ObamaCare aka "Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act" (1 Viewer)

[tommyGunZ]

Not to mention the corruption associated with corporate pals and politicians seeking "exemptions" that other normal people have to pay.

What are the political exemptions you're whining about?

The Grassley ® amendment to the ACA, which has basically been overriden. When it suited the Democrats to vote for the bill on the basis they would be bound by its covverage precepts, that was wonderful; turned out they were never planning to live by it and merely agreed to it to try to sell the law to the public. The fact that Congressmen can get themselves out of the law with a phone call (and I doubt it was free, DC always has a price for favors...) is natural, the fact is that others cannot get out fo the law so easily.

Is this the "exemption" you're whining about?

The trouble started in 2009 with a cheap stunt orchestrated by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). While lawmakers already get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, just like other federal employees, the Iowa Republican pushed a proposal to force members of Congress out of the federal system and into exchanges.

The point wasn't to shape policy, but to create a talking point for Republicans. Grassley desperately wanted to say, "Those darn Democrats think the exchanges are good enough for millions of Americans, but not good enough for themselves," and he assumed Dems would balk at his "plan" because they'd be unwilling to give up the generous Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.

But Democrats called Grassley's bluff, embraced his idea, and added it to the Affordable Care Act.

And that's where the story gets a little tricky -- Grassley's partisan-stunt-gone-wrong sent members and their aides to get coverage through exchange marketplaces, but never created a mechanism to make that happen.

As Jonathan Cohn explained yesterday:

The federal government, like most large employers, not only provides the opportunity for its workers to get insurance. It also pays a large portion of the premium. Now that lawmakers and their advisers were going into the exchanges, what would happen to that contribution? Would they just lose the money?
The answer, the administration decided last week, is no. Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their employer contributions, and apply that money towards the cost of whatever insurance they buy in the exchanges.
The policy has nothing to do with "exempting" Congress from the health care law, and everything to do with creating a mechanism through which lawmakers will kick themselves off their own insurance plan and into exchanges without a major premium hike.

For Republicans and their allies to whine incessantly about this is ridiculous, even by contemporary conservative standards. We are, after all, talking about an idea pushed by a Republican senator and quietly celebrated away from the cameras by Republican offices.

Jon Chait added that the manufactured outrage over an "exemption" for Congress represents "the toxic combination of ignorance and bad faith that has characterized the right's approach to Obamacare."

So Grassley's amendment
created
a situation for government workers that Republicans claimed, falsely, the law would create for everybody else: forcing them off their employer insurance and on to the exchanges. Grassley's amendment didn't even attempt to design a coherent way of changing health-care worker benefits, because, again, it wasn't an attempt to reform health care for Congress and its staff -- it was an attempt to furnish a talking point for Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It yanked away the subsidized health insurance Congress and its staff get, essentially imposing a massive pay cut on those workers.<.blockquote>
It was up to the Obama administration to figure out a resolution to this, and last week, to the relief of lawmakers and their staffers, it did -- offering the patch to a problem a Republican senator inadvertently imposed on lawmakers.

Bottom line: has Congress exempted itself from Obamacare? No. Members of the House and Senate, as well as their aides, will be kicked out of the federal system -- all because Grassley played a stupid game -- and will get coverage through exchanges.

The exchanges were, of course, designed for Americans who can't get coverage through their employer, but this pool of consumers will have a very notable exception: Congress.

Anyone who tells you there's a congressional "exemption" from the law either doesn't know what they're talking about, or assumes you're easily fooled into believing nonsense.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Just going to continue to ignore anything that doesn't fit your narrative?

I'm working, and I can only argue with one of you wackos at a time.

Both Vladeck and Tomasky are arguing strawmen - no one said CBO is infallible, only that they are the best we have.

So are they wackos too? Must be quite the dilemma for you.

I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.

Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.

The growth in health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years. Funny how you're very selective about when you bring up "the worst recession since the great depression", how that slowing of growth in spending was "inherited" by Obama, or how much of the ACA hasn't even taken place yet and projections are for spending growth to ramp up again in future years.

The growth in spending has slowed because the economy still sucks. Trying to attribute it to a healthcare law that largely hasn't been implemented yet is asinine.

Guess I'll just take your word for it, and dismiss the muti-layered studies and analysis from the Kaiser Foundation showing that while much of the recent slowed growth is due to the recession (77%), almost a quarter of the slowed growth is a result of structural changes in the health care system.

The Kaiser foundation should have just called you first, instead of wasting time with economists and data analysis.

Why don't YOU run the ####### numbers for your family situation and show what you pay now and what you would pay under Obamacare.

Don't forget the premiums, deductibles and maximum out of pocket for the whole family.

Bet you don't have the balls to post the truth here.

That goes for you also Tim, quit reading opinions and do the calculations using the real time calculator and let us know the truth.

 

[drummer]

Getting kind of personal in here.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Just going to continue to ignore anything that doesn't fit your narrative?

I'm working, and I can only argue with one of you wackos at a time.

Both Vladeck and Tomasky are arguing strawmen - no one said CBO is infallible, only that they are the best we have.

So are they wackos too? Must be quite the dilemma for you.

I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.

Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.

The growth in health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years. Funny how you're very selective about when you bring up "the worst recession since the great depression", how that slowing of growth in spending was "inherited" by Obama, or how much of the ACA hasn't even taken place yet and projections are for spending growth to ramp up again in future years.

The growth in spending has slowed because the economy still sucks. Trying to attribute it to a healthcare law that largely hasn't been implemented yet is asinine.

Guess I'll just take your word for it, and dismiss the muti-layered studies and analysis from the Kaiser Foundation showing that while much of the recent slowed growth is due to the recession (77%), almost a quarter of the slowed growth is a result of structural changes in the health care system.

The Kaiser foundation should have just called you first, instead of wasting time with economists and data analysis.

Why don't YOU run the ####### numbers for your family situation and show what you pay now and what you would pay under Obamacare.

Don't forget the premiums, deductibles and maximum out of pocket for the whole family.

Bet you don't have the balls to post the truth here.

That goes for you also Tim, quit reading opinions and do the calculations using the real time calculator and let us know the truth.

I don't even know what this means. What is "under Obamacare"?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not to mention the corruption associated with corporate pals and politicians seeking "exemptions" that other normal people have to pay.

What are the political exemptions you're whining about?

The Grassley ® amendment to the ACA, which has basically been overriden. When it suited the Democrats to vote for the bill on the basis they would be bound by its covverage precepts, that was wonderful; turned out they were never planning to live by it and merely agreed to it to try to sell the law to the public. The fact that Congressmen can get themselves out of the law with a phone call (and I doubt it was free, DC always has a price for favors...) is natural, the fact is that others cannot get out fo the law so easily.

Is this the "exemption" you're whining about?

The trouble started in 2009 with a cheap stunt orchestrated by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). While lawmakers already get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, just like other federal employees, the Iowa Republican pushed a proposal to force members of Congress out of the federal system and into exchanges.

The point wasn't to shape policy, but to create a talking point for Republicans. Grassley desperately wanted to say, "Those darn Democrats think the exchanges are good enough for millions of Americans, but not good enough for themselves," and he assumed Dems would balk at his "plan" because they'd be unwilling to give up the generous Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.

But Democrats called Grassley's bluff, embraced his idea, and added it to the Affordable Care Act.

And that's where the story gets a little tricky -- Grassley's partisan-stunt-gone-wrong sent members and their aides to get coverage through exchange marketplaces, but never created a mechanism to make that happen.

As Jonathan Cohn explained yesterday:

The policy has nothing to do with "exempting" Congress from the health care law, and everything to do with creating a mechanism through which lawmakers will kick themselves off their own insurance plan and into exchanges without a major premium hike.

The federal government, like most large employers, not only provides the opportunity for its workers to get insurance. It also pays a large portion of the premium. Now that lawmakers and their advisers were going into the exchanges, what would happen to that contribution? Would they just lose the money?

The answer, the administration decided last week, is no. Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their employer contributions, and apply that money towards the cost of whatever insurance they buy in the exchanges.

For Republicans and their allies to whine incessantly about this is ridiculous, even by contemporary conservative standards. We are, after all, talking about an idea pushed by a Republican senator and quietly celebrated away from the cameras by Republican offices.

Jon Chait added that the manufactured outrage over an "exemption" for Congress represents "the toxic combination of ignorance and bad faith that has characterized the right's approach to Obamacare."

It was up to the Obama administration to figure out a resolution to this, and last week, to the relief of lawmakers and their staffers, it did -- offering the patch to a problem a Republican senator inadvertently imposed on lawmakers.

So Grassley's amendment created a situation for government workers that Republicans claimed, falsely, the law would create for everybody else: forcing them off their employer insurance and on to the exchanges. Grassley's amendment didn't even attempt to design a coherent way of changing health-care worker benefits, because, again, it wasn't an attempt to reform health care for Congress and its staff -- it was an attempt to furnish a talking point for Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It yanked away the subsidized health insurance Congress and its staff get, essentially imposing a massive pay cut on those workers.<.blockquote>

Bottom line: has Congress exempted itself from Obamacare? No. Members of the House and Senate, as well as their aides, will be kicked out of the federal system -- all because Grassley played a stupid game -- and will get coverage through exchanges.

The exchanges were, of course, designed for Americans who can't get coverage through their employer, but this pool of consumers will have a very notable exception: Congress.

Anyone who tells you there's a congressional "exemption" from the law either doesn't know what they're talking about, or assumes you're easily fooled into believing nonsense.

Wow, I'm really surprised you posted an article that I already read and (partly) based my opinion upon.

The point being - and NR does not disagree with this - that the Democrats agreed to the provision in the first place and they made hay of it, used it, to counter arguments that the run of the mill American would be faced with a POS health care plan, and would forfeit benefits they already enjoyed while Congress and their staffers would not. Easy, just tout that they believed in the plan while it was in public debate then cast that assurance aside once the law was about to come into effect.

A similar thing was done with the abortion provision. HC funds would be usable for abortions under the law as written, giving coverage to liberals who had to report back home, and then after the law was passed immediately - and I mean within a matter of minutes or hours - the provision was switched, prohibiting payment for abortions, giving cover to those anti-abortion Democrats who had been a real roadblock to the law's passage.

This was done by executive order. How very (un)democratic.

But this is the kind of corruption of the democratic process I am talking about, yes.

 

[Sand]

Continuing its popularity streak, federal employees have ringingly endorsed the ACA with whopping 3% of those on the federal payroll wanting to switch to that scheme.

 

[matttyl]

It's actually less than 3%, it's only 2.8%.

Anyway, last paragraph of that article, is very telling....

acting IRS commissioner Danny Werfel in congressional testimony earlier this month-

“I think [Obamacare] was designed to provide an option, or an alternative for people who don’t [have affordable health insurance],” Werfel said, noting that federal employees are already covered under FEHBP. “I think if you’re an individual who’s satisfied with your health care coverage, you’re probably in a better position to stick with that coverage than go through the change of moving into a different environment and going through that process.”


Many, many individuals will not have that option, and will be FORCED to one of these plans!!!

Further, no matter what Obamacare was designed to provide, many groups will drop their plans now and FORCE their employees into these plans.

 

[Johnny Rock]

Further, no matter what Obamacare was designed to provide, many groups will drop their plans now and FORCE their employees into these plans.

I don't really see this happening. Our company surely won't be dropping our regular coverage because it will hurt us individually too. We want to have good benefits for our Managers on up.

 

[matttyl]

Further, no matter what Obamacare was designed to provide, many groups will drop their plans now and FORCE their employees into these plans.

