Haven't had to go to the hospital for anything ... I am afraid to find out nowQuote:
Originally Posted by gmyers
Printable View
Haven't had to go to the hospital for anything ... I am afraid to find out nowQuote:
Originally Posted by gmyers
the government has been known to send pay checks to people who are dead, do not have ssn's, are not americans, never worked for them etc. no...i cannot image them efficiently dealing with obamacare!
I just spent 4 days in the VA hospital. I got terrific care and felt like a VIP. Did they rush me out......maybe. But at least I can keep fluids in. Do they have a diagnosis? Not really. But I am so much better than when I went in. I will see the bill when it comes and pay, in payments if I must. That same 4 days in the local hospital would have been $20k, or at least that is what it cost last January.
Me
Conservative Daily : Today, I had lunch with the COO of a family owned business in Colorado that has been around for over 30 years. They employ 300 people in 5 different locations across the front range. They do just north of $20 million in revenue and net about 2.7%. I say this because in a recent meeting with one of the Colorado Congressmen, she was told that when they passed Obamacare, they had no idea what affect it would have on a business of her size.
Are you ready for her answer. It is going to cost the company over $500,000 a year to implement the changes.
In other words, to implement the changes, they will have to lose money as an organization.
They employ 300 people, and they are at risk of being put out of business by yet more government regulation. Regulation that is over 2800 pages long and has implications that no one could imagined when they vote to heap it upon the people of this country.
Well there you have it, a business killing, over reaching and unconstitutional set of laws that is going to destroy our country one company at a time. It is time we take back this country, and it is time that we stop the madness of these clowns who are destroying everything this country stands and stood for.
This my friends is a real story, not one that anyone can dispute. The time to act is now. -Joe Otto
I propose that all government workers and elected officials have to sign up for obamacare and pay for it just like the people that obama proposes to use it...from their own pocket after government credit is applied. They also cannot buy any other plan including cadillac plans that they are used to. There can be no waivers....and obama can no longer have a doctor living at the white house either.
I also propose that anyone who is illegally in this country have to pay for care before they are seen. (if it is life threatening then they can be treated and sent home at their expense or their countries expense). Let them suffer just like Americans
I second your motion !Quote:
Originally Posted by boopster
Universal Orlando dropping medical insurance plan for part-timers due to Obamacare regulation
By Doug Powers • February 20, 2013 05:05 PM
Here’s yet another Obamacare fallout story that will have to be told loudly so you can hear it over promises of “if you like your health insurance you will keep your current insurance.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBfUbLrW4RM
From the Orlando Sentinel: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busin...,4887679.story
Quote:
Universal Orlando plans to stop offering medical insurance to part-time employees beginning next year, a move the resort says has been forced by the federal government’s health-care overhaul.
The giant theme-park resort, which generates more than $1 billion in annual revenue, began informing employees this month that it will offer health-insurance to part-timers “only until December 31, 2013.”
The reason: Universal currently offers part-time workers a limited insurance plan that has low premiums but also caps the payout of benefits. For instance, Universal’s plan costs about $18 a week for employee-only coverage but covers only a maximum of $5,000 a year toward hospital stays. There are similar caps for other services.
Those types of insurance plans — sometimes referred to as “mini-med” plans — will no longer be permitted under the federal Affordable Care Act. Beginning in 2014, the law will prohibit insurance plans that impose annual monetary limits on essential medical care such, as hospitalization, or on overall spending.
If any of these particular part-timers have a problem with the Obamacare-induced loss of their plan, they should first direct their strongly worded letters to NBC/Universal management. http://netrightdaily.com/2012/08/nbc...s-network-atm/
**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2013/02/20...ndo-obamacare/
http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-co...healthplan.jpg
Feb. 22, 2013, 9:20 a.m. EST
Why your boss is dumping your wife
Companies are dropping health coverage for spouses to cut costs
By Jen Wieczner
Companies have a new solution to rising health-insurance costs: Break up their employees’ marriages.
By denying coverage to spouses, employers not only save the annual premiums, but also the new fees that went into effect as part of the Affordable Care Act. This year, companies have to pay $1 or $2 “per life” covered on their plans, a sum that jumps to $65 in 2014. And health law guidelines proposed recently mandate coverage of employees’ dependent children (up to age 26), but husbands and wives are optional. “The question about whether it’s obligatory to cover the family of the employee is being thought through more than ever before,” says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health. See: When your boss doesn’t trust your doctor.
While surcharges for spousal coverage are more common, last year, 6% of large employers excluded spouses, up from 5% in 2010, as did 4% of huge companies with at least 20,000 employees, twice as many as in 2010, according to human resources firm Mercer. These “spousal carve-outs,” or “working spouse provisions,” generally prohibit only people who could get coverage through their own job from enrolling in their spouse’s plan.
