insurance is a just in case business when you take out the just in case and you no longer have ppl feeding the bank for those that do get sick, what do you think will happen to those that do try to keep insurance?
-
Read your own article.
I did
what part don't you understand?
-
wrong sir as usual...again
good job addressing me as sir
I have no clue what part you think is "wrong"
-
The article does not have even one sentence saying how obamacare will reduce premiums. Not one. Fail.
-
I get quite the kick out of the fact that the liberals on this board go completely deaf, blind and dumb every time someone asks them to explain why Piglosi and co. have been racking up the waivers by the hundreds. After all, it's such an awesome and perfect law!
lol, pretty funny how they chickenshit away from that.
-
good job addressing me as sir
I have no clue what part you think is "wrong"
the part where you think its better than the way it was...
try responding to my original post you keep dancing around ;)
straw please tell us how this bill is going to drive down costs when a person doesnt need to have insurance b/c the penalties are less than the premiums and there is no pre existing conditions?
insurance is a just in case business when you take out the just in case and you no longer have ppl feeding the bank for those that do get sick, what do you think will happen to those that do try to keep insurance?
-
That's not the argument you need to make. You need to show that it can be applied via the commerce clause and that's obviously not an easily made argument.
Maybe GW or 33 could give a better guess, but IMO it's 50/50 on who's going to win with the SCOTUS.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
Not sure how you get the ability to force or penalize someone to buy a product from a private sector company out of that. But should this BS stand in the SCOTUS, the America we know is dead
-
Like i said. It does not make sense for employment and insurance to go hand in hand. It's not good for either party.
I'm not a fan of the current health care legislation, although i do believe it is better than the zero we had before. I am holding out for single payer coverage for all. With no employer paying for it.
YOU want single payer but that is not what Obama promoted through his reform. YOU can believe that is better than what we had before but the facts are that you are wrong. Why? Because it does not live up to what Obama claimed it would do. It does not reduce premiums and it does not allow people to keep their current coverage or doctor. It creates such uncertainty as to how much it would cost companies that businesses are rushing to get waivers, already thousands of waivers have been given, and because of the uncertainty it is estimated that MILLIONS might lose their current coverage. That is NOT what Obama stated it would do. If millions lose their coverage THAT IS NOT AN IMPROVEMENT ON WHAT WE HAD BEFORE.
1 in 3 Employers Will Drop Health Benefits After ObamaCare Kicks In, Survey Finds
Published June 07, 2011
Thirty percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering health benefits to their employees once the main provisions of President Obama's federal health care law go into effect in 2014, a new survey finds.
The research published in the McKinsey Quarterly found that the number rises to 50 percent among employers who are highly aware of the health care law.
McKinsey and Company, which identifies itself as a management consultant that aims to help businesses run more productively and competitively, conducted the survey of more than 1,300 employers earlier this year. It said the survey spanned industries, geographies and employer sizes.
But the White House pushed back against the report.
"This report is at odds with the experts from the Congressional Budget Office, the Rand Corporation, the Urban Institute and history," a senior administration official told Fox News. "History has shown that reform motivates more businesses to offer insurance."
Health reform in Massachusetts uses a similar structure, with an exchange, a personal responsibility requirement and an employer responsibility requirement," the official said. "And the number of individuals with employer-sponsored insurance in Massachusetts has increased."
According to the survey, at least 30 percent of employers would reap financial gain from dropping coverage even if they compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries.
The research notes among the new provisions that could spur employers to drop coverage is a requirement of all employers with more than 50 employees to offer health benefits to every full-timer or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker. Those benefits must also be equal between highly compensated executives and hourly employees – requirements that will increase medical costs for many companies.
The findings are distinct from a Congressional Budget Office estimate that only about 7 percent of employees who currently get health coverage through their jobs would have to switch to subsidized-exchange polices in 2014.
The group said its variance is so wide because shifting away from employer-sponsored insurance "will be economically rational" given the "law's incentives." The law requires employers to make insurance available to low-income or part-time employees that may not otherwise be covered.
The research found that contrary to what many employers feared, most employees -- more than 85 percent -- would stay at jobs that no longer offered health benefits. But 60 percent of employees would expect higher compensation.