I don't really see this happening. Our company surely won't be dropping our regular coverage because it will hurt us individually too. We want to have good benefits for our Managers on up.

How big of a company are you with? If it's over 50, they will keep it as there is still a mandate for them in another year. I'm talking about the under 50 groups who will just drop the group benefits, and all the headaches and accounting and such that comes with it and use the "money saved" to either help their bottom lines, or bump up employee income to offset their increased cost going to the exchange.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not to mention the corruption associated with corporate pals and politicians seeking "exemptions" that other normal people have to pay.

What are the political exemptions you're whining about?

The Grassley ® amendment to the ACA, which has basically been overriden. When it suited the Democrats to advertise that they would be voting for the bill on the basis they would be bound by its coverage precepts, that was wonderful; turned out they were never planning to live by it and merely agreed to it to try to sell the law to the public. The fact that Congressmen can get themselves out of the law with a phone call (and I doubt it was free, DC always has a price for favors...) is natural, the fact is that others cannot get out of the law so easily.

We went through this nonsense a while ago. Eventually everyone agreed that it is not all the way you (and the right-wing talking heads) have been describing it. Nobody has "gotten out of the law," and your lack of understanding of the amendment and subsequent developments makes it pretty clear you're actually just taking your marching orders from Fox News commentators instead of understanding the actual Amendment and the subsequent OPM proposed rule.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Further, no matter what Obamacare was designed to provide, many groups will drop their plans now and FORCE their employees into these plans.

I don't really see this happening. Our company surely won't be dropping our regular coverage because it will hurt us individually too. We want to have good benefits for our Managers on up.

How big of a company are you with? If it's over 50, they will keep it as there is still a mandate for them in another year. I'm talking about the under 50 groups who will just drop the group benefits, and all the headaches and accounting and such that comes with it and use the "money saved" to either help their bottom lines, or bump up employee income to offset their increased cost going to the exchange.

Why would smaller businesses do this when there is actually more incentive for them to provide coverage now in the form of tax credits? The usual small business oriented complaint is that companies who don't currently offer insurance, and who are below 50 FT employees will be reluctant to expand based on the threat of new penalties/taxes or will try to hire more part-time employees rather than full-time positions. This is only one anecdotal account, but here's one small business person's view on the law from the perspective of a small firm currently offering insurance:

Small business reality check on Affordable Care Act: it’s here to stay… and that’s a darn good thing
By Jim Houser - 07/25/13 11:00 AM ET
As implementation of the Affordable Care Act moves forward, I was pleased to be invited to testify before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship at a hearing yesterday on small business experiences with the new law. I told the story of my small business – a story that turns the doom-and-gloom political rhetoric about health care reform on its head.

When my wife and I opened our auto repair shop 30 years ago, we made the commitment to offer health insurance. We're in a high-skill field where being able to offer good benefits to keep good people is important. We wouldn’t want our best customers to even think of going anywhere else… and the same holds true for our staff.

That decision has certainly paid off in terms of employee loyalty: the average tenure for our full-time staff is now almost 20 years. And I’m proud that we, as a small business with about a dozen employees, are doing our part to make sure our staff is covered. But it hasn’t been easy.

Before the Affordable Care Act, our experience with health care costs was a lot like the proverbial frog in the pot of cold water gradually heated: we were getting cooked. Maybe slowly, but cooked nonetheless.

Add up the year-over-year increases, and our costs doubled from 2000 to 2009. In 2009, our health insurance costs for our nine full-time employees and their families topped $100,000. That was more than 20 percent of our payroll. This explosion in our health care costs far exceeded increases for any other business cost.

Now, we’ve all been hearing lobbyists claiming left and right that the Affordable Care Act would drive premiums up even further. Well, let this auto mechanic be the first to tell you: that claim doesn’t pass inspection.

Fact is, in my business we’ve already seen a reversal of the skyrocketing rates we absorbed from 2000-2010. In 2011, for the first time in my memory, our health insurance premiums actually went down, and by over 3 percent. A fluke? Dumb luck? I don’t think so: when 2012 rolled around, our premiums went down another 3 percent.

In Oregon, where I have my business, 22 different insurance carriers have applied to and been accepted by Cover Oregon (the name of our state’s health insurance marketplace). Many of these carriers have already lowered their premium requests to match the competition created in this new transparent marketplace.

I’m proud that Oregon is setting an example for how the Affordable Care Act can help small businesses afford quality health coverage – when you take it seriously instead of playing politics with it.

And the new Cover Oregon marketplace is just one of the benefits coming for small businesses. We’re already seeing other provisions of the Affordable Care Act deliver on the promise of lowering health care costs.

Rate review rules are giving states new tools to protect small businesses from unreasonable rate increases. United HealthCare customers in Oregon saved $274 per person when our state’s insurance commission knocked back their 16.8 percent proposed increase to 10 percent.

The ACA’s “80/20 Rule” is ensuring that small businesses get real value for our premium dollars. Requiring insurers to issue rebate checks when they fail to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care has put billions of dollars back in consumers’ pockets nationwide through either lower premiums or rebates. Just across the Columbia River from my business, in Clark County, Washington, Regence returned an average of $499 per rate payer.

Thanks to the law’s small business health care tax credit, our business received a credit of $12,903. And, running a family business, the ACA has also allowed our 25-year-old daughter to rejoin our plan, sharing risk over a larger, healthier pool of enrollees.

Here’s the bottom line: the Affordable Care Act has been like a time machine for our small business. Premium decreases, combined with ACA’s small business tax credit, have rolled our health insurance costs back to what we were paying in 2007. And, health insurance pricing certainty has now enabled us to add two more full-time employees (including a veteran of the war in Afghanistan). We’re a health care success story.

If Congress wants more small business success stories like mine, it should build on the ACA by doing things like expand the small business tax credit so more businesses can benefit.

What it shouldn’t do is waste any more time on grandstanding repeal votes. The ACA is here to stay. And for small businesses like mine, that’s a darn good thing.

Jim Houser is an ASE Certified Master Automotive Technician and co-owner of Hawthorne Auto Clinic in Portland, Oregon. He is co-chair of the Main Street Alliance of Oregon, a statewide network of local, independent small businesses. He also serves on the Consumer Advisory Committee to Cover Oregon, Oregon’s new health insurance marketplace.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/313279-small-business-reality-check-on-affordable-care-act-its-here-to-stay-and-thats-a-darn-good-thing#ixzz2c9OmuiLo

Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Further, no matter what Obamacare was designed to provide, many groups will drop their plans now and FORCE their employees into these plans.

I don't really see this happening. Our company surely won't be dropping our regular coverage because it will hurt us individually too. We want to have good benefits for our Managers on up.

How big of a company are you with? If it's over 50, they will keep it as there is still a mandate for them in another year. I'm talking about the under 50 groups who will just drop the group benefits, and all the headaches and accounting and such that comes with it and use the "money saved" to either help their bottom lines, or bump up employee income to offset their increased cost going to the exchange.

Why would smaller businesses do this when there is actually more incentive for them to provide coverage now in the form of tax credits? The usual small business oriented complaint is that companies who don't currently offer insurance, and who are below 50 FT employees will be reluctant to expand based on the threat of new penalties/taxes or will try to hire more part-time employees rather than full-time positions. This is only one anecdotal account, but here's one small business person's view on the law from the perspective of a small firm currently offering insurance:

Small business reality check on Affordable Care Act: it’s here to stay… and that’s a darn good thing
By Jim Houser - 07/25/13 11:00 AM ET
As implementation of the Affordable Care Act moves forward, I was pleased to be invited to testify before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship at a hearing yesterday on small business experiences with the new law. I told the story of my small business – a story that turns the doom-and-gloom political rhetoric about health care reform on its head.

When my wife and I opened our auto repair shop 30 years ago, we made the commitment to offer health insurance. We're in a high-skill field where being able to offer good benefits to keep good people is important. We wouldn’t want our best customers to even think of going anywhere else… and the same holds true for our staff.

That decision has certainly paid off in terms of employee loyalty: the average tenure for our full-time staff is now almost 20 years. And I’m proud that we, as a small business with about a dozen employees, are doing our part to make sure our staff is covered. But it hasn’t been easy.

Before the Affordable Care Act, our experience with health care costs was a lot like the proverbial frog in the pot of cold water gradually heated: we were getting cooked. Maybe slowly, but cooked nonetheless.

Add up the year-over-year increases, and our costs doubled from 2000 to 2009. In 2009, our health insurance costs for our nine full-time employees and their families topped $100,000. That was more than 20 percent of our payroll. This explosion in our health care costs far exceeded increases for any other business cost.

Now, we’ve all been hearing lobbyists claiming left and right that the Affordable Care Act would drive premiums up even further. Well, let this auto mechanic be the first to tell you: that claim doesn’t pass inspection.

Fact is, in my business we’ve already seen a reversal of the skyrocketing rates we absorbed from 2000-2010. In 2011, for the first time in my memory, our health insurance premiums actually went down, and by over 3 percent. A fluke? Dumb luck? I don’t think so: when 2012 rolled around, our premiums went down another 3 percent.

In Oregon, where I have my business, 22 different insurance carriers have applied to and been accepted by Cover Oregon (the name of our state’s health insurance marketplace). Many of these carriers have already lowered their premium requests to match the competition created in this new transparent marketplace.

I’m proud that Oregon is setting an example for how the Affordable Care Act can help small businesses afford quality health coverage – when you take it seriously instead of playing politics with it.

And the new Cover Oregon marketplace is just one of the benefits coming for small businesses. We’re already seeing other provisions of the Affordable Care Act deliver on the promise of lowering health care costs.

Rate review rules are giving states new tools to protect small businesses from unreasonable rate increases. United HealthCare customers in Oregon saved $274 per person when our state’s insurance commission knocked back their 16.8 percent proposed increase to 10 percent.

The ACA’s “80/20 Rule” is ensuring that small businesses get real value for our premium dollars. Requiring insurers to issue rebate checks when they fail to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care has put billions of dollars back in consumers’ pockets nationwide through either lower premiums or rebates. Just across the Columbia River from my business, in Clark County, Washington, Regence returned an average of $499 per rate payer.

Thanks to the law’s small business health care tax credit, our business received a credit of $12,903. And, running a family business, the ACA has also allowed our 25-year-old daughter to rejoin our plan, sharing risk over a larger, healthier pool of enrollees.

Here’s the bottom line: the Affordable Care Act has been like a time machine for our small business. Premium decreases, combined with ACA’s small business tax credit, have rolled our health insurance costs back to what we were paying in 2007. And, health insurance pricing certainty has now enabled us to add two more full-time employees (including a veteran of the war in Afghanistan). We’re a health care success story.

If Congress wants more small business success stories like mine, it should build on the ACA by doing things like expand the small business tax credit so more businesses can benefit.

What it shouldn’t do is waste any more time on grandstanding repeal votes. The ACA is here to stay. And for small businesses like mine, that’s a darn good thing.

Jim Houser is an ASE Certified Master Automotive Technician and co-owner of Hawthorne Auto Clinic in Portland, Oregon. He is co-chair of the Main Street Alliance of Oregon, a statewide network of local, independent small businesses. He also serves on the Consumer Advisory Committee to Cover Oregon, Oregon’s new health insurance marketplace.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/313279-small-business-reality-check-on-affordable-care-act-its-here-to-stay-and-thats-a-darn-good-thing#ixzz2c9OmuiLo

Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Sorry, explain how this part works?