Such exclusions barely existed three years ago, but experts expect an increasing number of employers to adopt them: “That’s the next step,” Darling says. HMS, a company that audits plans for employers, estimates that nearly a third of companies might have such policies now. Holdouts say they feel under pressure to follow suit. “We’re the last domino,” says Duke Bennett, mayor of Terre Haute, Ind., which is instituting a spousal carve-out for the city’s health plan, effective July 2013, after nearly all major employers in the area dropped spouses.
But when employers drop spouses, they often lose more than just the one individual, when couples choose instead to seek coverage together under the other partner’s employer. Terre Haute, which pays $6 million annually to insure nearly 1,200 people including employees and their family members, received more than 20 new plan members when a local university, bank and county government stopped insuring spouses, according to Bennett. “We have a great plan, so they want to be on ours. All we’re trying to do is level the playing field here,” he says.
While couples generally prefer to be on the same health plan, companies often find that spouses are more expensive to insure than their own employees. That’s because, say benefits experts, covered spouses tend to be women, who as a group not only spend more on health care, but also have more free time to go to the doctor if they don’t work. Indeed, JetBlue’s covered spouses cost 50% more than crewmembers themselves, according to the airline’s online Q&A about its health plan, which this year extended wellness incentives to spouses for the first time.
About a fifth of companies had policies to discourage spouses from joining their health plan in 2012, according to Mercer, though most just charged extra—$100 a month, on average—to cover spouses who could get insurance elsewhere, rather than deny coverage entirely. Indeed, large firms including generics maker Teva and supply chain manager Intermec have spousal surcharges costing $100 a month, or $1,200 annually, while Xerox charges $1,000 for the year.
But experts say more firms are likely to drop spouses altogether, whether they work or not—especially when the new federal health-care exchanges open in 2014, providing an alternative for spouses left out in the cold. “When there’s a place for people to go, employers won’t feel as beholden or compelled to cover the spouse,” says Joan Smyth, an employee benefits consultant with Mercer.
Firms that recently decided to drop spouses from their plans range from private insurance agencies to school systems and universities like Ball State, as well as large companies like pump and valve manufacturer Flowserve. Wisconsin-based furniture company KI carved out spouses this year when couples flocked to its plan for the first time during open enrollment. “Now, each employer is responsible for its own employee,” says Timothy Van Severen, corporate risk manager for KI, which insures about 1,700 employees in its health plan. “We were going to see a higher claim cost if we didn’t do that, because of the migration coming back to us.”
Some companies drive spouses away using other tactics, such as making spousal coverage prohibitively expensive through higher surcharges or by making reimbursement rates so low that spouses can’t afford the plans. The share of employers who allow spouses in their plan but don’t pay for any part of it rose from zero to 3% this year, according to human resources consulting firm Towers Watson. Northrop Grumman, the large security firm, will cover spouses who can get insurance through their own employers, but only if they first enroll in their own plan, and use Northrop’s as secondary coverage. (Some companies actually pay spouses an incentive if they enroll in their own plan, though insurance experts say the incentive is a waste of money—and that employers would do better by just cutting spouses off.) “You’re making it kind of a no-brainer for the other adult dependent to get on his or her own plan,” says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health. “No one wants to be just a dependent magnet.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why...ife-2013-02-22
But like any breakup, the separation of spouses into different health plans can be traumatic for families. Greg Fischer, a vice president in the employer solutions division at HMS, says demand has increased for the company’s dependent audits, which have revealed that 3% of spouses are ineligible for the health plans, either because of plan rules or divorce and legal marriage issues. The news can be upsetting to couples when one partner is forced to pay more for coverage or accept lesser benefits: One spouse may even have to stop seeing the family doctor if his or her new plan stipulates a different set of providers. “I think that’s where the pain point comes in for the employee—that their spouse may have to be covered under a different plan, or their benefits might be reduced,” Fischer says.
Couples then have to decide whether to stick together, even if it means losing benefits, or to split up so at least one spouse maintains coverage. If they separate, they may also have to choose which plan to insure the kids under, or whether to use different plans for each. “It certainly makes the family unit have to do some real soul-searching and figure out what works best for them,” says Karen McLeese, vice president of employee regulatory affairs for CBIZ Benefits & Insurance Services. The decision, she adds, will likely come down to dollars and cents.
( to read the last paragraph - you will have to go to the source material because somehow there is a "censored word" - although the Administration will not reveal what words are so deemed. If anyone can figure out which word is so "offensive" I would really appreciate it. )
what's good for the goose is good for the gander......michelle should pay for her own coverage since she is not an elected official, government employee etc. i bet she wouldn't like dem apples!