FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 1 of 159 1 2 3 ... 158 159 >
Topic Options
#1384619 --- 01/26/13 06:18 AM Obama care....Really
SportsRef1 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/30/03
Posts: 3225
Loc: Seneca County
It was billed as good for America....ask the 58 in Clifton who lost their jobs.....the bill "we have to pass to see what's inside".....


http://www.fingerlakes1.com/news-link.php?aid=10118431

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1384620 --- 01/26/13 06:26 AM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: SportsRef1]
Ghosts Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/02/00
Posts: 3803
Loc: Seneca Falls
I am not a smoker, but what about the 'pre-existing conditions' promise? Another lie?

Obamacare Targets Smokers With Higher Premiums
January 25, 2013

WASHINGTON – Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Obama’s health-care law, according to experts who are teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.

The Affordable Care Act — or “Obamacare” — allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.

For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

http://reason.com/24-7/2013/01/25/obamacare-targets-smokers-with-higher-pr
_________________________
I'M CONFUSED . . .wait, maybe I'm not.

Top
#1384622 --- 01/26/13 06:53 AM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: Ghosts]
SportsRef1 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/30/03
Posts: 3225
Loc: Seneca County
the whole bill was a lie Ghosts.

Top
#1385095 --- 01/28/13 05:04 PM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: SportsRef1]
WilllOWisp Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 3828
Loc: Seneca County
That's just the beginning!
_________________________
" Rich People Get Body guards, Poor People get Shot! "

Top
#1385096 --- 01/28/13 05:06 PM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: WilllOWisp]
WilllOWisp Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 3828
Loc: Seneca County
Originally Posted By: WilllOWisp
That's just the beginning!
Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
_________________________
" Rich People Get Body guards, Poor People get Shot! "

Top
#1385331 --- 01/30/13 06:56 AM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: WilllOWisp]
SportsRef1 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/30/03
Posts: 3225
Loc: Seneca County
Originally Posted By: WilllOWisp
Originally Posted By: WilllOWisp
That's just the beginning!
Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?



they do in the eyes of liberals.....anything they can do to raise funds to protect the takers in America and buy their votes...."O" care is a regressive program hell bent on furthering along the liberal agenda to force more govt. on the citizens of America.

Top
#1385341 --- 01/30/13 09:17 AM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: SportsRef1]
Lucinda Knotts Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/11/11
Posts: 4459
Loc: USA
Yes, the conservative solution, as expressed in the first paragraph of the Fox article is "why not just let these health sinners die prematurely from their unhealthy habits?" Kinda reminds you of that moment in the Republican primary debates when the moderator asked Dr. Paul whether someone without health insurance should just be left to die and the audience cheered and yelled "yeah, let 'em die!"

Top
#1385357 --- 01/30/13 10:53 AM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: Lucinda Knotts]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 11266
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Lucinda Knotts
Yes, the conservative solution, as expressed in the first paragraph of the Fox article is "why not just let these health sinners die prematurely from their unhealthy habits?" Kinda reminds you of that moment in the Republican primary debates when the moderator asked Dr. Paul whether someone without health insurance should just be left to die and the audience cheered and yelled "yeah, let 'em die!"


You mean the Associated Press Article?
_________________________
Liberal heads are exploding, so easy

Top
#1385368 --- 01/30/13 12:51 PM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: cwjga]
Lucinda Knotts Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/11/11
Posts: 4459
Loc: USA
Yes, the January 26 AP article posted on FoxNews.com. I hadn't seen the article until it was introduced as a link on this thread, and have no idea if it was picked up by any other news media. Regardless, it's still reminiscent of the "Yeah, let 'em die" cheers at the Republican primary debates.

Top
#1385374 --- 01/30/13 01:18 PM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: Lucinda Knotts]
Ghosts Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/02/00
Posts: 3803
Loc: Seneca Falls
Originally Posted By: Lucinda Knotts
Regardless, it's still reminiscent of the "Yeah, let 'em die" cheers at the Republican primary debates.


You must have watched MSNBC's edited version.

