The cost shifting argument is valid...to a certain point, except that the numbers tell us that the more people on insurance, the more money that insurance companies make.
The cost shifting argument is valid...to a certain point, except that the numbers tell us that the more people on insurance, the more money that insurance companies make.
Additionally, I don't know where this taxpayers subsidize argument comes from. It just isn't a change. Currently, federal and state aid pays for those low income (and seniors) who cannot afford insurance. ObamaCare doesn't change that.
and where do the federal and state folks get their money from for the Medicaid Trust Funds?
Obamacare expands Medicaid eligibilty and funding so they will need more dough. Where will they get that money? We know that there are many new taxes as part of Obamacare - this will be on top of the monies they already collect from?
Additionally, I don't know where this taxpayers subsidize argument comes from. It just isn't a change. Currently, federal and state aid pays for those low income (and seniors) who cannot afford insurance. ObamaCare doesn't change that.
and where do the federal and state folks get their money from for the Medicaid Trust Funds?
Obamacare expands Medicaid eligibilty and funding so they will need more dough. Where will they get that money? We know that there are many new taxes as part of Obamacare - this will be on top of the monies they already collect from?
i signed up for some private exchange to see if i could get cheaper insurance. some guy called me back the same day and said the private exchange should be up in a week or two and he'd email me with the info once it is. we'll see.
Clubdirt,maybe you can contact some guy about your password and sign-up again... It is now being reported that registrants are having to contact phone support after learning that all user passwords are being reset as part of a process to help resolve login issues with the site.
Additionally, tech support is apparently telling some registrants they will have to completely reregister under a new username (making you a SAF) because their previously chosen names are stuck in a type of authentication limbo.
So now you are going to get e-mails at the lost logon e-mail address from some guy....
......or worse, you wont be able to log on with a new name because that email address is already used...........
My confidence level in this program becoming a success couldn't possibly be higher now....
i signed up for some private exchange to see if i could get cheaper insurance. some guy called me back the same day and said the private exchange should be up in a week or two and he'd email me with the info once it is. we'll see.
Clubdirt,maybe you can contact some guy about your password and sign-up again... It is now being reported that registrants are having to contact phone support after learning that all user passwords are being reset as part of a process to help resolve login issues with the site.
Additionally, tech support is apparently telling some registrants they will have to completely reregister under a new username (making you a SAF) because their previously chosen names are stuck in a type of authentication limbo.
So now you are going to get e-mails at the lost logon e-mail address from some guy....
......or worse, you wont be able to log on with a new name because that email address is already used...........
My confidence level in this program becoming a success couldn't possibly be higher now....
Take the average cost of insurance per person each year and compare it to the average cost of actual paid out expenses. For the average American, insurance is just that...an expenditure of "just in case," not coming to fruition.
Take the average cost of insurance per person each year and compare it to the average cost of actual paid out expenses. For the average American, insurance is just that...an expenditure of "just in case," not coming to fruition.
and where do the federal and state folks get their money from for the Medicaid Trust Funds?
Obamacare expands Medicaid eligibilty and funding so they will need more dough. Where will they get that money? We know that there are many new taxes as part of Obamacare - this will be on top of the monies they already collect from?
On top of what monies? When an uninsured person is in an accident and requires 100k of medical care, who do you think pays? It doesn't come out of taxes.
These new taxes you refer to, do you know what they are? The three main areas are not even close to being paid for by the average taxpayer. They are the medical device tax that is assessed to companies as such, the tanning bed tax, and the premium health plan tax. By the way, these premium health plans are just awful to the average American as they raise the costs of average insurance (to pay for the fact that insurance ends up covering plastic surgery, doctors visits for runny noses, and the like) and they lead to additional wait times to see medical providers.
and where do the federal and state folks get their money from for the Medicaid Trust Funds?
Obamacare expands Medicaid eligibilty and funding so they will need more dough. Where will they get that money? We know that there are many new taxes as part of Obamacare - this will be on top of the monies they already collect from?
On top of what monies? When an uninsured person is in an accident and requires 100k of medical care, who do you think pays? It doesn't come out of taxes.
These new taxes you refer to, do you know what they are? The three main areas are not even close to being paid for by the average taxpayer. They are the medical device tax that is assessed to companies as such, the tanning bed tax, and the premium health plan tax. By the way, these premium health plans are just awful to the average American as they raise the costs of average insurance (to pay for the fact that insurance ends up covering plastic surgery, doctors visits for runny noses, and the like) and they lead to additional wait times to see medical providers.
