Vegas Free-for-All - Detroit, Obamacare, and Unexpected Consequences

«‹6 ›

Dan Svatass

Aug 1, 2013
2:31am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99
it's just a severely complex behemoth to actually work.

As opposed to the transparent simplicity of the health care system that Obamacare modifies.

timtroutman

Aug 1, 2013
3:35am

Block User

In lieu of posting source links and snappy pictures, what “Obama-care” has meant to me personally - -so far.

Whether good or bad depending on someone’s perception, I have a job that offers me a pretty good benefit package. My medical/dental coverage had been REALLY good, but less so as the years passed – which, I would guess, is pretty standard. Despite that, the value of our plan was still deemed to be “above the line”, and would be subject to the penalty referred to as the “Cadillac Tax”.

Much like companies cutting hours of their employees to dodge penalties, our company decided to “dumb down” our plan to drop it below the value line.

Highlights of what this means to me: an extremely high deductible, increased co-pay levels, and the total loss of what had been a pretty good prescription drug benefit. Drug purchases now treated as a “normal” medical expense, and are applied to the deductible obligation.

Potential cost to me will vary on how sick I get from year to year. Employee contribution to premium stayed about the same (for now) even though coverage is much worse. Only time will tell how much this will cost me, but undoubtedly it will cost me.

It may take me awhile before I can agree on the historical greatness of this legislation.

alanleroyII

Aug 1, 2013
4:06am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
But the farm subsidies that I mentioned are 100% rural, aren't they?

Umm, . . . sort of.
"According to the [Environmental Working Group], 290 people in New York City received farm subsidies in 2010 and raked in a total of $880,887. 734 "farmers" in Chicago got $2,173,344 in federal subsidies, and 203 people in Miami got $2,472,071 worth. On the West Coast, 179 people in San Francisco were paid $1,094,172."

Ref: ABC News

Hmmm maybe I can get the Department of Agriculture to fund my grand experiment of Detroit based self-reliant agrarian communal enclaves. I call them 'Hip Hop Kibbutzim'

Dan Svatass

Aug 1, 2013
4:13am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: twagner
In lieu of posting source links and snappy pictures, what “Obama-care” has meant to me personally - -so far.

Whether good or bad depending on someone’s perception, I have a job that offers me a pretty good benefit package. My medical/dental coverage had been REALLY good, but less so as the years passed – which, I would guess, is pretty standard. Despite that, the value of our plan was still deemed to be “above the line”, and would be subject to the penalty referred to as the “Cadillac Tax”.

Much like companies cutting hours of their employees to dodge penalties, our company decided to “dumb down” our plan to drop it below the value line.

Highlights of what this means to me: an extremely high deductible, increased co-pay levels, and the total loss of what had been a pretty good prescription drug benefit. Drug purchases now treated as a “normal” medical expense, and are applied to the deductible obligation.

Potential cost to me will vary on how sick I get from year to year. Employee contribution to premium stayed about the same (for now) even though coverage is much worse. Only time will tell how much this will cost me, but undoubtedly it will cost me.

It may take me awhile before I can agree on the historical greatness of this legislation.

That sucks. That sucks. Who ever heard of an employer health plan becoming less generous?

Now I've seen everything.

alanleroyII

Aug 1, 2013
5:36am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot

Quote
Originally posted by: twagner
In lieu of posting source links and snappy pictures, what “Obama-care” has meant to me personally - -so far.

Whether good or bad depending on someone’s perception, I have a job that offers me a pretty good benefit package. My medical/dental coverage had been REALLY good, but less so as the years passed – which, I would guess, is pretty standard. Despite that, the value of our plan was still deemed to be “above the line”, and would be subject to the penalty referred to as the “Cadillac Tax”.

Much like companies cutting hours of their employees to dodge penalties, our company decided to “dumb down” our plan to drop it below the value line.

Highlights of what this means to me: an extremely high deductible, increased co-pay levels, and the total loss of what had been a pretty good prescription drug benefit. Drug purchases now treated as a “normal” medical expense, and are applied to the deductible obligation.

Potential cost to me will vary on how sick I get from year to year. Employee contribution to premium stayed about the same (for now) even though coverage is much worse. Only time will tell how much this will cost me, but undoubtedly it will cost me.

It may take me awhile before I can agree on the historical greatness of this legislation.