Thanks to the law’s small business health care tax credit, our business received a credit of $12,903. And, running a family business, the ACA has also allowed our 25-year-old daughter to rejoin our plan, sharing risk over a larger, healthier pool of enrollees.

How does the tax credit work (ie is it just a tax cut?) and why if the daughter (who apparently is not an employee I take it) is covered is the risk being shared by others now if the author is paying for it himself (as opposed to her having just been covered by an individual policy?)?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Further, no matter what Obamacare was designed to provide, many groups will drop their plans now and FORCE their employees into these plans.

I don't really see this happening. Our company surely won't be dropping our regular coverage because it will hurt us individually too. We want to have good benefits for our Managers on up.

How big of a company are you with? If it's over 50, they will keep it as there is still a mandate for them in another year. I'm talking about the under 50 groups who will just drop the group benefits, and all the headaches and accounting and such that comes with it and use the "money saved" to either help their bottom lines, or bump up employee income to offset their increased cost going to the exchange.

Why would smaller businesses do this when there is actually more incentive for them to provide coverage now in the form of tax credits? The usual small business oriented complaint is that companies who don't currently offer insurance, and who are below 50 FT employees will be reluctant to expand based on the threat of new penalties/taxes or will try to hire more part-time employees rather than full-time positions. This is only one anecdotal account, but here's one small business person's view on the law from the perspective of a small firm currently offering insurance:

Small business reality check on Affordable Care Act: it’s here to stay… and that’s a darn good thing
By Jim Houser - 07/25/13 11:00 AM ET
As implementation of the Affordable Care Act moves forward, I was pleased to be invited to testify before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship at a hearing yesterday on small business experiences with the new law. I told the story of my small business – a story that turns the doom-and-gloom political rhetoric about health care reform on its head.

When my wife and I opened our auto repair shop 30 years ago, we made the commitment to offer health insurance. We're in a high-skill field where being able to offer good benefits to keep good people is important. We wouldn’t want our best customers to even think of going anywhere else… and the same holds true for our staff.

That decision has certainly paid off in terms of employee loyalty: the average tenure for our full-time staff is now almost 20 years. And I’m proud that we, as a small business with about a dozen employees, are doing our part to make sure our staff is covered. But it hasn’t been easy.

Before the Affordable Care Act, our experience with health care costs was a lot like the proverbial frog in the pot of cold water gradually heated: we were getting cooked. Maybe slowly, but cooked nonetheless.

Add up the year-over-year increases, and our costs doubled from 2000 to 2009. In 2009, our health insurance costs for our nine full-time employees and their families topped $100,000. That was more than 20 percent of our payroll. This explosion in our health care costs far exceeded increases for any other business cost.

Now, we’ve all been hearing lobbyists claiming left and right that the Affordable Care Act would drive premiums up even further. Well, let this auto mechanic be the first to tell you: that claim doesn’t pass inspection.

Fact is, in my business we’ve already seen a reversal of the skyrocketing rates we absorbed from 2000-2010. In 2011, for the first time in my memory, our health insurance premiums actually went down, and by over 3 percent. A fluke? Dumb luck? I don’t think so: when 2012 rolled around, our premiums went down another 3 percent.

In Oregon, where I have my business, 22 different insurance carriers have applied to and been accepted by Cover Oregon (the name of our state’s health insurance marketplace). Many of these carriers have already lowered their premium requests to match the competition created in this new transparent marketplace.

I’m proud that Oregon is setting an example for how the Affordable Care Act can help small businesses afford quality health coverage – when you take it seriously instead of playing politics with it.

And the new Cover Oregon marketplace is just one of the benefits coming for small businesses. We’re already seeing other provisions of the Affordable Care Act deliver on the promise of lowering health care costs.

Rate review rules are giving states new tools to protect small businesses from unreasonable rate increases. United HealthCare customers in Oregon saved $274 per person when our state’s insurance commission knocked back their 16.8 percent proposed increase to 10 percent.

The ACA’s “80/20 Rule” is ensuring that small businesses get real value for our premium dollars. Requiring insurers to issue rebate checks when they fail to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care has put billions of dollars back in consumers’ pockets nationwide through either lower premiums or rebates. Just across the Columbia River from my business, in Clark County, Washington, Regence returned an average of $499 per rate payer.

Thanks to the law’s small business health care tax credit, our business received a credit of $12,903. And, running a family business, the ACA has also allowed our 25-year-old daughter to rejoin our plan, sharing risk over a larger, healthier pool of enrollees.

Here’s the bottom line: the Affordable Care Act has been like a time machine for our small business. Premium decreases, combined with ACA’s small business tax credit, have rolled our health insurance costs back to what we were paying in 2007. And, health insurance pricing certainty has now enabled us to add two more full-time employees (including a veteran of the war in Afghanistan). We’re a health care success story.

If Congress wants more small business success stories like mine, it should build on the ACA by doing things like expand the small business tax credit so more businesses can benefit.

What it shouldn’t do is waste any more time on grandstanding repeal votes. The ACA is here to stay. And for small businesses like mine, that’s a darn good thing.

Jim Houser is an ASE Certified Master Automotive Technician and co-owner of Hawthorne Auto Clinic in Portland, Oregon. He is co-chair of the Main Street Alliance of Oregon, a statewide network of local, independent small businesses. He also serves on the Consumer Advisory Committee to Cover Oregon, Oregon’s new health insurance marketplace.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/313279-small-business-reality-check-on-affordable-care-act-its-here-to-stay-and-thats-a-darn-good-thing#ixzz2c9OmuiLo

Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

And this?

United HealthCare customers in Oregon saved $274 per person when our state’s insurance commission knocked back their 16.8 percent proposed increase to 10 percent.

Without that extra 6.8% is UHC now running at no profit or at a loss? Or do we not know?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Also:

our nine full-time employees

So this is a company with less than 50 employees, aren't they pretty much untouched by the law?

Except for the small business tax credit - it soudns like a tax cut (if that's what it is) is the most beneficial thing - why didn't they just pass that and not the rest of it?

 

[matttyl]

Ok, I'll use that above example and show why he'd be better off dropping that group plan. The article says that he was paying over $100,000 for 9 employees and their families, and that was in 2009. Their first premium reduction didn't come till 2011, and it was only 3%. So lets just assume that the total premium for those 9 employees and their families today is right at $100k, to make the math simple (over $11,000 per employee, per year).

He also says that this was "over 20% of his payroll". So his payroll was under $500k for 9 guys (again to keep the math simple we'll say that the employees were each making $55k a year), and it's obvious that most had families to get the overall plan cost to over $100,000 a year. In fact, he was likely getting the lion's share and the employees were making under $50k each.

He's only getting $13k back in a tax credit, making the net cost ~$87,000 per year for the plan. He's better off dropping the group plan all together, putting (forcing) these 9 employees on an exchange plan and these employees (if they have families which apparently they do) will likely qualify for a premium subsidy making their cost even lower. Further, the employer can split up that ~$87k savings as an extra roughly $10k bump in pay for each employee.

The employee is likely better off with a ~$10k bump in pay and a likely subsidized individual plan on the exchange. Of course each person is going to be different as to if they qualify for a subsidy based on number in household and total household income (and this employer has ZERO right to ask his employees what their spouses bring home).

The employer is likely better off pocking some of that ~$87k savings for himself, and not having to worry about doing any of the accounting and record keeping and such for the group plan. Moreover, he wouldn't have to worry about ANY future premium increases on a group plan, as he wouldn't have one.

This will happen all over.

**EDIT** Moreover, this will actually increase choice for the employees who can now pick their own level of coverage, rather than just being placed on the one plan that his employer offers.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok, I'll use that above example and show why he'd be better off dropping that group plan. The article says that he was paying over $100,000 for 9 employees and their families, and that was in 2009. Their first premium reduction didn't come till 2011, and it was only 3%. So lets just assume that the total premium for those 9 employees and their families today is right at $100k, to make the math simple (over $11,000 per employee, per year).

He also says that this was "over 20% of his payroll". So his payroll was under $500k for 9 guys (again to keep the math simple we'll say that the employees were each making $55k a year), and it's obvious that most had families to get the overall plan cost to over $100,000 a year. In fact, he was likely getting the lion's share and the employees were making under $50k each.

He's only getting $13k back in a tax credit, making the net cost ~$87,000 per year for the plan. He's better off dropping the group plan all together, putting (forcing) these 9 employees on an exchange plan and these employees (if they have families which apparently they do) will likely qualify for a premium subsidy making their cost even lower. Further, the employer can split up that ~$87k savings as an extra roughly $10k bump in pay for each employee.

The employee is likely better off with a ~$10k bump in pay and a likely subsidized individual plan on the exchange. Of course each person is going to be different as to if they qualify for a subsidy based on number in household and total household income (and this employer has ZERO right to ask his employees what their spouses bring home).

The employer is likely better off pocking some of that ~$87k savings for himself, and not having to worry about doing any of the accounting and record keeping and such for the group plan. Moreover, he wouldn't have to worry about ANY future premium increases on a group plan, as he wouldn't have one.

This will happen all over.

**EDIT** Moreover, this will actually increase choice for the employees who can now pick their own level of coverage, rather than just being placed on the one plan that his employer offers.

And also about that author

Jim Houser ... serves on the Consumer Advisory Committee to Cover Oregon, Oregon’s new health insurance marketplace.

Sounds like the guy is a weeee little bit biased here, no? Not just some "independent" "small business" owner.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not to mention the corruption associated with corporate pals and politicians seeking "exemptions" that other normal people have to pay.

What are the political exemptions you're whining about?

The Grassley ® amendment to the ACA, which has basically been overriden. When it suited the Democrats to vote for the bill on the basis they would be bound by its covverage precepts, that was wonderful; turned out they were never planning to live by it and merely agreed to it to try to sell the law to the public. The fact that Congressmen can get themselves out of the law with a phone call (and I doubt it was free, DC always has a price for favors...) is natural, the fact is that others cannot get out fo the law so easily.

Is this the "exemption" you're whining about?

The trouble started in 2009 with a cheap stunt orchestrated by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). While lawmakers already get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, just like other federal employees, the Iowa Republican pushed a proposal to force members of Congress out of the federal system and into exchanges.

The point wasn't to shape policy, but to create a talking point for Republicans. Grassley desperately wanted to say, "Those darn Democrats think the exchanges are good enough for millions of Americans, but not good enough for themselves," and he assumed Dems would balk at his "plan" because they'd be unwilling to give up the generous Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.

But Democrats called Grassley's bluff, embraced his idea, and added it to the Affordable Care Act.

And that's where the story gets a little tricky -- Grassley's partisan-stunt-gone-wrong sent members and their aides to get coverage through exchange marketplaces, but never created a mechanism to make that happen.

As Jonathan Cohn explained yesterday:

The policy has nothing to do with "exempting" Congress from the health care law, and everything to do with creating a mechanism through which lawmakers will kick themselves off their own insurance plan and into exchanges without a major premium hike.

The federal government, like most large employers, not only provides the opportunity for its workers to get insurance. It also pays a large portion of the premium. Now that lawmakers and their advisers were going into the exchanges, what would happen to that contribution? Would they just lose the money?

The answer, the administration decided last week, is no. Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their employer contributions, and apply that money towards the cost of whatever insurance they buy in the exchanges.

For Republicans and their allies to whine incessantly about this is ridiculous, even by contemporary conservative standards. We are, after all, talking about an idea pushed by a Republican senator and quietly celebrated away from the cameras by Republican offices.

Jon Chait added that the manufactured outrage over an "exemption" for Congress represents "the toxic combination of ignorance and bad faith that has characterized the right's approach to Obamacare."