A more accurate account:

"One problem: No one shouted "Let him die" at the Republican debate televised on CNN and hosted by Wolf Blitzer. As Times Watch reported back on September 23, 2011 after the paper first forwarded this falsity as fact: "It was debate moderator Wolf Blitzer who actually used the words 'let him die,' when asking candidate Ron Paul a loaded question about letting a hypothetical man die for lack of health insurance. There is no auditory evidence anyone at all in the crowd shouted such a thing...."


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters...g#ixzz2JUGfoPD6
_________________________
I'M CONFUSED . . .wait, maybe I'm not.

Top
#1385378 --- 01/30/13 01:29 PM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: Ghosts]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 11266
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Ghosts
Originally Posted By: Lucinda Knotts
Regardless, it's still reminiscent of the "Yeah, let 'em die" cheers at the Republican primary debates.


You must have watched MSNBC's edited version.

A more accurate account:

"One problem: No one shouted "Let him die" at the Republican debate televised on CNN and hosted by Wolf Blitzer. As Times Watch reported back on September 23, 2011 after the paper first forwarded this falsity as fact: "It was debate moderator Wolf Blitzer who actually used the words 'let him die,' when asking candidate Ron Paul a loaded question about letting a hypothetical man die for lack of health insurance. There is no auditory evidence anyone at all in the crowd shouted such a thing...."


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters...g#ixzz2JUGfoPD6


Thank you, I was going to mention that along with the fact that attributing an AP story to Fox is a litle disingenuous.
_________________________
Liberal heads are exploding, so easy

Top
#1385389 --- 01/30/13 01:55 PM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: cwjga]
Ghosts Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/02/00
Posts: 3803
Loc: Seneca Falls
Hospital Video Mocks Patient Care Under Health Reform
By Elizabeth MacDonald
Emac's Bottom Line
Published January 30, 2013
FOXBusiness

A video leaked to FOX Business mocks how health reform can make more money for doctors and hospitals by preventing patients from being readmitted to hospitals.

The video, made by Morristown Medical Center in Morristown, N.J., a member of the Atlantic Health System, is meant to recruit doctors and medical staffers to join health reform’s new “Accountable Care Organizations,” (ACOs), key to cost savings in the health-reform law.

The video shows doctors barring the doors (See video below article) of the hospital to stop patients from being readmitted for more care, dollar bills exchanging hands between doctors and staffers, as well as workers getting free stuff like laptops.

In the video, a musician sings lyrics to the tune of Waylon Jennings’ “Looking for Love”: “Building an ACO for all the right reasons, an ACO decreasing readmissions.”

The song continues: “Sharing these savings with practices sure seems fair, long as we follow the policies set down by Medicare,” as the video shows money changing hands.

The singer also sings: “Improving care, no more gaps or omissions, what CMS is dreaming of,” as the top executive of the hospital pretends to sleep on the couch. CMS stands for the federal government’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

A hospital spokesman tells FOX Business: “The ACO video lyrics came from the ACO Atlantic Health System. I don’t believe the video was meant as a spoof or a mockery by any means. It’s a fun spoof, preventing readmissions as you saw. It’s certainly not meant as a mockery, it’s a video showing the benefits of ACOs. It’s about working together, partnership, taking better care of patients.”

But a staff doctor notes: “The less number of patients re-admitted, or the less exams or tests or referrals, the more government money there is in the pot for the ACO and the more bonuses for the doctors. The less you do as a doctor, the more money the ACO makes. The less risky patients with complications you take on, the more money the ACO makes, because risky patients are going to cost the hospital more money to treat them. That’s why they’re exchanging money in the video. If I order less tests, I get a bonus. If I join, I get free stuff, like free laptops. An ACO pockets more government money by instead making patients manage their illness at home.”

Health reform’s ACOs are meant to curtail soaring health costs from too many doctors ordering too many tests for Medicare patients. But despite the White House’s exhortations that health reform will provide more care, ACOs put the country on a path towards less care, doctors tell FOX Business.

Do you think the video helped or hurt the hospital? Tell us in the Comment section.

ACOs are partnerships of medical providers — doctors, specialists, clinics and hospitals — that operate on a set budget. They get Medicare or Medicaid money from the federal government every year.

