Professional Soldiers ®

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Soapbox (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93)

- - Obamacare (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38490)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PedOncoDoc (Post 485699)

How is this any different than car insurance charging increased rates to someone with a DUI, or increased home insurance premiums for those living in flood zones?

If you make choices that put you at higher risk of needing expensive assistance, should you not put more into the pot?

IMHO, this is another example of choices have consequences, and is independent of whether or not one should be required to purchase heath insurance.

I am all for this as long as all smokers have to contribute more to the pot, my question is how will the government squeeze more for the pot out of all the smokers who are currently on public assistance and are receiving govt. subsidized health care? Are these people not a drain on society too because of the choices they make, after all let's be fair about this?

BTW I had my last cigarette 2 years and 1 week ago, I smoked for 36 years. I do not miss it but not a night goes by that I do not have a smoke in my dreams.

How many pools, who decides what's a "choice" and what choices are a risk to the pool?

And when you're done at that counter, step on over & I'll ask you if you have any guns.

Lets add pot smokers to the "Pot".

.... and fast-food junkies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badger52 (Post 486365)

How many pools, who decides what's a "choice" and what choices are a risk to the pool?

And when you're done at that counter, step on over & I'll ask you if you have any guns.

I think we know who gets to make the choices and we need to remember that they are made for the collective good.

Obamacare "Glitch"

I know that most on this BB expressed concern regarding this legislation from the start. It is not my intent to "beat a dead horse" but rather inform others about the implications that are rolling out. The impact of this mammoth legislation IMO, is just starting.

Quote:

Glitch may be an understatement, but that’s what industry analysts have by and large termed a Wednesday failure of the Internal Revenue Service to properly address an Obamacare funding issue — and now families may be outpriced from health plans.

Employer-sponsored health care plans are on the rise, and costs that are passed along to workers may leave some scrambling for more moderately priced plans. Such families were supposed to get financial assistance from the government to help pay for plans outside their places of employment — but according to The Associated Press, Congress didn’t include text for that financial assistance program in the final Obamacare law. So, Obamacare supporters were expecting the IRS to fix this problem — but the agency did not.

Its newly issued regulations failed to provide for that particular scenario and instead, these families will face the same fines imposed on those who don’t carry health insurance at all — the same fines as those who violate the mandate portion of Obamacare, according to the AP.

The main issue: What’s defined as affordable?

The White House, according to the AP, has blamed Congress.

“This is a very significant problem, and we have urged that it be fixed,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, told the AP.

An immediate fix is unlikely. At least one advocacy group, First Focus, is estimating 500,000 children could be left uninsured due to the glitch, the media report continued.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...nds-uninsured/

On another front:

Aurora CEO cites Obamacare as partial cause of job cutbacks

RACINE COUNTY — Partly in response to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare — as well as other forces — Aurora Health Care expects $13 million less in government reimbursements this year and has begun cutting some positions.

Turkal said there are several causes of the projected $13 million or more decline in reimbursements. He cited the economy, cost reductions dictated by the Affordable Care Act and the congressional “fiscal cliff” agreement.

But she confirmed both occupied and vacant positions will be cut.

Aurora’s situation could become much more dire, Turkal wrote. He said one proposal under consideration but not yet decided is a 27 percent cut in physician payments for Medicare services. That would cost Aurora roughly $78 million a year.

In his summary paragraph, he wrote, “I am as frustrated by this as anyone. While most of these changes were brought on by external forces, it remains our responsibility to figure out how to continue to provide the very best care for our patients and to help them live well.”

http://journaltimes.com/news/local/a...wQQ2hA.twitter

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...-up-our-costs/

ooopsy, what's good for the goose......as they say, be careful of what you ask for...

Union Leaders’ Epiphany Leaves Them Scrambling: Wait, Obamacare Is Going to Drive up Our Costs?

Imagine the following scene:

A handful of union bosses crowd around an old card table, punching numbers into their calculators. They’ve been up all night. Someone puts on another pot of coffee and a few of the older bosses are starting to fall asleep. Those who are still alert and active scratch their heads and re-enter their calculations.

