Forums

Posts: 21761 (0)

Hall of Famer

48 1 10

Prospect

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Are you asking what happens if you don't file a tax return?
Are you implying that everyone gets a refund?

If you get insurance through your employer, the info will be included on your W2. So you don't have to fill out anything.

10/2/2013 1:42 PM

Posts: 21761 (0)

Hall of Famer

48 1 10

Prospect

Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 7:19:00 PM (view original):
The benefit of an enticement is diminished, because you don't need a job to get affordable health coverage. Why pay more to continue to provide a diminished enticement when there is a cheaper option (pay the penalty). That makes no sense.
What the ****???

Last year there was a cheaper option for employers...not providing health care. Up until the ACA was passed all employers were free to not provide health benefits. And, yet, a lot of employers did anyway.

Why would an employer choose to stop now that there is a penalty? Why not just continue to do what they have always done?
Last year, if an employer stopped providing healthcare, a large segment of their workforce would look to make a lateral move to another company in order to get the health care. Would I have made a lateral move under those cirumstances, to get healthcare for my wife and three kids? You bet I would. That is not (nearly as much of) a factor anymore. Would I make a lateral move to another company that possibly has a "last one in, first one out" policy, in a down market, for stronger healthcare and put my career (and ability to support my family) at risk? I'm not sure that I would. I know many who definitely would not.

That being the case, the next time our industry sniffs a downturn, why wouldn't the companies say "Look, we all know this is the time where layoffs typically occur. But we love all of you, and we don't want to lay any of you off. That being the case, we have decided to stop providing health care through the workplace. We know that you and your families will all still be covered on the exchange, and we don't have to take away any of your livelihoods."

So you're saying that, because the exchanges are available, employees will be less likely to make risky moves, career-wise, and employers will be less likely to lay people off.

What exactly is your complaint?

10/2/2013 1:45 PM

Posts: 18995 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 153 32 129

Prospect

Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Here's something else:

More people having access to healthcare seems like a good idea. The right thing to do.    And I have to admit I have a hard time objecting to it.   However, the dirty underside is that people will live longer and require more medical care to maintain life.   Isn't that going to escalate the cost of subsidized healthcare?

I only donate to animal charities and that's a question I ask myself from time to time.    Of course I get the emailed newsletters detailing how they saved a dog that was near death.   Right thing to do.   However, in the next paragraph, they'll ask for foster homes because the facility if overrun with animals needing homes.   They just went to great lengths to save a dog that had hours to live to add to their overpopulated/underfunded facility.     Is that where ACA is headed?
this is some crazy thinking here. ppl are not dogs. ppl living longer is NOT a dirty underside to anything - it is almost entirely a good thing. if the costs rise, so be it. who are you to assign value to someone else's life or health?
No, it's not crazy thinking.   It's a simple fact of keeping people around after their expected expiration date.   When costs go up, the funds have to come from somewhere.

I can assign value to anything I want.   Who are you to tell me I can't?
expected expiration? what a joke. there is no such thing. ppl die when they die, and if they live longer, its almost always a good thing. and sure assign value to other ppl's lives, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. you are not the ruler of the world who gets to dictate who lives and who dies, which is pretty much what you are saying you want to do.

Sounds like somebody has never heard of "mortaility tables", or actuaries.

10/2/2013 1:45 PM

Posts: 531 (0)

All Star

33 1

Prospect

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Here's something else:

More people having access to healthcare seems like a good idea. The right thing to do.    And I have to admit I have a hard time objecting to it.   However, the dirty underside is that people will live longer and require more medical care to maintain life.   Isn't that going to escalate the cost of subsidized healthcare?

I only donate to animal charities and that's a question I ask myself from time to time.    Of course I get the emailed newsletters detailing how they saved a dog that was near death.   Right thing to do.   However, in the next paragraph, they'll ask for foster homes because the facility if overrun with animals needing homes.   They just went to great lengths to save a dog that had hours to live to add to their overpopulated/underfunded facility.     Is that where ACA is headed?
this is some crazy thinking here. ppl are not dogs. ppl living longer is NOT a dirty underside to anything - it is almost entirely a good thing. if the costs rise, so be it. who are you to assign value to someone else's life or health?
No, it's not crazy thinking.   It's a simple fact of keeping people around after their expected expiration date.   When costs go up, the funds have to come from somewhere.

