Obamacare could deny coverage to sick

[Greenbeard]

Potato potahto. You still increase cost, therefore decrease demand, therefore decrease usage, therefore decrease revenues collected leading to a deficit.

To repeat: most of the revenues will come from income taxes because of decreasing reliance on higher-end health insurance packages in employee compensation packages.

Decreasing usage of plans on which the excise is levied decreases revenues from the excise tax on those plans. But it increases tax revenues from that which employers are substituting for health benefits: wages. Is this unclear somehow?

The point is you cannot stop upward pressure when you interfere with free floating price. The cheaper the service or item, the greater the demand, and if you cap prices artificially low, you do nothing to decrease demand and the market overheats causing shortages. If you let price go and rise to the point of where demand causes reconsideration or limits access, you solve the problem.

You're going to have to be more specific: what prices do you think are being capped? Are you thinking of MA's attempt last month to halt premium increases?

Um, maybe my hearing isn't 20/20 no more, but how can you have a risk pool if you cannot adjust risk accordingly? The two are intrinsically tied. You remove the ability to price risk you remove the ability to survive financially because you effectively blind the insurer, and nobody's going to risk their money to insure a losing investment.

You can price risk within a pool (which will no longer be allowed) or you can institute risk adjustment mechanisms between pools (which will be set up under the law). The latter is replacing the former to ensure that pools taking on higher actuarial risk aren't unduly penalized for doing so.

Community ratings are horrible things for they protect the biggest users of a service at the cost of those who do not use the service and should be paying far lower premiums. Just like good drivers get the benefit of no accidents, tickets and habits, bad drivers suffer higher premiums for their risky behavior.

Price differentials for a given health insurance product are by and large not intended to reduce moral hazard (i.e. the behavioral factors you're referencing here), they're intended to price risk for factors like gender or medical history, which are unavoidable attributes. Moral hazard is addressed through other factors, like deductibles and--in the new law--rating variations allowed for smokers.

Universal government run, single payer health care is unsustainable for any length of time.

What does this have to do with what we're talking about? Rating regulations are not the same thing as a single payer system.

And I'm just SURE it hasn't been put back in after no one was looking on the rewrites.

There has never been a point where "no one was looking."

Out of date? Perhaps, but I can find nothing that contradicts it.

You could try looking at the actual law, in this case the modifications made by H.R. 4872, the reconciliation package. Here's a summary.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Out of date? Perhaps, but I can find nothing that contradicts it.

You could try looking at the actual law, in this case the modifications made by H.R. 4872, the reconciliation package. Here's a summary.

It exempts all plans until 2018, and by then Congress will have a chance to exempt the union plans totally.

Sec. 1401. High-cost plan excise tax. Reduces the revenue collected by the tax by 80 percent. This is achieved by: delaying the application of the tax until 2018, which gives the plans time to implement and realize the cost savings of reform; increasing the dollar thresholds to $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage ($11,850 and $30,950 for retirees and employees in high risk professions); excluding stand-alone dental and vision plans from the tax; and permitting an employer to reduce the cost of the coverage when applying the tax if the employer’s age and gender demographics are not representative of the age and gender demographics of a national risk pool. Under the modified provision, the dollar thresholds are indexed to inflation and the dollar thresholds are automatically increased in 2018 if CBO is wrong in its forecast of the premium inflation rate between now and 2018.

If the CBO is wrong? They are always wrong, because they are forced to work with rigged numbers.

I will admit I was wrong about the special exemption for union plans, but this is no better. Most companies who do not have union contracts are already considering dumping their workers into the pool coverage and paying the fine because it will save them money. The only exceptions to that will be union contracts. What will happen is that everyone but unions will be dumped into the exchanges, and unions will still get the exemption because they already dominate the Democrats, and in another 7 years they will be more entrenched.

 

[KissMy]

Obama care is a myth that may not come 4 years from now.

Obama care tax is real & here now.

 

[daveman]

The economic predators have no evidence that health insurance reform will cause more harm than the current situation. They can pine and whine all they want, but . . . they got nothing.

So, like a rabid statist, you once again cheer government takeover of industry.

Remind my again...you claim to be a conservative, right? Why is that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

daveman crawls out of the neanderthal cave.

The gubmint set guidelines because the insurance industry screwed up. Business knows profit not service. Prove that your way can do better. Oh. That's right. You can't.

