I am not posting this as a beat stick on Obamacare, but I am genuinely interested in stories, good or bad about how your employer is getting ready for full implementation.
On the plus side, my employer is getting people real interested in getting and staying healthy. They always were, but this year they are really beating that drum and it's kind of cool seeing a lot of people I know that were packing a lot of extra weight slimming down.
My employer is changing their health plan but I get the sense its not just because of Obamacare. Essentially, deductibles are going up, but we're getting HRA's. From what I take the current health plan is unsustainable for the company even before the new health laws went into effect and they were already planning to redo them.
Yes, my employer cut us ambulance workers to part time or on call as much as possible and shortened the length of shifts splitting 24's into 12's. My uncle owns a plumbing business that pays its plumbers the highest wages in the area. He can't afford to pay them the high rate AND the new health care premium for them so after an in shop vote they have decided to keep the wage and he pays the penalty out of pocket per employee at the end of the year for not having company offered health care.
Employees are being downgraded to Occasional wherever possible to avoid having to pay their health care. I work for a government subcontractor with heavy ties to the DOD. Obamacare plus the sequester is really screwing us.
i work part time at a subway (it's a second job), and after obamacare passed, they limited us to 27 hrs a week, and no health care. hooray democracy...
I haven't had any insurance changes, and my yearly merit raise was the largest it's ever been since starting with the company. So, I guess changes, but unrelated and positive.
Whembly, I agree with your thoughts that it is a combination of things, ACA is part of the larger economic picture and is driving changes.
Last year, my employer cut their PPO out entirely, but maintained the HRA and HSA plans. They say it was to prepare for ACA but I have a feeling that was the plan anyway since they had been pimping the HRA/HSA for a few years before.
I like HRA/HSA plans for most workers but if you or someone in your family is already sick then they are horrible plans. Plus, the concept is a bit flawed for HRA/HSA since insurance companies and the providers can't tell you what the "lowest" cost is since their contracted "allowed amounts" are secret. So you really can't shop around for the best price.
Easy E wrote: Whembly, I agree with your thoughts that it is a combination of things, ACA is part of the larger economic picture and is driving changes.
Last year, my employer cut their PPO out entirely, but maintained the HRA and HSA plans. They say it was to prepare for ACA but I have a feeling that was the plan anyway since they had been pimping the HRA/HSA for a few years before.
I like HRA/HSA plans for most workers but if you or someone in your family is already sick then they are horrible plans. Plus, the concept is a bit flawed for HRA/HSA since insurance companies and the providers can't tell you what the "lowest" cost is since their contracted "allowed amounts" are secret. So you really can't shop around for the best price.
Yeah... I agree that the HRA/HSA can be crummy for certain folks. I just wished that they've taken the opportunity within the ACA to shine a big spotlight on the insurance AND healthcare providers... we need some cost visability really bad. It looks like the insurance lobbying group did their job (you reading this dogma?).
I think I got lucky. My employer is a university that considers full time to be 30 hours, provides us with healthy choices for lunch, and has a great benefits package. But all that is driven by the ethos of the university rather than any reaction to the ACA.
Ouze wrote: I haven't had any insurance changes, and my yearly merit raise was the largest it's ever been since starting with the company. So, I guess changes, but unrelated and positive.
I also wonder if some of the negative changes are due to obamacare or is it just employers taking advantage of the timing. When the economy is bad it generally gives employers the freedom to cut back on things without looking bad, gives them a away to justify it. Cant help but wonder how many companies are using obamacare for similar cut backs
ironicsilence wrote: I also wonder if some of the negative changes are due to obamacare or is it just employers taking advantage of the timing. When the economy is bad it generally gives employers the freedom to cut back on things without looking bad, gives them a away to justify it. Cant help but wonder how many companies are using obamacare for similar cut backs
As someone who employs others I can tell you that 2 part timers Pre-obama care cost me more than 1 full timer, both in payroll expenses and taxes, and just the general pain in the ass it is to have to deal with 2 people who are aroudn some of the time rather than someone who is there 40 hours a week. Now 2 part timers is much cheaper.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hit by years of budget cuts, some U.S. public school boards are looking to avoid providing health benefits to substitute teachers and supporting staff under President Barack Obama's reform law, education officials say.
According to the law, employers will have to offer health coverage to all full-time employees, defined as those who work an average of 30 or more hours per week each month, or else pay a fine starting in 2015.
School boards, already struggling to manage after years of state budget cuts, are trying to get ahead of the potential costs of Obamacare for the current academic year, education and labor officials say. The need to find creative solutions, or risk cutting back staff hours further, will increase as they finalize their budgets, they say.
In Pennsylvania's Penn Manor School District, Superintendent Mike Leichliter said there is no room in its constrained budget to provide additional employee insurance. Instead of cutting hours, the district used a substitute-teacher contracting service to pay part of the salaries for 95 employees. Money for such a service does not count against the school's budget.
"When we looked at our costs, (healthcare) was one area that really had the potential to skyrocket," Leichliter said. "This is absolutely the worst time for school districts to be faced with mandated increases."
The National School Board Association said many states and school districts have at least explored reducing hours, according to Linda Embrey, a communications officer. Several school officials contacted by Reuters said they could not find a way around cuts.
In Indiana's Fort Wayne Community Schools district, one of the state's largest, administrators reduced hours for 610 of its 4,050 employees, including substitute teachers and support staff, who were working 30 or more hours a week. Providing them with health insurance would have cost $10 million annually, said Krista Stockman, public information officer for Fort Wayne.
"You get to a point where there's a danger that you're cutting too much and that the quality of education you're providing isn't as great," Stockman said. "We're just going to have to do the same amount or more with less."
Most of the employees affected are substitute teachers, classroom aides, cafeteria workers, bus drivers or similar support staff, according to school officials and labor representatives. They had not been receiving healthcare coverage from their employers in the past. Now, instead of getting such employer-sponsored benefits under the reform law, they may be eligible for government-subsidized coverage that will be offered by new state insurance exchanges starting on October 1.
SEQUESTER TAKES A SECOND TOLL
During the 2012-2013 school year, 26 states provided less money to local school districts than the prior year, and 35 states provided less funding than in 2008 (a better year), according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
This year they are also grappling with across-the-board "sequester" spending cuts introduced after Congress deadlocked over how to fix the deficit. An Obama administration official said those cuts plus the states', and not healthcare reform, are the main reasons for staff losing work-time at schools.
"We are seeing no systematic evidence that the Affordable Care Act is leading to a shift to part-time work," the official said. "There are a variety of factors impacting schools, including sequestration, which is cutting budgets and is a completely separate issue."
The National Education Association is working with union leaders across the country to figure out how to encourage employers to avoid cutting hours as a result of healthcare reform, said Joel Solomon, NEA senior policy analyst. The effort has included a training session for dozens of labor representatives in June, and more sessions are planned for this year.
Solomon said one popular solution offered by the NEA is to help schools get a more precise accounting of employee hours to see whether staff are truly working an average of 30 hours a week each month when holidays and other time off are included. That has helped some schools make less drastic cuts in employee hours, he said.
Many school employees are expected to qualify for Obamacare's tax subsidies, which are available starting in January to people who make within 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($45,960 for an individual and $94,200 for a family of four in 2013).
Even if they don't, the new plans are preferable to what they currently have to buy on the individual market because insurers cannot deny coverage based on prior illness.
In Nebraska, the Plattsmouth Community School District is limiting the hours of permanent substitute teachers, who typically work every day, said Marlene Wehrbein, a labor union official who advocates for employees in the state's public school districts.
"It creates a lot of inconsistency in staffing, and I can't see how that would be good for students," Wehrbein said. "How could you have a teacher teaching English four days a week and then on the fifth day you have someone else?"
Kanluwen wrote: Schools tried to screw substitute teachers over even before the ACA.
This is not news.
And now the ACA helps them do so because of its provisions. So yes, it is news - and important enough for Reuters to pick up on it. Albeit news that you may not wish to hear
The "zero hour contract" phase is happening over here, so it may not be all attributed to obamacare, simply employers finding a loophole and abusing it.
Easy E wrote: Whembly, I agree with your thoughts that it is a combination of things, ACA is part of the larger economic picture and is driving changes.
Last year, my employer cut their PPO out entirely, but maintained the HRA and HSA plans. They say it was to prepare for ACA but I have a feeling that was the plan anyway since they had been pimping the HRA/HSA for a few years before.
I like HRA/HSA plans for most workers but if you or someone in your family is already sick then they are horrible plans. Plus, the concept is a bit flawed for HRA/HSA since insurance companies and the providers can't tell you what the "lowest" cost is since their contracted "allowed amounts" are secret. So you really can't shop around for the best price.
Yeah... I agree that the HRA/HSA can be crummy for certain folks. I just wished that they've taken the opportunity within the ACA to shine a big spotlight on the insurance AND healthcare providers... we need some cost visability really bad. It looks like the insurance lobbying group did their job (you reading this dogma?).
If it was just me, I would totally use an HSA and use it as a "secret" 401K retirement fund.... until I needed it for some reason.
High deductable + HSA is a really awesome plan if it works for your particular situation. I definitely recommend asking a lot of questions and considering it seriously.
A new survey of 2,500 federal employees and retirees found that 92.3 percent believe federal workers should keep their current health insurance and not be forced into ObamaCare. Only 2.9 percent say they should become part of the new health insurance exchanges.
I suspect a similar percentage of private sector employees would also like to keep their coverage, but most won’t get that option. What I’d like to know is how many of those federal employees so eager to avoid ObamaCare themselves supported forcing everyone else in it.
There’s more. The survey, conducted byFedSmith.com, “an information portal for sources of information impacting the federal community and those interested in the Federal Government’s activities,” found that 96.1 percent think federal retirees should be able to stay with their retirement health insurance. Only 3.9 percent think they should get “Medicare in lieu of their current option.”
To put it simply: Federal employees and retires almost unanimously prefer to stay in their generous taxpayer-funded health insurance program, known as the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP), rather than being dumped into liberalism’s two greatest monuments to government-run health insurance, ObamaCare and Medicare.
Speaks volumes, doesn’t it?
edit: fixed linky...edit#2 dammit, link won't stick.
A new survey of 2,500 federal employees and retirees found that 92.3 percent believe federal workers should keep their current health insurance and not be forced into ObamaCare. Only 2.9 percent say they should become part of the new health insurance exchanges.
I suspect a similar percentage of private sector employees would also like to keep their coverage, but most won’t get that option. What I’d like to know is how many of those federal employees so eager to avoid ObamaCare themselves supported forcing everyone else in it.
There’s more. The survey, conducted byFedSmith.com, “an information portal for sources of information impacting the federal community and those interested in the Federal Government’s activities,” found that 96.1 percent think federal retirees should be able to stay with their retirement health insurance. Only 3.9 percent think they should get “Medicare in lieu of their current option.”
To put it simply: Federal employees and retires almost unanimously prefer to stay in their generous taxpayer-funded health insurance program, known as the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP), rather than being dumped into liberalism’s two greatest monuments to government-run health insurance, ObamaCare and Medicare.
Speaks volumes, doesn’t it?
edit: fixed linky...edit#2 dammit, link won't stick.
So to date;
- The POTUS is exempt
- Politicians and their staff want to be exempt
- Unions who lobbied for the ACA want to be made exempt
- Federal employees want to be exempt
Yup... even NBC can't not report how fugly this is going to be...
Employers around the country, from fast-food franchises to colleges, have told NBC News that they will be cutting workers’ hours below 30 a week because they can’t afford to offer the health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
“To tell somebody that you’ve got to decrease their hours because of a law passed in Washington is very frustrating to me,” said Loren Goodridge, who owns 21 Subway franchises, including a restaurant in Kennebunk. “I know the impact I’m having on some of my employees.”
Luke Perfect, who has worked at Goodridge’s Kennebunk Subway for more than a decade, said it was “horrible” to learn he was among the employees whose hours would be limited, and that it would be a financial hardship. “I’m barely scraping by with overtime,” he said.
The White House dismisses such examples as "anecdotal." Jason Furman, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, said, “We are seeing no systematic evidence that the Affordable Care Act is having an adverse impact on job growth or the number of hours employees are working. … [S]ince the ACA became law, nearly 90 percent of the gain in employment has been in full-time positions.”
But the president of an influential union that supports Obamacare said the White House is wrong.
"It IS happening," insisted Joseph Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which has 1.2 million members. "Wait a year. You'll see tremendous impact as workers have their hours reduced and their incomes reduced. The facts are already starting to show up. Their statistics, I think, are a little behind the time."
In a letter to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, Hansen joined other labor chieftains in warning that the ACA as presently written could “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the middle class.”
NBC News spoke with almost 20 small businesses and other entities from Maine to California, and almost all said that because of the new law they’d be cutting back hours for some employees – an unintended consequence of the new law.
At St. Petersburg College, a public university in Florida where most of the faculty is part-time, 250 have had their hours reduced for the fall term because the college said it can’t afford to offer them health insurance.
St Petersburg’s president, Dr. Bill Law, said providing health care for the 250 adjunct professors would cost more than $777,000 dollars a year. "The cost associated with making a part-timer benefits-eligible really is not available to us as a public college,” said Law.
"I don't think anyone [passed the law] so they could make our life worse,” said Law. “They did it because people need access to health care."
Part-time math professor Tracey Sullivan said she will lose half her income because of the cuts.
"I never thought it would impact me directly,” said Sullivan. “I was stunned when I got the email...I love teaching at St. Pete College but that is a significant cut."
Many businesses are reluctant to talk about cutting hours for fear the public will view them as stingy or uncaring about their workers. But Goodridge said that many small businesses have very small profit margins and that while he already provides health insurance to senior employees, offering health insurance to many more workers would require him to pass a significant price increase on to his customers.
"The consumer only has so much money in their pocket," he said. "I just don't feel, knowing my customers and knowing my business, now is the time to be raising prices."
In July, the administration announced that it had delayed implementation of the “employer mandate,” which was supposed to take effect on Jan. 1. Now businesses with more than 50 workers will not be penalized for failing to offer insurance to full-time employees until Jan. 1, 2015.
Advertise | AdChoices
Goodridge has given his Subway employees a reprieve until he hears more from the administration, but still plans to make cutbacks before the mandate kicks in. And other businesses that had already planned cuts have not necessarily delayed them. St. Petersburg college officials said they don’t want to undo the cuts they’ve already made only to revisit them next year.
While the small businesses and the union agree there's a problem, they disagree about the appropriate solution.
Some businesses want to raise the threshold to 40 hours. But Hansen said 40 hours would be a “gift to employers” that would simply allow them to continue to skirt the law by cutting workers off at 39 hours. Instead, Hansen and other union leaders have proposed lowering the threshold to 20 hours. They have also objected publicly to a tax provision of the ACA that impacts the health plans they already offer to some union members.
“We still support the act,” said Hansen. “It does an awful lot of good things. We just want the administration and Congress, if they can, to fix it.”
I should note, it could also all be fixed by taking the Canadian healthcare law, scratching through "Canada" writing in "Texas and the other states" and using Word USA to autocorrect the obviously incorrect British style English...
