(30% of) Firms to cut health plans as reform starts: survey

[Ridgerunner]

Those companies who drop medical insurance for their employees could risk unionization of the workplace.

And those unions would risk the company moving to China.

But none of this matters, really. Obamacare was intended to fail, so the Democrats could adopt single payer. Obamacare is going to be a disaster, no matter what. But with Dems no longer in control of the House, they’re in a bind for single payer. But, if the whole healthcare system falls apart, they can blame it on Republicans and the insurance industry. This administration is very good at blaming.

 

[SamH]

Then why do people in the States get denied coverage? Up here, we find that unacceptable

Who said anything about “coverage”? I’m talking about health care, the UK is proof that “coverage” does not equate to to care.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m actually surprised that more employers haven’t owned up to dropping their employees’ health coverage.

In the last 10 years or so, many of them have already exported jobs due to the rising costs of healthcare. Employer-based healthcare is a deeply flawed system and is unsustainable for all, no matter how you cut it. There should be other ways of procuring group insurance.

 

[markomalley]

Then why do people in the States get denied coverage? Up here, we find that unacceptable

You’re missing the point.

According to the US Census, there were 50,674,000 people without health insurance in 2009. Out of a population of 304,280,000 people, that’s about about 17% of the population. Sounds pretty bad, right? I know that was the number reported all the time. Let’s drill into that number a bit.

Out of those 50,674,000 people:

11,830,000 were in families making less than $25,000 per year. A family making less than $25,000 per year is usually eligible for Medicaid. Why would these people not have applied for Medicaid?

7,513,000 were under 18 years old. People under 18 are eligible for the S-CHIP medical program if they don’t have other coverage. Why were these youngsters not enrolled in that existing program?

9,936,000 of these uninsured were not US citizens, either by birth or by naturalization. Might be a little nationalistic of me, but I don’t feel any obligation to provide health insurance for non-citizens. Sure, if there is an emergency, I should help, but that’s a different situation.

8,357,000 had family incomes over $75,000 – and so would likely be able to afford coverage if they wanted.

Of course, there are going to be overlaps. A person may live in a family with income over $75,000 and be a noncitizen and be under 18…I understand that part.

The point is that the 50,000 number you’ve heard bantered around is probably inflated.

Of course, the other question is: how many people who want health insurance are unable to get that health insurance? After all, if I was a single guy under 30, I might not want to bother with insurance, because after all, when I was that young, I was immortal.

In 2009, the then Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives, Henry Waxman, released a letter that contained these very numbers. In that letter, reported in the liberal political blog, Pro Publica, the following data was given:A year-by-year analysis shows a significant increase in the number of coverage denials each year. The insurance companies denied coverage to 172,400 people in 2007 and 221,400 people in 2008. By 2009, the number of individuals denied coverage rose to 257,100.Between 2007 and 2009, the number of people denied coverage for pre-existing conditions increased 49%. During the same period, applications for insurance coverage at the four companies increased by only 16%.
(Note that the letter itself is no longer readily available, since Waxman’s party no longer controls the House)

Of course, that letter was written in a fashion to advocate universal health care, but we can still glean some objective information from it.

We read:
172,400 people denied in 2007 (that is 0.058% of the total population of 299,106,000 people in 2007)
221,400 people denied in 2008 (that is 0.073% of the total population of 301,483,000 people in 2008)
257,100 people denied in 2009 (that is 0.084% of the total population of 304,280,000 people in 2009)

I am certain that some of the people applied repeatedly in 2007, 2008, and 2009…but we don’t know how many of those people repeatedly applied and were repeatedly denied.

Therefore, we can conclude that the number of people who applied for insurance and were denied it range somewhere between 257,100 and 650,900. That would be somewhere between 0.084% of the population and 0.21% of the population who tried to get health coverage and were denied.

The media doesn’t report it that way, do they?

Here’s the other point. Hospitals and ambulance services in this country, by law, are required to provide emergent care. Take a look at the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986. Look at the law here or a fact sheet here.

 

[ProVobis]

Here’s the other point. Hospitals and ambulance services in this country, by law, are required to provide emergent care.

So we already have mandates in the healthcare system. Why hasn’t anyone challenged this to the Supreme Court?

 

[markomalley]

So we already have mandates in the healthcare system. Why hasn’t anyone challenged this to the Supreme Court?

