Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Did they change the wording?

Huh, its like that one quiz where you count the f's.

[BigV]

Wow.

It's 346 pages long.

I'll have to get back to you in a little while.

[BigV]

Ah.

Page 73.

[BigV]

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated that about 21 million nonelderly residents will be uninsured in 2016, but the majority of them will not be subject to the penalty. Unauthorized immigrants, for example, are exempted from the mandate to obtain health insurance. Others will be subject to the mandate but exempted from the penalty—for example, because they will have income low enough that they are not required to file an income tax return, because they are members of Indian tribes, or because the premium they would have to pay would exceed a specified share of their income (initially 8 percent in 2014 and indexed over time). CBO and JCT estimate that between 13 million and 14 million of the uninsured in 2016 will qualify for one or more of those exemptions.

Of the remaining 7 million to 8 million uninsured, some individuals will be granted exemptions from the penalty because of hardship, and others will be exempted from the mandate on the basis of their religious beliefs. Among the uninsured who do not obtain an exemption, many will voluntarily report on their tax returns that they are uninsured and pay the amount owed. However, other individuals will try to avoid making payments. Therefore, the estimates presented here account for likely compliance rates, as well as the ability of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to administer and collect the penalty. After accounting for all of those factors, CBO and JCT estimate that about 4 million people will pay a penalty because they will be uninsured in 2016 (a figure that includes uninsured dependents who have the penalty paid on their behalf).

That's what this is about.

Heritage is touting in red the estimated number of people that won't comply with the individual "mandate" and will therefore be subject to the penalty, nee "tax" (thank you SCOTUS and Heritage--the CBO calls it penalty. The law is written "penalty" But call it whatever you like, free speech and all).

See? Obama's raising your taxes, you middle americans (despite the fact that about half these people are for very low income households, eh?) That's ok. We all selective quote from time to time.

[Lamplighter]

Oh, OK ... but where is the squirrel now that we've all seen the double rainbow ?

I won't accept "treadmill" as the answer.

[classicman]

Thanks V.

[glatt]

So far, I'm digging Obamacare. But I reserve the right to change my mind as more becomes clear.

But a couple days ago I got a letter from CIGNA, my health insurance company through my employer. Apparently Obamacare requires that insurance companies must spend at least 85% of the money they collect from premiums on actual health care. In 2011, CIGNA spent 75.8% of their premium money on healthcare. Under Obamacare, they MUST refund the difference (9.2%) to my employer by 8/1/12, and my employer must follow certain rules to distribute the rebate to me.

So the next day, HR sent out an email to the employees saying that they had no idea this was coming, and that they needed a little time to figure out how to distribute the funds back to the employees.

But the thing is, I spent a few thousand dollars on health care premiums on 2011 for my family of four, so to get around 9.2% of that back is going to be a beautiful windfall and really help, either as a check or maybe it will be used to reduce premiums next year.

Thank you, Obama!

[Lamplighter]

Yes, I'm glad for you...

By regulation, insurance companies are supposed to send out such rebates by 8/1/12

[Griff]

[Clodfobble]

So far we got the letter from our old insurance (2011 and earlier,) but not our new insurance (as of January 1, 2012.) I don't know if this means we'll get two checks, or if our new insurance still has half a year to spend their money before they have to give it back.

[classicman]

Good for you, glatt.
Most of that rebate will remain with your employer if they paid for most of your insurance. Historically most insurance companies ratio was right around the 85% number. Cigna was the lone company far out of whack.
I have BCBS. I'm not getting a rebate. However my premiums will decrease starting in Sept! A whole $2.00 a month.
I guess that is better than another 20+% increase though. :/

[classicman]

I stand corrected - at least up to 2009. Cannot find the info for years 2010-2012

[ZenGum]

I notice there is a dip each year around August/September.

Is that because health expenses are lower then, or is that when premiums get jacked up for the next year?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by classicman

Good for you, glatt.
Most of that rebate will remain with your employer if they paid for most of your insurance.

Yeah, that's fine. If they take 9.2% of the money they paid in, and I get 9.2% of the money I paid in, that seems fair, and I'll be happy with that.

[Lamplighter]

@Classic

There's an innate consequence with laws such as this.

First, once the minimum (or maximum) has been set, all the companies
will make the legal target into their accounting outcome, one way or another.
In this instance, we will soon see every company spending exactly 15% on non-health care expenses.
It's almost like saying to them: "Here take this 15% and go have a party"

The second problem is that the target is never changed (improved upon). Congress will not be able
to raise the % actually spent on health care to 86 or 87, let alone 90%, or higher.

We've seen this happen with things like pollutants in water quality.
Setting the upper limit of a toxin/pollutant comes to mean that
the same amount of toxin is (forever) OK.

I would like to see laws that set such targets include progressive targets,
that would be reviewed periodically until there is a somewhat objective limit could be determined.
I think this is how the "mutual" insurance companies end up
with lower premiums than the "for profit" companies.

Here in the west Kaiser-Permanente has been at 85% for years,
but even within that "target", KP has been engaged in actual research
on preventative and efficacious medicine, as well as cost accounting.
So handing 15% to companies that only push paper may be a big waste for years to come.

ETA:
Sorry, I was writing from memory and it wasn't so good.
Each of my 15/85 %'s above should have been 20/80 %'s