New Report: 93 Million will Lose Insurance by the End of Next Year.

[g5000]

When you go to your HR department, most of you will hear, "We lost our grandfather status when we (fill in the blank)." Your company decided to change something in your policies.

Then most of you will hear something more surprising. "We still exceed the ACA requirements." You will also be told the company has no intention of ending your insurance, since the ACA really does not matter to them since they exceeded the requirements before there even was an ACA, and still would even if there was no ACA.

 

[g5000]

[MENTION=20854]Zander[/MENTION]
The result of ESRP is that their employees who previously did not have insurance WILL have insurance! It will just be purchased through an exchange instead of provided at work.

The end result is the same.

The 93 million hoax is completely bogus.

There is no hoax, which of course, you know. And your statement is accurate to a degree, but is also misleading. The facts are 93 million will likely lose there employer based insurance....and then be forced onto the exchanges.

As you know, this directly contradicts the promise Obama made to the American People stating that they could keep their insurance, period.

It'd be more accurate to speak of the insurance of 93 million people being disrupted, rather than cancelled or lost.

The disruptions won't make all employers choose to stop insuring their employees.

Could just cause the employers some headaches.

Most companies which insure their employees exceed the ACA requirements. If there is any "disruption", it will be in those companies that don't currently meet the requirements. They will have to IMPROVE their insurance.

I think most employees would find that kind of "disruption" okay with them.

Headaches for employers? Yes. But this is a scaremongering topic claiming 93 million employees are going to lose their insurance.

They aren't. Not even close. In fact, many people are going to end up with insurance who never had it before. And many who have insurance are going to end up with better insurance. So to claim 93 million are going to LOSE their insurance is beyond evil, beyond stupid.

 

[Londoner]

93 million?

Are you sure its not 93 Billion?

But Forbes is so objective.

For 30 years every corner of the health care industry (doctors, hospitals, medical device makers, drug manufacturers, insurance agencies, etc) lobbied government in order to gain monopoly control over the entire industry. This is why the U.S. has the world's highest health costs by an almost unimaginable factor. This is why they get away with decreasing coverage and raising premiums. This is why corporations like Ely Lilly have poured trillions into the Republican election machine. ObamaCare is taking a knife to the monopolized garbage which fleeces poor consumers on behalf those who own and control the industry.

Forbes represents the corporations who own government and have rigged the industry.

 

[WelfareQueen]

There is no hoax, which of course, you know. And your statement is accurate to a degree, but is also misleading. The facts are 93 million will likely lose there employer based insurance....and then be forced onto the exchanges.

As you know, this directly contradicts the promise Obama made to the American People stating that they could keep their insurance, period.

It'd be more accurate to speak of the insurance of 93 million people being disrupted, rather than cancelled or lost.

The disruptions won't make all employers choose to stop insuring their employees.

Could just cause the employers some headaches.

Most companies which insure their employees exceed the ACA requirements. If there is any "disruption", it will be in those companies that don't currently meet the requirements. They will have to IMPROVE their insurance.

I think most employees would find that kind of "disruption" okay with them.

Headaches for employers? Yes. But this is a scaremongering topic claiming 93 million employees are going to lose their insurance.

They aren't. Not even close. In fact, many people are going to end up with insurance who never had it before. And many who have insurance are going to end up with better insurance.

Bullshit. You know every employer plan in the Country? They all exceed ACA Stalinist Mandates? Total bullshit. Second, you said I provided no evidence. Check page one. The author is one of the foremost healthcare experts in America. If you don't like what he has to say, fine, but at least (unlike you) I didn't pull stuff out of my ass.

 

[g5000]

If you search on my name on this forum and look for when I have used the word "entrenches", you will find that I am not happy that ObamaCare is further entrenching employer-sponsored health insurance (ESHI). ESHI bends the cost curve of healthcare up, and it needs to go away.

ESHI is a labor union boondoggle. That is why ObamaCare actually forces employers to provide it. The idea Obama would create a plan that would undermine or remove a labor union boondoggle is ridiculous on the very face of it.

 

[WelfareQueen]

93 million?

Are you sure its not 93 Billion?

