| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,684 Views) | |
| Baldo | Apr 2 2014, 06:48 PM Post #316 |
|
The American Health Policy Institute is a business group composed of Human Resources Officers of Major Corporations See Board of Trustees http://www.americanhealthpolicy.org/About/BoardOfTrustees They have completed a report about the effects of Obama-care on Large Businesses(100 large employers - those with 10,000 or more employees). It is 15 pages long and I read only the executive summary but attached the report below. This report was not just a theoretical paper but based on internal review of 100 Major Corporations. No wonder why Obama delayed the Business mandate for a year after the 2014 Election It is going to cost them big time and thus US! The Cost of the Affordable Care Act to Large Employers Executive Summary The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has served as a catalyst to an ongoing national debate on the cost of health care in the United States. An important aspect of this question is the cost impact of the new law on the employer community. Employers spend $578.6 billion annually in providing health coverage for 170.9 million employees, retirees, and dependents.1 If the law leads to significant cost increases for them, this would affect the behavior of employers, which could in turn affect how—and even whether—they provide health care for their employees. For this reason, it is important to get a clear picture of the costs of the ACA to employers. This subject has drawn a great deal of interest and speculation from those following the impact of the law. Recently, the Wall Street Journal reviewed the earnings call transcripts of 80 publicly-traded companies in an attempt to glean the costs of ACA to those companies.2 The effort, while admirable, could only lead to a series of informed guesses rather than a full and accurate depiction of the costs. With this in mind, the American Health Policy Institute conducted the first-ever study of the actual, internal ACA-related costs to more than 100 large employers (those with 10,000 or more employees). This study provides a much clearer picture of how the ACA is affecting large companies than has ever been available before. Instead of speculating from the outside, we asked the companies directly about what they expect their costs to be, based on analyses that their economic and benefits consulting firms have been performing since passage of the ACA, as well as their own internal analyses. In order to isolate the ACA’s role, separate and apart from the larger trends taking place in health care, this study looks solely at costs related to the ACA. It does not, for example, look at the aging of the workforce or the rate of health care inflation. Nor does the study take into account possible off-setting savings generated by the ACA. Specifically, the study looked at direct costs to companies from the ACA’s requirements, over and above projected employer health care cost trends without the ACA. The study breaks out these costs from a number of perspectives: on a per employee basis; to individual companies; and to the corporate sector in general. In summary, the study found that over the next decade: •The cost of the ACA to large U.S. employers (10,000 or more employees) is estimated to be between $4,800 to $5,900 per employee. •These large employers will see overall ACA- related cost hikes of between $163 million and $200 million per employer, or an increase of 4.3 percent in 2016 and 8.4 percent in 2023 over and above what they would otherwise be spending. (See Appendix One for cost estimates for specific ACA provisions) •The total cost of the ACA to all large U.S. employers over the next ten years is estimated to be from $151 billion to $186 billion. These data demonstrate that the added mandates, fees and regulatory burdens associated with the ACA are increasing the cost of employer-sponsored health care plans, with implications for both employers and employees. There will be differences of opinion as to the significance of these costs. Some will say that they are welcome and will lead to more economical use of health care dollars. Others will say that this portends the end of the employer-sponsored health care system. What we do know is that the large employers themselves—companies that provide more than 52 million jobs—see these costs coming. Inevitably, this means that these companies will react. This could be through benefit design or levels—or through the number of employees they hire and at what salaries. For this reason, the new information about costs will be crucial to economists, analysts, and policy makers in determining the full impact of the ACA on the American health system, and on the economy....snipped http://www.americanhealthpolicy.org/content/documents/resources/2014_ACA_Cost_Study.pdf |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Apr 2 2014, 08:27 PM Post #317 |
|
