Health Plans Must Provide Some Preventive Tests at No Cost

[The Rabbi]

It's cost effective to screen 100% for the few percent that screening may help?

In which econ and/or accounting class did they teach that one?

Never mind that if "insurance companies have already been doing this" then why do we need legislation mandating it?
Another loser comment from the wrongest mod out there.

 

[Supposn]

Rabbi,
. . . many if not most private insurance companies are less responsible and require co-payments for these preventive medical procedures. Their natural concern for immediate profits is detrimental to the aggregate long term best interests of the insurance companies’ themselves, insurance purchasers, and taxpayers.

Unlike a government subsidized or completely government provided basic medical insurance, private corporations cannot count on retaining any clients over the long run. Without a government mandate, there’s less inducement for insurers to pay the full expense of preventive medicine.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Never mind that if "insurance companies have already been doing this" then why do we need legislation mandating it?
Another loser comment from the wrongest mod out there.

Rabbi,
. . . many if not most private insurance companies are less responsible and require co-payments for these preventive medical procedures. Their natural concern for immediate profits is detrimental to the aggregate long term best interests of the insurance companies’ themselves, insurance purchasers, and taxpayers.

Unlike a government subsidized or completely government provided basic medical insurance, private corporations cannot count on retaining any clients over the long run. Without a government mandate, there’s less inducement for insurers to pay the full expense of preventive medicine.

Respectfully, Supposn

The simple fact that is the AMA, and many other groups, are coming down against routine screening of everyone for everything because unnecessary testing drives up health insurance costs, yet you are trying to argue this is going to save me money. It is a lot more cost effective to base testing on a risk screening than on age.

 

[Supposn]

The simple fact that is the AMA, and many other groups, are coming down against routine screening of everyone for everything because unnecessary testing drives up health insurance costs, yet you are trying to argue this is going to save me money. It is a lot more cost effective to base testing on a risk screening than on age.

Quantum Windbag,
. . . excepted from: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm :

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), first convened by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1984, and since 1998 sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), is the leading independent panel of private-sector experts in prevention and primary care. The USPSTF conducts rigorous, impartial assessments of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications. Its recommendations are considered the "gold standard" for clinical preventive services.

The mission of the USPSTF is to evaluate the benefits of individual services based on age, gender, and risk factors for disease; make recommendations about which preventive services should be incorporated routinely into primary medical care and for which populations; and identify a research agenda for clinical preventive care.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The preventive medical procedures recommended by the USPSTF are based upon more factors than the just patients’ ages. The procedures were recommended with regard to their cost, the medical risks integral to the procedures themselves, the tests ability to decrease the aggregate net long term expenses of our government, the insurers, the insurance purchasers and patients. There’s also some consideration for extending the quality of life and life spans.

No one is mandating that anyone submit to e tests but as a taxpayer I’m opposed to greater government expense because someone who has medical insurance but is unwilling or unable to co-pay for one of the recommended preventive medical procedures.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The simple fact that is the AMA, and many other groups, are coming down against routine screening of everyone for everything because unnecessary testing drives up health insurance costs, yet you are trying to argue this is going to save me money. It is a lot more cost effective to base testing on a risk screening than on age.

Quantum Windbag,
. . . excepted from: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: About the USPSTF :

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), first convened by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1984, and since 1998 sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), is the leading independent panel of private-sector experts in prevention and primary care. The USPSTF conducts rigorous, impartial assessments of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications. Its recommendations are considered the "gold standard" for clinical preventive services.

The mission of the USPSTF is to evaluate the benefits of individual services based on age, gender, and risk factors for disease; make recommendations about which preventive services should be incorporated routinely into primary medical care and for which populations; and identify a research agenda for clinical preventive care.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The preventive medical procedures recommended by the USPSTF are based upon more factors than the just patients’ ages. The procedures were recommended with regard to their cost, the medical risks integral to the procedures themselves, the tests ability to decrease the aggregate net long term expenses of our government, the insurers, the insurance purchasers and patients. There’s also some consideration for extending the quality of life and life spans.

