OT: Anyone hear the NPR interview about the person getting dependant care coverage from parents

[DWCAP]

[quote=afx114][quote=DWCAP]WHAT HAPPENS IN 2014[/quote]

Right, I was referring only to this provision (trying to keep the thread on topic). If we want to have a broader conversation on the entire health care plan or insurance in general we can.

Anyone care to estimate what our car insurance rates would be if they were not mandated?[/quote]

yawn, sure. I am sure you had no idea what the ‘forced’ part was and were so confused you had to ask.

Going back to my original post, that is the math the health care bill was balanced upon. Young people have to buy insurance to help bring the total cost per person down (provision delayed till 2014 to give political cover) and they can stay on parental plans to help people at the lowest parts of their career pay scale afford it. ie the lady on NPR.

That is still very much, ‘on topic’. I gave no opinions on the bill as a whole. If Flu wants to know ‘why this is possible’; well there it is.

[afx114]

[quote=DWCAP]Going back to my original post, that is the math the health care bill was balanced upon. Young people have to buy insurance to help bring the total cost per person down (provision delayed till 2014 to give political cover) and they can stay on parental plans to help people at the lowest parts of their career pay scale afford it. ie the lady on NPR.

That is still very much, ‘on topic’.[/quote]

Alright, I’d like to hear your arguments against “the math” then. Is your argument that it is “forced” and therefore inherently bad? Tyranny, socialism, and all that? I am genuinely curious. When debating someone on a topic I generally like to know their thoughts on it.

I’m wondering if you agree with me that more people in the pool lowers costs overall, but we disagree on the means (mandate). If I am right in this assumption, what do you propose besides a mandate to bring more people into the system?

[afx114]

[quote=DWCAP]Going back to my original post, that is the math the health care bill was balanced upon. Young people have to buy insurance to help bring the total cost per person down (provision delayed till 2014 to give political cover) and they can stay on parental plans to help people at the lowest parts of their career pay scale afford it. ie the lady on NPR.

That is still very much, ‘on topic’.[/quote]

Alright, I’d like to hear your arguments against “the math” then. Is your argument that it is “forced” and therefore inherently bad? Tyranny, socialism, and all that? I am genuinely curious. When debating someone on a topic I generally like to know their thoughts on it.

I’m wondering if you agree with me that more people in the pool lowers costs overall, but we disagree on the means (mandate). If I am right in this assumption, what do you propose besides a mandate to bring more people into the system?

[afx114]

[quote=DWCAP]Going back to my original post, that is the math the health care bill was balanced upon. Young people have to buy insurance to help bring the total cost per person down (provision delayed till 2014 to give political cover) and they can stay on parental plans to help people at the lowest parts of their career pay scale afford it. ie the lady on NPR.

That is still very much, ‘on topic’.[/quote]

Alright, I’d like to hear your arguments against “the math” then. Is your argument that it is “forced” and therefore inherently bad? Tyranny, socialism, and all that? I am genuinely curious. When debating someone on a topic I generally like to know their thoughts on it.

I’m wondering if you agree with me that more people in the pool lowers costs overall, but we disagree on the means (mandate). If I am right in this assumption, what do you propose besides a mandate to bring more people into the system?

[afx114]

[quote=DWCAP]Going back to my original post, that is the math the health care bill was balanced upon. Young people have to buy insurance to help bring the total cost per person down (provision delayed till 2014 to give political cover) and they can stay on parental plans to help people at the lowest parts of their career pay scale afford it. ie the lady on NPR.

That is still very much, ‘on topic’.[/quote]

Alright, I’d like to hear your arguments against “the math” then. Is your argument that it is “forced” and therefore inherently bad? Tyranny, socialism, and all that? I am genuinely curious. When debating someone on a topic I generally like to know their thoughts on it.

I’m wondering if you agree with me that more people in the pool lowers costs overall, but we disagree on the means (mandate). If I am right in this assumption, what do you propose besides a mandate to bring more people into the system?

