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

[julybaby04]

No, the article says the fee goes to your insurer and is given right back to the industry. Then out of anything left over, you may receive a portion of the temporary increase. The fee seems to be going 80% back to insurance companies and 20% to providers to help defray their cost to providing insurance to certain groups who can't pay. But that 20% will lead to lower cost of care and a lower cost to you, therefore your net increase should approach $0.

There's nothing about this fee in the text of the Affordable Care Act though. Can you show me what law it's from?

I hope you are correct. But until the cost are defrayed and all of that takes place...I will be paying more each month.

I do not know where it is from....I only read those articles I posted.

 

[zipman]

Those refund checks you spoke of were included in the tax returns filed for that year......they were taxed.

Let's look at what you actually said:

If anyone thinks that the government will allow a "refund", reduces rates, etc...anything that will let that money come back to an individual is truly seeing through rose colored glasses. Once that money is coming in....and I don't care what program brings it in.....they will not let it go.

Even if it was taxes, they got the money and then refunded it.

Words have meanings.

 

[Busybody]

You need to look at the net cost to the insurance industry before trying to figure what might be passed on to you. The net cost approaches $0 but you're insisting on some bullshit figure where you strip out a key fact that doesn't fit into what you want to believe.

you said

economic questions should be addressed to you

and you would answer them

YU LIED!

 

[mercury14]

Here we go... It looks like this is a Dept of HHS regulation and nothing that's part of Obamacare. Basically what's going on is that as people who were previously denied coverage due to being ill are brought into the system; some insurance companies are going to take it in the ass with some really costly care for seriously ill people. Kids with rare conditions, etc can cost as much as a hundred relatively healthy people. And as these people are covered it's quite possible for an insurer to get lucky or unlucky with who it suddenly ends up having to cover.

So what the Dept of Health and Human Services is doing is charging all insurers a flat fee per head among all insurers, then redistributing it back to the companies based on how much extra cost spike they're having as the transition takes place, smoothing the pain out and making sure the law doesn't disproportionately impact one company to the benefit of its competitors.

None of this needs to be passed onto the consumers by the insurance industry since there's no net cost to them. Happy?

 

[julybaby04]

Okay. I accept a perspective change, but if you don't want your own island, I will ask you this: Who ever made you think that life is fair?

I feel blessed that I can work, that I can produce, that I can live a reasonably productive life, even though I'm disabled. I have severe migraines through no fault of my own. I give back what I can, but I rely to a great extent on my family and my husband for support.

Life is not fair. If it were fair, we wouldn't need medical infrastructure. Yes, this might amount to a "tax on the healthy" to some extent - but for all that is holy to anybody - being healthy has much more value to the person that is ill, and they'd pay a lot more in cash for the privilege. But...as they are ill...they damned well can't. This is not a political issue, it's reality. Acknowledging it and realizing that in order to maintain a set of hospitals that provide care to all at least emergently is not feasible unless people are accorded basic care throughout their lives to stave off horrendously expensive emergencies.

In the end it may well be a tax on the healthy. But keep in mind, each day that someone is healthy does not mean that they can't or won't, through no fault of their own, be among the ranks of the disabled in a hot second.

So the healthy can appreciate their health, which is priceless, and give back a little cash (a very little in perspective) to help those who have no health to take for granted.

I am the first one to say life is not fair. I don't think it is fair in many ways. Health being one of those. Some having more than others is another way....and I do not think it is right for the government to take from some to give to others....to make things fair.

I am sorry you have the issues you do. I am concerned about the money I pay out for healthcare for my family because my husband was one of those "very sick" people. I know the benefit of healthcare....and know the ramifications of it as well....including premiums that were out of this world...and such...because of his illness.

Because he did not survive and my income is now less than half of what we used to have....paying an large amount each month is very difficult for me...but I do it for my children. I know that it is needed in time of catastrophic illness and I know I pay out each month, even though we never go to the doctor.

I lived in the world of hospitals, healthcare, insurance ...daily, for almost 3 years. I know that even with insurance, things do not go right....they are not always fair.

Many people think that health insurance is the answer to every problem in the world...but it truly is not. Our insurance was good....and was not government owned nor run...and it was still a mess. This will only get worse as the whole system changes. I think people are in for a very rude awakening.

 

[julybaby04]

Let's look at what you actually said:



Even if it was taxes, they got the money and then refunded it.

Words have meanings.

