Middletown Ohio


Find us on
 Google+ and Facebook


 

Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us
Sunday, December 22, 2024
FORUM CITY SCHOOLS COMMUNITY
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - It's Starting already with ObamaCare
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

It's Starting already with ObamaCare

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: It's Starting already with ObamaCare
    Posted: Oct 14 2010 at 10:27am
October 13, 2010

U.S. to Let Insurers Raise Fees for Sick Children

By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, aiming to encourage health insurance companies to offer child-only policies, said Wednesday that they could charge higher premiums for coverage of children with serious medical problems, if state law allowed it.

Earlier this year, major insurers, faced with an unprofitable business, stopped issuing new child-only policies. They said that the Obama administration’s interpretation of the new health care law would allow families to buy such coverage at the last minute, when children became ill and were headed to the hospital.

In September, the administration said that insurers could establish open-enrollment periods — for example, one month a year — during which they would accept all children.

Now, on Wednesday, the administration, answering a question raised by many insurers, said they could charge higher premiums to sick children outside the open-enrollment period, if state laws allowed such underwriting, as many do.

Insurers “can adjust their rates based on health status until 2014, to the extent state law allows,” said Jay Angoff, director of the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The difficulty in preserving access to child-only insurance policies is the latest example of unintended consequences of the new law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The problem may be solved in 2014. If Democrats can beat back Republican efforts to dismantle the law, most Americans will be required to carry health insurance, starting in 2014, and insurers will be required to accept all applicants, regardless of pre-existing conditions.

The new policy statement, issued Wednesday by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, came with a fresh blast of criticism of the insurance industry.

“Unfortunately,” Ms. Sebelius said, “some insurers have decided to stop writing new business in the child-only insurance market, reneging on a previous commitment made in a March letter to ‘make pre-existing condition exclusions a thing of the past.’ ”

The White House has been tussling with insurers for months, trying to get them to provide coverage for children with cancer, autism, heart defects and other conditions.

In a letter Wednesday to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Ms. Sebelius said the decision of some insurers to stop issuing child-only policies was “extremely disappointing.”

But Ms. Sebelius acknowledged, “Nothing in the Affordable Care Act, or any other existing federal law, allows us to require insurance companies to offer a particular type of policy at this time.”

Insurance industry lobbyists say Ms. Sebelius mischaracterized their commitment. They denied that they had promised to continue offering child-only policies.

In a series of questions and answers intended to clarify its reading of the law, the administration said Wednesday that insurers had two options. They can enroll all children year-round, or decline to enroll all children outside the open-enrollment period.

Federal officials specifically rejected an option proposed by many insurers, which wanted to be able to accept healthy children and reject sick children outside the open-enrollment period. This option is “inconsistent with the language and intent” of the law, Ms. Sebelius said.

Insurers said they needed to bring additional healthy children into their broader insurance pools, or else premiums would go up.

Parents may seek child-only policies if they cannot afford family coverage or if they work for employers that do not offer coverage of dependents.

The administration encouraged states to set uniform open-enrollment periods for all insurers in the children’s market.

In its policy statement, the administration said, “States may set one or more open-enrollment periods for coverage for children under age 19, but cannot allow insurers to selectively deny enrollment for children with a pre-existing condition while accepting enrollment from other children outside of the open-enrollment period.”

Mr. Angoff, the Health and Human Services official, said the federal government could, by regulation, establish a uniform nationwide open-enrollment period for child-only policies. “That could get more carriers back into the market,” he said.

But Mr. Angoff said states could act faster than the federal government. “Some states, including California, Colorado, Ohio, Oregon and Washington, have already established open-enrollment periods,” he said.

On March 29, six days after President Obama signed the health care bill, Ms. Sebelius sent a sternly worded letter to insurers, saying, “Children with pre-existing conditions may not be denied access to their parents’ health insurance plan.”

Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group, sent an immediate response, accepting the administration’s demand.

Robert E. Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the trade group, said Wednesday, “Health plans have upheld the commitment” by Ms. Ignagni. “Children with pre-existing conditions are able to obtain coverage on their parents’ policies,” he said.