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/How_US_health_care_reform_will_affect_employee_benefits_2813
-
The US Health System and How to Improve It
President Obama said back in March of 2010, ”No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.”
However, many do not believe him. Republican John Boehner (Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives) sees it differently, ”According to experts, more than 87 million American could lose access to their current health care plan under the new law. Workers at a majority of the nation’s employers – including as many as four out of every five small businesses – would lose their current coverage, thus providing further evidence that ObamaCare is doing exactly the opposite of what Democrats promised it would do.”
http://theushealthsystem.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/will-obama-allow-you-to-keep-your-current-coverage/
-
This is why I really hate those who still support obama. If you support obama you support collapsing the nation.
Support Ron Paul 2012.
-
Support Ron Paul 2012.
I am going to vote for him or bachmann in the N.Y. Primary. I really like her. I guess it depends on how things are going at that point. I really think he needs to start going on the attack more. Not personal and petty, but he needs to change his approach a little bit and he can zoom to the top easily IMHO.
-
I am going to vote for him or bachmann in the N.Y. Primary. I really like her. I guess it depends on how things are going at that point. I really think he needs to start going on the attack more. Not personal and petty, but he needs to change his approach a little bit and he can zoom to the top easily IMHO.
It's not his style to attack people. Be more specific. What could he do?
-
It's not his style to attack people. Be more specific. What could he do?
He needs to attack obama and give mor red meat to primary voters.
He is already rock solid on the issues, already has a ton of cred across the spectrum, and needs to really let it fly now.
I think he needs to be almost sarcastic a bit when talking about obama and wht he has done so far. Many GOP primary voters will flock to him since they re already with him on most issues.
and - he will et a lot more press and coverage if he starts mocking obama on the econmy and his bullshit.
-
June 8, 2011
Let's Not Forget About Obamacare
‹‹Previous Page |1 | 2 |
By David Harsanyi
Democrats will often get irritable when some clingy philistine refers to Obamacare as "socialized medicine." It's simply not a precise phrase for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In any event, it's not socialized yet, you ignoramuses! Progress doesn't happen overnight. No worries, though, recent signs portend that Obamacare will give us the state-run plan we proles deserve.
A new study published in McKinsey Quarterly claims that in 2014, the provisions of Obamacare will induce 3 in 10 employers to "definitely or probably" stop offering health coverage to their employees. And we can only assume the companies have had the good sense not to read the legislation.
Sure, the president promised we could keep our insurance if we liked it. But why would you want to be mixed up with pitiless corporations that focus on profits, anyway? Obamacare courageously forces states to implement concocted "exchanges" so that someone much smarter than you can pick participants, regulate prices and keep an eye on things. Sounds like a vigorous marketplace. It's only a wonder that more Americans aren't clamoring for government-run supermarkets, smartphones and dating exchanges, as well.
You'll also recall that the un-socialized system allowed 20, 30, 40 million (please feel free to come up with any number you'd like; The New York Times won't care) people to go uninsured. Medicare's chief actuary estimated that 400,000 would sign up for these high-risk pools before Obamacare kicked in. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the budget would be able to handle 200,000, and others claimed that the program would need eight times the funding to meet demand. This was the driving reason for Obamacare. But as Megan McArdle of The Atlantic points out, just as with the exchanges, folks have been standoffish, with only about 18,000 people signing up.
Victory, right? The success of a government handout is always measured by how little Americans need to use it, right? Well, judging from the food stamp administration's actions, that would be a big no. What this probably calls out for is more public service announcements or a wider net. Hey, we'll just get some toffee-nosed yacht jockeys to offset the cost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not to say there aren't people out there who really need support. The president has generously handed out nearly 1,400 Obamacare waivers to the neediest among us. About 20 percent of them have been awarded to an upmarket district in San Francisco that, by pure chance, is represented by Nancy Pelosi. Others, such as the AARP and local unions, had demanded we pass Obamacare so they could not take part in it immediately.
We'll also soon be hearing more about the lawsuits challenging Obamacare's individual mandate. Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center, recently asked, "If Congress can impose this economic mandate on the people, what can't it mandate the people to buy?" Everything and nothing. And that's the beauty of it.
