I just lost my basic health insurance because premiums rose by 35% the last two
years, for my employer. We now have a high deductible plan. Don't try to
lie to me about costs not rising.
Re:patriotA recent survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of
Minneapolis found that 4 percent of companies it surveyed had moved to a larger,
part-time workforce in response to the Affordable Care Act.If
part-time workers offer an easy way to dodge an expensive mandate, why
haven’t more employers jumped on board? I asked Christopher Ryan, a vice
president of strategic services at ADP, to help explain. He spends a lot of time
talking to companies about this issue and says it mostly boils down to a
trade-off between having a skilled workforce and reducing benefit costs.“If you’re operating a large restaurant in Manhattan on
Valentine’s Day, you’re probably wanting to have a highly-trained,
highly-skilled wait staff,” he says. “And it’s a question of,
do you want your restaurant manager thinking about benefit costs, and who needs
to be sent home at 8 p.m. [so they don't go over their 30-hour week], or do
you want to think about providing consumers with a great experience?”(Washington Post, Sarah Kliff)
To JoeBlow and other liberals let me explain something you don't seem to
understand about Obamacare. With Obamacare starting July 1, all employees who
work 40 hours or more MUST be offered insurance by their company. MUST!!! I gave
the example of my own school district. All aid's in the school district
MUST be offered insurance even though they might already have insurance via
their spouse. They might not elect to take the insurance but they still MUST be
offered the insurance which means the school district must BUDGET for the
insurance now which means they must get more money from their state legislatures
at the beginning of the fiscal year. UNDERSTAND?? So that is why principals are
being FORCED to cut their aid's hours to 27 maximum so they don't have
to classify them as full time employees and then offer and budget insurance for
them. Actually EVERY company works the same exact way - an employee actually
costs them wages+benefits even though the employee may elect NOT to sign up for
the insurance benefit. Principals are ANGRY ...believe me. Again - kids and
teachers are hurt but socialism moves on so who cares ... right? Get it Joe??
re:NoodlekaboodleNot true. Obviously you don't understand
Obamacare. The Federal Government could care less whether your spouse has
insurance or not - the bottom line is ALL 40 hour work week employees of Alpine
School District MUST be provided INSURANCE by Alpine School District. I have
discussed this with my neighbors who are effected as well as a principal of a
grade school (Cedar Ridge Elementary) and a vice principal of a junior high
(Mountain Ridge JrH). Both administrators make it clear that they HAVE NO CHOICE
in the matter. Again - it doesn't matter what other insurance you have -
what matters is if you work full time for a company (over 50 employees) then
that company MUST provide insurance for you whether you want it or not. Alpine
School District can't afford to offer insurance to it's 40 hour work
week aids and thus each principal is speaking with each aid explaining the
cut-back to 27 hours that MUST take place. One of the worst things
about Obamacare is the complete ignorance of the general public regarding the
rules and penalties. Those rules and penalties are starting in mass July 1 2013.
RE: Pragmatistferlife "Posting on this thread usually serves two purposes
for individuals who aren't lock step Republicans or members of the LDS
church. First it serves as an exercise to prevent conservatives carte blanche
expression of their ideas and policies. Secondly it provides a forum for the
development of ones own thoughts and ideas." I've often wondered if
commenting here against the LDS/Republican Utah supermajority serves any
purpose. Frankly, I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
Redshirt1701 "If they choose to not have insurance why does your ilk think
that it is their duty to prevent them from experiencing the consequences of
their choices?" Because of they don't insure risk will not be spread
enough. I favored medicare for all and still do. ACA is a poor substitute.
Karl and the Chairman of Aetna both make their living (and a nice one it is)
from the status quo. Is it any surprise that they would be against change of any
kind especially one which potentially cut their pay? Nice try, but I think we
will wait until next year to see what Obamacare really looks and feels like,
before we decide whether it is better than what we live with now or a mistake
that needs to be changed.
To "marxist" the funny thing is that at best the ACA will cover around
30 million that are without insurance, at a cost that is nearly double what
private companies were charging before the ACA was passed.You also
forget that most of those that were uninsured were that way by choice either
because they didn't want to buy insurance or else didn't want to sign
up for existing government programs.Why does your ilk think that it
knows best how to run people's lives? If they choose to not have insurance
why does your ilk think that it is their duty to prevent them from experiencing
the consequences of their choices?
