It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New ObamaCare "Fees" coming in 2014

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


At this point, if Obamacare were to be scrapped....there would be tens of THOUSANDS more without any healthcare.
As dysfunctional as ACA is....what would happen to those people


I was talking to my doctor about ACA the other day....big surprise he is against it.
He said it was never meant to be healthcare......and we said together......
it was always meant to be an insurance bailout.
It's not going anywhere anytime soon.
Let's face it: insurance companies are about the biggest contributor to RISING and ever rising costs.




posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   

lynxpilot
So who is it that should provide healthcare and under what model? Bear in mind a medical doctor has a 4-year pre-med degree, a 4-year med degree, some sort of internship and 2 - 6 years of residency working for a pittance and paying back huge student loans. Oh, and what model was that?


Well you are right, obviously if we switch to single payor the state would have to either substantially subsidize or outright pay for the education of doctors.

I am pretty sure that is the way it works in other countries with single payor.

Now if what your getting at is the transition would be a bitch and many existing doctors would be pissed, well I agree.
All I know is medical costs are WAY out of hand, and while there are many flaws with single payor, it would certainly be a huge improvement over our current system.

I think we can have a hybrid system, basically both. Single payor doctors and hospitals, and high priced specialists. Simple economics would limit the number of patients the high priced doctors could serve. You would just need to change the law that they must be paid in full up front, and they must post their prices for procedures ahead of time so a free market can exist.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

diggindirt

I don't have the answer. I only know that if I had the money that I've paid for health insurance over the past 13 years with never a claim....oh, the fun I could have!


I've been paying for 20 years at an average of 5k per year. Now that I think about it health insurance has cost me my retirement. Same contribution into an S&P index fund would be worth in excess of $300,000.

I really can't afford to make the same mistake over the next 20 years.

I think unless you have substantial assets you are better off paying the penalty annually and only signing up if you ever face high medical cost. There will be a late entrance penalty but it will be much less than insurance costs over time. In most states Obamacare is not affordable unless you can get the government to pay for it. I don't think in any Satte comparable coverage has actually become cheaper. On this alone Obama has egg all over his face. It is clear as day that the insurance companies are using Obamacare to rip everyone off and it is vastly disappointing that Obama just sits there and takes it. If he can't enforce his own mandate he is not Presidential material. Every agency under the sun should be probing every orifice of all the insurance companies until they comply and start dealing honestly. If we had strong leadership in this country, many insurance execs would already be put in jail. There simply can be no justification of these rates absent bogus projections.

The next step for the Democrats if they ever want to be elected again, is to turn their backs on this abomination we call Obamacare. If not, we will be a completely Republican controlled country come 2016.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by jrod
 


The problem is that our government would run it.

Name me one government agency that is not bloated, corrupt and so inefficient that it could actually run your health care in a timely and efficient manner. Look at the NHS. It's one of the largest employers in the world with more employees than the US military has soldiers. If a country the size of Britain has that many bureaucrats to run their single payer system, then imagine the mess America's would become. Two thirds of the country would be employed by it with the rest trapped in it.

Oh, and usually there are laws keeping you from having any recourse to any other system if the one your government runs isn't any good or decides that you should just have the pain pill rather than pay for a perfectly viable treatment for you or diagnoses you with an aggressive cancer and tells you that your treatments will just begin in about six months because that's how long the waiting list is ... good luck.

edit on 26-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)


If it's all a test, what the government learned? That the only way to get loyalty is to buy it? That the welfare state needs to be expanded to get the control they want? I'm sure whatever lesson the government learns, they will spin it to justify taking away more freedom.



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


That's exactly the path we've decided on. I've put the money aside so that if it is needed, I can pay the premium and the penalty. I made that decision last year after discovering that my premiums had gone up by 33% again, for the 4th year in a row. I put the money aside and used that account like I formerly used my health savings account, only for health care needs. As of yesterday when I did a final tally for the year, 92% of that money is still in the account.

A friend just mentioned that his son, who is a graduate student, was told that his university will no longer be able to offer "student insurance" for a few hundred dollars a year and as a result, the student health center will have to find other funding or close. Just a rumor at this point but partially substantiated by the fact that his semester packet for January, which he got in early November, didn't include the usual application for student insurance.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   

DontTreadOnMe
reply to post by beezzer
 


At this point, if Obamacare were to be scrapped....there would be tens of THOUSANDS more without any healthcare.
As dysfunctional as ACA is....what would happen to those people


Actually, there would probably be millions without healthcare. I'm old enough to remember a time when, if you got sick or hurt, you went to the doctor and paid for it. I know many can cite tale after tale of high costs and tragic stories. But for the majority? Life won't change or be impacted if some lost their "health insurance".