And let's not forget it was Obama, the newfound holy savior of Medicare, who pinned the key cost control component of health care reform on Medicare through his Independent Payment Advisory Board, or what bitter righties call a rationing board.
Rationing boards. Political favors. Lies. Coercion. Broken promises. Precedents that can force us to buy about anything. It might not be socialism, technically speaking. But really, what's not to like?
|
Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/06/08/lets_not_forget_about_obamacare_110129-full.html at June 08, 2011 - 05:00:41 AM PDT
-
ObamaCare: What’s Really Sending Seniors Off a Cliff Posted by on
Frontpagemagazine ^ | Jun 8th, 2011 | Tait Trussell
________________________ ________________________ ___________
Even though a demonic TV commercial depicts a frantic grandma in a wheelchair being dumped off a cliff by a man resembling Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), author of a plan to save the Medicare system, Section 3025 of ObamaCare would suppress readmissions to hospitals, where delay or denial could mean death for millions of grandmas.
Democrats hate the reasonable Ryan plan to turn Medicare into a sound system involving patient choice. (Nearly all the House Republicans voted for it April 15.) The aforementioned commercial, sponsored by the liberal AgendaGroup Project began in May. It characterizes the Ryan plan as privatizing Medicare. The strain of “America the Beautiful” accompanies the scandalous melodrama of grandma’s fate, as conceived by the left-wing fabrication.
Section 3025 of Obama’s mislabled Affordable Care Act calls for financially penalizing hospitals which admit sick Medicare individuals who need to return to the hospital within 30 days after their discharge. The overlord of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), Dr. Donald Berwick, was granted a formula to penalize hospitals. He hopes to save $15 billion a year by suppressing hospital readmissions. A 250-bed hospital could lose $1.7 million unless it blocks follow-up hospital treatment for one of three categories of illness — pneumonia, heart attack, and heart failure.
Currently, Medicare pays for all rehospitalizations, except those in which patients are readmitted within 24 hours after discharge for the same conditions.
An important study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), written by a group of doctors, pointedly said “there is very limited research” addressing the issue of “diseases and processes that contribute to rehospitalization.” But analyzing a year in the mid-2000s, for which all Medicare billing statements were available, the authors found a total of 13,062,937 patients enrolled in the Medicare program were discharged from 4,926 hospitals. Some 516,959 of these patients died, and 690,276 went to other acute care settings, leaving 11,855,702 at risk for rehospitalization. That’s a lot of grandmas and grandpas.
The NEJM article quoted another study, which found that among persons 18 to 64 years of age, the rate of rehospitalization was “only weakly related to age.” So, why is Dr. Berwick given to such fascist inclinations with grandma and other Medicare patients? The devilish ObamaCare law makes him do it.
The NEJM physicians wrote: “We were unable to link measures of the number of beds in a community” to the over readmitting of patients or whether “higher rehospitalizaion rates are evidence of better care or just more care…etter care may reduce the number of rehospitalizaions, but we have no data on where these features are provided.” Research, the doctors mentioned, shows that palliative care can reduce rehospitalization. (That should be apparent because palliative care normally is given to those in their final stage of life. It is care for comfort, not cure and normally found in Hospice.)
Variation in readmissions among different states and hospitals “may be possible on a national scale,” the authors of the NEJM study said, but “the data do not show which practices cause the differences or whether the differences are exportable” to other hospitals.
When the typical patient has “two chances of three of being rehospitalized or dying” within a year after discharge “it is probably wiser to consider all Medicare patients as having a high risk of rehospitalization…It would be premature to predict how much [cost] reduction can be achieved,” the study’s authors wrote.
This section of ObamaCare is a direct physical threat to seniors, whose lives apparently are not considered worth the money to pay for their return to the hospital. It also is a killer for hospitals. In Detroit, just as one example, St. Joseph Mercy Health System (hospitals) depends on Medicare for 45 percent of its revenue. In rural communities, the percentage often is even higher.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has the power to expand the list of the three selected conditions without limit after 2013. So, what ObamaCare considers “excessive” hospital care is, in truth, a real and effective way for Democrats to push grandma off the cliff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/08/obamacare-off-the-cliff/
-
Oh dear the scare mongering continues!
