10 ways health care reform will affect you...

[H4ever]

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/ar ... love_money

The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act, more commonly referred to as the "healthcare bill", has taken over a year to craft and has been a lightning rod for political debate because it effectively reshapes major facets of the country's healthcare industry.

Here are 10 things you need to know about how the new law may affect you:





1. Your Kids are Covered

Starting this year, if you have an adult child who cannot get health insurance from his or her employer and is to some degree dependent on you financially, your child can stay on your insurance policy until he or she is 26 years old. Currently, many insurance companies do not allow adult children to remain on their parents' plan once they reach 19 or leave school.

2. You Can't be Dropped

Starting this fall, your health insurance company will no longer be allowed to "drop" you (cancel your policy) if you get sick. In 2009, "rescission" was revealed to be a relatively common cost-cutting practice by several insurance companies. The practice proved to be common enough to spur several lawsuits; for example, in 2008 and 2009, California's largest insurers were made to pay out more than $19 million in fines for dropping policyholders who fell ill.

3. You Can't be Denied Insurance

Starting this year your child (or children) cannot be denied coverage simply because they have a pre-existing health condition. Health insurance companies will also be barred from denying adults applying for coverage if they have a pre-existing condition, but not until 2014.

4. You Can Spend What You Need to

Prior to the new law, health insurance companies set a maximum limit on the monetary amount of benefits that a policyholder could receive. This meant that those who developed expensive or long-lasting medical conditions could run out of coverage. Starting this year, companies will be barred from instituting caps on coverage.

5. You Don't Have to Wait

If you currently have pre-existing conditions that have prevented you from being able to qualify for health insurance for at least six months you will have coverage options before 2014. Starting this fall, you will be able to purchase insurance through a state-run "high-risk pool", which will cap your personal out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare. You will not be required to pay more than $5,950 of your own money for medical expenses; families will not have to pay any more than $11,900.

6. You Must be Insured

Under the new law starting in 2014, you will have to purchase health insurance or risk being fined. If your employer does not offer health insurance as a benefit or if you do not earn enough money to purchase a plan, you may get assistance from the government. The fines for not purchasing insurance will be levied according to a sliding scale based on income. Starting in 2014, the lowest fine would be $95 or 1% of a person's income (whichever is greater) and then increase to a high of $695 or 2.5% of an individual's taxable income by 2016. There will be a maximum cap on fines.

7. You'll Have More Options

Starting in 2014 (when you will be required by law to have health insurance), states will operate new insurance marketplaces - called "exchanges" - that will provide you with more options for buying an individual policy if you can't get, or afford, insurance from your workplace and you earn too much income to qualify for Medicaid. In addition, millions of low- and middle-income families (earning up to $88,200 annually) will be able to qualify for financial assistance from the federal government to purchase insurance through their state exchange.

8. Flexible Spending Accounts Will Become Less Flexible

Three years from now, flexible spending accounts (FSAs) will have lower contribution limits - meaning you won't be able to have as much money deducted from your paycheck pre-tax and deposited into an FSA for medical expenses as is currently allowed. The new maximum amount allowed will be $2,500. In addition, fewer expenses will qualify for FSA spending. For example, you will no longer be able to use your FSA to help defray the cost of over-the-counter drugs.

9. If You Earn More, You'll Pay More

Starting in 2018, if your combined family income exceeds $250,000 you are going to be taking less money home each pay period. That's because you will have more money deducted from your paycheck to go toward increased Medicare payroll taxes. In addition to higher payroll taxes you will also have to pay 3.8% tax on any unearned income, which is currently tax-exempt.

10. Medicare May Cover More or Less of Your Expenses

Starting this year, if Medicare is your primary form of health insurance you will no longer have to pay for preventive care such as an annual physical, screenings for treatable conditions or routine laboratory work. In addition, you will get a $250 check from the federal government to help pay for prescription drugs currently not covered as a result of the Medicare Part D "doughnut hole".

However, if you are a high-income individual or couple (making more than $85,000 individually or $170,000 jointly), your prescription drug subsidy will be reduced. In addition, if you are one of the more than 10 million people currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan you may be facing higher premiums because your insurance company's subsidy from the federal government is going to be dramatically reduced.

Conclusion

Over the next few months you will most likely receive information in the mail from your health insurance company about how the newly signed law will affect your coverage. Read the correspondence carefully and don't hesitate to ask questions about your policy; there may be new, more affordable options for you down the road.