My company has less than 100 employees, and our health care contributions for 2014 will only have a tiny increase from 2013. So I'm pretty happy with that.
I didn't notice any difference: I couldn't afford private insurance when I was part-time, and I can't afford the company's insurance now that I'm full-time!
I will simply submit my views on this in a form akin to a "found art" collage:
rdemings wrote:i work part time at a subway (it's a second job), and after obamacare passed, they limited us to 27 hrs a week, and no health care. hooray democracy...
ironicsilence wrote:I also wonder if some of the negative changes are due to obamacare or is it just employers taking advantage of the timing. When the economy is bad it generally gives employers the freedom to cut back on things without looking bad, gives them a away to justify it. Cant help but wonder how many companies are using obamacare for similar cut backs
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I think I got lucky. My employer is a university that considers full time to be 30 hours, provides us with healthy choices for lunch, and has a great benefits package. But all that is driven by the ethos of the university rather than any reaction to the ACA.
So we have gone OT from the "how has ObamaCare affected you personally" topic and gone back to the usual "everybody hates ObamaCare" posting of links and stories?
d-usa wrote: So we have gone OT from the "how has ObamaCare affected you personally" topic and gone back to the usual "everybody hates ObamaCare" posting of links and stories?
Listen - why aren't you giving OP the benefit of the doubt when he says:
Relapse wrote: I am not posting this as a beat stick on Obamacare,
I for one am sure Relapse was able to type that with a totally straight face, guys.
d-usa wrote: So we have gone OT from the "how has ObamaCare affected you personally" topic and gone back to the usual "everybody hates ObamaCare" posting of links and stories?
You mean it didn't devolve to that between typing up the subject and the body?
d-usa wrote: So we have gone OT from the "how has ObamaCare affected you personally" topic and gone back to the usual "everybody hates ObamaCare" posting of links and stories?
This right here. No Obama care is bad because or Obamacare is good because, gents. If I can say there was a silver lining at my work with Obama care, anyone can.
Remember, just talk about changes at your work with Obamacare, good or bad.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I work for a city council in Mass, we already had Romneycare, so no change whatsoever.
Thanks Mitt!
High Five for fellow Mass gamer. Don't see many of us around for some reason it seems. I hadn't thought about it this way, guess It makes sense we wouldn't be seeing any changes.
d-usa wrote: So we have gone OT from the "how has ObamaCare affected you personally" topic and gone back to the usual "everybody hates ObamaCare" posting of links and stories?
We don't know yet. We're all full timers here on a nice plan currently. I see no where to go but down.
You work in a VA medical facility right D? Your interaction with vets qualify you for Navy Federal Credit Union. The trick is how to get around/over/through to qualify for Tricare. Question though is Tricare better then what you currently carry D/Whem
Overall, the new ACA just compounds the problem...
Some notable statistics:
- From 2008 to 2011: costs went up 35% with only an 11% increased in participants.
- Currently, 5% of participants incurs over 60% of the cost (don't know if that's normal... just kinda eye-popping).
- Weird stat... spouses incurs 14% more cost than actual employees. (don't pick on the wimminz... there's more female in my company than men).
- Plans overall going through major restructuring... No more three tier'ed plans (think gold, silver and bronse) since the new ACA practically makes the bronze a silver tier. So... next year we'll have just two plans to choose from... none at the "bronze" cost.
- If your spouse can get coverage from their work, but chose to cover them, additional fees applies.
- All in all, not including any additional fees, we'll see an 5% increase on top of the usual growth.
-Honestly, not horrible... just moar spendy than years past, but the packages are looking to be same or slightly better.
My healthcare changed to a flex account type deal. Basically the only 'coverage' it actually provides now that I can find is max yearly deductible.
In the process, it went from being about $50/pay period down to about $30/pay period. Of course, since I'm putting my own pretax money into the account, it's closer to $130/pay period. After detailed analysis between myself and a few other people at the company, we determined that if you never go to the doctor, it makes more sense, since all of the money you put in the flex account carries over from year to year, and if you put enough money in there throughout the year, you can have your yearly deductible laying around to cover any costs for an entire year. The other plans the company offered were "real" plans, but they were exorbitant in comparison, and the window for which they made sense for a single guy in reasonably good health was very small. My current motto with my plan is "don't go to the doctor unless you absolutely have to, and then go all the time."
Starbucks CEO: We won't cut benefits because of Obamacare By Jose Pagliery @Jose_Pagliery August 27, 2013: 12:17 PM ET
Starbucks' CEO says he won't cut employee benefits because of Obamacare.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Starbucks' CEO acknowledged that Obamacare might increase insurance costs, but said the company's benefits are non-negotiable.
While other U.S. companies have cut staff or benefits in anticipation of next year's health care overhaul, Howard Schultz said Starbucks (SBUX, Fortune 500)' insurance plans will stay in place -- for everyone.
"It's not about the law. It's about responsibility we have to the people who do work and who represent us," Schultz told CNN on Tuesday.
The coffee chain is unique in its policy: Even part-time workers are eligible for insurance. In 2010, benefits cost the company $300 million, more than it paid for coffee.
But Schultz said the benefits will remain a cornerstone of the company's compensation for its 160,000 employees, even though it could be more expensive next year due to Obamacare's "unintended consequences."
"It may end up costing us more... but I don't think that is the primary issue," Schultz said. "Starbucks does not want to leave people behind."
His comments put him in stark contrast with other business owners, who have taken drastic measures to reduce costs next year.
Last week, UPS (UPS, Fortune 500) said it will cut insurance to 15,000 workers' spouses. Last year, pizza franchise Papa John's (PZZA) announced plans to cut workers' hours in order to dodge the employer mandate.
"I don't believe that...the health care law should be a reason or a motivation to cut benefits for either the employee or spouses," Schultz said. "An investment in your people is an investment in shareholder value."
Over the years, Schultz's commitment to employee benefits has been unwavering. Even when Starbucks took cost-cutting measures like shutting down stores and laying off employees, health care benefits -- which also include dental and vision -- have remained intact.
-- CNN's Poppy Harlow and Maggie Lake contributed to this report. To top of page
Starbucks CEO: We won't cut benefits because of Obamacare By Jose Pagliery @Jose_Pagliery August 27, 2013: 12:17 PM ET
Starbucks' CEO says he won't cut employee benefits because of Obamacare.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Starbucks' CEO acknowledged that Obamacare might increase insurance costs, but said the company's benefits are non-negotiable.
While other U.S. companies have cut staff or benefits in anticipation of next year's health care overhaul, Howard Schultz said Starbucks (SBUX, Fortune 500)' insurance plans will stay in place -- for everyone.
"It's not about the law. It's about responsibility we have to the people who do work and who represent us," Schultz told CNN on Tuesday.
The coffee chain is unique in its policy: Even part-time workers are eligible for insurance. In 2010, benefits cost the company $300 million, more than it paid for coffee.
But Schultz said the benefits will remain a cornerstone of the company's compensation for its 160,000 employees, even though it could be more expensive next year due to Obamacare's "unintended consequences."
"It may end up costing us more... but I don't think that is the primary issue," Schultz said. "Starbucks does not want to leave people behind."
His comments put him in stark contrast with other business owners, who have taken drastic measures to reduce costs next year.
Last week, UPS (UPS, Fortune 500) said it will cut insurance to 15,000 workers' spouses. Last year, pizza franchise Papa John's (PZZA) announced plans to cut workers' hours in order to dodge the employer mandate.
"I don't believe that...the health care law should be a reason or a motivation to cut benefits for either the employee or spouses," Schultz said. "An investment in your people is an investment in shareholder value."
Over the years, Schultz's commitment to employee benefits has been unwavering. Even when Starbucks took cost-cutting measures like shutting down stores and laying off employees, health care benefits -- which also include dental and vision -- have remained intact.
-- CNN's Poppy Harlow and Maggie Lake contributed to this report. To top of page
I'm starting to be believe that the ACA is turning America into part time society . Since employers are being out right evil for making part time work as the norm. Then again if they do hire someone full time which is to them a top tier worker. I say everyone need to be creative on their resume to compete.
Jihadin wrote: I'm starting to be believe that the ACA is turning America into part time society . Since employers are being out right evil for making part time work as the norm. Then again if they do hire someone full time which is to them a top tier worker. I say everyone need to be creative on their resume to compete.
It's all about incentives...
It used to be that for some employers, it was better to higher full-timers... now, we're seeing the unintended consequences.
Sounds like it's not hurting the US's second biggest employer too bad, as they're expanding their health coverage.
Wal-Mart offers health benefits to U.S. workers' domestic partners By Jessica Wohl
Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:26pm EDT
(Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc said on Tuesday it will offer health insurance benefits to domestic partners of its U.S. employees starting next year, following the lead of other major companies.
The world's largest retailer, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, also plans to begin to offer vision care to its eligible employees and their dependents, according to information the retailer sent to workers this week.
Wal-Mart is the single biggest U.S. employer outside of the federal government. More than half of its 1.3 million U.S. employees are on its health-care plans. The company said it does not know how many workers would use the new benefits, which also include free hip and knee joint replacements.
Wal-Mart's extension of health insurance to domestic partners comes after the U.S. Supreme Court in June forced the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where it is legal. The Supreme Court also paved the way for same-sex marriage in California.
"Since we operate in all 50 states, we thought it was important to develop a single definition for all Wal-Mart associates in the U.S.," spokesman David Tovar said.
Wal-Mart is behind many other large companies on domestic partner coverage. Sixty-two percent of the Fortune 500 already offer health benefits for domestic partners, according to the Human Rights Campaign's 2013 Corporate Equality Index.
Employees' domestic partners can be covered if they are legal spouses, not legally separated; or a domestic partner of same or opposite gender in an ongoing, exclusive relationship similar to marriage for at least 12 months with the intention to continue sharing a household indefinitely, Tovar said.
DOMESTIC PARTNERS
Wal-Mart confirmed some details of its 2014 annual enrollment to Reuters ahead of the sign-up period, which runs from October 12 to November 1. The company outlined changes to its plans on a postcard mailed to employees this week.
The 2010 U.S. Affordable Care Act will require large employers to offer coverage to certain part-time workers beginning in January but Wal-Mart said it had anticipated the change and did not need to further adjust its plans.
The law's goals include broadening insurance coverage and it requires companies with more than 50 employees to offer health insurance for employees who work 30 hours a week or more.
About 1.1 million people, including workers' family members, are currently covered by Wal-Mart health-care plans in the United States. Not all of the company's U.S. employees sign up for coverage. Part-time employees must work for Wal-Mart for one year and work an average of 30 hours a week to qualify.
Last week, United Parcel Service Inc told non-union employees that their spouses would no longer qualify for company-sponsored health insurance if they could get coverage through their own jobs.
Starbucks Corp Chief Executive Howard Schultz said on Monday that his company, which provides healthcare to employees who 20 hours a week or more, would not cut health benefits or reduce hours for employees in anticipation of the U.S. Affordable Care Act.
MAIN PLAN TO COST WORKERS 5.7 PERCENT MORE
Wal-Mart's U.S. employees are set to pay 3 percent to 10 percent more for their medical coverage next year, depending on the plan chosen.
The lowest-priced and most popular plan for a Wal-Mart employee is set to cost $18.40 per bi-weekly pay period next year, up 5.7 percent from $17.40 this year, the company said.
Full plan details were not available. The company plans to send tailored guides to its U.S. employees the week of October 8.
Annual U.S. health insurance premiums rose an average of 5 percent for individuals and 4 percent for families in 2013, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's 2013 Employer Health Benefits Survey released on August 20.
This year, Wal-Mart began to offer U.S. employees and their dependents free heart and spine surgeries at six major health centers. Next year, it plans to also fully cover hip and knee joint replacements at certain hospitals.
A large majority of Wal-Mart's workers who sign up for medical coverage also sign up for dental coverage. Wal-Mart said it would start to offer vision coverage in 2014 after employees asked for it.
"There's no one size fits all solution for people's benefits, so we're trying to offer a number of benefit options and then let associates make choices on what's best for them," said Tovar.
Dental and vision coverage are offered for additional fees, which for an individual are about $7 and $2 per bi-weekly pay period, respectively.
Wal-Mart's benefits administrators are Aetna Inc, UnitedHealth Group Inc's UnitedHealthcare and Blue Cross Blue Shield, depending on the location of a particular worker.
(Reporting by Jessica Wohl in Chicago; Editing by Leslie Adler)
Ouze wrote: Sounds like it's not hurting the US's second biggest employer too bad, as they're expanding their health coverage.
Spoiler:
Wal-Mart offers health benefits to U.S. workers' domestic partners By Jessica Wohl
Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:26pm EDT
(Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc said on Tuesday it will offer health insurance benefits to domestic partners of its U.S. employees starting next year, following the lead of other major companies.
The world's largest retailer, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, also plans to begin to offer vision care to its eligible employees and their dependents, according to information the retailer sent to workers this week.
Wal-Mart is the single biggest U.S. employer outside of the federal government. More than half of its 1.3 million U.S. employees are on its health-care plans. The company said it does not know how many workers would use the new benefits, which also include free hip and knee joint replacements.
Wal-Mart's extension of health insurance to domestic partners comes after the U.S. Supreme Court in June forced the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where it is legal. The Supreme Court also paved the way for same-sex marriage in California.
"Since we operate in all 50 states, we thought it was important to develop a single definition for all Wal-Mart associates in the U.S.," spokesman David Tovar said.
Wal-Mart is behind many other large companies on domestic partner coverage. Sixty-two percent of the Fortune 500 already offer health benefits for domestic partners, according to the Human Rights Campaign's 2013 Corporate Equality Index.
Employees' domestic partners can be covered if they are legal spouses, not legally separated; or a domestic partner of same or opposite gender in an ongoing, exclusive relationship similar to marriage for at least 12 months with the intention to continue sharing a household indefinitely, Tovar said.
DOMESTIC PARTNERS
Wal-Mart confirmed some details of its 2014 annual enrollment to Reuters ahead of the sign-up period, which runs from October 12 to November 1. The company outlined changes to its plans on a postcard mailed to employees this week.
The 2010 U.S. Affordable Care Act will require large employers to offer coverage to certain part-time workers beginning in January but Wal-Mart said it had anticipated the change and did not need to further adjust its plans.
The law's goals include broadening insurance coverage and it requires companies with more than 50 employees to offer health insurance for employees who work 30 hours a week or more.
About 1.1 million people, including workers' family members, are currently covered by Wal-Mart health-care plans in the United States. Not all of the company's U.S. employees sign up for coverage. Part-time employees must work for Wal-Mart for one year and work an average of 30 hours a week to qualify.
Last week, United Parcel Service Inc told non-union employees that their spouses would no longer qualify for company-sponsored health insurance if they could get coverage through their own jobs.
Starbucks Corp Chief Executive Howard Schultz said on Monday that his company, which provides healthcare to employees who 20 hours a week or more, would not cut health benefits or reduce hours for employees in anticipation of the U.S. Affordable Care Act.
MAIN PLAN TO COST WORKERS 5.7 PERCENT MORE
Wal-Mart's U.S. employees are set to pay 3 percent to 10 percent more for their medical coverage next year, depending on the plan chosen.