O'reilly? Did you really type that? Anyways, with 80/20 mandate and the no refusal for preconditions it is not a lock that more people equals bigger profits. They may adjust in year 2 but too late for year 1
O'reilly? Did you really type that? Anyways, with 80/20 mandate and the no refusal for preconditions it is not a lock that more people equals bigger profits. They may adjust in year 2 but too late for year 1
O'reilly? Did you really type that? Anyways, with 80/20 mandate and the no refusal for preconditions it is not a lock that more people equals bigger profits. They may adjust in year 2 but too late for year 1
This really doesn't make sense. Obamacare mandates insurance purchases so the no refusal for preconditions, for the most part, is moot, since Americans will have insurance. As for those that do not and instead accept the tax, but want to sign up in case of emergency, the 80/20 rule actually protects the insurance company by allowing a higher premimum based on 80% towards medical costs.
O'reilly? Did you really type that? Anyways, with 80/20 mandate and the no refusal for preconditions it is not a lock that more people equals bigger profits. They may adjust in year 2 but too late for year 1
This really doesn't make sense. Obamacare mandates insurance purchases so the no refusal for preconditions, for the most part, is moot, since Americans will have insurance. As for those that do not and instead accept the tax, but want to sign up in case of emergency, the 80/20 rule actually protects the insurance company by allowing a higher premimum based on 80% towards medical costs.
If insurance company A, selling insurance on exchange B gets 90% of enrollees who are unhealthy, have pre-existing conditions or need expensive treatments that company will not have a profitable experience
If insurance company A, selling insurance on exchange B gets 90% of enrollees who are unhealthy, have pre-existing conditions or need expensive treatments that company will not have a profitable experience
You are making the assumption that the young who are statistically not going to need care sign up in droves. That's not a definite - they may but they may not.
You are making the assumption that the young who are statistically not going to need care sign up in droves. That's not a definite - they may but they may not.
Absolutely not. Everyone should have the option. But just like certain vehicles that cause environlental harm are subject to certain extra costs, so should these plans.
@ post 62
For all of those reasons, insurance company A will be able to charge higher premiums based among other things, on the 80/20 rule. And the exchange will also serve its purpose by allowing for companies to compete against each other for the best rates among those with preexisting conditions.
@ post 63
I'm only stating that the law is going to require that they do. Let's say they do not and only those that develop cancer or some other disease sign up later (and that number will be quite small). They are then subject to the higher premiums.
Absolutely not. Everyone should have the option. But just like certain vehicles that cause environlental harm are subject to certain extra costs, so should these plans.
@ post 62
For all of those reasons, insurance company A will be able to charge higher premiums based among other things, on the 80/20 rule. And the exchange will also serve its purpose by allowing for companies to compete against each other for the best rates among those with preexisting conditions.
@ post 63
I'm only stating that the law is going to require that they do. Let's say they do not and only those that develop cancer or some other disease sign up later (and that number will be quite small). They are then subject to the higher premiums.
I also like that you say taxes won't be paid by the "average" tax payer. While that statement is partially true taxes will be paid by someone. Do some more research on the taxes. Taxes actually do trickle down from top to bottom-most often indirectly in higher costs of goods and services. There is no such thing as a free lunch
I also like that you say taxes won't be paid by the "average" tax payer. While that statement is partially true taxes will be paid by someone. Do some more research on the taxes. Taxes actually do trickle down from top to bottom-most often indirectly in higher costs of goods and services. There is no such thing as a free lunch
No comment on post 51 eh? I can take a dig but I don't know what you were referring to. My guess is u think I'm a far right wing nut. Opinions are like assHoles so think what you want. My opinion is let it go into full effect and tweak it as needed as we go. The problem that may arise is neither party will prob agree on what is good and what is bad. I would have preferred the Feds focused on insuring the uninsured to start with and go from there. But I digress
No comment on post 51 eh? I can take a dig but I don't know what you were referring to. My guess is u think I'm a far right wing nut. Opinions are like assHoles so think what you want. My opinion is let it go into full effect and tweak it as needed as we go. The problem that may arise is neither party will prob agree on what is good and what is bad. I would have preferred the Feds focused on insuring the uninsured to start with and go from there. But I digress
I also like that you say taxes won't be paid by the "average" tax payer. While that statement is partially true taxes will be paid by someone. Do some more research on the taxes. Taxes actually do trickle down from top to bottom-most often indirectly in higher costs of goods and services. There is no such thing as a free lunch
If people are paying more money for tanning beds, I'm not going to lose any sleep since the end result if their use is costing you and I money anyway.
