PDA

View Full Version : Ruling Hobby Lobby


Isabel
06-30-2014, 09:35 AM
So reactions? :(

Orc
06-30-2014, 09:39 AM
Hobby lobby is fun to say. Other than that, I have no idea what it means.

GonzoTheGreat
06-30-2014, 10:11 AM
So reactions? :(
My reaction so far (and you can quote me on that): "what's the ruling?"

I could of course look for myself, but being lazy is an art, and it may very well be the only art I'm any good at, so I have to keep practicing.

Kimon
06-30-2014, 10:13 AM
It's a horrible decision, and was predictably a 5-4 decision, with the 5 neanderthals voting that employees do not have the right to be protected against the religious oppression of their employers. This was unfortunately the inevitable consequence of another ridiculous and despicable ruling by this court - Citizens United.

http://www.bbc.com/news/28093756

fdsaf3
06-30-2014, 12:12 PM
Yet another example of how policy issues are inextricably tied to politics in the U.S. system. I'm not sure what's worse: the blatant decision down party lines in the Supreme Court, or the attitude of people cheering for either side like it's some sort of sporting event.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the U.S. political system is broken.

That said, from what I've seen of the ruling I'm not sure this warrants the predictable knee-jerk overreaction I'm seeing all over my facebook news feed. I'll be curious to see how this plays out.

Southpaw2012
06-30-2014, 02:33 PM
It's a horrible decision, and was predictably a 5-4 decision, with the 5 neanderthals voting that employees do not have the right to be protected against the religious oppression of their employers. This was unfortunately the inevitable consequence of another ridiculous and despicable ruling by this court - Citizens United.

http://www.bbc.com/news/28093756


Wow, I didn't realize Ginsburg was a member of Theoryland. And no, it was a great decision. Read the opinion before you start spewing liberal garbage. The ruling was excruciatingly narrow. It only applies to closely held corporations, such as family owned Hobby Lobby. They still provide coverage for 16 of the 20 contraceptives, birth control being one of them. It's not religious tyranny, it's not forcing religion on someone. If you're an employee and don't like it, find a new job. The ignorance here is excruciating. Now we gotta listen to King Obama find a way to side step the law and allow illegals, people who are here ILLEGALLY, to get citizenship; basically smacking those who came here legally a slap in the face. You guys here at the forum think the US system is broken because you don't understand it and believe that liberals should be able to do whatever they want when in office. It's a Constitutional Republic, a system that liberals seem to try hard to disregard. The problem isn't the government, it's the people in the government. There are very few who deserve to be there. A 4 year old could spew more sense than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Isabel
06-30-2014, 02:47 PM
Wow, I didn't realize Ginsburg was a member of Theoryland. And no, it was a great decision. Read the opinion before you start spewing liberal garbage. The ruling was excruciatingly narrow. It only applies to closely held corporations, such as family owned Hobby Lobby. They still provide coverage for 16 of the 20 contraceptives, birth control being one of them. It's not religious tyranny, it's not forcing religion on someone. If you're an employee and don't like it, find a new job. The ignorance here is excruciating. Now we gotta listen to King Obama find a way to side step the law and allow illegals, people who are here ILLEGALLY, to get citizenship; basically smacking those who came here legally a slap in the face. You guys here at the forum think the US system is broken because you don't understand it and believe that liberals should be able to do whatever they want when in office. It's a Constitutional Republic, a system that liberals seem to try hard to disregard. The problem isn't the government, it's the people in the government. There are very few who deserve to be there. A 4 year old could spew more sense than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

So do explain why an employer cannot force orher religious beliefs on their employer or why the pill is an exception?
Businesses should be forced to listen to the rule of law and not base it on religion.

Southpaw2012
06-30-2014, 02:59 PM
So do explain why an employer cannot force orher religious beliefs on their employer or why the pill is an exception?
Businesses should be forced to listen to the rule of law and not base it on religion.


If Justice Roberts hadn't been bombarded by that idiot in the WH prior to the ruling of the ACA, it may not be law. But that's besides the point since as of now, it is the law. Read the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That was both supported at the time by both conservatives and liberals. If the government wants to once again invade, and tell the owners of a business how to think, they will need to rethink things and realize that they provide the coverage for those 4 extra contraceptives themselves.

Khoram
06-30-2014, 04:31 PM
And to think, Republicans used to be considered more liberal than the Democrats. Huh. :rolleyes:

eht slat meit
06-30-2014, 05:02 PM
Well, my reactions are pretty basic.

Democrats will rant and rave and gnash teeth declaring it a victory for tyrants everywhere over the right to choose not to fund a few types of contraceptives.

Republicans will rant and rave and gnash teeth about how freedom finally won a victory over Obamacare with the right to choose not to fund a few types of contraceptives.

A few idiot companies will take the Democrat raging seriously and think that means they can actually redefine ANYTHING as religious exemption, despite the ruling saying otherwise, only to get shut down hard by the SCOTUS.

Meanwhile, life will go on, and women will work around it, because ultimately, it's not a decision that matters except in the political talking point spheres.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-01-2014, 11:13 AM
Southpaw did actually explain this pretty well.

The main argument was the four birth control types that are abortive in nature.

Birth control is still available. This wasn't a birth control fight, this was an abortion fight, but very few news organizations are pointing that out. It would cause too much of an uproar on both sides. It was also a religious freedom fight for large business owners that are family owned.

The scope of the implications here is fairly small.

Small group employers are still REQUIRED to provide all forms of birth control. For now anyway, this could open a new can of worms, but we will see.

The one thing I find amusing is no one is noticing, or acknowledging the religious freedom side of this. Which was, if you recall your early education, part of what this country was founded upon. ;)

It is, as the Brits would say, a sticky wicket.

I don't like either outcome, as it only leads to more ranting and raving an banner waving by people who are only listening to sound bites. Though I don't like the decision, I personally think it was the right one based upon the law and PPACA guidelines. I voiced that on Facebook and was immediately attacked as a horrible person. THAT is where this leads. People just find another reason to hate each other.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-01-2014, 11:22 AM
what cracks me up too is the religious oppression idea...sorry K, but really? If the employees want birth control, go buy it.

These drugs used to be separately rated anyway, and had to be added to a plan (all birth control did, and IUDs were considered DEVICES which had a whole 'nother set of underwriting costs)

MOST companies didn't cover these regularly until about 6-7 years ago anyway, and if they did they passed the cost along to the employees in the cost sharing.

Viagra, weight loss and other drugs are/were considered "lifestyle" drugs and although covered originally, eventually were separately rated, then excluded completely from most plans.

If there is NO medically necessary reason for a drug...any drug...for example botox...plans exclude them.

Birth Control, when required for medical reasons (cramping, hormonal issues, blood loss, etc) can be appealed when not covered by a plan.

Some plans don't cover Lipitor...a high blood pressure pill...where is the outrage!!?!?? There isn't any, because alternatives are available.

JUST LIKE IN THIS SITUATION.

Relax people. Read. Don't just REACT.

fdsaf3
07-01-2014, 11:23 AM
The problem with making this a religious freedom issue is that corporations by definition can't have a religious belief. The people who own a closely held corporation might, but the corporation doesn't. Saying this issue boils down to religious freedom is essentially saying that on some level corporations deserve religious freedom; clearly, there's a problem with that.

More generally, as far as I'm concerned, the phrase "freedom of religion" has been misappropriated by people who want to use it as a bludgeon instead of the protective shield it was supposed to be. Everyone is free to practice their religion, sure. Fine. Go ahead. But when people start citing their religions beliefs as justification for political actions (and make no mistake, denying birth control to female employees is a political action), I think we have a problem. I know it's impossible to separate political beliefs from religious convictions, especially on issues like this, but it seems to me that in an ideal world the two would never mix.

GonzoTheGreat
07-01-2014, 11:25 AM
Relax people. Read. Don't just REACT.
Thinking? Reading?!?
Isn't that entirely not the American Way?

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-01-2014, 11:33 AM
The problem with making this a religious freedom issue is that corporations by definition can't have a religious belief. The people who own a closely held corporation might, but the corporation doesn't. Saying this issue boils down to religious freedom is essentially saying that on some level corporations deserve religious freedom; clearly, there's a problem with that.

More generally, as far as I'm concerned, the phrase "freedom of religion" has been misappropriated by people who want to use it as a bludgeon instead of the protective shield it was supposed to be. Everyone is free to practice their religion, sure. Fine. Go ahead. But when people start citing their religions beliefs as justification for political actions (and make no mistake, denying birth control to female employees is a political action), I think we have a problem. I know it's impossible to separate political beliefs from religious convictions, especially on issues like this, but it seems to me that in an ideal world the two would never mix.