I'm not liking quite a bit about this, though there are some improvements. Why fuck with FSA's? I use them every year to cover deductibles and co-pays. What's up with the fines? State's starting up "Insurance exchanges" to give you more options...Why did it take legislation that is tearing this country apart at the seams to start something like this? Free market anyone?

[mvscal]

Yeah, this won't raise heath care costs at all. Wonder why it won't kick in for four years? I thought there was supposed to be some kind of "crisis" or something.

[Moving Sale]

You've never been right about anything ever so I'm going to go ahead and bet that you're wrong again.

Now go fuck yourself you vapid fucking racist cowardly POS.

[Dinsdale]

3. You Can't be Denied Insurance

Starting this year your child (or children) cannot be denied coverage simply because they have a pre-existing health condition. Health insurance companies will also be barred from denying adults applying for coverage if they have a pre-existing condition, but not until 2014.

They should also pass a law against companies denying homeowners insurance to people whose house is currently on fire.

And just because I fall out of my sled and walk into Geico's office shitfaced, that should have no bearing on whether they insure me or not.

[smackaholic]

I guess keeping dead beat kids on your policy til their 26 is gonna save my insurance company plenty of dough. And they will surely pass those savings on to me in the form of lower premiums.



can one of you democrat tools please defend this for me? I guess you'll lock up the votes of the 4 people in this demographic that vote.

[trev]

Aren't we already paying for everyone anyway? I don't get this entire thing. If an uninsured person ends up at an ER, we all pay for it. My college kid never goes to the doctor anyway.

[BSmack]

I guess keeping dead beat kids on your policy til their 26 is gonna save my insurance company plenty of dough. And they will surely pass those savings on to me in the form of lower premiums.

Actually it is going to save them plenty of dough. The VAST majority of people 19 to 26 barely use health care services. So more than a few, when confronted by high premiums and jobs that do not give benefits, choose to play health care roulette rather than pay. Which is fine until they get in an accident or get sick. Then they go bankrupt and stick the rest of us with their health care bills. Now those "kids" can pay premiums through their parent's work provided family plans until they are able to get a job with benefits. It's really a win/win.

[mvscal]

I guess keeping dead beat kids on your policy til their 26 is gonna save my insurance company plenty of dough. And they will surely pass those savings on to me in the form of lower premiums.

Actually it is going to save them plenty of dough. The VAST majority of people 19 to 26 barely use health care services. So more than a few, when confronted by high premiums and jobs that do not give benefits, choose to play health care roulette rather than pay. Which is fine until they get in an accident or get sick. Then they go bankrupt and stick the rest of us with their health care bills. Now those "kids" can pay premiums through their parent's work provided family plans until they are able to get a job with benefits. It's really a win/win.

Your economic imbecility is truly breathtaking. You cannot expand coverage and reduce costs. Period. Full stop.

It doesn't work that way, you brainless fucktard. Nothing does.

[Mikey]

Aren't we already paying for everyone anyway? I don't get this entire thing. If an uninsured person ends up at an ER, we all pay for it. My college kid never goes to the doctor anyway.

The ER is where a lot of uninsured go for primary care, and they can't be turned away. A typical ER visit runs about $1,500 before they even do anything. That's a lot more than $80 or so for a Dr. office visit. So yes, I'd say there's potential for some substantial savings there.

[War Wagon]

The fines for not purchasing insurance will be levied according to a sliding scale based on income. Starting in 2014, the lowest fine would be $95 or 1% of a person's income (whichever is greater) and then increase to a high of $695 or 2.5% of an individual's taxable income by 2016. There will be a maximum cap on fines.

Unfuckingbelievable.

Great, so a whole new bureaucratic wing of government will have to be created to enforce this horseshit.

No wonder the law doesn't go into effect for 4 years. It'll take at least that long to mobilize the thousands of pencil pushers and bean counters required to manage and monitor this nanny state boondoggle. This new "bureau" will rival the IRS in size, scope, and sheer incomprehensibility.

Fining people for not buying something they don't wish to buy.... Brilliant!

[trev]

Aren't we already paying for everyone anyway? I don't get this entire thing. If an uninsured person ends up at an ER, we all pay for it. My college kid never goes to the doctor anyway.