15-20 Percent Aren't Paying Obamacare Premiums, Insurer Says New data from a major insurer suggest real enrollment is at roughly 6 million. One of the biggest players in Obamacare's exchanges says 15 to 20 percent of its new customers aren't paying their first premium—which means they're not actually covered. The latest data come from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, whose members—known collectively as "Blues" plans—are participating in the exchanges in almost every state. Roughly 80 to 85 percent of people who selected a Blues plan through the exchanges went on to pay their first month's premium, a BCBSA spokeswoman said Wednesday. The new statistics, particularly from such a large carrier, help define how many people are actually getting covered under the Affordable Care Act. The Blues' experience is in line with anecdotal estimates from other insurance executives, who indicated earlier in the enrollment process that they received payments from about 80 percent of people who selected their plans. The Blues' latest estimate includes policies that took effect Feb. 1 or earlier, the spokeswoman said....snipped http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/15-20-percent-aren-t-paying-obamacare-premiums-insurer-says-20140402 What you mean I have to pay??? If you miss the first payment I suspect it will only get worse Only an idiot would count an enrollment without payment in hand, but then we do have Obama. Edited by Baldo, Apr 2 2014, 08:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Apr 3 2014, 07:58 AM Post #318 |
|
7.1 million x 80% = 5.7 million ...new customers aren't paying their first premium I'm betting the number of those not paying premiums sometime soon after the first premium will bump the no-pays closer to 30% or maybe more. On top of those who were enthusiastic about jumping on board, who will dump the plan when it's time to eat at their apartment where rent is past due, we'll see no-pays from a group that resembles voter registration scams. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Apr 3 2014, 08:03 AM Post #319 |
|
WH in 2009: 'Now that we've got almost a billion dollars extra money to please the greenies and waste elsewhere, lets see what we can do to kill more jobs as the natural recovery and printing press drag us along...I'm tired of bowing and apologizing to all the nations around the world' Edited by kbp, Apr 3 2014, 08:03 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Apr 3 2014, 08:50 AM Post #320 |
|
•The cost of the ACA to large U.S. employers (10,000 or more employees) is estimated to be between $4,800 to $5,900 per employee. Let's call it an average additional $5400 expense per employee per year. There is no way that won't impede business growth. One will think long & hard before hiring employees Why a Health Insurance Penalty May Look Tempting June 22, 2013 Once new health insurance exchanges are up and running in October, companies with 50 or more full-time employees will face a choice: Provide affordable care to all full-time employees, or pay a penalty. But that penalty is only $2,000 a person, excluding the first 30 employees. With an employer’s contribution to family health coverage now averaging $11,429 a year, taking that penalty would seem to yield big savings. Yet there may be costs in employee satisfaction, especially if companies don’t raise pay enough to keep workers whole when they buy insurance on the exchanges. “No one wants to drop health insurance and have unhappy employees,” says Rick Wald, who heads Deloitte’s employer health care consulting practice. Few experts see immediate, big changes to existing employer-sponsored coverage. But that may change in time. A generation ago, defined-benefit pensions were prevalent. Not so today. So why did the government set the penalty at $2,000? Policy experts don’t agree on the rationale, and the White House didn’t respond to requests for comment. Perhaps the intent was to start a gradual shift from employer-sponsored coverage to the new exchanges. Or maybe the low amount was a compromise needed to pass the law. Whatever the reason, the government is about to conduct a huge experiment in corporate decision-making. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/business/why-a-health-insurance-penalty-may-look-tempting.html The Brilliant Obama, Reid, and Pelosi "Stink-Burger" Plan clearly has the financial incentive for businesses to not provide Health-Insurance. Say Health Insurance goes up to $15-16,000 a year you have the choice to not provide it and save tens of thousands. Would businesses do that? Employees won't like it, but it is not as if there is a great job market. It will force those employees into the exchanges and businesses will most likely freeze their level of contribution per employee. In some sectors doing well they will keep paying the increased cost to keep their employees happy. However that cost will be passed on to the consumer In low margin areas of commerce there will be some who won't, along with squeezing out new employees. It is just another Obama, Reid, and Pelosi "Stink-Burger." The more you look the more you understand why they didn't read it, and why it stinks so bad. Edited by Baldo, Apr 3 2014, 08:58 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Apr 3 2014, 09:06 AM Post #321 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/the-blackwood-letter.php The Blackwood letter |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Apr 3 2014, 03:28 PM Post #322 |