Budgets are set according to the health of the population the ACO serves, with payments tied to federal quality standards. Hospitals can earn higher profits and doctors can get bonuses in exchange for meeting federal quality and cost controls, including limiting hospital readmissions. If costs exceed the budget, ACOs share in the losses.

“ACOs reward doctors and medical workers for providing less care to patients,” says a Morristown Medical staffer. ”They reward bad doctors and punish good doctors. If someone dies, it’s more cost effective and cheaper. If someone is readmitted for, say, a wound not healing, the hospital doesn’t get paid by Medicaid or Medicare, it gets fined. Wheeling and dealing is bad care for patients. It is the patient who will get screwed. An ACO is mechanical care, it turns doctors into 9-to-5 shift workers.”

A doctor at the hospital also tells FBN: “Health reform, though, was meant to increase access to health care. Instead, ACOs decrease access to care. It’s totally opposite of what the President wants. ACOs also erode the doctor-patient bond.”

The video surfaces as the federal government recently approved 106 new ACOs. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says that as of last July, Medicare ACOs were serving 2.4 million people in 40 states and D.C.

There is cold math behind health reform’s ACOs, now the new face of medicine. At about $550 billion, Medicare is the third largest budget item in the federal government, behind Social Security and defense, and is set to outstrip defense spending in about two years.

But an avalanche of baby boomers retiring, a looming doctor shortage, and hospital bed shortages have given rise to ACOs. Doctors and medical workers warn that baby boomers will increasingly not be treated in hospitals, but in their homes or even over the phone, and not by doctors, but by physician assistants or nurses.

To be sure, many patients would argue that hospitals are vast reservoirs of bacteria and viruses, and would rather avoid them. “But if you get an illness at home after you leave the hospital and really do need more hospital care, an ACO may bargain with you to not re-admit you,” a doctor warns.

Another element of health reform is driving doctors to join ACOs. Central to health reform are “electronic medical records systems, which must be put in place to process Medicare and Medicaid patients,” a doctor explains. “But doctors can’t afford them, so they join an ACO,”

Dr. Jeff Goldsmith PhD, president of Health Futures Inc. and associate professor of Public Health Sciences at the University of Virginia, warned in a 2009 column about a dramatic culture shift in health care. “A rapidly increasing percentage of physicians, particularly primary care physicians, are now hospital employees,” he wrote.

The doctor added: “An entire generation of 80-hour-a-week baby-boomer physicians are retiring and being replaced by younger physicians who want to work 30 hours a week.”

Dr. Goldsmith also warned: “Hospitals will become ‘collections’ of physicians, not communities” with profit and loss statements and management “infrastructure.”

However, ACOs could soon be used for Medicaid, too. The 2010 health-reform bill authorizes a demonstration project that would launch pediatric ACOs within Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance programs. To date, funding is not yet available, sources and reports indicate.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/20...-health-reform/
_________________________
I'M CONFUSED . . .wait, maybe I'm not.

Top
#1385404 --- 01/30/13 03:00 PM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: Ghosts]
kimmer Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1403
Loc: here,there and back again
Originally Posted By: Ghosts
I am not a smoker, but what about the 'pre-existing conditions' promise? Another lie?

Obamacare Targets Smokers With Higher Premiums
January 25, 2013

WASHINGTON – Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Obama’s health-care law, according to experts who are teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.

The Affordable Care Act — or “Obamacare” — allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.

For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

http://reason.com/24-7/2013/01/25/obamacare-targets-smokers-with-higher-pr



This is a bit misleading since the part about it applying to people who cannot get insurance from an employer. If you have to purchase an individual policy then it could happen to you.

This is not much different than what is currently happening to people who have insurance throught their employer - if you have health issues such as obesity, high cholesterol, etc, they are paying higher rates than others. This is not due to the ACA but the employer.

Haven't seen anything about pre-existing being a lie but have seen the affect of coverage for women's health visits. Not all of the ACA is bad stuff.