The ER is where a lot of uninsured go for primary care, and they can't be turned away. A typical ER visit runs about $1,500 before they even do anything. That's a lot more than $80 or so for a Dr. office visit. So yes, I'd say there's potential for some substantial savings there.

What about all the illegals that go to our ER's in So Cal?

[BarFlie]

There is a flaw in the bill that shoots down the highly touted 'kids will be covered immediately" claim. As it stands now kids won't be covered until 2014 either

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03 ... erage.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.

Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

[JMak]

I guess keeping dead beat kids on your policy til their 26 is gonna save my insurance company plenty of dough. And they will surely pass those savings on to me in the form of lower premiums.

Actually it is going to save them plenty of dough. The VAST majority of people 19 to 26 barely use health care services. So more than a few, when confronted by high premiums and jobs that do not give benefits, choose to play health care roulette rather than pay. Which is fine until they get in an accident or get sick. Then they go bankrupt and stick the rest of us with their health care bills. Now those "kids" can pay premiums through their parent's work provided family plans until they are able to get a job with benefits. It's really a win/win.

Dickhead, the whole bill is structured this way. Now that the govt is prohibiting exclusions for pre-existing conditions individuals will simply wait until they get sick. Oh, that's why we have the mandate compelling individuals to buy insurance lest they be fined. But what happens when individuals realize that it makes infinite sense to forego enrolling and paying the huge premium and just pay the fine? Well?

[JMak]

1. Your Kids are Covered

Starting this year, if you have an adult child who cannot get health insurance from his or her employer and is to some degree dependent on you financially, your child can stay on your insurance policy until he or she is 26 years old. Currently, many insurance companies do not allow adult children to remain on their parents' plan once they reach 19 or leave school.

Most employers already permit this up to age 25 but employees share the premium increase. But now, parents cannot elect to drop their kids and employers must provide this insurance. In other words, parents see their health care premiums go up. Nice!

2. You Can't be Dropped

Starting this fall, your health insurance company will no longer be allowed to "drop" you (cancel your policy) if you get sick. In 2009, "rescission" was revealed to be a relatively common cost-cutting practice by several insurance companies. The practice proved to be common enough to spur several lawsuits; for example, in 2008 and 2009, California's largest insurers were made to pay out more than $19 million in fines for dropping policyholders who fell ill.

Lets see the specific language.

3. You Can't be Denied Insurance

Starting this year your child (or children) cannot be denied coverage simply because they have a pre-existing health condition. Health insurance companies will also be barred from denying adults applying for coverage if they have a pre-existing condition, but not until 2014.

Wrong. As I think someone already noted - both begin in 2014 despite the alleged crisis.

4. You Can Spend What You Need to

Prior to the new law, health insurance companies set a maximum limit on the monetary amount of benefits that a policyholder could receive. This meant that those who developed expensive or long-lasting medical conditions could run out of coverage. Starting this year, companies will be barred from instituting caps on coverage.

So why no mention of the obvious and necessary increase in premiums? As I showed last night, CBO sees premiums increasing 10 to 13% in the individual market. But I guess Yahoo doesn't think this affects us!

5. You Don't Have to Wait

If you currently have pre-existing conditions that have prevented you from being able to qualify for health insurance for at least six months you will have coverage options before 2014. Starting this fall, you will be able to purchase insurance through a state-run "high-risk pool", which will cap your personal out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare. You will not be required to pay more than $5,950 of your own money for medical expenses; families will not have to pay any more than $11,900.

So who picks up the balance? Taxpayers. I guess this doesn't affect us, right?

6. You Must be Insured

Under the new law starting in 2014, you will have to purchase health insurance or risk being fined. If your employer does not offer health insurance as a benefit or if you do not earn enough money to purchase a plan, you may get assistance from the government. The fines for not purchasing insurance will be levied according to a sliding scale based on income. Starting in 2014, the lowest fine would be $95 or 1% of a person's income (whichever is greater) and then increase to a high of $695 or 2.5% of an individual's taxable income by 2016. There will be a maximum cap on fines.

$695 per year cap? LMAO! I pay that in contributions alone through 3 months. How many people already paying far more than that will recognize that paying fine keeps more money in their pocket?

7. You'll Have More Options

Starting in 2014 (when you will be required by law to have health insurance), states will operate new insurance marketplaces - called "exchanges" - that will provide you with more options for buying an individual policy if you can't get, or afford, insurance from your workplace and you earn too much income to qualify for Medicaid. In addition, millions of low- and middle-income families (earning up to $88,200 annually) will be able to qualify for financial assistance from the federal government to purchase insurance through their state exchange.