MEDICAL COVERAGE WAS A BENEFIT Extra. Helpful. Like an addition to your wage.

Hate to break it too you, but small groups still DONT HAVE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE. ITS A BENEFIT.

Its like people being told, ok now you are REQUIRED to have a car to work. And your employer HAS to provide it. Or you and/or the employer will be taxed/fined.

And you get a car. And now you are complaining that it isn't blue.

The color had nothing to do with the transportation device, nothing to do with the safety, and if you want a blue car, you can have one, but your employer doesn't have to pay for it.

And btw, there are 16 other colors available.

fdsaf3
07-01-2014, 11:49 AM
MEDICAL COVERAGE WAS A BENEFIT Extra. Helpful. Like an addition to your wage.

Hate to break it too you, but small groups still DONT HAVE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE. ITS A BENEFIT.

Its like people being told, ok now you are REQUIRED to have a car to work. And your employer HAS to provide it. Or you and/or the employer will be taxed/fined.

And you get a car. And now you are complaining that it isn't blue.

The color had nothing to do with the transportation device, nothing to do with the safety, and if you want a blue car, you can have one, but your employer doesn't have to pay for it.

And btw, there are 16 other colors available.

None of this really addresses anything I said, but ok.

It seems to me that, to go along with your example, pretty inconsistent not to object to paying for cars in general. But when someone wants a blue car - woah there, that crosses a line.

If you really want to get down to brass tacks, I think it's monumentally stupid that health insurance in this country is tied to your employer. This simply would not be an issue if everyone was entitled to health care. But since we don't have that system, we're stuck trying to navigate the morass of intertwined political and religious views. Yuck.

Sodas
07-01-2014, 04:43 PM
So reactions? :(

Good.

It looks like RBG may step down under Democratic pressure because of health concerns prior to the mid term elections (Democrats see the winds of Politics changing).

However, that wasn't even the most important case.

The one that was the most important was vs state of Mass. and the Abortion clinic buffer zone law.

That was HUGE!!!

THE SC basically ruled that buffer zones outside abortion clinics on public grounds are unconstitutional due to the 1st amendment - free speech on public grounds and walkways. I happen to agree completely with Scalia's opinion.

Sodas
07-01-2014, 04:48 PM
Yet another example of how policy issues are inextricably tied to politics in the U.S. system. I'm not sure what's worse: the blatant decision down party lines in the Supreme Court, or the attitude of people cheering for either side like it's some sort of sporting event.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the U.S. political system is broken.

That said, from what I've seen of the ruling I'm not sure this warrants the predictable knee-jerk overreaction I'm seeing all over my facebook news feed. I'll be curious to see how this plays out.

If I may ask you a question, do you live in the US?

Sodas
07-01-2014, 04:51 PM
And to think, Republicans used to be considered more liberal than the Democrats. Huh. :rolleyes:

Republicans were never more liberal. Progressive.

There is a difference.

Sodas
07-01-2014, 04:55 PM
Thinking? Reading?!?
Isn't that entirely not the American Way?

No, it isn't. That is why the Minutemen were a formed militia, lead by scholars, not irregulars like the french mob who beheaded anyone that disagreed.

We have always been a well reasoned country, outside the Liberals (aka. the french mob) who are currently screwing up everything, just like usual, when they get into power.

eht slat meit
07-01-2014, 05:05 PM
No, it isn't. That is why the Minutemen were a formed militia, lead by scholars, not irregulars like the french mob who beheaded anyone that disagreed.

We have always been a well reasoned country, outside the Liberals (aka. the french mob) who are currently screwing up everything, just like usual, when they get into power.

To keep this statement balanced, I will point out that there is not a single "militia" or modern day equivalent of said "Minutemen", right or left. While it's a poor comparison, it's pretty much the French Tomayto Mob vs the French Tomahto Mob.

Sodas
07-01-2014, 06:31 PM
To keep this statement balanced, I will point out that there is not a single "militia" or modern day equivalent of said "Minutemen", right or left. While it's a poor comparison, it's pretty much the French Tomayto Mob vs the French Tomahto Mob.

Gonzo's statement was about thinking and reading.

Even from the moment of the Tea party, we have thought things though.

Do you remember the story? Even though they dumped the tea into the harbor, they didn't destroy the ship or even damage the locks. It was a specific protest, that even at the time, was denounced by other American leaders, such as Benjamin Franklin.

Those were the early Federalists, later to become what is known as the Republican party (which is why it refers to it'self as the Grand Old Party).

It was the other side, officially turned into a party by Andrew Jackson, that was pro-slavery.

The Whigs formed counter. Call them pro-choice on slavery.

Well, that didn't work out. Sometimes you just can't sit on the fence on some issues. The Whigs dissolved and lead to the Republics, lead by a Abraham Lincoln. A home schooled chap, I may add, who fought the civil war against the South and the Democrats.

History isn't kind. After the war, the KKK stayed with the Democrats. Sure, there were 2 or 3 racists Republics, like Strom Thurmond, but what about the Byrd's, or Gore's father? Ah... now those were some good old fashion racists. They were all Democrats. When the south bordered up the schools in Alabama? It was a Democrat.

So you see, Republicans have always been the party of reason, thinking, and history (why the Elephant logo), while the Liberals take a cue from french history. After, what happened after the French revolution besides all the heads that rolled for no reason? On yeah, Napoleon. Another french Kingdom. 70+ years and then it became a Republic - only to be run over in 2 days by Germany twice in the 20th century - needing help from the Republic of the United States.

fdsaf3
07-01-2014, 06:39 PM
If I may ask you a question, do you live in the US?

I do.

eht slat meit
07-01-2014, 07:07 PM
So you see, Republicans have always been the party of reason, thinking, and history

Wow, that's a nice little fantasy, right up there on the same level as Obamacare being exactly everything it was promised to be.

Sodas
07-02-2014, 02:23 AM
I do.

What do you watch/read for news?

fdsaf3
07-02-2014, 12:37 PM
Combination of local news, NPR, and the BBC. Why? If you have a point to make, say it.

Nazbaque
07-02-2014, 03:41 PM
Combination of local news, NPR, and the BBC. Why? If you have a point to make, say it.

Shhhhh, don't get in their way. Sodas and eht are about force so many words in each other's mouths that they will reach critical mass in 30 posts or so. Just come with me to the ESC couch and watch the resulting chaos.

Sodas
07-02-2014, 07:00 PM
Combination of local news, NPR, and the BBC. Why? If you have a point to make, say it.

Touchy.

My point is this. None of that is conservative, at least that I suspect. How do you know your side isn't lying to you? Do you ever read or watch anything conservative, such as the Wall Street Journal or Forbes or Fox News?

I watch MSNBC, CNN, and BBC America. I read Huffington Post and the Atlantic. So at least I give the other side a chance.

Do you?

eht slat meit
07-02-2014, 08:01 PM
Shhhhh, don't get in their way. Sodas and eht are about force so many words in each other's mouths that they will reach critical mass in 30 posts or so. Just come with me to the ESC couch and watch the resulting chaos.

Careful, babe, your grudge is showing.

Zombie Sammael
07-03-2014, 12:55 AM
Touchy.

My point is this. None of that is conservative, at least that I suspect. How do you know your side isn't lying to you? Do you ever read or watch anything conservative, such as the Wall Street Journal or Forbes or Fox News?

I watch MSNBC, CNN, and BBC America. I read Huffington Post and the Atlantic. So at least I give the other side a chance.

Do you?

...this is the point where I'm forced to jump off the cozy ESC on a fairly minor point. The BBC is required by its charter as established in the UK to be politically neutral. It is often accused by both sides of breaking that rule, either in its news or other programming, which at least tells you that they are relatively successful at maintaining something a bit like neutrality.

In practice, what tends to happen is that they are never consistently biased towards one side or another; they seem to decide on a case by case basis whether to cover something from one angle or another, rather than having an editorial leaning towards one political persuasion or another like most commercial broadcasters. This is frustrating, but it at least means they are reliable about half the time, rather than any commercial broadcaster which, because of always having the same political bias, tend to spin things most of the time.

I would respect the opinion of someone who gets their news from the BBC significantly more than someone who gets their news from a combination of Fox and the Huffington Post, for the above reason.

Sodas
07-03-2014, 02:06 AM
The BBC is not conservative, nor does it express conservative in-depth opinions.