I was talking to my doctor about ACA the other day....big surprise he is against it.
He said it was never meant to be healthcare......and we said together......
it was always meant to be an insurance bailout.
It's not going anywhere anytime soon.
Let's face it: insurance companies are about the biggest contributor to RISING and ever rising costs.


Insurance companies are a conduit for lawyer-money, Lobbyist-money. Sure, they'll profit from this.

But they'll also be the first ones thrown under the bus when this (ACA) fails.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   
The cost of President Obama’s massive health-care law will hit Americans in 2014 as new taxes pile up on their insurance premiums and on their income-tax bills.
Most insurers aren’t advertising the ObamaCare taxes that are added on to premiums, opting instead to discretely pass them on to customers while quietly lobbying lawmakers for a break.
But one insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, laid bare the taxes on its bills with a separate line item for “Affordable Care Act Fees and Taxes.”
The new taxes on one customer’s bill added up to $23.14 a month, or $277.68 annually, according to Kaiser Health News. It boosted the monthly premium from $322.26 to $345.40 for that individual.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
As most of you know, I like analogies.

They simplify things for my simple little (fluffy) mind.

Single-payer is a round peg.

Countries in Europe, Canada, Australia have round holes. It fits. It works.

America has a square hole. The US Constitution defines the hole as square. In order to fit the round peg, we'd have to change the Constitution (hole) to conform around the round peg.

That is why single-payer won't work here. In order to make single-payer work, America would have to stop being America and become some other type of country.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


social security is single-payer, Medicare is single-payer, veterans benefits is single-payer...doesn't seem to be a foreign concept



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   

jimmyx
reply to post by beezzer
 


social security is single-payer, Medicare is single-payer, veterans benefits is single-payer...doesn't seem to be a foreign concept


But it is not universal.

Add to the fact that Medicare is rife with fraud and waste and is poorly run.

Social Security is running out, that Ponzi-scheme is doomed to fail. I'm 50 and won't see a dime.

Veteran benefits, is a contractual obligation that the government is already weaseling out on!



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Yes to the above.

And, Social Security might be single payer, but it isn't the only retirement plan out there.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

beezzer

Add to the fact that Medicare is rife with fraud and waste and is poorly run.


And what happens when one gets caught defrauding the Medicare system?

You get to become governor of Florida! Rick Scott is a thief and fraudster but that did not stop him from being elected. He barely even made qualified for resident status when he ran in 2010.

I think this is the biggest problem in the US, we elect people who should be behind bars to very powerful positions and act surprised when they sell us out.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Let me break it down for you. I work in the insurance industry. We are being taxed on all existing clients by the government we have brought on since 2013. This means only cash rich companies can survive, your local guys have no chance. Going forward we are adding an ACA tax in our rates to compensate for this tax on our company which will increase up until 2018. (im sure then there will be new taxes)

now the exchanges that are being setup privately by large house brokers to keep clients in house are now taking standard commissions from 10% to 15% to account for all the fees. rates have increased and commissions so its getting pretty steep. Lets not mention how providers have gone down because of all the poor reimbursement rates.

so what does this mean...it means that the consumer be it on a individual or group plan through an employer will now pay these increased premiums because of all the taxes levied by the government to the carrier which levies it to the group or individual, then the government will tax you yet again on your wages


sounds fun doesn't it. everyone is being affected by this. not just people, businesses, brokers, carriers, etc. At least the people elected read it before voting oh wait...what......hahahahahahahhahaahh

forgot i'm sure the big companies have ways to write off these huge ACA bills what are due jan 2014
edit on 27-12-2013 by NONPOINT21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 



The republicans are not sure where to stand on this. Just give it time and folks will be clamoring loudly about what they should do with it.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ausername
 


While that is true and I can believe it, that is going to be pressure for congress to do just that, remember this, perhaps the only thing that is keeping the retirees and military safe for now.