|
...lies Harry Reid The insurance company letter is evidently a lie also! |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Apr 3 2014, 03:32 PM Post #323 |
|
That reads like a road to the national health care plan, were it not so obvious that it would upset so many. Maybe the employer mandate delays have been to figure out a way to revise such a plan. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Apr 3 2014, 04:52 PM Post #324 |
|
The Coming Obamacare Shock for 170 Million Americans - The Fiscal Times Barack Obama declared victory this week as the deadline to avoid the penalty for the individual mandate to carry health insurance passed on Monday. “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” the President insisted as he announced that 7.1 million people had enrolled in private insurance through Obamacare. “The debate over repealing this law is over.” Consider that presidential wish casting in a midterm cycle in which Democrats will have to constantly defend their support for the unpopular law. As Jimmy Fallon pointed out later the same evening, the numbers were neither impressive nor reliable. “It’s amazing what you can achieve when you make something mandatory,” Fallon told his laughing audience, “fine people if they don’t do it — and keep extending the deadline for months.” The public has hardly been in a celebratory or a laughing mood. Polls show that the American public remains as opposed to the ACA as ever, with 55 percent of Quinnipiac respondents disapproving of the law. Only 39 percent approve of Obama’s handling of health care policy, which has until recently been a Democratic Party strength. For that matter, Obama only gets a 40 percent approval rating on the economy and jobs, to which House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wants the debate to turn now that the Obamacare debate “is over.” Pelosi and Obama may want to be careful with that wish casting, because the two debates are now closely related. A new study from the American Health Policy Institute – recently launched by former Bush administration Deputy Secretary of HHS Tevi Troy – shows that large employers expect to face steep compliance costs, starting in the fall. Their cost estimates range between $4,800 and $5,900 per employee over the next decade. The total cost to large employers over the next decade will run between $151 billion and $186 billion, according to the 100 companies surveyed by AHPI that employ 10,000 or more people. That doesn’t include additional price increases from insurers attempting to cover bad bets in their 2014 premium rates after the first round of Obamacare. "I do think that it's likely premium rate shocks are coming,” CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield CEO Chet Burrell told Reuters. “I think they begin to make themselves at least partially known in 2015 and fully known in 2016.” The consensus is that premiums will rise by double-digit percentages next year from their already-inflated levels for 2014 coverage. The Obama administration unilaterally delayed a portion of the employer mandate, but it still takes effect for those employing more than 200 workers at the beginning of January 2015. Large employers have to budget as soon as this summer to deal with those costs. Most of them will start scaling down their so-called “Cadillac” health care plans to avoid the taxes those will accrue by 2016, getting ahead of the curve. Many may choose to give up on offering health insurance at all. The data from HHS after the passage of Obamacare showed that the Obama administration expected as many as 93 million Americans to be thrown out of their existing coverage, with employers opting to either scale down or get out, paying the fine instead. Either way, the ACA imposes massive costs on employers, whether those come in the form of fines, higher premiums, red tape, or a combination of all three. Businesses that have new and massive costs imposed on them by regulatory changes no longer can use that capital for investment, risk-taking, and expansion. That means fewer new jobs for Americans, and fewer opportunities to move up the economic ladder as well. Now, perhaps this would make sense if the program that plans to impose all these costs actually did what Democrats promised it would do – insure the uninsured. However, the numbers offered up by Obama on Tuesday fall very far short of the numbers his administration used to argue that a systemic overhaul was needed to address “the fierce urgency of now” with the uninsured, which the LA Times recalls as between 45-48 million. In fact, it’s not clear at all that the so-called enrollments hailed on April Fools Day offer a break-even point with the uninsured the ACA created. Those numbers are estimated at five to six million Americans in the individual market, many of whom now pay higher premiums and have to clear higher deductibles as the