No one is mandating that anyone submit to e tests but as a taxpayer I’m opposed to greater government expense because someone who has medical insurance but is unwilling or unable to co-pay for one of the recommended preventive medical procedures.

Respectfully, Supposn

If someone has insurance you do not pay their costs, you only pay their costs if they do not have insurance. As a taxpayer I oppose forcing anyone to buy something they neither want or need, and you have no right to force me to do so in the name of saving you money that you will not save anyway, and you will end up paying more as more companies go out of business and more people end up on the government plans. If you cannot understand that concept I suggest you go back to school and study economics.

 

[Supposn]

Windbag,
. . . I iterate that I’m opposed to greater government expense because someone having medical insurance is unwilling or unable to co-pay for one of the recommended preventive medical procedures.

These regulations are applicable to all USA medical insurers and they create no competitive disadvantage. The immediate expense increases that are estimated to be 1.5% can be passed on to insurance purchasers. No insurance company will go out of business due to these regulations.

Due to these regulation changes there will be an aggregate medium to long term decrease of expenses o all. If you’re an adult doesn’t understand this logic, no amount of additional education is likely to help your case. Don’t waste your money on further schooling.

 

[AquaAthena]

[B"]Health Plans Must Provide Some Preventive Tests at No Cost" [/B]

Lol, at no cost???? Your neighbor and family members will be paying for your tests, "IF" you can find a doctor or hospital who will take you from a standing long line of the new enslaved...ROTF....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Windbag,
. . . I iterate that I’m opposed to greater government expense because someone having medical insurance is unwilling or unable to co-pay for one of the recommended preventive medical procedures.

These regulations are applicable to all USA medical insurers and they create no competitive disadvantage. The immediate expense increases that are estimated to be 1.5% can be passed on to insurance purchasers. No insurance company will go out of business due to these regulations.

Due to these regulation changes there will be an aggregate medium to long term decrease of expenses o all. If you’re an adult doesn’t understand this logic, no amount of additional education is likely to help your case. Don’t waste your money on further schooling.

You tried to iterate a position that does not exist in the real world. Co-pays are usually negligible, unless someone chooses larger ones in the knowledge that they will pay more out of pocket, and thus pay less for their insurance. This does not mean they fall through some mystical crack and into your wallet, it means they have enough money to afford a co pay. As I previously explained in this thread that 1.5%, even if accurate, does not apply to everyone. As quite a few people will be dumped from their existing plans and into health exchanges, subsidized by the government, they will end up with 0 cost to themselves in co pays and insurance premiums, and more cost to your precious wallet. If you actually get to keep your insurance your costs will also go up to cover the new requirements, again more cost to your precious wallet.

If you are really worried about the cost to yourself, like you claim, you would be fighting this requirement tooth and nail. The fact that you are not indicates that you are a fool and a liar.

 

[Greenbeard]

Co-pays are usually negligible...

Then what's your problem? Eliminating negligible co-pays shouldn't noticeably increase utilization, nor will it shift expenses from co-pays to premiums (since a negligible co-pay means only a negligible amount of out-of-pocket money will now have to be paid for out of insurance pools).

 

[The Rabbi]

Co-pays are usually negligible...

Then what's your problem? Eliminating negligible co-pays shouldn't noticeably increase utilization, nor will it shift expenses from co-pays to premiums (since a negligible co-pay means only a negligible amount of out-of-pocket money will now have to be paid for out of insurance pools).

But it does. That was my own personal experience. When we had a co pay of 10 we would regularly take the kids to the doctor is we suspected an ear infection. When we had to pay the $50 visit ourselves we would often wait a day to see if it resolved on its own (it often did).

 

[Neubarth]

That means I will end up paying for more stuff I don't want or need. That will definitely drive the cost of health care up, not down.

Of course it will drive costs up! All the present health plan is is a foot in the door to a massive national socialist program to fully cover everybody.

AMEN!

We will have our socialist utopia.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Co-pays are usually negligible...

Then what's your problem? Eliminating negligible co-pays shouldn't noticeably increase utilization, nor will it shift expenses from co-pays to premiums (since a negligible co-pay means only a negligible amount of out-of-pocket money will now have to be paid for out of insurance pools).

