We need to pass this bill to see what's in it

[Matt1970]

Obamacare Pre-Existing Condition Fee To Cost Companies $63 Per Person

WASHINGTON -- Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. It's a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.

Employee benefits lawyer Chantel Sheaks calls it a "sleeper issue" with significant financial consequences, particularly for large employers.

"Especially at a time when we are facing economic uncertainty, (companies will) be hit with a multi-million dollar assessment without getting anything back for it," said Sheaks, a principal at Buck Consultants, a Xerox subsidiary.

Based on figures provided in the regulation, employer and individual health plans covering an estimated 190 million Americans could owe the per-person fee.

The Obama administration says it is a temporary assessment levied for three years starting in 2014, designed to raise $25 billion. It starts at $63 and then declines.

The program "is intended to help millions of Americans purchase affordable health insurance, reduce unreimbursed usage of hospital and other medical facilities by the uninsured and thereby lower medical expenses and premiums for all,"

How the hell is a fee supposed to help make insurance more affordable? I wonder if all the supermarkets this Christmas will raise thier prices to help you save money. And the "unreimbursed usage of hospital and other medical facilities by uninsured" is supposed to be covers by the new Tax that we were promised wouldn't happen.

It may not seem like much but you have to pay it for 3 years when a lot of Businesses are already going under left and right.

I know, more Faux outrage. Blah Blah Blah, just open your wallets and take it!!!!

And NO, this is not from Fox news.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/obamacare-pre-existing-condition-fee_n_2273005.html

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I have been completely against Obamacare since I first heard about it, but I also realize that Americans have little other choice given the private sector's singular focus to screw Americans any way they can.

 

[Matt1970]

I have been completely against Obamacare since I first heard about it, but I also realize that Americans have little other choice given the private sector's singular focus to screw Americans any way they can.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

 

[dank69]

The individual mandate is supposed to offset these costs. Millions of healthy 20-40 year olds now forced to buy health insurance when they might not have otherwise. That is basically free money for insurers. Leave it to Republicans to try to examine the pre-existing conditions part separately from the mandate. Look at the two parts separately and they look like fucked up legislation. Put them together and they start to make sense.

 

[Acanthus]

How the hell is a fee supposed to help make insurance more affordable? I wonder if all the supermarkets this Christmas will raise thier prices to help you save money. And the "unreimbursed usage of hospital and other medical facilities by uninsured" is supposed to be covers by the new Tax that we were promised wouldn't happen.

It may not seem like much but you have to pay it for 3 years when a lot of Businesses are already going under left and right.

I know, more Faux outrage. Blah Blah Blah, just open your wallets and take it!!!!

And NO, this is not from Fox news.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/obamacare-pre-existing-condition-fee_n_2273005.html

Many of the provisions that would have saved money were removed.
1.) The Public Insurance Option.
2.) Removal of price fixing immunity for pharmeceutical companies.
3.) $0 co-pay for yearly preventative care visits.
4.) Extra money funneled for fraud investigation / prevention.

 

[techs]

Bullshit thread is bullshit.

We end up paying for people who can't get insurance due to preexisting conditions anyway. Whether its in unpaid emergency room care, medicaid, lost worker days, more people on welfare, etc.

The cost is not even equal. Health care coverage has been proven to lower lifetime health expenses over those for people who have no health insurance and eventually rely on the government after the conditions worsen.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I have been completely against Obamacare since I first heard about it, but I also realize that Americans have little other choice given the private sector's singular focus to screw Americans any way they can.

Yes, cuz it's so much better to get screwed by our government.

The individual mandate is supposed to offset these costs. Millions of healthy 20-40 year olds now forced to buy health insurance when they might not have otherwise. That is basically free money for insurers. Leave it to Republicans to try to examine the pre-existing conditions part separately from the mandate. Look at the two parts separately and they look like fucked up legislation. Put them together and they start to make sense.

If you honestly think your healthcare costs are going to go down, you're beyond hope.

 

[dank69]

Yes, cuz it's so much better to get screwed by our government.



If you honestly think your healthcare costs are going to go down, you're beyond hope.

I didn't say they would go down. We would have to overhaul the entire healthcare industry to accomplish that. The limit on profit is the only hope the ACA has of at least limiting the increased healthcare costs.

 

[jstern01]

Yes, cuz it's so much better to get screwed by our government.



If you honestly think your healthcare costs are going to go down, you're beyond hope.

No, but they will rise less quickly. I am already seeing that since the preexisting condition part of the ACA has been enacted. My medical and insurance costs were climbing around 14% yearly, because of my preexisting conditions until 2010 enactment. Now I can have coverage that has risen at about 8%, so yes it goes up, but not as fast.