It was up to the Obama administration to figure out a resolution to this, and last week, to the relief of lawmakers and their staffers, it did -- offering the patch to a problem a Republican senator inadvertently imposed on lawmakers.

So Grassley's amendment created a situation for government workers that Republicans claimed, falsely, the law would create for everybody else: forcing them off their employer insurance and on to the exchanges. Grassley's amendment didn't even attempt to design a coherent way of changing health-care worker benefits, because, again, it wasn't an attempt to reform health care for Congress and its staff -- it was an attempt to furnish a talking point for Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It yanked away the subsidized health insurance Congress and its staff get, essentially imposing a massive pay cut on those workers.<.blockquote>

Bottom line: has Congress exempted itself from Obamacare? No. Members of the House and Senate, as well as their aides, will be kicked out of the federal system -- all because Grassley played a stupid game -- and will get coverage through exchanges.

The exchanges were, of course, designed for Americans who can't get coverage through their employer, but this pool of consumers will have a very notable exception: Congress.

Anyone who tells you there's a congressional "exemption" from the law either doesn't know what they're talking about, or assumes you're easily fooled into believing nonsense.

Wow, I'm really surprised you posted an article that I already read and (partly) based my opinion upon.

The point being - and NR does not disagree with this - that the Democrats agreed to the provision in the first place and they made hay of it, used it, to counter arguments that the run of the mill American would be faced with a POS health care plan, and would forfeit benefits they already enjoyed while Congress and their staffers would not. Easy, just tout that they believed in the plan while it was in public debate then cast that assurance aside once the law was about to come into effect.

A similar thing was done with the abortion provision. HC funds would be usable for abortions under the law as written, giving coverage to liberals who had to report back home, and then after the law was passed immediately - and I mean within a matter of minutes or hours - the provision was switched, prohibiting payment for abortions, giving cover to those anti-abortion Democrats who had been a real roadblock to the law's passage.

This was done by executive order. How very (un)democratic.

But this is the kind of corruption of the democratic process I am talking about, yes.

Could you do me a favor? Explain to me what you think has happened since passage of the Grassley amendment as part of the ACA. Don't say "they" "made hay" and then "cast it aside." Tell me exactly who you think did what, with citations and links to what was said and more importantly what was done. Because I'm pretty sure you don't have the slightest ####ing clue what you're talking about.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not to mention the corruption associated with corporate pals and politicians seeking "exemptions" that other normal people have to pay.

What are the political exemptions you're whining about?

The Grassley ® amendment to the ACA, which has basically been overriden. When it suited the Democrats to vote for the bill on the basis they would be bound by its covverage precepts, that was wonderful; turned out they were never planning to live by it and merely agreed to it to try to sell the law to the public. The fact that Congressmen can get themselves out of the law with a phone call (and I doubt it was free, DC always has a price for favors...) is natural, the fact is that others cannot get out fo the law so easily.

Is this the "exemption" you're whining about?

The trouble started in 2009 with a cheap stunt orchestrated by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). While lawmakers already get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, just like other federal employees, the Iowa Republican pushed a proposal to force members of Congress out of the federal system and into exchanges.

The point wasn't to shape policy, but to create a talking point for Republicans. Grassley desperately wanted to say, "Those darn Democrats think the exchanges are good enough for millions of Americans, but not good enough for themselves," and he assumed Dems would balk at his "plan" because they'd be unwilling to give up the generous Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.

But Democrats called Grassley's bluff, embraced his idea, and added it to the Affordable Care Act.

And that's where the story gets a little tricky -- Grassley's partisan-stunt-gone-wrong sent members and their aides to get coverage through exchange marketplaces, but never created a mechanism to make that happen.

As Jonathan Cohn explained yesterday:

The policy has nothing to do with "exempting" Congress from the health care law, and everything to do with creating a mechanism through which lawmakers will kick themselves off their own insurance plan and into exchanges without a major premium hike.

The federal government, like most large employers, not only provides the opportunity for its workers to get insurance. It also pays a large portion of the premium. Now that lawmakers and their advisers were going into the exchanges, what would happen to that contribution? Would they just lose the money?

The answer, the administration decided last week, is no. Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their employer contributions, and apply that money towards the cost of whatever insurance they buy in the exchanges.

For Republicans and their allies to whine incessantly about this is ridiculous, even by contemporary conservative standards. We are, after all, talking about an idea pushed by a Republican senator and quietly celebrated away from the cameras by Republican offices.

Jon Chait added that the manufactured outrage over an "exemption" for Congress represents "the toxic combination of ignorance and bad faith that has characterized the right's approach to Obamacare."

It was up to the Obama administration to figure out a resolution to this, and last week, to the relief of lawmakers and their staffers, it did -- offering the patch to a problem a Republican senator inadvertently imposed on lawmakers.

So Grassley's amendment created a situation for government workers that Republicans claimed, falsely, the law would create for everybody else: forcing them off their employer insurance and on to the exchanges. Grassley's amendment didn't even attempt to design a coherent way of changing health-care worker benefits, because, again, it wasn't an attempt to reform health care for Congress and its staff -- it was an attempt to furnish a talking point for Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It yanked away the subsidized health insurance Congress and its staff get, essentially imposing a massive pay cut on those workers.<.blockquote>

Bottom line: has Congress exempted itself from Obamacare? No. Members of the House and Senate, as well as their aides, will be kicked out of the federal system -- all because Grassley played a stupid game -- and will get coverage through exchanges.

The exchanges were, of course, designed for Americans who can't get coverage through their employer, but this pool of consumers will have a very notable exception: Congress.

Anyone who tells you there's a congressional "exemption" from the law either doesn't know what they're talking about, or assumes you're easily fooled into believing nonsense.

Wow, I'm really surprised you posted an article that I already read and (partly) based my opinion upon.

The point being - and NR does not disagree with this - that the Democrats agreed to the provision in the first place and they made hay of it, used it, to counter arguments that the run of the mill American would be faced with a POS health care plan, and would forfeit benefits they already enjoyed while Congress and their staffers would not. Easy, just tout that they believed in the plan while it was in public debate then cast that assurance aside once the law was about to come into effect.

A similar thing was done with the abortion provision. HC funds would be usable for abortions under the law as written, giving coverage to liberals who had to report back home, and then after the law was passed immediately - and I mean within a matter of minutes or hours - the provision was switched, prohibiting payment for abortions, giving cover to those anti-abortion Democrats who had been a real roadblock to the law's passage.

This was done by executive order. How very (un)democratic.

But this is the kind of corruption of the democratic process I am talking about, yes.

Could you do me a favor? Explain to me what you think has happened since passage of the Grassley amendment as part of the ACA. Don't say "they" "made hay" and then "cast it aside." Tell me exactly who you think did what, with citations and links to what was said and more importantly what was done. Because I'm pretty sure you don't have the slightest ####ing clue what you're talking about.

Hey I do think your mental impressions are valid, can't dispute that, they are what they are, and I respect that.

"Make hay" is a common expression which means to take advantage of and profit from. By that I meant that Democrats who were in states and districts that were on teh fence about the ACA when confronted with opposition deflected arguments by claiming taht they too would be covered.

"Cast aside" means to blithely discard a principle (in such a situation where a principle is at stake) after it has served its purpose.

The Grassley amendment (and the NR article supports this) requried that those covered under the Congresional health plan would be required, when the ACA came into effect, to forego their federally subsidized HC plans while they transitioned onto the government health care exchanges created by the ACA. The position put forward by teh Democrats - now, later when the law is one the eve of having effect, not then when it was being debated - was that the insureds would get to retain their contributions (ie subsidies) previously created under the old plan. Now in my opinion, that does not make very much sense. The point of the Grassley Amendment was to bind those making HC insurance decisions for all Americans to those very same effects of those decisions. It would not make sense to say, they would be bound by the exchanges but not really bound (because gosh we get these fantastic subsidies no one else gets access to).

Now if you want me to get into a linkage battle, with left vs right sites, not really sure I see the point in that (because they all reference each other's wing mostly). I referenced the NR article which is pretty liberal I'd say (and even NR does that same quoting of the echo chamber but anyway), glad to go elsewhere though. Thanks.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Ok, I'll use that above example and show why he'd be better off dropping that group plan. The article says that he was paying over $100,000 for 9 employees and their families, and that was in 2009. Their first premium reduction didn't come till 2011, and it was only 3%. So lets just assume that the total premium for those 9 employees and their families today is right at $100k, to make the math simple (over $11,000 per employee, per year).

He also says that this was "over 20% of his payroll". So his payroll was under $500k for 9 guys (again to keep the math simple we'll say that the employees were each making $55k a year), and it's obvious that most had families to get the overall plan cost to over $100,000 a year. In fact, he was likely getting the lion's share and the employees were making under $50k each.

He's only getting $13k back in a tax credit, making the net cost ~$87,000 per year for the plan. He's better off dropping the group plan all together, putting (forcing) these 9 employees on an exchange plan and these employees (if they have families which apparently they do) will likely qualify for a premium subsidy making their cost even lower. Further, the employer can split up that ~$87k savings as an extra roughly $10k bump in pay for each employee.

The employee is likely better off with a ~$10k bump in pay and a likely subsidized individual plan on the exchange. Of course each person is going to be different as to if they qualify for a subsidy based on number in household and total household income (and this employer has ZERO right to ask his employees what their spouses bring home).

The employer is likely better off pocking some of that ~$87k savings for himself, and not having to worry about doing any of the accounting and record keeping and such for the group plan. Moreover, he wouldn't have to worry about ANY future premium increases on a group plan, as he wouldn't have one.

This will happen all over.

**EDIT** Moreover, this will actually increase choice for the employees who can now pick their own level of coverage, rather than just being placed on the one plan that his employer offers.

All you are doing here is making a case that the employer would save money by not offering Health insurance to his employees and splitting some of that savings between himself and his employees, which would also have been a true statement for any point of time that he has been in business yet he continued to offer coverage. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make as at the end you seem to imply that the employees themselves would have better choices going to the exchanges for coverage, which is confusing since you have been railing against the horrors of the exchanges throughout this thread. It's also not clear at all that they would come out ahead with 10K bump in salary + potential subsidies because of the way that portion of their compensation would change from a tax standpoint.

Personally, I think in the long run we're better off getting away from employer provided coverage altogether, but I don't think this part of ACA will drive much of that. The "Cadillac Plan" tax has much more potential to alter the quality and choices of plans being provided through employers. It's also probably one of the better long-term potential cost saving measures in the law.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Hey I do think your mental impressions are valid, can't dispute that, they are what they are, and I respect that.

"Make hay" is a common expression which means to take advantage of and profit from. By that I meant that Democrats who were in states and districts that were on teh fence about the ACA when confronted with opposition deflected arguments by claiming taht they too would be covered.

"Cast aside" means to blithely discard a principle (in such a situation where a principle is at stake) after it has served its purpose.

The Grassley amendment (and the NR article supports this) requried that those covered under the Congresional health plan would be required, when the ACA came into effect, to forego their federally subsidized HC plans while they transitioned onto the government health care exchanges created by the ACA. The position put forward by teh Democrats - now, later when the law is one the eve of having effect, not then when it was being debated - was that the insureds would get to retain their contributions (ie subsidies) previously created under the old plan. Now in my opinion, that does not make very much sense. The point of the Grassley Amendment was to bind those making HC insurance decisions for all Americans to those very same effects of those decisions. It would not make sense to say, they would be bound by the exchanges but not really bound (because gosh we get these fantastic subsidies no one else gets access to).

