The election is over, we see the contours of what lies ahead for the next four years.

[RobDownSouth]

Also include the $63.00/year that will be assessed to everyone who has healthcare, to compensate for pre-existing conditions. That starts in 2014. Merry Christmas!

$5.25 per family per month in 2014
$3.33 per family per month in 2015
$0 in 2017

It defrays the cost of people with pre-existing conditions to obtain health insurance.

Perhaps you can tell us why covering people with pre-existing conditions is bad for America.

 

[julybaby04]

Where are you getting this?

And five bucks a month for families to be assured that if their child develops diabetes that they'll still have insurance? Sounds like an amazing deal to me. How much should it cost instead, $4 per month?

It is not if the person develops in the future....it is for pre-existing. Everyone will have to pay this....even if no one in your own family has a pre-existing. (and it is person....not per insurance coverage for family...(I believe that is how it is going to be put in place)....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/obamacare-pre-existing-condition-fee_n_2273005.html

 

[Byron In Exile]

I wouldn't vote for me either. I find that although diplomacy is a useful skill, I prefer having the luxury of being blunt.

That is my belief as well. But in diplomacy, it isn't always possible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e6PmqsLBzY

^ It's a different system.

 

[Ishmael]

You're making the same mistake as the rest of your ilk: assuming the healthcare system is static and has no ability to adapt, increase the rate of doctor training, become more efficient in care, or use other medical professionals more wisely.

No I'm not. I have a much greater grasp of 'pipe-lining' than you seem to have. If we started today to increase medical school capacities to make up for the shortage we would not see an effect of that policy for 12 years.

Of course part of that can be alleviated by letting the patient see a nurse/PA in lieu of seeing a physician. I'd love to see someone make the case that this will maintain the same level of care. I'm pretty sure that the level of care will fall proportionately to the institution of this policy with a subsequent rise in malpractice premiums translating into an increase in costs to the patient.

You continue to flap your lips with all of these political, feel good, platitudes while completely ignoring reality and consequences.

Ishmael

 

[Recidiva]

It is not if the person develops in the future....it is for pre-existing. Everyone will have to pay this....even if no one in your own family has a pre-existing. (and it is person....not per insurance coverage for family...(I believe that is how it is going to be put in place)....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/obamacare-pre-existing-condition-fee_n_2273005.html

There's a person in the world who doesn't know someone with a pre-existing condition and wouldn't pay $5 a month for it? Really? Wouldn't assisted suicide for being a complete and utter narcissist be a good solution for these folks?

 

[julybaby04]

$5.25 per family per month in 2014
$3.33 per family per month in 2015
$0 in 2017

It defrays the cost of people with pre-existing conditions to obtain health insurance.

Perhaps you can tell us why covering people with pre-existing conditions is bad for America.

I think it is per person...not per family.

 

[mercury14]

It is not if the person develops in the future....it is for pre-existing. Everyone will have to pay this....even if no one in your own family has a pre-existing. (and it is person....not per insurance coverage for family...(I believe that is how it is going to be put in place)....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/obamacare-pre-existing-condition-fee_n_2273005.html

From your article:

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.

The fee declines to zero in a couple years and now nobody gets turned down for pre-existing conditions. And the amount will be less than $5 per month/family since they're unlikely to pass on 100% of it. You're bitching around piddly little things that are good changes.

 

[Byron In Exile]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e6PmqsLBzY

^ And none of you listened to that, did you?

I feel like this is some sort of mental ward.

 

[mercury14]

I think it is per person...not per family.

Your article says 80% of the money from this fee goes back to the private health insurers and only lasts through 2016. Please tell me what net impact this will have in your mind.

 

[julybaby04]

From your article:




The fee declines to zero in a couple years and now nobody gets turned down for pre-existing conditions. And the amount will be less than $5 per month/family since they're unlikely to pass on 100% of it. You're bitching around piddly little things that are good changes.

It is per person. The fee does go down, unless it is deemed needed to stay in place.

That piddly amount would equal $31.50 a month for my family. As I already pay $570 per month for insurance (work does not offer it)...then I will be paying over $600 month for something someone else has. So yes, It will impact me...and on my limited funds...it will affect me greatly.

Why not include a premium for those who have a pre-existing condition? That sounds a bit more fair.

 

[mercury14]

It is per person. The fee does go down, unless it is deemed needed to stay in place.

Where do you see that it can be extended?

That piddly amount would equal $31.50 a month for my family. As I already pay $570 per month for insurance (work does not offer it)...then I will be paying over $600 month for something someone else has. So yes, It will impact me...and on my limited funds...it will affect me greatly.