For the whole thing see below:http://www.ajc.com/ap/ap/top-news/penalty-could-keep-smokers-out-of-health-overhaul/nT6FH/


Penalty could keep smokers out of health overhaul
13 1 0 14Related
View Larger

Californian State Assemblyman Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, right, talks with schools chief Tom Torlakson, after Gov. Jerry Brown, delivered his State of the State address at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Thursday, Jan. 23, 2013. Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama’s health care law, say experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of an overlooked provision in the massive legislation. “We don’t want to create barriers for people to get health care coverage,” said California state Assemblyman Richard Pan, who is working on a law in his state that would limit insurers’ ability to charge smokers more.” The federal law allows states to limit or change the smoking penalty. “We want people who are smoking to get smoking cessation treatment,” added Pan, a pediatrician who represents the Sacramento area. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)View Larger

California State Assemblyman Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, right, is seen after Gov. Jerry Brown, delivered his State of the State address at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Thursday, Jan. 23, 2013. Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama’s health care law, say experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of an overlooked provision in the massive legislation. “We don’t want to create barriers for people to get health care coverage,” said California state Assemblyman Richard Pan, who is working on a law in his state that would limit insurers’ ability to charge smokers more.” The federal law allows states to limit or change the smoking penalty. “We want people who are smoking to get smoking cessation treatment,” added Pan, a pediatrician who represents the Sacramento area. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)View Larger

FILE - In a June 11, 2007 file photo, Helen Heinlo smokes outside of a coffee shop in Belmont, Calif. Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama’s health care law, say experts. The Affordable Care Act allows health insurers to charge smokers buying an individual policy up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1. For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, File)View Larger

FILE - In a June 11, 2007 file photo, Helen Heinlo smokes outside of a coffee shop in Belmont, Calif. Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama’s health care law, say experts. The Affordable Care Act allows health insurers to charge smokers buying an individual policy up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1. For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, File)Sponsored LinksBy RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON —
Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.

The Affordable Care Act — "Obamacare" to its detractors — allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.

For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration. But older smokers could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge.

Workers covered on the job would be able to avoid tobacco penalties by joining smoking cessation programs, because employer plans operate under different rules. But experts say that option is not guaranteed to smokers trying to purchase coverage individually.

Nearly one of every five U.S. adults smokes. That share is higher among lower-income people, who also are more likely to work in jobs that don't come with health insurance and would therefore depend on the new federal health care law. Smoking increases the risk of developing heart disease, lung problems and cancer, contributing to nearly 450,000 deaths a year.

Insurers won't be allowed to charge more under the overhaul for people who are overweight, or have a health condition like a bad back or a heart that skips beats — but they can charge more if a person smokes.

Starting next Jan. 1, the federal health care law will make it possible for people who can't get coverage now to buy private policies, providing tax credits to keep the premiums affordable. Although the law prohibits insurance companies from turning away the sick, the penalties for smokers could have the same effect in many cases, keeping out potentially costly patients.

"We don't want to create barriers for people to get health care coverage," said California state Assemblyman Richard Pan, who is working on a law in his state that would limit insurers' ability to charge smokers more. The federal law allows states to limit or change the smoking penalty.

"We want people who are smoking to get smoking cessation treatment," added Pan, a pediatrician who represents the Sacramento area.

Obama administration officials declined to be interviewed for this article, but a former consumer protection regulator for the government is raising questions.

"If you are an insurer and there is a group of smokers you don't want in your pool, the ones you really don't want are the ones who have been smoking for 20 or 30 years," said Karen Pollitz, an expert on individual health insurance markets with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "You would have the flexibility to discourage them."

Several provisions in the federal health care law work together to leave older smokers with a bleak set of financial options, said Pollitz, formerly deputy director of the Office of Consumer Support in the federal Health and Human Services Department.

First, the law allows insurers to charge older adults up to three times as much as their youngest customers.

Second, the law allows insurers to levy the full 50 percent penalty on older smokers while charging less to younger ones.

And finally, government tax credits that will be available to help pay premiums cannot be used to offset the cost of penalties for smokers.

Here's how the math would work:

Take a hypothetical 60-year-old smoker making $35,000 a year. Estimated premiums for coverage in the new private health insurance markets under Obama's law would total $10,172. That person would be eligible for a tax credit that brings the cost down to $3,325.