Now if you want me to get into a linkage battle, with left vs right sites, not really sure I see the point in that (because they all reference each other's wing mostly). I referenced the NR article which is pretty liberal I'd say (and even NR does that same quoting of the echo chamber but anyway), glad to go elsewhere though. Thanks.

The bolded is completely wrong. And I don't need left vs. right links to do it. I'll give you primary sources and simple explanations:

This is the Grassley Amendment. If you don't feel like reading, here's the plain language summary according to all parties involved. Grassley is basically saying to the Dems: "You think the coverage under these exchanges is so great? Fine. YOU use them. The government will continue to make contributions to cover some of these costs (see subsection (D)(ii)), but you are restricted to those plans available on the exchanges. No more FEHB for you. Other large employers can provide their own health care for their employees as they see fit, but you made this bed so you lie in it."

To which the Dems responded "Fine. It's a deal."

There is zero debate from anyone about the intention of the amendment here. Nobody wanted to cut off health care benefits for members and staff completely. There is not one word of the amendment that could be interpreted that way, and nobody involved in the process has claimed that was their intent.

Later, some people pointed out that the amendment could present some bureaucratic issues depending on how it's applied, because the exchanges aren't really set up in such a way as to allow employer contributions. The Office of Personnel Management was asked to reconcile this issue and give effect to the intent and meaning of the law, as federal agencies are often directed to do. I'll stop here and point out that the Office of Personnel Management has nothing to do with Congress. Here's a link to help you understand that.

OPM recently took a step towards fulfilling their function by issuing a proposed rule providing that, as the Amendment clearly intends, members and staff may only use health plans offered in the exchanges, but that they will still receive contributions from their employer. This is still just a proposed rule, so you and everyone else in America can feel free to comment if you like I assume- I apologize that the link to the text of the proposed rule isn't working right now, but I gave you the link to the press release on it, best I could do.

Now as to your ridiculous statement that they "get these fantastic subsidies that no one else gets access to" ... you realize that if you're a member of Congress or Congressional staff the federal government is their employer, don't you? They're not subsidies, they're employer contributions to health care coverage. Are you saying that no other employees of large employers in America get contributions towards their health care coverage from their employers? Because I'm pretty sure that's not true.

If you're willing to read one of those left-wing commie pinkos from the Washington Post explaining to you how this is a bunch of nonsense, here you go. And next time, ignore Rush. He's full of ####.

 

[matttyl]

All you are doing here is making a case that the employer would save money by not offering Health insurance to his employees and splitting some of that savings between himself and his employees, which would also have been a true statement for any point of time that he has been in business yet he continued to offer coverage. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make as at the end you seem to imply that the employees themselves would have better choices going to the exchanges for coverage, which is confusing since you have been railing against the horrors of the exchanges throughout this thread. It's also not clear at all that they would come out ahead with 10K bump in salary + potential subsidies because of the way that portion of their compensation would change from a tax standpoint.

Personally, I think in the long run we're better off getting away from employer provided coverage altogether, but I don't think this part of ACA will drive much of that. The "Cadillac Plan" tax has much more potential to alter the quality and choices of plans being provided through employers. It's also probably one of the better long-term potential cost saving measures in the law.

But before he couldn't have been sure that the employees could obtain coverage due to any pre-ex they might have. Now he won't have to have that worry as it's guaranteed issue, big difference.

Yes, the employees may be better off in the end (depending on the details of the coverage they have now vs the coverage they would have in the exchange), but at the expense of John Q. Taxpayer who will be paying for any subsidy that the employee might get. You don't view this as taking advantage of the system? The employer is just shifting the cost from himself to the government (everyone else), and very possibly making a profit to do so.

Also, it's very possible that the unhealthy in his group (and I'm sure there are a few if they are paying $100k+ per year for only 9 employees and families) will be much worse off on the exchange than in their current group plan with very possibly higher deductibles and higher out of limits costs.

I'm just saying that with the knowledge that "anyone" can get health insurance, regardless of health condition, many employers will choose to drop their current group plans and (force) have employees fend for themselves on the exchange. For some it might be good depending on the details, for others it could be much worse.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hey I do think your mental impressions are valid, can't dispute that, they are what they are, and I respect that.

"Make hay" is a common expression which means to take advantage of and profit from. By that I meant that Democrats who were in states and districts that were on teh fence about the ACA when confronted with opposition deflected arguments by claiming taht they too would be covered.

"Cast aside" means to blithely discard a principle (in such a situation where a principle is at stake) after it has served its purpose.

The Grassley amendment (and the NR article supports this) requried that those covered under the Congresional health plan would be required, when the ACA came into effect, to forego their federally subsidized HC plans while they transitioned onto the government health care exchanges created by the ACA. The position put forward by teh Democrats - now, later when the law is one the eve of having effect, not then when it was being debated - was that the insureds would get to retain their contributions (ie subsidies) previously created under the old plan. Now in my opinion, that does not make very much sense. The point of the Grassley Amendment was to bind those making HC insurance decisions for all Americans to those very same effects of those decisions. It would not make sense to say, they would be bound by the exchanges but not really bound (because gosh we get these fantastic subsidies no one else gets access to).

Now if you want me to get into a linkage battle, with left vs right sites, not really sure I see the point in that (because they all reference each other's wing mostly). I referenced the NR article which is pretty liberal I'd say (and even NR does that same quoting of the echo chamber but anyway), glad to go elsewhere though. Thanks.

The bolded is completely wrong. And I don't need left vs. right links to do it. I'll give you primary sources and simple explanations:

This is the Grassley Amendment. If you don't feel like reading, here's the plain language summary according to all parties involved. Grassley is basically saying to the Dems: "You think the coverage under these exchanges is so great? Fine. YOU use them. The government will continue to make contributions to cover some of these costs (see subsection (D)(ii)), but you are restricted to those plans available on the exchanges. No more FEHB for you. Other large employers can provide their own health care for their employees as they see fit, but you made this bed so you lie in it."

To which the Dems responded "Fine. It's a deal."

There is zero debate from anyone about the intention of the amendment here. Nobody wanted to cut off health care benefits for members and staff completely. There is not one word of the amendment that could be interpreted that way, and nobody involved in the process has claimed that was their intent.

Later, some people pointed out that the amendment could present some bureaucratic issues depending on how it's applied, because the exchanges aren't really set up in such a way as to allow employer contributions. The Office of Personnel Management was asked to reconcile this issue and give effect to the intent and meaning of the law, as federal agencies are often directed to do. I'll stop here and point out that the Office of Personnel Management has nothing to do with Congress. Here's a link to help you understand that.

OPM recently took a step towards fulfilling their function by issuing a proposed rule providing that, as the Amendment clearly intends, members and staff may only use health plans offered in the exchanges, but that they will still receive contributions from their employer. This is still just a proposed rule, so you and everyone else in America can feel free to comment if you like I assume- I apologize that the link to the text of the proposed rule isn't working right now, but I gave you the link to the press release on it, best I could do.

Now as to your ridiculous statement that they "get these fantastic subsidies that no one else gets access to" ... you realize that if you're a member of Congress or Congressional staff the federal government is their employer, don't you? They're not subsidies, they're employer contributions to health care coverage. Are you saying that no other employees of large employers in America get contributions towards their health care coverage from their employers? Because I'm pretty sure that's not true.

If you're willing to read one of those left-wing commie pinkos from the Washington Post explaining to you how this is a bunch of nonsense, here you go. And next time, ignore Rush. He's full of ####.

Ok, first of all - I'm happily off right/left talk radio (news, well I might listen to NPR, or WBOK (it's to the left of liberal and is openly about black issues) or WSMB/sports ESPN, in New Orleans), so let's leave that out of it. I read this in my morning paper (AP feed a couple days old I would think, since or rag now just publishes three tiems a week), with my coffee, a few days ago, and the read the New Republic article out of curiosity. The NR article

But Grassley suggested an exception. He introduced an amendment that would force members of Congress, and their advisers, to give up federal employee coverage and buy through the new exchanges instead.

Grassley insisted he wanted only to promote good public policy. If members of Congress were dependent on the exchanges, he suggested, they’d have a direct stake in their success. But Grassley was also the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee. And, by that point in the debate, he’d all but committed himself to opposing legislation. He almost certainly figured the Democrats would vote down his amendment, rather than relinquish federal employee coverage. And that would give Republicans a chance to pounce. If Obamacare coverage is good enough for you, the Republicans could then tell voters, why isn’t it good enough for them?


As it turns out, Grassley was wrong. Democrats didn’t reject the amendment. They accepted it, and now it’s part of the law. But that created a very weird situation. The federal government, like most large employers, not only provides the opportunity for its workers to get insurance. It also pays a large portion of the premium. Now that lawmakers and their advisers were going into the exchanges, what would happen to that contribution? Would they just lose the money?

The answer, the administration decided last week, is no. Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their employer contributions, and apply that money towards the cost of whatever insurance they buy in the exchanges.

So, recognizing what the OPM did (and realizing that its chief is indeed appointed/nominated by the president), I wasn't exactly comfortable about the idea that an executive branch bureau had decided to resolve the ambiguity the way it did.

I have to say i appreciate you're posting the actual law, which is refreshing.

any employer contribution under such chapter on behalf of the President, the Vice President, any political appointee, any Member of Congress, and any Congressional employee may be paid only to the issuer of a qualified health plan in which the individual enrolled through such Exchange and not to the issuer of a plan offered through the Federal employees health benefit program under such chapter.

Now, (a) that's not very ambiguous, why would the OPM need to rule in the first place.

And, (b) it does not sound like much of a sacrifice from those who voted for it in Congress since the real value of what they were getting befroe and now is in the contribution. And yes since it comes from the federal government I'd call that a subsidy (especially to the extent it goes beyond what most get most places).

I think the contention is that I am treating the FEHBP as including a contribution. Meanwhile, you also state above that the essence of the Grassley amendment was: "No more FEHBP for you." If the contribution was part of the FEHB that does indeed seem contradictory.

And when you say, "They're not subsidies, they're employer contributions to health care coverage. Are you saying that no other employees of large employers in America get contributions towards their health care coverage from their employers?" ... I perfectly understand you. My point is that the federal contributions are super gold plated, fantastic, beyond what most Americans get. So my point is, when Congress, Demos and Repubs alike, signed off on this thing, they did it with the purpose of either defending themelves (D's) or to attack (R's), but apparently in the end no one was ever really sacrificing anything. Really, just a shell game, and no I don't exclude the GOP'ers from that.

ETA: Btw, I don't want you to think I would cut and run on teh discussion, but I am getting ready for teh Saints/Raiders game, heading to Happy's and then who knows where else, tailgate at 5:00, glad to pick it up later. thanks for the discussion and posting the actual bill, helpful.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

All you are doing here is making a case that the employer would save money by not offering Health insurance to his employees and splitting some of that savings between himself and his employees, which would also have been a true statement for any point of time that he has been in business yet he continued to offer coverage. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make as at the end you seem to imply that the employees themselves would have better choices going to the exchanges for coverage, which is confusing since you have been railing against the horrors of the exchanges throughout this thread. It's also not clear at all that they would come out ahead with 10K bump in salary + potential subsidies because of the way that portion of their compensation would change from a tax standpoint.

Personally, I think in the long run we're better off getting away from employer provided coverage altogether, but I don't think this part of ACA will drive much of that. The "Cadillac Plan" tax has much more potential to alter the quality and choices of plans being provided through employers. It's also probably one of the better long-term potential cost saving measures in the law.