“Oh, my gosh!” one of them shouts, concluding the all-night exercise. “‘Obamacare’ is going to cost us!”

Yes, according to a recent report from the Wall Street Journal, union leaders (i.e. the same people who campaigned tirelessly in favor of universal healthcare) are trying to figure out a way to avoid paying for the costs associated with “Obamacare.”

IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-...e-20000-family

Quote:

In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare--after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016.

In the new final rules published Wednesday, IRS set in law the rules for implementing the penalty Americans must pay if they fail to obey Obamacare's mandate to buy insurance.

To help illustrate these rules, the IRS presented examples of different situations families might find themselves in.

In the examples, the IRS assumes that families of five who are uninsured would need to pay an average of $20,000 per year to purchase a Bronze plan in 2016.

Using the conditions laid out in the regulations, the IRS calculates that a family earning $120,000 per year that did not buy insurance would need to pay a "penalty" (a word the IRS still uses despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is in fact a "tax") of $2,400 in 2016.

For those wondering how clear the IRS's clarifications of this new "penalty" rule are, here is one of the actual examples the IRS gives:

“Example 3. Family without minimum essential coverage.

"(i) In 2016, Taxpayers H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L, age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for any month in 2016. H and J’s household income is $120,000. H and J’s applicable filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.

"(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the applicable dollar amount is $2,780 (($695 x 3 adults) + (($695/2) x 2 children)). Under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (the lesser of $2,780 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the excess income amount is $2,400 (($120,000 - $24,000) x 0.025). Therefore, under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $200 (the greater of $173.75 ($2,085/12) or $200 ($2,400/12)).

"(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,400 ($200 x 12). The sum of the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $20,000 ($20,000/12 x 12). Therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section, the shared responsibility payment imposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).”

I am searching for details of the various plans. For comparison, our company offers a generous plan (100% employer paid) that costs $18K/yr for a family of 6. So to read that a family plan for 5 at the bronze level will cost $20K in 2016 doesn't seem extreme. I am interested to see the plan details such as prescription plan, deductible/copays, etc...

Wow!

Who knew that would happen? :rolleyes:

Good thing we couldn't read it till it was passed. Thanks, Nancy!

TR

Why your boss is dumping your wife

Why your boss is dumping your wife

Companies are dropping health coverage for spouses to cut costs

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why...ife-2013-02-22

And the shoes continue to drop.

"Companies have a new solution to rising health-insurance costs: Break up their employees’ marriages.

By denying coverage to spouses, employers not only save the annual premiums, but also the new fees that went into effect as part of the Affordable Care Act. This year, companies have to pay $1 or $2 “per life” covered on its plans, a sum that jumps to $65 in 2014. And health law guidelines proposed recently mandate coverage of employees’ dependent children (up to age 26), but husbands and wives are optional. “The question about whether it’s obligatory to cover the family of the employee is being thought through more than ever before,” says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health......................"

Just think how much the military could save if they did that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete (Post 492660)

I wouldn't necessarily use pink font for that statement. In my humble observation, most folks who misuse the ER, who's getting cosmetic surgery, bariatric :mad: surgery, psych placement, etc. have social that starts with 30, 31, 32.... Some continue to use military healthcare long after they are separated from their military spouse. TANJ!

Logan's Run is coming...

How "death panels" will be implemented.
http://youtu.be/nSre3tbeegc

Listen to what he says from about 1:55 to 2:25
http://youtu.be/H9u2Lf0DdzA

Lawsuit over health care tax could kill ‘Obamacare’

“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.

A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.

The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their “aha” moment.

“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.”

First Dem to Admit it's a Trainwreck

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ma-health-law/

A senior Democratic senator who helped write President Obama's health care law stunned administration officials Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it's headed for a "train wreck."

"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Obama's health care chief during a routine budget hearing that suddenly turned tense.

Baucus is the first top Democrat to publicly voice fears about the rollout of the new health care law, designed to bring coverage to some 30 million uninsured Americans through a mix of government programs and tax credits for private insurance that start next year.

Snip

Isn't Sen. Baucus up for re-election in 2014?