So who actually provides the dough to pay the subsidies to low income families earning $88K per year? LOL!!

8. Flexible Spending Accounts Will Become Less Flexible

Three years from now, flexible spending accounts (FSAs) will have lower contribution limits - meaning you won't be able to have as much money deducted from your paycheck pre-tax and deposited into an FSA for medical expenses as is currently allowed. The new maximum amount allowed will be $2,500. In addition, fewer expenses will qualify for FSA spending. For example, you will no longer be able to use your FSA to help defray the cost of over-the-counter drugs.

Eliminate choice and responsibility for health care costs....

9. If You Earn More, You'll Pay More

Starting in 2018, if your combined family income exceeds $250,000 you are going to be taking less money home each pay period. That's because you will have more money deducted from your paycheck to go toward increased Medicare payroll taxes. In addition to higher payroll taxes you will also have to pay 3.8% tax on any unearned income, which is currently tax-exempt.

Cut $500 billion from Medicare then turn around and raise taxes on those over $250K per year and that will pay for it? Nope says the CBO. In other words, this $250K cap is bogus.

10. Medicare May Cover More or Less of Your Expenses

Starting this year, if Medicare is your primary form of health insurance you will no longer have to pay for preventive care such as an annual physical, screenings for treatable conditions or routine laboratory work. In addition, you will get a $250 check from the federal government to help pay for prescription drugs currently not covered as a result of the Medicare Part D "doughnut hole".

However, if you are a high-income individual or couple (making more than $85,000 individually or $170,000 jointly), your prescription drug subsidy will be reduced. In addition, if you are one of the more than 10 million people currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan you may be facing higher premiums because your insurance company's subsidy from the federal government is going to be dramatically reduced.

Yep, slashing the only part of Medicare that only works to pay for all these new subsidies. Medicare is already bankrupt, yet adding a new benefit and proposing that taxing only a tiny group of Americans will somehow balance the new benefit??? LOL!

Conclusion

Short term and long term and even longer term deficits requiring tax increases in addition to the massive increases already associated with this bill.

Projection - Obama uses an unaccountable deficit commission to propose a VAT to actually pay for this.

[Screw_Michigan]

Most employers already permit this up to age 25

Fucking link?

[JMak]

Most employers already permit this up to age 25

Fucking link?

You ass, how does one link something like that?

I've been a labor relations contract specialist for over ten years. I sat on the board of Michigan's PELRA group composed of local, state, and private employer labor relations officials. Quickie stuff, go to the websites of Royal Oak, Sterling Heights, Southfield, Farmington Hills...they have their contracts on line. Second, look at MSU's Labor Library...has online labor agreements for most of Michigan's municipalities. For example, Southfield, MI cops.

Ford.

GM.

Verizon and it's 900,000 employees.

15 states don't define dependent coverage, including Michigan, leaving 35 that do and, hence, requiring individual and employer plans to provide dependent coverage. And as I just showed with examples from Michigan, even those states not defining dependent coverage have employers providing such coverage.

Look, you have no idea wtf you're talking about...don't fuck with me.

[Goober McTuber]

Most employers already permit this up to age 25

Fucking link?

You ass, how does one link something like that?

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/ar ... love_money

1. Your Kids are Covered

Starting this year, if you have an adult child who cannot get health insurance from his or her employer and is to some degree dependent on you financially, your child can stay on your insurance policy until he or she is 26 years old. Currently, many insurance companies do not allow adult children to remain on their parents' plan once they reach 19 or leave school.

See? It wasn't that hard.

[BSmack]

You cannot expand coverage and reduce costs. Period. Full stop.

Get back to me when you figure out which is more expensive, visiting a GP for a migrane or visiting an ER. But increasing coverage won't reduce costs?

Seriously, are you just committed to being wrong your entire life?

[JMak]

Aren't we already paying for everyone anyway? I don't get this entire thing. If an uninsured person ends up at an ER, we all pay for it. My college kid never goes to the doctor anyway.

The ER is where a lot of uninsured go for primary care, and they can't be turned away. A typical ER visit runs about $1,500 before they even do anything. That's a lot more than $80 or so for a Dr. office visit. So yes, I'd say there's potential for some substantial savings there.

More insured people use the ER than uninsured people.

