32 replies to this topic

[MissMelsWell]

DieChecker, on 09 January 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

I thought the usual method was to just have the surgery. Then get the bill. Pay a little on it. Then eventually go bad on the bill. Then bankrupt out from under it. I've never met anyone except Dave Ramsey true believers who try to pay for their surgerys up front.

Which does happen for those with no insurance... but for those that do have insurance, from the antedotal evidence i'm reading, they tend to put it off and put it off until it gets the point where they can't any longer.

[OverSword]

Startraveler, on 09 January 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

Intel's a big employer so I would assume they're offering self-insured plans (Blue Cross might be acting as a third party administrator for Intel). So if you don't like the benefits or co-insurance or you think savings aren't being reflected in the premiums you're paying, that may well be on Intel.



If that were the case, there would never have been an individual mandate. There's no reason to take unpopular but necessary steps to stabilize the market if your goal is to destabilize the market.

Also, Massachusetts would probably have a single-payer system by now, one would think.

Read the newsletter I linked, consider all of the extra fees that business' with under 50 employee's that don't provide health insurance are going to be subject to and then tell me that the ACA will not force many small business owners to close thier doors.  While the Massachusetts may be similar to the ACA it's not identical especially where IRS taxes errr I mean fees are involved.

[Startraveler]

OverSword, on 09 January 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

Read the newsletter I linked, consider all of the extra fees that business' with under 50 employee's that don't provide health insurance are going to be subject to and then tell me that the ACA will not force many small business owners to close thier doors.  While the Massachusetts may be similar to the ACA it's not identical especially where IRS taxes errr I mean fees are involved.

I don't see anything about businesses with under 50 employees in your newsletter. A quick skim shows it talks about:

1. The pay-or-play requirements for employers to offer insurance coverage, but it notes that this applies to "employers with at least 50 full-time employees."
2. The additional Medicare tax, but again it notes that unlike the existing Medicare tax this new portion "is imposed only on employees" (with incomes over $250,000 for the married/$200,000 for others).
3. The $1/person funding comparative effectiveness research, which it says is borne "by the insurer of fully insured plans (including retiree only plans) and the employer/plan sponsor of self-insured plans." A business with less than 50 employees is unlikely to be self-insured and, per #1, isn't required to offer health insurance at all.
4. The fee for the 3-year temporary reinsurance program, which is basically distributed the same was as #3.

In other words, businesses with less than 50 employees aren't required under the law to pay any of those.

Anyway, I was responding to your assertion that the law was intended to "crash the insurance industry," which isn't the same as asking how it affects small businesses. The fact is that plenty of provisions in it, including the unpopular individual mandate, and the temporary reinsurance program brought up in your newsletter are pretty clearly designed to protect the stability of insurance markets. Why protect them if the goal is to crash them?