But the smoking penalty could add $5,086 to the cost. And since federal tax credits can't be used to offset the penalty, the smoker's total cost for health insurance would be $8,411, or 24 percent of income. That's considered unaffordable under the federal law. The numbers were estimated using the online Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator.

"The effect of the smoking (penalty) allowed under the law would be that lower-income smokers could not afford health insurance," said Richard Curtis, president of the Institute for Health Policy Solutions, a nonpartisan research group that called attention to the issue with a study about the potential impact in California.

In today's world, insurers can simply turn down a smoker. Under Obama's overhaul, would they actually charge the full 50 percent? After all, workplace anti-smoking programs that use penalties usually charge far less, maybe $75 or $100 a month.

Robert Laszewski, a consultant who previously worked in the insurance industry, says there's a good reason to charge the maximum.

"If you don't charge the 50 percent, your competitor is going to do it, and you are going to get a disproportionate share of the less-healthy older smokers," said Laszewski. "They are going to have to play defense."

___
_________________________
Why is it so hard for some to properly use your and you're??

Top
#1385430 --- 01/30/13 04:52 PM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: kimmer]
Timbo Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 14345
Loc: CNY

How refreshing... some facts.
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
#1385517 --- 01/31/13 01:23 PM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: Timbo]
seneca dad22 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 02/10/12
Posts: 681
Loc: NY
Yeah, keep watching Fox (Republican liars) channel.

Great source of false information.

Top
#1385522 --- 01/31/13 02:00 PM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: seneca dad22]
Ghosts Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/02/00
Posts: 3803
Loc: Seneca Falls
Oh wait . . . the union leaders must have finally read the bill.

Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They Backed
By Janet Adamy | The Wall Street Journal

Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration's health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.

Union leaders say many of the law's requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26.

To offset that, the nation's largest labor groups want their lower-paid members to be able to get federal insurance subsidies while remaining on their plans. In the law, these subsidies were designed only for low-income workers without employer coverage as a way to help them buy private insurance.

In early talks, the Obama administration dismissed the idea of applying the subsidies to people in union-sponsored plans, according to officials from the trade group, the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, that represents these insurance plans. Contacted for this article, Obama administration officials said the issue is subject to regulations still being written.

Some 20 million Americans are covered by the health-care plans at issue in labor's push for subsidies. The plans are jointly managed by unions and employers and used mostly by small companies. They are popular in industries such as construction or trucking or hotels, where workers' hours fluctuate. By contrast, unionized workers at big employers such as Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. tend to have a more traditional insurance arrangement run through only one employer.

Top officers at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other large labor groups plan to keep pressing the Obama administration to expand the federal subsidies to these jointly run plans, warning that unionized employers may otherwise drop coverage. A handful of unions say they already have examined whether it makes sense to shift workers off their current plans and onto private coverage subsidized by the government. But dropping insurance altogether would undermine a central point of joining a union, labor leaders say.

"We are going back to the administration to say that this is not acceptable," said Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer for the Teamsters, which has 1.6 million members and dependents in health-care plans. Other unions involved in the push include the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Unite Here, which represents service and other workers.

Employers and consumers across the country will see big changes under the health law, which goes into full effect next year. Insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Most individuals will be taxed if they don't carry insurance, and employers with at least 50 workers will face a fine if they don't provide it. About 30 million Americans are expected to gain insurance under the law.

John Wilhelm, chairman of Unite Here Health, the insurance plan for 260,000 union workers at places including hotels, casinos and airports, recalls standing next to Barack Obama at a rally in Nevada when he was a 2008 presidential candidate.

"I heard him say, 'If you like your health plan, you can keep it,' " Mr. Wilhelm recalled. Mr. Wilhelm said he expects the administration will craft a solution so that employer health-care plans won't be hurt. "If I'm wrong, and the president does not intend to keep his word, I would have severe second thoughts about the law."

If unions don't win the subsidy argument, they say that companies with unionized workers would become less competitive, especially compared with rivals too small to face the law's new requirements.

For the Obama administration, holding firm against union demands for subsidies risks alienating a key ally. Giving unions a break, however, would not only increase the cost of the law but likely open the door to nonunion employers in a similar situation who would demand the same perk.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act generally excludes workers with low incomes from tapping subsidies if they already have insurance from an employer that is affordable and meets the law's minimum standards. Another exception is if they have access to government plans such as Medicare or Medicaid.