 

[sactoking]

How the hell is a fee supposed to help make insurance more affordable? I wonder if all the supermarkets this Christmas will raise thier prices to help you save money. And the "unreimbursed usage of hospital and other medical facilities by uninsured" is supposed to be covers by the new Tax that we were promised wouldn't happen.

It may not seem like much but you have to pay it for 3 years when a lot of Businesses are already going under left and right.

I know, more Faux outrage. Blah Blah Blah, just open your wallets and take it!!!!

And NO, this is not from Fox news.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/obamacare-pre-existing-condition-fee_n_2273005.html

The Huffpo article was either written by someone who doesn't understand what's going on or they deliberately mischaracterized the situation.

The "fee" in question is for the reinsurance program contained in the ACA. Reinsurance is one of the "Three R's" (the other two being risk adjustment and risk corridors) designed to minimize the solvency shock to insurers that will come with guaranteed issue.

Carriers will be assessed a fee, in this case $5.25 per member per month of enrollment, that will be paid to the federal government to fund the reinsurance pool. After the claim year has ended the funds will be paid back out to those carriers with claims experience meeting certain requirements. The attachment point for the program is $60,000 with a cap of $250,000 and coinsurance of 80%. In other words, when an individual's claims exceed $60,000 the reinsurance program will pay 80% of claims costs up to $250,000.

Most (all?) health insurers already have commercial reinsurance programs similar to this; this is just a government-run reinsurance program that's designed to kick in before the commercial programs. Since insurers will be operating under guaranteed issue they cannot turn anyone away. Premiums will have to be set before they know their risk profile. Absent a program like the Three R's guaranteed issue could push tens or hundreds of insurers into insolvency, which is much worse. Also, absent the Three R's premiums would likely be filed much higher to compensate for the additional adverse selection risk, to the point that a $5.25 PMPM fee would look very attractive.

This is not a "pre-existing condition fee".

The fee was not "buried in a recent regulation", we have known about it for at least two years.

The article indicates that we're being told it will only last for three years, implying that it might not, but it is very clearly temporary.

 

[Atreus21]

I didn't say they would go down. We would have to overhaul the entire healthcare industry to accomplish that. The limit on profit is the only hope the ACA has of at least limiting the increased healthcare costs.

Limit on profit? How profitable is the health insurance industry?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I didn't say they would go down. We would have to overhaul the entire healthcare industry to accomplish that. The limit on profit is the only hope the ACA has of at least limiting the increased healthcare costs.

What you and the retards that think putting limits on businesses don't understand is that if there isn't profit to be made, there is no reason to be in business.
Limiting Profit will limit expendature in new technologies, essentially stagnating medical advances. But this is probably the ultimate goal of the Democrats, as it falls in line with their socialist goals to bring healthcare completely under the power of the government.

It completely blows my mind that people think the government, who everyone in America knows can't manage it's own finances, is going to somehow not mismanage and cost us more money than they originally told us.
It's going to go down like this. If you're a health care provider and you want in the only system (government controlled) that allows you to operate, you better have been donating to the Democrat party. As with the Auto Bail-outs and forced closings of independantly owned dealerships, the vast majority of dealers that were told, sorry you can no longer sell GM or Chrysler vehicles happened to be Republican backers. Even though their dealerships made money and had been around for generations in many cases, the government decided that they could force them out of business.
None of the plans and legistlation put forward is designed to help America. They are designed to help rich Democrats and Unions (who fund the Democrats).
Having a health care mandate that specifically exempts certain groups based on political platform is proof that Obama(doesn't)care is partisan legistlation that will hurt, not help us all.

 

[nehalem256]

Many of the provisions that would have saved money were removed.
1.) The Public Insurance Option.
2.) Removal of price fixing immunity for pharmeceutical companies.
3.) $0 co-pay for yearly preventative care visits.
4.) Extra money funneled for fraud investigation / prevention.

Right. Because insurance companies are too stupid to figure out how to make money

 

[Chiropteran]

A $63 fee? Is that really what people are crying about now? My fiancee had some extreme stomach pains 3 years back. They were not going away, so she went to the emergency room. A few X-rays and surgery later, she owes $30,0000. Luckily she got a nice job shortly after, is well on her way to having all of the debt paid off, and now has a very good health insurance so nothing like this can ever occur again.

A $63 fee is not something to complain about, medical costs are huge and can be life crippling.

 

[dank69]

What you and the retards that think putting limits on businesses don't understand is that if there isn't profit to be made, there is no reason to be in business.
Limiting Profit will limit expendature in new technologies, essentially stagnating medical advances. But this is probably the ultimate goal of the Democrats, as it falls in line with their socialist goals to bring healthcare completely under the power of the government.

