Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
"National" Universal Health Care
Rotterdam NY...the people's voice    Rotterdam's Virtual Internet Community     Chit Chat About Anything  ›  "National" Universal Health Care Moderators: Admin
Users Browsing Forum
Googlebot and 3 Guests

"National" Universal Health Care  This thread currently has 31,617 views. |
58 Pages « ... 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 ... » Recommend Thread
senders
March 19, 2011, 3:04pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
27,225
Reputation
70.00%
Reputation Score
+21 / -9
Time Online
133 days 9 hours 45 minutes
Quoted from Box A Rox
Yea Senders... It really sucks that the USA will FINALLY catch up to the rest of the developed world and offer ALL of it's citizens health care.

That sure will SUCK!
~ No more dying kids cause they didn't have health care
~ No more families losing their homes because of an illness with no health insurance.
~ No more people suffering and missing meals because they can't afford both medicine and food.

BUT...
Look on the bright side... A WHOLE BUNCH OF MILLIONAIRES HAVE MORE MONEY IN THE BANK!


is the world all about equality? who promised equality of years of life and years of illness? there is no such thing as equality when it
comes to health.....it's just that unpredictable.....you are not me and I am not you.....the insurance companies like to rate us
as equal and so do the government regs,,,but WE ARE that different and there is no sameness about us.....so to regulate healthcare
insurance based on numbers is wrong....it IS survival of the fittest in a way....always has been and always will be....
it's not nice and it's not fun....and it never will be no matter how fancy that hospital room looks with the wallpaper and flat screen tvs....
it just makes us imagine it's fun....


...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......

The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.


STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 675 - 863
BobbiMc1
March 20, 2011, 4:06am Report to Moderator
I'm rotten in Rottendam
Baby Member
Posts
16
Time Online
14 hours 14 minutes
Your right sender.  I totally agree.  Fear always keeps people afraid.  That's how we become sheeple.  Then they take us for a ride.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 676 - 863
bumblethru
March 20, 2011, 2:28pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
26,057
Reputation
76.19%
Reputation Score
+32 / -10
Time Online
122 days 18 hours 43 minutes
Quoted from BobbiMc1
Your right sender.  I totally agree.  Fear always keeps people afraid.  That's how we become sheeple.  Then they take us for a ride.


The sheople ALLOWED themselves to be taken for a ride!! The sheople bought the hype that 'GOV ALMIGHTY' will save us!!!

Remember.........in a democracy, the government is a reflection of it's people aka sheople!


When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche


“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.”
Adolph Hitler
Logged
Private Message Reply: 677 - 863
Shadow
June 6, 2011, 10:29pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
10,870
Reputation
70.83%
Reputation Score
+17 / -7
Time Online
425 days 15 hours 19 minutes

June 6, 2011, 6:14 p.m. EDT
Firms to cut health plans as reform starts: survey
30% of companies say they’ll stop offering coverage
Stories You Might Like

By Russ Britt, MarketWatch

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — Once provisions of the Affordable Care Act start to kick in during 2014, at least three of every 10 employers will probably stop offering health coverage, a survey released Monday shows.

While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.

The survey of 1,300 employers says those who are keenly aware of the health-reform measure probably are more likely to consider an alternative to employer-sponsored plans, with 50% to 60% in this group expected to make a change. It also found that for some, it makes more sense to switch.
Click to Play
Are profit forecasts too optimistic?

A 4% economic-growth rate for 2011 now looks like a pipe dream. In that case, assumptions about corporate earnings may be high, especially with the Federal Reserve's latest bond-buying program winding down. Kelly Evans discusses.

“At least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries,” the study says.

It goes on to add: “Contrary to what employers assume, more than 85% of employees would remain at their jobs even if their employers stopped offering [employer-sponsored insurance], although about 60% would expect increased compensation.”

Read about the costly flaws in the U.S. digital health-data plan.

A number of competitors will emerge in the insurance market once reform provisions start to take effect, according to the McKinsey Quarterly study. These firms will be needed to provide a transition for those moving from employer-sponsored insurance to other coverage options.

