Health Benefits Come Under Knife Ahead Of ObamaCare

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Health Benefits Come Under Knife Ahead Of ObamaCare


news.investors.com

Rather, a likely culprit is a shift in the mix of full-time workers who will come under ObamaCare's employer mandate and part-time workers who won't.
Employers who offer full-time workers coverage can escape a potential fine of $3,000 per worker if employees work fewer than 30 hours per week.
BLS data, though volatile from month to month, clearly show that retailers have been cutting the average workweek for nonsupervisory employees over the past year.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The misnamed Affordable Care Act has shown itself to be anything but. People are getting screwed out of their current health insurance as a direct result of how this travesty of a bill was passed.
Personally, I can only see two good provisions from this bill.
1) People with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage. They should be charged market rates though

2) Young people can stay on their parent's coverage longer.

The rest of the bill should be totally scrapped. Most especially the part coercing Americans to buy a product they do not want. That goes against everything this country used to stand for.

news.investors.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


2) Young people can stay on their parent's coverage longer.


I have a few problems with this part of Obamacare due to a familial situation. My step-niece is pregnant with her second child and is still on her parents insurance. She lives with her boyfriend and her 2 1/2 year old son, who is also on his grandparents insurance. Both niece and her boyfriend work full time and live on their own and pay their own bills, but do not get married just so that she and her child/children can stay on her parents insurance. I don't feel like this was the intended purpose for kids being able to stay on their parent's insurance longer. I may get flamed for that but I feel once you have established your own family, especially with children, and are living on your own and doing well enough that you are receiving no public assistance that you should be getting your own insurance. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the clause was for parents with kids in college or who were still residing at home.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by littled16
~snip~

Both niece and her boyfriend work full time and live on their own and pay their own bills, but do not get married just so that she and her child/children can stay on her parents insurance.

~snip~




According to Healthcare.gov, getting married would not disqualify her from her parents insurance.

Young Adult Coverage


Your children can join or remain on your plan even if they are:
married
not living with you
attending school
not financially dependent on you
eligible to enroll in their employer’s plan



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by tjack
 
I'm supposing they are unaware of that, and I will pass the word along as they really do want to get married. I still don't think that they should remain on her parent's insurance when they can well afford their own.

This:

Your children can join or remain on your plan even if they are:
married
not living with you
attending school
not financially dependent on you
eligible to enroll in their employer’s plan

Other than the clause of attending school makes absolutely no sense to me. If you are married, not living with your parents, not financially dependent on your parents and are eligible and financially able to get insurance through your own employer why on earth should you remain on your parent's insurance?

edit on 6/14/13 by littled16 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 

As long as the contract and prices are agreed to between the parents and the insurance company, I see no reason why the daughter and children should not be able to stay on the "family" policy indefinitely. The main thing, imo, is that government has no place whatsoever in this transaction as long as no fraud is taking place. Let the free-market, I mean the REAL free-market not what we have now, decide what it wants. That is the essence of REAL capitalism and free-market economics. Not this half communist/half fascist(corporatist) bastardized hell spawn we have now.
edit on 14-6-2013 by DarthMuerte because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by littled16

Other than the clause of attending school makes absolutely no sense to me. If you are married, not living with your parents, not financially dependent on your parents and are eligible and financially able to get insurance through your own employer why on earth should you remain on your parent's insurance?
Lower "group rate" insurance prices? Sounds good to me.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by littled16

Other than the clause of attending school makes absolutely no sense to me. If you are married, not living with your parents, not financially dependent on your parents and are eligible and financially able to get insurance through your own employer why on earth should you remain on your parent's insurance?
Lower "group rate" insurance prices? Sounds good to me.


So exactly, Just WHAT is the GROUP rate?



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   


People with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage. They should be charged market rates though

I'm not trying to go off topic, but I'd like to add to your above statement.
Yes, unfortunately the people with pre-existing condition are going to notice a higher rate for coverage or else others will be paying more, by others I also include the American Tax Payer.

As Obamacare went into effect, two temporary programs were established in March 2010, the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program and the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) program. Each program is supposed to operate through Dec. 31, 2013, after which their respective enrollees are supposed to transition into the health insurance Exchanges established by Obamacare. Each program was allotted $5 billion.