...

We are talking about insurance companies, not medical industry. Not sure how much R&D you think insurance companies have. On top of that, I'm pretty sure R&D counts as a business expense, thus limiting profit will not affect how much can be spent on R&D.

 

[jstern01]

What you and the retards that think putting limits on businesses don't understand is that if there isn't profit to be made, there is no reason to be in business.
Limiting Profit will limit expendature in new technologies, essentially stagnating medical advances. But this is probably the ultimate goal of the Democrats, as it falls in line with their socialist goals to bring healthcare completely under the power of the government.

It completely blows my mind that people think the government, who everyone in America knows can't manage it's own finances, is going to somehow not mismanage and cost us more money than they originally told us.
It's going to go down like this. If you're a health care provider and you want in the only system (government controlled) that allows you to operate, you better have been donating to the Democrat party. As with the Auto Bail-outs and forced closings of independantly owned dealerships, the vast majority of dealers that were told, sorry you can no longer sell GM or Chrysler vehicles happened to be Republican backers. Even though their dealerships made money and had been around for generations in many cases, the government decided that they could force them out of business.
None of the plans and legistlation put forward is designed to help America. They are designed to help rich Democrats and Unions (who fund the Democrats).
Having a health care mandate that specifically exempts certain groups based on political platform is proof that Obama(doesn't)care is partisan legistlation that will hurt, not help us all.

Ah, the nut jobs are alive and well.

No offense, but when a company puts profit and margins over lives, they need to be put out of business. Making a profit off whether a person can get a treatment or organ replacement is morally bankrupt.

Finally ask any senior on Medicare, if they would rather have private insurance, you will not find many takers, in fact here are the latest polls on how people feel about medicare/social security and changes.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/poll-shows-public-wants-entitlements-left-untouched-20121204

 

[werepossum]

No, but they will rise less quickly. I am already seeing that since the preexisting condition part of the ACA has been enacted. My medical and insurance costs were climbing around 14% yearly, because of my preexisting conditions until 2010 enactment. Now I can have coverage that has risen at about 8%, so yes it goes up, but not as fast.

For your premiums to go down, ours must go up. You're welcome.

$63/head is merely the tip of the iceberg. However, the nominal goal, covering everyone, is worth doing even though I prefer it not be done at the federal level. The ultimate goal, destroying the private sector of health insurance and ultimately health care, not so much.

 

[FerrelGeek]

No, but they will rise less quickly. I am already seeing that since the preexisting condition part of the ACA has been enacted. My medical and insurance costs were climbing around 14% yearly, because of my preexisting conditions until 2010 enactment. Now I can have coverage that has risen at about 8%, so yes it goes up, but not as fast.

Not sure off the top of my head how much mine has gone up, but now less is covered. In the past, all the expenses in my annual physical were covered, now only the Dr visit and very basic labwork is covered. And my wife used to get a regular physical plus a well woman exam; now, she gets one or the other.

 

[sactoking]

I haven't read it yet, and it is a bit dated, but here is an actuarial report on the impact of fees on premiums:

http://www.ahipcoverage.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Insurer-Fees-report-final.pdf

 

[Darwin333]

How the hell is a fee supposed to help make insurance more affordable? I wonder if all the supermarkets this Christmas will raise thier prices to help you save money. And the "unreimbursed usage of hospital and other medical facilities by uninsured" is supposed to be covers by the new Tax that we were promised wouldn't happen.

It may not seem like much but you have to pay it for 3 years when a lot of Businesses are already going under left and right.

I know, more Faux outrage. Blah Blah Blah, just open your wallets and take it!!!!

And NO, this is not from Fox news.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/obamacare-pre-existing-condition-fee_n_2273005.html

You know, I actually wouldn't mind paying $60 a year so that people with pre-existing conditions can get insurance but to tack the fee onto healthcare plans??? Why not make it an individual tax, which should greatly reduce the amount per taxpayer required (lets call it $20 now) and assess it on every single person that files taxes in the US?

This is one of the very few things I like about Obamacare and I am actually willing to pay for it but the way it sounds like its setup is retarded.

 

[Darwin333]

Bullshit thread is bullshit.

We end up paying for people who can't get insurance due to preexisting conditions anyway. Whether its in unpaid emergency room care, medicaid, lost worker days, more people on welfare, etc.

The cost is not even equal. Health care coverage has been proven to lower lifetime health expenses over those for people who have no health insurance and eventually rely on the government after the conditions worsen.

So....... the .gov should be making money from this instead of losing money? Then, just out of curiosity, why the need for this fee? Are you saying that the Obama admin is lying about the need and really just trying to screw us out of a bit more money?

