Obamacare upheld question

[auron]

I haven't followed this closely, but now that I've read some of it I have a question.

Can someone explain to me what is meant by employers who offer exceptional coverage must pay fees to the Fed?

Are they seriously trying to essentially raise taxes on employers who already provide good healthcare? I hope I am misunderstanding this because I was under the impression that since I had great employer healthcare coverage that it would not mean much to me. This will just make my employer (large corporate company) find a way to reduce benefit package costs i.e. reduce healthcare coverage.

Please tell me I'm completely off base here.....

[bjl584]

Lots of questions. Not a lot of answers. The whole thing is pretty complicated and most of it doesn't take effect for several years. A lot of it will no doubt be changed and modified before it actually becomes law anyway. The elections in November will dictate how much it changes.

[auron]

I was sort of expecting it to get shot down at this point. This may actually tip me in favor of Romney, something I never thought possible.

Now to go do some more research on this bill....

[cooliemae]

The idea behind the tax on the most generous plans is to discourage their use. I guess the idea is that these plans encourage those who have them to seek out treatments that may not be necessary. The tax is aimed at those individuals/families that have plans that are outrageously expensive, but covered by the employer not the employee. Goldman Sach's executive insurance plan cost something like $40,000 a year and gave the employee/family basically free health care.

Sounds great, but the employees then don't care how many test are run or procedures used because they're not paying for it. Healthcare companies aren't concerned with the prices because the insurance company will pay for it, which ultimately means prices for everyone go up.

[auron]

I'm not talking about executive insurance plans of which there are what? A couple thousand policies at most? I'm talking about normal worker-bee benefits.

I think it's ludicrous that in a recession where government spending is STILL out of control we are willing to pass a massive tax & debt increase. I guess I have a weird perspective of wanting a fiscally sustainable country to live in.

This legislation was a health insurance mandate resulting in taxation, NOT healthcare reform.

[kork13]

I'm not the political sort, so I'll be brief... My personal opinion: although the "ObamaCare" law may be constitutionally legal, that doesn't make it a good idea.

I don't like how the law was passed (rammed through Congress and down America's throat), and from what I understand of it, I have significant concerns about how it will be implemented. I think there is a good idea at the heart of it, but the way it's being done has some serious problems. I would strongly prefer to see the law either modified with improvements, or replaced with a more carefully thought-out and better-planned method of implementing reforms.

[GrimJack]

I'm not the political sort, so I'll be brief... My personal opinion: although the "ObamaCare" law may be constitutionally legal, that doesn't make it a good idea.

I don't like how the law was passed (rammed through Congress and down America's throat), and from what I understand of it, I have significant concerns about how it will be implemented. I think there is a good idea at the heart of it, but the way it's being done has some serious problems. I would strongly prefer to see the law either modified with improvements, or replaced with a more carefully thought-out and better-planned method of implementing reforms.

I really wonder about everyone using the 'ram it down their throats' metaphor - it seems to come from the Republican side but they don't use it when they talk about how they get their laws passed - but that is just a digression.

The complaints seem to go like this:
I don't like it
it should be immediately be blocked
but there are parts of it I like so maybe we should start over and just do the parts I like
we really ought to think about this, nothing rash, not too fast, you know - take a couple years and may be come up with something that does everything this bill does but supported by Republicans.

At least you are considering keeping this bill and making improvements. I agree, there are improvements that can be made but at least we have something in place while we try to make it better.

[GrimJack]

I'm not talking about executive insurance plans of which there are what? A couple thousand policies at most? I'm talking about normal worker-bee benefits.

I think it's ludicrous that in a recession where government spending is STILL out of control we are willing to pass a massive tax & debt increase. I guess I have a weird perspective of wanting a fiscally sustainable country to live in.

This legislation was a health insurance mandate resulting in taxation, NOT healthcare reform.

Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about; you don't make any specific points just mention some vague sort of this is terrible what it is doing. What is it about worker-bee benefits? What is this sentence referring to: "Can someone explain to me what is meant by employers who offer exceptional coverage must pay fees to the Fed?" If you know what the reference is about, there might be an answer available but I can't search the bill if you aren't a little more specific.

[kork13]

I really wonder about everyone using the 'ram it down their throats' metaphor - it seems to come from the Republican side but they don't use it when they talk about how they get their laws passed - but that is just a digression.
......
At least you are considering keeping this bill and making improvements. I agree, there are improvements that can be made but at least we have something in place while we try to make it better.

If you want to bandy labels about, I consider myself a "slightly conservative independent." I suppose that's why I can actually accept that there are great ideas and also significant problems in this bill as it stands... But as I said, I think the problems are big enough that if item-specific changes/improvements can't be made effectively, the bill should be replaced by a better overall product.

In general terms, I simply disagree with the overall premise of how so many of our country's laws are passed. Honestly, I don't like the fact that we more or less have a 2-party system. How many of them are passed strictly along party lines? It always comes down to which party has majority control in the Congress. No single political party (regardless of what party it is) should be able to create and pass laws on its own. That's what I mean by any references to what might otherwise be called "forced gastro-intestinal ingestion."