Neither the Sebelius letter nor Ms. Ignagni’s response referred to the marketplace for child-only coverage, Mr. Zirkelbach said.

Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they cannot refuse to help pay for the treatment of pre-existing conditions. But Mr. Zirkelbach said the law “does not mandate that health plans offer coverage to all children” before 2014.


Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 14 2010 at 10:30am

Regence Blue Shield customers notified of skyrocketing rates

by CHRIS INGALLS / KING 5 News

NWCN.com

Posted on October 12, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Ralph Nilssen's five beautiful kids are about to get more expensive. Regence Blue Shield sent him a letter saying rates are going up - way up.

Regence put the blame - at least in part - on the new and controversial health care law.

"Obama care went into effect and my rates went through the roof," said Nilssen.

In the letter, Regence told Nilssen his $532 monthly premium could nearly triple next year.

"I just sat back and said you've got to be kidding me," he said.

"If they're angry and confused - it's easy to understand," said Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, who has fielded more than 100 angry calls since Regence mailed its letter two weeks ago.

Kreidler says the letter makes it appear that healthcare reform is to blame, when in truth Regence has made a huge policy change that makes premiums for children much more expensive.

"It has absolutely nothing to do with health care reform.  It has a great deal to do with how Regence is rescheduling its business and it would have happened with or without heath care reform," said Kreidler.

Nilssen's current plan, where he pays one rate regardless of the number of children, is being cancelled by Regence. Now he'll have to pay a premium for each child.

A Regence spokesperson would not appear on camera, but points out that rates for people without children could go down under these new policies.

More about those rates. They are not set in stone.

The insurance commissioner isn't sure why Regence mailed them out because they haven't been approved by the insurance commissioner, as required by law. And Kreidler says they won't be until he sees proof that these big premium increases are justified.

Back to Top
Hermes View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 19 2009
Location: Middletown
Status: Offline
Points: 1637
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hermes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 14 2010 at 10:42am
There was another story I seen where prescription co-pays are now skyrocketing also. People filling scripts were not picking them up because they found out their co-pay had reached $100 or more.
 
Welcome to America...the "new third world country".
No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !!
Back to Top
VietVet View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: May 15 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 7008
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VietVet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 14 2010 at 12:05pm
Not so much concerning fees for sick children, but the subject of the healthcare system has been a real sore spot for us for 20+ years. This whole insurance company/healthcare provider/ lab services/ patient system we have now is a cluster. The insurance company doesn't communicate with the labs nor the healthcare providers efficiently and the poor patient (customer) is squeezed between the two. We have great insurance through my employer for my wife's health issues that pay almost everything, but I have to constantly contact the healthcare providers billing offices that they are overcharging us based on the EOB that Anthem provides for the services rendered. The dam healthcare providers (hospitals/doctors) sign a contract with Anthem to provide services for a specific amount and then try to collect the additional amount beyond the contract price thinking the patient is dumb enough to pay the additional charges. The patient is not obligated to pay this additional amount in the bill they send to the house if the EOB states no additional obligation is required on the insureds part. I usually ask them if they can read an EOB and if they have reviewed the contract they signed and send the bill back unpaid with a nastygram attached telling them to get their sh-- together. Sometimes, they only submit the claim to the primary provider and don't even submit to the secondary provider and send the remaining bill to us for payment. I send another nastygram back with the unpaid bill asking them to send the balance to the secondary provider that they have been made aware exists because they MAKE A COPY OF THE INSURANCE CARDS when you enter the hospital or the frikkin' doctor's office every time.


The whole dam system was designed by morons with the intent for inept people to implement it and the patient (customer of the system) must play air traffic controller trying to straighten it out. It appears no one in the medical billing offices can read an EOB or has a clue how the primary/secondary insurance/contract between the provider and insurance company billing works.   
Back to Top
LMAO View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Oct 28 2009
Location: Middletucky
Status: Offline
Points: 468
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LMAO Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 14 2010 at 12:58pm
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael
Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire
text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of
2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise,
constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that
were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than
what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about
the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the
media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care,
particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved,
free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably
forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private
insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run
system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by
federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals.
Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary
medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just
scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really
has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a
convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch
of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or
a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United
States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully
crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial
branches of the U.S.Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama
Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the
American people, and the businesses they own.