Current health care legislation is not perfect. There are many flaws to it but it's a step in the right direction. Towards a system which allows the richest country in the world to provide affordable coverage for those in need. I support that move 100% even if i don't 100% agree with the current legislation.
Like i've said earlier i could not care any less about employers dropping employees. It's a dumb idea to have employment and insurance linked as it is.
-
Oh dear the scare mongering continues!
Current health care legislation is not perfect. There are many flaws to it but it's a step in the right direction. Towards a system which allows the richest country in the world to provide affordable coverage for those in need. I support that move 100% even if i don't 100% agree with the current legislation.
Like i've said earlier i could not care any less about employers dropping employees. It's a dumb idea to have employment and insurance linked as it is.
It is not a step in the right direction, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!! The only step in the right direction is removing the federal government from healthcare
-
It is not a step in the right direction, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!! The only step in the right direction is removing the federal government from healthcare
Not if it's a tax used for healthcare. Then it is CONSTITUTIONAL. You see - The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
So if congress decides to levy a single payer 'tax' for the general welfare of the united states, that being the welfare/health of the people. How is that unconstitutional?
Oh it's not.
-
Not if it's a tax used for healthcare. Then it is CONSTITUTIONAL. You see - The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
So if congress decides to levy a single payer 'tax' for the general welfare of the united states, that being the welfare/health of the people. How is that unconstitutional?
Oh it's not.
Again it is the general welfare of the United States no the individual, that is up to the states see 10th Amendment. I am done debating with the constitutional illiterate on this subject.
-
No, You Can't Keep Your Health Insurance
A new study by McKinsey suggests that as many as 78 million Americans could lose employer health coverage. .
By Grace-Marie Turner
ObamaCare will lead to a dramatic decline in employer-provided health insurance—with as many as 78 million Americans forced to find other sources of coverage.
This disturbing finding is based on my calculations from a survey by McKinsey & Company. The survey, published this week in the McKinsey Quarterly, found that up to 50% of employers say they will definitely or probably pursue alternatives to their current health-insurance plan in the years after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act takes effect in 2014. An estimated 156 million non-elderly Americans get their coverage at work, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute.
Before the health law passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only nine million to 10 million people, or about 7% of employees who currently get health insurance at work, would switch to government-subsidized insurance. But the McKinsey survey of 1,300 employers across industries, geographies and employer sizes found "that reform will provoke a much greater response" and concludes that the health overhaul law will lead to a "radical restructuring" of job-based health coverage.
.Another McKinsey analyst, Alissa Meade, told a meeting of health-insurance executives last November that "something in the range of 80 million to 100 million individuals are going to change coverage categories in the two years" after the insurance mandates take effect in 2014.
Many employees who will need to seek another source of coverage will take advantage of the health-insurance subsidies for families making as much as $88,000 a year. This will drive up the cost of ObamaCare.
In a study last year, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimated that an additional 35 million workers would be moved out of employer plans and into subsidized coverage, and that this would add about $1 trillion to the total cost of the president's health law over the next decade. McKinsey's survey implies that the cost to taxpayers could be significantly more.
The McKinsey study, "How US health care reform will affect employee benefits," predicts that employers will either drop coverage altogether, offer defined contributions for insurance, or offer coverage only to certain employees. The study concludes that 30% of employers overall will definitely or probably stop offering health insurance to their workers. However, among employers with a high awareness of the health-reform law, this proportion increases to more than 50%.
The employer incentives to alter or cease coverage under the health-reform law are strong. According to the study, at least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries. That's because they no longer would be tethered to health-insurance costs that consistently rise faster than inflation.
Employers should think twice if they believe the fine for not offering coverage will stay unchanged at $2,000 per worker. "If many companies drop health insurance coverage, the government could increase the employer penalty or raise taxes," according to the new study, authored by McKinsey consultants Shubham Singhal, Jeris Stueland and Drew Ungerman.