The lowest-priced and most popular plan for a Wal-Mart employee is set to cost $18.40 per bi-weekly pay period next year, up 5.7 percent from $17.40 this year, the company said.
Full plan details were not available. The company plans to send tailored guides to its U.S. employees the week of October 8.
Annual U.S. health insurance premiums rose an average of 5 percent for individuals and 4 percent for families in 2013, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's 2013 Employer Health Benefits Survey released on August 20.
This year, Wal-Mart began to offer U.S. employees and their dependents free heart and spine surgeries at six major health centers. Next year, it plans to also fully cover hip and knee joint replacements at certain hospitals.
A large majority of Wal-Mart's workers who sign up for medical coverage also sign up for dental coverage. Wal-Mart said it would start to offer vision coverage in 2014 after employees asked for it.
"There's no one size fits all solution for people's benefits, so we're trying to offer a number of benefit options and then let associates make choices on what's best for them," said Tovar.
Dental and vision coverage are offered for additional fees, which for an individual are about $7 and $2 per bi-weekly pay period, respectively.
Wal-Mart's benefits administrators are Aetna Inc, UnitedHealth Group Inc's UnitedHealthcare and Blue Cross Blue Shield, depending on the location of a particular worker.
(Reporting by Jessica Wohl in Chicago; Editing by Leslie Adler)
daedalus wrote: Yeah, I've never really been worried about massive internationally known corporations having a hard time dealing with ACA. They can weather it.
...of course, I wouldn't be upset if Starbucks or Walmart disappeared tomorrow, but that's a different conversation.
I'm really worried about Small Time Mom and Pop, Inc.
If you want to be fair though most "small time Mom and Pop, Inc." agencies have primarily family employees working for them anyways and their children are most likely covered under their own health insurance anyways.
Sure. I wasn't dismissing what you'd found out of hand either. It's good that the full time employees at both of those companies will receive health care.
daedalus wrote: Yeah, I've never really been worried about massive internationally known corporations having a hard time dealing with ACA. They can weather it.
...of course, I wouldn't be upset if Starbucks or Walmart disappeared tomorrow, but that's a different conversation.
I'm really worried about Small Time Mom and Pop, Inc.
If you want to be fair though most "small time Mom and Pop, Inc." agencies have primarily family employees working for them anyways and their children are most likely covered under their own health insurance anyways.
I was thinking about specific places I go, and it's occurred to me that a lot of those places are likely already part time employees. I wonder if the waitresses at Uncle Bill's Pancake House would look at me weird if I asked them how many of them were full-time.
Perhaps the Part-time society isn't that bad in the long run. It is the getting there that will suck.
One part of the Jetson's that has really resonated with me lately is that George only worked a 3 day week. By doing this, you still need people to work the other 4 days, even if all you do is push a button; ala George jetson. That essentially means that more people have jobs.
Of course, in the short run that is very bad. However, over time the economy will respond and the Cost of Living will respond to the demand. Instead of everyone needing to live in dual income households to be realtively stable, the market will adjust to dual part-time incomes.
However, like I said it would be a very difficult, painful transition to make.
Ouze wrote: Sounds like it's not hurting the US's second biggest employer too bad, as they're expanding their health coverage.
Wal-Mart offers health benefits to U.S. workers' domestic partners By Jessica Wohl
Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:26pm EDT
(Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc said on Tuesday it will offer health insurance benefits to domestic partners of its U.S. employees starting next year, following the lead of other major companies.
The world's largest retailer, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, also plans to begin to offer vision care to its eligible employees and their dependents, according to information the retailer sent to workers this week.
Wal-Mart is the single biggest U.S. employer outside of the federal government. More than half of its 1.3 million U.S. employees are on its health-care plans. The company said it does not know how many workers would use the new benefits, which also include free hip and knee joint replacements.
Wal-Mart's extension of health insurance to domestic partners comes after the U.S. Supreme Court in June forced the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where it is legal. The Supreme Court also paved the way for same-sex marriage in California.
"Since we operate in all 50 states, we thought it was important to develop a single definition for all Wal-Mart associates in the U.S.," spokesman David Tovar said.
Wal-Mart is behind many other large companies on domestic partner coverage. Sixty-two percent of the Fortune 500 already offer health benefits for domestic partners, according to the Human Rights Campaign's 2013 Corporate Equality Index.
Employees' domestic partners can be covered if they are legal spouses, not legally separated; or a domestic partner of same or opposite gender in an ongoing, exclusive relationship similar to marriage for at least 12 months with the intention to continue sharing a household indefinitely, Tovar said.
DOMESTIC PARTNERS
Wal-Mart confirmed some details of its 2014 annual enrollment to Reuters ahead of the sign-up period, which runs from October 12 to November 1. The company outlined changes to its plans on a postcard mailed to employees this week.
The 2010 U.S. Affordable Care Act will require large employers to offer coverage to certain part-time workers beginning in January but Wal-Mart said it had anticipated the change and did not need to further adjust its plans.
The law's goals include broadening insurance coverage and it requires companies with more than 50 employees to offer health insurance for employees who work 30 hours a week or more.
About 1.1 million people, including workers' family members, are currently covered by Wal-Mart health-care plans in the United States. Not all of the company's U.S. employees sign up for coverage. Part-time employees must work for Wal-Mart for one year and work an average of 30 hours a week to qualify.
Last week, United Parcel Service Inc told non-union employees that their spouses would no longer qualify for company-sponsored health insurance if they could get coverage through their own jobs.
Starbucks Corp Chief Executive Howard Schultz said on Monday that his company, which provides healthcare to employees who 20 hours a week or more, would not cut health benefits or reduce hours for employees in anticipation of the U.S. Affordable Care Act.
MAIN PLAN TO COST WORKERS 5.7 PERCENT MORE
Wal-Mart's U.S. employees are set to pay 3 percent to 10 percent more for their medical coverage next year, depending on the plan chosen.
The lowest-priced and most popular plan for a Wal-Mart employee is set to cost $18.40 per bi-weekly pay period next year, up 5.7 percent from $17.40 this year, the company said.
Full plan details were not available. The company plans to send tailored guides to its U.S. employees the week of October 8.
Annual U.S. health insurance premiums rose an average of 5 percent for individuals and 4 percent for families in 2013, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's 2013 Employer Health Benefits Survey released on August 20.
This year, Wal-Mart began to offer U.S. employees and their dependents free heart and spine surgeries at six major health centers. Next year, it plans to also fully cover hip and knee joint replacements at certain hospitals.
A large majority of Wal-Mart's workers who sign up for medical coverage also sign up for dental coverage. Wal-Mart said it would start to offer vision coverage in 2014 after employees asked for it.
"There's no one size fits all solution for people's benefits, so we're trying to offer a number of benefit options and then let associates make choices on what's best for them," said Tovar.
Dental and vision coverage are offered for additional fees, which for an individual are about $7 and $2 per bi-weekly pay period, respectively.
Wal-Mart's benefits administrators are Aetna Inc, UnitedHealth Group Inc's UnitedHealthcare and Blue Cross Blue Shield, depending on the location of a particular worker.
(Reporting by Jessica Wohl in Chicago; Editing by Leslie Adler)
As 99% of their workforce is part time already they don't provide any to begin with.
When I worked at SAMs, they had about seven full time people and 300 part timers. If you went over mandated part time, you were fired.
Frazzled wrote: As 99% of their workforce is part time already
citation needed
If you want to take this opportunity to retract that figure your provided from The Department of Made-Up Statistics, feel free.
I worked there. your cite.
Remember, boys and girls - this is why you should never, ever try to discuss anything of substance with Frazzled. He will make up nonsense, and when called on it, just shrug.
More than half of Walmart’s workforce is eligible for these new benefits, per their spokesperson. “The majority of our associates are full-time,” Hargrove said. “We have not provided a specific percentage of full versus part-time, or percentage of associates that sign up for our health care plan benefits.”
He added: “We have 1.3 million associates in the U.S. and more than half have elected coverage. More than 1.1 million associates and family members are covered by Walmart health care plans.”
Most estimates show part time employees make up about a third of Wal-marts workforce.
Hargrove is being very misleading in his statements, as one-third of Wal-Mart's employees are part-time, and most of their workers with families are living below the poverty line, up to 70% below. Up to 80% of their work-force is on public assistance. Walmart also does not provide any benefits to someone who works under 24 hours a week, though they consider "full time" to be 34+ hpw.
Frazzled wrote: As 99% of their workforce is part time already
citation needed
If you want to take this opportunity to retract that figure your provided from The Department of Made-Up Statistics, feel free.
I worked there. your cite.
Remember, boys and girls - this is why you should never, ever try to discuss anything of substance with Frazzled. He will make up nonsense, and when called on it, just shrug.
More than half of Walmart’s workforce is eligible for these new benefits, per their spokesperson. “The majority of our associates are full-time,” Hargrove said. “We have not provided a specific percentage of full versus part-time, or percentage of associates that sign up for our health care plan benefits.”
He added: “We have 1.3 million associates in the U.S. and more than half have elected coverage. More than 1.1 million associates and family members are covered by Walmart health care plans.”
Most estimates show part time employees make up about a third of Wal-marts workforce.
being as I had access to who did what, yea it definitely trumps whatever cite you're going to use. It would be interesting to find a "cite" of an actual store's employees - I'd smell a lawsuit with that one as its confidential info.
whembly wrote: Now that is a good case study... but, they have one thing going for them.
They're a business that's extremely popular and folks will pay the premium for their morning coffee.
I'd be interested to see how they're doing in two years.
Depends if they keep up with the the second thing going for them: Shifting around their money so they don't pay any tax.
Well... how's that any different from any large corporations?
Other large corporations also try to stiff their workers for health insurance as well
Heh... true.
It could also be that companies/small businesses are reacting to the ACA incentives (or disincentives) in a highly competitive industry... and that not adapting would put the overall company in a disadvantage.
Ouze wrote: I haven't had any insurance changes, and my yearly merit raise was the largest it's ever been since starting with the company. So, I guess changes, but unrelated and positive.
No changes to my healthcare at all, and i have a 100% employer paid cadillac plan, offered to all employees, not just management.
Has also not impacted bonus pay at all.
Edit: I feel it's only fair to disclose, that i work for a privately held, European company. They are still bound by the strictures of the new law, but they are committed to providing full coverage of healthcare to the employees.
I've had a change to healthcare and merit pay, but I don't believe it was caused by Obamacare. Our company changed our dental insurance for the entire company, forcing me to go from an HMO to a PPO because they found a cheaper alternative for Californian residents (company is in California with satellite offices around the world). But I don't think that was caused by Obamacare.
My merit-based pay is now based on the workings of the entire company. So I can work my arse off, do my job well, and be eligible for a 5% pay increase (I think that's the highest we can go), but if my company doesn't meet its financial goals then I don't get my 5% merit pay increase...
whembly wrote:It could also be that companies/small businesses are reacting to the ACA incentives (or disincentives) in a highly competitive industry... and that not adapting would put the overall company in a disadvantage.
bs. If every company is required to partake in the ACA, then it can't cause a disadvantage for just a few companies.
whembly wrote:It could also be that companies/small businesses are reacting to the ACA incentives (or disincentives) in a highly competitive industry... and that not adapting would put the overall company in a disadvantage.
bs. If every company is required to partake in the ACA, then it can't cause a disadvantage for just a few companies.
That's a mighty simplistic view on how the market works...
Remember that article on Delta? That it'll cost them millions of dollars? That's a drop of the bucket for them...
Now, imagine the same sort of impact on smaller company.
whembly wrote:It could also be that companies/small businesses are reacting to the ACA incentives (or disincentives) in a highly competitive industry... and that not adapting would put the overall company in a disadvantage.
bs. If every company is required to partake in the ACA, then it can't cause a disadvantage for just a few companies.
That's a mighty simplistic view on how the market works...
Remember that article on Delta? That it'll cost them millions of dollars? That's a drop of the bucket for them...
Now, imagine the same sort of impact on smaller company.
Not exactly a drop in the bucket. From what I see their net income last year was 850 million. So that's 1/7th of their profit that their eating, which is a pretty huge chunk for their shareholders.
I don't buy it for a minute that they are going to "eat it". Customers will end up seeing the costs in some way. The rumored fee for carry-ons probably one of them.
And so far the losers seem to drastically be outnumbering the winners.
Well... that'll be certainly true if nothing changes... especially when the 40% "Cadillac Tax" on employer/union plans kicks in at 2017/2018. That'll hurt... big time.
whembly wrote: That's a mighty simplistic view on how the market works...
Remember that article on Delta? That it'll cost them millions of dollars? That's a drop of the bucket for them...
Now, imagine the same sort of impact on smaller company.
Huh? Bigger company, more employees, big number. Smaller company, less employees, smaller number. But there's no reason to think the number shouldn't be proportionate between the two companies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: The rumored fee for carry-ons probably one of them.
That'd only be a good thing. When I was in the US having everyone take as carry-on multiple bags that were basically suitcases was madness. Not that I blamed the passengers, they were just avoiding the luggage fees by taking it as carry-on instead. The problem was having that system of charging for luggage but letting people take on luggage sized bags as carry-on.
whembly wrote:It could also be that companies/small businesses are reacting to the ACA incentives (or disincentives) in a highly competitive industry... and that not adapting would put the overall company in a disadvantage.
bs. If every company is required to partake in the ACA, then it can't cause a disadvantage for just a few companies.
That's a mighty simplistic view on how the market works...
Remember that article on Delta? That it'll cost them millions of dollars? That's a drop of the bucket for them...
Now, imagine the same sort of impact on smaller company.
Not exactly a drop in the bucket. From what I see their net income last year was 850 million. So that's 1/7th of their profit that their eating, which is a pretty huge chunk for their shareholders.
I don't buy it for a minute that they are going to "eat it". Customers will end up seeing the costs in some way. The rumored fee for carry-ons probably one of them.
850 million per quarter. So the 1/7th number is incorrect; it's actually 1/28th
I would like to point out that the longshoremen left the AFL-CIO primarily over jurisdiction disagreements, their frustration with automation at ports and its effect on their collective bargaining, and because they accused the AFL-CIO for violating their picket lines.
Some of their dissatisfaction over the PPACA is because of a lack of clarification in the bill in regards to Taft-Hartley (multi-employer) benefit plans. Their leadership is in favor of a single-payer health care program, something that would never be backed by Republicans (and probably most Democrats) in Congress. The way the PPACA is written, it treats Taft-Hartley plans (which are nonprofit health care plans administered by unions and paid for by companies) differently than a "normal" employer-run health care plan.
They are also upset at immigration reform, not because Obama is pushing for it, but because the current plan is not progressive enough. Their leadership feels that the current plan will make it too difficult for middle-class immigrants to achieve citizenship, because in their eyes the current plan is “designed to give [only] highly-paid workers a real path to citizenship.”
I'd like to remind everyone that the longshoremen have only been in the AFL-CIO for 25 years. They join in 1988 after they were kicked out the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) in 1950 for being "dominated by communists." Now that Fox News story mentions it, but a lot of right-leaning new sources outright omit that information (or at the very least, severely downplay it) because, on the surface, they see it they see it as a victory over Obama and a reaffirmation of their own politics.
