This non-partisan (as far as I can tell) article is long but does a good job of laying out the coming difficulties in implementing the law.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-...you-2013-09-27
This non-partisan (as far as I can tell) article is long but does a good job of laying out the coming difficulties in implementing the law.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-...you-2013-09-27
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
For the most part, the story implies those difficulties are named "Republicans".Originally Posted by LA Ute
I think the law's implementation should be delayed so it can be fixed. But I understand the reasoning and feelings of those who are so philosophically opposed to it that they want to stop it altogether.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I think it should be implemented so it can be fixed. They've had several years to fix it between the time it was passed and the time it was scheduled to be implemented. Rather than fix it, they chose to have about 40 meaningless vies to repeal it that they knew had no chance of passing. I'm not convinced a delay would be any different.
I see what you're saying, but there lies the rub now doesn't it: the Republicans are the ones responsible for putting those flaws in the bill in the first place by adding all of the exemptions and loop holes. Why would anyone believe they'd put a good faith effort into fixing them the second time around?
Personally, I don't think we will have a good solution to this problem until we, as a country, have a frank discussion about how to handle those who have fatal/chronic conditions without the resources to pay for treatment. Do we really want to be a country where the bodies of children pile up because dad got laid off and insuring/treating his child would adversely affect the shareholder returns of insurance companies or hospitals? I don't think anyone, including Republicans, want to see that, but the solution will probably require some combination of social nets and government regulation. Unfortunately, the rhetoric coming from Republicans has put them into a position where they can't have that discussion so they avoid it completely. Philosophically speaking, they have painted themselves into a corner.
How so?
That isn't a hsa That is a flex spending account. There is a difference
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
"Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum
"And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla
One major difference is that the health savings account can be rolled over from year to year so you don't lose your health savings account dollars at the end of the year
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
"Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum
"And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla
We have an HSA and it works pretty good because my family doesn't get sick very much. My employer gives me money every month to put in it, in addition to whatever I decide to put in. Once we built up the little nestegg in there, it's been nice to cut back on contributions. But it's definitely not for everyone.
As for the Affordable Care Act, where I personally have encountered the most havoc is in the job announcements looking for people to work 29 hours/week.
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
Actually, I think that everyone should have a version of an HSA and a high deductible health plan, if we are really interested in reducing the cost of healthcare. As mentioned, the savings rolls over from year to year and you can even cash out that savings at an advanced age. A high deductible plan keeps the consumer with some skin in the game an incentives to improve health and seek the most appropriate care. Properly managed you can have essentially the same risk as a $500 deductible plan, if you are healthy you get the reward of a growing HSA and reduced medical costs.
HSAs are great, but they tend to favor the well-off and well-educated so they are not popular in Congress (on the more liberal side of the aisle).
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Right now they are definitely that way. And LA cites why they don't have much favor in congress for some of the reasons cited. The problem with them is you do have to be measured, you do have to sock away the appropriate amount of money, you do have to do a little thinking to make them work.
But there is no reason to not set up a hybrid model of this that would help the less educated and self-disciplined, and if you are working for a company that manages this stuff for you, they should be offering this to you and helping you manage it.
Thinking about it, if you had a choice between a good plan with a $500 deductible that was $1000/mo in premiums, or you could opt for a $10,000 deductible HDHP that was $280/mo in premiums, and took the $720/mo and put that into your HSA, after one year, if you were a non-utilizer, you'd have your entire deductible paid off always. That'd roll over and you could opt to only pay $280/mo after that, or continue to contribute pre-tax into an account that acts a lot like an IRA (there are even some interest earning options). If your employer contributes, even better.
I'm self-employed, that is what I do for me and my few employees, and I work with a company called Health Equity that helps manage the HSA. People complained the first year, but the next year when they had 'money in the bank' good coverage and reduced rates they were happy.
Going back to FSA's though, the one GOOD thing about them is you can get essential an interest free loan with them if you manage them right. For example, tied to a HDHP of $2000/deductible, if you said in November you wanted to contribute $2000 to your FSA, in January you could have a procedure that hit your deductible, you could use the FSA to pay for it, and only have contributed $160 or so to it. You'd then have the rest of the year to pay the rest off to the FSA.
They changed the law a couple of years ago so that you have until June of the following year to use any money in your FSA. So you shouldn't have to zero it out by 12/31.
That being said, back when you did have to zero it out, if we had any leftover money in December, we went and got eye exams and new glasses.
This is appropriate for this thread.
SNL Obamacare Cold Open
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.A. Times:
Some health insurance gets pricier as Obamacare rolls out
"I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it...."
Last edited by LA Ute; 10-28-2013 at 03:20 PM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Sadly, I have about as much confidence in the Republican party to use this in any meaningful to get the thing overturned in part or in whole.
"The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching."
Joseph Smith, Jr.