 

[Darwin333]

The Huffpo article was either written by someone who doesn't understand what's going on or they deliberately mischaracterized the situation.

The "fee" in question is for the reinsurance program contained in the ACA. Reinsurance is one of the "Three R's" (the other two being risk adjustment and risk corridors) designed to minimize the solvency shock to insurers that will come with guaranteed issue.

Carriers will be assessed a fee, in this case $5.25 per member per month of enrollment, that will be paid to the federal government to fund the reinsurance pool. After the claim year has ended the funds will be paid back out to those carriers with claims experience meeting certain requirements. The attachment point for the program is $60,000 with a cap of $250,000 and coinsurance of 80%. In other words, when an individual's claims exceed $60,000 the reinsurance program will pay 80% of claims costs up to $250,000.

Most (all?) health insurers already have commercial reinsurance programs similar to this; this is just a government-run reinsurance program that's designed to kick in before the commercial programs. Since insurers will be operating under guaranteed issue they cannot turn anyone away. Premiums will have to be set before they know their risk profile. Absent a program like the Three R's guaranteed issue could push tens or hundreds of insurers into insolvency, which is much worse. Also, absent the Three R's premiums would likely be filed much higher to compensate for the additional adverse selection risk, to the point that a $5.25 PMPM fee would look very attractive.

This is not a "pre-existing condition fee".

The fee was not "buried in a recent regulation", we have known about it for at least two years.

The article indicates that we're being told it will only last for three years, implying that it might not, but it is very clearly temporary.

Ahh, I love when someone who knows what the hell they are talking about breaks it down for us. From your summary it doesn't sound like a bad thing at all and I understand why the actual insurance companies are footing the bill now, thank you.

 

[Exterous]

The Huffpo article was either written by someone who doesn't understand what's going on or they deliberately mischaracterized the situation.

The "fee" in question is for the reinsurance program contained in the ACA. Reinsurance is one of the "Three R's" (the other two being risk adjustment and risk corridors) designed to minimize the solvency shock to insurers that will come with guaranteed issue.

Carriers will be assessed a fee, in this case $5.25 per member per month of enrollment, that will be paid to the federal government to fund the reinsurance pool. After the claim year has ended the funds will be paid back out to those carriers with claims experience meeting certain requirements. The attachment point for the program is $60,000 with a cap of $250,000 and coinsurance of 80%. In other words, when an individual's claims exceed $60,000 the reinsurance program will pay 80% of claims costs up to $250,000.

Most (all?) health insurers already have commercial reinsurance programs similar to this; this is just a government-run reinsurance program that's designed to kick in before the commercial programs. Since insurers will be operating under guaranteed issue they cannot turn anyone away. Premiums will have to be set before they know their risk profile. Absent a program like the Three R's guaranteed issue could push tens or hundreds of insurers into insolvency, which is much worse. Also, absent the Three R's premiums would likely be filed much higher to compensate for the additional adverse selection risk, to the point that a $5.25 PMPM fee would look very attractive.

This is not a "pre-existing condition fee".

The fee was not "buried in a recent regulation", we have known about it for at least two years.

The article indicates that we're being told it will only last for three years, implying that it might not, but it is very clearly temporary.

Thanks

 

[First]

The Huffpo article was either written by someone who doesn't understand what's going on or they deliberately mischaracterized the situation.

The "fee" in question is for the reinsurance program contained in the ACA. Reinsurance is one of the "Three R's" (the other two being risk adjustment and risk corridors) designed to minimize the solvency shock to insurers that will come with guaranteed issue.

Carriers will be assessed a fee, in this case $5.25 per member per month of enrollment, that will be paid to the federal government to fund the reinsurance pool. After the claim year has ended the funds will be paid back out to those carriers with claims experience meeting certain requirements. The attachment point for the program is $60,000 with a cap of $250,000 and coinsurance of 80%. In other words, when an individual's claims exceed $60,000 the reinsurance program will pay 80% of claims costs up to $250,000.

Most (all?) health insurers already have commercial reinsurance programs similar to this; this is just a government-run reinsurance program that's designed to kick in before the commercial programs. Since insurers will be operating under guaranteed issue they cannot turn anyone away. Premiums will have to be set before they know their risk profile. Absent a program like the Three R's guaranteed issue could push tens or hundreds of insurers into insolvency, which is much worse. Also, absent the Three R's premiums would likely be filed much higher to compensate for the additional adverse selection risk, to the point that a $5.25 PMPM fee would look very attractive.

This is not a "pre-existing condition fee".

The fee was not "buried in a recent regulation", we have known about it for at least two years.

The article indicates that we're being told it will only last for three years, implying that it might not, but it is very clearly temporary.

This is great info, thanks.