Notice: This is an old thread. The last post was 314 days ago. If your post is not directly related to this discussion please consider making a new thread.
January 31st, 2013 09:05 AM
There's Been a Glitch in the Obamacare
Congress said affordable coverage can't cost more than 9.5 percent of family income. People with coverage the law considers affordable cannot get subsidies to go into the new insurance markets. The purpose of that restriction was to prevent a stampede away from employer coverage.
Congress went on to say that what counts as affordable is keyed to the cost of self-only coverage offered to an individual worker, not his or her family. A typical workplace plan costs about $5,600 for an individual worker. But the cost of family coverage is nearly three times higher, about $15,700, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
So if the employer isn't willing to chip in for family premiums – as most big companies already do – some families will be out of luck. They may not be able to afford the full premium on their own, and they'd be locked out of the subsidies in the health care overhaul law.
January 31st, 2013 09:21 AM
Oh those pesky little details you find out only after passing a bill.
The following users like this post:
January 31st, 2013 09:25 AM
Don't know how this wasn't caught before it was passed. I mean nobody would be stupid enough to pass it without reading it first, right? Right?
The following users like this post:
January 31st, 2013 09:27 AM
We have to pass it so we can find out whats in it! So exciting!
January 31st, 2013 09:44 AM
Because there were 2700 pages and 30-60 days to put it together. When no one cares what's in it and just wants it rammed through this is what you get. Plus Harry Reid was involved so expect a few major **** ups.
January 31st, 2013 10:13 AM
January 31st, 2013 10:28 AM
Is anyone really shocked that folks are getting screwed by this supposedly healthcare saving act?
January 31st, 2013 10:44 AM
I guess had anyone read this prior to passing it they could have caught this =/
January 31st, 2013 10:46 AM
Union Leaders’ Epiphany Leaves Them Scrambling: Wait, Obamacare Is Going to Drive up Our Costs?
Imagine the following scene:
A handful of union bosses crowd around an old card table, punching numbers into their calculators. They’ve been up all night. Someone puts on another pot of coffee and a few of the older bosses are starting to fall asleep. Those who are still alert and active scratch their heads and re-enter their calculations.
“Oh, my gosh!” one of them shouts, concluding the all-night exercise. “‘Obamacare’ is going to cost us!”
Yes, according to a recent report from the Wall Street Journal, union leaders (i.e. the same people who campaigned tirelessly in favor of universal healthcare) are trying to figure out a way to avoid paying for the costs associated with “Obamacare.”
From the WSJ:
Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.
Union leaders say many of the law’s requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.
To offset that, the nation’s largest labor groups want their lower-paid members to be able to get federal insurance subsidies while remaining on their plans. In the law, these subsidies were designed only for low-income workers without employer coverage as a way to help them buy private insurance.
In early talks, the Obama administration dismissed the idea of applying the subsidies to people in union-sponsored plans, according to officials from the trade group, the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, that represents these insurance plans.
As financial reality sets in, and rather than figure out a way to pay for the bill they helped pass, unions are trying to see if Washington will bail them out.
“Top officers at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other large labor groups plan to keep pressing the Obama administration to expand the federal subsidies,” the WSJ notes, “warning that unionized employers may otherwise drop coverage.”
“A handful of unions say they already have examined whether it makes sense to shift workers off their current plans and onto private coverage subsidized by the government. But dropping insurance altogether would undermine a central point of joining a union, labor leaders say,” the report adds.
No, really, union heads are acting like no one warned them that costs would go up.
“We are going back to the administration to say that this is not acceptable,” said Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer for the Teamsters.
“I heard him say, ‘If you like your health plan, you can keep it,’” said John Wilhelm, chairman of Unite Here Health, the insurance plan for 260,000 union workers. “If I’m wrong, and the president does not intend to keep his word, I would have severe second thoughts about the law.”
Why? Why? Why didn’t anyone tell these leaders about the costs associated with “Obamacare”?
“It seems someone finally noticed that mandating benefits and imposing regulations has a tendency to … increase costs,” Doug Bandow writes for the American Spectator. “Increases which workers are stuck paying. Who would have imagined such a result? It’s not like anyone warned them, right?”
Click here to read the WSJ’s full report.
The following users like this post:
January 31st, 2013 10:49 AM
There was no time to read it! People were being denied health CARE!!!!
January 31st, 2013 10:52 AM
I know they were just killing over in the streets waiting on queen pelosi to provide them with a solution ... UGH ... While I am not opposed to an over haul in a logical manor to make things more affordable I am always opposed to unread, swiftly passed bills full of big government BS
January 31st, 2013 10:56 AM
That's we we need more prisons, to incarcerate those who don't have the money!
January 31st, 2013 11:02 AM
Which is more important, passing a Constitutional and effective law or pumping up Obama's artificial legacy? The latter, apparently.
Everyone who voted for this abomination should be fired if not drug out into a field and shot.
January 31st, 2013 12:18 PM
Well as long as it balances the budget like the DB said it would.
January 31st, 2013 04:50 PM
January 31st, 2013 05:02 PM
The only families that would be out of luck, are those whose gross income x .095 > $5,600 (if the numbers in the article are accurate) or gross of $58,947.37.
Something tells me most of these families are not the ones that were feared of not having coverage.
January 31st, 2013 05:17 PM
“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer “universal health care.”