 

[Big Fitz]

To repeat: most of the revenues will come from income taxes because of decreasing reliance on higher-end health insurance packages in employee compensation packages.

What the heck are you talking about??? You still don't get it do you? Money malapropriated from anywhere in the economy slows down the whole. So you increase income taxes, consuming slows, people get laid off and your income tax pool decreases. It doesn't matter where you pull it from, it is all interconnected, and you will always always always create a deficit when you fund with taxation. Government produces nothing and is always a net drain on every economic system.

You can price risk within a pool (which will no longer be allowed) or you can institute risk adjustment mechanisms between pools (which will be set up under the law). The latter is replacing the former to ensure that pools taking on higher actuarial risk aren't unduly penalized for doing so.

Right. Like I said. They're not allowed to appropriately price risk and therefore will fail. The question is only how much extra taxes are going to be pumped in to maintain the illusion it's working and the size of crater it leaves after it fails. You still are pretending that you can lie to economic realities and make it go along to get along. Again... it doesn't work that way.

You're going to have to be more specific: what prices do you think are being capped? Are you thinking of MA's attempt last month to halt premium increases?

The instant you can't let a price rise to it's proper level because of some inane notion of 'unfairness' it's capped. You're the one claiming that caps are going to be used for our protection from unfair pricing. Unfairness is a code phrase for you don't understand business or economics. Prices, uninterfered with by fraud or government find their own level and are fair because they are what the market is willing to bear and people can afford to pay. Massoftwoshits messed up royally when they capped premiums for 'fairness'. Now the funds are being depleted of capital because the net flow of monies is going out, rather than remaining a slightly positive equilibrium known as cost + fair profit. Of course the leftists in charge of MA don't get the concept of profit.

Price differentials for a given health insurance product are by and large not intended to reduce moral hazard (i.e. the behavioral factors you're referencing here), they're intended to price risk for factors like gender or medical history, which are unavoidable attributes.

No... they are for ALL risk factors. You have a premium bump for smoking, drinking, skydiving, motorcross, drug use, high blood pressure, genetic factors, marriage, on and on and on. This is very very intense gambling, and they need to keep both the losses and profits as safe as possible because all it takes is for a wrong guess and they can cost their company billions.

Moral hazard is addressed through other factors, like deductibles and--in the new law--rating variations allowed for smokers

You've never bought insurance before have you? You're still playing semantic games with economic physics. Try shmoozing gravity sometime. See how well that works for you.

What does this have to do with what we're talking about? Rating regulations are not the same thing as a single payer system.

Reid, Pelosi, Obama, and dozens of other supporters of this healthcare act all viewed it as a 'good first step' to the real goal of single payer universal system. Bernie Sanders on the Thom Hartmann show was busy reassuring callers last week that that WAS the goal, and this was only the first step. So don't hand me this bs that the two are unrelated. I can make connections on my own thank you.

There has never been a point where "no one was looking."

Then I suppose you can point me to where the full copy of the legislation is, and when it was completed. Because as I remember with the original bill, even minutes before passage, it was not completely written, and many sections referred to blank pages in the bill. How do I know this? I read parts for myself. I also love the fact that page 16 banned private insurance. Never removed.

Sell someone else.

You could try looking at the actual law, in this case the modifications made by H.R. 4872, the reconciliation package. Here's a summary.

I'd rather see the raw bill. Executive summaries are for suckers. Particularly ones based on CBO estimates which they themselves say are wrong.

but you just keep plugging don't you? Thinking to sucker yet more people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, QWB and Greenbeard are disputing intelligently, and Big Fits is acting like a chattering chipmunk. Folks, pay attention to the first two if you want to learn. If you want the moonbat abrdiged version, then follow Fits.

 

[Greenbeard]

I will admit I was wrong about the special exemption for union plans, but this is no better. Most companies who do not have union contracts are already considering dumping their workers into the pool coverage and paying the fine because it will save them money. The only exceptions to that will be union contracts. What will happen is that everyone but unions will be dumped into the exchanges, and unions will still get the exemption because they already dominate the Democrats, and in another 7 years they will be more entrenched.

At present, over 157 million people are in employer-sponsored coverage. The number of employees in the country who belong to a union is 15.3 million. So let's suppose all non-union employees enter the exchanges (also assuming every single unionized worker in the country currently has a health insurance plan). The exchanges then have 142 million people in them. Compensation to those employees that previously was untaxed will now be taxed as income, supplemented by $2,000 fee per eligible employee (which is smaller number than that 142 million). That is to say, the point of the excise tax would be fulfilled--namely, substitution of wages for health benefits in compensation.