Because my negligible co pay being eliminated will result in me paying more per year than I pay with my co pay. Why do you have a problem with simple math? I notice you didn't try to correct Supposn's misunderstanding in how a 1.5% average increase in premiums means that no one will pay more than 1.5%. I wonder why you only correct people who you think get the facts wrong if they oppose health care, not if they support it. I would think that if your goal was to get the facts out you would correct everyone, not just one side of the issue.

 

[Greenbeard]

Because my negligible co pay being eliminated will result in me paying more per year than I pay with my co pay. Why do you have a problem with simple math? I notice you didn't try to correct Supposn's misunderstanding in how a 1.5% average increase in premiums means that no one will pay more than 1.5%. I wonder why you only correct people who you think get the facts wrong if they oppose health care, not if they support it. I would think that if your goal was to get the facts out you would correct everyone, not just one side of the issue.

The rule walks through the calculation of the 1.5% cost increase. They're very clear that the calculation is based on two assumptions that bias the estimate upwards and that they assessed three factors to figure out the cost change: (1) changes in cost-sharing for currently covered and utilized services, (2) changes in services covered, and (3) induced utilization of preventive services:

From the Departments’ analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data, controlled to be consistent with projections of the National Health Expenditure Accounts, the average person with employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) has $264 in covered expenses for preventive services, of which $240 is paid by insurance, and $24 is paid out-of-pocket. When preventive services are covered with zero copayment, the Departments expect the average preventive benefit (holding utilization constant) will increase by $24. This is a 0.6 percent increase in insurance benefits and premiums for plans that have relinquished their grandfather status. A similar, but larger effect is expected in the individual market because existing evidence suggests that individual health insurance policies generally have less generous benefits for preventive services than group health plans. However, the evidence base for current coverage and cost sharing for preventive services in individual health insurance policies is weaker than for group health plans, making estimation of the increase in average benefits and premiums in the individual market highly uncertain.

[...]

Actuaries use an “induction formula” to estimate the behavioral change in response to changes in the relative levels of coverage for health services. For this analysis, the Departments used the model to estimate the induced demand (the increased use of preventive services). The model uses a standard actuarial formula for induction 1/(1+alpha*P), where alpha is the “induction parameter” and P is the average fraction of the cost of services paid by the consumer. The induction parameter for physician services is 0.7, derived by the standard actuarial formula that is generally consistent with the estimates of price elasticity of demand from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment and other economic studies. Removing cost sharing for preventive services lowers the direct cost to consumers of using preventive services, which induces additional utilization, estimated with the model above to increase covered expenses and benefits by approximately $17, or 0.44 percent in insurance benefits in group health plans. The Departments expect a similar but larger effect in the individual market, although these estimates are highly uncertain.

The Departments calculated an estimate of the average impact using the information from the analyses described above, using estimates of the number of individuals in non-grandfathered health plans in the group and individual markets in 2011. The Departments estimate that premiums will increase by approximately 1.5 percent on average for enrollees in non-grandfathered plans. This estimate assumes that any changes in insurance benefits will be directly passed on to the consumer in the form of changes in premiums. As mentioned earlier, this assumption biases the estimates of premium change upward.​

No one is going to lose their plan over this provision. Existing plans aren't affected, as by definition they're grandfathered. The premiums of the plan you have now won't go up over this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because my negligible co pay being eliminated will result in me paying more per year than I pay with my co pay. Why do you have a problem with simple math? I notice you didn't try to correct Supposn's misunderstanding in how a 1.5% average increase in premiums means that no one will pay more than 1.5%. I wonder why you only correct people who you think get the facts wrong if they oppose health care, not if they support it. I would think that if your goal was to get the facts out you would correct everyone, not just one side of the issue.

