http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/03/27/oh--health-overhaul-costs-ohio.html

"Medical claims costs in Ohio could jump an average 81 percent for individual policy holders by 2017 under the federal health care law, according to a study by the nation's leading group of financial risk analysts says."

"The Society of Actuaries report said the increase will largely be due to people in poorer health joining the individual insurance pool."

"The Obama administration questioned the design of the Society of Actuaries' study, saying it focused only on one piece of the puzzle and ignored cost relief strategies in the law, such as tax credits to help people afford premiums and special payments to insurers who attract an outsize share of the sick. The study also doesn't take into account the potential price-cutting effect of competition in new state insurance markets that will go live Oct. 1, administration officials said"

"She (Lt. Gov Mary Taylor) said the best way to address the potential jump in claims costs would be for the federal government to allow states the flexibility to come up with their own solutions."

"According to the Milliman report, a healthy young man in the individual market could experience a rate increase of between 90 percent and 130 percent, while a 60-year-old with chronic health conditions may see a significant premium decrease. """ "

The fine for companies not providing health insurance will be lower than the cost of insurance.

The obama Disaster Tour rolls on.



Change we can believe in .........

This is only the beginning .... Brought to you by the Democratic Socialist Party

A lot of disinformation going on here. Try your luck here:

http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx

Here is a little something that maybe will even help belly understand the ACA.

http://healthreform.kff.org/the-animation.aspx?source=QL

Con_Alma;1415307 wrote:The fine for companies not providing health insurance will be lower than the cost of insurance.

But I thought no one was going to lose the coverage they had?


Wait, let me get this straight. Coverage is dramatically expanded, new requirements are mandated, the ability of insurers to differentiate prices based on risk is curtailed, lots of sick and actuarilly uninsurable people get dumped into the pools, and people are surprised costs will go up?

Given those factors, either costs go up to consumers, reimbursements go down for providers, or consumers get worse service /longer waits. That isn't politics: that's math, as we're going to find out soon.

Companies are going to drop insurance, only a matter of time. They can pay the fine or pay multiples more for insurance, which do you think they will choose? For a company that has 1 million employees, will save hundreds of millions.

fan_from_texas;1415334 wrote:But I thought no one was going to lose the coverage they had?


...

Why? ...because they said so?

On Health Care, Conservatives Protest Too Much
Lately conservatives have been feeling like losers in health care and complaining loudly about it. They don't like Obamacare or the increase in the government's role in health care or the federal spending it brings with it, even if those things result in coverage for more than 30 million uninsured Americans and new protections from the worst abuses in the health insurance industry.
Actually, conservatives are winning at least as much as they are losing in health care, even if they don't know it or won't say it, because out in the real world of health insurance, beneath the politicized debate about Obamacare, the vision of health insurance they have always championed -- high deductible plans that give consumers lots of "skin in the game" -- is steadily prevailing in the marketplace. Moreover, the conservative vision of "skin in the game" insurance could actually get a boost from the health reform law.
Half of all workers in small firms now pay deductibles of $1,000 or more a year, and the percentage of workers in all firms paying big deductibles has tripled in the last six years. In the last five years the average deductible for single coverage has gone from $616 to $1,097 in all firms that have deductibles, and from $852 to $1,596 in small firms. Estimates are that in the basic plan offered in the health insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act, deductibles could be over $4,000 for individual policies and over $8,000 for family policies. These are big deductibles by any standard. Yes, the minimum coverage people will have to buy under Obamacare will be just the kind of "skin in the game" insurance that conservatives have always favored.
But from start to finish, the health care reform debate has not been about facts but about ideology and partisanship. Conservatives are certainly not happy that the Affordable Care Act has survived a Supreme Court challenge and an election and will now be implemented and will not be repealed. But even as they continue to vilify the law, they must take solace in the fact that many states are still balking at implementing major provisions that conservatives do not like, such as the law's insurance exchanges or its Medicaid expansion, which the Supreme Court made optional. Only 18 states and D.C. have chosen to implement their own insurance exchanges, and only seven are planning exchanges that are active purchasers, the more aggressive kind of exchange that liberals and consumer advocates would like because they weed out plans with high premiums.
The success of the Affordable Care Act now hinges on implementation, and more than any other single factor, the fate of the law will depend on what states do and how well they do it. The federal government will step in and operate exchanges in states that choose not to do so, but there is no federal fallback on Medicaid; if a state like Texas or Florida does not opt to expand coverage under the ACA, it will not happen.
It will behoove the Obama administration and advocates of the law to actively nurture pacesetting states so that they have tangible success stories to point to in 2014 and models that other states can learn from and emulate. If even a relatively small number of states can show that uninsured people are being covered in large numbers, that federal funding is flowing as promised to the states and to individuals who qualify for insurance subsidies, that the new health insurance reforms are working as planned and that coverage is affordable and, as in Massachusetts, the public is accepting the individual mandate, then other states will take notice, whatever the ideological predispositions of their governors or legislators. It is already clear that the test in 2014 will not be whether the law is working perfectly everywhere (there isn't time for that to happen, and it won't be) but whether it can work as intended. If a handful of states can demonstrate that, then the others will want to follow.

http://www.kff.org/pullingittogether/altman_aca_second_term.cfm

ccrunner609;1415339 wrote:[video=youtube;3-Ilc5xK2_E][/video]

#1 problem "cost"- 1:30 in........could of done tort reform on current insterstate commerce laws and solved that problem.