cost of buying more insurance coverage than they believed they needed in the first place. So how many of these seven-million-plus claimed by Obama actually started off without any insurance at all? The Times reported that from an unpublished Rand Corporation study that of the six million who signed up through Obamacare exchanges for private insurance, a third of those had no insurance previous to the rollout. That would come to 4.4 percent of the low end of the LA Times estimate, if that number represented actual enrollments – but it doesn’t. The Daily Mail’s David Martosko reports that the same Rand study shows that only 53 percent of those previously uninsured have actually paid premiums for their selection. The Rand estimate of the newly covered comes just short of 859,000 – or just 1.9 percent of the total number of uninsured that Democrats insisted had to be helped through a costly and disruptive overhaul of the health-insurance industry. Even adding in the estimated six million added to Medicaid – most of whom would have qualified without Obamacare – the first pass only accounts for 15 percent of the problem, as defined by Obama and his fellow Democrats in 2009-10. The debate is far from over on Obamacare, no matter what the President declares from the White House, although it’s easy to understand why Obama wishes that were true. His signature initiative will be a huge “stinkburger” to the 170 million Americans dependent on employer-sponsored insurance. The businesses that provide this benefit and their employees will have to deal with the “meanwich” Obamacare delivers in higher costs when its mandate forces those employers to react – just weeks ahead of the midterms. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/coming-obamacare-shock-170-million-091500303.html Looks like an double order of Stinkburgers and no fries for the USA Voters thanks to Chef Obama |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Apr 3 2014, 05:26 PM Post #325 |
|
David Hogberg is senior fellow for health care policy at the National Center for Public Policy Research. (a conservative think tank) He was just on Cavuto reporting on Obamacare. Their study indicates the total number of newly insured is 1.2 million. So pretty good guess when kpb said 1 million. He said their info is that 50% of the enrolled are not paying their premiums. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Apr 3 2014, 06:16 PM Post #326 |
|
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/04/03/Obamacare-Delays-May-Mark-major-shift-of-constitutional-power Obamacare Delays May Mark 'major shift of constitutional power' |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Apr 4 2014, 11:24 AM Post #327 |
|
collateral damage... ...which appears to be a result of worries about regulations I didn't see this coming, but always wondered why the exchange had a time limit for enrollment. That's like shooting yourself in te foot if you're looking to sell a product.
|
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Apr 4 2014, 11:35 AM Post #328 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
Pretty scary if true... http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04/breaking-hhs-started-obamacare-applications-for-americans-without-their-knowledge-or-permission/ http://www.shark-tank.com/2014/04/04/hhs-started-individual-obamacare-applications-prior-to-deadlineobtained-personal-info-from-states/ HHS “Started” Individual Obamacare Applications Prior To Deadline,Obtained Personal Info From States Edited by LTC8K6, Apr 4 2014, 11:37 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Apr 4 2014, 11:53 AM Post #329 |
|
Obama-care used the coercive force of the Govt to sign up people because they needed the revenue. I think the 7 million figure as a success bar is a low target. Few reporters have even mentioned what a dismal number of the approximate 40 - 50 million plus uninsured that 7 million is. Wasn't the point to insured the uninsured & make it solvent? They spent 3 years and billions to achieve so low a compliance number? The Feds admitted "US says Medicaid enrollment jumps by 3 million under Obamacare" http://www.cnbc.com/id/101555492 That does not make the system solvent as it is "free" and the taxpayers are on the hook for it. Besides as has been pointed out, the real number of paying uninsured on the exchanges now insured, is much lower. As low as 1.2 million and the majority of them receive subsidies. I can't see from a bottom line approach Obama-care is anything but a dismal failure signing up people and even worse the costs are going to soar. Not to mention what will the actual patient care service be like. Edited by Baldo, Apr 4 2014, 11:54 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Apr 4 2014, 12:14 PM Post #330 |
|
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/it-s-loss-md-73k-lose-insurance-60k-enroll-exchange It’s a Loss in Md: 73K Lose Insurance; 60K Enroll on Exchange “You’re comparing apples and oranges with all due respect,” Joshua Sharfstein, chair of the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |







11:55 AM Jul 13