That money for those "checks" came from congress passing a stimulus bill....or something like that. That increased the US debt...which now they are having to find a way to raise taxes to pay for. All of that to make us so "thankful" to receive a check that was taxed anyway.

They could have kept the check to begin with and the debt would be less...even if only the amounts of the checks.

 

[julybaby04]

Here we go... It looks like this is a Dept of HHS regulation and nothing that's part of Obamacare. Basically what's going on is that as people who were previously denied coverage due to being ill are brought into the system; some insurance companies are going to take it in the ass with some really costly care for seriously ill people. Kids with rare conditions, etc can cost as much as a hundred relatively healthy people. And as these people are covered it's quite possible for an insurer to get lucky or unlucky with who it suddenly ends up having to cover.

So what the Dept of Health and Human Services is doing is charging all insurers a flat fee per head among all insurers, then redistributing it back to the companies based on how much extra cost spike they're having as the transition takes place, smoothing the pain out and making sure the law doesn't disproportionately impact one company to the benefit of its competitors.

None of this needs to be passed onto the consumers by the insurance industry since there's no net cost to them. Happy?

Like I said....I hope this turns out to be true. I guess we will all see. That money has to come from somewhere.....

....and while it may not be in Obamacare directly....the fact that healthcare is a mandate and that it requires everyone to be covered....then yes, it is a result of Obamacare. The costs would have never been incurred without Obamacare.

 

[mercury14]

dbl post.

 

[mercury14]

Like I said....I hope this turns out to be true. I guess we will all see. That money has to come from somewhere.....

....and while it may not be in Obamacare directly....the fact that healthcare is a mandate and that it requires everyone to be covered....then yes, it is a result of Obamacare. The costs would have never been incurred without Obamacare.

There's no cost. I just told you that.

 

[julybaby04]

dbl post.

What?

 

[Recidiva]

I am the first one to say life is not fair. I don't think it is fair in many ways. Health being one of those. Some having more than others is another way....and I do not think it is right for the government to take from some to give to others....to make things fair.

I am sorry you have the issues you do. I am concerned about the money I pay out for healthcare for my family because my husband was one of those "very sick" people. I know the benefit of healthcare....and know the ramifications of it as well....including premiums that were out of this world...and such...because of his illness.

Because he did not survive and my income is now less than half of what we used to have....paying an large amount each month is very difficult for me...but I do it for my children. I know that it is needed in time of catastrophic illness and I know I pay out each month, even though we never go to the doctor.

I lived in the world of hospitals, healthcare, insurance ...daily, for almost 3 years. I know that even with insurance, things do not go right....they are not always fair.

Many people think that health insurance is the answer to every problem in the world...but it truly is not. Our insurance was good....and was not government owned nor run...and it was still a mess. This will only get worse as the whole system changes. I think people are in for a very rude awakening.

It's the job of the government to attend to the welfare of the citizens. You aren't accepted as a citizen only because you are young and healthy and guaranteed to never get ill.

Health insurance is a partial solution to a huge problem. It's a real problem to a government who takes care of "people" and not ideal statistics. The reality is that the government will end up paying for it one way or the other, or the hospitals will close. We either pay pennies for prevention or pounds for cure.

Thank you for your sympathy. I think it's kinda funny that of all the people who can't work and spend their lives in pain, single or double digit compensations from the average person who will pay $7 for a Starbucks without thinking...it seems not only hard hearted, but selfish and willingly blind to the real tragedy in the world.

I'm sorry if you're on the edge of financial hardship, but I've experienced financial hardship and if you're doing well enough to be paying taxes in the first place, it's not that much of a horror to pay a fraction more for a few years in order to help create a greater good for countless suffering people.

I hope things get better for you.

 

[julybaby04]

There's no cost. I just told you that.

....hope you are correct. Time will tell.

 

[zipman]

That money for those "checks" came from congress passing a stimulus bill....or something like that. That increased the US debt...which now they are having to find a way to raise taxes to pay for. All of that to make us so "thankful" to receive a check that was taxed anyway.

They could have kept the check to begin with and the debt would be less...even if only the amounts of the checks.

Words have meanings. You seem to have a problem with that concept.

 

[mercury14]

....hope you are correct. Time will tell.

The entire reason for this policy is to keep there from being a cost, not to inflict one. There's no new tax here, no net gain for the government at all, not one penny.

You're just making things up if you think this is a government revenue stream. If it was, it would need to pass the Republican House.

 

[julybaby04]

It's the job of the government to attend to the welfare of the citizens. You aren't accepted as a citizen only because you are young and healthy and guaranteed to never get ill.

Health insurance is a partial solution to a huge problem. It's a real problem to a government who takes care of "people" and not ideal statistics. The reality is that the government will end up paying for it one way or the other, or the hospitals will close. We either pay pennies for prevention or pounds for cure.

Thank you for your sympathy. I think it's kinda funny that of all the people who can't work and spend their lives in pain, single or double digit compensations from the average person who will pay $7 for a Starbucks without thinking...it seems not only hard hearted, but selfish and willingly blind to the real tragedy in the world.

I'm sorry if you're on the edge of financial hardship, but I've experienced financial hardship and if you're doing well enough to be paying taxes in the first place, it's not that much of a horror to pay a fraction more for a few years in order to help create a greater good for countless suffering people.

I hope things get better for you.

...interesting thought process.

(and thanks).

 

[julybaby04]

The entire reason for this policy is to keep there from being a cost, not to inflict one. There's no new tax here, no net gain for the government at all, not one penny.

You're just making things up if you think this is a government revenue stream. If it was, it would need to pass the Republican House.

Just curious as to why the companies, mentioned in the article, see this as a big problem for them if there is really no amount of additional money that will have to be paid out?

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's the job of the government to attend to the welfare of the citizens. You aren't accepted as a citizen only because you are young and healthy and guaranteed to never get ill.

I'm sure she realizes that. Her husband/baby daddy passed away and didn't provide enough life insurance to take care of his family (she's working, struggling, etc) so I'm reasonably sure her kids are receiving Social Security survivor benefits (her Gospel of Bootstrappy Rugged Individualism notwithstanding)

 

[mercury14]

Just curious as to why the companies, mentioned in the article, see this as a big problem for them if there is really no amount of additional money that will have to be paid out?

Companies don't. Your reporter simply cherry picked a comment by some guy named Chantel Sheaks.

Seriously, if it was a new tax it would have to go through the Republican House. Boehner and company would literally have to vote to expand Obamacare. Do you think that happened?

 

[trysail]

The entire reason for this policy is to keep there from being a cost, not to inflict one. There's no new tax here, no net gain for the government at all, not one penny.

Forget the money— you are smoking something if you believe that adding millions of people to an already messed up healthcare system isn't going to create a nightmare of overutilization.


This is going to be a trainwreck.

 

[Recidiva]

Forget the money— you are smoking something if believe that adding millions of people to an already messed up healthcare system isn't going to create a nightmare of overutilization.


This is going to be a trainwreck.

It already was a trainwreck. Now it's going to be a documented trainwreck with legal precedent being established and national attention on it as a problem that isn't "too big" for us to deal with.

I'm not saying it's a perfect plan, but you really do have to start somewhere.

 

[julybaby04]

Companies don't. Your reporter simply cherry picked a comment by some guy named Chantel Sheaks.

Seriously, if it was a new tax it would have to go through the Republican House. Boehner and company would literally have to vote to expand Obamacare. Do you think that happened?

Not my reporter....

I sure hope Boehner and co. did not do that. But, due to the fact that they seem to be caving on taxes....wouldn't surprise me....

 

[mercury14]

Forget the money— you are smoking something if believe that adding millions of people to an already messed up healthcare system isn't going to create a nightmare of overutilization.


This is going to be a trainwreck.

People who need actually getting it. Otherwise known as over-utilization.

People with more wealth getting medical care and the working poor getting fucked, well that's proper utilization!

 

[julybaby04]

It already was a trainwreck. Now it's going to be a documented trainwreck with legal precedent being established and national attention on it as a problem that isn't "too big" for us to deal with.

I'm not saying it's a perfect plan, but you really do have to start somewhere.

...I would start somewhere else....

 

[mercury14]

Not my reporter....

I sure hope Boehner and co. did not do that. But, due to the fact that they seem to be caving on taxes....wouldn't surprise me....

It didn't happen. You fell for another hoax.

Just like the hoax you *still* believe in where you claim Obama went on Meet the Press and proclaimed that he's a Muslim on national TV.

 

[trysail]

People who need actually getting it. Otherwise known as over-utilization.

People with more wealth getting medical care and the working poor getting fucked, well that's proper utilization!

Yeah, right.


It worked reasonably well for a large number of people. Now, it will be the mother of fuckups for everybody and will work for nobody.


It will be a gigantic clusterfuck.