[afx114]

[quote=DWCAP]Going back to my original post, that is the math the health care bill was balanced upon. Young people have to buy insurance to help bring the total cost per person down (provision delayed till 2014 to give political cover) and they can stay on parental plans to help people at the lowest parts of their career pay scale afford it. ie the lady on NPR.

That is still very much, ‘on topic’.[/quote]

Alright, I’d like to hear your arguments against “the math” then. Is your argument that it is “forced” and therefore inherently bad? Tyranny, socialism, and all that? I am genuinely curious. When debating someone on a topic I generally like to know their thoughts on it.

I’m wondering if you agree with me that more people in the pool lowers costs overall, but we disagree on the means (mandate). If I am right in this assumption, what do you propose besides a mandate to bring more people into the system?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1] . . . There is no employer mandate. Beginning 2014, under Health Care Reform, employers of 50 or more employees will be penalized $2,000 per employee for not providing health benefits. . . [/quote]

brian, I see an easy “workaround” in 2014 for small biz here. They just need to make sure their “head count” stays =<49. Easy enough to do. Just use independent contractors (like me) for some of their work (on an as-needed basis). And paying the $2K per (uninsured) employee "fine" may turn out be far cheaper than actually covering them.

I don't miss my "group coverage" at all. The two different health plans I had before (both pd for by government) were far inferior to the one I have now and have declined substantially in coverage and providers in the years since I've been eligible for them. I DO think many employers today are offering the "crappiest" plans available because they are the cheapest and their employees will only tolerate so much in payroll deductions before they will choose to go uncovered.

It's kinda like buying a car. A typical buyer is only concerned with the monthly payment/copays as opposed to what they're actually getting.

I'd rather have full control over the choice of my plan, providers and treatments and be able to KEEP MAKING THOSE CHOICES than have a choice between "Cheap Choice #1" and "Cheaper Choice #2" thrown at me by a "cheap" employer. That's why I have never joined an HMO and never will. I'd prefer to have a policy I can actually read, even if I had to qualify for it ;=)

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1] . . . There is no employer mandate. Beginning 2014, under Health Care Reform, employers of 50 or more employees will be penalized $2,000 per employee for not providing health benefits. . . [/quote]

brian, I see an easy “workaround” in 2014 for small biz here. They just need to make sure their “head count” stays =<49. Easy enough to do. Just use independent contractors (like me) for some of their work (on an as-needed basis). And paying the $2K per (uninsured) employee "fine" may turn out be far cheaper than actually covering them.

I don't miss my "group coverage" at all. The two different health plans I had before (both pd for by government) were far inferior to the one I have now and have declined substantially in coverage and providers in the years since I've been eligible for them. I DO think many employers today are offering the "crappiest" plans available because they are the cheapest and their employees will only tolerate so much in payroll deductions before they will choose to go uncovered.

It's kinda like buying a car. A typical buyer is only concerned with the monthly payment/copays as opposed to what they're actually getting.

I'd rather have full control over the choice of my plan, providers and treatments and be able to KEEP MAKING THOSE CHOICES than have a choice between "Cheap Choice #1" and "Cheaper Choice #2" thrown at me by a "cheap" employer. That's why I have never joined an HMO and never will. I'd prefer to have a policy I can actually read, even if I had to qualify for it ;=)

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1] . . . There is no employer mandate. Beginning 2014, under Health Care Reform, employers of 50 or more employees will be penalized $2,000 per employee for not providing health benefits. . . [/quote]

brian, I see an easy “workaround” in 2014 for small biz here. They just need to make sure their “head count” stays =<49. Easy enough to do. Just use independent contractors (like me) for some of their work (on an as-needed basis). And paying the $2K per (uninsured) employee "fine" may turn out be far cheaper than actually covering them.

I don't miss my "group coverage" at all. The two different health plans I had before (both pd for by government) were far inferior to the one I have now and have declined substantially in coverage and providers in the years since I've been eligible for them. I DO think many employers today are offering the "crappiest" plans available because they are the cheapest and their employees will only tolerate so much in payroll deductions before they will choose to go uncovered.

