BoltProspects Community Forums  

Go Back   BoltProspects Community Forums > Miscellaneous > The Room

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3981  
Old 08-21-2013, 12:49 PM
The Other Side's Avatar
The Other Side The Other Side is offline
Swedish Battle Tank
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by astro View Post
They aren't dropping spouse coverage for all. Right in the beginning of the article, it states that are dropping spousal coverage for thousands because they are eligible to get coverage elsewhere.

Here's what I found interesting in the article
You are right. It looks like some will no longer be able to carry their spouse on their plan if the spouse can have coverage elsewhere. Many families that have both spouses working would take the coverage with the best plan. That may be coming to an end.

This will cost a family more. Currently under a family plan all are covered. If you have children and drop your spouse, more than likely your plans price will remain the same. But the spouse that was dropped may be required to now pay for their new individual plan through their employer. This could come at a cost of several hundred dollars, or more, a month.

I also read today in a Pittsburgh paper that the costs are greater then what is being quoted. One school district in Pittsburgh was quoted a 9% increase in their plan, that would be great. When the bill came they found out that the administrative costs and taxes associated with the ACA bumped the total cost of their plan $233,000 higher than what was quoted. Seems the ACA calls for this type of billing.

The school district claims they do not have the money.

http://triblive.com/news/westmorelan...#axzz2ccbwMuIm

Quote:
Gateway was able to negotiate a cap of 9 percent on premiums for the next 18 months, but that will rise to 11.57 percent because of additional costs when the Affordable Care Act goes into effect. The act will increase the district's costs by nearly $233,000, according to Abraham.

“These fees will be applicable regardless of the insurance carrier,” said William Gallagher, a consultant for Gateway. “These are fees that are going to be passed on by the carrier to the insured for health care.”

Gallagher said many details in the Affordable Care Act, which became law in 2010, are just coming to light.


Read more: http://triblive.com/news/westmorelan...#ixzz2cd0udW8R
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook
And now there is this. In order to receive funding you must have a bank account. Many do not have one of these accounts.

http://triblive.com/usworld/nation/4...#axzz2ccbwMuIm


Quote:
The Jackson Hewitt report, first reported by Kaiser Health News, focused on uninsured Americans between 100 and 400 percent of the poverty line, who are eligible to receive tax subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.

It found that, in this demographic, the ranks of the unbanked tend to be highest among states that also have high uninsured rates. In Florida, where 24 percent of the non-elderly lack insurance coverage, Jackson Hewitt estimates that 34 percent of those likely to be eligible for premium subsidies do not have a regular bank account.


Read more: http://triblive.com/usworld/nation/4...#ixzz2cd1SXUAy
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

Last edited by The Other Side; 08-21-2013 at 01:09 PM.
  #3982  
Old 08-21-2013, 02:33 PM
Donnie D's Avatar
Donnie D Donnie D is offline
Cooper's Law
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota
Posts: 4,400
Default

We have charged spouses a significant surcharge for more than 10 years if they have the ability to get coverage elsewhere. Why should we cover them when they have the ability to get coverage elsewhere? I doubt we are the first or last to do this. But since you blame the health care act for all of the health care policy decreases, I'm guessing that we just did this 10 years ago in anticipation of Obama.

The article doesn't say that you need a bank account. It says bank account or debit card. Debit type cards have been used for food stamps for years. They are even used for social security. 7-11 paid my kid with a debit card even though he has a bank account. So that's another nonexistent red herring.

I have to admit, I've never seen someone work as hard as you have to try and find something negative on a subject as you have.
__________________
I know the voices in my head aren't real..... but sometimes their ideas are just absolutely awesome!
  #3983  
Old 08-21-2013, 03:31 PM
The Other Side's Avatar
The Other Side The Other Side is offline
Swedish Battle Tank
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie D View Post
The article doesn't say that you need a bank account. It says bank account or debit card. Debit type cards have been used for food stamps for years. They are even used for social security. 7-11 paid my kid with a debit card even though he has a bank account. So that's another nonexistent red herring.

I have to admit, I've never seen someone work as hard as you have to try and find something negative on a subject as you have.
I guess you selectively decided not to read this in the article:

Quote:
“The reason this is such an issue is that insurers are increasingly saying that they will not accept debit or credit cards as an acceptable form of payment,” study author Brian Haile said. “If insurers refuse to accept premium payments made by debit cards, you're going to exclude many uninsured Americans.”

Read more: http://triblive.com/usworld/nation/4...#ixzz2cdazfpqu
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook
This stuff, good or bad, is easy to find. I only post these things as it is clear that we need to fix this mess so we can all be covered with the best possible plan. And we are not there yet with the ACA.

