Remember the comment when BO was selling this “If you like your insurance now you won’t have to change.” Here’s the problem: the employer plan you have now will change because of healthcare reform and you won’t like it. Here are two examples that will happen in 2011:
1. Employer must offer coverage to adult children up to the age of 26 (whether they are students are not) unless they are covered by another employers’s plan. Most employers already cover FT students up to age 25, but expanding this out to all adult children over the age of 18 and not working and not going to school means more people on employer’s plans…people NOT working for them but people old enough to work: people of childbearing age, and people with a higher accident/trauma rate. Employers can’t / won’t bear that additional cost, so instead they will put in a separate adult child cost structure for all covered dependents 18-26….whether they are in college or not (they can’t differentiate), so now anyone with college aged kids on the employers plan will be paying more to cover them (likely COBRA like rates instead of a subsidized dependent rate.)
2. Employers may not impose lifetime limits and can only impose only “restricted” annual limits on coverage. I know that sounds good in theory….but the practical application will have some very unpleasant consequences for some folks. Most major employer plans put a maximum amount on things like hearing aids (one pair every x number of years), in vitro fertilization, Durable Medical Equipment (think wheel chairs), etc. They aren’t REQUIRED to cover these services by the way. So now its a “all or none” proposition…..if you cover it, you can’t put a max on it….but you don’t have to cover it.
What do you think will happen? Risk hundreds of thousands of dollars per employee/dependent on no max on IVF? Or just not cover it?
That employer plan that used to be decent just got…not so decent….because they can’t afford this type of open ended coverage on all types of services. They’ll have to drop some coverages to avoid the risk of no life time maximums.
And that’s just 2011….plenty of other things in future years that will also impact employer plans, but I’ll save those for another thread.
i use a combo of shea butter and aloe vera moisturizer. Works great. I use shea butter on my lips, around my eyes and nose (dry areas), My father swears by vasoline.
p.s. I dropped your name on Gina's post, Barb. ;)
One company’s expense: AT&T is taking a $1 billion charge because of healthcare reform and has said that–as a result of the increased costs — they will be re evaluating their plans for both current and retired employees.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-att_27bus.ART0.State.Edition1.3daf55d.html
Likely healthcare reform will cost AT&T’s employees by reducing their benefits–not increasing them. But remember: “If you like your plan, you can keep it.”
Not so much.
Just the tip of the iceberg. Keep it coming.
OK………..I will. Young people — young men in particular — will also see an increase in their costs of insurance…you know–those that actually use it less–will actually pay even more:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100330/ap_on_he_me/us_health_care_age_matters
I’m hoping we can repeal this bill in 2012 with a Republican President. We can also cut the funding when we have a Republican majority in the Senate and Congress. The sooner the better! Thanks for doing the research, and definitely keep it coming!
All supposition on what could happen. Just more scare tactics being posted. Soon we are going to recycle the death panels. Amazes me how the middle class fights itself – our current insurance companies can do anything they want without insurance reform and without reform they will because the cost is going to rise until we have more competition and better choices for policies. Many covered by good employer health care have been seeing the cost rising - benefits changing some each year – or folks not getting the type of raises they expected because their employers are paying more for healthcare – and I know so many women and children without insurance. The fight against healthcare reform is pure politics. You can go to any newspaper, blog, or tv program and find all sorts of suppositions. And then of course theirs Rush (who should be moving from the country), Glen B. and Foxology keeping many old myths and starting new ones about healthcare. Pure politics.
Wait until enrollment time in fall and see the changes to employers plans in 2011 as a result of “reform”–they will be diminished in plan design, not enhanced. Employers currently offering good plans are taking the brunt of the 2011 changes, because the broader mandate to employers who don’t offer coverage doesnt take effect until 2014. Hence current employers are forced to carry more people –eg, the 18-26 adult children who are working for other employers but who aren’t covered but somehow get to be covered on mommy & daddy’s plan…despite the fact they are adults and working for someone else. So now the already good employers are penalized by now picking up expense that another employer has shrugged off. This isn’t supposition–this is fact and this is the new law.
ATT&T taking $1 billion charge isn’t supposition–it is fact. The anticipation of changing their plans for retirees and current employees is right there in print, in black and white and quoted a company spokesperson. It isnt supposition or guessing by someone on the outside looking in a–it is a company insider authorized to speak on behalf of the company publically confirming the changes they are looking at.
As far as the impact of the 2 things I mentioned–it will all apparent in the fall 2010 enrollment for 2011 plans. Employers are talking about these types of changes right now. I work with many employers where their medical plans are discussed; I meet with consultants in the area. This is what their clients are talking about doing in response.