It's kinda like buying a car. A typical buyer is only concerned with the monthly payment/copays as opposed to what they're actually getting.

I'd rather have full control over the choice of my plan, providers and treatments and be able to KEEP MAKING THOSE CHOICES than have a choice between "Cheap Choice #1" and "Cheaper Choice #2" thrown at me by a "cheap" employer. That's why I have never joined an HMO and never will. I'd prefer to have a policy I can actually read, even if I had to qualify for it ;=)

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1] . . . There is no employer mandate. Beginning 2014, under Health Care Reform, employers of 50 or more employees will be penalized $2,000 per employee for not providing health benefits. . . [/quote]

brian, I see an easy “workaround” in 2014 for small biz here. They just need to make sure their “head count” stays =<49. Easy enough to do. Just use independent contractors (like me) for some of their work (on an as-needed basis). And paying the $2K per (uninsured) employee "fine" may turn out be far cheaper than actually covering them.

I don't miss my "group coverage" at all. The two different health plans I had before (both pd for by government) were far inferior to the one I have now and have declined substantially in coverage and providers in the years since I've been eligible for them. I DO think many employers today are offering the "crappiest" plans available because they are the cheapest and their employees will only tolerate so much in payroll deductions before they will choose to go uncovered.

It's kinda like buying a car. A typical buyer is only concerned with the monthly payment/copays as opposed to what they're actually getting.

I'd rather have full control over the choice of my plan, providers and treatments and be able to KEEP MAKING THOSE CHOICES than have a choice between "Cheap Choice #1" and "Cheaper Choice #2" thrown at me by a "cheap" employer. That's why I have never joined an HMO and never will. I'd prefer to have a policy I can actually read, even if I had to qualify for it ;=)

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1] . . . There is no employer mandate. Beginning 2014, under Health Care Reform, employers of 50 or more employees will be penalized $2,000 per employee for not providing health benefits. . . [/quote]

brian, I see an easy “workaround” in 2014 for small biz here. They just need to make sure their “head count” stays =<49. Easy enough to do. Just use independent contractors (like me) for some of their work (on an as-needed basis). And paying the $2K per (uninsured) employee "fine" may turn out be far cheaper than actually covering them.

I don't miss my "group coverage" at all. The two different health plans I had before (both pd for by government) were far inferior to the one I have now and have declined substantially in coverage and providers in the years since I've been eligible for them. I DO think many employers today are offering the "crappiest" plans available because they are the cheapest and their employees will only tolerate so much in payroll deductions before they will choose to go uncovered.

It's kinda like buying a car. A typical buyer is only concerned with the monthly payment/copays as opposed to what they're actually getting.

I'd rather have full control over the choice of my plan, providers and treatments and be able to KEEP MAKING THOSE CHOICES than have a choice between "Cheap Choice #1" and "Cheaper Choice #2" thrown at me by a "cheap" employer. That's why I have never joined an HMO and never will. I'd prefer to have a policy I can actually read, even if I had to qualify for it ;=)

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal]flu – clearly you haven’t worked for scrooge like employers.

I worked for an employer that REQUIRED you to go on your spouses insurance if they had an insurance option. You were not allowed to put yourself, your family, etc. on the company plan – even if the spouses insurance was crappy or more expensive. This was challenged by more than one employee – but the company held firm on this policy. (It was a small company – so everyone knew who was married, who’s spouses worked, etc.)

My husband’s employer covers 50% of a crappy plan for the employee. It covers NOTHING for spouse and kids. The 50% premium is more expensive than adding him to my family coverage. Unfortunately, this means I can’t quit my job, ever, since I have the family insurance. This is not the first firm he’s worked for that had limited or no contribution for spouse/family.