That sucks. Who ever heard of an employer health plan becoming less generous?

Now I've seen everything.

I would venture to guess his health plan is just as generous from an employer perspective as when he originally signed up. In my case, my small group plan has gone from average $250 a month to $1000 a month. From co-pay to deductible. From Drug Benefit to none.

I know my employer is just as generous with health benefits today as he was 15 years ago..in fact more generous....I know this because I am my employer and it eventually all comes out of the same pocket. I don't attribute this to Obamacare though. Our (nonprofit) HMO has been increasing prices and decreasing the plan coverage every year for at least 10. Part of that is our aging employees...mostly it's just their costs increasing. What really drove their cost structure to change is debatable but it didn't just happen.

forkushV

Aug 1, 2013
7:34am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: twagner
Whether good or bad depending on someone’s perception, I have a job that offers me a pretty good benefit package. My medical/dental coverage had been REALLY good, but less so as the years passed – which, I would guess, is pretty standard. Despite that, the value of our plan was still deemed to be “above the line”, and would be subject to the penalty referred to as the “Cadillac Tax”...

Your employer is cutting back taxes in 2013 for a tax that does not kick in until 2018? And you believe that?

Dan Svatass

Aug 1, 2013
9:04am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Your employer is cutting back taxes in 2013 for a tax that does not kick in until 2018? And you believe that?

Wow, what a screwing!

twagner's employer is decreasing benefits now and is claiming it's because of the "Cadillac Tax", which is set to take effect in 2018?

Here's the Washington Post:

Long-term, however, the largest increase — and certainly the most important one for the future of the health-care system — will be the excise tax on high-value health insurance plans, which begins in 2018.
. . .
It’s a tax on unusually expensive, employer-provided health insurance plans. It begins at $10,200 for an individual plan and $27,500 for a family plan. Above that, there’s a 40 percent tax on the excess premiums. So if your plan is valued at $11,200, your employer will pay a 40 percent tax on the $1,000 surplus.
. . .

[T]he idea behind the tax isn’t to raise money: It’s to change behavior. The hope is that it will pressure employers and workers to choose less-expensive plans. If it works, additional tax revenue will be generated less by so-called “Cadillac” plans subject to the excise tax than by employers delivering more of their workers’ compensation in the form of taxable wages and less in the form of expensive health-care benefits.

Apparently this tax was a Republican idea that President Obama adopted:

[The Cadillac tax] is actually an attempt to address a core Republican concern: The tax break for employer-provided health insurance, which Republicans believe encourages employers to spend too much on health care while also making it impossible for a health-care system not based on employers to emerge.
. . .
In 2007, President George W. Bush announced the only major health-care initiative of his eight years in office other than the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill. The policy, which went nowhere, sought to “level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job” by ending the unlimited tax break for employer-based insurance in favor of a $15,000 tax deduction for families and a $7,500 tax deduction for individuals to purchase health insurance.

In 2008, Republican presidential candidate John McCain offered a similar plan: He proposed ending the unlimited employer deduction and instead giving every family a $5,000 tax credit and every individual a $2,500 tax credit.

BobOrme

Aug 1, 2013
10:48am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot

In 2008, Republican presidential candidate John McCain offered a similar plan: He proposed ending the unlimited employer deduction and instead giving every family a $5,000 tax credit and every individual a $2,500 tax credit.

From the same blog post:

"When McCain proposed his health-care plan in 2008, the Obama camp called it, yes, “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.”

timtroutman

Aug 1, 2013
11:36am

Block User

Your employer is cutting back taxes in 2013 for a tax that does not kick in until 2018? And you believe that?

Actually - yes.

With multiple multi-year contracts to negotiate across four states, 2018 only seems far away depending on your point of view. As an administrative employee, while I don't like it, I accept the fact that we are first off the cliff to - so to speak - "set the bar". Or maybe better put - lower the bar.

And depending on the course of said negotiations, there is the possibility that any savings from a devalued plan will simply have to be spent somewhere else.

"My employer" - is an entity. The decision to bite the bullet and proceed in a timely manner was done by employees of the entity - who had to pull the trigger on over-hauling their own coverages. On personal levels, I'm sure they would have preferred to wait as you suggest.

Dan Svatass

Aug 1, 2013
12:19pm

Block User

What do you anticipate your employer will do with all the money it will save over the next five years that it is choosing not to put towards your health insurance?