Healthcare mandate: Union style

They aren't filing for an exemption because it is too expensive. They filed to an exemption because the plan has an annual cap on prescription drug costs that the law now prohibits.


What? You're just making shit up
Cite your source for that bullshit assertion

Here's the article

By Drew Armstrong, Bloomberg Business News
Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014.

FIGHTS: Lawsuits over health care law heat up
REFORM: A consumer primer for health insurance changes in 2011
WHAT'S CHANGING: Provisions of the new health law
HEALTH CARE: New website compares coverage prices
Q&A: Answers on adding adult children to health insurance

"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got."

The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 people. San Diego-based Jack in the Box's waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald's asked to excuse 115,000.

The plans will be exempt from rules intended to keep people from having to pay for all their care once they reach a preset coverage cap. McDonald's, which offers the programs as a way to cover part-time employees, told the Obama administration it might re-evaluate the plans unless it got a waiver.

McDonald's and Jack in the Box didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

The waiver program is intended to provide continuous coverage until 2014, when government-organized marketplaces will offer insurance subsidized by tax credits, says HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo.

The regulations would have hit some insurance plans for young adults in the universal coverage program run by the state of Massachusetts. The program, enacted in 2006, has a plan for individuals ages 18 to 26 who can't get coverage through work, covering about 5,000 people. The waiver obtained by the state "will give us time to implement the transition plan in a manner designed to mitigate premium increases," says Dick Powers, a spokesman for the state program.

The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says.
© 2010 Bloomberg L.P. All Rights Reserved
 
yes.... it is true... try talking to doctors, their lawyers, hospitals. It is standard CYA and it runs up the costs of health care. Because the more they do it, the more their bill is going to be to cover the needless tests, the more the insurance company is going to be billed, the more the insurance company raises premiums to cover the bills.


Where are the studies demonstrating the costs of defensive medicine? The CBO pegs the cost at 0.3% of health spending. That's not a "a large component."
 
The ignorance of the above suggests I should stop reading right there. I will still address some of the rest of your post, but the insurance industry does not have profit margins that are out of line with other sectors... in fact, the insurance industry tends to be in the bottom half of sectors.

Explain how health insurance fits a market model. You have been diligently paying your premium for 20 years. Your doctor just diagnosed you with cancer. It will require tens of thousands of dollars of treatments and medications. Your insurance provider says your cancer is not covered because you had a non malignant mole removed 10 years ago. What is your option? Threaten to take your cancer elsewhere?

no one said tort reform HAD to be federal. Second, the state does not 'dictate fair compensation'. Without reform it is left up to juries and judges. You whine about high costs then bitch about reforms that will help to stop defensive medical practices... which is a large component of high health care costs.

Without reform it is exactly what it should be, a judge and jury of your peers decide. Not the state. If I proposed limiting doctors salaries to no more than X dollars to lower premium costs what would you call me...a socialist, a Marxist and fascist???
 
Where are the studies demonstrating the costs of defensive medicine? The CBO pegs the cost at 0.3% of health spending. That's not a "a large component."

But it feeeeeeels true. Because trial lawyers donate to democrats. I want it to be true. Emotionally, it just feels right.
 
so the unions are trying to screw the employees by diverting to a plan that doesn't allow them everything their hearts desire?


These are not employees of the union. These are members of the union. The employers of the members offer health insurance that provides for physician care while the union offers insurance to cover prescription drug costs. It's basically the way the contract was negotiated to get employees covered for everything without the employer bearing the full cost. The drawback is that such limited plans are not going to be legal under the law and they'll have to figure out a solution. Until then, the union has requested and obtained a waiver.
 
And thus, they will be too expensive because the health bill did not make insurance costs go down

thanks for playing along!


No. Thus, they will be more expensive because insurance that has no annual coverage cap at all is more expensive than insurance that has an annual cap only $2,000.

It's go nothing to do with health care costs and everything to do with how much is covered.

This really isn't all that complicated.
 
You ignored my premise, you have to try again.
Exactly what premise is ignored? You came out with the age old, Obama/DNC endorsed "insurance companies are the problem because of their profits" fear mongering bullshit. The only thing ignored here is your ignoring reality in favor of DNC propaganda.

Insurance companies are in the service business. They provide a service for a fee. Service businesses cannot STAY in business if they develop a reputation of poor service. (No business will be in business long with a reputation of poor product.) As such, client satisfaction is a huge, in fact primary factor in their calculations when determining coverage. THAT is the factor ignored by all you "profit motive is bad for health care" morons. For every horror tale you can tell about denial of coverage or other situation, there are several thousand tales where the insurance client is well satisfied with the services received.
 
Where are the studies demonstrating the costs of defensive medicine? The CBO pegs the cost at 0.3% of health spending. That's not a "a large component."

link...

because I have debunked your 0.3% nonsense before. Take a look at your CBO report again... because if I recall correctly that 0.3% is the malpractice as a percentage of total health care.... and they include SOCIAL SECURITY as a part of total health care expenditures. They also do NOT include defensive medicine as a part of that 0.3%... they only include lawsuit awards.
 