Robert Samuelson observed recently that a study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency-room visits, reflecting their share of the population.

And after universal care passed in Massachusetts emergency room use remained high:

After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average, an Urban Institute study found. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Of those, a majority of adult respondents to a survey said it was "more convenient" to go to the emergency room or they couldn't "get [a doctor's] appointment as soon as needed." If universal coverage makes appointments harder to get, emergency-room use may increase.

[JMak]

See? It wasn't that hard.

That Yahoo statement is wrong. I ran through some of the largest employers in the nation and example of local employers in MI. The Kaiser link I provided specifies which states define dependent care coverage and 35 states define it to at least 24, i.e., requiring dependent coverage to be included in health care insurance policies.

Then, again, you can always believe the media's in-the-tank reporting over doing actual research and compiling facts.

You may now sit down and have a glass of STFU.

[JMak]

You cannot expand coverage and reduce costs. Period. Full stop.

Get back to me when you figure out which is more expensive, visiting a GP for a migrane or visiting an ER. But increasing coverage won't reduce costs?

Seriously, are you just committed to being wrong your entire life?

Dumbass, you've been taken by the ER myth.

Please explain how expanding access to care while reducing the cost to the actual care user leads to a reduction in costs?

Obama and the Democrats certainly do not believe that, hence, the government subsidies to families earning over $80,000/year, are slicing $500 Billion from Medicare, raising Medicare payroll taxes, imposing taxes on health care plans (exempting unions, though), etc.

Fuckhead, I already linked to the CBO's report that individual and family premiums will be going up. Taxes are going up. The deficit will be growing. But you consider this a reduction in cost??

Seriously, why do you waste valuable oxygen attempting to think?

[JMak]

And now that more and more people are seeing how, as Yahoo puts it, this Obamacare "affects" us, we see the gap widening, again, between approve/disapprove. That's despite BSmack's insistence that support was growing as we found out more...

This is an unmitigated disaster. Imposing years of taxes before benefits even kick in, slashing hundreds of billions from Medicare, cutting doctor reimbursements but not counting the obvious restoration as part of this legislation, etc., etc., etc. Makes you wonder about the intellectual capacity of the fools like BSmack that applaud this illegitimate expansion of government power. But, hey, he's the asshole who believes that everyone else should pay for his allergy medication.

[Goober McTuber]

See? It wasn't that hard.

That Yahoo statement is wrong. I ran through some of the largest employers in the nation and example of local employers in MI. The Kaiser link I provided specifies which states define dependent care coverage and 35 states define it to at least 24, i.e., requiring dependent coverage to be included in health care insurance policies.

Then, again, you can always believe the media's in-the-tank reporting over doing actual research and compiling facts.

You may now sit down and have a glass of STFU.

The yahoo points show up on numerous sites on the internet, but hey, they’re wrong because DrDipshit says they’re wrong. You provided a handful of companies to back up your point. As far as the companies that allow coverage to age 24, is that for all children, or only for those in school? Sorry, slapnuts, but you’ve hardly made a compelling case to this point.

You may now sit down and have a tall glass of Kiss My Hairy White Ass.

[JMak]

The yahoo points show up on numerous sites on the internet, but hey, they’re wrong because DrDipshit says they’re wrong. You provided a handful of companies to back up your point. As far as the companies that allow coverage to age 24, is that for all children, or only for those in school? Sorry, slapnuts, but you’ve hardly made a compelling case to this point.

You may now sit down and have a tall glass of Kiss My Hairy White Ass.

Wow, so you cannot read, eh? I mean, it's not like I didn't post several links displaying information completely contrary to Yahoo's statement.

I guess I'm supposed to provide the entire universe of employers that provide dependent care coverage in their plans? Is that the requirement here? I posted about local government employers. I cited major American corporations covering a few million workers. But that's not good enough?

I cited the Kaiser site indicating thast 35 of 50 states defining dependent care thereby requiring that policies written in those states must include dependent care. And then pointing out that even in those states not defining dependent care, major employers still provide dependent care in their plans.

But I guess you just blindly believe whatever Yahoo says...no matter that they've participated in the global warming hoax, the disappearing glacier hoax, the major weather events tied to warming nonsense, they're self-acknowledged lack of skepticism about the war in Iraq, etc. Nope, you simply accept whatever it is they say. props, I guess.