As far as an individual citizen, the reasons are clear:

1. Nobody is requiring the sick to go to the emergency room and receive treatment.
2. Nobody is assessing a fine on those who don’t go to the emergency room and receive treatment.

---

As far as the hospitals are concerned, though, I have no idea why they haven’t, over the past 25 years, attempted to take this unfunded mandate to court and have it overturned. It is a serious overstepping of government to do so. I, as a potential patient, have no standing. You’d have to ask a hospital why they never challenged it.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Then why do people in the States get denied coverage? Up here, we find that unacceptable

What I find unacceptable is that it is nearly impossible to buy insurance if you are unemployed and that you cannot buy insurance from competitive companies across state borders.

 

[CMatt25]

And that was the plan all along–to get single payer. I don’t think most of us will be pleased when it comes to implementation.

I know I hold the minority view on this forum. But count me in on not being among the most. Firms cutting healthcare is a problem when you depend on employee based coverage.

 

[CMatt25]

Not surprised considering Obama didn’t implement single-payer health care like they have in the UK or like we have in Canada.

The Canadians and the British on this forum will likely agree that no one gets denied health care because of the good system

Tis my biggest problem with Obama. Gift from God, cheers to you :clapping:. My :tiphat: off to you and to your post.

 

[markomalley]

I know I hold the minority view on this forum. But count me in on not being among the most. Firms cutting healthcare is a problem when you depend on employee based coverage.

First, why do you think so many companies supported Obamacare? Were you really naive enough to believe it was because they cared about peoples’ health?

No, they would want either the current scheme or even single payer…just so long as somebody else gets stuck paying the bill and not the company.

---

But it will be OK.

You can go to the “health care exchange” and buy your own insurance. And you can get affordability credits if it would take too big a bite out of your pocket. That was the whole idea of Obamacare. I hope you’re not too shocked when you find out how high a percentage of your paycheck the government deems to be a “fair share” for you.

 

[valentino]

If you were a business owner and youre insurance went up 40%what would you do?Even though I am against O,care because it is such a huge program aand would take yrs. for it to start to succeed with everyone going along with it,it would still be easy to fraud plus it would take thousands of people to supervise it.It would grow and grow and grow.Government is to big as it is why would anybody want more of it?If you want America to lose all it freedom vote for a program like this.People who vote yes have no concern for America.Many don’t know what they are doing out of ignorance.do we want a nation in which the govenment regulates every aspect of our lives?A person would have to mentally deficient to vote for Obamacare knowing they would lose their freedom.

 

[CMatt25]

Then why do people in the States get denied coverage? Up here, we find that unacceptable

Because insurance companies deny based on their profit motive. But many because they can’t afford the premiums, deductibles, and co-pays and thus because of that are denied adequate health care coverage.

From Matt 25:36 GNT “I was sick and you took care of me” NAB “ill and you cared for me”

I’m glad your country and about the entire rest of the industrialized world besides mine down here, find not doing this unacceptable.

God bless you and peace.

 

[markomalley]

Because insurance companies deny based on their profit motive.

Got some news for you Matt.

Insurance companies would make money any way you cut it. Whether everybody is approved or everybody except those in perfect health are denied.

The reason being is that they make a certain percentage on every transaction.

What would happen if they did not decline coverage is that everybody’s premiums would skyrocket. That applies just as much to a nonprofit insurer (yes, there are nonprofit insurers) as to for-profit insurers.

Sorry to break that to you.

But many because they can’t afford the premiums, deductibles, and co-pays and thus because of that are denied adequate health care coverage.

True.

But, again, the money to pay out has got to come from someplace. Right now, it comes from premiums. Under Obamacare, it will come from premiums. Under a perfectly socialized, government run system, it will come from taxes. But the money doesn’t just magically appear (unless you’re Ben Bernacke, of course). It has to come from someplace.

From Matt 25:36 GNT “I was sick and you took care of me” NAB “ill and you cared for me”

I suggest you go to your local physicians and sanctimoniously quote that Bible verse to them. And to the local hospitals. And to the local pharmacies. And to the local labs. And to the local ambulance services.

They are the ones that present the bills for payment. If they didn’t demand so much in payment, premiums would not cost so much.

I’m glad your country and about the entire rest of the industrialized world besides mine down here, find not doing this unacceptable.

God bless you and peace.

And, perhaps, when the rest of the industrialized world goes the way of Greece, Spain, and Ireland, then, perhaps, you’ll see the point.