OK, so that's a budget of $10 Billion,,, right?

By the end of January 2013, the GAO found that PCIP spending had reached $2.6 billion, more than half of its $5 billion budget.


Enrollment varied widely. Vermont had 1 enrollee, for example, and California had 15,101.

So,, who's paying for that extra $2.6 Billion? The enrollees or tax payers?
To answer my question:

Further, the CCIIO “instituted benefit changes for the federally run PCIP that shifted more costs onto enrollees starting in January 2013,” reported the GAO. “For example, it increased enrollees’ out of pocket maximum for in-network services from $4,000 to $6,250 and for out-of-network services from $7,000 to $10,000.”

To tell the Truth,,, I don't trust anything anyone in Obamas group of thugs has to say. If Obamacare is to continue, the tax payer will be picking up the extra cost.

The report concluded, “Finally, due to growing concerns about the rate of PCIP spending, in February 2013, CCIIO suspended PCIP enrollment to ensure the appropriated funding would be sufficient to cover claims for current enrollees through the end of the program.” - See more at: cnsnews.com...

You did catch that part didn't you,,,,The word Suspended!!! Yes, until they find away for the tax payer to unknowingly pay!


edit on 14-6-2013 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I believe we'll all be surprised, no one really knows yet how the cards will fall. I'm just thankful I don't earn much so I'll be under the clip.

No, I'm not on welfare or any public assistance.
edit on 14-6-2013 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Why shouldn't everyone get the same kind of taxpayer funded health care that the congressmen and reps get?


My current health plan dropped me when I reached 55 for the most bogus reasons. I had never even filed a claim. All that money down the rat hole.

Anything would be better than the system in place now.
edit on 14-6-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by olaru12

Why shouldn't everyone get the same kind of taxpayer funded health care that the congressmen and reps get?


My current health plan dropped me when I reached 55 for the most bogus reasons. I had never even filed a claim. All that money down the rat hole.

Anything would be better than the system in place now.
edit on 14-6-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

HUH,,, You will be getting the same deal,,, and their not happy with their future either.

Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare that they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting. The fear: Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive.


Sources said several aides have already given lawmakers notice that they’ll be leaving over concerns about Obamacare. Republican and Democratic lawmakers said the chatter about retiring now, to remain on the current health care plan, is constant. Read more: www.politico.com...

So, yes I think every one is going to be in the same boat.
Bend-Over.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by guohua
 


Huh?............why the snarky reply? It's just a discussion on the web.

I joined a union so at least I can get some kind of Health insurance provided by the union. Affordable and excellent coverage.

Obamacare allows for you to keep your existing coverage. That's what I plan to do.


healthcarereform.procon.org...
edit on 14-6-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by guohua
 


Huh?............why the snarky reply? It's just a discussion on the web.

I joined a union so at least I can get some kind of Health insurance provided by the union. Affordable and excellent coverage.

Obamacare allows for you to keep your existing coverage. That's what I plan to do.


healthcarereform.procon.org...
edit on 14-6-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)


Excuse Me,, but what was the Snarky part?
Didn't meant to sound that way. But then again, maybe your just not in a understanding mood

I hope you get to keep that union plan you have, but if you read a little deeper into Obamacare,,, you more than likely won't.
You may not know this, but the Government workers have a union also, AFGE, They won't get to keep their present plan, as a matter of face.
BC/BS is the largest of those providers ( I have BC/BS, I'm Retired FLEO ) and they'll tell you, they won't be staying with their current plans, All things must change.
Thank You for asking,,, I won't have to worry, I'm grandfathered-in

Try reading, 50 Threats from ObamaCare.

Pg 72, lines 8-14 creates a Health Care Exchange to bring private health insurance plans under government control. This part of the bill reveals Obama’s lies about being able to keep your plan if you like it. Any health insurance plan which does not completely rework itself to conform to these regulations will be dropped from the exchange and those insured will have to pick one of the plans in the exchange. This is why the Congressional Budget Office determined that over 20 million will lose the coverage they are now enjoying if Obamacare is implemented.

www.coachisright.com...
edit on 14-6-2013 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by tjack
 
I'm supposing they are unaware of that, and I will pass the word along as they really do want to get married. I still don't think that they should remain on her parent's insurance when they can well afford their own.