Meanwhile, as we all just saw with my posts, Yahoo's statement about many companies doesn't hold up very well.

Like BSmack, there's no compelling case to be made for you. I cannot reason out of you what was not reasoned in in the first place...

[JMak]

I don't follow your logic. If the kids are covered by the parent's employer provided plan, how are the kids paying the premiums? Isn't the employer paying the premiums for them?

In my experience it is some yes and mostly no. Employers will have dependent care up to 25 in their plans but will either require the employee to pay 100% of the cost increase associated with the coverage once elected by the employee or will split it. I don't think I have ever seen an employer pick up the dependent care coverage 100%. Not even for cops and firefighters at the local level.

We've added 32 million new individuals to the nation's private insurance plans.

Recall the alleged crisis motivating this "reform". Up to 50,000,000 w/o insurance coverage. Despite all of the accounting gimmicks, slashes to Medicare, new taxes, the best they could do is 30,000,000 of those. But was this not a nationla crisis requiring immediate and dramatic action?

Most of these people do not pay premiums at all or are unable to pay the premiums that should be paid in view of the claims that will need to be paid, so the rest of us will see a dramatic increase in our premiums. To the extent that the premiums are paid by businesses, the prices of their goods will have to increase and/or the businesses will have to trim jobs. There is no other way for a business to adjust to this new dynamic.

As my prior CBO link projected - 10 - 13% premium increases for individual and family plans. Someone has to pay for those households earning up to nearly $90,000 per year to have comprehensive health insurance. The Democrats have already carved the unions out from having to bear any cost. Medicare payroll taxes go up...on those making over $250K. Someone has to pay for massive doc fix that is comiong but was not included in Obamacare to preserve the appearance that the deficit won't be increasing...

[Goober McTuber]

The yahoo points show up on numerous sites on the internet, but hey, they’re wrong because DrDipshit says they’re wrong. You provided a handful of companies to back up your point. As far as the companies that allow coverage to age 24, is that for all children, or only for those in school? Sorry, slapnuts, but you’ve hardly made a compelling case to this point.

You may now sit down and have a tall glass of Kiss My Hairy White Ass.

Wow, so you cannot read, eh? I mean, it's not like I didn't post several links displaying information completely contrary to Yahoo's statement.

I guess I'm supposed to provide the entire universe of employers that provide dependent care coverage in their plans? Is that the requirement here? I posted about local government employers. I cited major American corporations covering a few million workers. But that's not good enough?

I cited the Kaiser site indicating thast 35 of 50 states defining dependent care thereby requiring that policies written in those states must include dependent care. And then pointing out that even in those states not defining dependent care, major employers still provide dependent care in their plans.

What Kaiser link? You've only supplied random companies that might suport your argument, but you never answered my question regarding whether they had to be in school beyond age 19 to be covered.

And quit sugesting that it's only the yahoo site that makes that point, idiot.

[JMak]

Dumbshit, your Google search, for the most part, simply provides links to the AP copy. The NCSL site...they're major supporters of Obamacare. And they provide zero evidence to support their blanket statement about employers providing dependent care.

I thought I posted this link last night.

The majority of state define dependent care coverage and require it be covered in plans. And in those states that do not, like MI, insurance plans do provide such dependent coverage as I demonstrated last night by citing local government labor agreements as well as the GM/Ford contracts.

Restrictions on dependent care coverage vary in my experience - my last employer required enrollment in college. Other employers, like the State of Iowa require that the dependent satisfy state tax law dependency definitions.

I love your "research" into this...copy and paste Yahoo's line and then point out that multiple other sites are saying the same thing...moron, of course, you just googled which other sites simply repeated the Yahoo's own line. Profound. I agree, Yahoo's not the only site running that line...so are the hundreds of others that have reposted that Yahoo story...LOL!

[Goober McTuber]

Make up your mind, fuckface. LOL!! Is it an AP story or a yahoo story? ROFL!!! All I was pointing out is that it is widely quoted. LMAO!!! In looking at linked page, I see that indeed, a number of these states that define a dependent beyond the age of 19 require that they be a full-time student. ROFLMFAO!!! That will significantly lower the size of the group. COHB!!!

But the most important thing I read on the page was this footnote:

This chart describes the state definition of “dependent” as it related to the age of an insured’s child. The definitions in this chart apply to either the individual and/or fully insured group market. Although not represented on this chart, a state may have other specific rules defining the dependent status of stepchildren, disabled children, grandchildren, or domestic partners. Currently, Federal law does not define “dependent" for purposes of group health plans.