Obama administration officials declined to answer questions about whether union-employer plans could qualify for subsidies under the law. A spokesman for the Treasury Department, which will administer the subsidies as tax credits, said: "These matters are the subject of pending regulations. We will continue to work with employers, workers, consumers and businesses to implement the health-care law."

Under the health law, households earning up to 400% of the poverty level—$92,200 for a family of four last year—will be eligible for tax credits to offset the cost of private insurance. The less a household earns the more generous the subsidy.

Union plans covering 2.3 million people won waivers to the health law's early requirements, as did a number of nonunion plans. That has put many unionized plans behind in adapting to the law.

Among them is the Sheet Metal Workers Local 85 in Atlanta, which has about 1,900 members. Next year it must lift the $250,000 annual cap on the amount it will pay for medical claims. The law's requirements will add between 50 cents to $1 an hour to the cost of members' compensation package, said Randy Beall, business representative and political director for the local.

Mr. Beall worries this will give small, nonunion contractors who don't provide health insurance an edge in getting work. Those with fewer than 50 workers won't have to pay a penalty for not providing health insurance and their workers can tap federally subsidized plans, giving the contractors an insured workforce at lower cost.

The Sheet Metal Workers International Association helped push for passage of the health law. Mr. Beall said he still believes everyone should have health insurance, but worries the law is undermining the union's ability to offer coverage.
"If we're not offering our members insurance and pension, why would you want to be union?" he asked.

Marc Norberg, assistant to the general president at the sheet-metal workers union international office, said it is examining whether to eventually move members onto subsidized medical coverage provided by what is known as health-care exchanges run by the states or Washington. The union would still offer ancillary health benefits. Mr. Beall opposes these changes.

The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 of Countryside, Ill., which represents construction workers and insures about 65,000 people, is also examining whether some lower-earning workers would eventually be better off leaving the union-sponsored plan and instead getting federally subsidized insurance.

"I've told my members, as this evolves, your health care will not look like it does today," said James Sweeney, president and business manager of the local. "I have to cut it back."

Scott Street, a 33-year-old member of Local 150 who helps lay high-rise building foundations in Chicago, likes the low deductible and doctor network of the union-run plan that covers him, his wife and two children. "What they're able to bargain for us is outstanding," he said.

Local 150 didn't support the health law when it passed almost three years ago, but its international governing body did. "We do have second thoughts," said Dave Treanor, director of health-care initiatives for the International Union of Operating Engineers. The union backed the law's passage hoping it would lower health costs, and thinks it eventually will. "Right now, it is costing us more," Mr. Treanor said.

Some employer groups and health-law experts say the Affordable Care Act leaves no room for giving union workers access to federal insurance subsidies. The benefit was designed to extend insurance coverage to those who can't get it from an employer, said Katie Mahoney, executive director of health policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposes the law. "It just strikes me as very much stretching the definition of to whom the subsidies are available," she said.

Former congressman Earl Pomeroy, a Democrat who represented North Dakota in the House, said lawmakers, including him, simply didn't consider whether union-employer plans should get subsidies. Unions want to do this by attaching their plans to the forthcoming insurance marketplaces, where other subsidized Americans will be able to shop for coverage.

Mr. Pomeroy said the issue can be fixed through federal rule-making. A supporter of the law, Mr. Pomeroy is now a senior counsel at law firm Alston & Bird in Washington and a registered lobbyist who advised the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans on its effort to secure subsidies.

Unions and employers note it could be years before they alter or cut insurance coverage, a move that would be made in collective bargaining discussions between unions and employers.

The Teamsters' Mr. Hall said his union has no plans to eliminate workers' insurance. Instead, he worries employers will have an incentive to drop coverage in collective bargaining if they can't tap the subsidies.

Central Blacktop Co., a Hodgkins, Ill., road builder that employs members of operating engineers Local 150, provides health benefits by paying $13.45 per hour that each member works, said Joseph Benson, the company's chief financial officer. That averages nearly $19,000 a year per worker.