ACA is getting the perception of a house of cards. Its "Robbing the Mary to Rape the Paul to sustain a Jeffery" Obama delayed the employer mandate by a year but doing so the government biting like ten billion. So where does that ten billion come from to make up the difference? Who is making up the difference for the those who qualify for subsidizing those that qualify? Perception is its all the Employers fault for creating the "Boogey Man" so the public is blaming them. My view most of it is being caused by the ACA itself. Obama haven't even started on the "Board" member selection of the Death Panel or whatever it is that was suppose to be done past couple of months. The perception on the roll back for the employers is to help the Democrats for reelection is there.
What's funny is that if we were in the same position as the employers we be doing the same damn thing to what they are doing. Find whatever means to lesson the impact on my profit to the share holders or my own personnel business. Its easy taking the high road on the internet but its a different story in RL
You do know that the "death panel" myth is from 2009 and has been routinely debunked shortly after Sarah Palin came up with it. On top of all that, the section of the bill she charged with creating "death panels" (it didn't, not even by a long shot) didn't even make into the final bill.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You do know that the "death panel" myth is from 2009 and has been routinely debunked shortly after Sarah Palin came up with it. On top of all that, the section of the bill she charged with creating "death panels" (it didn't, not even by a long shot) didn't even make into the final bill.
Dude... it's called the "Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)" and it function exactly as Palin described.
Even Howard Dean, a stalwart Democrat who's a MD himself, wrote an OP-ED on the WSJ opposing this.
Now, as far as the IPAB... it's rightly getting a bad rap
Can we simply go to the Canadian Medicare already yet...
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You do know that the "death panel" myth is from 2009 and has been routinely debunked shortly after Sarah Palin came up with it. On top of all that, the section of the bill she charged with creating "death panels" (it didn't, not even by a long shot) didn't even make into the final bill.
Dude... it's called the "Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)" and it function exactly as Palin described.
Even Howard Dean, a stalwart Democrat who's a MD himself, wrote an OP-ED on the WSJ opposing this.
Now, as far as the IPAB... it's rightly getting a bad rap
Can we simply go to the Canadian Medicare already yet...
Negative.
This is what what Palin referred to as "death panels". She even has gone on record stating it. That is not the same thing as the IPAB, which according to the law is an advisory board that Congress has the power to override. The members of the panel are chosen by the President but must be confirmed by Congress. Argue on the merits of it all you want, but to call it a "death panel" is ludicrous. Because one Democrat, a lobbyist on top of that, doesn't like it proves nothing.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You do know that the "death panel" myth is from 2009 and has been routinely debunked shortly after Sarah Palin came up with it. On top of all that, the section of the bill she charged with creating "death panels" (it didn't, not even by a long shot) didn't even make into the final bill.
Dude... it's called the "Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)" and it function exactly as Palin described.
Even Howard Dean, a stalwart Democrat who's a MD himself, wrote an OP-ED on the WSJ opposing this.
Now, as far as the IPAB... it's rightly getting a bad rap
Can we simply go to the Canadian Medicare already yet...
Negative.
This is what what Palin referred to as "death panels". She even has gone on record stating it. That is not the same thing as the IPAB, which according to the law is an advisory board that Congress has the power to override. The members of the panel are chosen by the President but must be confirmed by Congress. Argue on the merits of it all you want, but to call it a "death panel" is ludicrous. Because one Democrat, a lobbyist on top of that, doesn't like it proves nothing.
IMO, it's irrelevant what his definition is. The term "death panel" was overwhelmingly - even universally - associated with Sarah Palin's use of it in reference to a specific piece of legislation that not only didn't make it into the bill, but that was a reasonable initiative that she herself had previously endorsed. Of course you don't make headlines by saying that, so that's not what she did.
I mean, we can have a discussion the ACA, but we can't do so if you wish to hitch your wagon to Mrs. Palin, whose primary interest was, is, and probably will continue to be; being as much of an attention whore as humanly possible without any regard to workable government, honest dialogue, the truth, or common sense.. I doubt there is any point in trying.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You do know that the "death panel" myth is from 2009 and has been routinely debunked shortly after Sarah Palin came up with it. On top of all that, the section of the bill she charged with creating "death panels" (it didn't, not even by a long shot) didn't even make into the final bill.
Dude... it's called the "Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)" and it function exactly as Palin described.
Even Howard Dean, a stalwart Democrat who's a MD himself, wrote an OP-ED on the WSJ opposing this.
Now, as far as the IPAB... it's rightly getting a bad rap
Can we simply go to the Canadian Medicare already yet...
Negative.
This is what what Palin referred to as "death panels". She even has gone on record stating it. That is not the same thing as the IPAB, which according to the law is an advisory board that Congress has the power to override. The members of the panel are chosen by the President but must be confirmed by Congress. Argue on the merits of it all you want, but to call it a "death panel" is ludicrous. Because one Democrat, a lobbyist on top of that, doesn't like it proves nothing.
Okay... keep on trucking.
What is your definition of a "Death Panel" then?
death panelnoun;
1. political ruse created to deceive and distract the uninformed public late in the first decade of the 21st century.
2. a pejorative used by opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act any time they hear the word "committee" or "panel" in relation to the bill, typically in order to drum up fear amongst the uninformed (see #1).
One Democrat has voiced an opinion in an Op-Ed against the IPAB and that somehow translates to "OMG! Death panels? Obama wants to kill us all"? Should I insert my 'facepalm' emoticon here because of your blatant conformation bias? I would like to remind you that Howard Dean is "retired" from politics and now works as a paid lobbyist for McKenna Long & Aldridge. Of course, since he is a politician by trade, I'm sure his personal convictions far out weigh the opinion of his bosses, you know, the ones stroke his paychecks...
I hadn't really thought about it being a result of ACA, but my employer is doing some serious restructuring right now with their staff they're firing practically an entire department and replacing their function with a guest operated computer interface.
It all makes a lot more sense now in this context.
Wait. The owner went with the automated operator/guide because of ACA or something that was on the grape vine that was going to happen? Curious if going with the Automated system being cheaper then paying a customer service department overall instead of the pending result of ACA
I can't read the dude's mind. The move is couched in the usual talk about "streamlining" and "improving guest experience" and whatnot, but it's a massive cut and the timing is suspect.
Ouze wrote: IMO, it's irrelevant what his definition is. The term "death panel" was overwhelmingly - even universally - associated with Sarah Palin's use of it in reference to a specific piece of legislation that not only didn't make it into the bill, but that was a reasonable initiative that she herself had previously endorsed. Of course you don't make headlines by saying that, so that's not what she did.
I mean, we can have a discussion the ACA, but we can't do so if you wish to hitch your wagon to Mrs. Palin, whose primary interest was, is, and probably will continue to be; being as much of an attention whore as humanly possible without any regard to workable government, honest dialogue, the truth, or common sense.. I doubt there is any point in trying.
Guys...
They're the same fething thing. And I'm NOT hitching my wagon to Palin... she's a numbnut... but a successful numbnut nonthenless.
The IPAB will ration care through payment policy. Much like the current system... one major difference between the current system and the IPAB is that in the current system, it takes MANY hurdles to make significant changes (which isn't a good or bad thing... ). Now, via the IPAB (as in non-elected officials), they CAN make sweeping changes and can ONLY be stopped when Congress passes laws to counter the board's decision.
Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing... the IPAB may end up being a great thing. But, it's not "operational" right now... so we won't see the results till likely after 2020.
If nothing changes, I can see one bad thing about he IPAB/ACA...
It's going to drive doctor offices to close or move to larger Hospital system... that's bad.
Ouze wrote: IMO, it's irrelevant what his definition is. The term "death panel" was overwhelmingly - even universally - associated with Sarah Palin's use of it in reference to a specific piece of legislation that not only didn't make it into the bill, but that was a reasonable initiative that she herself had previously endorsed. Of course you don't make headlines by saying that, so that's not what she did.
I mean, we can have a discussion the ACA, but we can't do so if you wish to hitch your wagon to Mrs. Palin, whose primary interest was, is, and probably will continue to be; being as much of an attention whore as humanly possible without any regard to workable government, honest dialogue, the truth, or common sense.. I doubt there is any point in trying.
Guys...
They're the same fething thing. And I'm NOT hitching my wagon to Palin... she's a numbnut... but a successful numbnut nonthenless.
The IPAB will ration care through payment policy. Much like the current system... one major difference between the current system and the IPAB is that in the current system, it takes MANY hurdles to make significant changes (which isn't a good or bad thing... ). Now, via the IPAB (as in non-elected officials), they CAN make sweeping changes and can ONLY be stopped when Congress passes laws to counter the board's decision.
Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing... the IPAB may end up being a great thing. But, it's not "operational" right now... so we won't see the results till likely after 2020.
If nothing changes, I can see one bad thing about he IPAB/ACA...
It's going to drive doctor offices to close or move to larger Hospital system... that's bad.
One of things my friends that are doctors really bitch about is all of the extra paperwork they will have to do and how it cuts down on the number of patients they are able to see.
Ouze wrote: IMO, it's irrelevant what his definition is. The term "death panel" was overwhelmingly - even universally - associated with Sarah Palin's use of it in reference to a specific piece of legislation that not only didn't make it into the bill, but that was a reasonable initiative that she herself had previously endorsed. Of course you don't make headlines by saying that, so that's not what she did.
I mean, we can have a discussion the ACA, but we can't do so if you wish to hitch your wagon to Mrs. Palin, whose primary interest was, is, and probably will continue to be; being as much of an attention whore as humanly possible without any regard to workable government, honest dialogue, the truth, or common sense.. I doubt there is any point in trying.
Calling a female public figure any kind of "whore" is pretty classy.
Either way, death panels or policy based care rationing, are twoi sides if the same coin. The reductio ad Palin argument is intellectually dishonest at best. The only difference between the two concepts are levels of hyperbole and rhetoric.
Ouze wrote: IMO, it's irrelevant what his definition is. The term "death panel" was overwhelmingly - even universally - associated with Sarah Palin's use of it in reference to a specific piece of legislation that not only didn't make it into the bill, but that was a reasonable initiative that she herself had previously endorsed. Of course you don't make headlines by saying that, so that's not what she did.
I mean, we can have a discussion the ACA, but we can't do so if you wish to hitch your wagon to Mrs. Palin, whose primary interest was, is, and probably will continue to be; being as much of an attention whore as humanly possible without any regard to workable government, honest dialogue, the truth, or common sense.. I doubt there is any point in trying.
Guys...
They're the same fething thing. And I'm NOT hitching my wagon to Palin... she's a numbnut... but a successful numbnut nonthenless.
The IPAB will ration care through payment policy. Much like the current system... one major difference between the current system and the IPAB is that in the current system, it takes MANY hurdles to make significant changes (which isn't a good or bad thing... ). Now, via the IPAB (as in non-elected officials), they CAN make sweeping changes and can ONLY be stopped when Congress passes laws to counter the board's decision.
Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing... the IPAB may end up being a great thing. But, it's not "operational" right now... so we won't see the results till likely after 2020.
If nothing changes, I can see one bad thing about he IPAB/ACA...
It's going to drive doctor offices to close or move to larger Hospital system... that's bad.
Are you serious? The IPAB is the same thing as Section 1233 of HR 3200? Really? Have you even bothered to read it or do you just that afraid to admit you were wrong? In case it is the former, the IPAB is "designed" to cut cost without affecting coverage (on paper, of course) and Section 1233 authorized physicians to be reimbursed for work they already did. You are exhibiting a clear case of backfire effect so let's all move on.
whembly wrote: And I'm NOT hitching my wagon to Palin... she's a numbnut... but a successful numbnut nonthenless.
It depends on what you consider her profession to be. If she's a politician, then she's been pretty spectacularly unsuccessful by any reasonable measure, with her most remarkable contribution to the American political landscape being an oft-repeared bald-faced lie. However, if by successful you mean in the Farrah Abraham, Lindsay Lohan way; then I will certainly have to cede you that point, no qualms about it.
zman111 wrote: no one sept the managers get more than 20 hours a week now
Obviously you have a better feel for what is going on at your job than strangers on the internet who you have never met do; but I would like to say that an hourly cut that dramatic seems... dubiously connected to the ACA, at least directly; as it considers full-time employees ones who work over 30 hours a week (or on average in excess of, if you're a hospitality employee). Reducing hours to 20 is so, so far short of that... seems unlikely, to an outsider.
Have you heard anyone say specifically why the reduction in hours?
Are you serious? The IPAB is the same thing as Section 1233 of HR 3200? Really? Have you even bothered to read it or do you just that afraid to admit you were wrong? In case it is the former, the IPAB is "designed" to cut cost without affecting coverage (on paper, of course) and Section 1233 authorized physicians to be reimbursed for work they already did. You are exhibiting a clear case of backfire effect so let's all move on.
*sigh*
Uh... you keep thinking that brah.
I'm just content to let it ride while the ACA stuff is being implemented. Hold tight... it'll take awhile.
whembly wrote: And I'm NOT hitching my wagon to Palin... she's a numbnut... but a successful numbnut nonthenless.
It depends on what you consider her profession to be. If she's a politician, then she's been pretty spectacularly unsuccessful by any reasonable measure, with her most remarkable contribution to the American political landscape being an oft-repeared bald-faced lie. However, if by successful you mean in the Farrah Abraham, Lindsay Lohan way; then I will certainly have to cede you that point, no qualms about it.
"My work place is cutting some jobs, must be because of obamacare" is about the least scientific way of doing anything I've ever seen.
Workplaces cut jobs. Any workplace that gets big enough that isn't constantly looking for ways to trim payroll is ignoring how the modern economy works. And so picking out any instance of jobs being cut, especially when it's being replaced by an automated process, and concluding it must be due to ACA is hopelessly vague thinking.
It's also quite interesting to see Republicans attempt to drag their attack on ACA away from 'OMG slavery' to 'job killing'. Predictable, given how stupid the slavery thing was, but it's just as telling that this job killing nonsense is being attempted with as much honesty.
Monster Rain wrote: Calling a female public figure any kind of "whore" is pretty classy.
Ignoring the word 'attention' at the front of 'whore' in order to invent some nonsense about misogyny is a gakky, gakky attempt at debating.
sebster wrote: "My work place is cutting some jobs, must be because of obamacare" is about the least scientific way of doing anything I've ever seen.
Workplaces cut jobs. Any workplace that gets big enough that isn't constantly looking for ways to trim payroll is ignoring how the modern economy works. And so picking out any instance of jobs being cut, especially when it's being replaced by an automated process, and concluding it must be due to ACA is hopelessly vague thinking.
It's also quite interesting to see Republicans attempt to drag their attack on ACA away from 'OMG slavery' to 'job killing'. Predictable, given how stupid the slavery thing was, but it's just as telling that this job killing nonsense is being attempted with as much honesty.
Monster Rain wrote: Calling a female public figure any kind of "whore" is pretty classy.
Ignoring the word 'attention' at the front of 'whore' in order to invent some nonsense about misogyny is a gakky, gakky attempt at debating.
Do better.
I said "any kind" which kind of negates your silly, angry premise Clarence. You'll note I didn't say it diminished the point. I said it was classy, which it totally was. Almost as classy as yours.