And if all your news you get watching your television (the BBC) I shudder... not saying you do.

Sodas
07-03-2014, 02:25 AM
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/30/obama-racking-up-judicial-losses/

"Just as damning was the way the court ruled in some of those cases. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. corralled unanimous votes on privacy and recess appointments — cases that dealt stinging defeats to Mr. Obama, himself a lawyer and former lecturer on constitutional law.

In the more than five years that Mr. Obama has been in office, the court has rejected the government’s argument with a 9-0 decision 20 times.

During the eight years each in the administrations of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the government lost on unanimous votes 15 times and 23 times, respectively. That puts the Obama administration on pace to greatly exceed recent predecessors in terms of judicial losses."

Zombie Sammael
07-03-2014, 02:27 AM
The BBC is not conservative, nor does it express conservative in-depth opinions.

And if all your news you get watching your television (the BBC) I shudder... not saying you do.

To nitpick: the BBC also has quite a good website with in-depth print articles. But no, I don't get all of my news from a single source.

Nazbaque
07-03-2014, 04:32 AM
Careful, babe, your grudge is showing.

*Anime highschool girl scream* Kyaaaaaaaaaa! PERVERT!


Always wanted to do that.

Terez
07-03-2014, 09:25 PM
For the record, the ruling was widened to include all forms of contraception, just as Ginsburg predicted:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception

Seeker
07-03-2014, 11:59 PM
Southpaw did actually explain this pretty well.

The main argument was the four birth control types that are abortive in nature.

Birth control is still available. This wasn't a birth control fight, this was an abortion fight, but very few news organizations are pointing that out. It would cause too much of an uproar on both sides. It was also a religious freedom fight for large business owners that are family owned.

The scope of the implications here is fairly small.

Small group employers are still REQUIRED to provide all forms of birth control. For now anyway, this could open a new can of worms, but we will see.

The one thing I find amusing is no one is noticing, or acknowledging the religious freedom side of this. Which was, if you recall your early education, part of what this country was founded upon. ;)

It is, as the Brits would say, a sticky wicket.

I don't like either outcome, as it only leads to more ranting and raving an banner waving by people who are only listening to sound bites. Though I don't like the decision, I personally think it was the right one based upon the law and PPACA guidelines. I voiced that on Facebook and was immediately attacked as a horrible person. THAT is where this leads. People just find another reason to hate each other.

Sorry, Sauce, but you're just factually wrong on this one. Hormonal based birth control does not act as an abortive agent. It prevents conception and actually decreases the chance that a fertilized egg will be killed by the woman's own reproductive system.

Many people who disagree with this ruling do so because Hobby Lobby got exclude these forms of birth control based on beliefs that were empirically tested and proven false, and their lawyers argued that it doesn't matter what the science says, Hobby Lobby should get to veto those birth control options because they believe them to be abortive in nature, not because they actually are.

I'll let Samantha Field do the leg work for this. She wrote a great post about it.

http://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/

GonzoTheGreat
07-04-2014, 02:58 AM
But, doesn't the First Amendment say that if reality disagrees with the faith of an American, then legally* reality is required to give way? :confused:

* Note: getting reality to comply does seem to require having some rather expensive lawyers, I admit.

Seeker
07-04-2014, 03:34 AM
Here's the basic problem.

Suppose a company doesn't want their drug plan to cover antibiotics. Now that the precedent has been set, they could easily say "We oppose murder on religious grounds, and we believe that antibiotics are poison."

Because of the nature of the decision - belief trumps empirical evidence - it doesn't matter if what they believe is factually true. They can oppose anti-depressants on religious grounds. Why "We oppose the use of mood altering drugs." If someone tries to point out the difference between mood-altering and mood-stabilizing drugs with actual science, that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is belief and belief can be whatever they say it is. The Supreme Court has handed Hobby Lobby and other such businesses a blank cheque.

Yes, there may be alternative ways for sick employees to get coverage. That's not that point. This decision has given companies the ability to ignore a binding contract based on any reason they want.

GonzoTheGreat
07-04-2014, 05:26 AM
Yes, there may be alternative ways for sick employees to get coverage. That's not that point. This decision has given companies the ability to ignore a binding contract based on any reason they want.
But don't worry too much, I'm sure that consumers will still be held bound to any contract they made (whether through a signature or just verbally) if that is in the interests of the companies.
So this is a clear compromise, with obvious give and take. (Who does the giving and who does the taking isn't quite balanced, perhaps, but such is life*.)

* And it is getting sucher every moment.

eht slat meit
07-04-2014, 11:46 AM
This decision has given companies the ability to ignore a binding contract based on any reason they want.

You're under the impression that plans work that way. Whenever someone chooses their plan, they choose one that best suits their needs. There is no single universal plan with a single universal costs that all payers use, with no options.

It simply means that employers, citing their religious objections, can legally choose one of a pair of plans that best suits their needs, rather than one government mandated option alone.

Seeker
07-04-2014, 01:14 PM
My point is that anything can be a religious objection since the Supreme Court has decided that such objections don't have to have a basis in fact. Employers can insist that their employees don't choose plans that cover medically necessary things like antidepressants.

eht slat meit
07-04-2014, 09:49 PM
My point is that anything can be a religious objection since the Supreme Court has decided that such objections don't have to have a basis in fact. Employers can insist that their employees don't choose plans that cover medically necessary things like antidepressants.

In point of fact, most places employees don't choose the plans - the employer does; a group plan that covers whatever they've decided on for their company. It may not even cover things like mental health care, "medically necessary" or not. I suspect you're not going to find that kind of cadillac plan unless you're some CEO with a golden parachute.

This is an ACA-specific issue that arises from *all* plans automatically covering it, per mandate. This change would require that health plans offer an alternative EHB without the pre-approved exemptions.

GonzoTheGreat
07-05-2014, 03:01 AM
My point is that anything can be a religious objection since the Supreme Court has decided that such objections don't have to have a basis in fact.
Well, the latter part actually makes sense, as any religion that does try to have a basis in fact has a very strong tendency to be proven plain wrong. Thus, the only religions that remain are those that are without any basis in fact, and therefor if you want to make laws concerning religion, you can't let facts get involved.

The thing that SCOTUS did wrong in my view is that they should have said "your religion is your own problem, do not impose it on anyone else". Instead they try to allow such imposition in some cases but not in others, which, considering the "no basis in fact" issue, is bound to lead to further trouble.

Sodas
07-05-2014, 04:21 AM
I'll let Samantha Field do the leg work for this. She wrote a great post about it.

http://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/

You mean, the same Samantha Fields who said,

"When Christianity has been the weapon used to beat you, sometimes, throwing the whole thing out is the only healthy thing left to do."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samantha-field/recovering-christian_b_3931685.html

Seeker
07-05-2014, 11:33 AM
You mean, the same Samantha Fields who said,

"When Christianity has been the weapon used to beat you, sometimes, throwing the whole thing out is the only healthy thing left to do."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samantha-field/recovering-christian_b_3931685.html

Yes. That one.

Good advice that.

eht slat meit
07-05-2014, 11:47 AM
Yes. That one.

Good advice that.

The awesome thing about that quote is that the religion and question can be legitimately and fairly substituted with any other religion or ideology.

Seeker
07-05-2014, 12:14 PM
That's true

Frenzy
07-08-2014, 12:24 AM
My thoughts? It's a huge mistake. Like Plessy v. Ferguson huge.

It allows businesses to pick and choose which laws apply to them based solely on an amorphous, undefinable variable called "belief." (don't like ACA? Get IT declared unconstitutional instead.)

It allows employers to dictate what their employees can or cannot do with the wages & benefits they earn. (but hey, who needs privacy....)

It places the religious beliefs of one group (business owners) above the legal rights of another group (their employees). Yes, employees can go find another job. So can the businessowners, so that argument is invalid.

eht slat meit
07-08-2014, 06:06 AM
It allows employers to dictate what their employees can or cannot do with the wages & benefits they earn. (but hey, who needs privacy....)

In point of fact, the employee does not and did not have the opportunity to decide - it was mandated by the Obamacare law. Further, they still have the right, should they wish, to do whatever they want with their wages, up to and including purchasing said items.

GonzoTheGreat
07-08-2014, 06:33 AM
Further, they still have the right, ...
For now. SCOTUS may rule on that in the future.

eht slat meit
07-08-2014, 05:02 PM
For now. SCOTUS may rule on that in the future.