One of your recent columns quotes Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) as stating, “I don’t believe anybody was promised free lifetime medical care. That’s a popular myth.” He further stated, “I think we have an obligation to the retired force to be generous and to be compassionate to help recruiting and retention. But, you know, there was never any contract with anybody that, for the rest of your life, you will get free medical care. That’s not part of the deal and was never part of the deal.”

Colonel George “Bud” Day, a lawyer and a Medal of Honor winner, took this implied free medical care issue for retiree to the Supreme Court and the court, in a compromise verdict, ruled that any military veteran who served prior to a date in 1956 and were honorably retired were eligible for free medical care under TRICARE For Life. There are few of us still living and our numbers decrease daily.

To extol the value of decreasing this hard-earned care to these veterans is abominable. Our block of veterans who qualify for this legally binding medical care is small and our political power is, for all practical senses, miniscule. But when the bureaucrats feast on $16 croissants, the GSA spends hundreds of thousands of dollars for trips to Hawaii and our Secret Service spends per diem and expense money on prostitutes, maybe it is understandable that we protest Graham’s attitude toward veterans’ medical costs.


militaryadvantage.military.com...

It will be a lot of military retirees out there that will take this again to the supreme court if the government starts to forget his duties to the service men and women.

Some whore politicians can call it a myth and a fallacy or fantasy but the reality of what is going on in our nation this days can not be hidden anymore

Government has become the biggest waster and abuser of tax dollars and they can never have the face to tell his retirees and military that they are worth nothing.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   

beezzer

Veteran benefits, is a contractual obligation that the government is already weaseling out on!


And you can see that they are already doing that, if nothing happen in January with the challenging of the bill we may as well kiss away military retirement, but that is ok as long as the government can keep the waste and abuse and the pay off whores for the secret service and cabals away.

What can I say, the well being of those that spy on us and their corruption is more important than those that serve the nation with honor.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Not to change the subject of the thread.
I have a question, I remember Forbes did an article on the 2007 Bush Jr. Health care proposal.
I read this in 2012 and the Forbes annalist were very impressed with the fact that Bush's plan would have reduced the Deficit by $334 Billion between 2007 and 2017.
Instead of costing the American Tax Payer,

Obamacare will cost $2.6 trillion dollars in its first real decade.

Obamacare now estimated at
But you know, when G. Bush Jr. made his Health care pitch, the Democrat's that controlled Congress at the time said his Plan was "Dead on Arrival". Yes, they wanted nothing to do with it, was that because it was Bush's Plan?
Granted, Bush was not the best President, but he had a good idea.
They also figure Bush's plan would have made insurance Cheap and Very Affordable to about 11 million. That’s not as large a coverage as Obamacare 33 million, but then as Obamacare achieved 33 million? Plus they reported with zero increase in federal spending commitments. V A Benefits Saved!
Actually, Obamacare has achieved mostly Cancelled Health Insurance Policies.

Enough of My Ranting from memory, My wife has found the article saved to her thumb drive.
I'll attach some of the highlights and the more intelligent of our readers here decide, Can We Morph Obamacare into Bush's 2007 Health Care Plan and well it be worth the trouble.
I will also attach a link to the actual article from Forbes so you can read it.

It’s long-forgotten now, because Democrats had just regained control of Congress, and these newly-empowered legislators pronounced the Bush plan “dead on arrival.” In many ways, though, the Bush proposal was impressive and credible. It would have expanded coverage while reducing the deficit. Should it serve as the starting point for replacing Obamacare?

I think So, But Who am I?

The Bush plan was formulated by the White House’s National Economic Council, under the leadership of Allan B. Hubbard. The core goal of the plan was to equalize the tax treatment of employer-sponsored and individually-purchased health insurance, without increasing the deficit. (As regular readers know, the fact that employers can purchase health insurance for their workers tax-free, whereas individuals can’t, is the original sin of the U.S. health-care system.)


Bush’s proposal sought to eliminate the unlimited tax break for employer-sponsored insurance, replacing it with a standard deduction for everyone. Under the plan, anyone—employed or not—who bought at least catastrophic insurance would not pay income or payroll taxes on the first $7,500 of their income, or the first $15,000 for a family plan.


President Bush also proposed an “Affordable Choices Initiative,” which would redirect existing federal spending in states that sought to expand coverage to the uninsured.