I can assign value to anything I want.   Who are you to tell me I can't?
expected expiration? what a joke. there is no such thing. ppl die when they die, and if they live longer, its almost always a good thing. and sure assign value to other ppl's lives, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. you are not the ruler of the world who gets to dictate who lives and who dies, which is pretty much what you are saying you want to do.
"almost always a good thing"?      Define, please.

I'm overly concerned what you take seriously.    I really, really am.

it is rare to find a situation where living longer is a bad thing. maybe someone who is terminal ill. maybe someone in chronic pain and always will be. those are maybes. so ya you can find some situations that maybe a bad thing but prolly 99% of time its a good thing

10/2/2013 1:47 PM

Posts: 21761 (0)

Hall of Famer

48 1 10

Prospect

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Semantics. We are required to purchase a government mandated product(or have proof of similar product) and use said product at facilities where costs are not regulated. But congrats on playing the game in a way that allows you to skirt around any issue.
No one is required to buy insurance through an exchange.

If you do buy (or have) insurance, you are free to not use it at facilities where costs are not regulated.
Can you give us the the address of a U.S. hospital where costs are regulated?
Nothing in the ACA requires you to use your insurance, go to a doctor, go to a hospital.

Oh, wait...do you mean you might get sick or injured and need to seek medical care? I guess you will have to go to the hospital where costs aren't regulated if that happens. Good thing the ACA was passed so that you can...wait, you're saying you had health insurance before and would have gone anyway...well, then what does this have to do with the ACA?

Oh, I see.

Nothing.
So, in summary, you're saying:

a) The underlying healthcare costs were unregulated and out of control before the ACA
b) The underlying healthcare costs will continue to be unregulated and out of control after the ACA
c) All is good, nothing to see here. Move along.

I'm saying that you're focusing on the wrong problem. Maybe the ACA doesn't fix everything but it isn't causing the problem you are complaining about.

Also, regarding cost reduction:

One of the ACA's cost-cutting tools is financially penalizing hospitals by reducing government Medicare reimbursements to them if they have an excess number of patients who are released from the hospital and then readmitted within a month for heart attacks, heart failure and and pneumonia.

Another is requiring health insurers who spend less than 80 percent of the premiums they receive from customers on health benefits for them to reimburse some money to those customers. Insurers of large companies have to spend at least 85 percent of the premiums they receive on benefits or pay refunds.

In 2018, there will be a 40 percent excise tax slapped on health insurance plans whose premiums exceed $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. This tax on so-called Cadillac plans is designed to tamp down overuse of medical care by people with those plans.

The law also encourages hospitals, primary care physicians and other medical providers to join forces in so-called Accountable Care Organizations, whose goal is to coordinate care for their patients and, if they meet certain quality targets such as keeping those people healthy and out of the hospital, get paid more by Medicare.

Obamacare also created the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is empowered to recommend reductions in Medicare spending, in years in which Medicare per capita costs exceed specific targets including overall medical prices. Those reductions will take effect unless Congress comes up with another reduction that saves the same amount.

Obamacare's provision that insurers' policies cover things such as preventative care for customers is also geared to reducing overall long-term costs. The theory is that people who can obtain preventative care, and actually do with, will be less likely to suffer chronic health conditions that could end up costing much more.

10/2/2013 1:48 PM

Posts: 531 (0)

All Star

33 1

Prospect

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Here's something else:

More people having access to healthcare seems like a good idea. The right thing to do.    And I have to admit I have a hard time objecting to it.   However, the dirty underside is that people will live longer and require more medical care to maintain life.   Isn't that going to escalate the cost of subsidized healthcare?