Federal law does not define “dependent" for purposes of group health plans. And it shouldn’t. It should be defined and administered at the state level.

[Derron]

I don't think I have ever seen an employer pick up the dependent care coverage 100%. Not even for cops and firefighters at the local level.

It was fairly common in our area up until about 4 or 5 years ago. Public employees usually had full family coverage at 100%, and some agencies still do. And the child coverage was clearly defined and limited to 22 years of age IF a full time student, and 18 if not.

Some have moved to a "co pay" of 5% that the employee is required to pay. Some school districts among others are at that rate, and trying to gt to 10% employee contribution, but the unions are digging in on any more employee cost sharing.

Our local transit district, has a health care cost of over $ 1,800 per employee per month, and they do not have to pay fuck all of any of that. It is a full family ride on that one.

On the private side, 100% for the employee used to be the norm, with the employee paying everything else for family.Those rates are about 55% to 75% company paid benefits with the employee picking up everything else. And most are high deductibles ($ 5K or better) with catastrophic coverage only, with co pays around 20% to 25%.

Just a little imbalance there.

[JMak]

Make up your mind, fuckface. LOL!! Is it an AP story or a yahoo story? ROFL!!! All I was pointing out is that it is widely quoted.

Ok, so now we know you're a liar. You asserted that Yahoo was not the only ones saying it. You then "researched" it and found that lots of other sites have reposted Yahoo's line. That's not the equivalent of finding additional independent drawing the same conclusion.

LMAO!!! In looking at linked page, I see that indeed, a number of these states that define a dependent beyond the age of 19 require that they be a full-time student. ROFLMFAO!!! That will significantly lower the size of the group. COHB!!!

Logic, my friend, use it.

Federal law does not define “dependent" for purposes of group health plans. And it shouldn’t. It should be defined and administered at the state level.[/quote]

Profound! LOL!

When you have something suggesting that Yahho's claim is accurate and mine is not, you may then want to participate. Until then, well, you're as relevant as LTS.

[JMak]

I don't think I have ever seen an employer pick up the dependent care coverage 100%. Not even for cops and firefighters at the local level.

It was fairly common in our area up until about 4 or 5 years ago. Public employees usually had full family coverage at 100%, and some agencies still do. And the child coverage was clearly defined and limited to 22 years of age IF a full time student, and 18 if not.

Some have moved to a "co pay" of 5% that the employee is required to pay. Some school districts among others are at that rate, and trying to gt to 10% employee contribution, but the unions are digging in on any more employee cost sharing.

Our local transit district, has a health care cost of over $ 1,800 per employee per month, and they do not have to pay fuck all of any of that. It is a full family ride on that one.

On the private side, 100% for the employee used to be the norm, with the employee paying everything else for family.Those rates are about 55% to 75% company paid benefits with the employee picking up everything else. And most are high deductibles ($ 5K or better) with catastrophic coverage only, with co pays around 20% to 25%.

Just a little imbalance there.

I'm just not sure what the real issue is here. As BSmack acknolwedges, this cohort is generally the healthiest and, hence, just don't require the insurance. Besides, who are we talking about here? These are not "children" as the Dems would have us believe.

I do know what the real issue is generally, though...a government-created employment-based insurance model. For decades now we have people using health care services who have no idea and no clue about the real cost of health care. And through those decades the utilization of health care services has grown infinitely, but the ability to pay has not. And so, the Dems plan is to incentivize even greater utilization while further insulating people from the cost.

Why does no one see the inherent disaster with this model?

[Goober McTuber]

When you have something suggesting that Yahho's claim is accurate and mine is not, you may then want to participate.

When you have something more persuasive than "I'm right and they're wrong", get back to me.

[JMak]

When you have something suggesting that Yahho's claim is accurate and mine is not, you may then want to participate.

When you have something more persuasive than "I'm right and they're wrong", get back to me.

Dude, seriously, you have a rep here as being a good poster, but ^^^ is absolutely horrid.

You have a single generic claim from Yahoo. I have disputed it and provided links to all manner of employers and information disputing Yahoo's claim. And your response is to do some research that consists of copying and pasting Yahoo's statement into Google and then concluding that Yahoo is not the only ones saying it and conclude from that Yahoo's statement is accurate? Because dozens of sites repost the Yahoo story that makes Yahoo's statement accurate?