 

[CMatt25]

First, why do you think so many companies supported Obamacare? Were you really naive enough to believe it was because they cared about peoples’ health?

No, they would want either the current scheme or even single payer…just so long as somebody else gets stuck paying the bill and not the company.

---

But it will be OK.

You can go to the “health care exchange” and buy your own insurance. And you can get affordability credits if it would take too big a bite out of your pocket. That was the whole idea of Obamacare. I hope you’re not too shocked when you find out how high a percentage of your paycheck the government deems to be a “fair share” for you.

LOL uh no I most certainly am not so naive to think they cared even an oodle about people’s health.

And I don’t know what Obamacare is because legally there is no such thing. But to the extent they supported The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, if it was because they want single payer, then great. But I suspect at least part of their motive was to get more people mandated to purchase insurance. Without a government public option to compete with the private insurers, frankly I’m not all that confident the health exchange is going to be all that.

 

[mary_bobo]

What I find unacceptable is that it is nearly impossible to buy insurance if you are unemployed and that you cannot buy insurance from competitive companies across state borders.

I don’t think Canada has the tort problems that we have here. Also, they don’t have the illegal aliens there as a drain on their system such as we have.

 

[1holycatholic]

Employer-based healthcare is a deeply flawed system and is unsustainable for all, no matter how you cut it. There should be other ways of procuring group insurance.

Federal government involvement in national healthcare insurance schemes (employer-based or single payer) are in direct contradiction to Catholic social teaching on subsidiarity, not that many in office care about Catholic social teaching.

 

[markomalley]

LOL uh no I most certainly am not so naive to think they cared even an oodle about people’s health.

And I don’t know what Obamacare is because legally there is no such thing. But to the extent they supported The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, if it was because they want single payer, then great. But I suspect at least part of their motive was to get more people mandated to purchase insurance. Without a government public option to compete with the private insurers, frankly I’m not all that confident the health exchange is going to be all that.

Here’s the point, Matt.

The bills have to be paid. Period.

If you ever take a look at the financial reports (audited and checked by the US Government) of any of the big insurance plans, you will find that they take around 11% to 15% of the total amount paid as premiums for administrative expenses. And then they make, on average, about 5% profit.

If they were to create a so-called “public option” it’s still going to take that much to process the claims. It simply won’t get cheaper than that. The only way that it could get cheaper is if the claims process was totally automated (oops, it is already) or if they cut expenses, like auditors. And if they do that, fraud will go up.

So this “public option” will, at best, be 5% cheaper than any private insurer. At best. And, honestly, I doubt even that…because the government won’t do it in house, they’ll hire contractors to do it. Just like how they handle Medicare and Medicaid claims today.

The only way that a “public option” would be cheaper is if they:

a) restrict the number of items that are covered, thus reducing the number of claims

or

b) restrict the amount that the providers get reimbursed for claims

But, because of the “affordability credits” contained within the law, the government is still going to mandate many, many changes…both to what is and is not covered, as well as how much is reimbursed. That will impact hospitals, physicians, pharma, and insurers.

In fact, I would bet that the only winner – with or without a “public option,” with or without single payer – will be the insurance companies. Because they will get paid every time a claim is processed.

I know that physicians are really, really unhappy about this. Last October, the Physicians Foundation surveyed 100,000 practitioners throughout the country. They came up with this as the reaction to the health care reform act (a/k/a “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” a/k/a “Obamacare”)

img815.imageshack.us/img815/6122/11114.jpg

(Click on the image above to open a PDF report. Go to page 61 for this particular table)

The majority of physicians surveyed (74%) said they will make one or more significant changes in their practices in the next one to three years, a time when many provisions of health reform will be phased in. Only 26% plan to continue practicing as they are. Most of the changes physicians indicate they will make will have the effect of reducing or eliminating patient access to their practices.

Forty percent of physicians said they will take one of three steps that would remove them from patient care roles altogether: they will retire, seek a non-clinical job in healthcare, or seek a job or business unrelated to healthcare.

Others plan to cut back on the number of patients they see, work part-time, close their practices to new patients or take other steps that would reduce their role as full time equivalents (FTEs) or limit patient access to their practices.

