Welcome to the realities of Obamacare
Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 8 months ago to The Gulch: General
My nephew is married and has one child. He works for Midas and they just had a meeting today to discuss their health care plan. The current plan cost him $45.00 a week and included all 3 with eye and dental and a $2,500.00 deductible. The new plan will be $84.00 a week, does not have eye and dental and carries a $5,000.00 deductible. I guess someone finally read the Affordable Care Act and found out what was in it.
That's what results when 535 lying power mongers vote in favor of a bill that has no rational basis. The decision included the assumption that a lying power monger who has had no management experience can re-design (successfully without negative side effects) two lines of business (health care and insurance) that have been developed over the course of centuries, affect millions of people and thousands of businesses, employ hundreds of thousands, and have capital value of trillions.
The government of the United States consists of immoral confidence tricksters guilty of fraud, corruption, and treason.
That summarizes the whole thing.
Always remember, even though the target is moving, focus on the front sight and squeeze while tracking the moving target. Don't be distracted by the flash of a press briefing distraction on Friday afternoon about a pen and a phone, or the bang of a condemnation of intolerance by the UN of the radical state of Israel defending itself. Track the target. There is a reason all totalitarian governments always start their power grab by promising free government medical care in the name of humanity. When they control your access to the things that keep you alive, they control you.
Front sight, front sight Front Sight
Cheers.
I agree in some cases.
"He is working hard and his wife wants to stay home cause child care is expensive but thanks to all the government "help" she has to get a part time job."
Wait, she has to get a job because an expense increased $156/ month? She could make that just economizing and fixing up stuff and selling it every now and then. Him doing a PT job or side projects would blow away $156/mo. I agree with the principle that PPACA set them back, but I can't stand the notion of someone changing her whole life plan over 156 bucks. I would say the same thing if she were moving from a job she hated to one she loved that paid $156/mo less. I think she should do whatever she loves, work hard at it, support him working hard, and almost like magic having a happy wife will cause his income to increase by way more than $156/mo over the next few years.
If they hit the deductible, it's another $200 per month on top of that. Dental and vision coverage are usually gimmicky b/c it's more like prepayment than insuring against a peril. It's worth something, but sometimes you can get the same deal by shopping it instead of going within the DMO.
I strongly believe people should take charge and get what they want. $356 should not stop you. Overcoming a setback gives you momentum. Allowing yourself to be a victim of someone else's decision destroys momentum.
High-horse is an attitude of arrogance or contempt. Mine is an attitude of alacrity and optimism.
My wife's salary and my own do not clear $100,000 yet I think we keep getting thrown in to that "millionaires and billionaires" class.
The bottom line is the government imposed a massive tax increase on everybody and its going to hurt the blue collar guys the most.
After all, when you "got your eyes on the prize" it doesn't matter how much is costs someone else or how bad it is for someone else, as long as you get your free entitlement that the dotgov mandates you, the producer, shell out.
That's who this whole thing played to - the moochers wanting something for nothing, and the insurance companies saw the opportunity for a huge payoff (and lobbied like crazy to keep it from happening, both in the hells of Congress and to the sheeple by selling them how "evil" socialized medicine was.)
But if it DID go the way of the EU, then the freeloading moochers would have had to pay for it as well - which means they don't get it for free, so that was unacceptable. And the Insurance companies would not be getting a huge bankroll from the increased premiums, the increased deductibles, and the whole actuary kimchee, so that was unacceptable.
You really have to ignore the big booming voice, the flames, and the giant stairs to find the guys behind the curtain to see who pushed the drive and pulled the strings to get this abhorrent travesty through... and why.
Then again, I may be jaded because my folks worked in the Insurance Industry, and I've seen how much they're willing to throw into the pot, and some of the tricks they use, for a huge payoff.
very nice.
When AARP pushed for the ACA, and ran promos (and still do) about how this new law would help the elderly get care by providing them with a way to stay in their homes--the warning bells went off. What they really are saying is: your love one will not be able to get into a intensive care home because some social worker is going to get a fat commission check for keeping your aging parent from becoming a bigger drain on the insurance company. The DDS has been pulling this dirty trick for decades of not authorizing the care if a relative is anywhere in the picture. What grown child is going to let their parents sit on a bedpan for days because a visiting nurse is only authorized every other day? Of course there will be by default a relative in the picture. Of course the vicious circle is formed.
You *never* see them bringing up you can either post a bond for the liability amount, or especially having an interest bearing deposit account and self-insure. They don't want you to know that - because it takes the money out of their pockets and puts it in yours. They'll give you so many "scare reasons" not to do that that only a suicidal mentally deficient would even *think* of doing such a thing...
Anyway, when they lobbied to make it LAW you HAD to purchase their "Product", it opened the flood gate. They've had plenty of practice learning how to make Government mandate their business never fails. So when it came to Health care... well... here ya go.
Interesting thing... We have property in Italy. I actually pay taxes there, and, not counting the VAT (what a ripoff that is - tax every producer for what they add, then the end user as well) the property taxes are negligible, and the business taxes (except the EU VAT - grrrr....) surprisingly manageable. Really. And their non-insurance-company-lobbied health system is covered for everyone. While like any good Tax Paying Italian, I have serious issues about their government and the abuses of power there (especially since they instituted the Euro - Bad mistake) the health care there - in rural Italy, middle of Bumf*** Nowhere - is second to none. Quality wise - I would *much* rather get sick or injured *there* than *here*. And then not pay the outrageous deductibles, premiums, and co-pays.