Do better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: It's like thinking that being called a grammar Nazis is somehow about extreme political beliefs.
Monster Rain wrote: Calling a female public figure any kind of "whore" is pretty classy.
Ignoring the word 'attention' at the front of 'whore' in order to invent some nonsense about misogyny is a gakky, gakky attempt at debating.
Do better.
Sorry, I would have responded to Monster Rain earlier, but obviously I only see his posts if someone with a better track record of saying things worth reading quotes them first. The phrase "attention whore" is pretty unisex, and in fact, the very first image result for that phrase is the (arguably) male Perez Hilton. Furthermore, googling myself shows that my previous usage of that phrase on this site is 100% restricted to men, specifically the clearly male (if dubiously tressed) Julian Assange.
I decided it was time for me to stop being a sexist and finally allow women to shatter the glass ceiling into attention whoredom; an activity which is wholly without sexual connotation. However, I don't expect this to be any sort of damper on your faux outage, and I wish you the best of luck with your quest.
Ouze wrote: Sorry, I would have responded to Monster Rain earlier, but obviously I only see his posts if someone with a better track record of saying things worth reading quotes them first. The phrase "attention whore" is pretty unisex, and in fact, the very first image result for that phrase is the (arguably) male Perez Hilton. Furthermore, googling myself shows that my previous usage of that phrase on this site is 100% restricted to men, specifically the clearly male (if dubiously tressed) Julian Assange.
Oooh... catty.
There's some pretty good reading on the subject out there if you ever decide to look into it.
Ouze wrote: I decided it was time for me to stop being a sexist and finally allow women to shatter the glass ceiling into attention whoredom; an activity which is wholly without sexual connotation. However, I don't expect this to be any sort of damper on your faux outage, and I wish you the best of luck with your quest.
Cute. A few points:
1. There's no outrage.
2. You sadly don't know what you're talking about re: "attention whore" and sexual connotation.
3. The macro really isn't appropriate in this context, and it's ironic that you of all people are using it. I'm glad you did, though. Now I know.
Cheesecat wrote: It's like thinking that being called a grammar Nazis is somehow about extreme political beliefs.
Yeah, exactly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: I said "any kind" which kind of negates your silly, angry premise Clarence. You'll note I didn't say it diminished the point.
Doesn't matter. Words don't work that way. Attention whore, despite sounding very similar to whore, isn't actually a kind of whore. Because no-one has sex with attention. A person who runs around looking for attention doesn't actually have loose sexual morals of any kind.
Instead, it's just a colourful phrase added to a term used to describe a certain kind of entirely non-sexual behaviour, much like grammar nazis don't actually have any connections to National Socialism.
I said it was classy, which it totally was. Almost as classy as yours.
I'm not trying to be classy. gak tits. See, complete lack of class.
But I am trying to be honest and fair in how I argue my points. You weren't. You were trying to score a cheap win by reading a term incorrectly and then scoulding them over your incorrect interpretation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Sorry, I would have responded to Monster Rain earlier, but obviously I only see his posts if someone with a better track record of saying things worth reading quotes them first.
I thought that might be the case when I saw you didn't respond
Are you serious? The IPAB is the same thing as Section 1233 of HR 3200? Really? Have you even bothered to read it or do you just that afraid to admit you were wrong? In case it is the former, the IPAB is "designed" to cut cost without affecting coverage (on paper, of course) and Section 1233 authorized physicians to be reimbursed for work they already did. You are exhibiting a clear case of backfire effect so let's all move on.
*sigh*
Uh... you keep thinking that brah.
I'm just content to let it ride while the ACA stuff is being implemented. Hold tight... it'll take awhile.
Yeah, that silly "thinking" I do... I can't believe I would base my opinions on printed words instead my own preconceived notions. I'm not arguing whether or not the IPAB is good or even whether the entire PPACA is good. But the simple fact remains you were incorrect. You used two completely different pieces of legislation in an attempt to prove "death panels" exist (and in turn, further your own beliefs on the topic) and when people called you out on it, all you did was put your finger in your ears and go, "Hey brah, you guys are wrong! I am right! I can't hear you! La la la la la la!" Classic backfire effect.
I would also agree that Sarah Palin is successful. She is proof that you can get rich, get a book deal, and a TV show in America by really doing anything worthwhile. Kind of like Paris Hilton or James St. James.
Are you serious? The IPAB is the same thing as Section 1233 of HR 3200? Really? Have you even bothered to read it or do you just that afraid to admit you were wrong? In case it is the former, the IPAB is "designed" to cut cost without affecting coverage (on paper, of course) and Section 1233 authorized physicians to be reimbursed for work they already did. You are exhibiting a clear case of backfire effect so let's all move on.
*sigh*
Uh... you keep thinking that brah.
I'm just content to let it ride while the ACA stuff is being implemented. Hold tight... it'll take awhile.
Yeah, that silly "thinking" I do... I can't believe I would base my opinions on printed words instead my own preconceived notions. I'm not arguing whether or not the IPAB is good or even whether the entire PPACA is good. But the simple fact remains you were incorrect. You used two completely different pieces of legislation in an attempt to prove "death panels" exist (and in turn, further your own beliefs on the topic) and when people called you out on it, all you did was put your finger in your ears and go, "Hey brah, you guys are wrong! I am right! I can't hear you! La la la la la la!" Classic backfire effect.
Looks... wanna know a secret? The IPAB is a necessary thing for the PPACA.
I'm not sure it's a great idea either... my gut feeling is that it's bad because it increases even more bureaucratic red-tape to a system already overflowing with this non-sense.
Look... call me out if you want.... I'm telling you that you're wrong. You ignoring one simple fact:
EVERY healthcare system in the WORLD (Azazel objects that Canada ration care tho...) has some sort of rationing mechanism (ie, death panels). Insurance plans, CMS, IPAB, etc... those entities are different forms of rationing.
Is the term "Death Panels" hyperbolic? Sure... isn't that what politicians (or ex in this case) are known for?
These sorts of rationing functions, ie, "Death Panels" exist, and they will exist in any conceivable system of health-care delivery... and we all know they are necessary but prefer to ignore it.” For these people, it’s either us or them. That is, somebody has to say no to the terminal patient who refuses to acknowledge that he or she is terminal and demands hopeless if expensive treatment.… Somebody has to have the power to rule that Procedure A more cost-effective than Procedure B…
The board’s fifteen “experts” will impose old-fashioned price controls... in practice, the IPAB can only "propose" changes to Medicare’s payment rates. Once proposed, however, it will take effect automatically unless Congress passes contrary legislation and the President signs that into law instead. Which is radically different to how Medicare adjusted their coverage/reimbursements pre-PPACA.
That looks to me that Congress is abdicating this responsibility to un-elected officials. I'll be honest... I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing. The way politics has permeated these topics, it may make sense to do this. *shrugs*
While the PPACA has text that prohibits "rationing"... that word is very ambiguously defined. The worry is that the IPAB will set the price of expensive procedures/medicines so low, that the providers WON'T offer it to begin with. The impact isn't so much what the PPACA directly does... it's what the providers (Hospitals, clinics, physicians, etc...) would or would not perform in that type of environment.
Remember, the PPACA isn't a puppet master. The Providers will adapt to these changes, but that doesn't mean they'll perform their services at a detriment to their business/career.
The argument isn't that we shouldn't do something to fix our healthcare problems... the argument is that the current attempt is all kinds of fugly.
I would also agree that Sarah Palin is successful. She is proof that you can get rich, get a book deal, and a TV show in America by really doing anything worthwhile. Kind of like Paris Hilton or James St. James.
Yup... that's what I meant.
My dad is an Alaskan... most of them generally like her, but when she was Governor, she was waay over her head. One classic evidence was that she forcibly had all the oil leases on state land re-done with hire oil tax on the oil companies... guess who paid for the "increase" taxes? Yup... regular alaskans at the pump.
Delegates to the AFL-CIO convention in Los Angeles approved a resolution Wednesday calling for major changes to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
The resolution passed by voice vote despite furious lobbying from White House officials calling on Big Labor leaders to table the resolution.
The resolution states: "The ACA should be administered in a manner that preserves the high-quality health coverage multi-employer plans have provided to union families for decades and, if this is not possible, we will demand the ACA be amended by Congress."
The resolution put the nation's largest organized labor federation, representing more than 12 million workers, on record saying that President Obama's health care law is harming their existing health insurance.
Terry O'Sullivan, president of the Laborers' International Union of North America, said in a speech on the convention floor that, if the administration could not address their concerns, then organized labor should call for the law's full repeal.
“[To] the men and women that I represent, it could have a devastating impact on our ability to provide health insurance to them and their families," O'Sullivan told the Nation.
The vote is a major embarrassment to the administration. Prior to the law's passage, Obama had repeatedly promised it would not harm existing employer-provided insurance.
It is an embarrassment to many union leaders as well. They had urged their members to support the president's legislation and praised it after its passage.
The labor leaders had done so with the tacit understanding that the administration would later fix potential problems with the legislation regarding union-backed multi-employer health care plans. The fixes never came though, leaving many leaders in a difficult position with their members.
International Association of Fire Fighters President Harold Schaitberger told the Hill Wednesday that administration officials had called "several leaders, particularly those directly involved in development of the resolution" prior to the vote in the hopes of soothing tensions.
"My understanding is that they would have preferred that no resolution be brought to the floor," Schaitberger said.
The problem for most unions with Obamacare is that the law does not extend its subsidies to multi-employer health insurance plans, while penalizing the plans in other ways. Most unions provide these for their members, and many are worried that employers will limit coverage or pull out altogether.
Labor leaders have lobbied the administration hard on the issue but the White House has thus far refused their request for a fix. Administration officials are leery of doing that because extending subsidies to multi-employer plans as the union leaders want would cause Obamacare's costs to soar at a time when they're already struggling to keep them under control.
One study found that extending the subsidies to the plans would cost taxpayers $187 billion over a decade.
Labor Secretary Tom Perez and While House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett both spoke at the convention, but neither promised anything beyond further talks with the administration on the subject.
"I know this president. He is here is for you. We may not agree on everything, but we always talk it through. We always resolve it," Perez said in his speech Tuesday.
These sorts of rationing functions, ie, "Death Panels" exist, and they will exist in any conceivable system of health-care delivery... and we all know they are necessary but prefer to ignore it.”For these people, it’s either us or them. That is, somebody has to say no to the terminal patient who refuses to acknowledge that he or she is terminal and demands hopeless if expensive treatment.… Somebody has to have the power to rule that Procedure A more cost-effective than Procedure B…
Why is this an "us or them" situation, and who are "these people"?
These sorts of rationing functions, ie, "Death Panels" exist, and they will exist in any conceivable system of health-care delivery... and we all know they are necessary but prefer to ignore it.”For these people, it’s either us or them. That is, somebody has to say no to the terminal patient who refuses to acknowledge that he or she is terminal and demands hopeless if expensive treatment.… Somebody has to have the power to rule that Procedure A more cost-effective than Procedure B…
Why is this an "us or them" situation, and who are "these people"?
Um... that's how insurance works. I will admit that those are poor choices of words there...
What you pay the insurance company is called the "premium". The "deductible" is a part of your medical expenses that you pay even with insurance.
The money to pay your medical bills comes from other people's premiums. So the insurance administrators need to create policy/plans to determine what's covered.
I have a question about all this death panel thing, what is it that is actually being called a death panel? Do they actually decide over life and death of comatose people or something?
motyak wrote: I have a question about all this death panel thing, what is it that is actually being called a death panel? Do they actually decide over life and death of comatose people or something?
Sarah Palin, who had been keeping a low profile after her July 3, 2009, resignation announcement as Alaska's Governor,[15][20] was the first to use the "death panel" term on August 7, 2009. In her first Facebook note, she said:[21][22][23]
[G]overnment health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.[24]
Ah, so when you are ill you apply to the panel to be granted health insurance, and they judge, based on your level of productivity to society, how much cover you should be granted.
Why are employers coming into this then if its granted by a panel?
motyak wrote: Ah, so when you are ill you apply to the panel to be granted health insurance, and they judge, based on your level of productivity to society, how much cover you should be granted.
That's what Palin claimed, yeah. None of it is true, though, there was no scope for determining treatment based on a person's 'worth'. She was straight up making up bs to play to the crazies, who bought in to it, as they always do.
Now, that said, there really are boards and people that make decisions on what treatments are to be undertaken and what simply can't be afforded given finite medical resources. State boards do this all the time, cutting one Medicare treatment in order to fund another. And here in Australia we do the exact same thing.
But what none of these board do is make the decision patient by patient, dependant on that person's 'worth'. It's all about what treatments and medications can be afforded as a whole, with their cost compared to how many more years the average recipient will live.
motyak wrote: Ah, so when you are ill you apply to the panel to be granted health insurance, and they judge, based on your level of productivity to society, how much cover you should be granted.
That's what Palin claimed, yeah. None of it is true, though, there was no scope for determining treatment based on a person's 'worth'. She was straight up making up bs to play to the crazies, who bought in to it, as they always do.
Now, that said, there really are boards and people that make decisions on what treatments are to be undertaken and what simply can't be afforded given finite medical resources. State boards do this all the time, cutting one Medicare treatment in order to fund another. And here in Australia we do the exact same thing.
But what none of these board do is make the decision patient by patient, dependant on that person's 'worth'. It's all about what treatments and medications can be afforded as a whole, with their cost compared to how many more years the average recipient will live.
Got it, less 'patients apply for treatment', more 'board reviews the efficacy of several treatments for a disease and deems some as good enough to benefit from the insurance and some not good enough'. Thanks
Um... that's how insurance works. I will admit that those are poor choices of words there...
What you pay the insurance company is called the "premium". The "deductible" is a part of your medical expenses that you pay even with insurance.
The money to pay your medical bills comes from other people's premiums. So the insurance administrators need to create policy/plans to determine what's covered.
I know how health insurance works in the US, but I do not know who "these people" are, or how the present situation in the US can be described as "us or them". In fact your latest post has only served to confuse me as it does not serve to answer either question. If you were to do so I would be able to understand the point you are attempting to make.
Um... that's how insurance works. I will admit that those are poor choices of words there...
What you pay the insurance company is called the "premium". The "deductible" is a part of your medical expenses that you pay even with insurance.
The money to pay your medical bills comes from other people's premiums. So the insurance administrators need to create policy/plans to determine what's covered.
I know how health insurance works in the US, but I do not know who "these people" are, or how the present situation in the US can be described as "us or them". In fact your latest post has only served to confuse me as it does not serve to answer either question. If you were to do so I would be able to understand the point you are attempting to make.
"us" = who pays into the plan via premium payments.
"them" = who uses the plan to pay for services rendered.
The point I was trying to make (and very poorly done...sorry) is that folks want to believe that everything is covered since they're paying insurance and choosing to ignore that it's impossible to cover everything for everyone. So, this is that "us vs them" mentality here... that is, "I paid into the system, so I expect to be taken care of..." And, when there's an event that insurance doesn't cover, that's when you hear the complaints.