"Ultimately any increase in expense to the fund is going to come from us down the line," he said.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/unions-grow-wary-health-law-034700539.html
_________________________
I'M CONFUSED . . .wait, maybe I'm not.

Top
#1385524 --- 01/31/13 02:07 PM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: seneca dad22]
Offline

Senior Member

Registered: 01/16/12
Posts: 7644
Originally Posted By: seneca dad22
Yeah, keep watching Fox (Republican liars) channel.

Great source of false information.
Ahahahahahahahahaha...

Top
#1385600 --- 02/01/13 08:56 AM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: Ghosts]
SportsRef1 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/30/03
Posts: 3225
Loc: Seneca County
Originally Posted By: Ghosts
Oh wait . . . the union leaders must have finally read the bill.

Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They Backed
By Janet Adamy | The Wall Street Journal

Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration's health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.

Union leaders say many of the law's requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26.

To offset that, the nation's largest labor groups want their lower-paid members to be able to get federal insurance subsidies while remaining on their plans. In the law, these subsidies were designed only for low-income workers without employer coverage as a way to help them buy private insurance.

In early talks, the Obama administration dismissed the idea of applying the subsidies to people in union-sponsored plans, according to officials from the trade group, the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, that represents these insurance plans. Contacted for this article, Obama administration officials said the issue is subject to regulations still being written.

Some 20 million Americans are covered by the health-care plans at issue in labor's push for subsidies. The plans are jointly managed by unions and employers and used mostly by small companies. They are popular in industries such as construction or trucking or hotels, where workers' hours fluctuate. By contrast, unionized workers at big employers such as Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. tend to have a more traditional insurance arrangement run through only one employer.

Top officers at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other large labor groups plan to keep pressing the Obama administration to expand the federal subsidies to these jointly run plans, warning that unionized employers may otherwise drop coverage. A handful of unions say they already have examined whether it makes sense to shift workers off their current plans and onto private coverage subsidized by the government. But dropping insurance altogether would undermine a central point of joining a union, labor leaders say.

"We are going back to the administration to say that this is not acceptable," said Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer for the Teamsters, which has 1.6 million members and dependents in health-care plans. Other unions involved in the push include the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Unite Here, which represents service and other workers.

Employers and consumers across the country will see big changes under the health law, which goes into full effect next year. Insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Most individuals will be taxed if they don't carry insurance, and employers with at least 50 workers will face a fine if they don't provide it. About 30 million Americans are expected to gain insurance under the law.

John Wilhelm, chairman of Unite Here Health, the insurance plan for 260,000 union workers at places including hotels, casinos and airports, recalls standing next to Barack Obama at a rally in Nevada when he was a 2008 presidential candidate.

"I heard him say, 'If you like your health plan, you can keep it,' " Mr. Wilhelm recalled. Mr. Wilhelm said he expects the administration will craft a solution so that employer health-care plans won't be hurt. "If I'm wrong, and the president does not intend to keep his word, I would have severe second thoughts about the law."

If unions don't win the subsidy argument, they say that companies with unionized workers would become less competitive, especially compared with rivals too small to face the law's new requirements.

For the Obama administration, holding firm against union demands for subsidies risks alienating a key ally. Giving unions a break, however, would not only increase the cost of the law but likely open the door to nonunion employers in a similar situation who would demand the same perk.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act generally excludes workers with low incomes from tapping subsidies if they already have insurance from an employer that is affordable and meets the law's minimum standards. Another exception is if they have access to government plans such as Medicare or Medicaid.

Obama administration officials declined to answer questions about whether union-employer plans could qualify for subsidies under the law. A spokesman for the Treasury Department, which will administer the subsidies as tax credits, said: "These matters are the subject of pending regulations. We will continue to work with employers, workers, consumers and businesses to implement the health-care law."

Under the health law, households earning up to 400% of the poverty level—$92,200 for a family of four last year—will be eligible for tax credits to offset the cost of private insurance. The less a household earns the more generous the subsidy.

Union plans covering 2.3 million people won waivers to the health law's early requirements, as did a number of nonunion plans. That has put many unionized plans behind in adapting to the law.