I only donate to animal charities and that's a question I ask myself from time to time.    Of course I get the emailed newsletters detailing how they saved a dog that was near death.   Right thing to do.   However, in the next paragraph, they'll ask for foster homes because the facility if overrun with animals needing homes.   They just went to great lengths to save a dog that had hours to live to add to their overpopulated/underfunded facility.     Is that where ACA is headed?
this is some crazy thinking here. ppl are not dogs. ppl living longer is NOT a dirty underside to anything - it is almost entirely a good thing. if the costs rise, so be it. who are you to assign value to someone else's life or health?
No, it's not crazy thinking.   It's a simple fact of keeping people around after their expected expiration date.   When costs go up, the funds have to come from somewhere.

I can assign value to anything I want.   Who are you to tell me I can't?
expected expiration? what a joke. there is no such thing. ppl die when they die, and if they live longer, its almost always a good thing. and sure assign value to other ppl's lives, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. you are not the ruler of the world who gets to dictate who lives and who dies, which is pretty much what you are saying you want to do.
Sounds like somebody has never heard of "mortaility tables", or actuaries.

we aren't talking about risk or insurance here but the right to live itself. who gets to decide when someone should just die? you? so when grandma gets to a certain age, just take her on a long walk into the woods with someone who carries a shotgun? put the old gal down cause it just her time bc you say so.

10/2/2013 1:51 PM

Posts: 18995 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 153 32 129

Prospect

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Semantics. We are required to purchase a government mandated product(or have proof of similar product) and use said product at facilities where costs are not regulated. But congrats on playing the game in a way that allows you to skirt around any issue.
No one is required to buy insurance through an exchange.

If you do buy (or have) insurance, you are free to not use it at facilities where costs are not regulated.
Can you give us the the address of a U.S. hospital where costs are regulated?
Nothing in the ACA requires you to use your insurance, go to a doctor, go to a hospital.

Oh, wait...do you mean you might get sick or injured and need to seek medical care? I guess you will have to go to the hospital where costs aren't regulated if that happens. Good thing the ACA was passed so that you can...wait, you're saying you had health insurance before and would have gone anyway...well, then what does this have to do with the ACA?

Oh, I see.

Nothing.
So, in summary, you're saying:

a) The underlying healthcare costs were unregulated and out of control before the ACA
b) The underlying healthcare costs will continue to be unregulated and out of control after the ACA
c) All is good, nothing to see here. Move along.
I'm saying that you're focusing on the wrong problem. Maybe the ACA doesn't fix everything but it isn't causing the problem you are complaining about.

Also, regarding cost reduction:

One of the ACA's cost-cutting tools is financially penalizing hospitals by reducing government Medicare reimbursements to them if they have an excess number of patients who are released from the hospital and then readmitted within a month for heart attacks, heart failure and and pneumonia.

Another is requiring health insurers who spend less than 80 percent of the premiums they receive from customers on health benefits for them to reimburse some money to those customers. Insurers of large companies have to spend at least 85 percent of the premiums they receive on benefits or pay refunds.

In 2018, there will be a 40 percent excise tax slapped on health insurance plans whose premiums exceed $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. This tax on so-called Cadillac plans is designed to tamp down overuse of medical care by people with those plans.

The law also encourages hospitals, primary care physicians and other medical providers to join forces in so-called Accountable Care Organizations, whose goal is to coordinate care for their patients and, if they meet certain quality targets such as keeping those people healthy and out of the hospital, get paid more by Medicare.

Obamacare also created the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is empowered to recommend reductions in Medicare spending, in years in which Medicare per capita costs exceed specific targets including overall medical prices. Those reductions will take effect unless Congress comes up with another reduction that saves the same amount.

Obamacare's provision that insurers' policies cover things such as preventative care for customers is also geared to reducing overall long-term costs. The theory is that people who can obtain preventative care, and actually do with, will be less likely to suffer chronic health conditions that could end up costing much more.

HOLY ****, are you that obtuse that you have no idea what I've been saying?

"I'm saying that you're focusing on the wrong problem." The ******* ACA is whats focusing on the wrong problem. Instead of trying to figure out how to address the out of control costs of healthcare, it just jumps from point A to point Z and addresses "who's going to pay for it?".

"it isn't causing the problem you are complaining about". When did I say, or imply, that it was?

10/2/2013 1:56 PM

Posts: 18995 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 153 32 129

Prospect

Plus, in your quoted article, where does it address hospitals charging $16 for an Advil, or $65 for a box of gauze bandages? How is it reducing those costs?