But Forbes is so objective.

For 30 years every corner of the health care industry (doctors, hospitals, medical device makers, drug manufacturers, insurance agencies, etc) lobbied government in order to gain monopoly control over the entire industry. This why the U.S. has the world's highest health costs by an almost unimaginable factor. This is why they get away with decreasing coverage and raising premiums. This is why corporations like Ely Lilly have poured trillions into the Republican election machine. ObamaCare is taking a knife to the monopolized garbage which fleeces poor consumers on behalf of wealthy health care investors.

Forbes represents the corporations who own government and have rigged the industry.

Nice sermon. Feel better now?


Post info disputing the authors conclusions, then there can be a discussion. Your opinion that Forbes is a part of some vast right wing conspiracy mean less than nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why did the Obama admin delay the employer mandate?

[MENTION=20854]Zander[/MENTION]

I am glad you brought that up, because it destroys the 93 million hoax even more.

You have forgotten that many employers do not provide any insurance at all. That is who the employer mandate is primarily aimed at.

These employers are now required to provide insurance. They have been granted an extension to give them more time to provide insurance to their employees.

So rather than 93 million people losing insurance, the opposite is true. Many millions will GAIN insurance at their jobs!

[MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION]

Sorry, but that is simply untrue.

Employers with over 50 FTE's are not required to provide insurance to their employees. They can pay the ESRP tax instead. Furthermore, even if a company (that did not offer insurance now) wanted to go through the time and expense of setting up a halthcare benefit- if even one of their employees would pay less through the exchanges- the company will have to pay the ESRP for all employees (the first 30 are exempt). It's a law designed to destroy employer health insurance, not bolster it.

I see a lot of companies opting for ESRP - (Wahlgreens is already doing it) way less headaches and far less expensive. Remember, the goal is single payer. Leftists believe that getting rid of employer plans will expedite the achievement of that goal.

You are right.

And to think the GOP could have resolved this in a twelve-year window with far more fairness, less cost, and using free market solutions.

But . . .

 

[JakeStarkey]

Vox said, "so what? you did not prove ANYTHING" instead of answering the question of where the charge of 93 million came from. Fail on that score, Vox, for you.

The fact is we in the GOP brought this on ourselves, and we are not going to escape the consequences.

 

[Zander]

Obamacare doesn't entrench employer paid health insurance - it guts it.

Why should employers offer HC when it is a better deal for them to pay the penalty and lose a huge liability (not to mention all the bullshit paperwork!) ? Grab the popcorn folks, the next 2 years are going to be wild....

 

[Vox]

I provided the link to the Register which the author used as his source.

Please quote from it where the Obama Administration said 93 million Americans would have their health insurance cancelled.


I have now challenged three of you to do so. Perhaps there is enough brainpower between the three of you to search for it.

I doubt there is enough integrity between you, though, to admit there is no such evidence. The author made a totally bogus claim.

so what? you did not prove ANYTHING.
if one goes just by the lowest estimate of those losing employer-based insurance as 50% it will give you at least 75 million people. The other 50% from 25million ( self-insured) gives you 12.5 - well, if you consider 87.5 million to be so extremely far from 93 million - than you are grossly flawed not only in hte world perception but in the math as well.

and that is only about 2014. Because by 2018 if this crap stays, all 100% employer-based insurance will disappear - and that raises the number to half of the population of the USA

[MENTION=44192]Vox[/MENTION]

What you can't seem to get through your thick head is that a company losing its grandfather status does not mean they will stop insuring their employees. The author of the piece made that assumption. He is an idiot. And anyone who visits their HR department and asks these questions will quickly find out just how stupid he and you are.

So whether it is 50 percent or 66 percent, it is idiotic to assume every one of those companies will stop insuring their employees.

it is your thick head which does not understand that if the grandfathered insurance is lost - the employer won't insure anymore, because the new costs are unsustainable.
but for the leftard mouthpiece as yourself, it is impossible to grasp

 

[Vox]

Obamacare doesn't entrench employer paid health insurance - it guts it.