The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any
authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to
read the text of the U.S.Constitution and find any authority granted to the
members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by
the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare
direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the
Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the
information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a
protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about
the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless
of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance,
or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health
Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you.
It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application
of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work
since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the
imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without
the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments
that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that
are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though.

The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration
in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the
provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the
states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once
were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this
legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is
about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires
the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to
support the Constitution." If I were a member of Congress I would not be able
to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was
violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would
hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this
threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of
Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired Attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas

Back to Top
Hermes View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 19 2009
Location: Middletown
Status: Offline
Points: 1637
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hermes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 14 2010 at 1:10pm
I've said all along it's not about healthcare. Pretty pathetic the route our so-called leaders have chosen for us.
 
I've also read that under this plan the hospitals can now sell your health information and make a buck or two off it. Insurance companies,employers,creditors everyone will base everything you do on your health records.
 
No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !!
Back to Top
rngrmed View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 06 2009
Location: Middletown
Status: Offline
Points: 309
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rngrmed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 14 2010 at 4:48pm
Let's not forget that Richard Nixon (Republican) saw our current state of health care/insurance as a money making scheme.  Even then it was never about providing good health care, but about profits. 
 
Hospitals/labs are just as guilty.  Labs often charge for having to stick a patient multiple times if their tech misses or if the blood sits around for an extended period of time and coagulates.  Instead of bulking labs together (like cardiac panels where several groups of labs are put together) many labs will charge for each test individually because the insurance company will reimburse them for more money.
 
I have seen patients have to stay an extra day in the hospital because the doctor forgot to see them and discharge them and was home already.  Did not want to come back.  This adds to the costs. 
 
 
I have yet to read this bill.  But I quit reading Wasteful's interpretation after he/she stated "PROBABLY being forced to have abortions"..lost my interest there. 
I'm not opposed to Obama, but I'm not sure this plan is right either.  England and other countries are being forced to explore other ideas to fund their healthcare programs as the costs are bankrupting their countries. 
Many nurses are backing this because we are being told that everything is peachy in these other countries when in fact it is not. 
My professor a couple quarters ago told me how great things were in England, Canada, Japan etc.  I remember calling and asking Mike P about Japan's healthcare system. 
For one the State of Ohio has more CT scanners than all of Canada.  Japanese doctors are only allowed to charge a certain amount for procedures.  There is also a cap on how much companies can charge for equipment such as x ray machines and ct scanners.  Even with those measures Japan is constantly having to funnel more money in to their healthcare system.
Many in England have private insurance on top of the free health insurance provided. 
Fixing our healthcare problems will be long and drawn out. 
Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 14 2010 at 5:36pm

Judge lets states' healthcare suit go forward

 
5:08pm EDT

By Tom Brown

MIAMI (Reuters) - U.S. states can proceed with a lawsuit seeking to overturn President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare reform law, a Florida judge ruled on Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson had already indicated at a hearing last month that he could not uphold parts of a motion by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit, led by Florida and 19 other states.

"In this order, I have not attempted to determine whether the line between constitutional and extraconstitutional government has been crossed," Vinson, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, wrote in his ruling.

"I am only saying that ... the plaintiffs have at least stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed," Vinson said.

Opponents of Obama's overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system have said it violates the Constitution by imposing what they consider unlawful taxes and requiring citizens to obtain healthcare coverage, among other issues.

Vinson dismissed four of six claims the states brought against the healthcare law but said he saw grounds to proceed on two counts, including one relating to the way critics say it would force huge new spending by state governments.

"There is a widely recognized need to improve our healthcare system. How to accomplish that is quite controversial," Vinson said.

The suit was originally filed in March by mostly Republican state attorneys general. An adverse ruling in the case would be a major setback for the White House, which has made healthcare reform a cornerstone of its domestic agenda.

"LIBERTY IN JEOPARDY"

In his formal ruling, Vinson said the case would continue as scheduled. He had previously set a hearing for December 16.

"This ruling is a victory for the states, small businesses and the American people," Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said.

