Media Coverage re:Wealth of Candidates or

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by HALL85:
Some facts to consider in terms of the effect of Obamacare:

- % of Insured spending more than 10% on out of pocket - 32%....up from 25%
- % of Insured foregoing a physician follow up visit after surgery - 25% up from 20%

Source: Commonwealth Fund Survey

Employee share of company sponsored plans are rising and will continue to do so.

Link?

I am not sure why you are linking Obamacare directly to those statistics.
Employee share had been increasing drastically before Obama was in office.

More than 10% of what? Income? In any case, how about a trend line? Could this be the effect of an aging population or/and poor economy?

Is there an incentive for people to avoid a following up with a doctor after surgery? I would imagine that number is in line with a poor economy.

 

[Vegas pj]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Followup post surgery is included in the surgical reimbursement by the insurance carrier. depending on the surgery more than one visit can be included in the surgical charge.

Pre-exiwting coverage would be great. But where do you set the premiums for it? Should everyone share the wealth {expense] so those with pre-exiswting get coverage?

Maybe government healthcare is the answer. It works so well in Canada & Europe. Of course, when any world leader needs surgery thet, for some unknown reason, usually choose to have it performed here. What? Need to see a doctor, no problem they can fit you in 6 months out and, if surgery is needed, probably can get you in after another 6 months if you are lucky.

My 92 & 90 yeaqr old parents thank their lucky stars they live here and not in Canada or Europe. If they did, they probably would not still be living!

PS: the nonpartisan OBM has not projected that Obamacare will exceed original projects by a couple of bucks. Guess they finally read it, like Pelosi suggested, to find out what was really in it. Surprise!

 

[SPK145]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Merge,

For me, you forgot the most important tenet, the rule of law, otherwise known as the U.S. Constitution, which limits what the government can do and protects freedom and liberty. You can't create commerce so as to then regulate it.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by SPK145:
Merge,

For me, you forgot the most important tenet, the rule of law, otherwise known as the U.S. Constitution, which limits what the government can do and protects freedom and liberty. You can't create commerce so as to then regulate it.

Disagree. The service which is provided to us is that if I fall down and have a heart attack in the middle of the street and someone calls 911, I will be taken to a hospital and treated regardless of my insurance coverage. If I have no coverage and can not pay, I am a part of the uncompensated care group which is funded by state and federal tax dollars. It is interstate commerce since I that can happen in any state.

The law which established that was the emergency medial treatment and active labor act in 1986 signed by President Reagan.

There is no commerce similar to healthcare where I have access to it even when I do not pay in and when I use it and can not pay... the bill goes to taxpayers.

Unless the emergency medical treatment and active labor act is challenged and overturned by the court, I expect that the courts will see that congress can pass a law which states that people have to pay for the service which they have access to and in many cases use.

I don't know about you, but I sure as hell hope we do not go back to the time when you needed to prove coverage before service.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by Vegas pj:
Followup post surgery is included in the surgical reimbursement by the insurance carrier. depending on the surgery more than one visit can be included in the surgical charge.

Pre-exiwting coverage would be great. But where do you set the premiums for it? Should everyone share the wealth {expense] so those with pre-exiswting get coverage?

Maybe government healthcare is the answer. It works so well in Canada & Europe. Of course, when any world leader needs surgery thet, for some unknown reason, usually choose to have it performed here. What? Need to see a doctor, no problem they can fit you in 6 months out and, if surgery is needed, probably can get you in after another 6 months if you are lucky.

My 92 & 90 yeaqr old parents thank their lucky stars they live here and not in Canada or Europe. If they did, they probably would not still be living!

PS: the nonpartisan OBM has not projected that Obamacare will exceed original projects by a couple of bucks. Guess they finally read it, like Pelosi suggested, to find out what was really in it. Surprise!

1. Insurance companies were drastically increasing premiums to people who were sick and had individual plans, hoping that they would drop their coverage. People who lost their jobs and could not afford cobra while they were unemployed would not have preexisting conditions covered for their entire family. On what planet is that morally acceptable?

2. Obamacare is not government healthcare. It is mandated health insurance which was a good republican idea not so long ago.

3. Healthcare is expensive. No one has provided a solution that accomplishes the good parts of Obamacare and reduces costs. Our problems with healthcare costs are cultural. We need to find a way to combat Obesity and we will start to bend the cost curve.

