T minus 7 days before the devastation of Obamacare!!

Back in the late 90's, I paid $650 for my insurance. By 2000, it had more than doubled. If I had to guess at what it would cost today, I would say around $2500 to $3000 for the same coverage. In ten years, it should be around $4000. In twenty, $5000 to $6000, but those are just guesses.

As for it going down, the only way that happens is when more people pay into the system. But, the effect is usually temporary, as insurers will raise the rates soon enough, for one reason or another. It's a business, after all.

 

Just to start, procedure was created by Sebelious that the doctors were trying to change. Sebelious did refuse to listen until the court said she had to change. Yes, the criteria is there for a reason. Sebelious wanted it there. Look it up in stead of publishing BS.

 

My employer pay 100% of my medical optical dental and life insurance. I have no clue if that will change. We are a 15 man machine shop.

 

Mine has gone up every year since I can remember. Obamacare has not even fully kicked in yet. But let's attribute all those increases to the new law anyway.

 

View attachment 2005

 

Before the wife retired and went on Medicare I had to pay her portion. It was around $300 or so but then she had a heart attack and open heart surgery pacemaker and all the bells & whistles that tag along. By the time she retired it was nearing$800

 

I'll tell you something current. I had my gallbladder out today. It was done outpatient of course. Do you know why I am not in a hospital bed right now? Health insurance will not cover it. Thoracic surgery is outpatient these days to save money for private insurers. Why does some private corporation get to take this kind of risk with my or anyone else's life? Because $$$$$$.

 

The reason you are not in a hospital bed is because it is better for you to get up am move. My wife had hers out 20+ years ago - outpatient. I had mine out 3 years ago and spent the night in the hospital.

 

This is all fine and good as far as masking the symptoms, but does nothing to address the problems. We will still be paying twice as much as for health care as the rest of the world while not receiving any better services.

 

Oh nice, your defense of Obamacare's role in skyrocketing insurance premiums now is that premiums have been going up all along? Really? That's the best ya got? Bless your heart.

 

No defense necessary. These are just facts. Health care costs have been rising every year for me, you, and everyone else in this country unabated since before you and I even knew what health care was. This is a simple fact. Why would I have to "defend" an objective truth?

And just because you are so predictably condescending, let me give you another fact that I see no need to defend. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and CMS data, health care costs in the past 3 years are growing at the slowest rate in 50 years. How long has it been since the ACA was passed into law? Coincidence? Hum?

Once the law is fully implemented, all of your pessimistic doomsday scenarios will be the statements that need defending. It worked in Massacusettes when it was Romneycare and it will work across the entire country as Obamacare as well. The real difference between Romneycare and Obamacare is that Romneycare didn't have the entire fringe Right-wing establishment filling people's heads with outright lies and scare tactics.

 

Are these lies? Are these scare tactics?

A LIST OF HOURS/JOBS CUT DUE TO OBAMACARE

 

Perhaps employers are considering this... You really don't know do you.

What Trader Joe’s teaches us about Obamacare
By Sarah Kliff, Published: September 13

Trader Joe's made a very big announcement this week, one that had nothing to do with Two-Buck Chuck.
The grocery chain, in a memo obtained by the Huffington Post, told part-time employees that it would end their health insurance benefits for employees who work less than 30 hours a week, sending them instead to the new public insurance marketplaces with an extra $500 to help purchase coverage.

“Depending on income earned outside of Trader Joe’s, we believe that with the $500 from Trader Joe’s and the tax credits available under the ACA, many crew members should be able to obtain health-care coverage at very little, if any, net cost,” the company said Thursday in a statement to Bloomberg.
So what does this decision by Trader Joe's tell us about the Affordable Care Act? A few things.
Before we get to that, though, its worth thinking about why Trader Joe's – or any employer – offers health insurance right now.

While health benefits are expensive, companies typically offer them to stay competitive. A robust health plan can go a long way in wooing potential employees – especially when most of the market doesn't offer part-time workers the opportunity to buy coverage.

A healthier workforce can also have a benefit to a company, if they have fewer workers taking sick days and increasing productivity. The tax code gives companies yet another reason to offer benefits: Companies can pay for health insurance with pre-tax dollars, making compensation in the form of these benefits a better deal than the post-tax salaries they pay.

These incentives pre-dated the Affordable Care Act and they will outlast the law, too. The health-care law does add in a whole bunch of other incentives, which could change how employers think about the benefits they offer workers. It requires employers to provide health insurance to all full-time workers if they employ more than 50 people. That increases the incentive to provide coverage.

There are forces working in the opposite direction, too, that decrease employers' incentives to provide health coverage. The health law will eliminate pre-existing conditions, meaning that anyone who does lose coverage will have an option elsewhere, which is not the case today. It also provides subsidies for purchasing private insurance or, for lower-income workers, the opportunity to enroll in Medicaid.

The insurance market under Obamacare, in other words, is supposed to be a friendlier one than what exists right now. And that's what Trader Joe's seems to be betting on with its move: that its workers will see similar options without the grocery store footing the full bill.

Whether this will be true is hard to game out at this point. The Huffington Post did talk to one Trader Joe's worker who estimated that she earned about $20,000 and currently pays $70 a month for a pretty robust health plan. Trader Joe's plans to kick in $500 for each employee, or about $40 per month. So we're looking at a total of $110 to spend on the marketplace each month, if spending holds to the same level as what Trader Joe's workers pay right now.