"This decision is a recognition that Congress has never gone this far and that the constitutional arguments have real merit," Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said.

The challenge being heard by Vinson is one of many against the healthcare reform law, which Obama administration officials have insisted is constitutional and necessary to stem huge projected increases in healthcare expenses.

There is a hearing in Virginia on Monday on the merits of a separate suit against the healthcare overhaul.

On October 7, a Michigan District Court judge upheld a key part of Obama's healthcare law that requires Americans to obtain coverage, rejecting a challenge by a conservative interest group.

The Michigan judge ruled that Congress had the authority to enact the law under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and therefore could also impose a penalty for those who failed to obtain health insurance.

Apart from Florida, states joining in the lawsuit include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Legal analysts say there is a good possibility the matter will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, but most say there is only a slim chance the states would prevail.

Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 14 2010 at 5:37pm

Judge disses Dems' 'Alice in Wonderland' health defense
By: Jennifer Haberkorn
October 14, 2010 04:29 PM EDT

A federal judge in Florida on Thursday said he will allow some of the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care law to proceed — and criticized Democrats for making an “Alice in Wonderland” argument to defend the law.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson allowed two major counts to proceed: the states’ challenge to the controversial requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance and a required expansion of the Medicaid program.

In his ruling, Vinson criticized Democrats for seeking to have it both ways when it comes to defending the mandate to buy insurance. During the legislative debate, Republicans chastised the proposal as a new tax on the middle class. Obama defended the payment as a penalty and not a tax, but the Justice Department has argued that legally, it’s a tax.

“Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice-in-Wonderland” tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check,” he wrote.

Vinson ruled that it’s a penalty, not a tax, and must be defended under the Commerce Clause and not Congress’s taxing authority.

A Dec. 16 trial date is planned in the lawsuit, brought by 20 state attorneys general and governors. Many legal experts expect it to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Vinson dismissed three of the states’ challenges, including complaints that the law interferes with state sovereignty as to whether employers must offer insurance; that the law coerces states into setting up insurance exchanges; that the individual mandate violates the states' due process rights.

The states argued in September that the law violates the Constitution by requiring an expansion of the Medicaid program that’s funded in part by the states and for penalizing people for not purchasing health insurance.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican who lost the state’s gubernatorial primary this summer, filed the suit minutes after President Barack Obama signed the health care bill into law in March.

The Obama administration argued that the states and the National Federation of Independent Business, the small business lobby that joined the suit, don’t have standing to bring the lawsuit. They said that only individual taxpayers do.

Vinson avoided politics for most of the 65-page order but noted the extraordinary partisanship surrounding the issue.

“As noted at the outset of this order, there is a widely recognized need to improve our healthcare system,” Vinson wrote. “How to accomplish that is quite controversial. For many people, including many members of Congress, it is one of the most pressing national problems of the day and justifies extraordinary measures to deal with it.

“I am only saying that (with respect to two of the particular causes of action discussed above) the plaintiffs have at least stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed,” he added.

Back to Top
rngrmed View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 06 2009
Location: Middletown
Status: Offline
Points: 309
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rngrmed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 14 2010 at 7:24pm
You can just about sue anyone or any establishment in this country.  Someone filing a lawsuit doesn't make the healthcare plan bad in my eyes.  The fact that it has or is failing in other countries is a big red flag to me.  What are going to different than they are? 
I think some of these lawsuits are no more than some hot head republican trying to make a name for themselves or trying to bring down the democrat party.  How about we talk about solutions???
Why shouldn't a person be required to have health insurance?  Against their constiutional rights? 
But this uninsured person has a right to go to the hospital and receive their services and not pay?  Oh wait there are collection agencies? 
Hospitals are required to treat in emergent situations often eating the costs.  How about make consumers of these resources responsible?
Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 14 2010 at 7:50pm
Originally posted by rngrmed rngrmed wrote:

I think some of these lawsuits are no more than some hot head republican trying to make a name for themselves or trying to bring down the democrat party.  How about we talk about solutions???
Why shouldn't a person be required to have health insurance? 
 
rng, you are cracking me up with your comment above.  The Republican Party had little to do with the current Democratic mess and downfall, except the fact they didn't roll over and play dead for Obama.  Obama did just fine on his own bringing down the Democratic party with of course quite a bit of help from Reid and Pelosi.  Keep up the good work Obama, Reid and Pelosi what a team. Thumbs%20Up
Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 14 2010 at 7:53pm
Originally posted by wasteful wasteful wrote:

Regence Blue Shield customers notified of skyrocketing rates

by CHRIS INGALLS / KING 5 News

NWCN.com

Posted on October 12, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Ralph Nilssen's five beautiful kids are about to get more expensive. Regence Blue Shield sent him a letter saying rates are going up - way up.