Good luck on getting a lawsuit against someone for purchasing contraception with money out of their own pocket all the way to the Supreme Court without getting laughed out of court by everyone involved.

Frenzy
07-08-2014, 11:28 PM
Good luck on getting a lawsuit against someone for purchasing contraception with money out of their own pocket all the way to the Supreme Court without getting laughed out of court by everyone involved.

Griswold_v._Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut), back in 1965. Then there was Eisenstadt_v._Baird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenstadt_v._Baird), a mere 42 years ago.

How far we've come... :rolleyes:

Seeker
07-09-2014, 01:33 AM
My thoughts? It's a huge mistake. Like Plessy v. Ferguson huge.

It allows businesses to pick and choose which laws apply to them based solely on an amorphous, undefinable variable called "belief." (don't like ACA? Get IT declared unconstitutional instead.)

It allows employers to dictate what their employees can or cannot do with the wages & benefits they earn. (but hey, who needs privacy....)

It places the religious beliefs of one group (business owners) above the legal rights of another group (their employees). Yes, employees can go find another job. So can the businessowners, so that argument is invalid.

As usual, Frenzy for the win.

I didn't even have to make with the blood sacrifices.

Brilliantly said.

Zombie Sammael
07-09-2014, 02:57 AM
As usual, Frenzy for the win.

I didn't even have to make with the blood sacrifices.

Brilliantly said.

Best do the blood sacrifices anyway. Frenzy can get... antsy... if she realises she's missed them.

Nazbaque
07-09-2014, 02:58 AM
As usual, Frenzy for the win.

I didn't even have to make with the blood sacrifices.

Brilliantly said.

*Suppressed tears* I know. I am so proud of my daughters. Such generosity.

eht slat meit
07-09-2014, 06:15 AM
How far we've come... :rolleyes:

Yeah, forty years later we really *have* come that far. Do you realize how nonsensical those must sound in modern context? Unmarried couples *not* being allowed contraception? People producing kids like rabbits?

Hell, you could go back 30 years before *that* and see a similar level of progress from some truly archaic mindsets where even Hollywood openly and actively engaged in pro-religion oppression.

*Real progress* doesn't happen overnight or at the drop of some fancy new legislation.

I'd say it's the fact that nobody could take such laws seriously in the modern context that really does show how far we've come.

Terez
07-09-2014, 06:43 AM
It is just as difficult to take the modern protestations seriously. The arguments fall apart in so many ways. The funniest was the Catholic school that was among the first to protest the mandate; it was discovered that their health plans already covered contraception and they had no idea, because it had never occurred to them to care until it became a political issue.

GonzoTheGreat
07-09-2014, 07:34 AM
It is just as difficult to take the modern protestations seriously. The arguments fall apart in so many ways. The funniest was the Catholic school that was among the first to protest the mandate; it was discovered that their health plans already covered contraception and they had no idea, because it had never occurred to them to care until it became a political issue.
They have a good example when it comes to be noticeably ignorant:
Acts|4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

So they were merely following the first Pope's example, it seems.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-09-2014, 09:27 AM
In point of fact, most places employees don't choose the plans - the employer does; a group plan that covers whatever they've decided on for their company. It may not even cover things like mental health care, "medically necessary" or not. I suspect you're not going to find that kind of cadillac plan unless you're some CEO with a golden parachute.

This is an ACA-specific issue that arises from *all* plans automatically covering it, per mandate. This change would require that health plans offer an alternative EHB without the pre-approved exemptions.

Mental health is part of the "essential benefits" that are required under all plans. If minimums are not met, the company will be fined for not meeting the regulations. Mental health was actually already being worked on by states and insurers prior to ACA-overdose. Mental Health Parity went quite a ways in changing the game on that issue, and things were continuing to evolve.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-09-2014, 09:31 AM
Oh, and "Cadillac" plans will soon be the subject of up to a 50% additional tax for being too rich an offering. If you want it, you pay for it. And by you, I mean the enrollee, as the company can pass along the costs.

Unless someone on payroll is very, very, very ill and requires a Cadillac plan be continued for some reason, most of those have disappeared.

So yeah, wow, great, healthcare for all yay!

But if you want a Cadillac, gee, you probably can't have it.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-09-2014, 09:35 AM
hehehehe

I was just thinking how much fun Davian will have upon his return home once he reads this thread.

Wedded bliss may not be able to override his head from exploding as he writes out his thoughts on this topic.

eht slat meit
07-09-2014, 05:29 PM
Mental health is part of the "essential benefits" that are required under all plans. If minimums are not met, the company will be fined for not meeting the regulations. Mental health was actually already being worked on by states and insurers prior to ACA-overdose. Mental Health Parity went quite a ways in changing the game on that issue, and things were continuing to evolve.

I've noticed that, and done some research on it. Isn't it nice and convenient that this benefit was specifically constructed in such a way as to provide maximum damage control for the carrier, and not only keep the benefit away from those who need it the most, but to stymie further reform?

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-09-2014, 05:48 PM
I've noticed that, and done some research on it. Isn't it nice and convenient that this benefit was specifically constructed in such a way as to provide maximum damage control for the carrier, and not only keep the benefit away from those who need it the most, but to stymie further reform?

You need to explain damage control and your research. Now that you agree it isn't a CEO parachute benefit that is.

eht slat meit
07-09-2014, 06:20 PM
You need to explain damage control and your research. Now that you agree it isn't a CEO parachute benefit that is.

I'm not sure what a "CEO parachute benefit" is unless that's some sort of reference to cadillac plans, which is not what I'm talking about here.

I'm talking about the authors of the ACA, and the specific design of mental health benefits that benefit them rather than the people who need that benefit the most. Do you know who that is?

Research is as simple as looking up the details of the specific benefit and the mental health parity law it's based on and discovering that it's nowhere near good as it's pumped up to be, intended to treat acute mental issues rather than more severe chronic mental issues.

In "damage control" terms, that means that those who need it the most and will cost the most will never receive the benefits they need the most from the plans. The end goal is to protect the profits of those paying for the benefit.

But hey, telling people that everyone has to pay a boatload more for their insurance because of these wonderful "essential benefits" looks a lot better when those who wrote it can pretend they're doing the world a big old favor and have completely reformed from their evil ways before the new law came along, doesn't it?

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-09-2014, 09:47 PM
You referenced a CEO golden parachute in your post. Then reversed your point completely when I pointed out that was wrong. Then act like I am making up something?????

Let me know when you decide what exactly your point is on this because you are all over the place. I am not arguing FOR ACA. So redirect a bit here.

Frenzy
07-09-2014, 10:06 PM
Yes, best to err on the side of blood and sacrifice.

case in point... (http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/killer-squirrel-has-worlds-bushiest-tail)

Uno
07-09-2014, 10:37 PM
Good luck on getting a lawsuit against someone for purchasing contraception with money out of their own pocket all the way to the Supreme Court without getting laughed out of court by everyone involved.

A business doesn't have to sue anyone for purchasing contraceptions. The corporation merely says that its employees aren't allowed to purchase contraceptions (or anything else that's objectionable) with the money they earn, as that would amount to the corporation paying people to indulge in behaviour that violates the corporation's tender religious conscience. The employees sue, and the high court finds in favour of corporate religiosity. I'm not entirely convinced that scenario is outside of the realm of the possible.

eht slat meit
07-10-2014, 12:16 AM
A business doesn't have to sue anyone for purchasing contraceptions. The corporation merely says that its employees aren't allowed to purchase contraceptions (or anything else that's objectionable) with the money they earn, as that would amount to the corporation paying people to indulge in behaviour that violates the corporation's tender religious conscience. The employees sue, and the high court finds in favour of corporate religiosity. I'm not entirely convinced that scenario is outside of the realm of the possible.

In both cases, the business has always been allowed to define what it will and will not provide as compensation for work, a given wage, and possibly a benefits package, the specifics of that package defined by and solely by agreement between the employer and the insurance carrier. The employee is not a part of that decision and was never intended to be part of that decision. Obamacare changed that, and shouldn't have because while it may be constitutional, it certainly isn't the government's place to be telling a business what they can and can't purchase in their health plans.

In point of fact, that decision has NEVER been made by the employee, and in further point of fact still isn't made by the employee but by a bunch of .... surprise, surprise... businesses even bigger than Hobby Lobby in a back room.

eht slat meit
07-10-2014, 12:22 AM
You referenced a CEO golden parachute in your post.

???

Which one, and where? I'm pretty sure that I was not referring to CEO golden parachutes anywhere, but if I'm wrong, feel free to quote me on it and show me.