10/2/2013 1:58 PM

Posts: 531 (0)

All Star

33 1

Prospect

the way to address out of control costs for health care is govt regulation. best way to do that is have govt pay for all health care and set the price it will pay for various services, which will cost the same no matter where you get them done or who provides them.

10/2/2013 1:58 PM

Posts: 18995 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 153 32 129

Prospect

Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Here's something else:

More people having access to healthcare seems like a good idea. The right thing to do.    And I have to admit I have a hard time objecting to it.   However, the dirty underside is that people will live longer and require more medical care to maintain life.   Isn't that going to escalate the cost of subsidized healthcare?

I only donate to animal charities and that's a question I ask myself from time to time.    Of course I get the emailed newsletters detailing how they saved a dog that was near death.   Right thing to do.   However, in the next paragraph, they'll ask for foster homes because the facility if overrun with animals needing homes.   They just went to great lengths to save a dog that had hours to live to add to their overpopulated/underfunded facility.     Is that where ACA is headed?
this is some crazy thinking here. ppl are not dogs. ppl living longer is NOT a dirty underside to anything - it is almost entirely a good thing. if the costs rise, so be it. who are you to assign value to someone else's life or health?
No, it's not crazy thinking.   It's a simple fact of keeping people around after their expected expiration date.   When costs go up, the funds have to come from somewhere.

I can assign value to anything I want.   Who are you to tell me I can't?
expected expiration? what a joke. there is no such thing. ppl die when they die, and if they live longer, its almost always a good thing. and sure assign value to other ppl's lives, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. you are not the ruler of the world who gets to dictate who lives and who dies, which is pretty much what you are saying you want to do.
Sounds like somebody has never heard of "mortaility tables", or actuaries.
we aren't talking about risk or insurance here but the right to live itself. who gets to decide when someone should just die? you? so when grandma gets to a certain age, just take her on a long walk into the woods with someone who carries a shotgun? put the old gal down cause it just her time bc you say so.

You're too stupid to be posting anything on the internet,

10/2/2013 2:00 PM

examinerebb

Posts: 428 (0)

Hall of Famer

161 20 56

Rookie

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 7:19:00 PM (view original):
The benefit of an enticement is diminished, because you don't need a job to get affordable health coverage. Why pay more to continue to provide a diminished enticement when there is a cheaper option (pay the penalty). That makes no sense.
What the ****???

Last year there was a cheaper option for employers...not providing health care. Up until the ACA was passed all employers were free to not provide health benefits. And, yet, a lot of employers did anyway.

Why would an employer choose to stop now that there is a penalty? Why not just continue to do what they have always done?
Last year, if an employer stopped providing healthcare, a large segment of their workforce would look to make a lateral move to another company in order to get the health care. Would I have made a lateral move under those cirumstances, to get healthcare for my wife and three kids? You bet I would. That is not (nearly as much of) a factor anymore. Would I make a lateral move to another company that possibly has a "last one in, first one out" policy, in a down market, for stronger healthcare and put my career (and ability to support my family) at risk? I'm not sure that I would. I know many who definitely would not.

That being the case, the next time our industry sniffs a downturn, why wouldn't the companies say "Look, we all know this is the time where layoffs typically occur. But we love all of you, and we don't want to lay any of you off. That being the case, we have decided to stop providing health care through the workplace. We know that you and your families will all still be covered on the exchange, and we don't have to take away any of your livelihoods."
So you're saying that, because the exchanges are available, employees will be less likely to make risky moves, career-wise, and employers will be less likely to lay people off.

What exactly is your complaint?

Wrong. Layoffs still occur down the line (only the first wave is skipped), then hiring is arrested when the market increases (you have a larger staff than you normally would under those circumstances, as you skipped a wave of layoffs) and the lack of health expenses is ultimately realized as profit for the company in the end. Other companies see the strategy if they didn't take part right away, repeat ad nauseum. There ends up being no choice of a lateral move, because no one is offering coverage.

What it does (besides eliminate choices), as I said 5 posts ago, is force me onto the exchange.

