Skip to main content

View Diary: HHS: Obamacare premiums coming in lower than expected (74 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  May I ask an honest question? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karmsy, tegrat, Aunt Pat, Odysseus, Dburn

    If the health care law is so outstanding, why are parts of it being pushed back?

    I am not trying to stoke a fire here...I am genuinely interested in the answer to this question. I am required to go out and buy insurance, yet my employer (as i was just notified yesterday) is now not being required to provide the insurance until 2015.

    Anyone who can chime in with insight would be very much appreciated.

    Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

    by Love Me Slender on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:24:30 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  idiotic attempts to assuage critics of the law (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      karmsy, Odysseus

      long after it has become obvious that said critics are ideologically opposed to the idea of universal healthcare of any kind, and are implacable.

      goes back to obama's temperment and political worldview, IMO. a fatal flaw in this particular political era, but whatcha gonna do?

      •  What will I do? Pay the fine... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        karmsy, footNmouth, Quicklund, Dburn

        I simply cannot afford the insurance next year.

        Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

        by Love Me Slender on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:40:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's the least important part. (7+ / 0-)

        What's being pushed back is the penalty for businesses that fail to provide affordable insurance to their employees who qualify for subsidies on insurance. As I learn more about the law, that's actually a good thing, since what's considered affordable through a job is more than what the exchange plans will cost with the subsidy -- especially in the lower income tiers, where insurance is essentially free.

        •  It's not a good thing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dburn

          Many people now receiving employer paid health insurance will probably lose it, thanks to the postponement.  Even employers who offer good insurance will be looking for any way to boost the bottom line by dumping their health plans, making employees buy it on their own.

          It's a huge cash windfall for companies.

          "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

          by Betty Pinson on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:44:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Insurance should not be tied to employment. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dburn, virginislandsguy, sethtriggs
            Many people now receiving employer paid health insurance will probably lose it, thanks to the postponement.
            There is no reason whatsoever to have employers as middlemen for insurance.  Do you have any actual support for an argument that the best outcome is being achieved via a terrible method?

            -7.75 -4.67

            "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

            There are no Christians in foxholes.

            by Odysseus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:32:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Can restate this so your meaning is clear? (0+ / 0-)
        •  it seemed clear enough to me (0+ / 0-)

          the reason why the admin delayed implementation was in hopes that removing a part of obamacare that opponents disliked would make said opponents stop opposing obamacare in full.

          which is idiotic IMO because said opponents are implacably opposed to universal or even expanded access to health care or health insurance in its entirety, and cannot be assuaged by partial concessions. if obama gives an inch, they'll take it and then demand more. there's no political point to conceding anything to them, they're not persuadable.

          but i believe that obama does this because his very temperment and political worldview is predicated upon conceding contested elements of policy in the (misguided) expectation that said concessions will inspire opponents to make concessions of their own, and compromise legislation will theoretically move forward, buoyed by the (long-extinct) spirit of pragmatic bipartisanship.

          i reject the idea that there is any legitimate reason to delay any aspect of obamacare,. the whole discussion of this delay is entirely political in nature, and rooted in flawed readings of the political field, his political opponents, and the electorate, IMO.

    •  Half the employers are ready to comply (11+ / 0-)
      Employers simply were not ready.

      The Affordable Care Act, signed into law by President Obama three years ago, required employers with more than 50 full-time workers to provide health benefits or face penalties, beginning next year.  An mandate that individuals buy health insurance or face a penalty is still on schedule and effects many more people.

      “Complying with the (Affordable Care Act) is an enormously complex task for many employers,” said J.D. Piro head of employee benefits consultancy Aon AON -0.06% Hewitt’s (AON) health legal practice, in a statement to Forbes.

      “In our recent research, more than half of large and mid-size employers said that complying with government regulations such as health care reform was one of the most significant challenges facing their organizations,” Piro said, referring to Aon Hewitt’s database of nearly 800 large to mid-sized U.S. employers that provide benefits to more than seven million people.

      The uncertainty and unease of employers came even despite efforts by the Obama administration to ease concerns. Therefore, another year to prepare will go a long way.

      “Even with the guidance already issued by the IRS, employers still had a lot of questions, particularly around the reporting requirements for 2014,” Piro said. “This postponement will give employers more time to understand the rules and implement these changes effectively within their organizations.”

      http://www.forbes.com/...

      Failure to comply could result in significant fees per employee, so it behooves employers and the administration to get it right so that implementation is a success.

      "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

      by FiredUpInCA on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:43:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They're ready, they had 3 years (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus

        They just don't want to do it.