Then reversed your point completely when I pointed out that was wrong. Then act like I am making up something?????

No, I was asking you to clarify what you are talking about because I seriously don't remember referencing either in defense or in opposition to golden parachutes...

Let me know when you decide what exactly your point is on this because you are all over the place. I am not arguing FOR ACA. So redirect a bit here.

Neither am I - the only thing we had any "disagreement" on is this golden parachute thing, because I don't know what you're referring to and would like it clarified to me. I'm thinking you're reading something unintended into something I said. I'm not calling you a liar or saying you're making something up - I am seeking clarification on where this is coming from. Misunderstandings happen all the time on the internet.

Terez
07-10-2014, 12:27 AM
In point of fact, most places employees don't choose the plans - the employer does; a group plan that covers whatever they've decided on for their company. It may not even cover things like mental health care, "medically necessary" or not. I suspect you're not going to find that kind of cadillac plan unless you're some CEO with a golden parachute.


???I'm pretty sure that I was not referring to CEO golden parachutes anywhere, but if I'm wrong, feel free to quote me on it and show me.
.

eht slat meit
07-10-2014, 12:31 AM
Okay found it, noted that I did mention golden parachutes and had completely forgotten it. My apologies for the mistake - it was an off the cuff remark and was meant to represent the insignificant nature of the mental health essential benefit that ACA provides. As I pointed out elsewhere, it really *is* insignificant to those most in need of such a benefit.

I can see where I didn't make it clear that I understand that specific EHB exists in the ACA.

*This* was my point -> the shortcomings of Obamacare that only exist to promote it.

I'm sure there are better plans for such benefits if one is willing and can afford to take the price and tax hits that have already been mentioned, but that's really not integral to the overall point about the failure.

fdsaf3
07-16-2014, 12:55 PM
My reaction, after reading the majority and dissenting opinions, is that I largely agree with the majority opinion - and that was a surprise to me. I personally don't subscribe in general to the "slippery slope" criticism, so I don't see this as opening the door to any larger issues in the future.

I also take issue with the common criticism of the decision that I've seen on Facebook and heard my friends make: it's just not true that any employer can get out of any legal requirement based on their religious beliefs. There are legal definitions of the core concepts at issue here, and sincerely held religious beliefs are one of them. It's disingenuous to say that anyone or any company can simply claim religious belief to get out of something - that's not what the ruling says.

More to the point, the ruling was pretty freaking narrow in my understanding. The problem was in compelling companies to provide those specific forms of birth control, which they object to based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. The ruling, if I read it correctly, stated that there are other options to provide individuals who want or need those forms of birth control which do not force select companies or closely held corporations comprised of individuals to violate their religious beliefs.

It's somewhat of a conservative ruling, but to my mind it's the correct one. Until and unless laws change surrounding the how much religious freedom corporations have, I think the laws in place were applied fairly.

This might be beating a dead horse at this point, but I just thought I'd share.

edit:

I'm not a legal scholar, so if I misunderstood something it's not malicious. It was simply an oversight or my lack of understanding. I have no political agenda on this issue.

GonzoTheGreat
07-17-2014, 03:06 AM
I haven't read the ruling. Does it say that the company (HL) has to give its employees the money that would otherwise go to the insurance company to pay for the possibility of having to pay for that birth control?

To clarify:
Say that the normal rate for health insurance is X dollars. Now some things aren't covered, so the rate can be 0.9X instead (or 0.95X, or whatever).
This means that HL saves 0.1X on insurance costs, or that the insurance company has an unexpected gain of 0.1X.
At the same time, on average, the employees would have extra costs they can't get reimbursed of 0.1X.
So it seems logical to me that the court would have stipulated that this money should go directly from HL to its employees. However, being a bit cynical, I rather doubt the court was this logical.

So I'm left wondering who benefits financially from this, and I don't think it is the workers.

Terez
07-17-2014, 04:03 AM
I haven't read the ruling. Does it say that the company (HL) has to give its employees the money that would otherwise go to the insurance company to pay for the possibility of having to pay for that birth control?

To clarify:
Say that the normal rate for health insurance is X dollars. Now some things aren't covered, so the rate can be 0.9X instead (or 0.95X, or whatever).
This means that HL saves 0.1X on insurance costs, or that the insurance company has an unexpected gain of 0.1X.
The gain most likely goes to the insurance company, which is part of what makes the issue so ridiculous.

eht slat meit
07-17-2014, 06:07 AM
I haven't read the ruling. Does it say that the company (HL) has to give its employees the money that would otherwise go to the insurance company to pay for the possibility of having to pay for that birth control?

No, and I can't imagine any reason it would. The insurance benefits one receives from an employer are typically determined by the employer, and that now appears to extend in an extremely limited fashion to these EHBs. That may change if the administration ever gets around to upholding the business mandate instead of just shafting people with the individual mandate, but that remains to be seen.

Theoretically the insurance plan benefits from not having to 100% the four forms of birth control that weren't covered, but as far as I know, there was nothing special about these particular types that made them wildly popular among HL employees, and since insurance companies helped write this Obamacare legislation, I can't see why they'd be in a hurry to undo the cheap bits that help them whitewash their ugly little reputation.

I suspect this whole issue was less about "follow the money" than it was about "find the chinks in Obamacare and do some damage, and scoring minor ideological victories.

GonzoTheGreat
07-17-2014, 07:48 AM
The gain most likely goes to the insurance company, which is part of what makes the issue so ridiculous.
Just for fun: on average pregnancy is more costly than no pregnancy, so it is even possible that this will cost the insurers money. Of course, they could simply charge HL more to recover this extra cost.

Terez
07-17-2014, 09:04 AM
No, and I can't imagine any reason it would. The insurance benefits one receives from an employer are typically determined by the employer, and that now appears to extend in an extremely limited fashion to these EHBs. That may change if the administration ever gets around to upholding the business mandate instead of just shafting people with the individual mandate, but that remains to be seen.
96% of US businesses have fewer than 50 employees and thus won't be subject to that mandate; many of the other 4% already provide insurance. The ones who didn't said they needed more time to prepare for the mandate because the regulations were confusing; Obama, not wanting to be unreasonable, decided why not?

Theoretically the insurance plan benefits from not having to 100% the four forms of birth control that weren't covered...
You must have missed where the ruling was extended (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception).

fdsaf3
07-17-2014, 12:13 PM
96% of US businesses have fewer than 50 employees and thus won't be subject to that mandate; many of the other 4% already provide insurance. The ones who didn't said they needed more time to prepare for the mandate because the regulations were confusing; Obama, not wanting to be unreasonable, decided why not?


You must have missed where the ruling was extended (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception).

You must have missed the part of that article where nothing was extended: the Supreme Court ordered cases to be reheard, but it's not as though suddenly all forms of birth control are subject off the table. I don't think it's uncommon for cases to be reheard when possibly landmark decisions get handed down. Then again, I'm far from an expert when it comes to the historical aspects of Supreme Court decisions. I could be wrong.

My understanding of the Hobby Lobby ruling is that for an employer to get out of providing ANY form of medical care which violates the religious beliefs of the owner or shareholders, there are still a significant number of legal hoops that are required to be jumped through.

I really don't see why this is being framed by people who disagree with the decision in the way that you seem to be describing it. The circumstances in which the decision was made seem pretty specific, and, despite the Mother Jones article you're citing, the decision seems pretty narrow to me. I'm genuinely curious what your objection is to the logic applied by the majority justices if you disagree with their decision. What I'm not at all interested in is having a debate where the central issues are politically charged buzzwords and disingenuous misrepresentations of the facts and arguments being applied in making this decision. Not that I'm accusing you of being dishonest; rather, I'm trying to say that in my experience, these kinds of decisions seem to always be about the outcome and not the process by which the outcome was decided. The latter is subject to political spin whereas the former is not.

Also, I'm very curious about the statistic of 96% of businesses having fewer than 50 employees. If you don't mind, what is the source of that statistic? I'm also very curious to know what percentage of Americans are employed by businesses with fewer than 50 employees. I think that could be a very fruitful and interesting discussion about the potential impact of the ACA which I honestly haven't thought about before.

Terez
07-17-2014, 12:27 PM
You must have missed the part of that article where nothing was extended: the Supreme Court ordered cases to be reheard, but it's not as though suddenly all forms of birth control are subject off the table.
If the ruling was limited to four types of birth control, then they would have only recommended rehearings for cases that concerned those types of birth control.

fdsaf3
07-17-2014, 01:14 PM
If the ruling was limited to four types of birth control, then they would have only recommended rehearings for cases that concerned those types of birth control.