Insurers will have to adapt to new realities and look for ways to keep the policy holders they have, the study says, but that shouldn’t be difficult. “Our research shows that more than 70% of employees would stay with their insurer if it offers a seamless transition and appropriate products. Each payer also must understand how changing employer-benefit strategies will shift the risk profile of its membership and set prices appropriately.” http://www.marketwatch.com/story/firms-halting-coverage-as-reform-starts-survey-2011-06-06
Logged
Private Message Reply: 678 - 863
Shadow
June 21, 2011, 7:07pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
10,870
Reputation
70.83%
Reputation Score
+17 / -7
Time Online
425 days 15 hours 19 minutes
AP NewsBreak: A twist in Obama's health care law

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press – 26 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.

The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.

Up to 3 million people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility.

Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster says the situation keeps him up at night.

"I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense," Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting. It's almost like allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps, he suggested.
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

"This is a situation that got no attention at all," added Foster. "And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say ... we need to do something about this."

Indeed, administration officials and senior Democratic lawmakers say it's not a loophole but the result of a well-meaning effort to simplify rules for deciding who will get help with insurance costs under the new health care law. Instead of a hodgepodge of rules, there will be one national policy.

"This simplification will stop people from falling into coverage gaps and may cause some to be newly eligible for Medicaid and others to no longer qualify," said Brian Cook, spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

But states have been clamoring for relief from Medicaid costs, complaining that just these sorts of federal rules drive up spending and limit state options. The program is now one of the top issues in budget negotiations between the White House and Congress. Republicans are pushing for a rollback of federal requirements that block states from limiting eligibility.

Medicaid is a safety net program that serves more than 50 million vulnerable Americans, from low-income children and pregnant women to Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes. It's designed as a federal-state partnership, with Washington paying close to 60 percent of the total cost.

Early retirees would be a new group for Medicaid. While retirees can now start collecting Social Security at age 62, they must wait another three years to get Medicare, unless they're disabled.

Some early retirees who worked all their lives may not want to be associated with a health care program for the poor, but others might see it as a relatively painless way to satisfy the new law's requirement that all Americans carry medical insurance starting in 2014. It would help tide them over until they turn 65 and qualify for Medicare.

The actuary's office said the 3 million early retirees who would become eligible for Medicaid are on top of an estimated 16 million to 20 million people that Obama's law would already bring into the program, by opening it to childless adults with incomes near the poverty level. Federal taxpayers will cover all of the initial cost of the expansion.

A spokeswoman for the Senate Finance Committee, which wrote much of the health care law, said if the situation does become a problem there's plenty of time to fix it later.

"These changes don't take effect until 2014, so we have time to review all possible cases to ensure Medicaid meets its mission of serving only the neediest Americans," said Erin Shields.

But Republicans already see a problem.

Former Utah governor Mike Leavitt said adding early retirees will "just add fuel to the fire," bolstering the argument from Republican governors that some of Washington's rules don't make sense.

"The fact that this is being discovered now tells you, what else is baked into this law?" said Leavitt, who served as Health and Human Services secretary under President George H.W. Bush.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 679 - 863
Shadow
June 24, 2011, 12:40am Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
10,870
Reputation
70.83%
Reputation Score
+17 / -7
Time Online
425 days 15 hours 19 minutes
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations  conquered though jihad.
Specifically, it is a TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence and as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam
.

Obama Care allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States.
Folks, this is exclusively an Islamic concept under Sharia Law.
So exclusive they had to make up an English word to define the concept.
Why would our government start interjecting Sharia Law concepts into new broad and sweeping legislation like health care that would control the US population?....Anyone?

Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured.
Islam considers insurance to be “gambling”, “risk-taking”, and “usury” and is thus banned.
Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.  


How convenient. So a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of their assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because they refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax.
Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan and all other US Muslims will have no such penalty and will have 100% of their health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance.
Non-muslims paying a tax to subsidize Muslims.
This is Sharia Law definition of....Dhimmitude.
This is not a Western Civilization concept.

To check it out on Snopes: check Health Insurance Exemptions

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp
Logged
Private Message Reply: 680 - 863
Kevin March
June 30, 2011, 12:01am Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
3,071
Reputation
83.33%
Reputation Score
+10 / -2
Time Online
88 days 15 hours 44 minutes
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Lieberman-sponsors-plan-to-overhaul-Medicare-1444663.php


Quoted Text
Lieberman sponsors plan to overhaul Medicare
Will Tucker, Hearst Newspapers
Updated 10:06 p.m., Tuesday, June 28, 2011



WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., Tuesday unveiled a proposal to save Medicare $600 billion over 10 years by raising the eligibility age and requiring enrollees to pay higher premiums.