I wonder if Obamacare would make me more hire-able. My wife is a teacher, so I can nearly guarantee that I would rather take her Insurance rather than what any place I try to put in at could give me, thus having one less person to insure.
It looks like doctors are going to be having to ask about your sex life under Obamacare. In the bargain you can kiss confidentiality goodbye, according to this report.
You know, as a person that actually does health histories I have to say that if your doctor isn't asking those questions then they are not being very thorough.
You know, as a person that actually does health histories I have to say that if your doctor isn't asking those questions then they are not being very thorough.
Yeah, it's almost as if one's sex life could potentially be a health concern.
You know, as a person that actually does health histories I have to say that if your doctor isn't asking those questions then they are not being very thorough.
mediamatters D... really?!?
But... you're absolutely right that your doctors SHOULD be asking those question.
This is a big deal for two reasons:
A) It transfers the burden of rising costs from the employer to the employee.
B) That this absolutely gets Walgreens and other corporate employers off the hook for compliance costs
This goes to show that whenever well meaning bureaucrat starts muddling with complex, diverse issues like healthcare... business will ALWAYS work to drive down costs, usually to the detriment to their employees.
You know, as a person that actually does health histories I have to say that if your doctor isn't asking those questions then they are not being very thorough.
And the moment you answer it, it will be retained and can be perused by the government at its leisure.
You know, as a person that actually does health histories I have to say that if your doctor isn't asking those questions then they are not being very thorough.
And the moment you answer it, it will be retained and can be perused by the government at its leisure.
Eh...
I'd chalk this up as the "Electronic Medical Records (EMR)" hysteria.
The argument really should be, why are bureaucrats making these requiments for physicians to do "x"?
It probably is a good thing... or it could be unnecessarily onerous. That's where the debate should be.
But, having these sorts of things on your EMR? Nah... no problem there.
1. I have a big problem there. It will be there forever, and easily seen by anyone in government, anyone who pays someone in government to get it, or your average hacker.
Frazzled wrote: 1. I have a big problem there. It will be there forever, and easily seen by anyone in government, anyone who pays someone in government to get it, or your average hacker.
2. Agreed on the bureaucrat thing.
You worried about that we'd turn into a Gattica-like society?
CLEVELAND -- The Cleveland Clinic has told workers they will be laying off an unspecified number of employees as part of an overall, sweeping cost-reduction plan.
Clinic CEO Dr. Toby Cosgrove discussed the looming cuts and changes in a Wednesday morning all-employee meeting.
Clinic spokeswoman Eileen Sheil denied circulating rumors that employees were told there would be 3,000 jobs cut.
She said any layoffs will be part of a multi-year plan to cut $330 million from the Clinic's budget.
The Clinic is the region's largest employer with roughly 42,000 workers.
Sheil said personnel represents 60 percent of the Clinic's budget.
She said early retirement would be offered to 3,000 eligible employees. Most vacant jobs are not being filled.
She attributed most of the budget reductions to looming changes accompanying the start of the Affordable Health Care Act.
Sheil said the Clinic had not made overall layoffs in the past 11 years.
She declined to give a specific figure on how many jobs could be lost.
Sheil said that depends on how much savings individual departments can make with other reductions.
She added that any layoffs would be across the board, including doctors.
The Clinic issued the following statement:
"To prepare for healthcare reform, Cleveland Clinic is transforming the way care is delivered to patients. Over the past several years, we have had an ongoing focus on driving efficiencies, lowering costs, reducing duplication in services and enhancing quality to make healthcare affordable to patients.
Although we have made progress, we need to further reduce costs to the organization by $330 million in 2014. We are carefully evaluating all aspects of our system to accomplish this. Some of the initiatives include offering early retirement to 3,000 eligible employees, reducing operational costs, stricter review of filling vacant positions, and lastly workforce reductions.
Through these changing times, we are focused on providing the highest quality of care to our patients in the most efficient and cost-effective manner."
Anyone wanna claim that they're evil corporations using the ACA as an excuse to unnecessarily do this?
Remember these arguments about bureaucrats and medical decisions next time some red state votes in "small government republicans" who then immediately pass a bunch of ridiculous new abortion restrictions.
Ouze wrote: Remember these arguments about bureaucrats and medical decisions next time some red state votes in "small government republicans" who then immediately pass a bunch of ridiculous new abortion restrictions.
Frazzled wrote: 1. I have a big problem there. It will be there forever, and easily seen by anyone in government, anyone who pays someone in government to get it, or your average hacker.
Frazzled wrote: 1. I have a big problem there. It will be there forever, and easily seen by anyone in government, anyone who pays someone in government to get it, or your average hacker.
My wife just asked why I was laughing so much...
Because you've not been paying attention to what has been going on in the last year? We have the President of Brazil canceling meetings with the Whitehouse over the NSA, NSA admitting its members have been rutinely doing checks on friends, relatives and anyone they damn well pleased, hacker attacks daily, and the government itself saying the computer security of the ACA is utter crap and behind schedule.
If this makes you laugh, maybe you should step away from the computer a little more, or attend to more local events then issues concerning a country thousands of miles away.
Tell's students to use the opt-out approach on college campuses, so that the fewer healthy young people buy insurance, the less money there’ll be to keep insurance companies solvent.
And the moment you answer it, it will be retained and can be perused by the government at its leisure.
There is no reason you have to answer the question, just as there is no reason you have to answer any question that your doctor asks.
We had 5 people go ranting and raving at my job because a coworker went to a new doctor with his pregnant wife and the doctor had the nerve to ask him "do you have any guns in your home". To hear him tell the story he basically went into full-blown "thanks Obama!" mode and started to cuss out the doctor because it's none of his goddamn business to ask him anything like that and the doctor doesn't need to know about anything that goes on at his home. He immediately fired this doctor and got a new one, (probably a Republican one, I don't know).
Of course a home-safety assessment is a very normal part of any thorough history and physical, more so for an OB/GYN during pregnancy and a pediatrician. Between the baby-blues and curious kids it's something worth assessing.
Heck, my wife's doctor asked me the same question and I told him that I own a gun and a rifle. Instead of entering the information into the secret Obama-Net that the ACA forces him to be wired into (I think that's a thing) he simply reminded us that kids can get into these kind of things and asked us if we wanted the contact info for a group that provides free trigger locks.
I'm still waiting on the blue-helmets to knock on my door to take my guns from me...
We have the President of Brazil canceling meetings with the Whitehouse over the NSA, NSA admitting its members have been rutinely doing checks on friends, relatives and anyone they damn well pleased, hacker attacks daily, and the government itself saying the computer security of the ACA is utter crap and behind schedule.
Why in God's name would anyone be interested in the medical history of the average person? I guess because it might be tied to an SSN, but there other ways to obtain that; quite a few in fact.
If this makes you laugh, maybe you should step away from the computer a little more, or attend to more local events then issues concerning a country thousands of miles away.
I laughed too. I mean honestly, are you that concerned about people knowing things regarding your sexual history? Things which you are not required to disclose?
Dogma is not concerned about privacy. Thats fine. Others are.
It isn't that I'm not concerned about privacy, its just that I don't really care if people have access to my medical history. And, honestly, I don't understand why its an especially big deal. I mean, right now, there are 9 different insurance companies that have copies of my medical history on file*, 11 different doctors/clinics, and 3 hospitals; obviously all current to different dates.
The notion that my medical history is private flew out the window a long time ago.
*Not including independent dental insurance plans.
Dogma is not concerned about privacy. Thats fine. Others are.
It isn't that I'm not concerned about privacy, its just that I don't really care if people have access to my medical history. And, honestly, I don't understand why its an especially big deal. I mean, right now, there are 9 different insurance companies that have copies of my medical history on file*, 11 different doctors/clinics, and 3 hospitals; obviously all current to different dates.
The notion that my medical history is private flew out the window a long time ago.
*Not including independent dental insurance plans.
I would like to point out that the longshoremen left the AFL-CIO primarily over jurisdiction disagreements, their frustration with automation at ports and its effect on their collective bargaining, and because they accused the AFL-CIO for violating their picket lines.
Some of their dissatisfaction over the PPACA is because of a lack of clarification in the bill in regards to Taft-Hartley (multi-employer) benefit plans. Their leadership is in favor of a single-payer health care program, something that would never be backed by Republicans (and probably most Democrats) in Congress. The way the PPACA is written, it treats Taft-Hartley plans (which are nonprofit health care plans administered by unions and paid for by companies) differently than a "normal" employer-run health care plan.
They are also upset at immigration reform, not because Obama is pushing for it, but because the current plan is not progressive enough. Their leadership feels that the current plan will make it too difficult for middle-class immigrants to achieve citizenship, because in their eyes the current plan is “designed to give [only] highly-paid workers a real path to citizenship.”
I'd like to remind everyone that the longshoremen have only been in the AFL-CIO for 25 years. They join in 1988 after they were kicked out the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) in 1950 for being "dominated by communists." Now that Fox News story mentions it, but a lot of right-leaning new sources outright omit that information (or at the very least, severely downplay it) because, on the surface, they see it they see it as a victory over Obama and a reaffirmation of their own politics.
My dad was a longshorman, ILA Union Local 1804-1 for 40 years.
Youre timeline is off by a few years.
The ILA (International Longshormans Association) has been attached to the AFL since 1896, and off and on with the AFL-CIO since 1960. And the split with the AFL wasnt because of communists, it was because of Mafia involvement with some members. When it was "cleaned up", they got back with the AFL-CIO in 1960.
motyak wrote: Ah, so when you are ill you apply to the panel to be granted health insurance, and they judge, based on your level of productivity to society, how much cover you should be granted.
That's what Palin claimed, yeah. None of it is true, though, there was no scope for determining treatment based on a person's 'worth'. She was straight up making up bs to play to the crazies, who bought in to it, as they always do.
Now, that said, there really are boards and people that make decisions on what treatments are to be undertaken and what simply can't be afforded given finite medical resources. State boards do this all the time, cutting one Medicare treatment in order to fund another. And here in Australia we do the exact same thing.
But what none of these board do is make the decision patient by patient, dependant on that person's 'worth'. It's all about what treatments and medications can be afforded as a whole, with their cost compared to how many more years the average recipient will live.
You should visit the US sometime Sebster. Then maybe you might get a clue as to WTF youre talking about.
And the moment you answer it, it will be retained and can be perused by the government at its leisure.
There is no reason you have to answer the question, just as there is no reason you have to answer any question that your doctor asks.
We had 5 people go ranting and raving at my job because a coworker went to a new doctor with his pregnant wife and the doctor had the nerve to ask him "do you have any guns in your home". To hear him tell the story he basically went into full-blown "thanks Obama!" mode and started to cuss out the doctor because it's none of his goddamn business to ask him anything like that and the doctor doesn't need to know about anything that goes on at his home. He immediately fired this doctor and got a new one, (probably a Republican one, I don't know).
Which part of the bolded section are you having a problem comprehending? Betcha like going through TSA screenings too...Sheesh!
Frazzled wrote: Because you've not been paying attention to what has been going on in the last year? We have the President of Brazil canceling meetings with the Whitehouse over the NSA, NSA admitting its members have been rutinely doing checks on friends, relatives and anyone they damn well pleased, hacker attacks daily, and the government itself saying the computer security of the ACA is utter crap and behind schedule.
Yeah, those things are serious issues. Worrying that your doctor will be required to ask about your sexual history, and that your answer will become part of some large government database that tracks whether you, Frazzled, have had sufficient amounts of government mandated sex is not a serious issue.
If this makes you laugh, maybe you should step away from the computer a little more, or attend to more local events then issues concerning a country thousands of miles away.
Nah, our politics is hilarious, I mean we just ended up electing a political group to our senate who's entire platform is that they like sport, and did so pretty much by mistake through a system that's suddenly looking like it doesn't really work anymore... but it still isn't as funny as people worrying that their doctor will ask about their sexual history. I'm always going to go for the funnier stuff, and your privacy panic here is is gold.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spacemanvic wrote: You should visit the US sometime Sebster. Then maybe you might get a clue as to WTF youre talking about.
I have, it's a wonderful country.
And if you're so deep down the rabbit hole that you honestly believe that having your doctor ask about your sexual history, well then I don't know what to say. I mean, feth it, I can't reason you out of a position you didn't use reason to assume in the first place.
Ouze wrote: And this is why politicians lie, ladies and gentleman. It works.
In this case, to be fair, it's less of believing the original crazypants lie, and more redefining the crazypants lie in to something very different, still crazypants but sufficiently different that they don't have to defend the old, easily proven nonsense.
Which I think is a fairly good example of how the truly crazy have reacted to the information intense nature of the internet age. You used to be able to put out some serious crazy in some kind of dead tree media, and because much media was only read by a small audience, and the response cycle was limited to the frequency of publication (often weekly or monthly) you could maintain some very crazy nonsense for years, even decades. I mean, just look at the first half of Ron Paul's career.
But these days on-line publications are read by political opponents as well as the faithful, and those people can respond instantly, and with a mountain of facts available at their fingertips. So discrediting crazypants nonsense pretty much plays out in real time.
That'd be a problem for people who tell crazy lies for political advantage, except they realised that it's really easy for them to just make leave the old lie alone, and move on to some new, crazy nonsense. Just shout death panels, and while people are posting exhaustive cases explaining why that's insane, just move on to something new. And then later on you or some other crazy person will just refine the old lie in to something different, which in turn you can just leave alone while people explain in detail why its crazy, you move on to something else, and just wait to return later with another variation on that same piece of crazy.
Dogma is not concerned about privacy. Thats fine. Others are.
It isn't that I'm not concerned about privacy, its just that I don't really care if people have access to my medical history. And, honestly, I don't understand why its an especially big deal. I mean, right now, there are 9 different insurance companies that have copies of my medical history on file*, 11 different doctors/clinics, and 3 hospitals; obviously all current to different dates.
The notion that my medical history is private flew out the window a long time ago.
*Not including independent dental insurance plans.
Others are not so inclined.
Especially with stigma over mental health and abortions, people not wanting others to know if they were abused as children, etc. I can see why others may not want their medical history to be public viewing
Almost twice as many people who have noticed changes in the health-care system after ObamaCare’s passage see more negative than positive.
Also interestingly...support level among women is much lower than among men, 38% and 46% respectively. o.O A little forecasting of a Democrat drubbing?
Dogma is not concerned about privacy. Thats fine. Others are.
It isn't that I'm not concerned about privacy, its just that I don't really care if people have access to my medical history. And, honestly, I don't understand why its an especially big deal. I mean, right now, there are 9 different insurance companies that have copies of my medical history on file*, 11 different doctors/clinics, and 3 hospitals; obviously all current to different dates.
The notion that my medical history is private flew out the window a long time ago.
*Not including independent dental insurance plans.
There are many things that can be done if you know a person's medical history.
An Employer could discriminate against you for a condition(STD, past injury, etc...) if they found out.
Heck, someone could find out you are deathly allergic to something and use that information against you.
A good way to tell that an article you are reading is full of it is if
A.) Part of the quoted text does not actually appear in the source story. The story you posted copied half of the quote from the source it cites, but the other half appears nowhere in the source. It is, in fact, cobbled together from a completely different article, but deceptively presented as if it was a solid quote.
and
B.) The source article is essentially an advertisement for Betsy McConaughey's book about how Obamacare sucks.