The ruling was limited to those types of birth control because those are the forms objected to by the people who filed the lawsuit. At least, I think that's how it works.

Even so, I don't think it's fair or accurate to say that the ruling has been extended. It's possible that some other court cases will be decided differently now, I suppose, but it's not like the actual ruling itself issued by the Supreme Court has been extended. There's a difference.

eht slat meit
07-17-2014, 05:39 PM
96% of US businesses have fewer than 50 employees and thus won't be subject to that mandate; many of the other 4% already provide insurance. The ones who didn't said they needed more time to prepare for the mandate because the regulations were confusing; Obama, not wanting to be unreasonable, decided why not?

Because the deadline was law a part of the law itself, for starters, and Obama believes in upholding that law more than anything else if you believe everything he tells you. But I guess the new definition of "reasonable" means changing the law whenever you want, without the pesky whiny Republicans to get in the way.


You must have missed where the ruling was extended (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception).[/quote]

You must have missed the part where I was referring specifically to the topic of discussion here - Hobby Lobby, and more specifically: Plan B, Ella, Copper IUD and Progestin IUD, which were the targets of their complaints.

Now, if you actually want to discuss the fact that this means businesses refuses to buy plans on religious objects to the EHB for *all* contraception, I'll agree. They certainly could. And gosh, wouldn't that be so horrific returning those HORRIBLY UNLUCKY men and women who have health insurance through their employers to the oppressed state they suffered from not having birth control before 2013. Practically the Dark Ages, dood!

And here, the money may be somewhat more substantial, but the money goes back to the administrations insurance cronies, not Hobby Lobby, who is more than likely to have said insurance companies pull some "increased pricing" thing for "specialized EHB-limited group plans"

Which basically amounts to a double-win for them.

As was no doubt expected.

Terez
07-17-2014, 05:42 PM
Because the deadline was law a part of the law itself, for starters, and Obama believes in upholding that law more than anything else if you believe everything he tells you. But I guess the new definition of "reasonable" means changing the law whenever you want, without the pesky whiny Republicans to get in the way.
That is some incredibly stretchy logic. Laws have portions delayed all the time, for various reasons. Either it has major consequences, or it doesn't. (Hint: in this case it's the latter.)

eht slat meit
07-17-2014, 08:26 PM
That is some incredibly stretchy logic. Laws have portions delayed all the time, for various reasons. Either it has major consequences, or it doesn't. (Hint: in this case it's the latter.)

Right, right, because it's critically important that we start raping the middle class with a tax they were promised they would never have while it's perfectly reasonable to delay the same mandate for businesses as long as those businesses insist they need it.

As far as consequences go, ask yourself how "major" it is when a select group of people rather than the entire base that tax was intended for are forced to foot the bill?

Cor Shan
07-18-2014, 01:01 AM
If the ruling was limited to four types of birth control, then they would have only recommended rehearings for cases that concerned those types of birth control.

Which were objected to because they cause abortion, because Hobby Lobby couldn't be assed to phone up an OBGYN and ask about it.

So this whole case is fundamentally stupid; I didn't know factually incorrect statements qualify under 1A rights.

GonzoTheGreat
07-18-2014, 03:13 AM
So this whole case is fundamentally stupid; I didn't know factually incorrect statements qualify under 1A rights.
The whole point of religion is being factually incorrect. If it has a basis in reality then it is not religion.

So it seems obvious that the 1A part dealing with religion has no basis in reality too. It is fiction, and has to be evaluated on that basis. Fortunately*, most people with a law degree have a very tenuous idea of science anyway, so they aren't too likely to let the difference between reality and lunacy restrain them in cases like this.

* Or perhaps not so fortunately. Depends on how you look at it, I guess. If you want a judge who pays attention to actual evidence, then it would be nice if that judge had some clue when it came to understanding what is and isn't dependable evidence. If you want a judge who can ignore reality whenever a legal fiction would be more pleasing, then the current system is swell.

Terez
07-18-2014, 04:28 AM
Right, right, because it's critically important that we start raping the middle class with a tax they were promised they would never have while it's perfectly reasonable to delay the same mandate for businesses as long as those businesses insist they need it.
The middle class is not being raped; most people are saving money. The business mandate was not crucial to the implementation of the law; the individual mandate was. And of course, the business mandate was not done away with, just delayed.

eht slat meit
07-19-2014, 10:56 AM
most people are saving money.

Statistically unsupported claim, other than by the worst kind of grocery-market spin.
Premiums are going


The business mandate was not crucial to the implementation of the law; the individual mandate was. And of course, the business mandate was not done away with, just delayed.[/QUOTE]
* Premiums have gone up: http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/obama-mixing-and-matching-insurance-stats/
* Premiums go up II: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/04/07/health-plan-premiums-are-skyrocketing-according-to-new-survey-of-148-insurance-brokers-analysts-blame-obamacare/
* Insurers told you they'd do it:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/23/news/economy/health_reform_insurers_react/
* Deductibles go up as "trade-off": It's not much of a trade-off when premiums go up too. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-deductibles-deliver-hefty-sticker-shock/


Mind you, that's regular plans, not the HEX plans. *All* plans are affected by Obamacare, but HEX plans receive special considerations that... dun dun dun... the middle class doesn't get.

We could go into HEX plans as well and quotes by some of the same reps stating HEX plans will triple their premiums as well, but this is about the middle class, the ones who are *really* footing the bill.

Kathleen Sebelius Sedai says: " Kathleen Sebelius who said, "The increases are far less significant than what they were prior to the Affordable Care Act."

Spot how the Gray Ajah is manipulating you.

See, what it comes down to is this: Some people save money, and in a very limited fashion. These are the people who get nifty subsidies and Medicaid and other great goodies courtesy of HEX plans. Sadly, the middle class, as a rule, does not qualify for HEX plans, let alone those great subsidies. They get price-jacked, or as I like to put it "raped" by a giant-sized annual TAX that Obama said he would NEVER inflict on them.

suttree
07-24-2014, 10:26 PM
@eht

Not that they are all that legit, but have to ask if you've actually read completely through some of the links provided? More so if you've been following numbers presented by the CBO during the months since many of those stories were written?

The CBO found that premiums in the new marketplaces for individual insurance buyers are not as high as many experts — including the CBO itself — expected, and that they will remain below projections. This indicates that a basic trade-off embedded in the law may well be cheaper than anticipated.

As Jonathan Gruber the architect of the Romney plan has said in relation to the ACA:

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

eht slat meit
07-25-2014, 06:13 AM
@eht

Not that they are all that legit, but have to ask if you've actually read completely through some of the links provided? More so if you've been following numbers presented by the CBO during the months since many of those stories were written?

At one point, I read through them, yes. When I reference my points, I am revisiting articles I've read. I do not consider the CBO or any other source the end-all and be-all of argument, but I do consider them a much better and far less... compromised source than the administration itself or any of it's Big Insurance/Pharma cronies.

I will happily acknowledge that the rhetoric about exactly how *high* the premiums are right now is very much that, but they are going up, and they are expected to go up much further. I'm taking that from multiple sources, and I do not consider the administration - which has admitted it knows absolutely nothing about the plan it endorses, other than talking points - to be a legitimate source.

As Jonathan Gruber the architect of the Romney plan has said in relation to the ACA:

Given the information provided, Gruber's pretty clearly full of shit, and given how many parallels have been drawn between Romneycare and Obamacare, it's rather clear what his agenda is. You would think the Democrats would be a *little* more skeptical of something they claim was taken from the Republicans, but apparently once they put their stamp of approval on something they don't dare retreat from it at all.

The most astonishingly stupid part of the quote is claiming Americans are left alone. Seriously, 100% of Americans are impacted by ACA, and the majority of Americans were kicked off existing plans so that they could be brought onto plans that are in line with ACA dictates, necessitating a rise in costs. Left alone? Please. His agenda is pretty obvious - whitewash.

suttree
07-25-2014, 01:03 PM
I will happily acknowledge that the rhetoric about exactly how *high* the premiums are right now is very much that, but they are going up, and they are expected to go up much further.