Too bad any time anyone ever says that, people get upset about the attack on their freedom to be fat.

 

[HALL85]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:
Some facts to consider in terms of the effect of Obamacare:

- % of Insured spending more than 10% on out of pocket - 32%....up from 25%
- % of Insured foregoing a physician follow up visit after surgery - 25% up from 20%

Source: Commonwealth Fund Survey

Employee share of company sponsored plans are rising and will continue to do so.

Link?

I am not sure why you are linking Obamacare directly to those statistics.
Employee share had been increasing drastically before Obama was in office.

More than 10% of what? Income? In any case, how about a trend line? Could this be the effect of an aging population or/and poor economy?

Is there an incentive for people to avoid a following up with a doctor after surgery? I would imagine that number is in line with a poor economy.

No link...presentation made by Ian Morrison at a Healthcare Meeting I attended in Dallas two weeks ago. 10% increase in out-of-pocket spending...so if you spent $500 in 2009, you spent $550 in 2010. My point is Obamacare and the individual mandate is not expected to stop those trends, because what Morrison was saying was that the expectation was that the 5% wealthiest would foot the bill, when reality is that the average Joe worker is going to have to pay more for his employer sponsered plan and more out-of-pocket. Those trends are not reversing nor will they.

Here's another joke...the Medical Device Tax will begin January 1, 2013 which will be a 2.3% on medical device manufacturers (although Washington hasn't published a list of what is a medical device and what isn't...lol), and guess what? Many manufacturers are passing on mid-year price increases in anticipation of the tax...so who wins? The government has just orchestrated a price increase that will be borne by the consumers and tax payers.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by HALL85:
Some facts to consider in terms of the effect of Obamacare:

- % of Insured spending more than 10% on out of pocket - 32%....up from 25%
- % of Insured foregoing a physician follow up visit after surgery - 25% up from 20%

Source: Commonwealth Fund Survey

Employee share of company sponsored plans are rising and will continue to do so.

Link?

I am not sure why you are linking Obamacare directly to those statistics.
Employee share had been increasing drastically before Obama was in office.

More than 10% of what? Income? In any case, how about a trend line? Could this be the effect of an aging population or/and poor economy?

Is there an incentive for people to avoid a following up with a doctor after surgery? I would imagine that number is in line with a poor economy.

No link...presentation made by Ian Morrison at a Healthcare Meeting I attended in Dallas two weeks ago. 10% increase in out-of-pocket spending...so if you spent $500 in 2009, you spent $550 in 2010. My point is Obamacare and the individual mandate is not expected to stop those trends, because what Morrison was saying was that the expectation was that the 5% wealthiest would foot the bill, when reality is that the average Joe worker is going to have to pay more for his employer sponsered plan and more out-of-pocket. Those trends are not reversing nor will they.

Here's another joke...the Medical Device Tax will begin January 1, 2013 which will be a 2.3% on medical device manufacturers (although Washington hasn't published a list of what is a medical device and what isn't...lol), and guess what? Many manufacturers are passing on mid-year price increases in anticipation of the tax...so who wins? The government has just orchestrated a price increase that will be borne by the consumers and tax payers.

Those trends were trending well before Obama was in office. They have nothing to do with Obamacare.

The definition of medical devices was published by the IRS's proposed regulations in February and their definition is already in use as it was defined in the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act.

I am not sure what effect the device tax will have to be honest. I don't want to say I am for it or against it because I don't know enough about it. I am not buying into the talking points about it killing jobs and innovation though.

 

[HALL85]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Yes there is a definition of Medical Device...I am aware of that. My point is that definition is being interpretted differently which has created confusion, and the Federal Govt has been no help. They should have published a list.

I can tell you that we are already identifying cost reduction measures (labor) in preparation of the tax. I agree that it's murky on innovation, but make no mistake, this will impact job loss. The only job creation will be for the lawyers and accountants in Washington to administer this mess....and that is not what I call progress. These trends will continue and accellerate with Obamacare, which is the point I was trying to make.
This post was edited on 5/29 8:40 AM by HALL85

 

[SPK145]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by Merge:
If I have no coverage and can not pay, I am a part of the uncompensated care group which is funded by state and federal tax dollars. It is interstate commerce since I that can happen in any state.

Two things:

1) Uncompensated care is NOT commerce. Only if you self-define the term.