I also like that you say taxes won't be paid by the "average" tax payer. While that statement is partially true taxes will be paid by someone. Do some more research on the taxes. Taxes actually do trickle down from top to bottom-most often indirectly in higher costs of goods and services. There is no such thing as a free lunch
If people are paying more money for tanning beds, I'm not going to lose any sleep since the end result if their use is costing you and I money anyway.
No comment on post 51 eh? I can take a dig but I don't know what you were referring to. My guess is u think I'm a far right wing nut. Opinions are like fool so think what you want. My opinion is let it go into full effect and tweak it as needed as we go. The problem that may arise is neither party will prob agree on what is good and what is bad. I would have preferred the Feds focused on insuring the uninsured to start with and go from there. But I digress
If the idea is to simply insure the uninsured, without addressing the main problem of unpaid medical expenses, then you really have no dog in the "increase in taxes" argument.
I agree on letting it go into effect and tweaking. The exchange part will certainly take time because it is essentially controlled by the private companies.
All this blah blah about problems getting through etc. is ridiculous because this is about businesses seeking a profit. They will problem solve so they are able to generate business or they will lose out and someone else will take their place .
If you and I were smart, we'd sell our businesses and start an insurance marketing firm since the government has just said the average American needs to spend $1000 plus a year on the product.
No comment on post 51 eh? I can take a dig but I don't know what you were referring to. My guess is u think I'm a far right wing nut. Opinions are like fool so think what you want. My opinion is let it go into full effect and tweak it as needed as we go. The problem that may arise is neither party will prob agree on what is good and what is bad. I would have preferred the Feds focused on insuring the uninsured to start with and go from there. But I digress
If the idea is to simply insure the uninsured, without addressing the main problem of unpaid medical expenses, then you really have no dog in the "increase in taxes" argument.
I agree on letting it go into effect and tweaking. The exchange part will certainly take time because it is essentially controlled by the private companies.
All this blah blah about problems getting through etc. is ridiculous because this is about businesses seeking a profit. They will problem solve so they are able to generate business or they will lose out and someone else will take their place .
If you and I were smart, we'd sell our businesses and start an insurance marketing firm since the government has just said the average American needs to spend $1000 plus a year on the product.
if we insure the uninsured then wouldnt that take care of the unpaid medical expenses in theory?
But to insure the uninsured who are usually of low income etc they will need subsidies so again its a cost shift from unpaid medical expenses to subsidies. SOMEONE has to pay for it whether via taxes or costs passed down to consumers.
I hate the insurance business.....would rather be broke and happy than be involved in that game
if we insure the uninsured then wouldnt that take care of the unpaid medical expenses in theory?
But to insure the uninsured who are usually of low income etc they will need subsidies so again its a cost shift from unpaid medical expenses to subsidies. SOMEONE has to pay for it whether via taxes or costs passed down to consumers.
I hate the insurance business.....would rather be broke and happy than be involved in that game
Explain to me, why we the taxpayers are footing an astronomical bill to have a website designed by contractors, who sent in sub-par technicians... It's only now , after it failed miserably, that Obama and Company are asking for the " A Team " a team of the best and brightest, to come in and get the problems fixed. Would you not think that they, ( the " A Team ", best and brightest ) would have been involved from the very beginning? I smell a skunk
Does anyone know who these contractors are, and if they have ties, perhaps political contributors, to the Obama administration .... the price tag on what the US taxpayers have already spent on this project is unbelievable.... and to think what the final price tag will be is alarming.
Explain to me, why we the taxpayers are footing an astronomical bill to have a website designed by contractors, who sent in sub-par technicians... It's only now , after it failed miserably, that Obama and Company are asking for the " A Team " a team of the best and brightest, to come in and get the problems fixed. Would you not think that they, ( the " A Team ", best and brightest ) would have been involved from the very beginning? I smell a skunk
Does anyone know who these contractors are, and if they have ties, perhaps political contributors, to the Obama administration .... the price tag on what the US taxpayers have already spent on this project is unbelievable.... and to think what the final price tag will be is alarming.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.