Obamacare Vs Employer Based Plans

IBH, I explained in reply #31, that one would have to access to the hospitals accounting records to answer your question (how much does it cost in one account ing year to treat patients who are uninsured) Who do you think I am Price Waterhouse or some other big 8 accounting firm. I did not say NO one knows. I also said that the price of Obamacare would be 1.2 trillion, just a little higher than Bush's prescription drug program which cost 800 billion. I have also said that everyone needs health insurance. With the way the individual market is set up pre Obamacare not everyone can get health insurance, especially if you have a pre-existing condition.
Do you have a problem with Bush's prescription drug program which is an entitlement, that is paid for by the tax payer? Originally Posted by flghtr65

That's okay. Didn't believe you when you said no one could know that information, and still believe that Odumbocare will hurt more people than it helps.

IBH, I explained in reply #31, that one would have to access to the hospitals accounting records to answer your question (how much does it cost in one account ing year to treat patients who are uninsured) Who do you think I am Price Waterhouse or some other big 8 accounting firm. I did not say NO one knows. I also said that the price of Obamacare would be 1.2 trillion, just a little higher than Bush's prescription drug program which cost 800 billion. I have also said that everyone needs health insurance. With the way the individual market is set up pre Obamacare not everyone can get health insurance, especially if you have a pre-existing condition.
Do you have a problem with Bush's prescription drug program which is an entitlement, that is paid for by the tax payer? Originally Posted by flghtr65

"won't add one dime to the deficit"...

Damn you are old flighty, I haven't heard the term "Big 8" in 20 years.

"won't add one dime to the deficit".... Originally Posted by gnadfly

Of course not, that's why Obaminable, Harry, and Nancy want the debt ceiling higher.

I kept my Healthcare coverage after I retired from a 25 year career. My Co-Payments are relatively low for instance, the Co-Payment for annual check ups is only 25.00 and Rx are only a few dollars. Iam very reluctant to even think about exploring the Exchange site. I have heard people talk about concerns that employer based plans may go up so high that employees may have no choice but to go through the exchange. I hope it doesn't come to that, and it shouldn't. If Obamacare pitches that it renders Healthcare affordable then it shouldn't adversely affect established Healthcare that is already affordable. Until Obamacare stands the test of time, I don't think anyone can truly predict how it will affect the future affordability of Healthcare. Originally Posted by acp5762

I own two small businesses and provide generous health insurance to all of my employees and their dependents (premiums fully paid for by the companies). We have relatively low deductibles, broad coverages, and lower the deductibles even more via an employer reimbursement plan. Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what I could get a policy for under the Exchange set up by the government and was pleasantly surprised to find that it was less than half of what we're paying through the firm ($380 vs. almost $900/Mo.). Of course, the government exchange policy is less generous, has fewer doctors, etc.

I have no intention of forcing my employees into lower quality plans. Most of them make well under $100,000 and can't really afford to pay for their own health insurance, and would likely choose to take chances and pick less generous policies that might put their health at risk in the (relatively) unlikely event that they (or a member of their family) had a serious medical problem. But I was impressed that the government exchange policy, limited though it was, was so reasonable.

As for someone's comments that premiums are going up, that's not our experience. We had small increases two and three years ago (4 to 8%) and an actual decline this year. And with regard to premiums going up on individual policies, that should happen only if you have a poor policy that doesn't include most basic services. The requirements of the ACA are far from comprehensive. (I know that one thing that was not included that was of concern to my practice -- at least in the last draft of the regs that I read -- was in-patient pain management centers.)

But keep your grimmies out of my pockets. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Did you say this when Bush implemented his prescription drug program to help seniors pay for their medications? With you entitlements are ok as long as they are implemented by a republican.

Better yet, why doesn't she tell the Republicans to keep their fucking laws out of her uterus!!

Did you say this when Bush implemented his prescription drug program to help seniors pay for their medications? With you entitlements are ok as long as they are implemented by a republican. Originally Posted by flghtr65

I don't really care what "party implements" legislation, good or bad, and I don't judge the legislation depending on the party voting on it in Congress ...

"
How the bill is to work

In 2006, Medicare recipients will pay $35 per month with a $250 deductible for prescriptions. The plan will pay 75 percent of costs up to $2,250. The prescription drug provision left out a proposed guideline the president had originally sought -- requiring seniors to join an HMO to be eligible for the benefit.
The law also allows the importation of drugs from Canada -- where many are cheaper -- but only if the Food and Drug Administration has approved the drugs.
It also provides subsidies to private insurers to compete with traditional Medicare, giving seniors the opportunity to join managed-care plans, which typically cut costs by restricting patient access to specialists. That provision does not take effect until 2010.
Last month, the House passed the measure after Bush made late-night, last-minute phone calls asking members to support it. An unusually long three-hour vote was ended by GOP leaders at 6 a.m., after a 218 to 216 deficit flipped to a 220 to 215 victory.
The Senate's 54-to-44 vote was not entirely along party lines -- 10 Democrats voted in favor and nine Republicans voted no. (Senate passes Medicare bill)
On the day it passed the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee called the overhaul "epochal in the sense it modernizes Medicare to provide 21st century care for our seniors."
Opponents of the legislation warned that seniors would demand that Congress revisit the issue once they realized what the bill does and does not do. High on the list of things not covered in the bill is a mechanism to stem rising prescription drug costs. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, who supported the bill, said the lapse was a "major weakness in this bill."
"The theory is that private sector competition will drive down the cost of drugs," Feinstein said last month upon the bill's passage. "That may happen, or it may not happen. We need to watch that, and we will. I feel confident that the leadership will make changes if the cost containment is not kept."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ec04.medicare/

The drug bill did more than provide seniors with prescription drugs ...