Among them is the Sheet Metal Workers Local 85 in Atlanta, which has about 1,900 members. Next year it must lift the $250,000 annual cap on the amount it will pay for medical claims. The law's requirements will add between 50 cents to $1 an hour to the cost of members' compensation package, said Randy Beall, business representative and political director for the local.

Mr. Beall worries this will give small, nonunion contractors who don't provide health insurance an edge in getting work. Those with fewer than 50 workers won't have to pay a penalty for not providing health insurance and their workers can tap federally subsidized plans, giving the contractors an insured workforce at lower cost.

The Sheet Metal Workers International Association helped push for passage of the health law. Mr. Beall said he still believes everyone should have health insurance, but worries the law is undermining the union's ability to offer coverage.
"If we're not offering our members insurance and pension, why would you want to be union?" he asked.

Marc Norberg, assistant to the general president at the sheet-metal workers union international office, said it is examining whether to eventually move members onto subsidized medical coverage provided by what is known as health-care exchanges run by the states or Washington. The union would still offer ancillary health benefits. Mr. Beall opposes these changes.

The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 of Countryside, Ill., which represents construction workers and insures about 65,000 people, is also examining whether some lower-earning workers would eventually be better off leaving the union-sponsored plan and instead getting federally subsidized insurance.

"I've told my members, as this evolves, your health care will not look like it does today," said James Sweeney, president and business manager of the local. "I have to cut it back."

Scott Street, a 33-year-old member of Local 150 who helps lay high-rise building foundations in Chicago, likes the low deductible and doctor network of the union-run plan that covers him, his wife and two children. "What they're able to bargain for us is outstanding," he said.

Local 150 didn't support the health law when it passed almost three years ago, but its international governing body did. "We do have second thoughts," said Dave Treanor, director of health-care initiatives for the International Union of Operating Engineers. The union backed the law's passage hoping it would lower health costs, and thinks it eventually will. "Right now, it is costing us more," Mr. Treanor said.

Some employer groups and health-law experts say the Affordable Care Act leaves no room for giving union workers access to federal insurance subsidies. The benefit was designed to extend insurance coverage to those who can't get it from an employer, said Katie Mahoney, executive director of health policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposes the law. "It just strikes me as very much stretching the definition of to whom the subsidies are available," she said.

Former congressman Earl Pomeroy, a Democrat who represented North Dakota in the House, said lawmakers, including him, simply didn't consider whether union-employer plans should get subsidies. Unions want to do this by attaching their plans to the forthcoming insurance marketplaces, where other subsidized Americans will be able to shop for coverage.

Mr. Pomeroy said the issue can be fixed through federal rule-making. A supporter of the law, Mr. Pomeroy is now a senior counsel at law firm Alston & Bird in Washington and a registered lobbyist who advised the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans on its effort to secure subsidies.

Unions and employers note it could be years before they alter or cut insurance coverage, a move that would be made in collective bargaining discussions between unions and employers.

The Teamsters' Mr. Hall said his union has no plans to eliminate workers' insurance. Instead, he worries employers will have an incentive to drop coverage in collective bargaining if they can't tap the subsidies.

Central Blacktop Co., a Hodgkins, Ill., road builder that employs members of operating engineers Local 150, provides health benefits by paying $13.45 per hour that each member works, said Joseph Benson, the company's chief financial officer. That averages nearly $19,000 a year per worker.

"Ultimately any increase in expense to the fund is going to come from us down the line," he said.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/unions-grow-wary-health-law-034700539.html



it's amazing what you find out when someone actually reads the bill!

Top
#1385605 --- 02/01/13 09:30 AM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: SportsRef1]
SportsRef1 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/30/03
Posts: 3225
Loc: Seneca County
some more good news thanx to "O" care......


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/...mes-obama-care/

Top
#1385607 --- 02/01/13 09:35 AM Re: Obama care....Really [Re: SportsRef1]
SportsRef1 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/30/03
Posts: 3225
Loc: Seneca County
and the hits with "O" care and his administration just continue.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/...ies-improperly/

Top
Page 1 of 159 1 2 3 ... 158 159 >