Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

"We have to pass it to find out what's in it "

profile picture
roor
Posts: 946 - Karma: -80

Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. It's a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

The Obama administration says it is a temporary assessment levied for three years starting in 2014, designed to raise $25 billion. It starts at $63 and then declines.

Most of the money will go into a fund administered by the Health and Human Services Department. It will be used to cushion health insurance companies from the initial hard-to-predict costs of covering uninsured people with medical problems. Under the law, insurers will be forbidden from turning away the sick as of Jan. 1, 2014.

Next we should lobby congress to alow people to take out insurence on burning buildings.

Anyway
63$ in addition to a 7% increase in costs more than double the 4% increase of last year. It is going to be cheaper for coperations to pay the penalty for not providing health care if they need full time employees . All major Companies like Walmart target , red lobster are thinking about reducing all low wage employees to less than 25 hours to avoid mandatory healthcare. Walmart who has healthcare for current full time 40 hour employees is contemplating abolishing the plan altogether. Small buisness on the other hand is afraid to grow because once they employ more than 50 they have to provide mandatory healthcare. foward!
Dec 11 2012 5:41PM
2 0
profile picture
clive_bixby
Posts: 1834 - Karma: 499
I just don't get it. Why on earth would this be passed?
Dec 11 2012 5:46PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
"small business"
Dec 11 2012 5:48PM
0 0
profile picture
ASmileyFace
Posts: 11 - Karma: 12
God damn it why don't we just have government provided health care so companies don't have to worry about providing health care for their employees?
Dec 11 2012 5:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Leafs2323
Posts: 355 - Karma: 195
The Big 3 Corporations- WALMART, TARGET, and....... red lobster??
Dec 11 2012 5:50PM
0 0
profile picture
volvotom
Posts: 2045 - Karma: 712
The fee was added through regulation which by law must be published in the federal register and be open to public comment for a period of time. It was not part of the legislation that passed.

Dec 11 2012 5:58PM
0 0
profile picture
roor
Posts: 946 - Karma: -80
Haha I added red lobster because they were the first people to suggest this loophole
Dec 11 2012 6:10PM
0 0
profile picture
roor
Posts: 946 - Karma: -80
Does a nation wide shit on low wage employees and small buisness do it for you. That was nacy pelosy by the way there's no telling how many tons of crap have been spewed my her mouth
Dec 11 2012 6:14PM
0 0
profile picture
yourthemannowdog
Posts: 4541 - Karma: 313
I think its about the taxes.

Personally I would not mind paying 30% in income tax to have social services. 30% is a lot of money when you are earning seven figures a year, a lot of money people don't want to lose. Money and power corrupt, so we find ourselves in these situations.
Dec 11 2012 6:23PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
when did you start caring about low wage employees
Dec 11 2012 6:24PM
0 0
profile picture
roor
Posts: 946 - Karma: -80
I find conservative women in power are much better especially nikkii haley. All liberals in power just have an air of dike to them like hilldog
Dec 11 2012 6:29PM
0 0
profile picture
volvotom
Posts: 2045 - Karma: 712
The reason we had to ever pass a law like this is because companies won't provide benefits. If WalMart and RedLobster and Target offered more benefit-paying full time positions instead of hiring most workers part time and temporary there would be no need for the government to intervene.

In the end it might balance out. Those with insurance were essentially subsidizing those without insurance in the form of increased healthcare services. The $5ish a month is nothing to most people, but if it means more people will have insurance and receive less expensive preventative care before ending up in an ER or have someone paying for their ER visit, we all win. It will taper off over time as well.
Dec 11 2012 6:30PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
basically the moral of the story is that businessmen can't be trusted to act like decent human beings (what a surprise/who would have guessed)