But before he couldn't have been sure that the employees could obtain coverage due to any pre-ex they might have. Now he won't have to have that worry as it's guaranteed issue, big difference.

Yes, the employees may be better off in the end (depending on the details of the coverage they have now vs the coverage they would have in the exchange), but at the expense of John Q. Taxpayer who will be paying for any subsidy that the employee might get. You don't view this as taking advantage of the system? The employer is just shifting the cost from himself to the government (everyone else), and very possibly making a profit to do so.

In this example we don't know what level of subsidies the employees would qualify for, as you point out even the employer wouldn't know since they can't get specific details about spouse income, etc. But we do know without question if he drops coverage he has just shifted about $100,000 from non-taxable compensation to taxable income split in some share between himself and his employees. So I don't see too much outrage here from a John Q. Taxpayer standpoint since they would have just increased their own tax burden.

I don't think pre-existing conditions have been an obstacle for some time, since for some time you haven't been able to be denied coverage if you are dropped by an employer plan. It may have been more cost prohibitive in the past but I'm seeing a feature here not a flaw.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Hey I do think your mental impressions are valid, can't dispute that, they are what they are, and I respect that.

"Make hay" is a common expression which means to take advantage of and profit from. By that I meant that Democrats who were in states and districts that were on teh fence about the ACA when confronted with opposition deflected arguments by claiming taht they too would be covered.

"Cast aside" means to blithely discard a principle (in such a situation where a principle is at stake) after it has served its purpose.

The Grassley amendment (and the NR article supports this) requried that those covered under the Congresional health plan would be required, when the ACA came into effect, to forego their federally subsidized HC plans while they transitioned onto the government health care exchanges created by the ACA. The position put forward by teh Democrats - now, later when the law is one the eve of having effect, not then when it was being debated - was that the insureds would get to retain their contributions (ie subsidies) previously created under the old plan. Now in my opinion, that does not make very much sense. The point of the Grassley Amendment was to bind those making HC insurance decisions for all Americans to those very same effects of those decisions. It would not make sense to say, they would be bound by the exchanges but not really bound (because gosh we get these fantastic subsidies no one else gets access to).

Now if you want me to get into a linkage battle, with left vs right sites, not really sure I see the point in that (because they all reference each other's wing mostly). I referenced the NR article which is pretty liberal I'd say (and even NR does that same quoting of the echo chamber but anyway), glad to go elsewhere though. Thanks.

The bolded is completely wrong. And I don't need left vs. right links to do it. I'll give you primary sources and simple explanations:

This is the Grassley Amendment. If you don't feel like reading, here's the plain language summary according to all parties involved. Grassley is basically saying to the Dems: "You think the coverage under these exchanges is so great? Fine. YOU use them. The government will continue to make contributions to cover some of these costs (see subsection (D)(ii)), but you are restricted to those plans available on the exchanges. No more FEHB for you. Other large employers can provide their own health care for their employees as they see fit, but you made this bed so you lie in it."

To which the Dems responded "Fine. It's a deal."

There is zero debate from anyone about the intention of the amendment here. Nobody wanted to cut off health care benefits for members and staff completely. There is not one word of the amendment that could be interpreted that way, and nobody involved in the process has claimed that was their intent.

Later, some people pointed out that the amendment could present some bureaucratic issues depending on how it's applied, because the exchanges aren't really set up in such a way as to allow employer contributions. The Office of Personnel Management was asked to reconcile this issue and give effect to the intent and meaning of the law, as federal agencies are often directed to do. I'll stop here and point out that the Office of Personnel Management has nothing to do with Congress. Here's a link to help you understand that.

OPM recently took a step towards fulfilling their function by issuing a proposed rule providing that, as the Amendment clearly intends, members and staff may only use health plans offered in the exchanges, but that they will still receive contributions from their employer. This is still just a proposed rule, so you and everyone else in America can feel free to comment if you like I assume- I apologize that the link to the text of the proposed rule isn't working right now, but I gave you the link to the press release on it, best I could do.

Now as to your ridiculous statement that they "get these fantastic subsidies that no one else gets access to" ... you realize that if you're a member of Congress or Congressional staff the federal government is their employer, don't you? They're not subsidies, they're employer contributions to health care coverage. Are you saying that no other employees of large employers in America get contributions towards their health care coverage from their employers? Because I'm pretty sure that's not true.

If you're willing to read one of those left-wing commie pinkos from the Washington Post explaining to you how this is a bunch of nonsense, here you go. And next time, ignore Rush. He's full of ####.

Ok, first of all - I'm happily off right/left talk radio (news, well I might listen to NPR, or WBOK (it's to the left of liberal and is openly about black issues) or WSMB/sports ESPN, in New Orleans), so let's leave that out of it. I read this in my morning paper (AP feed a couple days old I would think, since or rag now just publishes three tiems a week), with my coffee, a few days ago, and the read the New Republic article out of curiosity. The NR article

But Grassley suggested an exception. He introduced an amendment that would force members of Congress, and their advisers, to give up federal employee coverage and buy through the new exchanges instead.

Grassley insisted he wanted only to promote good public policy. If members of Congress were dependent on the exchanges, he suggested, they’d have a direct stake in their success. But Grassley was also the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee. And, by that point in the debate, he’d all but committed himself to opposing legislation. He almost certainly figured the Democrats would vote down his amendment, rather than relinquish federal employee coverage. And that would give Republicans a chance to pounce. If Obamacare coverage is good enough for you, the Republicans could then tell voters, why isn’t it good enough for them?


As it turns out, Grassley was wrong. Democrats didn’t reject the amendment. They accepted it, and now it’s part of the law. But that created a very weird situation. The federal government, like most large employers, not only provides the opportunity for its workers to get insurance. It also pays a large portion of the premium. Now that lawmakers and their advisers were going into the exchanges, what would happen to that contribution? Would they just lose the money?

The answer, the administration decided last week, is no. Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their employer contributions, and apply that money towards the cost of whatever insurance they buy in the exchanges.

So, recognizing what the OPM did (and realizing that its chief is indeed appointed/nominated by the president), I wasn't exactly comfortable about the idea that an executive branch bureau had decided to resolve the ambiguity the way it did.

I have to say i appreciate you're posting the actual law, which is refreshing.

any employer contribution under such chapter on behalf of the President, the Vice President, any political appointee, any Member of Congress, and any Congressional employee may be paid only to the issuer of a qualified health plan in which the individual enrolled through such Exchange and not to the issuer of a plan offered through the Federal employees health benefit program under such chapter.

Now, (a) that's not very ambiguous, why would the OPM need to rule in the first place.

And, (b) it does not sound like much of a sacrifice from those who voted for it in Congress since the real value of what they were getting befroe and now is in the contribution. And yes since it comes from the federal government I'd call that a subsidy (especially to the extent it goes beyond what most get most places).

I think the contention is that I am treating the FEHBP as including a contribution. Meanwhile, you also state above that the essence of the Grassley amendment was: "No more FEHBP for you." If the contribution was part of the FEHB that does indeed seem contradictory.

And when you say, "They're not subsidies, they're employer contributions to health care coverage. Are you saying that no other employees of large employers in America get contributions towards their health care coverage from their employers?" ... I perfectly understand you. My point is that the federal contributions are super gold plated, fantastic, beyond what most Americans get. So my point is, when Congress, Demos and Repubs alike, signed off on this thing, they did it with the purpose of either defending themelves (D's) or to attack (R's), but apparently in the end no one was ever really sacrificing anything. Really, just a shell game, and no I don't exclude the GOP'ers from that.

Because the law is equally unambiguous that the federal government contributions to health care coverage of members/staff would continue unabated. It's a poorly drafted amendment that essentially required OPM to do something; it was literally impossible to give effect to both things. The agency resolved it by abiding by what it considered to be the obvious intent of the amendment. Nobody involved in the drafting process, including the member, has disputed their interpretation. And it's my personal belief that you can't actually read the amendment and think anything different. This is what was wanted- for members and staff to have to get coverage through exchanges, not for them to lose their employer contributions to health care coverage completely.

As to your second point, that the contributions are "super gold plated, fantastic, beyond what most Americans get": you're certainly welcome to that opinion. And to some extent I agree with you. it is a great plan. But (1) that has nothing to do with the ACA or the amendment, it's a completely separate subject, and (2) for members and staff at least, those contributions, and the security that they'll always be there, make up for waaaayyyy below market salaries. You think Congress is bad now? Imagine what would happen if you slashed the biggest perk of the compensation package. Those hard-working staffers, many of whom could make 4x as much in the private sector, would run away from the Hill like it was on fire.

 

[matttyl]

In this example we don't know what level of subsidies the employees would qualify for, as you point out even the employer wouldn't know since they can't get specific details about spouse income, etc. But we do know without question if he drops coverage he has just shifted about $100,000 from non-taxable compensation to taxable income split in some share between himself and his employees. So I don't see too much outrage here from a John Q. Taxpayer standpoint since they would have just increased their own tax burden.

I don't think pre-existing conditions have been an obstacle for some time, since for some time you haven't been able to be denied coverage if you are dropped by an employer plan. It may have been more cost prohibitive in the past but I'm seeing a feature here not a flaw.

Given that the total income was under $500k for 9 people, much of which was likely the owner - I'm assuming that the majority of the group would qualify for a subsidy given that most likely have families (as said in the article).

We also don't know that the $100k will be filtered to employees in a taxable manner, he could just set up a SIMPLE IRA plan or small 401(k) with that money.

Pre-ex conditions aren't an obstacle?!?! That's the biggest "feature" of the ACA! People with a major pre-ex couldn't have been declined previously, but they were quickly priced out of the market. Employers don't have to worry about that now.

Also realize that there are groups that size paying much more than that "$100k" per year figure, because 2-3 serious health conditions in a group that size can wreak havoc on their rates. Now they have a choice - drop the group and go to an exchange plan where we may very well get it subsidized and the exchanges' health pools gets sicker.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

In this example we don't know what level of subsidies the employees would qualify for, as you point out even the employer wouldn't know since they can't get specific details about spouse income, etc. But we do know without question if he drops coverage he has just shifted about $100,000 from non-taxable compensation to taxable income split in some share between himself and his employees. So I don't see too much outrage here from a John Q. Taxpayer standpoint since they would have just increased their own tax burden.

I don't think pre-existing conditions have been an obstacle for some time, since for some time you haven't been able to be denied coverage if you are dropped by an employer plan. It may have been more cost prohibitive in the past but I'm seeing a feature here not a flaw.

Given that the total income was under $500k for 9 people, much of which was likely the owner - I'm assuming that the majority of the group would qualify for a subsidy given that most likely have families (as said in the article).

We also don't know that the $100k will be filtered to employees in a taxable manner, he could just set up a SIMPLE IRA plan or small 401(k) with that money.

Pre-ex conditions aren't an obstacle?!?! That's the biggest "feature" of the ACA! People with a major pre-ex couldn't have been declined previously, but they were quickly priced out of the market. Employers don't have to worry about that now.

Also realize that there are groups that size paying much more than that "$100k" per year figure, because 2-3 serious health conditions in a group that size can wreak havoc on their rates. Now they have a choice - drop the group and go to an exchange plan where we may very well get it subsidized and the exchanges' health pools gets sicker.

