Share your Obamacare experiences.

[Scooby24]

CNN seems to have some internal debate on Obamacare. last night they had a bunch of stories up about how many people are planned on getting cancelled, a past ACA supporter who's no longer supporting due to increased prices, etc...5 or 6 stories berating ACA.

this morning all that is gone, the stories aren't on the front page "in case you missed it" and the top story is talking about inequality.

Hmmmmm

[Karlen]

We have to pass it, so you know what's in it. Fuck us right

[phreakdna]

Originally Posted by Scooby24

CNN seems to have some internal debate on Obamacare. last night they had a bunch of stories up about how many people are planned on getting cancelled, a past ACA supporter who's no longer supporting due to increased prices, etc...5 or 6 stories berating ACA.

this morning all that is gone, the stories aren't on the front page "in case you missed it" and the top story is talking about inequality.

Hmmmmm

best guess is because the cancellations story doesn't appear to be as clean cut as first assumed... people are typically getting transitioned into ACA compliant plans. the law was written that people really could keep their plans so long as nothing major changed (including cost) and the insurers weren't good with that so they are 'cancelling' plans that people had and transitioning them (by the law) into ACA compliant ones.

its become more of a process story in truth as opposed to the outrage story if the news org has any interest in actual reporting. but knowing CNN as soon as they see numbers dip they'll go back to outrage mode to gin up viewership.

I know this is just the one state but the concept (I assume) is the same:
http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...e-are-going-l/

[NoBuddy]

Originally Posted by phreakdna

best guess is because the cancellations story doesn't appear to be as clean cut as first assumed... people are typically getting transitioned into ACA compliant plans. the law was written that people really could keep their plans so long as nothing major changed (including cost) and the insurers weren't good with that so they are 'cancelling' plans that people had and transitioning them (by the law) into ACA compliant ones.

its become more of a process story in truth as opposed to the outrage story if the news org has any interest in actual reporting. but knowing CNN as soon as they see numbers dip they'll go back to outrage mode to gin up viewership.

I know this is just the one state but the concept (I assume) is the same:
http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...e-are-going-l/

best guess is someone pulled strings to get the stories off the air. and it was NOT written for people to keep their plans. that's either naivety or ignorance.

[HiLandR]

This is going to be one of those items that people say, "remember BEFORE Obamacare how much more money we had!"

I understand that they are trying to solve a lot of problems, but they have just pushed the burden onto small businesses and people considered to be high earners. I am NOT the 1% for crying out loud, I drive a 1998 car.

We now have 11 months to figure out how to save our company! One option is push our staff to ACA by no longer providing health care. That is just hard to swallow!

[Scooby24]

Originally Posted by HiLandR

This is going to be one of those items that people say, "remember BEFORE Obamacare how much more money we had!"

I understand that they are trying to solve a lot of problems, but they have just pushed the burden onto small businesses and people considered to be high earners. I am NOT the 1% for crying out loud, I drive a 1998 car.

We now have 11 months to figure out how to save our company! One option is push our staff to ACA by no longer providing health care. That is just hard to swallow!

Couldn't you just push the cost increase to the employees by pulling more out of their paychecks?

85% is a big jump, but if they are getting 40 bucks taken out currently from each paycheck, and you up that to 74 bucks, I don't think your employees are going to go hungry.

[NoBuddy]

Originally Posted by Scooby24

Couldn't you just push the cost increase to the employees by pulling more out of their paychecks?

85% is a big jump, but if they are getting 40 bucks taken out currently from each paycheck, and you up that to 74 bucks, I don't think your employees are going to go hungry.

While likely true, the point is he shouldn't need to be doing this, nor should any small business....hell, or even big business. It's a joke, from idea to passing to implementation. There is nothing good about it.

[YourWorstNightmare]

Originally Posted by Scooby24

CNN seems to have some internal debate on Obamacare. last night they had a bunch of stories up about how many people are planned on getting cancelled, a past ACA supporter who's no longer supporting due to increased prices, etc...5 or 6 stories berating ACA.

this morning all that is gone, the stories aren't on the front page "in case you missed it" and the top story is talking about inequality.

Hmmmmm

Communist News Network.


Didn't you get the memo?

I also find it VERY funny that *nothing* on a CNN.com website is blocked on a government computer, but almost everything on foxnews.com is blocked or takes forever to load because it has to be "filtered".

Coincidence much?!