In essence, you're describing a variant of Wyden-Bennett that would actually be a very good thing. Unfortunately it won't happen. But that would be nice.

What the heck are you talking about??? You still don't get it do you? Money malapropriated from anywhere in the economy slows down the whole. So you increase income taxes, consuming slows, people get laid off and your income tax pool decreases.

No one is talking about increasing income taxes here. The point is that income itself (or, rather, wages) increases, which naturally raises revenues from income taxes. The actual tax rate remains unchanged.

The instant you can't let a price rise to it's proper level because of some inane notion of 'unfairness' it's capped. You're the one claiming that caps are going to be used for our protection from unfair pricing.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The only cap I discussed was on an income tax exclusion, not some sort of price ceiling as you're describing. And I don't recall using the word "unfair" in this thread. Perhaps you're thinking of someone else? Or simply making things up?

I'm not even sure what prices you're referring to: premiums, medical supplies, provider reimbursements, what?

Then I suppose you can point me to where the full copy of the legislation is, and when it was completed.

All Congressional legislation is available from the Library of Congress THOMAS website: THOMAS (Library of Congress).

The health care bill that became law is H.R. 3590, released with Reid's manager's amendment on November 19, 2009. It passed the Senate in a vote on Christmas Eve and the House--unaltered--on March 21.

It was accompanied by a relatively short reconciliation bill making certain changes, noted in the section-by-section summary posted above. That bill was publicly available on March 17. It passed the Senate on March 25 and the House later that day.

Because as I remember with the original bill, even minutes before passage, it was not completely written, and many sections referred to blank pages in the bill. How do I know this? I read parts for myself.

You're incorrect. I don't know what you were reading but apparently it wasn't these bills.

I also love the fact that page 16 banned private insurance. Never removed.

I love when people just make things up.

Let me clue you in on something: the chain email or wherever you got that little (false) tidbit is about H.R. 3200, the original House bill. Your claim was fabricated (and dutifully parroted by some) by someone who either couldn't read the grandfather clause for existing coverage or assumed you couldn't. Regardless, this lie is about a bill that never became law. To review: the reform law consists of H.R. 3590 and H.R. 4872. H.R. 3200 is irrelevant.

I'd rather see the raw bill.

Apparently you wouldn't since this is July and these two bills you don't seem to have looked at have been readily available since November and March.

 

[daveman]

daveman crawls out of the neanderthal cave.

The gubmint set guidelines because the insurance industry screwed up. Business knows profit not service. Prove that your way can do better. Oh. That's right. You can't.

It's funny the way you pretend to be a conservative. Do it again!

 

[JakeStarkey]

daveman crawls out of the neanderthal cave.

The gubmint set guidelines because the insurance industry screwed up. Business knows profit not service. Prove that your way can do better. Oh. That's right. You can't.

It's funny the way you pretend to be a conservative. Do it again!

Noted: you got nuthin.

 

[daveman]

daveman crawls out of the neanderthal cave.

The gubmint set guidelines because the insurance industry screwed up. Business knows profit not service. Prove that your way can do better. Oh. That's right. You can't.

It's funny the way you pretend to be a conservative. Do it again!

Noted: you got nuthin.

You have your love of big government.

Run along, boy. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's funny the way you pretend to be a conservative. Do it again!

Noted: you got nuthin.

You have your love of big government.

Run along, boy. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

Noted: you got nuttin.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

At present, over 157 million people are in employer-sponsored coverage. The number of employees in the country who belong to a union is 15.3 million. So let's suppose all non-union employees enter the exchanges (also assuming every single unionized worker in the country currently has a health insurance plan). The exchanges then have 142 million people in them. Compensation to those employees that previously was untaxed will now be taxed as income, supplemented by $2,000 fee per eligible employee (which is smaller number than that 142 million). That is to say, the point of the excise tax would be fulfilled--namely, substitution of wages for health benefits in compensation.

In essence, you're describing a variant of Wyden-Bennett that would actually be a very good thing. Unfortunately it won't happen. But that would be nice.

How often do I have to say this?

The only good thing would be government getting out of the health care business, anything less than that is a bad thing. As that is not going to happen, we are obviously talking degrees of bad. Unless Wyden-Bennet, was aiming for that, which it wasn't, it is not even close to what I am describing.

What people need is the freedom to choose their health care based on their needs, not those of their neighbor who is suffering from Lupus. I know it is not fair that the person with Lupus has higher health care costs, but it is even more unfair that everyone else has to pay for it, that seems to be the part that progressives miss. There is a difference between a right and an entitlement, rights are not paid for by other peoples taxes.

You look at what I post and assume because I like something I must want the government to be involved in it. the way it really works is I see things that might work, and I want the government to get out of the way and let us find out if it works. The only thing the government should be paying for is the government.

 

[Big Fitz]

At present, over 157 million people are in employer-sponsored coverage. The number of employees in the country who belong to a union is 15.3 million. So let's suppose all non-union employees enter the exchanges (also assuming every single unionized worker in the country currently has a health insurance plan). The exchanges then have 142 million people in them. Compensation to those employees that previously was untaxed will now be taxed as income, supplemented by $2,000 fee per eligible employee (which is smaller number than that 142 million). That is to say, the point of the excise tax would be fulfilled--namely, substitution of wages for health benefits in compensation.

The point is, why are they exempted at all? Louisiana AND Nebraska were exempted as what could only be described as criminal bribes. Why them too? Why should the rest of us have to pay the freight for a bunch of union thugs? And are we forgetting the public sector unions which are growing leaps and bounds? nice way to carve out a little government class privilege huh? Always looking for a way to exempt friends as usual. Libs never want to pay their own tabs.

Secondly, why do we even have employer based healthcare? Ohhhh that's right. FDR capping salaries with wage and price controls that should have been rolled back the day after they were created as unconstitutional. You want to fix most of health care, do this: end the tax credit for medical care to employers. Overnight, boom gone. No more entanglements. People can then take their increased salaries and buy whatever plan their state allows them to have and be portable with it. No worries if the company fails, you pay the premium and walk down the road happy as a clam.

No one is talking about increasing income taxes here. The point is that income itself (or, rather, wages) increases, which naturally raises revenues from income taxes. The actual tax rate remains unchanged.

No, you don't get to gloss over that. HOW are wages going to increase in this disaster of an economy? We're losing millions of jobs in just over a year... what are we up to 6 million lost since P-BO took over? I know it's plummeting even faster now that we are at a total unemployment of around 19% after you include all underemployed AND discouraged workers. So HOW are incomes going to rise. You don't get to apply this in a vacuum here.

And if you look at some BLS data, you will see real buying power of income has been trending downward for a while now with some occasional mild upswings.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The only cap I discussed was on an income tax exclusion, not some sort of price ceiling as you're describing. And I don't recall using the word "unfair" in this thread. Perhaps you're thinking of someone else? Or simply making things up?

I'm not even sure what prices you're referring to: premiums, medical supplies, provider reimbursements, what?

Then I guess you are incapable of having an educated opinion, only political talking points. So how much is Cass Sunstein paying you to spread disinformation? I could get in on this racket, get me some gubmint munny.

You're incorrect. I don't know what you were reading but apparently it wasn't these bills.

Believe what you want. All I know is that my saved links have been scrubbed. I now know why Glenn Beck emphasizes to use screen capture and the like to preserve data. Again, I believe what I saw with my own eyes, now what you're trying to tell me was really the case.

Let me clue you in on something: the chain email or wherever you got that little (false) tidbit is about H.R. 3200, the original House bill. Your claim was fabricated (and dutifully parroted by some) by someone who either couldn't read the grandfather clause for existing coverage or assumed you couldn't. Regardless, this lie is about a bill that never became law. To review: the reform law consists of H.R. 3590 and H.R. 4872. H.R. 3200 is irrelevant.

Yeah irrelevant. It's just the foundation for all the rest.

Let's just remind everyone of the one basic fact. This act is unconstitutional. It should be struck down by the supreme court, and if not by them, reversed by congress. You can just shove that Overton Window right back where it belongs regarding unconstitutional law. Good job though, getting people to argue merits of application and then just let the assumption go that government has the right to do any of this. Very slick trick you libs got going.

 

[Big Fitz]

SEC. 202. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

DING! Right here. You enroll now, you are locked in at the current plan, current rate, and cannot change it for any reason. The instant you do, sorry charlie, you're on the public option, because after this goes into effect, private insurers are no longer able to offer you a new plan either unless it's a public option based plan.

It lets private insurance 'wither on the vine'.

debunkdebunkdebunkdebunk....