This:

Your children can join or remain on your plan even if they are:
married
not living with you
attending school
not financially dependent on you
eligible to enroll in their employer’s plan

Other than the clause of attending school makes absolutely no sense to me. If you are married, not living with your parents, not financially dependent on your parents and are eligible and financially able to get insurance through your own employer why on earth should you remain on your parent's insurance?

edit on 6/14/13 by littled16 because: (no reason given)


It sounds like your niece's parents don't have the cojones to tell their daughter they want her to get her own insurance.
I mean, they aren't FORCED to include her on their policy -- the law just ALLOWS her to be included (until age 26, at which time she will be forced to get her own insurance). Yes, there are young adult kids who are struggling financially, so their parents may offer to keep them on their insurance policy to help them out. But, lots of kids who are living away from home and financially independent are on their own insurance, so it sounds like the niece is just taking advantage of her parents.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 
I agree that it's taking advantage of her parents, but she isn't alone. Of everyone I know with adult children still on their insurance NONE of them reimburse the parents for their share of the insurance premiums (none live at home, only one is a college student) and yet they can afford all of the latest electronic gadgets, $100 jeans and shoes and go out nearly every weekend. I think this clause in Obamacare just allows more grown kids to take advantage of their parents, and I think the parents need to cut the apron strings!



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Republicans will be delighted by this. They've been demanding the reduction of 'entitlements' ever since Obama took office.

Cuts to health benefits are just what they've wanted all along.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by kaylaluv
 
I agree that it's taking advantage of her parents, but she isn't alone. Of everyone I know with adult children still on their insurance NONE of them reimburse the parents for their share of the insurance premiums (none live at home, only one is a college student) and yet they can afford all of the latest electronic gadgets, $100 jeans and shoes and go out nearly every weekend. I think this clause in Obamacare just allows more grown kids to take advantage of their parents, and I think the parents need to cut the apron strings!



I wouldn't really blame Obamacare for the kids taking advantage. There are some parents who are relieved they can help their kids who are genuinely struggling right now.

As far as the kids taking advantage, all the parents have to do is call their insurance company and tell them they are dropping someone from their policy. Done.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


2) Young people can stay on their parent's coverage longer.


I have a few problems with this part of Obamacare due to a familial situation. My step-niece is pregnant with her second child and is still on her parents insurance. She lives with her boyfriend and her 2 1/2 year old son, who is also on his grandparents insurance. Both niece and her boyfriend work full time and live on their own and pay their own bills, but do not get married just so that she and her child/children can stay on her parents insurance. I don't feel like this was the intended purpose for kids being able to stay on their parent's insurance longer. I may get flamed for that but I feel once you have established your own family, especially with children, and are living on your own and doing well enough that you are receiving no public assistance that you should be getting your own insurance. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the clause was for parents with kids in college or who were still residing at home.



Back to an old argument here: why do we make it less desirable to get married?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Obama care has completely screwed up my life.

I was in school full time, to finish up my degree.

Husband working full time.

Obama care goes into effect.

Husband's hours are cut to part time. Insurance goes bye bye.

Husband starts looking for job, can't find a 2nd one. Still can't.

His paycheck is taxed heavily.

I have to put college on hold to work 2 part time jobs in order for us to not starve to death.

My check is taxed heavily.

We are still struggling.

Found out last month that with our current income we would never qualify for medicaid even though we are riding the poverty line.

I was told that our annual household income could NOT exceed 10,000 a year. That's right, 10 k a year for us to qualify for medicaid.

So basically my husband and I will be paying for someone's elses health care, yet WE cannot afford a health care plan for ourselves and we will be fined at the end of the year because we can't get one.

All the jobs are going to part time up here.

Now, how in the hell will I ever get health care? I won't. But I will be paying for someone else to get it, while money is continually sifted out of my check for it.

Something seems really wrong about all this.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join