The fifty million Americans without health coverage under the current system are
each and everyone a "train wreck."
To "Ernest T. Bass" just because you keep repeating the lies does not
make them truth.The truth of the matter is that every year Congress
or state legislatures add additional mandates to insurance companies. Those
mandates are not free. The government in their attempt to control business
pushes up the cost of insurance. That is a fact, and if you look at the 800
mandates the insurance companies had in the 1980's and compare that to the
2400+ mandates they have now, you can see that the rise in insurance premiums is
a direct result of government policies.Since the problem with costs
is directly related to the government, why would you want more government adding
even more costs?If the point of the ACA was to make insurance
cheaper, then by your own admission, it is a failure. Why would you continue to
support and want to push forward a program that is a failure before it is fully
"...I applaud any effort by the GOP to derail/defund this inivetable
"trainwreck." There are other comparatively low-cost solutions to our
health care dilemma...".Inivetable?In
retrospect...Republicans owned the White House, Senate and House
from 2001 until 2006.During that time, Republicans passed the
comparatively low-cost solutions of which Health Agent speaks so proudly to
solve our health care dilemma...OOPS!
Prag.Did you mean 300 million and not "A society a wash with
@Star Bright:"I don't believe in unicorns..."I
don't believe in Obama. He lies and lies. He needs to be impeached.@The Real Maverick:Actually, premium rates have increased at a
lower rate since Obamacare was passed."Actually, Obamacare
hasn't fully kicked in yet. Wait'll it gets in full swing in 2014."I hate for that lil fact to get in the way of your rant."Ditto.
Posting on this thread usually serves two purposes for individuals who
aren't lock step Republicans or members of the LDS church. First it serves
as an exercise to prevent conservatives carte blanche expression of their ideas
and policies. Secondly it provides a forum for the development of ones own
thoughts and ideas. Occasionally however, it serves as a reminder that there is
a segment of America that is absolutely comfortable with health care costs that
have risen 2,500% in the last thirty years all the while excluding 40,000,000
Americans from participatory health care coverage. There are Americans willing
to not just accept but defend an economic system that has seen absolute middle
class stagnation for the past thirty years with the upper 1% experiencing
gigantic wealth growth. There are Americans who have convinced themselves that
their very freedom resides in the principle of being able to own a gun in the
most violent society in the civilized world. A society a wash with 30,000,000
guns. Yes posting here serves as a reminder that you will never change these
minds but civilization depends on there being an opposition to these causes.
Redshirt:Premiums have gone up every year. Each and every year, Obamacare
or not. Let's not pretend Romneycare has anything to do with it any more
than corporate greed from health insurance companies has to do with increased
So what's a "health agent"? Is it a healthcare provider? A
doctor? A nurse? A healthcare economist? Perhaps someone who works in the
health insurance industry? It seems that the letter writer needs to qualify his
perspective on this issue so that the reader can better understand the letter
writer's position.Apparently the letter writer is solidly
against the Affordable Care Act. OK. But giving one's bona fides as
"health agent" makes the reader suspect that the letter writer's
position is more political self-interest and not that of neutral party involved
in providing healthcare directly to users. It is very understandable
that those involved in the health insurance business don't like having
their business model (i.e. profit margins) imposed upon. And political
conservatives are against anything 'Obama'. So finding a reasonable
middle on this issue is impossible when these two interests are involved in the
Maverick, atl134,BO PROMISED that under his plan health care costs would
DECLINE, not that the rate of increase would slow. BO LIED.And
BO’s horrible economy was more the cause of the decline in the increase
than Obamacare.But then, we know since Maverick thinks 49% is a
majority, that he has a real problem with math.JoeBlow,And
what does Obamacare DO about insurance company profits? INCREASE them!Ernest,Repubs learned from their mistake – DEMS refuse to admit
they make mistakes, so they never learn.
We are all missing the reason this act was passed in the first place, cheaper
rates, better service, better health care for all. It appears so far that the
answer to that is no, no and no.
Are revenues raised by Obamacare going to be put in a "lock box" so that
those revenues can only be used for health care, or, like Social Security, are
those revenues going to be mixed with the general fund so that all that is in
the "lock box" is a bunch of I.O.U.s?Those who want a nanny
government should think seriously of moving to Cuba or Russia or Venezuela.
There, you can live like the rest of the peasants. There you can complain with
the rest of the peasants about the lack of food, the lack of clothing, the lack
of housing. There you can work for nothing. There you will know that the
government "loves" you and that the government has your health and
welfare uppermost in mind.If you're a real American, you will
demand that government limit itself to the enumerated duties that it was given.
Those duties do not include taxing us for health care. If you're a real
American, you'll grow a spine and take care of yourself and of your family
without crying to the god in Washington for help.
The concept of universal, affordable health care is not a train wreck. However,
the ACA is neither universal or affordable. It is highly political, poorly
drafted, unwritten in parts and does not have realistic financing. Originally
passed with his congressional super majority, he now wants bipartisan support to
help shoulder the blame for flaws in the legislation. Mr. Obama rightly deserves
credit for advancing this important issue, but he receives a failing grade on
collaboration and implementation. He is learning that things are done
differently in Washington than in Chicago.
"My neighbor is a 40 hour per week janitor at the local grade school and he
has insurance via his wife so he doesn't need or want a second insurance
but Barack says you MUST have insurance."Your neighbor is
covered. Of course he will not be required twice. Kind of takes the wind out
of your rant.
To "atl134" Obamacare is already in effect. We already have some
clauses like the slacker mandate being applied to policies. Go to Obamacarefacts
and read up on the provisions that are already in effect.To
"Ernest T. Bass" actually nothing would have been better than Obamacare.
Premiums may have increased, but the increase would have been less than what we
are seeing and will see.To "Hutterite" Obamacare gives us
just that. Granted it is not a true single payer system, but it is a fascist
system where the government controls the corporations down to the allowable
profit margins.To those of you who don't think that Obamacare
will change the cost of insurance, read the following:"Obamacare
to raise claims cost 32 percent, study shows" - CBS News"Schumer Admits Health Insurance Premiums Have Increased" Real Clear
Politics you can listen to Chuck Schumer admit that Obamacare has made insurance
more expensive."Maryland Offers Glimpse At Obamacare Insurance
Math" Kaiser Health News"Health Actuaries: Obamacare Rates
Will Soar" Everyday Health"Health Insurers Warn on
Premiums" WSJ.Apparently the experts, and even the politicians
agree that Obamacare is pushing rates up by at least 25%.
@PatriotIf your janitor friend has insurance through his wife he
doesn't have to purchase it again through his job. One insurance policy is
enough to satisfy the ACA requirements.
Premiums the last three years have not gone through the roof, they've
increased at the slowest rate in half a century so the letter writer is just
plain wrong. (Of course a lot of the reason for the slow rate of increase is due
to the recession, Obamacare has had minimal effect so far since most of
Obamacare doesn't go into effect until 2014).
here is a real life Obamacare nightmare...school districts in Utah
...and nationwide...are having to inform all of their aid's that there will
be NO MORE 40 hour work weeks offered to aids going forward (July 1) due to the
mandates of Obamacare that all 40 hour work week employees MUST be provided
health care whether they want it not. Of course the Utah school districts ...and
I suspect nationwide ...won't even come close to affording health care for
their aids so the result is schools are going to lose their aids...aids that
they depend on especially in Utah for academics, office work, janitorial etc...
Most will not be willing to cut back to 27 hours a week and will seek work
elsewhere. The schools will be forced to hire less experienced younger help or
go with out. The teachers will suffer - the kids will suffer. My
neighbor is a 40 hour per week janitor at the local grade school and he has
insurance via his wife so he doesn't need or want a second insurance but
Barack says you MUST have insurance. Get used to it people - your freedoms are
"I think Obamacare is a trainwreck waiting to happen."Then
you agree with Obamacare's sponsor in the Senate. Max Baucus (D-Montana)
said: "I just see a huge train wreck coming down."Baucus is
retiring next year."Deciding not to run for re-election was an
extremely difficult decision. After thinking long and hard, I decided I want to
focus the next year and a half on serving Montana unconstrained by the demands
of a campaign."Translation: I can't win another election
with my name all over Obamacare.
"Obamacare" was the republican option when Bill Clinton first attempted
to get a national healthcare program 20 years ago."Obamacare" is
exactly what Willard "Mitt" Romney gave Mass. when he was the
governor.Is it perfect? No. Is it better than nothing? Absolutely yes!
Could this letter writer be upset because health insurance exchanges are a real
threat to an insurance agent who specializes in selling medical insurance
I applaud your overuse of the word 'trainwreck'. While I agree that so
called Obamacare is less than ideal, it's at least an idea, something the
republicans could never bring forward. What we need is a system that eliminates
health care agents, insurance companies with their buildngs,shareholders and
margins, companies and hospitals that scam and pad the bills, the works. We need
a single payer system that gets rid of all that private, for profit fat.
"Mark Bertolini, the CEO of Aetna, the third-largest health insurer in the
country, warned that many consumers would face “premium rate shock”
with the advent of Obamacare’s major insurance regulations in 2014"Anyone think that Aetna's profits just might rise handsomely as a
result of the predicted "premium rate shock"?A bit self
serving I would think.
@ Happy Valley. What was that word we heard the other day-ad hominem? Thanks for
proving me right!
What is a “20-year career health agent”?
So when Mntmans facts are found to be misleading (not his fault, the radio told
him so) he tries to change it to "wait and see" which is all, his
original factoid was, a guess presented as data.The original article
reads like a bad email right wingers keep forwarding to other Republi-Cons.
Prag. In spite of your twisting everything the author said, I would remind you
that not everyone lives in Maryland, even if what you said is true! Wait until
the end of 2014 when your precious Obamacare has been fully implemented before
you tell us who wonderfully inexpensive it is! If you work for a living and have
company sponsored health care, ask your employer about the cost of Obamacare.
Everything we were told about Obamacare is turning out to be a complete lie! But
for you, that's great!
Simply said everything Karl says is false. To Mountainman here's the
facts, despite what the CEO Aetna predicted in 2012, Aetna's official
request in the state of Maryland last month for their 2014 rate increase was
12% to 15% a much smaller increase than Aetna had requested in previous years.
Why let good facts get in the way. Premiums have not doubled. I get this is an
opinion but why does the DN provide print time to such utter falsehoods?
@ The Real Maverick. "Actually, premium rates have increased at a lower rate
since Obamacare was passed". Completely false! At the end of 2012, Mark
Bertolini, the CEO of Aetna, the third-largest health insurer in the country,
warned that many consumers would face “premium rate shock” with the
advent of Obamacare’s major insurance regulations in 2014. He predicted
that unsubsidized premiums would rise 20 to 50 percent, on average. For some
people, premiums would double. “We’re going to see some markets go
up as much as 100 percent".
"Because of Obamacare, premiums are through the roof and expected to double
again during the months ahead."This is an entirely misleading
statement. Yes, premiums have gone up since passage of Obamacare, but they have
gone up at a slower rate than they were skyrocketing BEFORE The Affordable Care
Act was passed. To blame the increase on Obamacare is just flat out wrong.
"There are other comparatively low-cost solutions to our health care
dilemma." Nice going, Mr. Gillette. You tease us with that generality,
then fail to reveal what those solutions are. Let me take a crack at it: single
payer. Except that might jeopardize your career as a health agent,
Actually, premium rates have increased at a lower rate since Obamacare was
passed. I hate for that lil fact to get in the way of your rant. I
hope Karl is advocating a single payer system. Because going back to the old
system when insurance companies could deny or drop people for any reason
certainly isn't progress.
Do we really trust our government and most especially the IRS to run this
program? How many of their hacks will be getting waivers? And do we trust the
IRS with the most personal of our information? The congress is wanting a waiver
and do we believe they won't get it?This will cover millions of
people not covered and we were promised it wouldn't cost more, and we could
keep our Doctors. I don't believe in unicorns, and I don't want
the government making health decisions for me and for my family. And above that
knowing all my very personal health information. Think it can't be used
against us, think again. Just look at the expanding criminal activity by the IRS
going on now.