Neither 401K or IRA contributions are tax exempt compensation, they are tax deferred. So one one way or another, if employers that are currently providing coverage decide to drop it and have their employees go into exchanges instead the tax pool is being increased. That's not to say that it will necessarily directly offset the cost of subsidies, but it also isn't as simple as just dropping bigger tax burden on everyone else. And again, you are making an essentially rhetorical argument that these small businesses will start dropping coverage in large numbers, despite the fact that many of them will actually now get a tax credit offsetting some of the cost that they didn't have previously. Maybe it turns out that way, but I don't find your argument on this very persuasive.

Of the list of potential problems you've pointed out at one time or another, the somewhat arbitrary 50 employee limit for tax penalty purposes seems like the bigger potential small business issue. Of course 95% of companies with 50 or more employees are already offering health insurance so it would seem likely that companies on the bubble have a competitive reason to want to offer coverage anyway, and that we're talking about a fairly small number of affected companies.

The concern of yours that I think is fairly legitimate is that not enough healthy people will go through the exchanges for coverage, choosing instead to pay the currently small fee. In the worst case scenario that would cause a potential death spiral of escalating rates pushing more people out. Of course that also wouldn't happen all at once. If the penalty turns out to be too small,that's something that could be adjusted, among other measures that could be taken to boost participation.

 

[Johnny Rock]

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/heres-why-federal-workers-dont-want-obamacare.html/2/

"The argument is that pushing federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would be unfair. “It would be unjust to change the rules after I have spent the majority of my working life in a public service career that is not as lucrative as the private sector when the career decision to forgo private sector lucre now was in large part made in response to the promise that benefits would be much better for public service employees when they retire,” wrote another respondent. “I relied upon and take action in response to the promises that were made, so not living up to the promises amount to a fraud that changed my entire career path.”

The last paragraph above is funny to me because federal employees are forced to change, like millions of other Americans and business owners, to comply with the new law. Fraud you say? Finally public employees, average Americans and businesses can agree.

 

[MaxThreshold]

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/heres-why-federal-workers-dont-want-obamacare.html/2/

"The argument is that pushing federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would be unfair. “It would be unjust to change the rules after I have spent the majority of my working life in a public service career that is not as lucrative as the private sector when the career decision to forgo private sector lucre now was in large part made in response to the promise that benefits would be much better for public service employees when they retire,” wrote another respondent. “I relied upon and take action in response to the promises that were made, so not living up to the promises amount to a fraud that changed my entire career path.”

The last paragraph above is funny to me because federal employees are forced to change, like millions of other Americans and business owners, to comply with the new law. Fraud you say? Finally public employees, average Americans and businesses can agree.

Public employees can suffer like the rest of us. Now we need to go after the Senators and congressman who actually crafted the law to use ObamaCare as well. This is what burns me the most - that they exempted themselves.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Just going to continue to ignore anything that doesn't fit your narrative?

I'm working, and I can only argue with one of you wackos at a time.

Both Vladeck and Tomasky are arguing strawmen - no one said CBO is infallible, only that they are the best we have.

So are they wackos too? Must be quite the dilemma for you.

I guess the private component of health care costs isn't important since you ignored that one yet again.

Health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years, currently at a 50 yr low. Thanks, in part, to the ACA.

The growth in health care spending has slowed dramatically in recent years. Funny how you're very selective about when you bring up "the worst recession since the great depression", how that slowing of growth in spending was "inherited" by Obama, or how much of the ACA hasn't even taken place yet and projections are for spending growth to ramp up again in future years.

The growth in spending has slowed because the economy still sucks. Trying to attribute it to a healthcare law that largely hasn't been implemented yet is asinine.

Guess I'll just take your word for it, and dismiss the muti-layered studies and analysis from the Kaiser Foundation showing that while much of the recent slowed growth is due to the recession (77%), almost a quarter of the slowed growth is a result of structural changes in the health care system.

The Kaiser foundation should have just called you first, instead of wasting time with economists and data analysis.

Why don't YOU run the ####### numbers for your family situation and show what you pay now and what you would pay under Obamacare.

Don't forget the premiums, deductibles and maximum out of pocket for the whole family.

Bet you don't have the balls to post the truth here.

That goes for you also Tim, quit reading opinions and do the calculations using the real time calculator and let us know the truth.

I don't even know what this means. What is "under Obamacare"?

Run the calculator, I knew you wouldn't because you have to lie. It is much easier to read opinions than really look at the numbers. You are a fraud and can be considered as such until such time as you run your personal numbers and show us the difference.

Your opinion otherwise is worthless. It is out there to use, sponsored by the government. Exactly what you need to see the real cost.

Again you don't have the balls or integrity or honesty to do it.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Hey morons that keep stating opinions and op-eds and such that they like, RUN THE NUMBERS.

That is all you have to do. Run them for yourself run them for "poor" people run them for any scenario you like then you don't have to quote anyone. It is really not that difficult to do.

When unions both public and private and politicians from state to national positions all look at the ACA as a disaster that they want to part of, do you not think there might be a minor problem.

This thread can be tied up in less than a page if you run the numbers.

Also I would imagine that the people who are still claiming that it is the best thing since sliced bread actually ran the numbers and only have opinions and stories to bolster their cases because they know first hand it is a piece of crap and cannot defend it ON THE FACTS.

 

[tommyGunZ]

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/heres-why-federal-workers-dont-want-obamacare.html/2/

"The argument is that pushing federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would be unfair. “It would be unjust to change the rules after I have spent the majority of my working life in a public service career that is not as lucrative as the private sector when the career decision to forgo private sector lucre now was in large part made in response to the promise that benefits would be much better for public service employees when they retire,” wrote another respondent. “I relied upon and take action in response to the promises that were made, so not living up to the promises amount to a fraud that changed my entire career path.”

The last paragraph above is funny to me because federal employees are forced to change, like millions of other Americans and business owners, to comply with the new law. Fraud you say? Finally public employees, average Americans and businesses can agree.

LOL

You can lead a horse to water...

 

[Mr Two Cents]

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/heres-why-federal-workers-dont-want-obamacare.html/2/

"The argument is that pushing federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would be unfair. “It would be unjust to change the rules after I have spent the majority of my working life in a public service career that is not as lucrative as the private sector when the career decision to forgo private sector lucre now was in large part made in response to the promise that benefits would be much better for public service employees when they retire,” wrote another respondent. “I relied upon and take action in response to the promises that were made, so not living up to the promises amount to a fraud that changed my entire career path.”

The last paragraph above is funny to me because federal employees are forced to change, like millions of other Americans and business owners, to comply with the new law. Fraud you say? Finally public employees, average Americans and businesses can agree.

LOL

You can lead a horse to water...

Yes but you refuse to drink, except the koolaid. I will tell you what, since your are afraid to run the numbers tell me your income, family status, current payments, deductibiles and max out of pocket and I will run it for you.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/heres-why-federal-workers-dont-want-obamacare.html/2/

"The argument is that pushing federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would be unfair. “It would be unjust to change the rules after I have spent the majority of my working life in a public service career that is not as lucrative as the private sector when the career decision to forgo private sector lucre now was in large part made in response to the promise that benefits would be much better for public service employees when they retire,” wrote another respondent. “I relied upon and take action in response to the promises that were made, so not living up to the promises amount to a fraud that changed my entire career path.”

The last paragraph above is funny to me because federal employees are forced to change, like millions of other Americans and business owners, to comply with the new law. Fraud you say? Finally public employees, average Americans and businesses can agree.

LOL

You can lead a horse to water...

Yes but you refuse to drink, except the koolaid. I will tell you what, since your are afraid to run the numbers tell me your income, family status, current payments, deductibles and max out of pocket and I will run it for you.

It is really not LOLable dude, millions of families will hurt exponentially more because of this.

Glad you think it is funny.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

1. You are gay with one "spouse"

2. You and/or you significant other belongs to a Public Union.

3. You make more than 75K household income.

4. Your weekly payments to your medical is less that 100 dollars a week, if not free.

5. You deductible is 500 dollars a year per person, on the high end.

6 Your maximum out of pocket is 1000 dollars or less a year per person.

7. You have run the numbers and realize it is only for "other" people not yourself.

Hey Gunz you don't even have to give your combined income, use a 50K buffer either way, run top , middle and real as long as the the other numbers are honest. So you can use 100k as your mid point and we wont know how much you make, unless it is more than150K like most FBGs

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Well from the silence on this thread all of a sudden I guess there are a lot of frauds posting in this thread

 

[Sand]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

Go sleep off whatever it is you're on.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

Go sleep off whatever it is you're on.

I am on the truth. You can see for yourself. I just ran it for a family of 4 making 35K. They will never be able to afford the deductibles or maximum even if their premium is small. Show me wrong instead of insulting me. Go ahead.

 

[jonessed]

Hey I do think your mental impressions are valid, can't dispute that, they are what they are, and I respect that.

"Make hay" is a common expression which means to take advantage of and profit from. By that I meant that Democrats who were in states and districts that were on teh fence about the ACA when confronted with opposition deflected arguments by claiming taht they too would be covered.

"Cast aside" means to blithely discard a principle (in such a situation where a principle is at stake) after it has served its purpose.

The Grassley amendment (and the NR article supports this) requried that those covered under the Congresional health plan would be required, when the ACA came into effect, to forego their federally subsidized HC plans while they transitioned onto the government health care exchanges created by the ACA. The position put forward by teh Democrats - now, later when the law is one the eve of having effect, not then when it was being debated - was that the insureds would get to retain their contributions (ie subsidies) previously created under the old plan. Now in my opinion, that does not make very much sense. The point of the Grassley Amendment was to bind those making HC insurance decisions for all Americans to those very same effects of those decisions. It would not make sense to say, they would be bound by the exchanges but not really bound (because gosh we get these fantastic subsidies no one else gets access to).

Now if you want me to get into a linkage battle, with left vs right sites, not really sure I see the point in that (because they all reference each other's wing mostly). I referenced the NR article which is pretty liberal I'd say (and even NR does that same quoting of the echo chamber but anyway), glad to go elsewhere though. Thanks.

The bolded is completely wrong. And I don't need left vs. right links to do it. I'll give you primary sources and simple explanations:

This is the Grassley Amendment. If you don't feel like reading, here's the plain language summary according to all parties involved. Grassley is basically saying to the Dems: "You think the coverage under these exchanges is so great? Fine. YOU use them. The government will continue to make contributions to cover some of these costs (see subsection (D)(ii)), but you are restricted to those plans available on the exchanges. No more FEHB for you. Other large employers can provide their own health care for their employees as they see fit, but you made this bed so you lie in it."

To which the Dems responded "Fine. It's a deal."

There is zero debate from anyone about the intention of the amendment here. Nobody wanted to cut off health care benefits for members and staff completely. There is not one word of the amendment that could be interpreted that way, and nobody involved in the process has claimed that was their intent.

Later, some people pointed out that the amendment could present some bureaucratic issues depending on how it's applied, because the exchanges aren't really set up in such a way as to allow employer contributions. The Office of Personnel Management was asked to reconcile this issue and give effect to the intent and meaning of the law, as federal agencies are often directed to do. I'll stop here and point out that the Office of Personnel Management has nothing to do with Congress. Here's a link to help you understand that.

OPM recently took a step towards fulfilling their function by issuing a proposed rule providing that, as the Amendment clearly intends, members and staff may only use health plans offered in the exchanges, but that they will still receive contributions from their employer. This is still just a proposed rule, so you and everyone else in America can feel free to comment if you like I assume- I apologize that the link to the text of the proposed rule isn't working right now, but I gave you the link to the press release on it, best I could do.