Close to half of physicians (49%) said they would adopt a style of practice different from the traditional, full-time independent private practice model: they will work part-time, work temporary (i.e., locum tenens) assignments, practice on a concierge basis, or seek employment with a hospital. This response underscores the increasingly heterogeneous nature of medical practice, in which niche practice styles are replacing the formerly prevalent full-time, independent practice model.
Notice that 40% of the physicians surveyed state that they plan to leave clinical practice within the next three years as a result of this “reform.” 40%. How is that going to affect access to health care?

I will admit that I think a lot of that is just whining and that not all 40% will leave. But if even half of that number leave, that is still going to have a horribly deleterious effect on the health care system in this country.

 

[CMatt25]

Got some news for you Matt.

Insurance companies would make money any way you cut it. Whether everybody is approved or everybody except those in perfect health are denied.

The reason being is that they make a certain percentage on every transaction.

What would happen if they did not decline coverage is that everybody’s premiums would skyrocket. That applies just as much to a nonprofit insurer (yes, there are nonprofit insurers) as to for-profit insurers.

Sorry to break that to you.
True.

But, again, the money to pay out has got to come from someplace. Right now, it comes from premiums. Under Obamacare, it will come from premiums. Under a perfectly socialized, government run system, it will come from taxes. But the money doesn’t just magically appear (unless you’re Ben Bernacke, of course). It has to come from someplace.
I suggest you go to your local physicians and sanctimoniously quote that Bible verse to them. And to the local hospitals. And to the local pharmacies. And to the local labs. And to the local ambulance services.

They are the ones that present the bills for payment. If they didn’t demand so much in payment, premiums would not cost so much.
And, perhaps, when the rest of the industrialized world goes the way of Greece, Spain, and Ireland, then, perhaps, you’ll see the point.

You’re not breaking any news to me. Because right. I agree payment demands are much and a problem. And I am fine with money coming from taxes for healthcare as long as those who can afford to pay a greater percentage, do. It’s all about what kind of a society we want and to set priorities accordingly. I would much rather have not spent money on 2 wars for instance.

But also sometimes a price must be sacrificed for the common good.

The problem with that is greed seems to be winning as we more and more are becoming a society of corporate America and the rich declaring class warfare on the middle class and poor. Perhaps when we end up with just 2 classes of people, elite corporate America and the rich being one and the rest of us their servants, you’ll see my point.

 

[1holycatholic]

I would much rather have not spent money on 2 wars for instance.

Which two?

US in Four Wars Amid Economic Decay
By Edward Koch
Tuesday, 14 Jun 2011 11:10 AM

We are now in four wars, three of them the responsibility of President Barack Obama. The four are Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen. The latter three are Obama’s wars. Afghanistan became his when he sent an additional 30,000 troops there.

The other two were directly initiated by him.

With the American public suffering through a severely depressed economy requiring layoffs by local governments of teachers, cops and other needed personnel, and that public being told the cherished and needed programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are now on the chopping block to be changed to the point of disfigurement with major reductions in coverage and benefits, that public is in no mood to see new wars initiated and old wars extended, with more than $100 billion spent annually in Afghanistan.
…

 

[markomalley]

You’re not breaking any news to me. Because right. I agree payment demands are much and a problem. And I am fine with money coming from taxes for healthcare as long as those who can afford to pay a greater percentage, do. It’s all about what kind of a society we want and to set priorities accordingly. I would much rather have not spent money on 2 wars for instance.

Yes, what kind of a society do you want? One where people are dependent and are forced to do good or one where people are independent and give from the heart.

As for spending money on two wars, I’ll take it farther. I don’t think we should have spent a dime on any war since 1900. The world would have been a far better place had we kept our nose out of it. And, yes, that includes both WWI and WWII.

But also sometimes a price must be sacrificed for the common good.

But what is the “common good” – that is the key question, isn’t it?

The problem with that is greed seems to be winning as we more and more are becoming a society of corporate America and the rich declaring class warfare on the middle class and poor.

The funny part about this is that the corporations are actually operating against the middle class in favor of the poor. The poor are operating against the middle class and, unknowingly, favoring the corporations. They think they are getting their fair share but all that is happening is that they are enslaving themselves even farther.

Perhaps when we end up with just 2 classes of people, elite corporate America and the rich being one and the rest of us their servants, you’ll see my point.

News flash: we’re already there. Except for one little detail. We are not their servants. We are their slaves.

Based upon your posts (as I do not know what is in your heart), the difference between you and me is not that we want to cast off our shackles. The difference is that you want to replace your corporate owned shackles with government owned ones. I just want to be free of both.