You can read the rest of the Politifact article to see why even that premise is untrue.
Argue against if you like, but you should consider what the "journalists" you are reading think of you and of your intelligence when they attempt to lie and deceive you.
whembly wrote: Almost twice as many people who have noticed changes in the health-care system after ObamaCare’s passage see more negative than positive.
Also interestingly...support level among women is much lower than among men, 38% and 46% respectively. o.O A little forecasting of a Democrat drubbing?
Is it graphs you want? Because I've got graphs And not just showing people are skeptical of a major new reform that's been the subject of a highly political attack campaign, but dollars and cents figures that should be driving healthcare discussion;
A 60% increase in the average private premium over ten years is bad, and long term is unsustainable (which is why healthcare reform has been such a big deal). And overall healthcare costs per person grew almost 50% in that 10 year period, and are going to continue growing at GDP + 1.2%, which means the issue is less of an immediate problem (it was GDP + 2.4%), but still something that needs fixing down the line. And then you look at that graph, and there's medicaid costing the same in 2001 that it costs today.
Medicare has been able to keep costs in line because Medicare can say no. This means it can reject some expensive, marginal care, and drive down prices elsewhere. So basically it's death panels, but they're only for the poor, and when it comes to being able to afford your healthcare system, they're pretty nice.
So maybe we should stop calling them death panels, and start calling them something sensible.
whembly wrote: Almost twice as many people who have noticed changes in the health-care system after ObamaCare’s passage see more negative than positive.
Also interestingly...support level among women is much lower than among men, 38% and 46% respectively. o.O A little forecasting of a Democrat drubbing?
Is it graphs you want? Because I've got graphs And not just showing people are skeptical of a major new reform that's been the subject of a highly political attack campaign, but dollars and cents figures that should be driving healthcare discussion;
A 60% increase in the average private premium over ten years is bad, and long term is unsustainable (which is why healthcare reform has been such a big deal). And overall healthcare costs per person grew almost 50% in that 10 year period, and are going to continue growing at GDP + 1.2%, which means the issue is less of an immediate problem (it was GDP + 2.4%), but still something that needs fixing down the line. And then you look at that graph, and there's medicaid costing the same in 2001 that it costs today.
Never said Medicare was perfect...
I'd still argue that fixing (or making it stronger) Medicare and then include everyone, ala Canada, is the way to go.
So... what's your point really? That we needed to something about it? That was never in question... the debate was about how we should achieve this.
Medicare has been able to keep costs in line because Medicare can say no. This means it can reject some expensive, marginal care, and drive down prices elsewhere. So basically it's death panels, but they're only for the poor, and when it comes to being able to afford your healthcare system, they're pretty nice.
Being on Medicare <> you're poor.
Instead of "death panels", just call it a form of rationing.
So maybe we should stop calling them death panels, and start calling them something sensible.
Nah... then there would be no soundbites from our politicians... we need pazzaz man!
BTW: Just what the feth happened with your recent election? o.O
Relapse wrote: I am not posting this as a beat stick on Obamacare, but I am genuinely interested in stories, good or bad about how your employer is getting ready for full implementation.
I remember fondly when thsi thread wasn't suppose to be a "beat stick" on Obamacare. Those were the days!
I was reading through the newspaper on how its affecting my state of Michigan. Ive heard that it was supposed to be easier and cheaper depending on where youre at income wise. While I was reading, it didnt seem cheaper or easier at all. The examples they were given, the wife and I fall into, were showing we'd probably be paying $150ish-$200ish a month for coverage. WTH? Thats cheaper? Because it feels exactly the same if not more for the same coverage.
So if it costs the same or more for everyone....what was the point of this thing again? Ive tried looking into it myself on Google, but with the amount of disinformation thats out there I honestly cant tell whos telling the truth and whos just watch the language please. Reds8n
I'd still argue that fixing (or making it stronger) Medicare and then include everyone, ala Canada, is the way to go.
Yeah, and I agree. But that graph above points out the reality of that option - it will only work in controlling long term costs if there are strong limits placed on what is treated and what is not.
So... what's your point really? That we needed to something about it? That was never in question... the debate was about how we should achieve this.
My point is that those numbers show which medical systems are currently keeping costs under control, and which are not, and that when people think about why (the ability to reject treatments as too expensive for what they deliver otherwise known as death panels). Hopefully from there they'll start getting serious about what controlling healthcare costs will really mean.
And note that's a general 'you', I don't mean you specifically.
Being on Medicare <> you're poor.
Sorry, brain fart on my part, meant medicaid, not medicare. Medicaid, you'll notice from the graph, is the one with zero growth in expense per patient... and it is the one you get when you're poor.
Instead of "death panels", just call it a form of rationing.
Basically, yeah. Have that rationing and then bring in a hybrid system (base level healthcare for all, subsidised private care if you want to pay more for a nicer bed, choice of doctor, access to the most expensive, marginal treatments) and you get the best of both worlds.
Nah... then there would be no soundbites from our politicians... we need pazzaz man!
The one thing your politics has no shortage of is pizzazz. It's why I like following it so much
BTW: Just what the feth happened with your recent election? o.O
Oh man, it was a doozy. I mean, it started out kind of depressing, with one side set to win because the other side just has just disintegrated (think your 2012 election, or 1980 before that), but then it just got weird.
The unpopular Labor government was always going down, but a lot of people weren't too happy with the ultra-conservative weirdo in charge of our other major party, the Liberals. Meanwhile, the third leg of mainstream politics, the Greens, were similarly on the nose because they'd just actually had some power and had to make compromises instead of spouting idealistic piffle, and their traditional voters did not like that.
So lots of votes were either deliberately spoiled, or cast for minor parties. None of which was unexpected, or a bad thing really. What was surprising, and disappointing was that few of the votes went to the more sensible minor parties, instead a lot of the votes went to novelty parties. Then, to compoud that, our terribly out of date senate system worked its wonders, and parties that received a miniscule number of direct votes ended up receiving a large number of preference votes from other minor parties, and basically fluked their way in to parliament. There's a guy from my home state who's platform is basically 'I like sport' and another guy in Victoria who's platform is 'I like hotted up cars'.
And on top of all of that we had our own Ross Perot, I don't know if he's richer but he's certainly more vain and his politics are even sillier. He wants to give everyone who puts in their tax return $3,000, and figures that's fine because it'll be spent and respent until the government has got it all back anyway. Free money. He won a seat in Queensland, which is kind of like your Florida (people retire there for the weather, all the weird news stories come from there and everyone else is a little embarassed that they're part of the country).
You won't be embarrassed by us when a Queenslander builds the titanic II. That same member of parliament no less. Saving the nation and conquering the seven seas, Clive Palmer, MP.
motyak wrote: You won't be embarrassed by us when a Queenslander builds the titanic II. That same member of parliament no less. Saving the nation and conquering the seven seas, Clive Palmer, MP.
Though to be fair, Clive isn't building the Titanic II - it's being built in China somewhere. Clive is just running about getting the funding for it. Though his Jurassic Park is pure Queensland built, and gives us the best animatronics 1987 can deliver
motyak wrote: You won't be embarrassed by us when a Queenslander builds the titanic II. That same member of parliament no less. Saving the nation and conquering the seven seas, Clive Palmer, MP.
Though to be fair, Clive isn't building the Titanic II - it's being built in China somewhere. Clive is just running about getting the funding for it. Though his Jurassic Park is pure Queensland built, and gives us the best animatronics 1987 can deliver
Woah woah ease up sebster, jeez. We don't want our dinosaur animatronics to outstrip our states health policies after all :p
Edit: huh, I just noticed, we managed to go from Obamacare to our election, titanic II, Jurassic park, and then right back to health care! Pretty impressive topic recovery.
Especially with stigma over mental health and abortions, people not wanting others to know if they were abused as children, etc. I can see why others may not want their medical history to be public viewing
There is also a good deal of stigma associated with many forms of employment. Hell, there is a good deal of stigma associated with college degrees. But I don't know many people who believe that one's academic record and employment history should not be avalable to the public.
And let us be clear, no one's medical history is being made public record due to ACA.
Especially with stigma over mental health and abortions, people not wanting others to know if they were abused as children, etc. I can see why others may not want their medical history to be public viewing
There is also a good deal of stigma associated with many forms of employment. Hell, there is a good deal of stigma associated with college degrees. But I don't know many people who believe that one's academic record and employment history should not be avalable to the public.
yes, because medical/psychiatric/abuse history has the same stigma as which college degree someone has.....
dogma wrote: And let us be clear, no one's medical history is being made public record due to ACA.
I never made that claim, but thank you for playing
motyak wrote: Woah woah ease up sebster, jeez. We don't want our dinosaur animatronics to outstrip our states health policies after all :p
Edit: huh, I just noticed, we managed to go from Obamacare to our election, titanic II, Jurassic park, and then right back to health care! Pretty impressive topic recovery.
I never made that claim, but thank you for playing
I never said that you did, but what did you mean by "public viewing"?
You just did your usual trick of quoting someone, then making a point that had nothing to do with what they said to bait them for a response, and then later claim that you weren't trying to attribute that point to them.
By public viewing I didn't mean "OMG the ACA will mean everyone's medical history and deepest darkest secrets are published for the world to see before a death panel drags them out to be shot by UN troops/Obama's Homeland Security army!!!!one!!eleven!!". If you go back and read the exchange that I quoted (to try and avoid misunderstandings and quoting out of context) you'll see that I was saying was that just because you aren't concerned with the privacy of your medical information doesn't mean that others aren't.
Simple. Straightforward. And hard to mis-interpret.
The stigma isn't the same, but it is still comparable. If someone knows what college you went to (or who you worked for), or that you went to college (or worked) at all, they will often view you in a discriminatory manner regarding both social and employment matters. Given this, and the obvious acceptance of the risks associated with such disclosure, I find it strange when people consider their medical history to be uniquely private.
Of course I also find it strange when people make decisions based on irrelevant information, but I'm weird like that.
By public viewing I didn't mean "OMG the ACA will mean everyone's medical history and deepest darkest secrets are published for the world to see before a death panel drags them out to be shot by UN troops/Obama's Homeland Security army!!!!one!!eleven!!". If you go back and read the exchange that I quoted (to try and avoid misunderstandings and quoting out of context) you'll see that I was saying was that just because you aren't concerned with the privacy of your medical information doesn't mean that others aren't.
Simple. Straightforward. And hard to mis-interpret.
I'm fully aware that you were representing a position that you do not, necessarily, hold. I disagree with that position because it seems irrational, as does the mentality which might justify it.
Check out the interactive applet showing pre-ACA & post-ACA rates by states.
The bottom line: Obamacare makes insurance less affordable
For months, we’ve heard about how Obamacare’s trillions in health care subsidies were going to save America from rate shock. It’s not true. If you shop for coverage on your own, you’re likely to see your rates go up, even after accounting for the impact of pre-existing conditions, even after accounting for the impact of subsidies.
The Obama administration knows this, which is why its 15-page report makes no mention of premiums for insurance available on today’s market. Silence, they say, speaks louder than words. HHS’ silence on the difference between Obamacare’s insurance premiums and those available today tell you everything you need to know. Rates are going higher. And if you’re healthy, or you’re young, the Obama administration expects you to do your duty and pay up.
In reality there may actually be lower cost plans out there, but to no surprise this means rationed and limited care.
When insurance marketplaces open on Oct. 1, most of those shopping for coverage will be low- and moderate-income people for whom price is paramount. To hold down costs, insurers say, they have created smaller networks of doctors and hospitals than are typically found in commercial insurance. And those health care providers will, in many cases, be paid less than what they have been receiving from commercial insurers.
Some consumer advocates and health care providers are increasingly concerned. Decades of experience with Medicaid, the program for low-income people, show that having an insurance card does not guarantee access to specialists or other providers.
Consumers should be prepared for “much tighter, narrower networks” of doctors and hospitals, said Adam M. Linker, a health policy analyst at the North Carolina Justice Center, a statewide advocacy group.
“That can be positive for consumers if it holds down premiums and drives people to higher-quality providers,” Mr. Linker said. “But there is also a risk because, under some health plans, consumers can end up with astronomical costs if they go to providers outside the network.”
Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand the legislative tactics, but this whole Cruz thing just has me utterly confused.
House Republicans pass budget bill that de-funds ObamaCare, Cruz filibusters the bill passed by his own party, then votes for it anyway.
There might be wonderful legislative and long-term tactics involved for people that are trying to survive tea-party challengers or wanna become President in 2016, but I am guessing that to your average voter this just looks stupid.
Grey Templar wrote: Your average Voter probably doesn't even pay enough attention to make that call.
QFT. Your average voter is a close-minded idgit that watches CNN or Fox and believes everything either outlet dishes out to a point of logic-defying insanity. My super-intelligent state (huge sarcasm here) decided it was a good idea to allow party-line voting which meant a few years ago getting a Dentist with a minimum of exposure (notice I didn't say experience or knowledge) elected to be in charge of education for the state because she had an "R" next to her name.
d-usa wrote: House Republicans pass budget bill that de-funds ObamaCare, Cruz filibusters the bill passed by his own party, then votes for it anyway. .
d-usa wrote: Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand the legislative tactics, but this whole Cruz thing just has me utterly confused.
Yeah... me too.
The idea is two-fold:
1) Shine the spotlight on it again.
2) Tells the Republican establishment the he ain't taking gak from them.
House Republicans pass budget bill that de-funds ObamaCare, Cruz filibusters the bill passed by his own party, then votes for it anyway.
A) It wasn't a filibuster as no one could stop the closure vote, per Senate rules.
B) He vote it to move the procedural chains... the real vote is Friday (I think)
There might be wonderful legislative and long-term tactics involved for people that are trying to survive tea-party challengers or wanna become President in 2016, but I am guessing that to your average voter this just looks stupid.
Yeah.. it's strange. He's trying to use this time as a "rallying call". It remains to be seen if it was effective.
ALso... please no on Cruz for Prez... he's a 1 term freshman Senator. The last time a 1 term Senator was elected president isn't turning out so well...
HHS has released a report indicating that, as of now, most of the people who will be enrolled in Obamacare will being seeing lower premiums than were projected when the bill was signed into law.
Well...the Food Stamp was taking out of one bill that passed so it could handle as a different "monster" solely by itself, which IMO, it should be handle as a separate issue. Since the ACA/Obamacare is a huge monster in itself I strongly believe it needs to be handled in a totally separate Bill by itself. They're going to pass this version of the Bill. Like I said before. Only ones that seem to be listening to their district "voice" is the Tea Party Republicans.
Ouze wrote: HHS has released a report indicating that, as of now, most of the people who will be enrolled in Obamacare will being seeing lower premiums than were projected when the bill was signed into law.
Easy E wrote: Does anyone believe Healthcare costs would be lower now if Obamacare had not been upheld?
Yes, they would be. Simple economics, laws of supply and demand.
By giving and making everyone get insurance, and by forcing insurance companies to take on people with pre-existing conditions, you raise the demand for healthcare. Since its covered by insurance, we are are already seeing people going to the hospital and seeing doctors for minor things that used to be tolerated.