        If Dem leaders were smart, they would just enroll everyone in the national exchange plan, give them all subsidies and call it single payer.

        But Dem leaders aren't all smart, nor are they honest.  

        "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

        by Betty Pinson on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:46:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's an interesting fantasy (3+ / 0-)

          But - believe it or not - the executive needs Congressional action before it can institute a program like that.

          Back in 2001 or 2002 Bush tried to implement a voluntary prescription drug for Medicare recipients plan by executive order. It was to be essentially a voluntary club that would negotiate with prescription drug suppliers and save money for the Medicare recipients.

          It lasted about six months before the courts shot it down. Bush did not have the required Congressional authorization. That's why Congress then had to pass the Part D of Medicare (with Medicare Advantage) which now is in effect

          Dems enrolling everyone in the national exchange plan would run into the same legal problems.

          The US Supreme Court has by its actions and rhetoric has ceased to be legitimate. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

          by Rick B on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:40:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  the party line is that the employer mandate (0+ / 0-)

      was too complex to implement, both on government and business side. The outcome will be more people in the exchanges subsidized by the government and employers keeping more money that would otherwise go towards a health care benefit.

      •  Very true, much cost shifting from employers (0+ / 0-)

        to the government, which could end up making the ACA too expensive.

        "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

        by Betty Pinson on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:56:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Because complicated projects take time to complete (4+ / 0-)

      Because good implimentations of good ideas take time to complete.

      Because when massive changes are brought to matters applicable to every single citizen, people should be allowed time to react to and plan for such large change.

      Because when you see a major change rammed through in the shortest possible time, you are watching Gov Scott Walker and the WI GOP screwing Wisconsin residents up the ass with fish hooks for lube.

      Because your question is worded to suggest the ACA is not a beneficial plan, so much so that I am not at all certain your disclaimer is sincere.

      I am not trying to stoke a fire here.
    •  I provide health insurance (82% of the cost) (8+ / 0-)

      for 18 employees and supplement my Mom and Grandma. It wasn't mandated that I do so, however it was and will be [next year or any other year] good for business. Healthy employees with good security fulfill contracts with little or no drama. Most people get their health insurance thru their employer because [I have to believe] those employers have made the same assessment. I've noticed that mandate on businesses seems to troubles employers that don't expect to have employees long term.

    •  Because the group plans for corporations have (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rick B

      not advanced far enough for most companies to be able to buy them by October.

      And because small businesses are effective in bitching.

      And because businesses don't go to hospital.  You do.  Buy a  minimal plan this year and when your employer offers a better plan with shared cost, take it and smile.

      We will never be free from fear as long as we fear the NRA.

      by captainlaser on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:22:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Very good question (0+ / 0-)

      Rolling back the date for the employer mandate weakens Obama and Dems strategy for making ACA work.

      The GOP is now attacking the individual mandate and, with the help of 22 Dems, passed a bill in the House yesterday rolling it back.

      Without the individual mandate - all these nice state exchange premium rates will skyrocket - they're based on big increases in enrollment by people who otherwise wouldn't buy insurance.

      The employer mandate rollback was a huge tactical error on Obama's part.  There was no good reason for him to do it.

      "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

      by Betty Pinson on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:36:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not really (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sethtriggs
        "Rolling back the date for the employer mandate weakens Obama and Dems strategy for making ACA work."
        Not true. Getting the program done right will make the program  a lot more difficult to demagogue. The minor delay will strengthen the ACA a great deal. Idiots parroting the overblown predictions of disaster rather clearly have no clue what they are talking about - or they are paid propagandists trying to tear down the current government so they can replace it and steal the taxpayers blind.

        Implementing a program requires predicting a time line and then trying to meet that time line. In this case the interactions between all the various parties made the time line inaccurate, so when that became clear it was necessary to reset it based on the much more complete information.

        The ACA is not an F35 program, and the ACA is a whole lot more important than an Air Force toy. There is already too much set into place to cancel the ACA.

        If the Republicans were to seriously try to cancel ACA they aren't smart enough to succeed in repeal.  They have demonstrated no competence in governance at all.

        If you think implementing a program this complicated is difficult (and it is) then imagine trying to just shut it down and reacting to all the people already getting benefits, planning to, or the medical personnel working in organizations like Accountable Care Organizations which have already been set up to implement the ACA. The media would never be able to resist reporting on the massive disasters that would ensue.

        The US Supreme Court has by its actions and rhetoric has ceased to be legitimate. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

        by Rick B on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:06:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site