Tens of millions of employer-offered healthcare plans in jeopardy from ACA

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Fox News: Almost 80 million with employer health care plans could have coverage canceled, experts predict​

Almost 80 million people with employer health plans could find their coverage canceled because they are not compliant with ObamaCare, several experts predicted.

Their losses would be in addition to the millions who found their individual coverage cancelled for the same reason.

Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute said that in addition to the individual cancellations, "at least half the people on employer plans would by 2014 start losing plans as well." There are approximately 157 million employer health care policy holders.

More than half of us on this board could lose our healthcare plans, if they are offered by our employers, joining those of us who have already lost coverage because of this corrupt power grab as part of an effort to institute socialism in the U.S. as the sociopolitical reality of government.

Is it any wonder that small businesses are cutting back on hours in order to reduce the number of fulltime employees eligible for healthcare? The conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute is estimating two-thirds of small business will have policies dramatically changed, or canceled, over the next year because of the ACA.

Anyone who would defend this heinous act and its author is deluded, and should consider getting mental health assistance. But of course, you'll have to pay for it yourself, because you probably can't get insurance for it without it costing a fortune.

 

[InTheLight]

More than half of us on this board could lose our healthcare plans, if they are offered by our employers, joining those of us who have already lost coverage because of this corrupt power grab as part of an effort to institute socialism in the U.S. as the sociopolitical reality of government.

That's a bit over the top. More likely it is another example of liberals having good intentions, i.e. let's require all new policies to have newborn care, maternity care, and mental health coverage. This will be why employer based plans will be canceled, the same reason why individual plans (like mine) was canceled--they don't have these new mandatory coverage elements inside the plan. Liberals have good intentions, but don't care if their plan or legislation will actually work.

Anyone who would defend this heinous act and its author is deluded, and should consider getting mental health assistance. But of course, you'll have to pay for it yourself, because you probably can't get insurance for it without it costing a fortune.

Not defending the act or its author simply not buying your stated motivation behind the law as being likely. And no worries, mental health coverage is now mandatory and there are government subsidies available if you can't afford it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

That's a bit over the top. More likely it is another example of liberals having good intentions, i.e. let's require all new policies to have newborn care, maternity care, and mental health coverage.

All right! Open your wallet. There's got to be a Socialist Party USA membership card in there.

"All new policies" don't need maternity, newborn, and pediatric care because -- well, like my wife and me. We're both 61, won't be having kids and certainly don't have any now that aren't grown and out on their own. This time next year, if not sooner, we will be getting a cancellation notice from her employer-provided healthcare provider -- which is, by the way, one of the best funded and efficiently run programs in the country.

This is an absurd, ridiculous and wasteful effort, with an ulterior motive. By loading up new policies with unnecessary coverage, the ACA backers are forcing prices up, making the policies unaffordable, and in a year, 16 months, two years, whenever, they can throw up their hands and say, "See? The existing insurance network is too greedy and too costly. We've got to scrap it and go to a single-payer plan," which is what the Great Pretender/Naked Emperor/Empty Suit/Team Zero leader has wanted all along. If you think this is not the scenario planned, I've got beachfront property in New Mexico for sale.

This will be why employer based plans will be canceled, the same reason why individual plans (like mine) was canceled--they don't have these new mandatory coverage elements inside the plan.

"Mandatory coverage elements" that are totally unnecessary and designed to bankrupt the insurance and healthcare industries so this socialist lame duck can swoop in and "save the day" with his socialist/Marxist ideologies.

Liberals have good intentions ...

Liberals in the U.S., as they are constituted today, have only one "intention," and it is not good. They intend to destroy the free enterprise system and replace it with a socialistic state, perhaps a socialistic police state (so we independent thinkers don't get any bright ideas and go out there and start our own country or something "sinister" and "unAmerican" like that. You're dreaming, ITL, if you think this plan has any good intentions behind it, or can end in anything other than socialist ideology being the "guiding light" of the "new" U.S.