The case for repeal of ObamaCare grows stronger every year. The massive shift of health costs to taxpayers thanks to the disruption of employer-sponsored health insurance will add further to the burgeoning federal budget deficit. Congress can and must develop policies that allow the marketplace to evolve and not be forced into ObamaCare's regulatory straitjacket.
Ms. Turner is president of the Galen Institute and a co-author of "Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America" (Broadside/HarperCollins, 2011).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432304576371252181401600.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
-
Opting out of Obamacare
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
Friday, June 10, 2011 - Updated 10 hours ago
Even as yet another federal court ponders the constitutionality of Obamacare, the bad news about its impact just keeps on coming.
This week a report by the respected McKinsey & Co. found that at least 30 percent of employers are likely to stop offering their workers health insurance as a routine benefit once the federal law kicks in.
As many as half of those 1,300 companies surveyed said they would “definitely” or “probably” drop such coverage even with a government imposed penalty of as much as $2,000 per worker for companies with more than 50 employees.
We have already seen the first of wave of Obamacare’s unintended consequences with the government granting more than 1,372 waivers to companies, unions and insurers who wanted to continue to offer low cost plans that didn’t necessarily meet the new and rather expansive and expensive Obamacare guidelines.
When the law really kicks in by 2014 and those waivers end, the McKinsey study tells us countless businesses will be mapping plans to either drop coverage and take a hit from the fine, or offer coverage to only a select group of workers at the high end of the pay scale who wouldn’t qualify for subsidized coverage under the new law. Even here in already well-covered Massachusetts, the taxpayers are likely to take an even greater hit. After all, Massachusetts subsidizes coverage for those earning up to three times the poverty level — not four times as required under the new federal law.
The McKinsey study found that employers would benefit financially from dropping coverage — even with the fine and even if they went out of their way to compensate workers, enabling them to buy their own coverage.
One McKinsey analyst reported to business leaders earlier that some 80 million to 100 million Americans who currently have some form of health care coverage will have to change plans after 2014. So much for Barack Obama’s promise of being able to keep the plan you like.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1344386&format=comments#CommentsArea
-
Not if it's a tax used for healthcare.
Hold up. Didn't Obama said he wasn't going to increase taxes on anyone earning less than $250k? By adding such a tax he is breaking his promise.
Either way, the administration and their lawyers shot themselves in the foot by first claiming that it was not a tax and then claiming it was. They can't backtrack now. This law is unconstitutional and it should be ruled as such by the Supreme Court.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Employers Drop Insurance Over Obamacare
Townhall.com ^ | June 12, 2011 | Bob Beauprez
Posted on June 12, 2011 8:16:27 AM EDT by Kaslin
McKinsey & Co., the high profile global business consulting firm, surveyed 1300 businesses and found that "30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering [employer-sponsored insurance] in the years after 2014."
That's the year that the full impact of ObamaCare is scheduled to kick in. Several other surveys have reached similar conclusions.
Another study found that among businesses with a "high awareness" of what ObamaCare is all about, more than half are planning to drop health care insurance benefits for their workers.
The result spells death to private insurance and life to nationalized healthcare just as conservatives predicted.
ObamaCare requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employees or face a $2000 fine.
Many employers are quick to conclude that they are better off to pay the fine than the escalating premium costs.
AT&T calculated that dropping coverage and paying the penalty will save them $1.8 billion annually.
That makes the decision pretty obvious.
Millions of the workers cut loose will be forced to shop within the government blessed "exchanges" – and will be eligible based on income levels for generous taxpayer funded premium subsidies.
Democrats know how to buy votes with taxpayer's money – or even worse, with debt. ObamaCare makes subsidies available up to 400% of poverty level income.
The phony budget projections used to sell ObamaCare were based on just 2.5 percent of workers with current employer provided plans to switch – not 30 or even 50 percent!
The real resulting impact to the federal treasury will be in the trillions according to former budget officials Douglas Holtz-Eakin and James Capretta.
That's another big budget buster that Obama and the Democrats kept hidden behind the curtain when they rammed the bill through Congress.
The end of employer provided health insurance benefits and consolidation into government controlled programs is a big step toward government controlled single-payer health care which has long been the not-so-subtle objective all along.
-
BUMP - VINDICATED AGAIN