"We can't balance our budget without dealing with mandatory spending programs like Medicare," Lieberman said.

Lieberman, who is sponsoring the Medicare measure with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said the plan "asks just about everybody to give something to help preserve Medicare. But it asks wealthier Americans to give more than those who have less."

The savings and extra revenue, designed to extend Medicare's solvency beyond 2024, would come through changes such as raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67, increasing revenue and upping premiums. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that raising the eligibility age could save Medicare more than $124 billion over the next decade.

Reforms to the eligibility age would reflect changes in the average life expectancies of Americans, according to the proposal. For example, when Medicare became law in 1965, the lifespan of the average American was 70.2. Today, the average American lives to around age 77.

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/local/ar.....63.php#ixzz1QiFwICYj


Logged Offline
Site Private Message YIM Reply: 681 - 863
senders
June 30, 2011, 9:12pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
27,225
Reputation
70.00%
Reputation Score
+21 / -9
Time Online
133 days 9 hours 45 minutes


...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......

The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.


STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 682 - 863
Shadow
July 29, 2011, 1:04pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
10,870
Reputation
70.83%
Reputation Score
+17 / -7
Time Online
425 days 15 hours 19 minutes

U.S. Health Tab Projected to Hit $4.7 Trillion in 2020

By Steve Centanni

Published July 28, 2011

Shown in this June 14 photo is the blood thinner medication Plavix.

The good news: health care spending in 2010 rose at a historically low rate. The bad news: that low rate resulted from people losing their jobs and their health care coverage. And, even worse, health care spending is already on the upswing again, and is predicted to reach a record $4.7 trillion per year by 2020.

Those are some of the findings of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in its annual report published Thursday in the journal Health Affairs.

"That increase in growth between now and 2020," said Shawn Keehan, lead author of the Center's report, "is higher than per capita income is expected to grow."

Keehan told Fox News that the average American spent $8,327 on health care in 2010; but, by 2020, that per capita spending will increase to $13,709.

"The burden of health care spending on American families is expected to be significant," said Keehan. "A large percentage of households will be spending more on health care than they are today."

According to the government report, projected growth is driven by an aging population and the soaring cost of medical innovations.

The report says the unusually low growth rate of 3.9 percent in 2010 will rise to 8.3 percent in 2014 when President Obama's health care law is fully implemented. However, between 2015 and 2020, growth will level off to an annual rate of 6.2 percent annually.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....-2020/#ixzz1TUzRZfEo
Logged
Private Message Reply: 683 - 863
Shadow
September 8, 2011, 11:28pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
10,870
Reputation
70.83%
Reputation Score
+17 / -7
Time Online
425 days 15 hours 19 minutes
Comprehensive List of Obama Tax Hikes
Which one of these tax hikes will destroy the most jobs?

(Get your Obama Big Speech Bingo cards here)

Since taking office, President Barack Obama has signed into law twenty-one new or higher taxes:

1. A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco:  On February 4, 2009, just sixteen days into his Administration, Obama signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, a hike of 61 cents per pack.  The median income of smokers is just over $36,000 per year.

2. Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (takes effect in Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following


     

1 Adult
     

2 Adults
     

3+ Adults

2014
     

1% AGI/$95
     

1% AGI/$190
     

1% AGI/$285

2015
     

2% AGI/$325
     

2% AGI/$650
     

2% AGI/$975

2016 +
     

2.5% AGI/$695
     

2.5% AGI/$1390
     

2.5% AGI/$2085


Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337

3. Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax (takes effect Jan. 2014):  If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees.  Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

4. Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income (Tax hike of $123 billion/takes effect Jan. 2013):  Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).  This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93


     

Capital Gains
     

Dividends
     

Other*

2011-2012
     

15%
     

15%
     

35%

2013+ (current law)
     

23.8%
     

43.4%
     

43.4%

2013+ (Obama budget)
     

23.8%
     

23.8%
     

43.4%


*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations.  It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income.  It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans.  The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

5. Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Tax hike of $32 bil/takes effect Jan. 201: Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family).  Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions.  CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

6. Obamacare Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Tax hike of $86.8 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:


     

First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee
     

All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee

Current Law
     

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
     

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike
     

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
     

1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed


Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation            Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93

7. Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax (Tax hike of $5 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

8. Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Tax hike of $1.4 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

9. Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Tax hike of $13 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).  Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

10. Obamacare Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Tax hike of $20 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax.  Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

11. Obamacare "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Tax hike of $15.2 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

12. Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Tax hike of $2.7 billion/took effect July 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

13. Obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Tax hike of $4.5 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

14. Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Tax hike of $0.4 bil/took effect Jan. 1 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

15. Obamacare Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/took effect immediately): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

16. Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Tax hike of $22.2 bil/took effect Jan. 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

17. Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers (Tax hike of $60.1 bil/takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.  Phases in gradually until 2018.  Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

18. Obamacare $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Tax hike of $0.6 bil/takes effect Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

19. Obamacare Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 ($min/takes effect Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

20. Obamacare “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion/took effect immediately).  This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

21. Obamacare Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion/took effect immediately).  This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

Read more: http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-obama-tax-hikes-a6433#ixzz1XPEqMx5h
Logged
Private Message Reply: 684 - 863
Shadow
September 20, 2011, 8:52pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
10,870
Reputation
70.83%
Reputation Score
+17 / -7
Time Online
425 days 15 hours 19 minutes
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman, and doctor, Howard Dean backed a McKinsey & Co. survey today that found that almost a third of private-sector employers will drop their employee health insurance coverage when Obamacare's government-managed insurance exchanges come online.

Dean told Morning Joe, "The fact is it is very good for small business. There was a McKinsey study, which the Democrats don't like, but I do, and I think its true. Most small businesses are not going to be in the health insurance business anymore after this thing goes into effect."

The reason Democrats fought so hard to dismiss the McKinsey survey when it was released is because its conclusion undermines two major claims  Obama made during health care debate: "If you like your health plan, you can keep it" and "It will not add one penny to the deficit."

Fellow Morning Joe guest former New York Gov. George Pataki immediately hit the first point: "The only way its a help is if they drop coverage and their employees would all of a sudden have to go on the exchange, which is what of course the president promised wouldn't happen."

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) premised their Obamacare score on the assumption that only 7 percent of employers would drop their employee health plans. If the percentage is closer to the 30 percent, as the McKinsey survey results predict,    http://campaign2012.washington.....rage-under-obamacare
Logged
Private Message Reply: 685 - 863
senders
September 20, 2011, 9:02pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
27,225
Reputation
70.00%
Reputation Score
+21 / -9
Time Online
133 days 9 hours 45 minutes
they play on the 'atleast' it's cheaper, in the American psyche......

we ARE rats in a cage and not a one of the leaders (rep or dem) calls the plebs what they are.....they call us pathetic and stupid through legislation/regulation/strangulation......how's that hamster wheel feel now...safe/secure/cared for????


...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......

The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.


STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 686 - 863
Shadow
September 22, 2011, 4:37pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
10,870
Reputation
70.83%
Reputation Score
+17 / -7
Time Online
425 days 15 hours 19 minutes
Study: Obamacare will jack premiums up 55%-85%
September 22, 2011 by Don Surber

So, Ohio, how do you like President Obama now that you have had 2 1/2 years of him in the Oval Office? The Buckeye State turned blue for him in 2008, as the majority of voters bought into his mantras of hope and change and yes we can. The centerpiece of his domestic policy is Obamacare and now a new study shows that 790,000 Ohioans will lose their private health insurance and premiums will rise 55%-85% when Obamacare takes full effect in 2014.

The Ohio Department of Insurance commissioned a study by Milliman Inc. of Seattle on what to expect from Obamacare, National Underwriter reported.

From National Underwriter: “The number with some kind of individual commercial coverage could increase to 7.4%, or 735,000, from 350,000. The percentage with some kind of government coverage, or coverage provided by a private insurer but paid for in whole or in part by the government, could increase to 31%, from 20% in 2010. Although the percentage of residents with coverage could rise by about 7.9%, the price of individual health insurance coverage might rise about 55% to 85%, excluding the impact of medical inflation, the Milliman consultants predict.”