Supposition? Hardly. Unfortunately though, its the reality of the changes the good employer plans will make in 2011 to pay for this–their costs will go up and as a result they will reduce the ebenfits available or raise their employee premiums all the more.
I didn’t even mention the $2.5 billion annual fees on pharmaceutical manufacturers in 2011, the cost of which will be passed on to oemployers and other payers in terms of even higher costs for drugs.
Not so much suppositions, Lilly, more like consequences of a poorly thought out plan. The fight is not against healthcare reform, it is against that poorly thout out plan.
Just out of curiosity, why did you feel it necessary to bring in ‘women and childre’ and Glen, Rush, etc.
It’s possible anything can be a consequence, some guy carrying the legislation could get a hernia – end up in the hospital for surgery – have someone remove a part by mistake – or give him the wrong med and he has a heart attack and dies. The bill is heavy, carrying it around could cause an injury and so on – but right now everything is a supposition. I have to go back to the best example – tons of folks said the legislation included language that would result in “death panels’ along with a lot of other falsehoods – I use the death panel example because it’s the most profound and damaging falsehood that scared a lot of folks and resulted in people crying and yelling at congress persons at town hall meetings and easiest to prove a point on. That was someones supposition stated as fact and people were even told what page to go to in the bill to find it. But when you really read the intent of what was written it was not that at all, but instead something helpful to older people, their drs, and families.
I think what most of the supposition posts have been talking about recently was a loss of a particular tax cut to corporations – which is something fixable if it proves to be the reason for a serious problem. I referenced women and children because they stand to gain the most from health care reform and this legislation. I referenced Rush and Glen because they are still spewing myths from the past as well as new ones.
An observation: I think several who post here have been actively involved in various campaigns. (That’s a good thing, I’m glad when people put their energy into action, not just typewriter warrioring away.) Of course in the age of social networking, all sorts of campaigning occurs on the internet, and BOs campaign made much use of social networking. So it is not out of the possibility that political operatives –paid and unpaid–work via websites, posting boards, etc.
As an executive I have receivied media training in the past. One of the things they teach in media training is to always always stay on your message….regardless of where the interviewer tries to take you. They teach that when you answer interviewer/media questions that are a vulnerability for you, you give a quick passing answer to the question, but then you segue immediately back to your organization’s message and your organization’s key talking points. That way that’s all the media has to really go with in print or on tape…is your key messages over and over and over…..and not really what they were wanting you to answer or talk about.
True. Nowhere is media training more evident than in politicians. I think that was very much exhibited by our president during his interview on FOX. Brett Beir (sp?) was trying to get him to answer the question, but BO kept going back to his media message.
Yes, Olga, that’s what the PRESIDENT did.
BO isn’t the only one. His minions and mouthpieces have learned it too. Read their soundbites. Its funny to see the total switcheroo to democratic message points regardless as to the specificity of the subject matter. Ask specific questions about the impact of healthcare reform on employhers and what do you see? References to Fox News (I mean Foxology, Faux News haha), Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. On other posts its been Sarah Palin and GWB get introduced out of thin air ……….and republican “stalling” or not acting “rationally”………
Too too funny.
Avoid the questions, don’t be specific with the issues, and change the topic and go on attack when the issues get a little too uncomfortable to respond to…………as if it isn’t as plain as could be.
Kind of like seeing a post about a recent payment to a porn bar by the RNC but instead of responding to that issue – siting a bunch of I think primarily democrats that were reported in the news – and not only that but leaving a lot of republicans out – but the post was about the RNC payment. Everyone has their talking points they go to.
So what you’re saying, Lilly, is that politicians on both sides of the aisle, are “guilty” of staying on message. Yes?
I would add to that list, many forum posters on both sides of the issues.
Yes – totally.
I didn’t see it that way.
I’m wondering who those political operatives are?? Maybe there are other “professional women” on here just as passionate and intelligent as others but have a different view. I’m not aware of any political operatives on here and I read a lot of posting before I jstarted to speak out. I hope those political operatives will identify themselves. I’m really liking the part about typewriter warrior – I’ve seen that a lot.
Oh you like the phrase “typewriter warrior”. Thanks! Feel free to use it yourself…….just be sure and actually site your source, OK?
That way others can tell you how invalid it is!
Ok – you are the source of accusations that there are political operatives and typewriter warriors around.
And “where is your documentation”, “where is your proof” of political operatives – how dare you have an opinion! - LOL
Hey its my opinion, I’m entitled to it, I did research and formed it all on my own. Proof? I laugh at proof. Its all political spin by neophytes who are beneath naming.
This makes no sense – I think you just want to argue.