 

[InTheLight]

All right! Open your wallet. There's got to be a Socialist Party USA membership card in there.

Yes, I'm a small business owner that is an independent investor so naturally I'm a socialist. Sheesh, ratchet it down a bit, will ya?

"All new policies" don't need maternity, newborn, and pediatric care because -- well, like my wife and me. This is an absurd, ridiculous and wasteful effort, with an ulterior motive. By loading up new policies with unnecessary coverage, the ACA backers are forcing prices up, making the policies unaffordable, and in a year, 16 months, two years, whenever, they can throw up their hands and say, "See? The existing insurance network is too greedy and too costly.

The ulterior motive is payback to the insurance companies for backing ObamaCare. They saw the individual mandate and salivated at the prospect of the US government compelling 30 million people to get health insurance, oh, and to overprice these policies with unneeded coverage which will increase their profit margins.

"Mandatory coverage elements" that are totally unnecessary and designed to bankrupt the insurance and healthcare industries so this socialist lame duck can swoop in and "save the day" with his socialist/Marxist ideologies.

Here's whats wrong with your scenario. Obama's out of office in 2 years. You actually said, "lame duck can swoop in and save the day"...that makes no sense. And your oft-repeated contention that the Republicans are going to regain control of both houses of Congress would pretty much mitigate your prediction. You are arguing both sides.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Yes, I'm a small business owner that is an independent investor so naturally I'm a socialist. Sheesh, ratchet it down a bit, will ya?

It's called "sarcasm." Heard of it?

The ulterior motive is payback to the insurance companies for backing ObamaCare.

Like they had a choice!!!

They saw the individual mandate and salivated at the prospect of the US government compelling 30 million people to get health insurance ...

Boy, that's some imagination you've got there. The insurance companies were either going to participate or be forced out of business. How would you approach that kind of a choice?

Here's whats wrong with your scenario. Obama's out of office in 2 years.

Slightly more than three years ... January 20, 1017.

You actually said, "lame duck can swoop in and save the day"...

Yeah, I did, and that's what he intends.

nd your oft-repeated contention that the Republicans are going to regain control of both houses of Congress would pretty much mitigate your prediction.

Faced with loss of his "legacy" I'm not putting anything beyond this socialist nightmare's willingness to destroy this country. I stand firmly convinced that is his aim. You are free to believe whatever you wish as well.

 

[InTheLight]

Boy, that's some imagination you've got there. The insurance companies were either going to participate or be forced out of business. How would you approach that kind of a choice?

Please describe how the insurance companies would be forced out of business. All I need is an outline. One or two paragraphs would do it.

Yeah, I did, and that's what he intends.

"Lame duck" by definition means ineffectual. You have been predicting a Republican takeover of the Senate in 2014. How do you reconcile Obama "swooping in to save the day" if he doesn't have a friendly Congress?

 

[saturneptune]

Something needed to be done about the medical and insurance industry. It was done the wrong way, with way too much government interference. There could have been a bill passed that relied on the free market with the government limited to enforcing regulations.

However, it is a fact that this movement was started by greed of insurance companies and medical organizations. The problem is, the solution makes it worse than the original condition. There has got to be a better answer.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Something needed to be done about the medical and insurance industry.

There was nothing wrong with the medical and insurance industries. What was wrong was the lack of tort reform, and the highway robbery committed by pharmaceutical companies. Yes, it costs millions to develop a medication. That doesn't mean you should be allowed to recoup it in the first three days the medication is on the market. It doesn't justify medicine that costs $29.50 a pill, particularly when that pill was developed for something else and "just happens" to also fit the profile for alleviating another affliction. The pharmaceutical companies are guilty of fraud through overcharging and misrepresentation of development costs.

Tort reform is making it impossible for doctors to practice medicine. We complain and complain about increase co-pays and doctor visit baseline costs, but the doctors are having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for malpractice insurance because frivolous and ridiculous lawsuits are allowed to run their course in a legal system that is perfectly happy to let it's own (lawyers) make individual fortunes off of the reprehensible practice of filing de minimis actions that should never be allowed to survive as long as it takes for the ink to dry on the court clerk's stamp.