If you have any kind of pre-existing condition at all – it has historically been hard to get insurance. My best friend has several pre-existing conditions. When she was laid off from the dot-com in the dot-bust years she found contract/consulting work… No benefits, but it covered her mortgage. But she needed insurance so she also took a job with a local grocery store for $7/hour – for the benefits. This meant she had fewer hours for consulting (which paid better)… a total catch22. A few years later, after getting a good job then being recruited to a start up with the promise they’d give her bennies before her cobra ran out… they changed their minds… Fortunately WA state had passed a law that said if you had no lapse of coverage, you couldn’t be denied…

I guess I’ve seen too many situations that don’t fit your ideal world scenario, Flu.[/quote]

Well, as I previously stated, I do understand how difficult it would be to get insured with a pre-existing condition. I really do know…And I’m not slamming the entire health bill per se, but I was just wondering about why a 26yr adult with some part time and health can’t get affordable insurance. Since then I’ve learning from reading what you are bearish are saying about companies charging the full premium for dependent coverage. I was only looking at it from the angle that employers have paid for both employee and family insurance plans and didn’t think about companies that didn’t really pay any portion of the dependent coverage. That does put an interesting perspective on this, though at the same time it’s still are risk that the employer is taking on IF something should happen. IE autho premiums are paid in full by employee, if something major does happen to the dependent, future premiums for the entire company will be impacted. Interestingly, there’s probably some sweet spot statistically between getting more people to pay the premium and the risk of providing more coverage.

What does insurance appear to be like gambling with a bunch of odds?

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal]flu – clearly you haven’t worked for scrooge like employers.

I worked for an employer that REQUIRED you to go on your spouses insurance if they had an insurance option. You were not allowed to put yourself, your family, etc. on the company plan – even if the spouses insurance was crappy or more expensive. This was challenged by more than one employee – but the company held firm on this policy. (It was a small company – so everyone knew who was married, who’s spouses worked, etc.)

My husband’s employer covers 50% of a crappy plan for the employee. It covers NOTHING for spouse and kids. The 50% premium is more expensive than adding him to my family coverage. Unfortunately, this means I can’t quit my job, ever, since I have the family insurance. This is not the first firm he’s worked for that had limited or no contribution for spouse/family.

If you have any kind of pre-existing condition at all – it has historically been hard to get insurance. My best friend has several pre-existing conditions. When she was laid off from the dot-com in the dot-bust years she found contract/consulting work… No benefits, but it covered her mortgage. But she needed insurance so she also took a job with a local grocery store for $7/hour – for the benefits. This meant she had fewer hours for consulting (which paid better)… a total catch22. A few years later, after getting a good job then being recruited to a start up with the promise they’d give her bennies before her cobra ran out… they changed their minds… Fortunately WA state had passed a law that said if you had no lapse of coverage, you couldn’t be denied…

I guess I’ve seen too many situations that don’t fit your ideal world scenario, Flu.[/quote]

Well, as I previously stated, I do understand how difficult it would be to get insured with a pre-existing condition. I really do know…And I’m not slamming the entire health bill per se, but I was just wondering about why a 26yr adult with some part time and health can’t get affordable insurance. Since then I’ve learning from reading what you are bearish are saying about companies charging the full premium for dependent coverage. I was only looking at it from the angle that employers have paid for both employee and family insurance plans and didn’t think about companies that didn’t really pay any portion of the dependent coverage. That does put an interesting perspective on this, though at the same time it’s still are risk that the employer is taking on IF something should happen. IE autho premiums are paid in full by employee, if something major does happen to the dependent, future premiums for the entire company will be impacted. Interestingly, there’s probably some sweet spot statistically between getting more people to pay the premium and the risk of providing more coverage.

What does insurance appear to be like gambling with a bunch of odds?

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal]flu – clearly you haven’t worked for scrooge like employers.

I worked for an employer that REQUIRED you to go on your spouses insurance if they had an insurance option. You were not allowed to put yourself, your family, etc. on the company plan – even if the spouses insurance was crappy or more expensive. This was challenged by more than one employee – but the company held firm on this policy. (It was a small company – so everyone knew who was married, who’s spouses worked, etc.)