As you’ll remember, the 1986 EMTALA law forces hospital emergency rooms to care for anyone who shows up, regardless of their ability to pay. In order to partially compensate for this mandate, and underpayments from Medicaid and Medicare, the federal government gives most urban hospitals “disproportionate share hospital,” or DSH, payments. Bush proposed to shift these dollars away from hospitals and toward uninsured individuals directly.
States would design their own programs for expanding coverage, subject to approval by the HHS secretary, such as offering direct subsidies for insurance premiums, expanding or creating high-risk pools, or setting up Massachusetts-style exchanges. “Rather than perpetually pay the bills of uninsured people,” said then-HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt, “it’s better to use part of the money to help them get a basic insurance policy. They get better care and the money ultimately goes further.”



Unfortunately, Bush’s plan went nowhere in Congress. Democrats had zero partisan incentive to cooperate with Bush


The Lewin Group analyzed the Bush tax reform using its Health Benefits Simulation Model, and estimated that equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance would expand coverage by 9.2 million people. In addition, the Bush administration estimated that the Affordable Choices Initiative would expand coverage by an additional 2 million or so, for a total of about 11 million. That’s not as large a coverage expansion of Obamacare, at 33 million, but that 11 million is achieved with zero increase in federal spending commitments: a pretty impressive bang for the buck.


Even more impressively, the Joint Committee on Taxation—the government agency responsible for the CBO’s estimates of the impact of tax legislation—projected that the Bush proposal would reduce the deficit by $334 billion from 2008 to 2017, and by trillions more in later decades, because the tax deduction would grow at the rate of inflation, whereas the tax exclusion of employer-sponsored health insurance isn’t capped by law, and grows along with overall, and higher, health inflation.

How G. W. Bush would have replaced Obamacare
Just an article to increase the thought process of finding a replacement for Obamacare.
Thank you for going to the link and reading the article.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Typical Liberal...lie through your teeth, hide the offset money and all their minion fall into line like a bunch of love-sick ticks.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   

FarleyWayne
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Even Worse ???


More than half of the counties in 34 states using the federal health insurance exchange lack even a bronze plan that's affordable
USA Today

MY "Bewildering" Question: ... WHY? has this thing NOT (already) been ... "REPEAL"d ???

edit on 26-12-2013 by FarleyWayne because: ... STAR and FLAG


Because most people want this. They want to be able to acquire moderately priced health insurance that meets certain standards of care and are willing to pay for it for themselves and others. I can't tell you the number of people I know - dozens at least - that couldn't get health care at a price they could afford and are pleased with this new system. Many are young people who work multiple part time and/or temporary jobs with no benefits at all, whose parents don't have insurance either and/or can't pay for them. The list goes on and on.

It's not a perfect system but it is an improvement.

Taxes aren't a bad thing. Misused taxes are (military, corporate welfare, etc). Taxes are how we take care of ourselves and others. But then maybe you don't care about others and that is your right - but you still benefit from the system (all the infrasture networks and systems, education, health care, police and fire, etch).

I say if you aren't willing to do you fair share (pay) then we don't need you and you should find a free marketplace to live in.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

NONPOINT21
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Let me break it down for you. I work in the insurance industry. We are being taxed on all existing clients by the government we have brought on since 2013. This means only cash rich companies can survive, your local guys have no chance. Going forward we are adding an ACA tax in our rates to compensate for this tax on our company which will increase up until 2018. (im sure then there will be new taxes)

now the exchanges that are being setup privately by large house brokers to keep clients in house are now taking standard commissions from 10% to 15% to account for all the fees. rates have increased and commissions so its getting pretty steep. Lets not mention how providers have gone down because of all the poor reimbursement rates.

so what does this mean...it means that the consumer be it on a individual or group plan through an employer will now pay these increased premiums because of all the taxes levied by the government to the carrier which levies it to the group or individual, then the government will tax you yet again on your wages


sounds fun doesn't it. everyone is being affected by this. not just people, businesses, brokers, carriers, etc. At least the people elected read it before voting oh wait...what......hahahahahahahhahaahh

forgot i'm sure the big companies have ways to write off these huge ACA bills what are due jan 2014
edit on 27-12-2013 by NONPOINT21 because: (no reason given)


In short, wealth redistribution.

Those who can pay must be FORCED to pay more. Now you know why the key to obamacare success is in having millions of younger healthier Americans signed up and paying.

It's the law of the land.




top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join