Why should employers offer HC when it is a better deal for them to pay the penalty and lose a huge liability (not to mention all the bullshit paperwork!) ? Grab the popcorn folks, the next 2 years are going to be wild....

Of course, but you expect the leftard to THINK instead of be a parroting mouthpiece

 

[candycorn]

93 million?

Are you sure its not 93 Billion?

I read 93 Trillion in the Daily Caller.

http://www.dailycaller.com/yougottabekiddingme

 

[Mac1958]

.

Nancy Pelosi said "we'll have to pass it so that you can see what's in it".

Ironically, doctors say the same thing about stool samples.

.

 

[OODA_Loop]

This is why corporations like Ely Lilly have poured trillions into the Republican election machine. ObamaCare is taking a knife to the monopolized garbage which fleeces poor consumers on behalf those who own and control the industry.

Forbes represents the corporations who own government and have rigged the industry.

Lilly 2012 Candidate Contributions

Barack Obama (D) $46,977
Mitt Romney (R) $41,170

Eli Lilly & Co: Summary | OpenSecrets

 

[JakeStarkey]

After the OP has blown up, the reactionaries on the far right simply attack personality. They give nothing on OP.

 

[OODA_Loop]

After the OP has blown up, the reactionaries on the far right simply attack personality. They give nothing on OP.

What is to give ?

Estimated 93 million is lot of folks not being able to keep their plan.

 

[Zander]

[MENTION=20854]Zander[/MENTION]

I am glad you brought that up, because it destroys the 93 million hoax even more.

You have forgotten that many employers do not provide any insurance at all. That is who the employer mandate is primarily aimed at.

These employers are now required to provide insurance. They have been granted an extension to give them more time to provide insurance to their employees.

So rather than 93 million people losing insurance, the opposite is true. Many millions will GAIN insurance at their jobs!

[MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION]

Sorry, but that is simply untrue.

Employers with over 50 FTE's are not required to provide insurance to their employees. They can pay the ESRP tax instead. Furthermore, even if a company (that did not offer insurance now) wanted to go through the time and expense of setting up a halthcare benefit- if even one of their employees would pay less through the exchanges- the company will have to pay the ESRP for all employees (the first 30 are exempt). It's a law designed to destroy employer health insurance, not bolster it.

I see a lot of companies opting for ESRP - (Wahlgreens is already doing it) way less headaches and far less expensive. Remember, the goal is single payer. Leftists believe that getting rid of employer plans will expedite the achievement of that goal.

[MENTION=20854]Zander[/MENTION]
The result of ESRP is that their employees who previously did not have insurance WILL have insurance! It will just be purchased through an exchange instead of provided at work.

The end result is the same.

The 93 million hoax is completely bogus.

Maybe in fantasyland....the same place where "you can keep your plan. Period."

How many lies will you swallow before you realize you've been duped? ESRP is the END of employer sponsored plans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A false estimate that "a third of the people will be uninsured, but that could easily go up."

 

[WelfareQueen]

This is why corporations like Ely Lilly have poured trillions into the Republican election machine. ObamaCare is taking a knife to the monopolized garbage which fleeces poor consumers on behalf those who own and control the industry.

Forbes represents the corporations who own government and have rigged the industry.

Lilly 2012 Candidate Contributions

Barack Obama (D) $46,977
Mitt Romney (R) $41,170

Eli Lilly & Co: Summary | OpenSecrets

Thanks for the actual facts. Libtards (much like their leader) just make shit up and hope people believe it. You'd think they'd learn, or be embarrassed about being caught in a lie, but, much like their messiah, it really doesn't seem to matter. The only bad lie is a lie that doesn't work.

 

[WelfareQueen]

After the OP has blown up, the reactionaries on the far right simply attack personality. They give nothing on OP.

Nobody has successfully refuted the author's conclusions, including you. If you have evidence the author of the piece in wrong, and suspension of the employer mandate, delaying the inevitable mass cancellations or termination of millions of employer plans, bring in forward.

Of course the story has been covered by CNN, FOX, NBC, and many other media outlets. None have disputed the author's findings. If you decide to respond to this, do some research first, or you'll probably end up looking foolish.