The entire amount will not be passed onto the consumer. Most likely insurers will defray the cost across several years anyway.

Why not include a premium for those who have a pre-existing condition? That sounds a bit more fair.

So it's more fair to go from the current system to people with pre-existing conditions suddenly paying hundreds more per month as the cost gets focused entirely on them?

 

[julybaby04]

Where do you see that it can be extended?



The entire amount will not be passed onto the consumer. Most likely insurers will defray the cost across several years anyway.



So it's more fair to go from the current system to people with pre-existing conditions suddenly paying hundreds more per month as the cost gets focused entirely on them?

"It will phase out completely in 2017 – unless Congress, with lawmakers searching everywhere for revenue to reduce federal deficits – decides to extend it." (end of same article)

Why do you think the entire amount will not be passed on to consumers? The article did not give that indication at all.

Will these people be getting insurance? ......some had none before. I would imagine they would be thrilled to get it, even if it cost them more.

I do not like paying as much as I do every month...but I have no choice. I do not see anyone wanting to defray my costs. It is not up to me to make sure everyone else can pay their insurance...and well as try and pay mine. I have a very finite amount of money....and I am using it all to try and support my own family.....and not be a burden on anyone else.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I think it is per person...not per family.

I can't find original sourcing for that claim. The whole "$63-per-head" meme traces back to a single conservative post on the Huffington Post blogs.

Since conservatives in general exempt themselves from the Christian commandment to not bear false witness, I'll withhold further comment until I see independent verification of that claim.

In the meantime, feel free to entertain us with your rationalizations regarding having folks with pre-existing conditions suffer for the sake of your political ideology.

 

[mercury14]

It is per person. The fee does go down, unless it is deemed needed to stay in place.

That piddly amount would equal $31.50 a month for my family. As I already pay $570 per month for insurance (work does not offer it)...then I will be paying over $600 month for something someone else has. So yes, It will impact me...and on my limited funds...it will affect me greatly.

Why not include a premium for those who have a pre-existing condition? That sounds a bit more fair.

Okay let's take that $31.50 figure.

- 80% of the fee is going back to your insurance company so we're really looking at $6.30 for your whole family.

- Your hospitals and clinics no longer have to take losses when treating a group of uninsured people so their cost comes down and the amount they bill your insurance company comes down, meaning your premiums come down. Let's call this, conservatively, 10%. Now we're looking at $5.67 per month for your entire family.

- which decreases to about $4.40 the following year

- which decrease to about $3.67 the following year

- which decreases to $0 after 2016.



If you're poor enough that this is a problem for you then you probably qualify for Medicaid.

 

[mercury14]

"It will phase out completely in 2017 – unless Congress, with lawmakers searching everywhere for revenue to reduce federal deficits – decides to extend it." (end of same article)

I know your article says that in the last line, but it's just a boogeyman comment. There's nothing in the ACA that says it can be extended. Congress is free to write up any old bill but I think it's unlikely that Republicans are going to pass this legislation.

Why do you think the entire amount will not be passed on to consumers? The article did not give that indication at all.

Because there's nothing saying that businesses pass on 100% of a cost to their consumers.

Will these people be getting insurance? ......some had none before. I would imagine they would be thrilled to get it, even if it cost them more.

Dumb comment.

I do not like paying as much as I do every month...but I have no choice. I do not see anyone wanting to defray my costs. It is not up to me to make sure everyone else can pay their insurance...and well as try and pay mine. I have a very finite amount of money....and I am using it all to try and support my own family.....and not be a burden on anyone else.

You're really not. You're paying for your own insurance to add the benefit of not denying you for a pre-existing condition. Maybe you or your husband will survive cancer and then switch jobs and would otherwise be denied coverage. Now that will not be an issue.

 

[Adre]

It is not if the person develops in the future....it is for pre-existing. Everyone will have to pay this....even if no one in your own family has a pre-existing. (and it is person....not per insurance coverage for family...(I believe that is how it is going to be put in place)....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/obamacare-pre-existing-condition-fee_n_2273005.html

So you don't believe in paying for anything that benefits someone else? Fair enough...I'd like back the roughly $100,000 I've paid in property taxes to educate other people's children. You're arguing over five bucks a month?

 

[sethp]

It was an easy choice...Mitt Romney or President Obama. I voted Obama. I don't listen to talk radio, Fox News, Bill Maher nor do I read the huffing ton post. I realized that the mess our country is in, is every bit the fault of the Republicans in congress as it is the Democrats.