The problem being the "rhetoric" has skewed most rational discussion on the topic. The amount of misinformation that was spread is appalling. From doomsday predictions around not hitting sign up goals, to those absolute jokes of Obamacare "horror stories" that have been debunked one after another, (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-obamacare-horror-stories-20140220-story.html) each and every attempt to tear down the law has been an absolute failure. Why? Because even though it's a flawed solution, any objective observer has to agree that it's working. Now let's take a look at the "rhetoric" around premiums. I've already presented the CBO numbers, but here is another source. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/obamacare-premiums-aren-t-living-up-to-doomsayers-predictions-20140721)


Obamacare's critics promised the law would send insurance premiums skyrocketing. They were wrong.

Or, if they're not wrong, they're at least not right yet.

Nearly 20 states have released preliminary information about premiums for insurance policies sold on their insurance exchanges, and the nightmare scenarios have not come to pass. In most of those states, the average increase across all exchange plans is in the single digits.

According to a PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis of 18 states' initial filings, 10 states will see average premium increases of less than 10 percent—nominal hikes in line with the standard increases that have happened every year with or without Obamacare...

Larry Levitt, vice president for special initiatives at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said he's surprised by the variation in proposed changes but that on average, premiums are working out to about what he expected: hikes of 7 percent to 8 percent in most places.

Premiums go up every year, and Levitt said increases of about 8 percent were to be expected based on rising medical spending and adjustments based on the first year of enrollment.

Think it would help if people stopped parroting all the right wing scream radio soundbites and dug into the facts a bit more. Premiums increase every year but bottom line health care spending has been growing at historically low rates. How much of that can be attributed to the ACA is debatable but it's an encouraging trend regardless.


Given the information provided, Gruber's pretty clearly full of shit,

Not at all, the stats have shown him to be pretty damn close to spot on.


You would think the Democrats would be a *little* more skeptical of something they claim was taken from the Republicans, but apparently once they put their stamp of approval on something they don't dare retreat from it at all.

First off it's not a claim. The blueprint was initially devised by the Heritage Foundation and then fleshed out by Romney. What democrats have done is compromise to get something done and provide a solution. If single payer is off the table any reform that ensures people with preexisting conditions can get coverage pretty much has to look like the ACA. You can't move any further to the right without doing no reform at all. It also should be noted that as with most other issues, the right has zero solution in terms of reform. They've become the party of obstructionism and screaming, while offering nothing in the way of alternatives.


and the majority of Americans were kicked off existing plans so that they could be brought onto plans that are in line with ACA dictates, necessitating a rise in costs.

I'm confused. The vast majority of Americans weren't in the private insurance market to begin with. For those 2% or so of people who were forced off lousy policies it was essential to set minimum standards so they didn't continue to get ripped off.

eht slat meit
07-27-2014, 12:40 PM
The problem being the "rhetoric" has skewed most rational discussion on the topic.

We agree on this. I'll further extend that point by clarifying that the skew and misinformation is NOT one-sided[/quote]

From doomsday predictions around not hitting sign up goals,

Given that the goal and promise was 100%, I think it's safe to say that while it's not "doomsday" it's certainly the truth. Notice how fast the backpedaling of 8.1M started shrinking even further once real numbers came in? Yeah.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/15-20-percent-aren-t-paying-obamacare-premiums-insurer-says-20140402

This source came AFTER the 8.1M number. Just for the Blues tho - let's give it the huge benefit of the doubt and say the real average is 10, not 20, across the board. Number drops to 7.25M. Oops. That's not even taking into account the second factor.

to those absolute jokes of Obamacare "horror stories" that have been debunked one after another,

Agreed. Further extended with the absolute joke of Obamacare "success stories".

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-stories.php

There's a collection of both horror and success stories, some of which can easily be verified as false on both sides.

[/URL] each and every attempt to tear down the law has been an absolute failure. Why?[/quote]

Just because the law is flawed doesn't mean a bunch of idiots will automatically succeed in tearing it down. Why? Because, idiots.

Because even though it's a flawed solution, any objective observer has to agree that it's working.

No, an objective observer absolutely does NOT have to agree, and quite frankly I question your grasp of the facts when you make that claim.

Be explicit in what you are claiming Obamacare is meant to do and succeeding at for its scope, size and soul-sucking leeching of the taxpayers.

Incidentally, while I'm updating my sources, I'm seeking YOUR source on this one.

Now let's take a look at the "rhetoric" around premiums.

I'm going to take a moment to point out - again due to failure of both Reps and Dems - that the debate on premiums, while important, is not the whole of the debate on Obamacares many flaws. I think you're wrong, but that wrongness simply one of many that the law perpetrates.

Sup, increased deductibles? I'm getting those too, and thanking god we aren't getting hit hard in ours yet.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-sticker-shock-found-deductibles-104500233.html

Think it would help if people stopped parroting all the right wing scream radio soundbites and dug into the facts a bit more.

Abssolutely! ANd while you're at it, stop parroting the administration soundbites made by politcians who clearly and truthfully stated beforehand that they had no idea what is in the law. They are simply parroting what their insurance cronies told them.

“But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”

Yet Pelosi and the Dems CAN tel us what it does without looking.

/snarky comment about aes sedai

Premiums increase every year but bottom line health care spending has been growing at historically low rates.

Meaningless data, since even the historically low rates are well beyond the means of any normal people, and not only that but the benefits Obamacare offers to those not on the exchanges does absolutely NOTHING to save someone from medical bankruptcy.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

How much of that can be attributed to the ACA is debatable but it's an encouraging trend regardless.

Little to none of that can be attributed to the ACA. The great insurance kick-off hasn't been in effect long enough.

Explained this below.

Not at all, the stats have shown him to be pretty damn close to spot on.

You mean like the current discussion where your source is getting his reputation publicly kicked to shit by the Democrats because he sided with the Republicans in saying the feds can't pay for subsidies? Lol, yeah.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber-if-youre-a-state-and-you-dont-set-up-an-exchange-that-means-your-citizens-dont-get-their-tax-credits/

First off it's not a claim. The blueprint was initially devised by the Heritage Foundation and then fleshed out by Romney.

Provide a source for your claim. This is a claim until you prove otherwise, because quite frankly, five Democrats are credited with authoring that bill and a number of Big Insurance/Pharma folks, the list of whom doesn't appear to include his name.

Or perhaps you're calling Max Baucus a liar?

This may be why you got feisty with me on the topic of sourcing. If so, my bad. If not, I'm expecting your counter-source. Given that Jonathan Gruber appears to be an even bigger ass than Max Baucus, I'm not expecting you to appreciate the results of your search.

What democrats have done is compromise to get something done and provide a solution.

Democrats never "compromised". Single payer was never on the table. They sold you out. If they simply pushed a plan that Republicans made, then you're a bunch of goddamn fools for scamming a plan from a bunch of corporatist shills like the Republican party.

If single payer is off the table

Democrats took it off the table, and not only that, those who wrote and controlled the ACA legislation were radically anti-single payer from the beginning, so much so that these Democrats had the protestors arrested and barred from the private discussion on just what "Obamacare" privileges we would all be allowed to have.

any reform that ensures people with preexisting conditions can get coverage pretty much has to look like the ACA.

SPeaking of misdirection... You realize that pre-existing conditions are only one of myriad excuses they can deny you coverage for and they've got new ones based on the Obamacare reform they've created, right?

I won't source this, because any medical biller can tell you the same damn thing. Hell, even people who have had ridiculous hospital bills where the insurance assholes cut and run can tell you the same thing.

You can't move any further to the right without doing no reform at all.

Obamacare is not reform. Calling it that and making a few paltry changes doesn't make it so.

See above for why I consider pre-existing a paltry change. I won't go into Medicaid, because I *think* everyone knows why Medicaid sucks.

It also should be noted that as with most other issues, the right has zero solution in terms of reform.

According to you, the right "created" Obamacare, so where does this match your claim of zero solutions? What you're telling me seems to be that the Democratic party plagiarized the right's work and passed it off as their own.

I'm confused. The vast majority of Americans weren't in the private insurance market to begin with.

I'm referring to every single American that had insurance in the first place.

For those 2% or so of people who were forced off lousy policies

Speaking of no information, this is pure Democrat propaganda. I have a great policy, as do many others who get their insurance through their employers. I, like everyone else, lost that policy because it was "lousy" and had it replaced with a "new" policy that is far more expensive and offers me NOTHING new except for EHBS.

You understand that EHBs don't make lousy policies into great ones, right? Do you even understand how little the EHBs actually do?

it was essential to set minimum standards so they didn't continue to get ripped off.

To answer my own question, apparently you do NOT know what EHBs do. So, speaking of misinformation, how about you go do a little research and find out exactly what these EHBs you are treating as a godsend actually do, eh?

You can start by looking at the Hobby Lobby EHB, and work through the other 7 or so.