The rate data we have so far (largely from the Kaiser Family Foundation) suggest that comparable premiums will be available for someone earning $20,000. Using a calculator that Kaiser helped build, it shows that a 25-year-old who makes that much here in the District would pay $85 for a middle-of-the-road plan and $26 for the bare-bones option. Premiums are a bit higher for those who are older, and a little lower for younger subscribers.

As for what Trader Joe's decision means for the health-care law, that's not totally clear either. On the one hand, it likely makes the health law more expensive: Trader Joe's is essentially shifting the costs it used to pay for health insurance onto the federal government. On the other, bigger marketplaces are good for the health law. More subscribers make it more likely that insurers will want to sell and, if Trader Joes' employees tend to be younger, they'll likely help hold down the cost of premiums there.

 

Or this....

Home Depot Shifts Coverage For Part-Time Workers To Obamacare Exchanges
Reuters | Posted: 09/19/2013 8:02 pm EDT


Sept 19 (Reuters) - Home Depot Inc is shifting medical coverage for part-time workers to new public marketplace exchanges ahead of new benefits requirements under the U.S. Affordable Care Act, a spokesman said on Thursday.

The world's largest home improvement retail chain announced its move shortly after a similar announcement from Trader Joe's Co, a popular privately held grocery chain.

Home Depot's change would affect roughly 20,000 part-time workers who previously had chosen the limited liability medical plan the company offered, spokesman Stephen Holmes said.

After Dec. 31, companies can no longer offer those plans under the health law, also known as Obamacare.

"We're going to shift them over to the public exchanges, where there are more options," Holmes said.

The public exchanges being set up under the law will allow individuals to buy government-subsidized healthcare based on income. Enrollment begins on Oct. 1.

Until now, many restaurants and retailers offered workers limited liability plans that often provided less than $5,000 in coverage.

Home Depot's plans for part-time workers provided coverage of up to $20,000 depending on the plan and were administered by Aetna Inc.

Experts have said exchanges would provide more comprehensive coverage that may not cost more because government tax credits will help some workers offset premiums.

Some employers are opting to offer coverage through private health insurance changes.

Walgreen Co, the largest U.S. drugstore, and more than a dozen other large employers have said they would offer their employee insurance for 2014 through the Aon Hewitt Corporate Health Exchange.

Home Depot employs about 340,000 people and will continue to offer healthcare benefits to full-time employees, who will be paying more for that coverage next year due to higher healthcare costs, Holmes said.

 

Pesky facts!!!!

 

You didn't read the article, did you? It said that employers were cutting workers' HOURS because of Obamacare.

 

And, I will bet they are not increasing their pay to compensate. Then the Obamacare taxes further cuts their pay.

 

How about these "pesky facts" outlined in the letter from the unions? Are these pesky enough for you?
_____________________________________________________________________________

Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi:​

​

When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.​

​

Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.​

​

Now this vision has come back to haunt us.​

​

Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week’s huge accommodation for the employer community—extending the statutorily mandated “December 31, 2013” deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.​

​

Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios:​

​

First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.​

​

Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.​

​

And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.​

​

On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.​

​

We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow.​

​

We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions.​

​

We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.​

​

James P. Hoffa​

General President​

International Brotherhood of Teamsters​

​

Joseph Hansen​

International President​

UFCW​

​

D. Taylor​

President​

UNITE-HERE​

 

Here is an idea. Why don't you let these employers do what they wish and stop shifting the blame to Obamacare. If employers want to have less employees for any reason, that is their business. If they find that they can function just as well with 40 employees as they did with 50 employees, they should cut jobs. It only makes business sense. However, if their competitor finds that having 50 employees gives them a better marketshare, then the guy that let the 10 go or cut their hours, will ultimately regret their knee-jerk reaction. I am absolutely positive that there are Right-wing business owners that have bought into the nonsense other Right-wing fanatics are selling and publicizing their own actions as a protest but they will not amount to anything in the long run when more successful competitors put them out of business and hire their former workforce. It will happen. There will be losers and winners inevitably. You can't change something as large as health care without incurring some unintended consequences or ruffling some fanatics feathers. It will undoubtedly affect some more than others but I believe the net effect will be positive. Small businesses will have healthier employees, lower costs, and do better as a result. People will no longer go bankrupt over huge medical bills, and more people will be insured.

My son was rear-ended on his way to high school 3 years ago and suffered a broken bone in his back. It healed but he can't stand for long periods of time without lower back pain and he is unable to lift heavy things without paying for it the next day. Now going to the doctor every time he strains his back isn't practical because there is nothing they can do about it. It is something he just has to live with because no jury would award him a lifetime of medical coverage for any future back problems. We know this because we consulted a lawyer. This falls squarely into the pre-existing condition category no insurance company would have covered in the past. You can't deny that. Under Obamacare, he no longer has to worry about not being able to get coverage. So now you whine on about some small business puke that is protesting the new law because he may not make as much profit due to slightly higher health care costs and choose to take it out on his employees. You just might have an idea just how much I give a damn about his situation based on my son's situation. Damn little.

 

Employees who are having their hours cut and who can't put food on their tables really don't give a damn about some 5%-er's son who is still on his rich father's insurance. This law is hurting the poor people; not people like you. But, you really don't care. You're only focused on you and yours.