The rule walks through the calculation of the 1.5% cost increase. They're very clear that the calculation is based on two assumptions that bias the estimate upwards and that they assessed three factors to figure out the cost change: (1) changes in cost-sharing for currently covered and utilized services, (2) changes in services covered, and (3) induced utilization of preventive services:

From the Departments’ analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data, controlled to be consistent with projections of the National Health Expenditure Accounts, the average person with employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) has $264 in covered expenses for preventive services, of which $240 is paid by insurance, and $24 is paid out-of-pocket. When preventive services are covered with zero copayment, the Departments expect the average preventive benefit (holding utilization constant) will increase by $24. This is a 0.6 percent increase in insurance benefits and premiums for plans that have relinquished their grandfather status. A similar, but larger effect is expected in the individual market because existing evidence suggests that individual health insurance policies generally have less generous benefits for preventive services than group health plans. However, the evidence base for current coverage and cost sharing for preventive services in individual health insurance policies is weaker than for group health plans, making estimation of the increase in average benefits and premiums in the individual market highly uncertain.

[...]

Actuaries use an “induction formula” to estimate the behavioral change in response to changes in the relative levels of coverage for health services. For this analysis, the Departments used the model to estimate the induced demand (the increased use of preventive services). The model uses a standard actuarial formula for induction 1/(1+alpha*P), where alpha is the “induction parameter” and P is the average fraction of the cost of services paid by the consumer. The induction parameter for physician services is 0.7, derived by the standard actuarial formula that is generally consistent with the estimates of price elasticity of demand from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment and other economic studies. Removing cost sharing for preventive services lowers the direct cost to consumers of using preventive services, which induces additional utilization, estimated with the model above to increase covered expenses and benefits by approximately $17, or 0.44 percent in insurance benefits in group health plans. The Departments expect a similar but larger effect in the individual market, although these estimates are highly uncertain.

The Departments calculated an estimate of the average impact using the information from the analyses described above, using estimates of the number of individuals in non-grandfathered health plans in the group and individual markets in 2011. The Departments estimate that premiums will increase by approximately 1.5 percent on average for enrollees in non-grandfathered plans. This estimate assumes that any changes in insurance benefits will be directly passed on to the consumer in the form of changes in premiums. As mentioned earlier, this assumption biases the estimates of premium change upward.​

No one is going to lose their plan over this provision. Existing plans aren't affected, as by definition they're grandfathered. The premiums of the plan you have now won't go up over this.

Why do you keep parroting the meme that this, or that, provision does not apply to existing insurance plans?

Did you know that some newer insurers are already closing their doors?

First victim of health care overhaul? - Sarah Kliff - POLITICO.com

You can tell me that the new law and its various provisions do not affect existing plans until the end of time, what you cannot tell me is that existing plans will exist because I can demonstrate that not everyone will be able to keep their plans.

 

[Supposn]

You tried to iterate a position that does not exist in the real world. Co-pays are usually negligible, unless someone chooses larger ones in the knowledge that they will pay more out of pocket, and thus pay less for their insurance. This does not mean they fall through some mystical crack and into your wallet, it means they have enough money to afford a co pay. As I previously explained in this thread that 1.5%, even if accurate, does not apply to everyone. As quite a few people will be dumped from their existing plans and into health exchanges, subsidized by the government, they will end up with 0 cost to themselves in co pays and insurance premiums, and more cost to your precious wallet. If you actually get to keep your insurance your costs will also go up to cover the new requirements, again more cost to your precious wallet.

If you are really worried about the cost to yourself, like you claim, you would be fighting this requirement tooth and nail. The fact that you are not indicates that you are a fool and a liar.

Quantum Windbag,
. . . to whatever extent the covered preventive medical procedures increase immediate insurers' expenses, they apply to everyone. The concept of insurance is the concept of risk distributed among many.

It has been illegal for insurers to “dump” clients from their existing plans and as the other previously passed laws begin to be enacted it will be increasingly more difficult for insurers to dump clients. In the cases of these regulations to waive co-payments for the recommended preventive medical procedures, even if it were legal to dump clients, it would be financially detrimental for insures to do so in respose to the waiver pf these prerventive medical co-pyment waivers. Why would insures want to take actions that would decrease their profits?

In my working years medical insurance was much less expensive and was a usual fringe benefit from medium and large employers and many of the smaller employers. National companies provide medical insurance available in the local market. Almost all of my experiences were with private insurance companies in the NY City area.