It was a satirical post. Alas, satire seldom transfers well outside of British comedies. I promise not to use satire in the future. (I never liked british comedies much myself either.)
I love satire.
This isn’t a scare tactic! We all know we need health care reform, but this bill is not the answer. We should have slowed down and allowed bi-partisan support to come up with something that made sense. What was the big rush?! I’m very concerned that this bill is going to cost more than this great country can afford! Time will answer all of our questions!
The big rush was the daily damage to our economy of an ever increasing cost folks are having to pay for health care (some going bankrupt as I post), people using the emergency rooms for care and causing more damage, many hard working people that have no access to health care, people getting cancer today and losing their insurance tomorrow, healthcare is already costing us more then our country can afford – so I think that’s the rush. There was not going to be any bi-partisan support – it was clear from the get go. We almost got no reform because the Pres kept waiting for republicans to act rationally but it was a done deal – not one was going to vote for the bill no matter what – irks me that the Pres went out of his way to put in some of the things republicans wanted and take other things out – like the public option.
The big rush was to ram it through before some Democratic Congressmen and Senators changed their minds. The Republicans had no say and were not allowed behind closed doors where all the bribes were made. The majority of Americans are still against this bill, and 65% feel it’s going to cost way too much and bankrupt our country! BO didn’t work with the Republicans at all, that is laughable! Time will tell just how bad this bill is!
I have heard this said by many of the commentators on Fox News.
And so….what again? What was your point of saying this?
Have you not heard things said by commentators on more liberal media sites that you agree with as well and repeat?
I’m just not clear what the point of making this kind of statement is.
I think it’s very clear – your response isn’t for clarity.
I’m sorry–what was the answer to the question again? The direct question was “what was your point” in referencing commentators on Fox News in response to Cher’s post that said abosolutely NOTHING about commentators or Fox News.
Now that I think about it, I’ve seen Rahm Emanuel bring up Fox News when someone makes a statement he doesnt’ like and he tries to belittle them in response.
Another example of going off topic.
Im sticking with the topic YOU raised Lilly. You raised the issue of Fox in response to Cher’s post. I’m merely asking what the relevance of it is? But you havent explained it, although you introduced Fox to the discussion, I’m just trying to understand why.
I’m glad to hear you listen to Fox News, and are willing to listen to both points of view!
touche~!
Hey Cher – I listen to all news programs when I get the chance.
Hey Lily – So do I! :)
Check out Rasmussen and other polls re some of the statistics. The information has come from many sources.
I’m not a regular watcher of any TV news, so I’m not sure re the intent of your statement re FOX. Did you mean to imply something re the validity of the information based on the source? Just asking………
No – I wasn’t referring to the validity of the information based on the source and I didn’t say that - I was saying that what was posted was the position commentators on Fox News took. Then someone decided to spin that into something else and attack. But that’s how it goes on here – I prepared to take anything dished out.
I find it hard to imagine going slower. I worked in health care and insurance regulation for 20 years. I participated in at least four major state level efforts to extend coverage, cut costs and enforce regulations while watching federal efforts at piecemeal reform. None of these efforts were successful against the behemoth forces of Big Insurance and Big Pharma. I watched similar efforts in other states meet the same miserable ends because the national problem begged for a national solution. So I have a hard time understanding the counsel to slow down and avoid a rush to solution.
As other comments note, rate increases of 65-75% around the country under the current system already jeopardized the ability of individuals and employers to continue status quo. These same forces create the imperative to take action now rather than waiting til the system came to its knees. Now is time to identify and iron out the problems with the new law. And to engage in positive solutions rather than shouting abuse from the sidelines. This is no spectator sporting event; it affects us all personally and intimately.
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with the mentality that anything is better than nothing. There is a reason why 65% of Americans were against this bill, and no Republicans voted for it. We are not against reform, but this bill is not the answer.
Obama had the right idea initially but the bill was compromised so much that it is a pale reflection of what it started out as. Nevertheless, I totally agree with CDenver. We could not wait – reform is needed and the only way this extremely difficult problem was going to be addressed was this year – in his first term – with a Democratic majority. We all know that we’ve been trying to have healthcare reform for decades and it is impossible to achieve in a bi-partisan way. Yes, the new law is not perfect, but let’s get busy now and make it work, not spend time trying to defeat it.
Sorry, but I believe in doing things once the right way! What does that tell you about this bill when only one party supported it? This was a far-left agenda that the majority of Americans did not want. That is not the American way of doing things! How much are we going to spend and how much time is it going to take to make it right if ever! I’m not buying it!