Oh, BTW, this is from the PASSED legislation H.R. 3962 which was based on H.R. 3200 you said had nothing to do with it.

(c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage-

(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Nothing in--

(A) paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering of excepted benefits described in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act so long as such benefits are offered outside the Health Insurance Exchange and are priced separately from health insurance coverage; and

(B) this division shall be construed--

(i) to prevent the offering of a stand-alone plan that offers coverage of excepted benefits described in section 2791(c)(2)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (relating to limited scope dental or vision benefits) for individuals and families from a State-licensed dental and vision carrier; or

(ii) as applying requirements for a qualified health benefits plan to such a stand-alone plan that is offered and priced separately from a qualified health benefits plan.

Just gotta love it. NOT.

But once again, No constitutional power to do any of this.

 

[Big Fitz]

Here's the link to the REAL legislation.

Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[Greenbeard]

The point is, why are they exempted at all?

They're not. See above in this thread.

Louisiana AND Nebraska were exempted as what could only be described as criminal bribes. Why them too?

Nebraska isn't exempted from anything. Originally it received 100% FMAP for newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. The reconciliation bill simplified the calculation for the FMAP states get for new eligibles: every state--including Nebraska--gets 100% FMAP in 2014-16, 95% in 2017, 94% in 2018, 93% in 2019, and 90% indefinitely after that.

The provision affecting Louisiana is an adjustment for states recovering from a major disaster (declared under the Stafford Act). Recovery money entering the state in the wake of a major disaster screws up the calculation the feds do to determine FMAP, making it look as if per capita income in the state has skyrocketed. The result is a severely reduced FMAP, meaning the state isn't receiving the proper funding for its Medicaid population. The adjustment in the law corrects for that and ensures that states recovering from disasters aren't penalized by a misleading calculation. Scandalous!

You want to fix most of health care, do this: end the tax credit for medical care to employers. Overnight, boom gone. No more entanglements. People can then take their increased salaries and buy whatever plan their state allows them to have and be portable with it. No worries if the company fails, you pay the premium and walk down the road happy as a clam.

I would like to do that. But 1) throwing everyone into an individual market that lacks transparency, consumer protections, and price (rather than risk) competition would be a disaster and 2) politically, some sort of transition period is necessary. Which is why capping--instead of eliminating entirely--the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored plans and tying the growth in that cap to inflation (as the reconciliation bill does) is a start. As is the introduction of free choice vouchers, which I'm hoping are expanded with time.

No, you don't get to gloss over that. HOW are wages going to increase in this disaster of an economy?

Let's review what you just said: "You want to fix most of health care, do this: end the tax credit for medical care to employers. ... People can then take their increased salaries ... ". So clearly you're not entirely unfamiliar with the principle here. An employee's compensation package consists of wages + health benefits + any other perks (retirement, parking, whatever) they get. Capping the tax exclusion for health benefits has the same effect as eliminating it, just to a lesser extent: a trimming back of health benefits leads to an increase in wages to preserve the employee's level of compensation.

This isn't a raise, it's a reshuffling of the allocations of each component of the employee's compensation package. But, significantly for government revenues, it's a shift away from a tax exempt piece of compensation to a taxable piece of compensation. Thus it doesn't matter if those whose health packages are expanding over the exemption limit trim back on health benefits or not--if they do, their higher wages are taxed as income, if they don't their health benefits above the threshold get taxed.

Believe what you want. All I know is that my saved links have been scrubbed. I now know why Glenn Beck emphasizes to use screen capture and the like to preserve data. Again, I believe what I saw with my own eyes, now what you're trying to tell me was really the case.

I don't need to believe anything, I don't get my knowledge of health policy from chain emails or Glenn Beck.

Yeah irrelevant. It's just the foundation for all the rest.

I've linked you to the two bills that became law. Please quote from those the provision banning private insurance. I'll wait.

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't need to believe anything, I don't get my knowledge of health policy from chain emails or Glenn Beck.

Oh my bad. Media Matters and Keith Olbermann then.

 

[Big Fitz]

I've linked you to the two bills that became law. Please quote from those the provision banning private insurance. I'll wait.

Funny, those were nothing but little stub addendum changes that had nothing to do with the meat of the bill that I found and provided the link to.

But once again... Unconstitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Big Fits, what you have provided means nothing to the discussion. That material is irrelevant, and what is scary is that you honestly don't understand that.