My husband’s employer covers 50% of a crappy plan for the employee. It covers NOTHING for spouse and kids. The 50% premium is more expensive than adding him to my family coverage. Unfortunately, this means I can’t quit my job, ever, since I have the family insurance. This is not the first firm he’s worked for that had limited or no contribution for spouse/family.

If you have any kind of pre-existing condition at all – it has historically been hard to get insurance. My best friend has several pre-existing conditions. When she was laid off from the dot-com in the dot-bust years she found contract/consulting work… No benefits, but it covered her mortgage. But she needed insurance so she also took a job with a local grocery store for $7/hour – for the benefits. This meant she had fewer hours for consulting (which paid better)… a total catch22. A few years later, after getting a good job then being recruited to a start up with the promise they’d give her bennies before her cobra ran out… they changed their minds… Fortunately WA state had passed a law that said if you had no lapse of coverage, you couldn’t be denied…

I guess I’ve seen too many situations that don’t fit your ideal world scenario, Flu.[/quote]

Well, as I previously stated, I do understand how difficult it would be to get insured with a pre-existing condition. I really do know…And I’m not slamming the entire health bill per se, but I was just wondering about why a 26yr adult with some part time and health can’t get affordable insurance. Since then I’ve learning from reading what you are bearish are saying about companies charging the full premium for dependent coverage. I was only looking at it from the angle that employers have paid for both employee and family insurance plans and didn’t think about companies that didn’t really pay any portion of the dependent coverage. That does put an interesting perspective on this, though at the same time it’s still are risk that the employer is taking on IF something should happen. IE autho premiums are paid in full by employee, if something major does happen to the dependent, future premiums for the entire company will be impacted. Interestingly, there’s probably some sweet spot statistically between getting more people to pay the premium and the risk of providing more coverage.

What does insurance appear to be like gambling with a bunch of odds?

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal]flu – clearly you haven’t worked for scrooge like employers.

I worked for an employer that REQUIRED you to go on your spouses insurance if they had an insurance option. You were not allowed to put yourself, your family, etc. on the company plan – even if the spouses insurance was crappy or more expensive. This was challenged by more than one employee – but the company held firm on this policy. (It was a small company – so everyone knew who was married, who’s spouses worked, etc.)

My husband’s employer covers 50% of a crappy plan for the employee. It covers NOTHING for spouse and kids. The 50% premium is more expensive than adding him to my family coverage. Unfortunately, this means I can’t quit my job, ever, since I have the family insurance. This is not the first firm he’s worked for that had limited or no contribution for spouse/family.

If you have any kind of pre-existing condition at all – it has historically been hard to get insurance. My best friend has several pre-existing conditions. When she was laid off from the dot-com in the dot-bust years she found contract/consulting work… No benefits, but it covered her mortgage. But she needed insurance so she also took a job with a local grocery store for $7/hour – for the benefits. This meant she had fewer hours for consulting (which paid better)… a total catch22. A few years later, after getting a good job then being recruited to a start up with the promise they’d give her bennies before her cobra ran out… they changed their minds… Fortunately WA state had passed a law that said if you had no lapse of coverage, you couldn’t be denied…

I guess I’ve seen too many situations that don’t fit your ideal world scenario, Flu.[/quote]

Well, as I previously stated, I do understand how difficult it would be to get insured with a pre-existing condition. I really do know…And I’m not slamming the entire health bill per se, but I was just wondering about why a 26yr adult with some part time and health can’t get affordable insurance. Since then I’ve learning from reading what you are bearish are saying about companies charging the full premium for dependent coverage. I was only looking at it from the angle that employers have paid for both employee and family insurance plans and didn’t think about companies that didn’t really pay any portion of the dependent coverage. That does put an interesting perspective on this, though at the same time it’s still are risk that the employer is taking on IF something should happen. IE autho premiums are paid in full by employee, if something major does happen to the dependent, future premiums for the entire company will be impacted. Interestingly, there’s probably some sweet spot statistically between getting more people to pay the premium and the risk of providing more coverage.

What does insurance appear to be like gambling with a bunch of odds?

[Author]

Posts