Well, it’s hard to think of the legislation as far left when this bill didn’t go nearly as far as the one proposed by Republican Richard Nixon. And lots of people who polled as not supporting the legislatoin immediately before it was passed said they felt it did not go far enough (which I personally agree with).
In my observation, politicians frequently start out with more cohesive plans than eventually emerge from the legislative process. By nature of having to get buyin and votes, all legislation takes on some aspect of design by committee. And it is precisely the American way — from the framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — when the founding fathers argued passionately about things like treatment of women, slaves and property. This process defines our democracy. But it is not efficient nor pretty.
I agree totally. This is so very much textbook American way. I have posted before that the founding fathers took a dim view of the majority’s ability to overrule the minority. Hence, a republic and not a true democracy, and all the checks and balances built into the Constitution.
Great point. Let’s start a new thread and talk about it!
Please provide examples of how the health care reform will produce lower cost health care, I am baflled as to how this will happen.
It’s a little too early for these dire predictions. I’m in charge of my company’s medical plans and I have not decided to do the actions described above. Younger people usually incur many fewer medical bills and so covering them in our plans may not be very expensive. Yes, we can charge more for them, but there’s no reason we have to charge all kids more.
Removing the lifetime limit has virtually no additional cost, because it employees rarely reach the limits there now. REgarding the specific benefit limits, I agree some things there may have to change, but I understand the requirement to remove the limits will only apply to “core” benefits. I’m not sure that DME and in vitro will be considered core benefits, so they may not have to change.
In my opinion, the law has gotten tattered and torn because of all the compromising that was done along the way to appease so many special interests, but even so – it is still a critical first step toward insuring that each of us will have affordable healthcare coverage despite our employment situation or financial status. And for that I say Hooray!!
If you work for a large employer, it isn’t too early. Most large employers make decisions in the summer, work on their communications and infrastructure in early fall, enroll in Oct/Nov, put the logistics in place in December, and go live in January.
Younger people do cost less than olders, but more people cost more money–period. SO don’t say that being forced to add more peole to your plan doesnt increase costs because that is simply not true. How much more does remain to be seen but covering more people cost more money.
As far as employees not reaching limits, your plan apparently doesnt cover IVF at all. And your comment about what remains to be seen is part of the problem. There is also a lot of undefined terms in the legislation and the anticipation of final definitions isnt expected until 2011 ….after plan design decisions need to be made and communicated.
How ripe for confusion & disaster is that?
I hope you have a good benefits consultant, actuary, and ERISA attorneys at your company, because you are good to need them.
Thanks for giving us a perspective from someone who manages a company’s health care plan. I’m not very well versed on the law-it’s very extensive, so can’t really comment on specific details.
I agree with you Anne that all the compromising took a toll, but AT LAST, we have a start. I”m sure many adjustments will be made. I’ve read that more of the working poor will be covered now and that is actually one of the primary points I was hoping for as the bill was being knocked around. Apparently there are many similarities to the health care bill signed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.
thanks for the “first hand” info Anne!!
Hi Dallas,
Sighting (siting?) your sources is one of the reasons I enjoy reading your posts. You research and give views from all sides. It’s up to us to understand and make up our own minds. Also to do futher research. I don’t always have the time to do the research to back up my statements which is why I don’t post more often. Thank you for your diligence in referencing when you post. There are as many different views on here as there are posters. No one will agree 100% about anything but going to the links is helpful. It’s really important to see what is taking place when statements are made. Backing them up and validating them with our opinions in the discussion is most beneficial. When some of us go to personal references, then it’s moved beyond the scope of discussion and into the “ego” realm which we know, will fight to the end to uphold it’s opinion, proven or disproven. We are exposed with “sound bites” and misinformation from every media outlet. It is misinformation if a statement is taken out of context for the purpose of spinning it to fit a mold. If we don’t research and find the facts, then, we are only feeding the misinformation. I agree with whoever said that there are some very knowledgeable women on here. You are top of my list. Thanks.
P.S. “further more, if I’m elected………..”
Thanks, MG, you always have my vote~!!!!
kudos from you are always treasured. Your keen (and quick) witt, insight, self awareness plus self dprecation are always a highlight to see when you share your thoughts.
One reason I do enjoy and participate at VN is their following premise (right off the Community GUidelines): “When you post about a controversial topic, expect that your point of view will be challenged and vigorously questioned. If you put your ideas out there, expect scrutiny. If being expected to defend your position makes you uncomfortable, please don’t post about that topic.”
So yes–as a result I think one of the underlying premises to participation is to be willing to be specific about both the whys/wheres of how one forms their opinions and positions…………and to expect to be challenged about it if specifics aren’t provided.
Mileage may vary.
You both are on the top of my list! Thanks for all of your time and effort on this forum.