Cheers
IMHO if they wanted to lower the cost of healthcare to the consumer the government would break up the cartels protecting the health industry. Hospitals would be seen as often as Karate clubs and Doctors offices would be as numerous as $9 haircutting chain stores. Additionally, insurance companies would compete across borders and be as numerous as used car dealers. By opening the gates for abundance the competition will drive price and quality.
Back to reality! There is far too much money and power in healthcare for our government to keep their fingers out of the pie.
Evidently, "Midas" is regarded as a single company, not each franchise as a <50 employee company. As such, the only hope that I can see for your nephew is to find a <50 employee company that will hire him for a similar job. That will at least give him a year or so grace. We may hope that, during that time, Obamacare will fail disastrously and we can go back to private health insurance.
Hope.
Jan
Yaknow, your nephew might just talk to spousal and any other family units who can understand and state an opinion. Ask them if they prefer the risk of his trying to change jobs, the option of his wife working or if they would prefer to take government help. He might be surprised at their answers.
Jan
Ya need to check the electric roll call vote on Obama Care: Democrats 100%, Republicans 0%. I will admit both parties, and many others, between have been guilty of Crony Capitalism.
Ethics is all about the price. Sooner or later the largest percentage will be bought.
Sad thing is, it comes down to employer contributions, sometimes it's blamed on rising insurance costs, sometimes the employer cuts back how much the company pays.
I suspect the latter, I pay around $240 every 2 weeks for a Cadillac PPO with basically no out of pocket, no primary provider referral garbage, etc., adoption and in vitro coverage, etc., but my employer pays around $1000 on top of my contributions a month. Hasn't changed at all on ACA.
The humorous thing about ACA is that the 'little people' they proclaimed to be helping had simple but cheap plans that met their basic needs, are now disqualified, and the stuff that isn't affected are in high-revenue industries where it's not really an impact to the bottom line and always had huge plans.
Franchise stuff, like the fast food or the Midas locally-owned store like you mentioned are getting killed by this, and may even be forced out of business eventually as employees move to companies and industries with better employer-paid packages and the costs force the small guys out of business. In the end, prices to the customer definitely go up.
Wow. We pay $430/mo for an 11k deductible, a non-PPACA-compliant plan I started Dec 31, 2013. As of Dec 31 of this year, I'll have to go on a compliant plan. That would have cost $800/mo, but they said part of that is they don't know how to price risk b/c they don't know what kind of deluge of people who are already sick will sign up. If it's not as bad as they expect, the price next year may be < $800/mo.
This is roughly the situation I expected b/c we're in decent health, and the insurance company did tests to prove it before insuring us. Any one with a brain knew that "insuring" against a peril that already occurred would be pricy.
We're both self-employed and pay for it outside our companies. We have looked into doing it within one of the companies, but this has been favorable so far.
The Good:
The good thing is we have a system to spread the risk that doesn't depend on people being responsible. Under the old system, responsible people who were sick and had insurance tied to jobs sometimes stayed in jobs they wouldn't have otherwise. That lack of labor mobility is a huge unseen cost. If the irresponsible people got sick and didn't have insurance or money, the hospital treated them and charged other people.
Also we had the problem of more diseases being predictable by genetics. You can only save for them, not insure against them. This new system spreads that risk in the same way we could back when we couldn't predict those diseases.
A few years ago I had an employee who went with another company b/c he had a heart condition, and I didn't offer a group health plan. Now the healthcare issue would not have been part of his job decision.
The Bad
They sold this as if the gov't could come in like magic and take charge of middle-class healthcare purchases. This is a horrible mindset to promote. They also implied that somehow we could provide care for people who are already sick and don't have insurance at no cost. They also imply that you can tax the rich to pay for middle-class healthcare expenses, which is morally wrong but also mathematically incorrect.
Maybe *the ugly* should be now we have a public debate about all kinds of healthcare decisions. It would be reasonable to debate my Taco Bell consumption. It would be reasonable to debate people who want medical tests that are costly and not recommended or tests/procedures that put a fetus at risk. This takes up time that should be spent debating gov't issues.
So it's really a mixed bag. I think they *should* have not done this shotgun approach and should have encouraged price transparency. They also could have stopped tax policies that encourage employer-sponsored health plans. I would have liked them to encourage "term" health contracts that operate like "term" life with the idea that middle-class people would build enough wealth to mostly self-insure by the end of it. I mentioned that one in passing to my Congresswoman, and she didn't even understand it, despite being a very smart person. So many people have a mindset of wanting hand-holding from large organizations, instead of thinking of ways to handle things by themselves..
At least in the past, a private hospital was not required to treat someone who could not pay past the 'life and limb' point. If they found out that the individual was, for example, indigent, they could stabilize him and transfer him to a public hospital.
Private hospitals have been stupid about collecting what they are owed too: A friend of mine had a car crash into the side of his truck (the driver of the car had a heart attack). This shattered...his whole left side. Airlifting, stabilization, more airlifting, ICU,...all of this resulted in his living and being in good condition. When it came time to pay the bills, the hospital added on so high a rate of interest that the man would never have been able to pay off the bill...He could have paid the principle; he could have paid the principle and a small interest rate; he could never have paid enough per month to actually pay of what he owed at the interest rate the hospital charged. He tried to get them to lock his payments into a fixed sum, or charge a lower interest rate...but the hospital did not have that flexibility. So he had to declare bankruptcy and default on the whole amount.
This makes sense...how? (If I have a client who can not pay for the LIS they bought from us, I dicker with them to come to terms they can pay - we both win by this deal.)
Jan
Is it a)because you have enough wealth to self-insure, b) because you would refuse expensive treatments you couldn't afford, or c) some other reason.