You and I enter these forums with the extent or limits of our experiences and knowledge. Except for my experience with one employer that offered an HMO, all of the other insurance I was offered required a 20% co-payment. My Medicare insurance co-payment is 20%. Nationwide, medical expenses exceed the dollar’s rate of inflation. A one fifth co-payment is usual and is not a “negligible” co-payment.

Your ignorance of the NY city insurance market (which I believe is somewhat similar to other U.S. north eastern urban areas), is excusable. Your describing someone as a ‘fool” because they disagree with you can be dismissed as political exuberance.

Your inability to express yourself using appropriate language is not excusable. With no cause that I discern, you described me as a “liar’. If not by first grade, our society expects more mature behavior from our children before they leave the second grade of elementary school. Even if you had no one to instruct you, intelligent children absorb civility as they mature. I suppose your mother tried to raise you better. Parents try but some children refuse to learn.

 

[Greenbeard]

You can tell me that the new law and its various provisions do not affect existing plans until the end of time, what you cannot tell me is that existing plans will exist because I can demonstrate that not everyone will be able to keep their plans.

nHealth existed for two years and over those two years lost $10.6 million, cumulative, never once showing a profit. Start-ups fail, the reform law isn't going to change that. Other businesses fail, too, and you're right that employees won't be keeping their coverage if their employer goes out of business (that's a good reason to decouple health insurance from employment). "You can keep you coverage" isn't an absolute, Obama himself acknowledged that it simply means the government will never force you to change it:

“When I say if you have your plan and you like it,…or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform,” the President said.​

Perhaps you interpret "you can keep your doctor" to mean that reform will prevent your doctor from dying or retiring as long as you like him. After all, if he reaches retirement age or dies unexpectedly that must indicate someone lied to you, right? I mean, you can't keep your doctor if he dies. Nor can you keep your insurer if it's a small start-up in a volatile market and dies.

Obviously some people won't be able to keep their coverage when their employer switches plans, etc. That's always been the case and it isn't a particularly uncommon occurrence. The point is that giving up your plan isn't a requirement of the law, it's the prerogative of you and your employer, it's the mercy of the insurance market, it's a dozen other forces that affect which plans are available to you.

I doubt you could identify a single one week period in the last 50 years in which everyone in the country retained their insurance plans and no one switched. People lose and change (not always voluntarily) their plans constantly. You seem to think someone is pulling the wool over your eyes by not stressing this point again and again when in reality it's so basic and commonplace a fact that it's just sort of assumed this is acknowledged. Churning will never stop (if it did there wouldn't be a market for insurance, there would be a static situation where no one ever buys it).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Quantum Windbag,
. . . to whatever extent the covered preventive medical procedures increase immediate insurers' expenses, they apply to everyone. The concept of insurance is the concept of risk distributed among many.

It has been illegal for insurers to “dump” clients from their existing plans and as the other previously passed laws begin to be enacted it will be increasingly more difficult for insurers to dump clients. In the cases of these regulations to waive co-payments for the recommended preventive medical procedures, even if it were legal to dump clients, it would be financially detrimental for insures to do so in respose to the waiver pf these prerventive medical co-pyment waivers. Why would insures want to take actions that would decrease their profits?

In my working years medical insurance was much less expensive and was a usual fringe benefit from medium and large employers and many of the smaller employers. National companies provide medical insurance available in the local market. Almost all of my experiences were with private insurance companies in the NY City area.

You and I enter these forums with the extent or limits of our experiences and knowledge. Except for my experience with one employer that offered an HMO, all of the other insurance I was offered required a 20% co-payment. My Medicare insurance co-payment is 20%. Nationwide, medical expenses exceed the dollar’s rate of inflation. A one fifth co-payment is usual and is not a “negligible” co-payment.

Your ignorance of the NY city insurance market (which I believe is somewhat similar to other U.S. north eastern urban areas), is excusable. Your describing someone as a ‘fool” because they disagree with you can be dismissed as political exuberance.

Your inability to express yourself using appropriate language is not excusable. With no cause that I discern, you described me as a “liar’. If not by first grade, our society expects more mature behavior from our children before they leave the second grade of elementary school. Even if you had no one to instruct you, intelligent children absorb civility as they mature. I suppose your mother tried to raise you better. Parents try but some children refuse to learn.