Since insurance companies now have to "supply" more healthcare (ie make more payments), they have to raise premiums to cover the costs. Since doctors now have less time to spend per patient, and make "less" money per hour, you'll see their rates go up to make the difference.
You'll also see a lowering of quality and services, like any and every "free" or mandated service.
Now, open up the free markets to insurance and make them compete for dollars via good service, quality care etc and you'll see companies undercut each other, lowering costs for the consumers.
So the market place actually delivers a better product for the consumer through competition? Wow. No wonder this whole thing completely blindsided the right wing, who have shown nothing but absolute commitment to their intellectual positions in insisting that a market based mechanism could never work to keep healthcare premiums down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Well...the Food Stamp was taking out of one bill that passed so it could handle as a different "monster" solely by itself, which IMO, it should be handle as a separate issue.
Yeah, food stamps as a 'monster'.
A recession larger than any in the last three generations hits, and SNAP spikes to 0.47% of GDP before beginning to decline again. It must be brought under control!
So the market place actually delivers a better product for the consumer through competition? Wow. No wonder this whole thing completely blindsided the right wing, who have shown nothing but absolute commitment to their intellectual positions in insisting that a market based mechanism could never work to keep healthcare premiums down.
I got a bone to pick with you right there... it's not a better product.
whembly wrote: I got a bone to pick with you right there... it's not a better product.
Who said it was a better product? The item Ouze posted was a comparison of pre-bill cost estimates to their actual price in the market. Why on earth would it be a better product - it's the same product...
And it's a bit rich to suddenly switch to 'okay maybe its cheaper but it isn't as good as current insurance'... when up until now the conservative noise machine has been spending all its time comparing the old, cheapest, all but useless insurance products to the new base level insurance products, that offer a hell of a lot more coverage.
whembly wrote: I got a bone to pick with you right there... it's not a better product.
Who said it was a better product? The item Ouze posted was a comparison of pre-bill cost estimates to their actual price in the market. Why on earth would it be a better product - it's the same product...
And it's a bit rich to suddenly switch to 'okay maybe its cheaper but it isn't as good as current insurance'... when up until now the conservative noise machine has been spending all its time comparing the old, cheapest, all but useless insurance products to the new base level insurance products, that offer a hell of a lot more coverage.[
You're pulling that out of your ass there Seb. Just saying...
whembly wrote: Yeah... made me go search out some more AU publications....
I thought we were the whackadoos of the world. o.O
Every country has whackadoos. The US is only different in that one of its major political party directly panders to the whackadoos, and has done so for so long that somehow the whackadoos have gotten real power in that party.
I read an interesting piece the other day trying to explain why the market hadn't, at that point, really freaked out about this latest round of debt ceiling chicken - the argument is that Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and the rest of the leadership might be hardliners, but they're not crazy, and so the major finance managers talk to them and don't get panicked. But they don't realise that those guys aren't really in control of the party, and a sizable portion of the party really are pretty much nuts, and what's more those guys have a lot of power because it's nutty faction that gets out and votes in the primaries (where all too many seats are decided these days).
Australia has at least as many deeply crazy people as your country, but right now we're lucky enough that none of them are in either of our two major parties - Clive Palmer's insane run for office happened because the Liberal party had been happy to take his money for years, but had no interest in letting him run for office as one of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: You're pulling that out of your ass there Seb. Just saying...
Dude, I've made that argument in like five of these threads. I've seen pieces that dismantled maybe a dozen conservative noise machine articles claiming 'insurance has skyrocketed under ACA' by pointing out that was the exact trick used. Do you not remember me pointing this out so many times before?
whembly wrote: Yeah... made me go search out some more AU publications....
I thought we were the whackadoos of the world. o.O
Every country has whackadoos. The US is only different in that one of its major political party directly panders to the whackadoos, and has done so for so long that somehow the whackadoos have gotten real power in that party.
Can't argue about that!
I read an interesting piece the other day trying to explain why the market hadn't, at that point, really freaked out about this latest round of debt ceiling chicken - the argument is that Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and the rest of the leadership might be hardliners, but they're not crazy, and so the major finance managers talk to them and don't get panicked. But they don't realise that those guys aren't really in control of the party, and a sizable portion of the party really are pretty much nuts, and what's more those guys have a lot of power because it's nutty faction that gets out and votes in the primaries (where all too many seats are decided these days).
Nah... debt ceiling will be lifted again. *shrugs* it's reaching to that "Crying Wolf" status.
At least... if somehow the hardliners hold the line... Obama could just simply order the Treasury to strike a few platinum coins. Just use Obama in a pimping poise...
Australia has at least as many deeply crazy people as your country, but right now we're lucky enough that none of them are in either of our two major parties - Clive Palmer's insane run for office happened because the Liberal party had been happy to take his money for years, but had no interest in letting him run for office as one of them.
Yeah... everyone has crazies... It's sorta a new thing for me to by nosing around at other countries politics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: You're pulling that out of your ass there Seb. Just saying...
Dude, I've made that argument in like five of these threads. I've seen pieces that dismantled maybe a dozen conservative noise machine articles claiming 'insurance has skyrocketed under ACA' by pointing out that was the exact trick used. Do you not remember me pointing this out so many times before?
dogma wrote: The stigma isn't the same, but it is still comparable. If someone knows what college you went to (or who you worked for), or that you went to college (or worked) at all, they will often view you in a discriminatory manner regarding both social and employment matters. Given this, and the obvious acceptance of the risks associated with such disclosure, I find it strange when people consider their medical history to be uniquely private.
Of course I also find it strange when people make decisions based on irrelevant information, but I'm weird like that.
For someone railing against irrationality the irony of your comparison is hilarious
dogma wrote: I'm fully aware that you were representing a position that you do not, necessarily, hold. I disagree with that position because it seems irrational, as does the mentality which might justify it.
No. You're aware that you are projecting your argument onto my plain and ordinary words to continue whatever point you are trying to make. Yeah, this is why I stopped paying any heed to you
Ouze wrote: HHS has released a report indicating that, as of now, most of the people who will be enrolled in Obamacare will being seeing lower premiums than were projected when the bill was signed into law.
Ouze... that's actually misleading (I did post this earlier ):
“Premiums nationwide will also be around 16 percent lower than originally expected,” HHS cheerfully announces in its press release. But that’s a ruse. HHS compared what the Congressional Budget Office projected rates might look like—in 2016—to its own findings. Neither of those numbers tells you the stat that really matters: how much rates will go up next year, under Obamacare, relative to this year, prior to the law taking effect. …
Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, andquadruple for men.
Easy E wrote: Does anyone believe Healthcare costs would be lower now if Obamacare had not been upheld?
Yes, they would be. Simple economics, laws of supply and demand.
By giving and making everyone get insurance, and by forcing insurance companies to take on people with pre-existing conditions, you raise the demand for healthcare. Since its covered by insurance, we are are already seeing people going to the hospital and seeing doctors for minor things that used to be tolerated.
Since insurance companies now have to "supply" more healthcare (ie make more payments), they have to raise premiums to cover the costs. Since doctors now have less time to spend per patient, and make "less" money per hour, you'll see their rates go up to make the difference.
You'll also see a lowering of quality and services, like any and every "free" or mandated service.
Now, open up the free markets to insurance and make them compete for dollars via good service, quality care etc and you'll see companies undercut each other, lowering costs for the consumers.
So how do you explain the last decade then where the conditions you mention were in place, and the costs STILL continued to rise?
No real difference for me so far. A few options/packages that no one ever took will be gone. Medical care prices have gone up, but they go up every year. So far, my company is still weathering it for us. We'll see how long that goes.
Stupid baby boomers getting old and sickly, ruining it for the rest of us!
We received our option paperwork yesterday and no change whatsoever has occured here (public school employee). As mentioned previously, prices went up but oddly not as much as previous years.
No change for us. We got a letter explaining that we are free to participate in the marketplace but that because we have a good plan already through our employer we would get no discount, etc so on.
Many of my blue collar friends and family got their hours cut.
The 29 million non-managerial workers in private-sector industries which pay up to about $14.50 per hour, on average, put in a 27.4-hour week, a level previously matched only at the depths of the recession in 2009.
Workers in low-wage industries clocked the shortest average workweek on record in July, new Labor Department data show.
The 29 million non-managerial workers in private-sector industries which pay up to about $14.50 per hour, on average, put in a 27.4-hour week, a level previously matched only at the depths of the recession in 2009.
As the recovery began that summer, average weekly hours staged a recovery that erased most of the recession's decline. But the workweek recovery began to reverse in early 2012, and the drop-off has accelerated in 2013 — just as the onset of ObamaCare's employer mandate created new incentives for employers to restrict workers to fewer than 30 hours per week.
Through July (the latest month for which hours worked are broken down by industry group), these low-wage private industries have added 440,000 nonsupervisory jobs in 2013. But payrolls have been growing three times as fast as overall hours worked in these sectors. In effect, the shorter workweek has boosted low-wage industry payrolls by 300,000 this year.
The White House has sought to rebut charges that ObamaCare is negatively impacting work hours by pointing out that the private-sector workweek has recovered from 2009's depths nearly all the way back to where it was before the recession began.
But this ignores the very different trajectory of the workweek in low-wage sectors relative to the workweek for the other 85 million private-sector workers — who are working about an hour longer, on average, than they did in mid-2009 and just as long as they did back in 2007.
The evidence suggests that the majority of workers making well above $14.50 per hour may not have much to fear from ObamaCare's employer mandate. But it reveals that in industries for which ObamaCare's coverage mandates could mean substantial new costs — those in which wages are low and the ranks of the uninsured tend to be high - something is seriously depressing the workweek.
Anecdotal reports that low-wage employers are trying to dodge ObamaCare's costs by restricting workers' hours below 30 per week — the point at which health coverage mandates kick in — suggest that the simultaneous decline in the workweek and the launch of ObamaCare aren't merely a coincidence.
IBD's new ObamaCare Employer Mandate list details 258 examples (which can be downloaded into an Excel file) of employers that have cut work hours or jobs in response to the health law. In some cases, the anecdotes match up perfectly with the industry-specific data. Several providers of social assistance to the elderly and disabled have cut full-time workers to below 30 hours per week. Meanwhile, the average workweek for such firms has fallen to a record low of 27.3 hours from 28.6 hours in March 2010, when ObamaCare became law.
The wording of your quoted article suggests a conservative news outlet; later in the piece they even admit to anecdotal evidence (i.e. made up). I see your BS conservative article and raise you a BS liberal one:
http://obamacarefacts.com/impact-of-obamacare-on-jobs.php
See? Both sides can twist data to meet their own agenda.
What we're really seeing is a lot of chicken-little nonsense that will eventually even out.
There's a concept called "Implementation Dip" that refers to a dip in productivity or other data as a result of implementing some new program. This concept is related to Education but can be seen in any industry. What basically happens is that behaviors change before beliefs. People are entrenched in the "old way" and when change occurs you have a certain population that runs around convinced that the world is going to end, the new policy is the cause and that there is no way that the new policy will result in an improvement. Hooey.
Anyone with real-life experience knows that new stuff is scary and even if it will help me, my tendency is to fight it because what is known is comfortable. It doesn't help that people who don't like it just make things up to "prove" themselves correct (death panels anyone?). So, in short, people are stupid and when stupid people get together THEY cause the sky to fall.
It's a bummer that people will be hurt while stupid small companies figure out that the law doesn't actually hurt them as much as reducing productivity will. Look at the biggest employers in the country of low-income jobs (Wal-Mart et al) of those, the majority already offer health-care so the supposed "trend" in your article is probably attributable to some other factor that was conveniently glossed over to "prove" their point.
Personally, I'm a fan of socialized medicine. I've lived in 2 countries (S. Korea and Japan) where one form of this existed and the people had a better quality of life because of it. I'm biased though. I grew up very poor and my father would be alive today if it would have been possible for him to go to a Dr. before his colon cancer got to the point that he couldn't work anymore which caused him to go to the hospital (high prices be damned) when it was too late to treat a very treatable condition if caught early.
I know people like to rant (this is the internet after all) but behind all the screaming about jobs and money, they're losing sight of the one thing that's really important in this "debate". Lives. I would gladly sacrifice all the jobs in 'Merica if it meant I could have my father back.
It's not BS... those are facts that are happening on the ground right now.
FWIW: I've always been saying we need to go the Canadian route... 'cuz they have maple syrup and hockey as well!
The crux of the matter is really all about implementation as you alluded. The debate is always the what/how. That's where the angst is truly at... not because it's a democrat plan or that it's named after the President.
whembly wrote: It's not BS... those are facts that are happening on the ground right now.
FWIW: I've always been saying we need to go the Canadian route... 'cuz they have maple syrup and hockey as well!
The crux of the matter is really all about implementation as you alluded. The debate is always the what/how. That's where the angst is truly at... not because it's a democrat plan or that it's named after the President.
I'm not arguing your data. I'm arguing the interpretation of the data. There could be underlying factors that are not pointed out by the obviously biased news organization that produced the article you quoted. Of course, it could be exactly what it's stated to be and completely attributable to Obamacare. I'm honestly too lazy and busy to research it. I can tell you that, as someone who manages people and programs for a living, that the "reaction" that we're seeing is just stupid people acting stupid. Honestly people spend more time watching duck dynasty or that other show about the fat little kid than they ever do actually reading the laws that draw so much criticism; they just happily post whatever crap they see on fox or cnn (god I hate facebook and would like to strangle half my family and several people I was dumb enough to accept friend invites from).
Canada's system is much better than we have now but it's not perfect. I look at Obamacare as a step in the right direction; sort of getting in on the shallow end of the pool with your kid floaters on your arms. We're not as advanced as some places in the world but moving away from outright hatred/indifference of the people that live in our country. It's always confused me why we are all for helping each other out when there's a disaster but don't want Bob that lives with his wife and two kids to have that surgery he needs so that he can continue to work and provide for him. It seems that people would much rather Bob wait until the condition gets so bad that he has to go on disability, draw food stamps and other forms of welfare and be a true burden on the taxpayers. Or say he does go to the Dr; we've created a healthcare system that is so expensive that he'll be in so much debt he has to declare bankruptcy just to feed his family which just furthers the increasing costs of the medical system...That's what's insane to me.
I'm not an Obama fan; I feel he's been a barely adequate president but one thing that he's done that I think is intelligent is he has owned the Obamacare lable that's been slapped on the AHCA by his opponents and made it his own.
The problem is that, once this is implemented, for better or for worse we are stuck with it.
For when it does screw us over its going to be nearly impossible to alter it or get rid of it. This means that the risk of getting stuck with a bad system, and no way to get rid of it, is very high.
We should have made changes to Medicare instead, or made long term plans for this stuff without putting anything into law until we've worked out all the kinks.
We can't just say "Ooops, we made a boo-boo but we can easily fix it." No, we are stuck with that boo-boo for basically the foreseeable future.
Nah... it's just a diabolical plan to make the system so bad, that everyone will say "Merci!"... then, say "Yahoo!" when the next Congress says, "Hey... let's replace it with single-payer... like Canada!".
your cite.