2) There is no INTERSTATE commerce in your example. You were in one state and got treatment in that same state. Just because you live in one state and get hurt in another does not constitute interstate commerce. Unless, again, you self-define it to fit your agenda.

And BTW, you should have to reimburse any uncompensated payments made on your behalf at some level. The truly indigent (a very small percent BTW, not the incorrect, ridiculous, inflammatory 50 million claimed by many) should be given help but not unfettered, unreimbursed forever help. This then becomes just another Marxist wealth distribution scheme when it becomes government controlled. We didn't have these issues back in the day of mutual aid societies but the heavy hand of government inefficiency and bloviation did away with them.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by SPK145:

Originally posted by Merge:
If I have no coverage and can not pay, I am a part of the uncompensated care group which is funded by state and federal tax dollars. It is interstate commerce since I that can happen in any state.

Two things:

1) Uncompensated care is NOT commerce. Only if you self-define the term.

2) There is no INTERSTATE commerce in your example. You were in one state and got treatment in that same state. Just because you live in one state and get hurt in another does not constitute interstate commerce. Unless, again, you self-define it to fit your agenda.

And BTW, you should have to reimburse any uncompensated payments made on your behalf at some level. The truly indigent (a very small percent BTW, not the incorrect, ridiculous, inflammatory 50 million claimed by many) should be given help but not unfettered, unreimbursed forever help. This then becomes just another Marxist wealth distribution scheme when it becomes government controlled. We didn't have these issues back in the day of mutual aid societies but the heavy hand of government inefficiency and bloviation did away with them.

1. Service is rendered, and payment is made. (at a much lower reimbursement rate) Sorry, I don't think I am stretching anything. That is commerce.

2. Does the act of receiving service while uninsured, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce? I don't even see how anyone could objectively say no to that. The costs were upwards of 60 billion in 2008. I haven't seen a more recent report, I would expect it to be much higher because of our poor economy.

We will see soon enough what the court believes.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by HALL85:
Yes there is a definition of Medical Device...I am aware of that. My point is that definition is being interpretted differently which has created confusion, and the Federal Govt has been no help. They should have published a list.

I can tell you that we are already identifying cost reduction measures (labor) in preparation of the tax. I agree that it's murky on innovation, but make no mistake, this will impact job loss. The only job creation will be for the lawyers and accountants in Washington to administer this mess....and that is not what I call progress. These trends will continue and accellerate with Obamacare, which is the point I was trying to make.
This post was edited on 5/29 8:40 AM by HALL85

The definition seemed relatively clear to me. Medical devices intended for human use with no retail market.

Identifying cost reductions is something that businesses do every day. A 2.3% tax on sales is not going to change that.

In all likelihood, this will be a cost shift in your pricing and it will have relatively low impact on labor and innovation.

Maybe the 2.3% tax will make foreign companies focus their efforts on exporting to other countries instead of the US, there could actually be a greater demand for medical device manufacturing here at home in the US?

The point is that the cards have not fallen yet and it will take many years before we know how effective the affordable care act is/was.
This post was edited on 5/29 11:21 AM by Merge

 

[SPK145]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by Merge:
We will see soon enough what the court believes.

But we all know they are politically motivated. May be on my side this time but with past and future courts???

 

[HALL85]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

It may be clear to you, but that is not the reality. I speak with manufacturers everyday and there is disagreement on many products. There are also costs that will now be borne by manufacturing companies to capture the tax, like IT costs, so that tour systems can flag what is and what isn't. All this comes with more regulation and cost which is no help to the patient.

Businesses react to market issues. They dont just do these things like you surmise. Supply, demand, increases in raw materials, labor costs and yes, new taxes. This is no different....I deal with this every day and job loss is a given.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Most IT systems should be able to codify products relatively easily. I did a similar project for commission rates based on product for a small electronic company. It was a matter of hours. It is an added cost, but two years for an IT department to prepare should be adequate.

The IRS has already given the guidance for products manufactured and if there is a question, companies do not have to include it until they are notified that they should be including it and it is not retroactive.

I think we will see a slight price increase, as well as slightly increased demand from new entrants to the insurance pool.

Will there be some job loss? Probably in the short term, but I am not entirely sure of the motives in creating this tax. It appears that medical device imports are growing and this tax may slow that rate of increase which will increase the demand for US products. This tax still could have a positive or negative effect on US employment in the long term, but it is going to take some time before we understand the consequences of the tax.