[HiLandR]

Originally Posted by Scooby24

Couldn't you just push the cost increase to the employees by pulling more out of their paychecks?

85% is a big jump, but if they are getting 40 bucks taken out currently from each paycheck, and you up that to 74 bucks, I don't think your employees are going to go hungry.

This, like most creative businesses, is very competitive. We compete for the most talented people to provide the best for our clients as well as a competitive edge for them and us. Keep in mind that the +/-85% cuts both ways. It is added to their contributions as well as ours. For example, I will pick a middle of the road persons "story". We pay $4,400.00 a year for an employee's healthcare; that includes his contribution. Our combined nut then becomes $8140.00. Now if that guy made $70,000.00 a year, last year, it costs a bit over 74,400.00 for him to be in his chair. Now it costs $78,140.00. We have 12 employees and just for math's sake say they are all the same (which they are much higher) then where do I come up with $48,000.00 + annually that I didn't have to come up with last year. Do you think I can pass that along to my staff? That money has to come from somewhere. In an already difficult market it is difficult to maintain our staff as it is.

This is all just based on the current situation. The way I read the ACA (I'm no expert) subsequent years are supposed to have larger jumps in premium and therefore likely pushing coverage options down and deductibles way up.

This example is very conservative, how would you come up with the money, charge more to your clients in an already volatile market? Let an employee go when billing time is your business, that hurts bad! Do we then quit covering our employees healthcare?



And don't get me started talking about what happens to my insurance if the firm quits paying for healthcare. My annual payment would go up nearly $18,000.00 a year based on the calculator link I posted with my age and income.

[FOACAD]

Solid words, imo.

Mitt Romney-

In the years since the Massachusetts health care law went into effect nothing has changed my view that a plan crafted to fit the unique circumstances of a single state should not be grafted onto the entire country. Beyond that, had President Obama actually learned the lessons of Massachusetts health care, millions of Americans would not lose the insurance they were promised they could keep, millions more would not see their premiums skyrocket, and the installation of the program would not have been a frustrating embarrassment. Health reform is best crafted by states with bipartisan support and input from its employers, as we did, without raising taxes, and by carefully phasing it in to avoid the type of disruptions we are seeing nationally.

[phreakdna]

Originally Posted by NoBuddy

and it was NOT written for people to keep their plans. that's either naivety or ignorance.

well there does appear to be a bit of ignorance going around...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/he...1HhI8W1bg&_r=0

New Rules on Changes to Benefits
Published: June 14, 2010
WASHINGTON — The White House on Monday will issue new rules that strongly discourage employers from cutting health insurance benefits or increasing the costs of coverage to employees, administration officials say.

The rules limit the changes that employers can make if they want to be exempt from certain provisions of the health care law passed by Congress in March. Many employers want the exemption because it allows them to keep their existing health plans intact with a minimum of changes. More than 170 million Americans have employer-sponsored insurance.

The administration said the rules would allow a smooth transition to a new, more competitive insurance market that works better for consumers. But in some respects, the rules appear to fall short of the sweeping commitments President Obama made while trying to reassure the public in the fight over health legislation.

In issuing the rules, the administration said this was just one goal of the legislation, allowing people to “keep their current coverage if they like it.” It acknowledged that some people, especially those who work at smaller businesses, might face significant changes in the terms of their coverage, and it said they should be able to “reap the benefits of additional consumer protections.”

The law provides a partial exemption for certain health plans in existence on March 23, when Mr. Obama signed the legislation. Under this provision, known as a grandfather clause, plans can lose the exemption if they make significant changes in deductibles, co-payments or benefits.

About half of employer-sponsored health plans will see such changes by the end of 2013, the administration says in an economic analysis of the rules.

The rules allow employers and insurers to increase benefits. But, in a summary of the rules, the administration said, “Plans will lose their grandfather status if they choose to make significant changes that reduce benefits or increase costs to consumers.”

Some provisions of the new law apply to all health plans. In general, they cannot cancel coverage when a person becomes ill, and they cannot impose lifetime limits on benefits.

But “grandfathered health plans” are exempt from other requirements. In general, they do not have to provide “essential health benefits” specified by the federal government and they do not have to provide free preventive care.

Under the rules, a health insurance plan can lose its exemption if it eliminates all benefits for a particular condition or if it increases deductibles or co-payments by more than the rate of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points.