I think it is pretty easy to cherry pick stories about specific people whose premiums are increasing. There were a lot of people who carried nothing but cheap catastrophic health insurance, whereas all insurance must cover at least preventative procedures now. I suspect a lot of people who went bankrupt due to medical bills, even though they had insurance, would probably in hind sight wish they had purchased the higher level of insurance that is now required.
I wasn't trying to be unsympathetic. There are both winners and losers in all of this. But just focusing on those who were stung by this is just as disingenuous as only focusing on those it helped.
Although, frankly, I'm not sure who won in all of this, outside of maybe insurance companies. It will be interesting to see where profit margins of insurance companies are in the next two years. My guess is that they raised rates a bit more than they needed to in order to cover for some of the unknowns with regards to not being allowed to deny coverage for chronic problems.
I have (had - mine is being discontinued) catastrophic coverage and liked my plan. Here is why:
My family are non-utilizers and it was coupled with an HSA so we could cover the preventive care visits and other minor things yet still not be devastated if something more serious happened. In other words we were responsible and managing it.
But it was our decision, the right one financially, and now that plan will be gone 2014.
So that is my personal anecdote.
I went through on ufn some of the other problems I came across with the site, no biggie, but now I'll have the privilege of paying for things we likely won't use and the additional privilege of not socking that money away for a rainy day.
Yeah, this. I've heard people talk about the Republican's being the the insurer's back pocket, but I've gotta believe that they love a government mandate to buy their product and the government will subsidize those who can't afford it. I wish I could figure out a way to get the government to mandate that for my business.
Truth for me at this point, and maybe it is just because I'm feeling defeated or like one of them commies, but with what has happened to me personally I think I'd just rather see a single-payer system out there.
Why don't you understand that we just can't trust you to make decisions for you and your family?
You have a point with me being allowed to make decisions for my family, but I've got to believe there are maybe other people out there that should be trusted. Who that is, I have no idea.
How can you tell Rocker Ute apart from the ones that can't make decisions before anyone ends up in the hospital?
If you're going to mandate something, why does that mandate have to exclude the reasonable decision that Rocker made for his family as one of the permissible choices?
I haven't been a part of this thread but I wanted to weigh in.
My overall assessment of the health care system is that as currently evolved, it rewards the rent-seekers spectacularly well.
Obamacare is simply going entrench and strengthen the status quo. It enriches, reinforces and solidifies the major players already in existence and will be a boon to Washington and large health care entities that play in that game.
There isn't anything affordable about the Affordable Care Act. Its primarily going to be funded by new money into the system by the young and healthy, who will no longer benefit from the information asymmetry they currently enjoy. Ironically, this is the segment that overwhelmingly voted for the guy that will screw them with a tax (as ruled by the Supreme Court) that will probably exceed their income taxes liability during their healthy-but-poor years.
In the end we will all pay more (as a % share of GDP), health outcomes will not have any needle-moving improvement, utilization will increase and the entire health system will have a growing share of a slowly growing GDP pie. All of this is clearly predicted from the Oregon Health Study: http://www.nber.org/oregon/
In a way, the problems of education and health care mirror each other and the "solutions" cannot be crafted in the context of better policies in this political environment. Both education and health systems fail by completely avoiding fundamental principles of economics.
"But I tried didn't I? ... at least I did that."
Because Congress decided that as many people as possible must be forced into a certain segment of the insurance pool in order to make the pool actuarially sound insofar as certain types of coverage are concerned. Essentially, healthy people who might otherwise choose less insurance are not allowed to do so under the ACA. We might call it insurance market "reform." It's a coercive approach to the market. As many say, elections have consequences.
Last edited by LA Ute; 10-30-2013 at 03:49 PM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I tried to read a little about Obamacare to understand what is going on. I still know very little. What I do know is that I am now being charged a "medicare surtax" on my paycheck. I had no idea that Obamacare included a direct tax like this until I actually looked at my paycheck. I understand there are other direct taxes as well that most Americans are unaware of. All these folks who supported this program have no f'ing idea of its effects. In essence, it is a huge tax on the lower middle class. Those who are uninsured, will either be forced to get insurance or be taxed and they have no idea that this is coming. As for the middle class, many insurance programs will be dropped and they will be forced to pay for more expensive insurance--another tax as the United States Supreme Court has noted.
Of course, I am preaching to the choir with most of this group. If I posted this over at Utefans (the internet version of those who used to listen to Tom Barberi) they would just tell me that the more expensive insurance is great because it is better insurance and people should be forced to take that insurance (in other words, the government can make these decisions for people better than the private sector and the public at large, a pillar of "liberal" thought process)
The Republicans weren't as dumb as everybody thinks by book marking their protest of Obamacare right before implementation were they?
OK concerned, now it's your turn to take up the Utefans' defense of Obamacare.
Last edited by Two Utes; 10-30-2013 at 04:41 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote