The ACA and Small Businesses

[Nanker]

Check out if you'll qualify for a subsidy.

Watch out that you don't earn more than you think you (and your significant-other-married-type-person) will earn in 2014. Could be a B word if you or he/she/it gets a raise or a bonus.

[birdog1960]

A) The larger the shared risk pool, the lower the individual costs.

B) If you want to get the government as far away from healthcare as posible, and want to incentivize people to actually save money and take charge of their own health savings and decision making, then you incentivize those things by making doing so a tax-free endeavor.

C) No means testing, because it incentivizes the wrong things. Worst case senario you have public contributions to HSA's which empowers people to make their own health care decisions, and encourages them to wisely allocate their dollars, which ultimately drives down the costs of hospitals.

tell me again how either of the 2 cases i presented "wisely allocate their dollars"?

[Doc]

A) The larger the shared risk pool, the lower the individual costs.

B) If you want to get the government as far away from healthcare as posible, and want to incentivize people to actually save money and take charge of their own health savings and decision making, then you incentivize those things by making doing so a tax-free endeavor.

C) No means testing, because it incentivizes the wrong things. Worst case senario you have public contributions to HSA's which empowers people to make their own health care decisions, and encourages them to wisely allocate their dollars, which ultimately drives down the costs of hospitals.

Yeah, but who will patients sue if they are in control of their health care decisions?

[birdog1960]

Yeah, but who will patients sue if they are in control of their health care decisions?

that's a valid point. currently, private insurance companies are held harmless if their refusal to cover a test or procedure results in a bad outcome (just another example where the law seems totally f*($ed from my perspective). guess who is targeted with the lawsuits, consequently? don't think the system could be changed to being any worse for doctors in this regard.

[TakeYouToTasker]

tell me again how either of the 2 cases i presented "wisely allocate their dollars"?

Because, once again, you've ghettoized your mind and are placing current restraints on a new system in the case of your first example, and for whatever reason have decided that a ponzi scheme, doomed to collapse, used to fund end of life care is preferable to telling people that if they want end of life care beyond what would be covered by a new breed of catastrophic care thaey will have to pay for it themselves, or opt for hospice.

[B-Man]

Can you say ..............Pay-off ?

 

 

Obamacare to pay 'navigators' $20 to $48 an hour, provide free translators

 

April 3, 2013

 

Tens of thousands of health care professionals, union workers and community activists hired as "navigators" to help Americans choose Obamacare options starting Oct. 1 will be paid up to $48 an hour, more than six times the federal minimum wage of $7.25, according to new regulations issued Wednesday.

The 63-page rule covering navigators, drawn up by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, also said the government will provide free translators for those not fluent in English -- no matter what their native language is.

 

 

"The proposed requirements would also include that such entities and individuals provide consumers with information and assistance in the consumer's preferred language, at no cost to the consumer, which would include oral interpretation of non-English languages and the translation of written documents in non-English languages when necessary to ensure meaningful access," said the regulations.

 

The rules also addressed conflict of interest and other potential issues that navigators could face as the public's first stop on the Obamacare trail.

 

It is still not clear how many navigators will be required. California, however, provides a hint. It wants 21,000.

 

That could be an expensive proposition, since every one of them must be paid a minimum of $20 an hour. According to the new regulations, navigators and assistants will earn $20 an hour, while navigator project leaders will earn $29 an hour. Navigator senior executives will be paid $48 an hour.

 

The rules allow navigators to come from the ranks of unions, health providers and community action groups such as ACORN and Planned Parenthood. They are required to provide unbiased advice.

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-to-pay-navigators-20-to-48-an-hour-provide-free-translators/article/2526167

 

.

[birdog1960]

Because, once again, you've ghettoized your mind and are placing current restraints on a new system in the case of your first example, and for whatever reason have decided that a ponzi scheme, doomed to collapse, used to fund end of life care is preferable to telling people that if they want end of life care beyond what would be covered by a new breed of catastrophic care thaey will have to pay for it themselves, or opt for hospice.

and once again you miss my point. how is "beyond what would be covered by a new breed of catastrophic care" any different than "death panels". it's still the payors, in this case (shock, horror) the gov't, deciding what is appropriate care...something i've been supporting all along through expert panels but something you've been decidedly against. it's just a slighlty different iteration of the same principle given a different name. if perception is really more important than reality than this is a prime example.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The difference is that in your ideal senario you wish to control 100% of the service providers and their allocation of services, and have all decisions made uniformly, regardless of an individual's ability to pay, taking the decision away from the patient and doctor; and instead have it metered out by the most bureaucratic, ineffectual, and dilettantric group of individuals on the face of the earth.

 

I want those who choose to spend their own assets to extend their own life to be able to do so.

[birdog1960]

The difference is that in your ideal senario you wish to control 100% of the service providers and their allocation of services, and have all decisions made uniformly, regardless of an individual's ability to pay, taking the decision away from the patient and doctor; and instead have it metered out by the most bureaucratic, ineffectual, and dilettantric group of individuals on the face of the earth.

 

I want those who choose to spend their own assets to extend their own life to be able to do so.

but once again, the reality is different from the perception. very few people can afford the type of end of life care that we frequently provide or even many life saving surgeries and treatments for common life threatening ailments. for all but those very few "what would be covered by the new breed of catastrophic care" will decide what care they obtain. in essence, very, very few people would be affected by the change in terminology. there will still be a decider of care level and for the vast majority that will continue to be the gov't. if the provisions of the decider become more restrictive, the end result is that those with extraordinary means will pay more for the care they already get paid for by medicare now. fine with me...just didn't think that's the outcome you were after.

Edited April 3, 2013 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

but once again, the reality is different from the perception. very few people can afford the type of end of life care that we frequently provide or even many life saving surgeries and treatments for common life threatening ailments. for all but those very few "what would be covered by the new breed of catastrophic care" will decide what care they obtain. in essence, very, very few people would be affected by the change in terminology. there will still be a decider of care level and for the vast majority that will continue to be the gov't. if the provisions of the decider become more restrictive, the end result is that those with extraordinary means will pay more for the care they already get paid for by medicare now. fine with me...just didn't think that's the outcome you were after.

Define "common".

 

List the life saving surguries for "common", life threatening ailments.

[birdog1960]

Define "common".

 

List the life saving surguries for "common", life threatening ailments.

won't do your homework but about 1/4 us deaths are due to heart disease. cost of bypass without followup care is about $65k. you might want to look up the cost of an automatic implantable defibrillator that is becoming quite common in heart patients. here's a list of common cancer prevalence in men: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/men.htm. you can google cost estimates for treatment but rest assured they're higher than the average 401k balance in the us for most all of em. so, with a huge number of baby boomers approaching or at the age where these illnesses become even more prevalent and little time to save for a decent sized hsa, how does carson's plan work in the next 30 years or so?

[Magox]

won't do your homework but about 1/4 us deaths are due to heart disease. cost of bypass without followup care is about $65k. you might want to look up the cost of an automatic implantable defibrillator that is becoming quite common in heart patients. here's a list of common cancer prevalence in men: http://www.cdc.gov/c...pc/data/men.htm. you can google cost estimates for treatment but rest assured they're higher than the average 401k balance in the us for most all of em. so, with a huge number of baby boomers approaching or at the age where these illnesses become even more prevalent and little time to save for a decent sized hsa, how does carson's plan work in the next 30 years or so?

 

Is that before or after network repricing?

[birdog1960]

Is that before or after network repricing?

negotiated average cost http://www.healthcar...29&dataset=hosp

 

numbers for prostate cancer (most common cancer in men) are astounding but difficult to nail down on a per patient basis. the really amazing thing is that we don't know what works best in whom, regardless of cost. here's a piece by a recognized expert that explains it well: http://www.cancer.org/aboutus/drlensblog/post/2011/03/18/the-costs-of-prostate-cancer-treatment-up-up-and-away.aspx. just so happens that the treatment of prostate cancer is a big profit center for many hospitals. maybe y'all can begin to see the reasoning behind support for an expert national panel....

Edited April 3, 2013 by birdog1960

[B-Man]

UH OH:

 

ObamaCare’s Target Audience Doesn’t Much Want It.

 

“If basic insurance coverage was the goal, wouldn’t giving people some sort of voucher or payment ticket to buy insurance be a cleaner, easier solution (and one that could have been implemented overnight)?”

 

 

Insufficient opportunities for control.

 

.

[Doc]

UH OH:

 

ObamaCare’s Target Audience Doesn’t Much Want It.

 

“If basic insurance coverage was the goal, wouldn’t giving people some sort of voucher or payment ticket to buy insurance be a cleaner, easier solution (and one that could have been implemented overnight)?”

 

 

Insufficient opportunities for control.

Yep, said this before as well. We'll be spending $4T ($1.8T so far but sure to double at least) to insure maybe 18M people, of which a large portion is illegals, children whose parents are too stupid/lazy/missing to sign them up, and people between jobs. Meanwhile premiums continue to rise, fewer doctors will be graduating, and health care delivery will get worse.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Doc

[B-Man]

Well, who wouldn't ? Democrats have doubts about Obamacare too.

 

President Obama is eager to build public support for his health care overhaul in the few months remaining before its implementation, but waning enthusiasm from Democrats threatens his effort right out of the gate.

 

Two-thirds

of Democrats now believe Obama’s health care reforms will either hurt them personally or have no effect on their daily lives, a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday shows. In comparison, just 27 percent of Democratic respondents said the reforms would help them.

 

The president has long struggled to convince independent and Republican-leaning voters that his health care blueprint would lower premiums and expand insurance coverage.

 

However, an inability to convince his own party that the reforms have merit suggests an even bigger problem for the president ahead of the 2014 implementation.

 

 

 

 

A little more deliberation before the bill was crammed through might have been wise.

 

 

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/166505/

[Magox]

Well, who wouldn't ? Democrats have doubts about Obamacare too.

 

President Obama is eager to build public support for his health care overhaul in the few months remaining before its implementation, but waning enthusiasm from Democrats threatens his effort right out of the gate.

 

Two-thirds

of Democrats now believe Obama’s health care reforms will either hurt them personally or have no effect on their daily lives, a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday shows. In comparison, just 27 percent of Democratic respondents said the reforms would help them.

 

The president has long struggled to convince independent and Republican-leaning voters that his health care blueprint would lower premiums and expand insurance coverage.

 

However, an inability to convince his own party that the reforms have merit suggests an even bigger problem for the president ahead of the 2014 implementation.

 

 

 

 

A little more deliberation before the bill was crammed through might have been wise.

 

 

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/166505/

 

 

 

 

I honestly believe it will fall under its own weight.

 

 

 

Its "too big to fail"

 

 

and by that, I do not mean monetarily,

 

I mean the Left has absolutely too much invested in this, in regards to their ideas and plans for the government.

 

They cannot let it fail, no matter the cost (literally)

 

While I certainly believe as to what you alluded to, that they have so much vested in preserving Obama's legacy, this poll to me would indicate that once things begin to play out as we expect it to, which is an even worse and more expensive health care system, that even some of the Big O's supporters will turn on the ACA, in one form or another.

 

Btw, even Mark Zandi from Moody's analytics, who is desperate to tout anything positive about the economy because of his support and endorsement of the Stimulus, today conceded the following:

 

“I also suspect health care reform is going to be a weight as employers nail down what their costs are going to be and work to get below that 50-employee threshold” — the level at which the law’s requirements for businesses kick in.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/march-2013-jobs-report-89668_Page2.html#ixzz2PbMM42VV

[B-Man]

ABC, CBS and NBC Turn a Blind Eye to ObamaCare Setbacks

 

For the past couple of weeks there has been a steady drip of bad news for ObamaCare, but you wouldn't know it if you only get your news from the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks.

From a Society of Actuaries report that determined premium costs will shoot up thanks to a thirty-three percent average increase in claims; to thirty-three Senate Democrats joining Republicans in voting to repeal an ObamaCare tax on medical devices; to a Quinnipiac University poll showing even two-thirds of self-identified Democrats saying the law will either hurt them or have no effect, the recent news has been bad for the President's chief legislative victory. However, not one of these trouble spots for ObamaCare has been mentioned on ABC, CBS or NBC's evening or morning show broadcasts.

 

The following setbacks for ObamaCare haven't received a single second of air time on the Big Three networks:

(list follows at link)

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2013/04/09/abc-cbs-and-nbc-turn-blind-eye-obamacare-setbacks#ixzz2PykhcUUr

.

 

[Magox]

ABC, CBS and NBC Turn a Blind Eye to ObamaCare Setbacks

For the past couple of weeks there has been a steady drip of bad news for ObamaCare, but you wouldn't know it if you only get your news from the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks.

 

From a Society of Actuaries report that determined premium costs will shoot up thanks to a thirty-three percent average increase in claims; to thirty-three Senate Democrats joining Republicans in voting to repeal an ObamaCare tax on medical devices; to a Quinnipiac University poll showing even two-thirds of self-identified Democrats saying the law will either hurt them or have no effect, the recent news has been bad for the President's chief legislative victory. However, not one of these trouble spots for ObamaCare has been mentioned on ABC, CBS or NBC's evening or morning show broadcasts.

 

The following setbacks for ObamaCare haven't received a single second of air time on the Big Three networks:

(list follows at link)

 

http://newsbusters.o...s#ixzz2PykhcUUr

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dude there is no bias.... It's all in your head

[IDBillzFan]

Dude there is no bias.... It's all in your head

 

It's a conspiracy theory.

 

This wouldn't happen if only we had voted for Jon Huntsman, the only Republican fully supported by 100% of the progressive left.