Regence put the blame - at least in part - on the new and controversial health care law.

"Obama care went into effect and my rates went through the roof," said Nilssen.

In the letter, Regence told Nilssen his $532 monthly premium could nearly triple next year.

"I just sat back and said you've got to be kidding me," he said.

"If they're angry and confused - it's easy to understand," said Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, who has fielded more than 100 angry calls since Regence mailed its letter two weeks ago.

Kreidler says the letter makes it appear that healthcare reform is to blame, when in truth Regence has made a huge policy change that makes premiums for children much more expensive.

"It has absolutely nothing to do with health care reform.  It has a great deal to do with how Regence is rescheduling its business and it would have happened with or without heath care reform," said Kreidler.

Nilssen's current plan, where he pays one rate regardless of the number of children, is being cancelled by Regence. Now he'll have to pay a premium for each child.

A Regence spokesperson would not appear on camera, but points out that rates for people without children could go down under these new policies.

More about those rates. They are not set in stone.

The insurance commissioner isn't sure why Regence mailed them out because they haven't been approved by the insurance commissioner, as required by law. And Kreidler says they won't be until he sees proof that these big premium increases are justified.

 
It is about time insurance companies wised up to this Family plan screw job.  When a family of 3 pays the same as a family of 7 something is wrong with the system.
Back to Top
Bill View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen


Joined: Nov 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 710
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 14 2010 at 9:15pm

Conservatives often criticized Clinton for 9/11 because he didn't do anything about Bin Laden.  The same argument could be used in health care.  Why hasn't the GOP done a darn thing about the healthcare mess in the last...oh...forever?  You wait around until a Democrat finally gets into office and then act shocked, SHOCKED, that legislation would finally come along on the topic.

Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 15 2010 at 2:29am
Gee Bill it seems to me that Congress has been controlled by the Democrats for the last 6 years.   Also the fact that we finally have a bill. I think it is mostly how the Bill was created in secret and rushed through and against the majorities wishes.  We now have Obamacare and will find out all of it's little surprises as we go along, unfortunately. 
Back to Top
rngrmed View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 06 2009
Location: Middletown
Status: Offline
Points: 309
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rngrmed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 15 2010 at 10:24am
Gee Wasteful wasn't it our esteemed President Bush in office during this time that said he would veto any legislation proposed oh Healthcare?  Wasn't it Bush that vetoed the SCHIPs that would have provided healthcare for children that live in poverty? 
I think it was during this time that Mitt Romney (Republican) proposed the same ideas in this healthcare bill. 
And as far as insurance companies raising their premimums...they look for any excuse under the sun to raise their premiums. 
And don't tell me about profit margins of an insurance is only 2% compared to Taco Bell's 150% on a taco.  Compare 2% $1,000,000 and 150% on a 0.69 cent taco.  Which one will you take? 
Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 15 2010 at 12:05pm
Funny how you liberals seem to pretend the last two years never happened or ignore the last two years altogether much of the time.  I think you Libs live in a time warp or something....zooming around to which ever time span fits your liberal message.  I guess nothing has happened in the last 2 years.  I guess ObamaCare, Cap & Tax attempt, Ignoring Immigration to the detriment of the states particularly in the south, etc. was all in our imagination....quick someone wake me up....I'm having a nightmare. 
 
Since you want to compare $1,000,000.00 items I will take 150% on $1,000,000.00 in sales of those .69 tacos and you can have the 2% on the $1,000,000.00 Health care Policy.Big%20smile
 
Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 15 2010 at 12:24pm
Didn't Bush veto the Schip bill because he wanted more of the working poor to be covered at $41k or less in income and the Dems wanted the income limits to be $62K.  Then the States were given the power to decide who was covered and they were allowing families living at 250-400% of the FPL to be covered.  Hmmmmmmmm.
 