Now as to your ridiculous statement that they "get these fantastic subsidies that no one else gets access to" ... you realize that if you're a member of Congress or Congressional staff the federal government is their employer, don't you? They're not subsidies, they're employer contributions to health care coverage. Are you saying that no other employees of large employers in America get contributions towards their health care coverage from their employers? Because I'm pretty sure that's not true.

If you're willing to read one of those left-wing commie pinkos from the Washington Post explaining to you how this is a bunch of nonsense, here you go. And next time, ignore Rush. He's full of ####.

Ok, first of all - I'm happily off right/left talk radio (news, well I might listen to NPR, or WBOK (it's to the left of liberal and is openly about black issues) or WSMB/sports ESPN, in New Orleans), so let's leave that out of it. I read this in my morning paper (AP feed a couple days old I would think, since or rag now just publishes three tiems a week), with my coffee, a few days ago, and the read the New Republic article out of curiosity. The NR article

But Grassley suggested an exception. He introduced an amendment that would force members of Congress, and their advisers, to give up federal employee coverage and buy through the new exchanges instead.

Grassley insisted he wanted only to promote good public policy. If members of Congress were dependent on the exchanges, he suggested, they’d have a direct stake in their success. But Grassley was also the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee. And, by that point in the debate, he’d all but committed himself to opposing legislation. He almost certainly figured the Democrats would vote down his amendment, rather than relinquish federal employee coverage. And that would give Republicans a chance to pounce. If Obamacare coverage is good enough for you, the Republicans could then tell voters, why isn’t it good enough for them?


As it turns out, Grassley was wrong. Democrats didn’t reject the amendment. They accepted it, and now it’s part of the law. But that created a very weird situation. The federal government, like most large employers, not only provides the opportunity for its workers to get insurance. It also pays a large portion of the premium. Now that lawmakers and their advisers were going into the exchanges, what would happen to that contribution? Would they just lose the money?

The answer, the administration decided last week, is no. Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their employer contributions, and apply that money towards the cost of whatever insurance they buy in the exchanges.

So, recognizing what the OPM did (and realizing that its chief is indeed appointed/nominated by the president), I wasn't exactly comfortable about the idea that an executive branch bureau had decided to resolve the ambiguity the way it did.

I have to say i appreciate you're posting the actual law, which is refreshing.

any employer contribution under such chapter on behalf of the President, the Vice President, any political appointee, any Member of Congress, and any Congressional employee may be paid only to the issuer of a qualified health plan in which the individual enrolled through such Exchange and not to the issuer of a plan offered through the Federal employees health benefit program under such chapter.

Now, (a) that's not very ambiguous, why would the OPM need to rule in the first place.

And, (b) it does not sound like much of a sacrifice from those who voted for it in Congress since the real value of what they were getting befroe and now is in the contribution. And yes since it comes from the federal government I'd call that a subsidy (especially to the extent it goes beyond what most get most places).

I think the contention is that I am treating the FEHBP as including a contribution. Meanwhile, you also state above that the essence of the Grassley amendment was: "No more FEHBP for you." If the contribution was part of the FEHB that does indeed seem contradictory.

And when you say, "They're not subsidies, they're employer contributions to health care coverage. Are you saying that no other employees of large employers in America get contributions towards their health care coverage from their employers?" ... I perfectly understand you. My point is that the federal contributions are super gold plated, fantastic, beyond what most Americans get. So my point is, when Congress, Demos and Repubs alike, signed off on this thing, they did it with the purpose of either defending themelves (D's) or to attack (R's), but apparently in the end no one was ever really sacrificing anything. Really, just a shell game, and no I don't exclude the GOP'ers from that.

Because the law is equally unambiguous that the federal government contributions to health care coverage of members/staff would continue unabated. It's a poorly drafted amendment that essentially required OPM to do something; it was literally impossible to give effect to both things. The agency resolved it by abiding by what it considered to be the obvious intent of the amendment. Nobody involved in the drafting process, including the member, has disputed their interpretation. And it's my personal belief that you can't actually read the amendment and think anything different. This is what was wanted- for members and staff to have to get coverage through exchanges, not for them to lose their employer contributions to health care coverage completely.

As to your second point, that the contributions are "super gold plated, fantastic, beyond what most Americans get": you're certainly welcome to that opinion. And to some extent I agree with you. it is a great plan. But (1) that has nothing to do with the ACA or the amendment, it's a completely separate subject, and (2) for members and staff at least, those contributions, and the security that they'll always be there, make up for waaaayyyy below market salaries. You think Congress is bad now? Imagine what would happen if you slashed the biggest perk of the compensation package. Those hard-working staffers, many of whom could make 4x as much in the private sector, would run away from the Hill like it was on fire.

 

[timschochet]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

1. You are gay with one "spouse"

Why can't he be gay with more than one "spouse"?

Hey Mr. Two Cents, I am make some assumptions about you. I think not you so bright.

 

[jonessed]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

1. You are gay with one "spouse"

Why can't he be gay with more than one "spouse"?

Hey Mr. Two Cents, I am make some assumptions about you. I think not you so bright.

I am make some assumptions about you too. I think not you so bright either.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

1. You are gay with one "spouse"

Why can't he be gay with more than one "spouse"?

Hey Mr. Two Cents, I am make some assumptions about you. I think not you so bright.

So you can't prove me wrong either, figures, just more hot air from another dishonest and empty poster at FBG.

 

[timschochet]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

1. You are gay with one "spouse"

Why can't he be gay with more than one "spouse"?

Hey Mr. Two Cents, I am make some assumptions about you. I think not you so bright.

So you can't prove me wrong either, figures, just more hot air from another dishonest and empty poster at FBG.

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong. I actually think you're right on this issue (in essence, though I don't think it will end up being quite as draconian as you suggest.)

My response was not to your argument, but to your rudeness. I was making fun of you because, IMO, you are quite possibly the rudest poster currently in this forum. You are intolerant of other people's opinions and are always putting them down. Your responses to Tommy are only the latest example of this. But then, what can one expect from a guy who answers the front door with a loaded gun in his hand?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

1. You are gay with one "spouse"

Why can't he be gay with more than one "spouse"?

Hey Mr. Two Cents, I am make some assumptions about you. I think not you so bright.

So you can't prove me wrong either, figures, just more hot air from another dishonest and empty poster at FBG.

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong. I actually think you're right on this issue (in essence, though I don't think it will end up being quite as draconian as you suggest.)

My response was not to your argument, but to your rudeness. I was making fun of you because, IMO, you are quite possibly the rudest poster currently in this forum. You are intolerant of other people's opinions and are always putting them down. Your responses to Tommy are only the latest example of this. But then, what can one expect from a guy who answers the front door with a loaded gun in his hand?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

1. You are gay with one "spouse"

Why can't he be gay with more than one "spouse"?

Hey Mr. Two Cents, I am make some assumptions about you. I think not you so bright.

So you can't prove me wrong either, figures, just more hot air from another dishonest and empty poster at FBG.

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong. I actually think you're right on this issue (in essence, though I don't think it will end up being quite as draconian as you suggest.)

My response was not to your argument, but to your rudeness. I was making fun of you because, IMO, you are quite possibly the rudest poster currently in this forum. You are intolerant of other people's opinions and are always putting them down. Your responses to Tommy are only the latest example of this. But then, what can one expect from a guy who answers the front door with a loaded gun in his hand?

Ummm hey Tim it is going to be even more draconian as times go on. The tax will increase year over year and the subsidy will lower year after year. How was I rude to Tommy? Also once again because you cannot understand even though I have told you numerous times. I go to the door with a gun in my hands I do not answer the door with a gun in my hands. Those are two completely different scenarios that you fail to be able to comprehend. Of course that fits your narrative better. You are so ingenious.

All these people that are quoting opinion after opinion do not have to do so the information it there to number crunch. They just do not want to face the facts so they continue to blow smoke to "validate" their point of view. It is all meaningless smoke and mirrors when the facts are right there to see.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Hey I am still waiting on his numbers so they can be run. He will come up with some excuse because under NO circumstances would his situation come out ahead. Guaranteed. He is not being honest, period.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

1. You are gay with one "spouse"

Why can't he be gay with more than one "spouse"?

Hey Mr. Two Cents, I am make some assumptions about you. I think not you so bright.

So you can't prove me wrong either, figures, just more hot air from another dishonest and empty poster at FBG.

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong. I actually think you're right on this issue (in essence, though I don't think it will end up being quite as draconian as you suggest.)

My response was not to your argument, but to your rudeness. I was making fun of you because, IMO, you are quite possibly the rudest poster currently in this forum. You are intolerant of other people's opinions and are always putting them down. Your responses to Tommy are only the latest example of this. But then, what can one expect from a guy who answers the front door with a loaded gun in his hand?

C'mon Tim, you've also described TommyGunz, Big Steel Thrill, Todd Andrews, Doctor Detroit, Mad Sweeny, drummer and countless other posters.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

1. You are gay with one "spouse"

2. You and/or you significant other belongs to a Public Union.

3. You make more than 75K household income.

4. Your weekly payments to your medical is less that 100 dollars a week, if not free.

5. You deductible is 500 dollars a year per person, on the high end.

6 Your maximum out of pocket is 1000 dollars or less a year per person.

7. You have run the numbers and realize it is only for "other" people not yourself.

Hey Gunz you don't even have to give your combined income, use a 50K buffer either way, run top , middle and real as long as the the other numbers are honest. So you can use 100k as your mid point and we wont know how much you make, unless it is more than150K like most FBGs

You've got me pegged to a tee.

 

[tri-man 47]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

Go sleep off whatever it is you're on.

I am on the truth. You can see for yourself. I just ran it for a family of 4 making 35K. They will never be able to afford the deductibles or maximum even if their premium is small. Show me wrong instead of insulting me. Go ahead.

Says the guy that started an earlier post with "hey morons"?

--

Chicago Tribune today had an even stronger editorial on the ACA. They are upset with the piecemeal deferrals (some of which are illegal), and call for new legislation that takes the lessons from the ACA process and tries to do it right.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

1. You are gay with one "spouse"

2. You and/or you significant other belongs to a Public Union.

3. You make more than 75K household income.

4. Your weekly payments to your medical is less that 100 dollars a week, if not free.

5. You deductible is 500 dollars a year per person, on the high end.

6 Your maximum out of pocket is 1000 dollars or less a year per person.

7. You have run the numbers and realize it is only for "other" people not yourself.

Hey Gunz you don't even have to give your combined income, use a 50K buffer either way, run top , middle and real as long as the the other numbers are honest. So you can use 100k as your mid point and we wont know how much you make, unless it is more than150K like most FBGs

You've got me pegged to a tee.

I know I do.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

Go sleep off whatever it is you're on.

I am on the truth. You can see for yourself. I just ran it for a family of 4 making 35K. They will never be able to afford the deductibles or maximum even if their premium is small. Show me wrong instead of insulting me. Go ahead.

Says the guy that started an earlier post with "hey morons"?

--

Chicago Tribune today had an even stronger editorial on the ACA. They are upset with the piecemeal deferrals (some of which are illegal), and call for new legislation that takes the lessons from the ACA process and tries to do it right.

Well when you just keep posting opinions pro and cons about obamacare when the tools are out there to actually run real world numbers then the term is pretty apt.

Refusal to acknowledge that all the opinions that keep getting re-hashed over and over and over again, when all you have to do is look for yourself is pretty moronic don't ya think.

Apparently no one has been able to run the numbers and dispute the FACTS. Just whistling past the graveyard is all I hear.

How about you, you want to run the numbers and tell us all how lucky we will be to have obamacare, maybe you are the exception, but I doubt it.