ETA: Another part of the problem here is that the Congress is ruled by the "flavor of the week." This legislation has been percolating since (I think) 2003. But because it didn't hold popular sway, very little effort was made to hone and improve the concept until all of a sudden it's in the forefront and everyone wants a completed bill (which is supposed to radically overhaul a major slice of the American economy) signed, sealed, and delivered in a matter of 3-4 months. You can't suddenly start 500 politicians hacking on something for a few weeks and think that it's going to turn out well. There is no possible way that the details can be thought through very well in those conditions.

[auron]

Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about; you don't make any specific points just mention some vague sort of this is terrible what it is doing. What is it about worker-bee benefits? What is this sentence referring to: "Can someone explain to me what is meant by employers who offer exceptional coverage must pay fees to the Fed?" If you know what the reference is about, there might be an answer available but I can't search the bill if you aren't a little more specific.

I'm vague because I'm not well informed other than news coverage/articles. If I had the time and understanding to decipher 2700 pages of legal gibber jabber then I wouldn't be posing the question and thus why I'm asking =P.

The only "fact" I know at this point is that there is an est. price tag of $1.76 trillion in the next 10 years on a system that does not improve the healthcare system but rather mandates health insurance. Don't get me wrong. I want everyone to have access to affordable & timely healthcare, but I really doubt mandating health insurance is going to address the problem: A broken system of interactions between healthcare providers & health insurance companies.

P.S. Thank you for moving this to the correct forum; totally spaced that one.

[bjl584]

I'm vague because I'm not well informed other than news coverage/articles. If I had the time and understanding to decipher 2700 pages of legal gibber jabber then I wouldn't be posing the question and thus why I'm asking =P.

The only "fact" I know at this point is that there is an est. price tag of $1.76 trillion in the next 10 years on a system that does not improve the healthcare system but rather mandates health insurance. Don't get me wrong. I want everyone to have access to affordable & timely healthcare, but I really doubt mandating health insurance is going to address the problem: A broken system of interactions between healthcare providers & health insurance companies.

P.S. Thank you for moving this to the correct forum; totally spaced that one.

The court's job is to disregard pricetags, complexity, politics, etc. Their job is only to focus on legal fact. They only looked at the legality of the individual mandate. Disagree or not, the court determined that Congress does indeed have the power to levy such a mandate as a tax. The court did its job. But, that being said, I can guarantee that major changes to this law will be coming.

[herdjohnson]

I'm vague because I'm not well informed other than news coverage/articles. If I had the time and understanding to decipher 2700 pages of legal gibber jabber then I wouldn't be posing the question and thus why I'm asking =P.

The only "fact" I know at this point is that there is an est. price tag of $1.76 trillion in the next 10 years on a system that does not improve the healthcare system but rather mandates health insurance. Don't get me wrong. I want everyone to have access to affordable & timely healthcare, but I really doubt mandating health insurance is going to address the problem: A broken system of interactions between healthcare providers & health insurance companies.

P.S. Thank you for moving this to the correct forum; totally spaced that one.

The only "fact" you know isn't really a "fact" then. The law is a lot more than just mandated insurance. There is a whole system of cost cutting incentives for health providers, as well as incentives for quality of care rather than quantity of care. There are penalties/incentives for certain readmission levels, hospital acquired conditions, etc...

I work in hospital reimbursement, so I've been researching this subject for quite a while, outside of the political jibberjabber. I would suggest you do some searching online - there are a lot of resources. Just try to stay away from anything political and you should get decent information.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Makes people who don't want to buy insurance pay a fine, that was the main point of why John Roberts passed it. It's a "tax". LOL. I am very liberal and never thought that particular justice would say that or support it. Amazing. Now if only he'd become a stephen breyer, but that'll never happen.

I am liberal but I think it's a sad state we're in when we put health insurance not as a right but as something only certain people can afford.

As for worker bees? Many companies give very generous health benefits in lieu of pay. And many people are tied to their jobs (including us) because without employer provided coverage we would have been denied coverage due to preexisting conditions. Also for many people with long term conditions they will easily run through the maximum limit on an insurance plan.

I've found it incredible selfish of americans that they all don't want to pay for "someone" else's health care until they need it. And even more selfish? They become 65 and realize medicare is great but won't make it a national plan so everyone is covered period.

[auron]

The court's job is to disregard pricetags, complexity, politics, etc. Their job is only to focus on legal fact. They only looked at the legality of the individual mandate. Disagree or not, the court determined that Congress does indeed have the power to levy such a mandate as a tax. The court did its job. But, that being said, I can guarantee that major changes to this law will be coming.

I agree, the courts exactly as they should. It was more of "Oh, it's going to be reality now."

And yes, my "fact" was in quotes because it's most definitely not a fact.