 

[julybaby04]

I can't find original sourcing for that claim. The whole "$63-per-head" meme traces back to a single conservative post on the Huffington Post blogs.

Since conservatives in general exempt themselves from the Christian commandment to not bear false witness, I'll withhold further comment until I see independent verification of that claim.

In the meantime, feel free to entertain us with your rationalizations regarding having folks with pre-existing conditions suffer for the sake of your political ideology.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/10/obamacare-fee-of-63-per-person-to-begin-in-2014/

http://money.msn.com/health-and-life-insurance/news.aspx?feed=AP&date=20121210&id=15884956

.....it is a story in quite a few places...

 

[mercury14]

I can't find original sourcing for that claim. The whole "$63-per-head" meme traces back to a single conservative post on the Huffington Post blogs.

Since conservatives in general exempt themselves from the Christian commandment to not bear false witness, I'll withhold further comment until I see independent verification of that claim.

In the meantime, feel free to entertain us with your rationalizations regarding having folks with pre-existing conditions suffer for the sake of your political ideology.

It's per head. But...

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.

So while the fee on insurers sounds like a lot, it's not because they're getting a cash benefit from it that approaches the value of the fee.

 

[julybaby04]

Okay let's take that $31.50 figure.

- 80% of the fee is going back to your insurance company so we're really looking at $6.30 for your whole family.

- Your hospitals and clinics no longer have to take losses when treating a group of uninsured people so their cost comes down and the amount they bill your insurance company comes down, meaning your premiums come down. Let's call this, conservatively, 10%. Now we're looking at $5.67 per month for your entire family.

- which decreases to about $4.40 the following year

- which decrease to about $3.67 the following year

- which decreases to $0 after 2016.



If you're poor enough that this is a problem for you then you probably qualify for Medicaid.

The $31.60 will be required for me to pay every single month.....doesn't matter what "goes back". I have NEVER had premiums go down....and most certainly do not expect that in the future.

As far as Medicaid......I probably am poor enough. I prefer taking care of my family myself......not looking for the government's help. But thanks for the information.

 

[mercury14]

I do not like paying as much as I do every month...but I have no choice. I do not see anyone wanting to defray my costs.

The entire purpose of insurance is to pool your group's costs and resources and defray them among members of that group. Is your family generally healthy? Well you're paying to defray other people's costs.

 

[julybaby04]

So you don't believe in paying for anything that benefits someone else? Fair enough...I'd like back the roughly $100,000 I've paid in property taxes to educate other people's children. You're arguing over five bucks a month?

Trust me...you have paid NOTHING to educate my children.....and I have spent much to educate mine and others.

 

[mercury14]

The $31.60 will be required for me to pay every single month.....doesn't matter what "goes back". I have NEVER had premiums go down....and most certainly do not expect that in the future.

As far as Medicaid......I probably am poor enough. I prefer taking care of my family myself......not looking for the government's help. But thanks for the information.

I just demonstrated to you that it's $6.30 every single month, not $31.60. Your figure is completely false because you're refusing to consider the paragraph in your article that says the fee goes right back to the insurance industry. If you think the calculation I made is wrong then counter it with a better one. Otherwise you're just wrong.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why not include a premium for those who have a pre-existing condition? That sounds a bit more fair.

You seem to be more than a bit ignorant about the concept of insurance and risk management.

Insurance is designed to spread the risk around. You pay $500+ per month for coverage but you don't necessarily incur $500 in medical expenses each month...but you have the peace of mind knowing that its there when you need it.

The insurance companies have kept your premiums artificially low in the past (relatively speaking, we all know what a struggle you have paying premiums) by willfully excluding the sickest members of society.

We now have a shiny new Constitutional law that says that insurance companies cannot legally exclude those with pre-existing conditions. These folks now enjoy access to the same good insurance you have.

There is a cost involved, of course. It is not right, moral or Christian to surcharge these new recipients for coverage you've enjoyed at discounted rates over the years. As such, society as a whole (in particular, policy holders) now pay a higher rate on a temporary basis to allow insurance companies to adjust to a higher risk premium/payout.

 

[julybaby04]

It was an easy choice...Mitt Romney or President Obama. I voted Obama. I don't listen to talk radio, Fox News, Bill Maher nor do I read the huffing ton post. I realized that the mess our country is in, is every bit the fault of the Republicans in congress as it is the Democrats.

I agree with what you said....with one small difference. It is not the fault of the Democrats nor Republicans in and elected office.....it is completely the fault of those who voted for those people and the mindsets that those people have.