Forbes article "ways to protect yourself against Obamacare"

[BanginJimmy]

You say you agree preexisting conditions need to be covered but you don't want the mandate. How can you have one without the other. Someone has to subsidize those with preexisting conditions or else their premiums would be unaffordable. If healthy people aren't forced to buy insurance, where will the money come from to pay for the less than healthy?

Read what I said again. Income based premiums for a new part of medicare for those that have long term pre existing conditions.


Side note, another major flaw has been discovered in Obamacare. You will see several states opting out of the state run exchanges in favor of the federal exchange. This is a strategic move. Because of the way the employer mandate was written, employers in states that opt for the federal exchange will not be subject to the fines for not providing coverage.

To make things better, revenue bills must start in the House. Since the mandate is a tax, legislation to fix the employer mandate has to start in the House. This means it wont be fixed and Obamacare just got tens of billions more expensive annually.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[bu villain]

Read what I said again. Income based premiums for a new part of medicare for those that have long term pre existing conditions.

Income based premiums makes it more affordable for those with preexisting conditions but it doesn't lower the actual cost of their care. Who is going to pay for the cost of that care? In an insurance market, you can't just lower the amount one group pays without bringing in more revenue from somewhere else to counterbalance it. The money must either come from increased premiums for everyone else or by expanding the number of people in the market. Also without the mandate, why should healthy people pay for insurance when they can sign up the day after they get a condition?

Side note, another major flaw has been discovered in Obamacare. You will see several states opting out of the state run exchanges in favor of the federal exchange. This is a strategic move. Because of the way the employer mandate was written, employers in states that opt for the federal exchange will not be subject to the fines for not providing coverage.

Ah, I was wondering why some many red states were voluntarily giving power to the federal gov. Thanks for clarifying that.

To make things better, revenue bills must start in the House. Since the mandate is a tax, legislation to fix the employer mandate has to start in the House. This means it wont be fixed and Obamacare just got tens of billions more expensive annually.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Wouldn't that make it more likely to get fixed since the house is republican controlled and they claim lowering the deficit is a top priority?

[BanginJimmy]

Income based premiums makes it more affordable for those with preexisting conditions but it doesn't lower the actual cost of their care. Who is going to pay for the cost of that care? In an insurance market, you can't just lower the amount one group pays without bringing in more revenue from somewhere else to counterbalance it. The money must either come from increased premiums for everyone else or by expanding the number of people in the market. Also without the mandate, why should healthy people pay for insurance when they can sign up the day after they get a condition?

There is nothing anywhere in Obamacare that will lower costs. It is only shifting the current costs and the costs of the new mandates on to someone else. Eliminating Obamacare and insuring the people with pre existing conditions through medicare will be far cheaper. As for solvency of medicare, its time to goto income based premiums, or even eligibility, for that also.

Ah, I was wondering why some many red states were voluntarily giving power to the federal gov. Thanks for clarifying that.

This may be a huge economic boom for those states as mobile employers will be able to avoid all of the extra taxes and fines.

Wouldn't that make it more likely to get fixed since the house is republican controlled and they claim lowering the deficit is a top priority?

Republican House now as more ammo to attack Obamacare. Dems dont care about deficits so it wont be repealed outright, but GOP now has a chance to actually replace it with something that may actually work to reduce the costs.

[bu villain]

There is nothing anywhere in Obamacare that will lower costs. It is only shifting the current costs and the costs of the new mandates on to someone else. Eliminating Obamacare and insuring the people with pre existing conditions through medicare will be far cheaper. As for solvency of medicare, its time to goto income based premiums, or even eligibility, for that also.

So instead of having the mandate and keeping more people in the private healthcare industry, you actually want to add millions more to the government program? The cost isn't really shifting much either way The costs are born by all Americans via higher insurance premiums (Obamacare method) or all Americans via higher medicare taxes (your method). Why do you think going through medicare will be far cheaper?

Republican House now as more ammo to attack Obamacare. Dems dont care about deficits so it wont be repealed outright, but GOP now has a chance to actually replace it with something that may actually work to reduce the costs.

Well fixed or replaced. Just a semantics issue really.