Likewise, a health plan loses its exemption if an employer reduces its contribution so that its share of the total cost of coverage declines by more than 5 percentage points. If, for example, an employer is paying 60 percent of the cost of family coverage, it would run afoul of the rules if it cut its share to 50 percent.

An employer would also lose its exempt status if it increased co-payments for doctor’s visits to $45, from $30 — a 50 percent increase — while medical inflation was 8 percent.

Some health plans require consumers to pay a percentage of the bill, rather than a fixed dollar amount. An insurer loses its special protection if it makes any increase in this percentage — if, for example, it requires patients to pay 25 percent of the bill for surgery, rather than the 20 percent charged in the past.

A health plan would also run afoul of the rules if it eliminated coverage for services needed to diagnose or treat a particular condition. As an example, the rules describe a health plan that covers a combination of counseling and prescription drugs for treatment of a particular mental illness. The plan would lose its exemption if it eliminated benefits for counseling.

Some insurers cap the amount they will pay for covered services each year. If they want to retain their grandfathered status, they cannot reduce any annual dollar limit that was in place on March 23.

About 133 million Americans are in group health plans from employers with 100 or more employees, the administration said, and most “will not see major changes to their coverage as a result of this regulation.

so back in 2010 it was 'admitted' by the Obama admin that by their estimates half of plans would make changes that would remove their 'grandfathered' status and put them under ACA compliance requirements...

this hasn't been hidden. it was a provision requested by the the business community to allow those that didn't want to comply to ACA standards to have a path to do so. the path can be looked as unreasonable because it would force the company/the insurer to assume any increases in cost but that's still the company/insurer's choice... they are not forced to comply with the ACA only to keep the benefits and costs static for the end user.

[FOACAD]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...surance-plans/

The White House is on the defensive trying to explain it, after Mr. Obama repeatedly said, "If you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it."

Spin away phreak.

[FOACAD]

If you say a lie enough it doesnt make it true.



Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E

[Karlen]

Originally Posted by FOACAD

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...surance-plans/



Spin away phreak.

You clearly had a sweetheart deal before, and we are taking that from you. Nobody deserves to pay a fair rate, everyone must be paying at least 18% of their income to health insurance as mandated by the ACA.

[Scooby24]

Originally Posted by HiLandR

This, like most creative businesses, is very competitive. We compete for the most talented people to provide the best for our clients as well as a competitive edge for them and us. Keep in mind that the +/-85% cuts both ways. It is added to their contributions as well as ours. For example, I will pick a middle of the road persons "story". We pay $4,400.00 a year for an employee's healthcare; that includes his contribution. Our combined nut then becomes $8140.00. Now if that guy made $70,000.00 a year, last year, it costs a bit over 74,400.00 for him to be in his chair. Now it costs $78,140.00. We have 12 employees and just for math's sake say they are all the same (which they are much higher) then where do I come up with $48,000.00 + annually that I didn't have to come up with last year. Do you think I can pass that along to my staff? That money has to come from somewhere. In an already difficult market it is difficult to maintain our staff as it is.

This is all just based on the current situation. The way I read the ACA (I'm no expert) subsequent years are supposed to have larger jumps in premium and therefore likely pushing coverage options down and deductibles way up.

This example is very conservative, how would you come up with the money, charge more to your clients in an already volatile market? Let an employee go when billing time is your business, that hurts bad! Do we then quit covering our employees healthcare?



And don't get me started talking about what happens to my insurance if the firm quits paying for healthcare. My annual payment would go up nearly $18,000.00 a year based on the calculator link I posted with my age and income.

I think I saw you mention 83% for the same plan, same provider, have you shopped around on the open market for similar?

You mentioned attempting to view the plans on the health exchange and I don't think that will benefit you. You won't qualify for subsidies and the plans you'd find there are no better/cheaper than the open market.

[HiLandR]

Originally Posted by Scooby24

I think I saw you mention 83% for the same plan, same provider, have you shopped around on the open market for similar?

You mentioned attempting to view the plans on the health exchange and I don't think that will benefit you. You won't qualify for subsidies and the plans you'd find there are no better/cheaper than the open market.

First off I was just giving a discussion intended to answer Scooby's question.

I'm not sure you followed my earlier posts (who could follow my ramblings), but we have shopped around with our Rep and have signed an 11 month plan that we are starting Dec. 1. It will go up quite a bit 15% or so I think and we (the company) will pick up that burden. But it is next year that I am worried about. At this time next year we will be making some very hard decisions!