10/2/2013 2:00 PM

Posts: 531 (0)

All Star

33 1

Prospect

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 2:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Here's something else:

More people having access to healthcare seems like a good idea. The right thing to do.    And I have to admit I have a hard time objecting to it.   However, the dirty underside is that people will live longer and require more medical care to maintain life.   Isn't that going to escalate the cost of subsidized healthcare?

I only donate to animal charities and that's a question I ask myself from time to time.    Of course I get the emailed newsletters detailing how they saved a dog that was near death.   Right thing to do.   However, in the next paragraph, they'll ask for foster homes because the facility if overrun with animals needing homes.   They just went to great lengths to save a dog that had hours to live to add to their overpopulated/underfunded facility.     Is that where ACA is headed?
this is some crazy thinking here. ppl are not dogs. ppl living longer is NOT a dirty underside to anything - it is almost entirely a good thing. if the costs rise, so be it. who are you to assign value to someone else's life or health?
No, it's not crazy thinking.   It's a simple fact of keeping people around after their expected expiration date.   When costs go up, the funds have to come from somewhere.

I can assign value to anything I want.   Who are you to tell me I can't?
expected expiration? what a joke. there is no such thing. ppl die when they die, and if they live longer, its almost always a good thing. and sure assign value to other ppl's lives, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. you are not the ruler of the world who gets to dictate who lives and who dies, which is pretty much what you are saying you want to do.
Sounds like somebody has never heard of "mortaility tables", or actuaries.
we aren't talking about risk or insurance here but the right to live itself. who gets to decide when someone should just die? you? so when grandma gets to a certain age, just take her on a long walk into the woods with someone who carries a shotgun? put the old gal down cause it just her time bc you say so.
You're too stupid to be posting anything on the internet,

so i say something you have no answer for and thats your response? give it up now son you just can't hang with adult convos.

10/2/2013 2:04 PM

Posts: 21761 (0)

Hall of Famer

48 1 10

Prospect

Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 2:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/2/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 7:19:00 PM (view original):
The benefit of an enticement is diminished, because you don't need a job to get affordable health coverage. Why pay more to continue to provide a diminished enticement when there is a cheaper option (pay the penalty). That makes no sense.
What the ****???

Last year there was a cheaper option for employers...not providing health care. Up until the ACA was passed all employers were free to not provide health benefits. And, yet, a lot of employers did anyway.

Why would an employer choose to stop now that there is a penalty? Why not just continue to do what they have always done?
Last year, if an employer stopped providing healthcare, a large segment of their workforce would look to make a lateral move to another company in order to get the health care. Would I have made a lateral move under those cirumstances, to get healthcare for my wife and three kids? You bet I would. That is not (nearly as much of) a factor anymore. Would I make a lateral move to another company that possibly has a "last one in, first one out" policy, in a down market, for stronger healthcare and put my career (and ability to support my family) at risk? I'm not sure that I would. I know many who definitely would not.

That being the case, the next time our industry sniffs a downturn, why wouldn't the companies say "Look, we all know this is the time where layoffs typically occur. But we love all of you, and we don't want to lay any of you off. That being the case, we have decided to stop providing health care through the workplace. We know that you and your families will all still be covered on the exchange, and we don't have to take away any of your livelihoods."
So you're saying that, because the exchanges are available, employees will be less likely to make risky moves, career-wise, and employers will be less likely to lay people off.

What exactly is your complaint?
Wrong. Layoffs still occur down the line (only the first wave is skipped), then hiring is arrested when the market increases (you have a larger staff than you normally would under those circumstances, as you skipped a wave of layoffs) and the lack of health expenses is ultimately realized as profit for the company in the end. Other companies see the strategy if they didn't take part right away, repeat ad nauseum. There ends up being no choice of a lateral move, because no one is offering coverage.

What it does (besides eliminate choices), as I said 5 posts ago, is force me onto the exchange.

I disagree.

Companies pay for health benefits because they want to attract good employees. The exchanges aren't free, so even with them in place as a safety net, companies will still want to attract good employees by paying for benefits.

If those companies decide to forgo benefits to increase profits, they have to pay a penalty now. As opposed to before, where they just got to increase profits with little immediate downside.

10/2/2013 2:04 PM