No. Thus, they will be more expensive because insurance that has no annual coverage cap at all is more expensive than insurance that has an annual cap only $2,000.

It's go nothing to do with health care costs and everything to do with how much is covered.

This really isn't all that complicated.

It has to do with the union using money paid by the employees who had coverage, although it was inadequate, and who will risk losing the coverage in the future thanks to the law.

The union pushed for the law and then seeks to avoid it so the employees don't lose the little bit they were getting.


If they followed the Obamacare law, the union employees would lose that little bit of coverage and be forced to purchase far greater coverage no matter how much they have budgeted for insurance.


You are arguing about the cause of the loss.

I'm pointing out how stupid it is to pay unions to screw yourself

Do you see the distinction?
 
These are not employees of the union. These are members of the union. The employers of the members offer health insurance that provides for physician care while the union offers insurance to cover prescription drug costs. It's basically the way the contract was negotiated to get employees covered for everything without the employer bearing the full cost. The drawback is that such limited plans are not going to be legal under the law and they'll have to figure out a solution. Until then, the union has requested and obtained a waiver.

so yes, the union is trying to screw the union members.... thanks.
 
Exactly what premise is ignored? You came out with the age old, Obama/DNC endorsed "insurance companies are the problem because of their profits" fear mongering bullshit. The only thing ignored here is your ignoring reality in favor of DNC propaganda.

NO, I didn't. The only 'propaganda' is you telling me WHAT I said.

Insurance companies are in the service business. They provide a service for a fee. Service businesses cannot STAY in business if they develop a reputation of poor service. (No business will be in business long with a reputation of poor product.) As such, client satisfaction is a huge, in fact primary factor in their calculations when determining coverage. THAT is the factor ignored by all you "profit motive is bad for health care" morons. For every horror tale you can tell about denial of coverage or other situation, there are several thousand tales where the insurance client is well satisfied with the services received.

It is not about 'numbers', it is about human beings. If you believe denials are acceptable then it should be no problem for YOU to stand in their place and be faced with the most life threatening illness in your life, AND the most economical crisis at the same time. Try to face dying and bankruptcy at the same time.
 
Tell me DUNG.... what is the CBO basing their numbers off of? Is the CBO reviewing hospital billing statements, interviewing doctors or hospitals? HOW are they deriving the amount they put towards defensive medicine dung?


I've provided this information to you on numerous occasions and I'm not doing it again. Clearly, it hasn't sunk in. In brief, the CBO conducted its own research and relied on peer reviewed studies of the costs of defensive medicine published since 2006, the last time the CBO addressed this issue. In other words, real research.
 
I've provided this information to you on numerous occasions and I'm not doing it again. Clearly, it hasn't sunk in. In brief, the CBO conducted its own research and relied on peer reviewed studies of the costs of defensive medicine published since 2006, the last time the CBO addressed this issue. In other words, real research.

translation: "I dont know how the CBO derived its estimates, I know the CBO included SS in their calculations and dont want that crammed in my face again, and oh crap... look, I am going to shout 'peer-reviewed study' and see if that works to distract people.... Because the last thing I want to do is actually provide anything to back up my own stupidity."

Yeah... because DOCTORS would have NO CLUE about defensive medicine practices. I am sure we need ACADEMICS and GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTANTS to tell the doctors what is going on in their practices.
 
translation: "I dont know how the CBO derived its estimates, I know the CBO included SS in their calculations and dont want that crammed in my face again, and oh crap... look, I am going to shout 'peer-reviewed study' and see if that works to distract people.... Because the last thing I want to do is actually provide anything to back up my own stupidity."

No need to translate. I was quite clear.

Yeah... because DOCTORS would have NO CLUE about defensive medicine practices. I am sure we need ACADEMICS and GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTANTS to tell the doctors what is going on in their practices.

Whether doctors have a clue or not is irrelevant. Let's assume that all doctors in the United States utilize the exact same definition of "defensive medicine" and know the exact percentage of their practice that meets that definition. Assume that to be true for purposes of argument. Even in that case, conducting a survey of doctors in the United States is not a legitimate research tool to find out the cost of defensive medicine.
 
No need to translate. I was quite clear.

Yes you were... you refuse to show anything to support your bullshit party line. That was quite clear.

Whether doctors have a clue or not is irrelevant. Let's assume that all doctors in the United States utilize the exact same definition of "defensive medicine" and know the exact percentage of their practice that meets that definition. Assume that to be true for purposes of argument. Even in that case, conducting a survey of doctors in the United States is not a legitimate research tool to find out the cost of defensive medicine.

It is not going to be a precise tool by any means, but it is not designed as such. It is designed to give us a rough idea of what goes into each medical bill. But I know, you would rather rely on government accountants to tell you what they think. Face it... you want to protect the status quo. You could care less about reducing costs, you just want to nationalize the system because that is what your master told you to want.
 
Back
Top