the moral of the story for the liberals is this: a "democratically" elected government doesn't care about the wishes of those who elected it to power. the state in a bourgeois liberal democracy is a tool created by the ruling classes to serve the interests of the ruling classes. for example, the majority of americans favored a single payer healthcare system. however, we ended up getting what the insurance companies and big business wanted, more shitty industrial-medical-insurance complex. another example is american foreign policy. most americans don't like war. however, the us military/cia has intervened in many countries to secure favorable conditions for capital accumulation for giant multinational corporations
Dec 11 2012 6:41PM
0 0
profile picture
roor
Posts: 946 - Karma: -80
The moral story is that liberalism sounds great but doesn't work in the real world. Before the right to care act when freeloaders werent admitted into hospitals to stiff them for care. The price for a good health plan was a a couple hundred bucks a year now it's a couple thousand
Dec 11 2012 6:48PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,500
you are talking about the high risk pool and no that's not how it works.
Dec 11 2012 6:51PM
0 0
profile picture
Anathema
Posts: 21048 - Karma: 5,061
so get off the internet and spend 4 hours working a shitty job to cover the negligible fee
Dec 11 2012 6:56PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,500
The average family pays 14,000$ a year.
Dec 11 2012 6:56PM
0 0
profile picture
roor
Posts: 946 - Karma: -80
According to yahoo news that's how it works. I didn't write it lol
Dec 11 2012 6:56PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,500
go read the bill and look up high risk pools and how they will work.
Dec 11 2012 6:58PM
0 0
profile picture
roor
Posts: 946 - Karma: -80
I'm talking about an average single non smoker male with no prexisting conditions Aka me
Dec 11 2012 6:59PM
0 0
profile picture
Jeebus.
Posts: 4904 - Karma: 5,822
Yeah i thought that too, but if thats what you're into check out my thread.
Dec 11 2012 6:59PM
0 0
profile picture
roor
Posts: 946 - Karma: -80
Someone with way more knowledge than you on the issue wrote this article for a major news. I'm going to go with him on this
Dec 11 2012 7:01PM
0 0
profile picture
roor
Posts: 946 - Karma: -80
And as a poster mentioned before this was not in the bill. It was its own entity as a result of the lack of funding for the bill I guess the 700 billion from Medicare wasn't enough
Dec 11 2012 7:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Where-am-I
Posts: 1635 - Karma: 281
So, are you saying people with pre-existing conditions should be denied healthcare?
Dec 11 2012 7:10PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,500
O really tell me more about how you know someone who knows more about the bill then the actual bill.
Dec 11 2012 7:15PM
0 0
profile picture
Abu_Hajaar
Posts: 2747 - Karma: 3,890
Why do you create threads like this when we all know it just creates shit-storms?
Dec 11 2012 7:29PM
0 0
profile picture
volvotom
Posts: 2045 - Karma: 712
I'm in grad school and specifically studying healthcare policy. The $63 was added, not as part of the bill itself, but later as they were working out the implementation of various parts of it. Like any other regulation, it was published in the federal register and open for public comment for several months and then later became a "rule."

To the best of my understanding of the law (which I venture to say is in the top 1% of Americans) the fee will be distributed to insurance companies to help offset the cost of covering those with pre-existing conditions. This does not affect the "high risk pool" which is a government insurance company that covers those currently without insurance who have pre-existing conditions who are unable to obtain insurance on their own (due to their pre-existing conditions.)

Once the health insurance exchanges are up and running and insurance companies are required to cover all who apply (regardless of previous conditions) in January 2014, those in the high risk pools will be moved into traditional insurance plans.

The money generated by this fee is going to be used to offset the initial cost to the insurance companies for covering pre-existing conditions. As the insurers gain more customers due to Individual and Employer mandates the additional premiums should be enough to cover the cost of care (and then some) and the stipend will end, probably gradually.

Hope that makes sense.

tl;dr
Doesn't change anything about the current high risk pools.
Dec 11 2012 7:39PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
do you even know what liberalism is

the real freeloaders are the ones who dont do shit and just make bank off investments,
Dec 11 2012 8:08PM
0 0
profile picture
yourthemannowdog
Posts: 4541 - Karma: 313
He is probably referring to classic liberalism.

But I must say, I do not understand the notion that a government is in a perpetual state of working and not working. Working in this context seems to take the place of many steps in reasoning which could add to a conversation. We can make the assumption that one who uses working in this context has not studied one's subject matter to give the lengthy, but compelling, argument for a government working or not.

With this aside I find it interesting that we treat government's status as if we were engaging in political idealism, often neglecting trivial topics. Thus a government can be working if we narrow our definition of working in the context. We use the term idealism to attack political theories that do this, yet we categorically use idealism.

I'm definitely shining a different, rather extreme, light on working in the given context, but I think looking at it can help us move foreward.
Dec 11 2012 8:43PM
0 0
profile picture
brosephstalin
Posts: 429 - Karma: 8
but isn't roor the textbook definition of a classical liberal? he views society as nothing but the sum of 19th century individuals (read: property-owning rich white males). classical liberals believe the state's role should be to secure rule of law and protect property rights to foster economic freedom (capitalism).

i agree with you that most people are idealists in their interpretation of government or what the rest of the world calls "the state". they ignore the material base (mode of production) from which the superstructure (the state) springs.


Dec 11 2012 8:57PM
0 0
profile picture
Blake.P
Posts: 9894 - Karma: 3,585
...kinda made me have to take a massive dump... brb
Dec 11 2012 9:39PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)