#2 problem- "holes in the system"- once again, untie the free market and people get covered.

If what you claim was actually true, than why was it not done long ago?

I have a plan for companies with 30 plus employees and a good friend of mine who has 90 employee have been thinking about taking my advice

1. Make two companies out of the one. ( 90 employes = 45 each) Using the same software and location but just under different federal ID
2. Take whatever staff required as full time (spliting between the two companies) and everyone else less that 30 hours per week.

If you didn't like premium increases before; you will not like significantly higher increases in the future.

If you did not like waiting for service before; you will not like significantly worse service in the future.

If you did not appreciate medical innovation before; you will not like curtailed innovation in the future.

If you did not already appreciate the finest health CARE in the world; wait until you witness its destruction.



Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.


Change we can believe in .... (and 65 million morons voted for it, again)

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/27/hhs-secretary-finally-admits-obamacare-is-raising-insurance-costs/


Can't lie forever

Costs are going up and up and doctors are getting poorer. Have to admit, that's one hell of a trick.

My wife works for a large medical center, she deals with insurance claims and coding. She told me just a few minutes ago that insurance billing and coding is now being altered.... Bottom line is simple

Less coverage for patients
More insurance rejection for client care
More time delay for payment
Less payment to doctors
Client care can be cut off via insurance company with out approval from insurance board for additional treatment.

Belly35;1415363 wrote:I have a plan for companies with 30 plus employees and a good friend of mine who has 90 employee have been thinking about taking my advice

1. Make two companies out of the one. ( 90 employes = 45 each) Using the same software and location but just under different federal ID
2. Take whatever staff required as full time (spliting between the two companies) and everyone else less that 30 hours per week.

I've seen that idea floating around and my understanding is that isn't going to work. They are going to combine those entities when doing the calculation, even going so far as someone owning several completely separate small businesses is now going to get whacked when those numbers are combined - say your wife owns a restaurant and you run a small construction company and all those people will get lumped together.

The only way around it appears to be reducing people to part time (<32 hours, or maybe 29.5, not sure). I guess #2 will work, but #1 won't.

Fuck.

gut;1415546 wrote:I've seen that idea floating around and my understanding is that isn't going to work. They are going to combine those entities when doing the calculation, even going so far as someone owning several completely separate small businesses is now going to get whacked when those numbers are combined - say your wife owns a restaurant and you run a small construction company and all those people will get lumped together.

The only way around it appears to be reducing people to part time (<32 hours, or maybe 29.5, not sure). I guess #2 will work, but #1 won't.

I can't see that happening. If so it would get challenged hard in the courts.

ccrunner609;1415570 wrote:are you kidding, it would mean that the government would give up power. If all they did was drop the interstate commerce laws in regards to selling insurance across state line, open up the free market even more, insurance gets cheaper. Its how our system works. But this moron and his administration wanted the power grab and the voted.

I could be wrong here (and I often am), but I think the point Abe is trying to make is that the points you make, if true, should have been done years ago, before Obamacare was even a thought. Before the D's started talking about any kind of health care reform no one talked about it because they thought the system was just fine without reform.

WebFire;1416792 wrote:I can't see that happening. If so it would get challenged hard in the courts.

I believe it's already part of the law. And they close loopholes all the time, and go after tax dodges as well. I don't think a shell concept will get you around Obamakare now, much less in the future. It's not really even a particularly new concept - if it's the law it's not going to be overturned in court.

As for the part-timers, I don't know why it wasn't just based on equivalent heads. Maybe at some point it will. I don't think it's a particularly viable option, anyway. Perhaps for a business right on the margin they can reduce a few admins or maintenance people to get under the threshold, but otherwise it's not a particularly practical dodge.

stlouiedipalma;1416855 wrote:I could be wrong here (and I often am), but I think the point Abe is trying to make is that the points you make, if true, should have been done years ago, before Obamacare was even a thought. Before the D's started talking about any kind of health care reform no one talked about it because they thought the system was just fine without reform.

Revisionist history is fun huh? So no one talked about these things during the health care discussions and debates? You can't be serious.

jmog;1416957 wrote:Revisionist history is fun huh? So no one talked about these things during the health care discussions and debates? You can't be serious.

C'mon...in order to vote for Obama - and feel good about it - you have to dismiss any and all criticism. No one even tries to defend the guy any more, critics are simply liars or haters.

stlouiedipalma;1416855 wrote:I could be wrong here (and I often am), but I think the point Abe is trying to make is that the points you make, if true, should have been done years ago, before Obamacare was even a thought. Before the D's started talking about any kind of health care reform no one talked about it because they thought the system was just fine without reform.

If that helps.

Con_Alma;1415307 wrote:The fine for companies not providing health insurance will be lower than the cost of insurance.

That's not a bug, it is a feature.

The goal all along has been to get employers to dump their workers insurance, with the hope that enough uninsured will finally usher in the Liberal dream of single payer healthcare.

Big business has dreamed about the day they can rid themselves of healthcare costs as profitability would fly through the stratosphere.

Government has lusted after the day they could get their hands on the ability to put everyone under their wing as far as providing healthcare goes as they love the control aspect of it.

The day is not far away in which they team up to make both of their long held dreams come true.