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, who has long fought for a prescription benefit but vehemently opposed this bill, promised to take the issue "to the highways and byways of this country and to the senior citizen centers and nursing homes where the senior citizens gather."
"We will continue this battle here in the United States Senate and in the course of the elections," Kennedy said. "I'm absolutely sure that at the end of the day we will preserve the Medicare system ... and we will get to the day when we have a real prescription drug program."
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Maryland, said senators had "squandered the opportunity to truly change history and to truly change the lives of senior citizens" by providing them with "a skimpy benefit."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...are/index.html

Dems voted against it because it was not broad enough and didn't adequately protect seniors ....

Not real good propaganda for you ... huh? Even for the BushHog from "East Texas"!

Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what I could get a policy for under the Exchange set up by the government and was pleasantly surprised to find that it was less than half of what we're paying through the firm ($380 vs. almost $900/Mo.). Of course, the government exchange policy is less generous, has fewer doctors, etc...

...As for someone's comments that premiums are going up, that's not our experience. We had small increases two and three years ago (4 to 8%) and an actual decline this year. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

No way! Everything i've read on this board says that's impossible.

But keep your grimmies out of my pockets. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Did you say this when Bush implemented his prescription drug program to help seniors pay for their medications? Originally Posted by flghtr65

I don't really care what "party implements" legislation, good or bad, and I don't judge the legislation depending on the party voting on it in Congress ... Originally Posted by LexusLover

In other words, no.

Did you say this when Bush implemented his prescription drug program to help seniors pay for their medications? With you entitlements are ok as long as they are implemented by a republican. Originally Posted by flghtr65

I guess I missed the part where ... ...

..."Bush implemented his prescription drug program to help seniors pay for their medications.." ..

At least I have enough honesty to mention .. Obaminable, Harry, and Nancy as being the crafters of the current night-mare before Halloween....aka .. the ACA.

You probably thought that people would forget the truth, right?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ec04.medicare/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejap...d-entitlement/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/03...ion-drug-plan/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690175/

Most fair-minded people will agree that the changes passed by Congress back then positively impacted on many folks, not just "seniors' and that make drugs reasonably (reduced substantially) to all affected was a positive step forward to reducing medical costs and pressure on the U.S. medical system ... treating conditions with drugs at a reduced cost. The plan INCREASED medical care availability ...

the current plan REDUCES availability by REDUCING the SERVICES AVAILABLE and PROVIDERS AVAILABLE. As far as "ADDING" persons in the pool of those covered, then DECREASES offset any GAINS. ObaminableCare simply replaces the group of have-nots with a new group of have-nots. It's is a statistical wash.

I own two small businesses ....

I have no intention of forcing my employees into lower quality plans. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

But if it begins to cost me bucks and detracts from my hobby funds, ....

.. I might have to rethink my "intentions"!!!!!

I guess I missed the part where ... ...

..."Bush implemented his prescription drug program to help seniors pay for their medications.." .. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Gimmies (sic) are gimmies (sic), dude.

As for someone's comments that premiums are going up, that's not our experience. ) Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Celebrating right now is a little premature.

Gimmies (sic) are gimmies (sic), dude. Originally Posted by Doove

Sure ... but the modification of medicare back then had price adjusting actions on the pharmaceutical companies (although not enough for the opponents) that benefitted all carriers and insureds with no "exemptions" for special interest groups as is the case with the ACA ..

Furthermore, as the various articles disclose .. the opponents were not complaining about TOO MUCH ENTITLEMENT ... but NOT ENOUGH ENTITLEMENT. So when you liberals whine about the "Bush meds bill" ... did you want less entitlement or more?

It was fairly well recognized that lower costs drugs was better for the health care system and would help lower costs. That is not the case with ObaminableCare. It is repeated over and over again, but there is no proof that it will, and the "Bush meds bill" had direct proof of HOW IT WOULD DIRECTLY LOWER COSTS.

ObaminableCare lowers premium costs by lowering standards of care and choices...

.. not lowering the cost of services and supplies..

Celebrating right now is a little premature. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why would additional competition cause our premiums to go up? That's not the way markets work. Besides, my premium has a large sum baked in to pay for uncompensated care for the uninsured. To the extent that the ACA reduces the number of the uninsured and under-insured, that portion of the premium should and will go down.

For a bunch that bloviate ad nauseam about the benefits of markets, you TeaNuts sure don't seem to have much faith in them. Markets, when working under the correct conditions, are marvelous and beneficial things.