That 55% increase in people getting Medicaid or other government subsidies will be paid by who? The people who will be socked with premium increases of 55%-85%.

As Bruce Kessler wrote: “Then add in the additional taxes within and caused by ObamaCare. High price to pay, huh. Hope there’s any Change left in pockets.”
Logged
Private Message Reply: 687 - 863
Box A Rox
September 22, 2011, 5:07pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
20,615
Reputation
57.14%
Reputation Score
+16 / -12
Time Online
395 days 6 hours 24 minutes
Quoted from Shadow
Study: Obamacare will jack premiums up 55%-85%
September 22, 2011 by Don Surber
So, Ohio, how do you like President Obama now that you have had 2 1/2 years of him in the Oval Office? The Buckeye State turned blue for him in 2008, as the majority of voters bought into his mantras of hope and change and yes we can. The centerpiece of his domestic policy is Obamacare and now a new study shows that 790,000 Ohioans will lose their private health insurance and premiums will rise 55%-85% when Obamacare takes full effect in 2014.
The Ohio Department of Insurance commissioned a study by Milliman Inc. of Seattle on what to expect from Obamacare, National Underwriter reported.
From National Underwriter: “The number with some kind of individual commercial coverage could increase to 7.4%, or 735,000, from 350,000. The percentage with some kind of government coverage, or coverage provided by a private insurer but paid for in whole or in part by the government, could increase to 31%, from 20% in 2010. Although the percentage of residents with coverage could rise by about 7.9%, the price of individual health insurance coverage might rise about 55% to 85%, excluding the impact of medical inflation, the Milliman consultants predict.”
That 55% increase in people getting Medicaid or other government subsidies will be paid by who? The people who will be socked with premium increases of 55%-85%.
As Bruce Kessler wrote: “Then add in the additional taxes within and caused by ObamaCare. High price to pay, huh. Hope there’s any Change left in pockets.”


Just another Right Wing Scam:

Yesterday, Ohio’s lieutenant governor, Lt. Gov. Mary Taylorand, state Department of Insurance released a report on the impacts of the Affordable Care Act. But rather than accurately portraying the findings of the study, the state’s Republican leadership cherry picked the results to justify its politically-inspired opposition to the law.

Taylor fails to mention that the law will expand coverage to 790,000 Ohioans and picks out the premium increases without explaining that residents will receive far more comprehensive coverage from the state exchange and be eligible for premium subsidies that will significantly lower the costs of insurance. As the report says, the 55 to 85 percent estimated increases are “prior to the application of the premium tax credit subsidy”:

    Prior to the application of the premium tax credit subsidy, the individual health insurance market premiums are estimated to increase by 55% to 85%… This is primarily driven by the estimated health status of the new individual health insurance market and the expansion of covered benefits. [...] This is attributable to today’s individual market having leaner covered benefits, such as the exclusion of maternity services, and a lower-cost population relative to the ESI markets.

“From the individual health insurance consumer’s perspective, premium rates may decrease for the households currently insured with income below 400% FPL since they will be eligible for premium and cost-sharing subsidies in the exchange,” Milliman concludes.

Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government will also cover the full cost of expanding the state’s Medicaid program for two years and pay for the majority of the spending thereafter. That means that despite Taylor’s complaints, Ohio fares fairly well under the law: it benefits from the savings of expanding coverage to the poorest (and most expensive) residents, while the federal government picks up most of the tab.

Finally, it’s highly misleading for the state insurance department to argue that half of all residents will be enrolled in a public program by 2017, particularly since the law does not expand Medicare or offer a public option through the exchange (a system of “private competition” that Ohio Governor John Kasich supports).



The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral
philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Kenneth Galbraith

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 688 - 863
senders
September 22, 2011, 10:57pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
27,225
Reputation
70.00%
Reputation Score
+21 / -9
Time Online
133 days 9 hours 45 minutes
I can see from the inside how medicare works....and believe you me....it DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO PAY AS THEY GO TO FIND OTHER SERVICES.....you ARE a number, an ICD.9 code and you may have this
treatment and these drugs and this amount of time and THAT IS ALL.....


...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......

The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.


STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 689 - 863
58 Pages « ... 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 ... » Recommend Thread
|


Thread Rating
There is currently no rating for this thread