Quote:
We have charged spouses a significant surcharge for more than 10 years if they have the ability to get coverage elsewhere. Why should we cover them when they have the ability to get coverage elsewhere?
So if you have a family plan, and lets say pay $850 a month to your employer for the right to have your family covered, do you think it is now fair that they are telling you that they will not cover your spouse, but will cover everyone else under 26 years of age, if they can have a plan from their own employer, even if they have to pay a percentage for their single plan say $250 a month? To me that is bull shit asking a family to pay more out of pocket. That is exactly what UPS and several other companies are doing.

I know many families that this could effect and I call it bull shit.

Last edited by The Other Side; 08-21-2013 at 04:08 PM.
  #3984  
Old 08-21-2013, 04:17 PM
Donnie D's Avatar
Donnie D Donnie D is offline
Cooper's Law
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota
Posts: 4,400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Side View Post
So if you have a family plan, and lets say pay $850 a month to your employer for the right to have your family covered, do you think it is now fair that they are telling you that they will not cover your spouse, but will cover everyone else under 26 years of age, if they can have a plan from their own employer, even if they have to pay a percentage for their single plan say $250 a month? To me that is bull shit asking a family to pay more out of pocket. That is exactly what UPS and several other companies are doing.
As I said, this is something we have been doing for the past 10 or so years. The spouse can either take coverage through their employer (if it is offered) or they can pay a premium to be covered under our plan. It began because empoyers were giving bonuses to employees to waive insurance coverage and they would then take coverage through their spouse's policy and save money. We wanted to discourage that practice.

Was it popular? Some of the employees felt that it was unfair that a stay at home spouse was coverered and the spouse that had to work and had their own policy had to pay the surcharge to be covered under our plan. Others felt that our plan should not be placed at further risk when the spouse's employer should be covering their employee's risk.
__________________
I know the voices in my head aren't real..... but sometimes their ideas are just absolutely awesome!
  #3985  
Old 08-21-2013, 04:26 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,069
Default

Know an easy fix for all of that?

Single payer.

Think how much easier/better it would be if businesses got out of the health care industry and were allowed to focus solely on business. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

All market based, for profit solutions will have similar issues to the ones you've raised TOS, so we're arguing over degrees of imperfection. That's why we should have a single payer system. ACA is better than the status quo but nobody ever claimed it was perfect. And, I hate to tell you this TOS, but it ain't the conservatives that will get us to a single payer system. So, whether you like it or you don't, if you really want a pristine health care system you better be prepared to get down with the Bernie Sanders' of the world.
__________________
S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2013-2014: 25+2
  #3986  
Old 08-21-2013, 04:37 PM
The Other Side's Avatar
The Other Side The Other Side is offline
Swedish Battle Tank
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
Know an easy fix for all of that?

Single payer.

Think how much easier/better it would be if businesses got out of the health care industry and were allowed to focus solely on business. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

All market based, for profit solutions will have similar issues to the ones you've raised TOS, so we're arguing over degrees of imperfection. That's why we should have a single payer system. ACA is better than the status quo but nobody ever claimed it was perfect. And, I hate to tell you this TOS, but it ain't the conservatives that will get us to a single payer system. So, whether you like it or you don't, if you really want a pristine health care system you better be prepared to get down with the Bernie Sanders' of the world.
I agree pete. But in order to offset the costs and the savings companies should raise their pay from the money they would save. And I don't mean just the cost of the policy they give you. I mean the saving from not having to hire people just to provide you that benefit and track it.
  #3987  
Old 08-21-2013, 11:14 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,069
Default

On a macroeconomic level, if you just took the money the for-profit system spends on advertising and administration, you could pay all the startup costs for a single payer system.
__________________
S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2013-2014: 25+2
  #3988  
Old 08-22-2013, 05:56 AM
Flycoon's Avatar
Flycoon Flycoon is offline
Dan Ellis' Money Problems
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761
Default

How do you rightys explain this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ef=mostpopular

Racism? Stupidity? Hyper partisanship?

This IS the GOP base. Realize that you are judged by the company you keep.
  #3989  
Old 08-22-2013, 11:39 AM
Sotnos's Avatar
Sotnos Sotnos is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Posts: 11,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie D View Post
I have to admit, I've never seen someone work as hard as you have to try and find something negative on a subject as you have.
It's quite amazing. Guess we always have to have one around here.

I find it hilarious that people are blaming what's basically company greed on Obamacare. I know some people worship their corporate masters, but open your eyes once in a while.
  #3990  
Old 08-22-2013, 12:28 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,069
Default

If it's a publicly traded company, they have an obligation to the shareholders to be greedy, amoral pigs. That's not the core issue. The core issue is health care should not be a for-profit industry and health insurance should not be tied to labor force participation in the first place. Health care ought to be a basic right in this country and big business should have no role whatsoever in it. And that's one of the silver linings of what the GOP is doing while throwing their Obamacare tantrums. They're only pointing an even brighter light on the faulty premise of private health insurance and probably unwittingly speeding along adoption of a public option and, eventually, a single payer system.
__________________
S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2013-2014: 25+2
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.