This is your response? This leads you to conclude that all I have done is say that Yahoo is wrong and I am right?

What fucking fantasyland are you living in right now?

[WolverineSteve]

TOP TEN INDICATORS THAT YOUR COMPANY HAS CHANGED TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEW PROPOSED HEALTH CARE PLAN:
(10) Your annual breast exam is done at Hooters.
(9) Directions to your doctor's office include "Take a left when you enter the trailer park."
(8) The tongue depressors taste faintly of Fudgesicles.
(7) The only proctologist in the plan is "Gus" from Roto-Rooter.
(6) The only item listed under Preventive Care Coverage is "an apple a day...."
(5) Your primary care physician is wearing the pants you gave to Goodwill last month.
(4) "The patient is responsible for 200% of out-of-network charges," is not a typographical error..
(3) The only expense covered 100% is "embalming."
(2) Your Prozac comes in different colors with little M's on them.
(1) You ask for Viagra and they give you a Popsicle stick and Duct Tape.

[Goober McTuber]

Your links are, at best, anecdotal in support of your argument. I've yet to find, or see you post, anything definitive in terms of the real numbers involved here.

And your assertion that I have a rep here as being a good poster is only going to hurt your argument.

[JMak]

Your links are, at best, anecdotal in support of your argument. I've yet to find, or see you post, anything definitive in terms of the real numbers involved here.

And your assertion that I have a rep here as being a good poster is only going to hurt your argument.

Anecdotal? What's wrong with you? I posted actual labor agreements specifying dependent care coverage. I posted actual coroporate websites, again, specifying dependent care coverage.

Are you requiring that I link to the entire universe of all corporate health guides and all labor agreements to substantiate my point?

Dude, you've lost touch with reality.

35 of 50 states define dependent care coverage and require that it be provided in policies written in their states. Local and state governments. Private employers. Hell, even the US federal government already provided dependent care coverage.

What is your point? You're niuggling on the periphery here...at best.

[Moving Sale]

Anecdotal? What's wrong with you? I posted actual labor agreements specifying dependent care coverage. I posted actual coroporate websites, again, specifying dependent care coverage.

You do know that that is the definition of anecdotal in this case right? Fucking moron.

[mvscal]

You cannot expand coverage and reduce costs. Period. Full stop.

Get back to me when you figure out which is more expensive, visiting a GP for a migrane or visiting an ER. But increasing coverage won't reduce costs?

Seriously, are you just committed to being wrong your entire life?

Get back to me when YOU figure out that that is only a tiny piss sliver of medical costs, you stupid fucking mongoloid.

Meanwhile back in reality:

your child can stay on your insurance policy until he or she is 26 years old.

Will increase premiums and the cost of benefits which will reduce in less benefits for fewer employees as employers absorb the additional costs.

You Can't be Dropped

This isn't going to lower the cost of healthcare. Quite the opposite, in fact.

You Can't be Denied Insurance

Ditto.

You Can Spend What You Need to

Yes, of course. Unlimited coverage for conceivable ailment is the most sure fire way of controlling costs.

Starting this fall, you will be able to purchase insurance through a state-run "high-risk pool"

Assuming your state isn't bankrupt. Not too worry. Mo' taxes. Mo' taxes. Good job, you stupid fuckhead.

You'll Have More Options

No, you won't. Unless the option between bad, worse and bloody awful is something that appeals to you.

Expanding and extending coverage will increase costs. There is no way around it. You are attempting to argue that 200 + 300= 12.

[JMak]

Anecdotal? What's wrong with you? I posted actual labor agreements specifying dependent care coverage. I posted actual coroporate websites, again, specifying dependent care coverage.

You do know that that is the definition of anecdotal in this case right? Fucking moron.

It's called providing specific examples. Now fuck yourself you shrimp fucking canuck.

[JMak]

The other gimmick here is the baseline expectation that as employers see health care costs go down, they'll push that savings into pay. Uh huh. That's why AT&T is announcing a $1 BILLION write down. John Deere and others announcing multi-hundred million dollar writedowns.

Response from the Democrats to these firms adhering to government reporting requirements...Waxman is hauling them into Congress to testify.

Nice.

You guys have no fucking clue what's gonna happen with this monstrosity...no matter what Obama-ball-sucking-queens try to tell us otherwise.