[HiLandR]

Originally Posted by HiLandR

First off I was just giving a discussion intended to answer Scooby's question.

I'm not sure you followed my earlier posts (who could follow my ramblings), but we have shopped around with our Rep and have signed an 11 month plan that we are starting Dec. 1. It will go up quite a bit 15% or so I think and we (the company) will pick up that burden. But it is next year that I am worried about. At this time next year we will be making some very hard decisions!

Oh shit I am answering you! Twice! LMAO!!!

[Ryan Stewart]

Originally Posted by Scooby24

this morning all that is gone, the stories aren't on the front page "in case you missed it" and the top story is talking about inequality.

This morning they were talking about the cancellations, running that "you'll get to keep your plan, period" video clip of Obama.

[Scooby24]

Originally Posted by Ryan Stewart

This morning they were talking about the cancellations, running that "you'll get to keep your plan, period" video clip of Obama.

Huh...something changed fast then.

[Onetype]

Anyone else watch Sebelius get grilled?

I wonder if anyone else caught her saying "Don't do this to me" under her breath as she was getting grilled for not giving up her insurance and going into the exchanges.

It was awesome.

And I can't wait for them to release the official numbers so everyone can see the staggering medicaid enrollments vs insurance policies.

[BuddyLee]

Originally Posted by Onetype

Anyone else watch Sebelius get grilled?

I wonder if anyone else caught her saying "Don't do this to me" under her breath as she was getting grilled for not giving up her insurance and going into the exchanges.

It was awesome.

And I can't wait for them to release the official numbers so everyone can see the staggering medicaid enrollments vs insurance policies.

I really don't get the point of pushing members of the cabinet or congress to give up their GROUP HEALTH COVERAGE and go into the PUBLIC SUBSIDIZED EXCHANGES. That's just fucking retarded. No one is asking me to do it, because it's the most retarded idea ever. So why ask Congress?

ACA wasn't meant to replace group healthcare coverage.

[06g35meister]

My company just issued the open enrollment email:

Health Reform Update
Next year, health reform brings several changes to the overall healthcare landscape.

Here’s what we know:
· The recently enacted Health Insurance Marketplace provides Americans with additional ways to research and obtain health insurance
· New taxes and fees will be imposed on large group plans as a cost of continuing to offer employer-sponsored health coverage
· Mandated plan design changes will take effect, such as additional preventative-health services, clinical trial coverage and copays which will now count toward your plan’s out-of-pocket maximum

While many of these changes positively impact healthcare consumers, much of the cost will fall on [the company]. This will result in higher monthly insurance premiums and an increase in out-of-pocket maximums for our insurance plans. We also anticipate changes, and premium increases, to continue in coming years. While we cannot avoid these regulated modifications, we strive to continue to offer high-quality benefit programs at the lowest possible cost to you.

My company of 4000 ppl has an INCREASE in taxes and healthcare related costs outside of employee contributions of 600k this year. They have open financials (confidential of course) but that line item increased by 600k.

SERIOUSLY EFFING RETARDED.

[Onetype]

Originally Posted by BuddyLee

I really don't get the point of pushing members of the cabinet or congress to give up their GROUP HEALTH COVERAGE and go into the PUBLIC SUBSIDIZED EXCHANGES. That's just fucking retarded. No one is asking me to do it, because it's the most retarded idea ever. So why ask Congress?

ACA wasn't meant to replace group healthcare coverage.

Because millions of Americans are getting pushed out of their private plans and being forced to go to the exchanges. Why? Becaues the Obama Admin decided every plan should have a universal basic coverage of certain things. Such as maternity care. Yes, men will now be paying for maternity care, among other things they will never need. So if the new healthcare system is so great, and we are all being forced to use it, the people that passed it, built it, and implemented it, should too.

My .02

[06g35meister]

Originally Posted by Onetype

Because millions of Americans are getting pushed out of their private plans and being forced to go to the exchanges. Why? Becaues the Obama Admin decided every plan should have a universal basic coverage of certain things. Such as maternity care. Yes, men will now be paying for maternity care, among other things they will never need. So if the new healthcare system is so great, and we are all being forced to use it, the people that passed it, built it, and implemented it, should too.

My .02

I personally pay for the ability to get free contraceptives. I dont have the ability to conceive. Might as well bill me for mammography's (probably already covered with new legislation) and gyno checkups lol.

[stangkillerss99]

Our group plan at work is going up 53% for around 850 employees