The Federal Poverty level in 2007 for a family of 4 was $20650.00 so that means a family making about $83000.00 in some states could qualify for SChip.
Back to Top
Bill View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen


Joined: Nov 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 710
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 15 2010 at 3:25pm

The exaggerations continue.....the border policy under Obama is actually heightened compared to before.  More guards, more surveillance, more dollars.  I'm not saying he's responsible for all of that but to say it's more relaxed than under Bush is just incorrect.

Back to Top
Bocephus View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jun 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 838
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bocephus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 15 2010 at 7:58pm
New Rules Coming for Payments Out of Health Savings Accounts

Under the new health care law, consumers using workplace pre-tax health savings accounts will soon need a doctor's note to pay for Tylenol and an estimated 15,000 other over-the-counter drugs.

Starting Jan. 1, employees who use flexible spending accounts (FSAs), health saving accounts (HSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) to pay for common medications such as pain relievers, cold medicines, antacids and allergy medications will need prescriptions. The new rules don't apply to insulin.

The new rules will also prohibit the use of FSA or HRA debit cards provided by administrative plans for over-the-counter purchases, because the IRS says there's no way to prove the drugs were prescribed.

The IRS says any money removed from HSA accounts to pay for medical expenses bought without a prescription will be included as taxable income and subject to an additional tax of 20 percent.

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry lobby that voiced support for the overhaul but has been accused by some of the law's proponents of trying to undermine it, said the law creates "unintended consequences."

"It creates unnecessary hassles for consumers and provides the wrong kind of incentives," Zirkelbach said, adding that the changes could make it more difficult for consumers to get medicines they need at costs they can afford.  

"This change could have the unintended consequence of increasing health care costs," he said. It might provide an incentive for consumers to go back on more expensive medications when over-the-counter medicine works just fine."

More than 10 million consumers use HSAs, according to a survey done in January by AHIP. That's up from 8 million in 2009 and 6.1 million in 2008.

According to an analysis by benefits administrator Aon Hewitt of more than 220 employers covering more than 6 million workers, 20 percent of employees, or 1.2 million, contributed to an FSA in 2010. Of those workers, the average annual contribution is $1,441.

FSAs and HSAs allow workers to reduce their taxable income to pay for qualified health care or child care expenses. Anyone with a high-deductible medical insurance plan can obtain an HSA. The IRS defined a high-deductible plan in 2010 as $1,200 a year for individuals and $2,400 for families.

FSAs, which were first authorized by Congress in 1978, are only available through employers who offer the plans. But FSAs face another new rule under the Affordable Care Act -- a limit on the pre-tax contributions to $2,500, starting Jan. 1, 2013. There is currently no limit on how much an employee can contribute to FSAs, although employers can impose one.

Lawmakers imposed the cap to help pay for provisions that will expand coverage starting in 2014. The cap is expected to raise $13 billion for other government-provided health care services offered between 2013 and 2019.

Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 15 2010 at 9:02pm
Originally posted by Bill Bill wrote:

The exaggerations continue.....the border policy under Obama is actually heightened compared to before.  More guards, more surveillance, more dollars.  I'm not saying he's responsible for all of that but to say it's more relaxed than under Bush is just incorrect.

 
Don't tell that to Arizona, Obama might sue them again.  You can not deny the border states are taking a beating under both Obama and Bush.  The Immigration problem will not be solved until the border is secured.  Non of the Presidents have tackled this problem in the last 25 years other than to give it lip service.  Obama has basically halted the construction of the fence and there are claims he refuses to secure the border until there is an Immigration policy, read that as amnesty.  Would make better sense to secure the southern border then deal with the Illegal immigrants within the USA. 
 
Yup deportations are up under Obama.  Whether his policies or the faltering economy are responsible for any possible decline in illegals entering the country is up for grabs. 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.090 seconds.
Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com    Privacy Statement  |   Terms of Use  |   Site by Xponex Media  |   Advertising Information