If tort reform was enacted and pharmaceutical companies were held accountable, healthcare costs in this country could be expected to drop by as much as 40%, which is a far sight better than the ACA promised, and certainly even more so than what it can actually deliver.

However, it is a fact that this movement was started by greed of insurance companies and medical organizations.

I have no clue where you got this. It's a ridiculous statement. One, "greed" is not the proper term for the insurance companies, though I'm sure it could be shown they are also guilty of overcharges, though not anywhere near the scale of the pharmaceutical companies. Medical organizations? That a joke, right? Yeah, they wanted to see their doctors, hospitals, nurses, etc. put out of business, which is exactly what they all predicted when this idiotic law was being debated. No one listened then (including you, apparently) and now that it has been proven true, people (you) want to make excuses, when there are none.

 

[InTheLight]

Originally Posted by InTheLight
However, it is a fact that this movement was started by greed of insurance companies and medical organizations.

I have no clue where you got this. It's a ridiculous statement. One, "greed" is not the proper term for

<snip>

I didn't write this.

Please learn how to use the Quote function. You might want to have a lie down for awhile to cool off.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Please describe how the insurance companies would be forced out of business. All I need is an outline. One or two paragraphs would do it.

I can do it in two words: "Death spiral."

"Lame duck" by definition means ineffectual.

It also means he can do anything he wants, because he has no responsibility to the voters. Or did you forget that aspect of the term?

 

[Reformed]

The insurance companies are going to make a killing off of the Unaffordable Care Act (ObamaCare). Imagine if you sold widgets and the government mandated that consumers do business with you. The game is rigged.

The Unaffordable Care Act was never about health insurance for the unisured. If it was then there are less expensive methods of accomplishing that without this massive over reach of a law. It has always been about control over individual liberty. Nothing less, nothing more. When you control a person's health care you control them.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The insurance companies are going to make a killing off of the Unaffordable Care Act (ObamaCare).

Again, research "death spiral." This is precisely what is going to happen to the ACA, and it will bankrupt the insurance companies because they will be forced to cover illness in the elderly and sick without the support of healthy young policyholders who have always, in the free market, subsidized the healthcare of the infirm. Just not on the scale the ACA demands of the insurance industry.

 

[InTheLight]

I can do it in two words: "Death spiral."

OK. I understand. You can't explain it.

It also means he can do anything he wants, because he has no responsibility to the voters. Or did you forget that aspect of the term?

Do you keep forgetting that in your world you have Republicans controlling both Senate and House after the 2014 elections? So how could he do "anything he wants?"

 

[InTheLight]

The insurance companies are going to make a killing off of the Unaffordable Care Act (ObamaCare). Imagine if you sold widgets and the government mandated that consumers do business with you. The game is rigged.

The Unaffordable Care Act was never about health insurance for the unisured. If it was then there are less expensive methods of accomplishing that without this massive over reach of a law. It has always been about control over individual liberty. Nothing less, nothing more. When you control a person's health care you control them.

Good post.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

OK. I understand. You can't explain it.

No I understand. You're too lazy to look it up and see why I'm right.

Do you keep forgetting that in your world you have Republicans controlling both Senate and House after the 2014 elections? So how could he do "anything he wants?"

He's already rewritten the ACA via executive order seven times. Do I have to explain this to you in one-syllable words, or do you suppose you can extrapolate his intent?

Oh, never mind ... you don't think he has any evil intent. You don't think the man wouldn't hesitate to force his socialist ideology on the U.S., also via executive order, or armed coupe, if necessary.

 

[InTheLight]

No understand. You're too lazy to look it up and see why I'm right.

I'm too lazy to look up "death spiral" and how that explains ACA?

He's already rewritten the ACA via executive order seven times. Do I have to explain this to you in one-syllable words,

One, two, three syllable words, they're all good. But you can't.