Wow, talk about dense. Didn't you argue that preventative tests are going to reduce costs? Why does everyone have to pay more if costs are reduced? Could it possibly be because the idea that preventative tests do not reduce overall costs if they are applied en masse to everyone?

Please point to where I said I was being dumped. I am going to loose my coverage, which I shopped long and hard for, because the terms of the plan I like will cost me more than they are worth to me, because the company is going to be forced to accept everyone who applies, regardless of their risk, and regardless of preexisting conditions. that wonderful idea will raise my costs, even though I do not have those conditions, and specifically understand that if it suddenly turns out that I have a long term disease that I do not know about, it is not their responsibility to cover it. Since I actually have a problem that might flare up, that predates my purchase of the policy, their potential liability has now increased based on what they already know about me, just like it has for anyone who has ever had chicken pox.

Your insistence that the actual estimate is accurate, and will remain accurate over time. And your insistence that law you are promoting here will work exactly as described, make you either a fool or a liar. If you don't like my conclusions I suggest you examine your position and fix your logic, because your arguments leave a sane person no choice. It also amazes me that a person who has not addressed a single point I have raised, but has only repeated the same thing every time he has addressed me, thinks my debating skills are lacking.

I really do believe you are a lying fool.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can tell me that the new law and its various provisions do not affect existing plans until the end of time, what you cannot tell me is that existing plans will exist because I can demonstrate that not everyone will be able to keep their plans.

nHealth existed for two years and over those two years lost $10.6 million, cumulative, never once showing a profit. Start-ups fail, the reform law isn't going to change that. Other businesses fail, too, and you're right that employees won't be keeping their coverage if their employer goes out of business (that's a good reason to decouple health insurance from employment). "You can keep you coverage" isn't an absolute, Obama himself acknowledged that it simply means the government will never force you to change it:

“When I say if you have your plan and you like it,…or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform,” the President said.​

Perhaps you interpret "you can keep your doctor" to mean that reform will prevent your doctor from dying or retiring as long as you like him. After all, if he reaches retirement age or dies unexpectedly that must indicate someone lied to you, right? I mean, you can't keep your doctor if he dies. Nor can you keep your insurer if it's a small start-up in a volatile market and dies.

Obviously some people won't be able to keep their coverage when their employer switches plans, etc. That's always been the case and it isn't a particularly uncommon occurrence. The point is that giving up your plan isn't a requirement of the law, it's the prerogative of you and your employer, it's the mercy of the insurance market, it's a dozen other forces that affect which plans are available to you.

I doubt you could identify a single one week period in the last 50 years in which everyone in the country retained their insurance plans and no one switched. People lose and change (not always voluntarily) their plans constantly. You seem to think someone is pulling the wool over your eyes by not stressing this point again and again when in reality it's so basic and commonplace a fact that it's just sort of assumed this is acknowledged. Churning will never stop (if it did there wouldn't be a market for insurance, there would be a static situation where no one ever buys it).

No, I think that someone attempting to pull the wool over my eyes by continually saying something that is an outright lie. This law will result in most people loosing the coverage they already have as employers see the savings in paying a negligible fine to the government rather than paying 10s of thousands of dollars per employee for health insurance. The savings the see on one person will pay the fine for 4 or 5 employees, why would a company not drop the coverage?

 

[Greenbeard]

It's a little known fact that before this law was passed, there wasn't an employer mandate. In fact, there still isn't until 2014. For all the years employer-based coverage has dominated health insurance in the United States, there hasn't been an employer mandate. If you dropped coverage for your employees any time in the past, there was no fine at all levied on you. Not a "negligible" $2,000 per employee fine (and following that characterization of the fine, I'd hope not to see future threads from you about how terrible a burden this fine is for businesses), no fine at all.

Why do you think employers offered coverage in the past and offer it today?

 

[Big Fitz]

As long as we ignore the unconstitutionality of the whole issue, we can debate the issues as if they're legitimate Gotta love it. Pushing the Overton Window and assuming that there is a right for government to do any of this.