[BanginJimmy]

So instead of having the mandate and keeping more people in the private healthcare industry, you actually want to add millions more to the government program? The cost isn't really shifting much either way The costs are born by all Americans via higher insurance premiums (Obamacare method) or all Americans via higher medicare taxes (your method). Why do you think going through medicare will be far cheaper?

The extra premiums required within the private health insurance system will handcuff many employers and their employees. You will likely see something in the nature of a 25% increase in premiums to cover the millions of long term, high cost pre existing conditions. Think of how many thousands of healthy customers that only get their monthly birth control and check-ups it will take to cover someone with cancer. Remember, that cancer patient cannot be charged more for their coverage than a healthy customer.

Millions more will be added to medicare and medicaid anyways. Using income based premiums will simply be a way offset some of the costs. Even doubling medicare taxes will not cost tax payers as much as the insurance mandate will. And I will repeat, there is nothing in Obamacare that will lower costs at any level of the healthcare system.

Well fixed or replaced. Just a semantics issue really.

I dont think there is a way to fix Obamacare. There are thousands of lawyers waiting to file lawsuits but cannot do it until Jan 1, 2014. The real question is, will it matter. If Obama gets another SCOTUS appointment before the new challenges hit the court the decision would have already been made before the first argument. As it is, the SC is about as impartial as any other political establishment. You might as well dump the other 8 Justices and just let Kennedy hear the cases. We already know how the other 8 will vote on about 90% of the cases they hear.

[bu villain]

The extra premiums required within the private health insurance system will handcuff many employers and their employees.

Many people already feel handcuffed to their employers for health benefits but that's another issue. Everyone knows that health benefits through employers is a WW2 relic that makes no sense in the current environment.

You will likely see something in the nature of a 25% increase in premiums to cover the millions of long term, high cost pre existing conditions. Think of how many thousands of healthy customers that only get their monthly birth control and check-ups it will take to cover someone with cancer. Remember, that cancer patient cannot be charged more for their coverage than a healthy customer.

But you still haven't answered why a 25% increase in premiums is worse than an increase in taxes to pay for the same people's health coverage through medicare.

Millions more will be added to medicare and medicaid anyways. Using income based premiums will simply be a way offset some of the costs. Even doubling medicare taxes will not cost tax payers as much as the insurance mandate will.

By offset the costs, you mean rich people will bear the burden (since you are saying income based premiums). The price of treatment doesn't change much. An MRI is still an MRI whether private insurance pays for it or medicare does.

And I will repeat, there is nothing in Obamacare that will lower costs at any level of the healthcare system.

Why do you keep repeating this. I have already said I agree and you and I are the only ones still in here discussing this.

I dont think there is a way to fix Obamacare.

We weren't talking about fixing Obamacare on the whole, just the employer loophole you mentioned.

[BanginJimmy]

Many people already feel handcuffed to their employers for health benefits but that's another issue. Everyone knows that health benefits through employers is a WW2 relic that makes no sense in the current environment.

I dont really have an opinion on health insurance through employers because the costs are the same either way.

But you still haven't answered why a 25% increase in premiums is worse than an increase in taxes to pay for the same people's health coverage through medicare.

The tax increase will be smaller than the premium increase will be. You simply have a larger pool to collect from. The overall costs may also.

By offset the costs, you mean rich people will bear the burden (since you are saying income based premiums).

The rich already bear the burden of income taxes while nearly half of taxpayers have a negative liability. Dems want an even higher percentage of their money so why should this bother you? BTW, the rich will not be on medicare so it wont affect them.

The price of treatment doesn't change much. An MRI is still an MRI whether private insurance pays for it or medicare does.

The price of treatment changes drasticly. Medicare does not cover the real cost of most procedures. Those losses are then passed onto private health insurance in the form of higher procedure costs. The next question is why do I want more people on program that is going to cause a larger gap in payments to docs. The answer is simple, there is no better place to put them. You cant drop them in the lap of private health insurers then prevent them from charging a reasonable premium based on the health of the customer.

We weren't talking about fixing Obamacare on the whole, just the employer loophole you mentioned.

The employer mandate is a major revenue stream for the govt to pay for Obamacare. Just like without the individual mandate, the law is FAR to expensive to survive without the employer mandate.