Kimon
07-27-2014, 01:17 PM
I have a great policy, as do many others who get their insurance through their employers. I, like everyone else, lost that policy because it was "lousy" and had it replaced with a "new" policy that is far more expensive and offers me NOTHING new except for EHBS.



I'd imagine that this is the source of your animosity. I won't debate whether you have the right to be irritated since your rates went up. You do. The fact that this happened to you however does not mean that this is common. I had Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois through my employer before and after the changes went into effect, and my rates haven't gone up.

suttree
07-27-2014, 01:24 PM
Sorry eht, at this point you seem to be fine with just making things up to support your argument. Gonna have to ask you to start sourcing claims. You have put forth a number of things you seem to think of as facts which are flat out wrong. More so I haven't cited any "administration" sound bites. I'm no fan of the current system.

Additionally saying "well both sides" is intellectually lazy(and not true in how you've applied it above). We don't need to continue but if you care to, you're going to have to start debating in good faith. Personal anecdotes and ignoring some simple facts doesn't really cut it. As Kimon said I'm sorry this has personally affected you, but it doesn't mean it's common. Claiming it's happened to the majority of Americans is the worst type of rhetoric.

Kimon
07-27-2014, 01:29 PM
Sorry eht, at this point you seem to be fine with just making things up to support your argument. Gonna have to ask you to start sourcing claims. You have put forth a number of things you seem to think of as facts which are flat out wrong.

Additionally saying "well both sides" is intellectually lazy(and not true in how you've applied it above). We don't need to continue but if you care to, you're going to have to start debating in good faith. Personal anecdotes and ignoring some simple facts doesn't really cut it.

I think that the key element here is his admission that apparently his prior plan had not included the so-called essential health benefits (EHBS).

This is what those are:

Essential health benefits must include items and services within at least the following 10 categories: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

If his prior plan didn't include these, but his new does, it makes sense that his rates would have gone up. It also indicates why his prior plan would have been considered "lousy".

Edit: the above was from healthcare.gov

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/essential-health-benefits/

eht slat meit
07-27-2014, 05:10 PM
Sorry eht, at this point you seem to be fine with just making things up to support your argument.

And yet you have in no way shown none of my points to be false. You are simply asserting they are lies with only your own authority to back it up. I'm sorry, but I don't know who you are.

Gonna have to ask you to start sourcing claims.

That's fine by me. I expect the same from you. And no, throwing in a couple of weak sources like that doesn't constitute sourcing your claims.

You have put forth a number of things you seem to think of as facts which are flat out wrong.

Interestingly enough, you fail to cite any of them.

More so I haven't cited any "administration" sound bites.

"What democrats have done is compromise to get something done and provide a solution."

This is a sound bite, and based on a flat out lie concocted from things voters were led to believe by the administration - specifically that the single payer option was EVER on the table and that the Democrats compromised by giving it up.

It was not. The Republicans hated it, and so did the Democrats. All five Democrat leaders insisted that it would never be allowed to come to pass (by themselves, not Republicans), and had the single payer protestors arrested and barred from attending further discussion the second they shut down any further discussion by stating that it would not be allowed on the table for debate. Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Bill Nelson and Tom Carper.

Protestor Arrests: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/13/baucus_raucus_caucus_doctors_nurses_and

Given that these five people are easily sourced for their views on single payer with a simple search, I expect you to look those up. They are all staunch opponents.

The single payer option was never intended to be at the table. Democrats gave up nothing.

Note that at least three are considered traitors by the liberals at Daily KoS for their actions.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/09/30/787917/-Max-Baucus-Kent-Conrad-and-Blanche-Lincoln-about-to-cost-Dems-their-majority#

[Additionally saying "well both sides" is intellectually lazy(and not true in how you've applied it above).

It's intellectually lazy, but objectively true, because... well, both sides do. I simply see no point in convincing partisans not to be partisan, and will let it go at that.

Quite frankly, the fact that "both sides" are chin deep in bullshit on this issue is exactly the problem, and why this will get nowhere.

We don't need to continue but if you care to, you're going to have to start debating in good faith.

Given the insulting tone of your reply, I WILL demand the same good faith actions from you. I do not consider your inclusion of a couple of related sources to be proof of your good faith actions, or showing that I'm not acting in good faith. Quite frankly, your willingness only to source a couple of your own comments and then suggest I am acting in bad faith because I didn't source my claims in a single post is a pretty "bad faith" action on your part, and appears to serve no other purpose than a character assassination attack.

So - you want sources? Ask for them.

Personal anecdotes and ignoring some simple facts doesn't really cut it.

As Kimon said I'm sorry this has personally affected you, but it doesn't mean it's common. Claiming it's happened to the majority of Americans is the worst type of rhetoric.

Basic logic here. You understand that EHBs are a creation of Obamacare, right? They did not exist before Obamacare. Nobody had them. After Obamacare, any plans that did not have EHBs became illegal. This means that all old plans ceased to exist. 100% of insured people lost their old plans, to get the new plans with the EHBs included.

Do you get it now?

eht slat meit
07-27-2014, 05:13 PM
If his prior plan didn't include these, but his new does, it makes sense that his rates would have gone up. It also indicates why his prior plan would have been considered "lousy".


Great! Someone whose done a modicum of research. Now, care to explain to suttree why you used the quotemarks around the very subjective term lousy when referring to what I know to be an excellent employer-provided health plan?

Spoiler: It's because those "benefits" aren't anywhere near as good they're made out to be.

I'll let Kimon provide the specifics.

eht slat meit
07-27-2014, 05:29 PM
I'd imagine that this is the source of your animosity. I won't debate whether you have the right to be irritated since your rates went up. You do. The fact that this happened to you however does not mean that this is common. I had Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois through my employer before and after the changes went into effect, and my rates haven't gone up.

Congratulations - according to your personal anecdote (careful, suttree doesn't like those), you're the first person I know of that hasn't had their benefits adversely affected. I also lost free dental coverage.

But no... that's not my sole source of animosity.

See, I'm a taxpayer too. Middle class. Big old tax called "Obamacare" that I was told I wouldn't be getting ever for any reason.

I won't source that, since we all know the Supreme Court ruling.

Gosh, that's petty griping over a double screwjob, eht. What else could you possibly grudge them for?

See, I'm a medical biller too. It's a nice job, with a lot of job security. What happened the second Obamacare went into effect? A stab in the back to every provider and nurse in the country, ceasing medicare payments if they didn't immediately comply with new enrollment requirements. This promptly created a massive backlog at Medicare and resulted in a nice sandbagging backlog that is allowing the administration to present this as "medicare costs going down". Meanwhile, my providers, who were doing their work in good faith for older patients, get shafted until they get their stuff processed. We're STILL feeling the affects of that a year and a half later.

http://www.mindeasebilling.com/medicare-revalidation-and-reimbursement/

Well, gosh, that's just one issue...

Notice how I was bitching at Suttree about Dems/Reps and their shallow understanding of this and sole focus on premiums? Let's talk about "grace periods".

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/advocacy/topics/affordable-care-act/aca-grace-period.page

This is a cute little Obamacare provision that requires insurers to add a three month period onto their HEX plans. What this period does is allows the patient to continue receiving services without paying their premium - the insurer will pay the provider without telling them until after the first month. The first month's the important one. If, at the end of the mandatory grace period, payment still isn't received, the payer takes back EVERY LAST CENT from the doctor.

It then becomes the doctor (or biller in this case) job to pursue collections from this patient, a patient who probably can't afford it in the first place, because they couldn't afford the premium. Yeah, hurp fucking durp obvious. Fortunately, a couple of the payers aren't being complete jerks about it. BCBS for example.

Perfect win for the insurer, who looks good by stealing free time from the doctor.

By the way, you said you're BCBS of Illinois, right? On an unrelated note, they're assholes too. I have a mandatory year-plus of waiting for payment from BCBS-IL on one of our patients, simply because that's how they roll. I guess they didn't budget enough for it, so screw the doctors and tell the card-holder they have coverage anyway. I guess they don't really need to worry much if they're not going to pay people, right?

I could go into this more, and it's very much sourceable, despite suttree's complaints. It remains to be seen whether he's going to continue this discussion.

I look forward to throwing more links in here. It's very much eye-opening, and quite frankly, I was learning this stuff back last SEPTEMBER, well before Obamacare opened to complete FAILURE.

suttree
07-27-2014, 05:46 PM
I showed your claims around premiums to be dead wrong and you simply moved the goal posts. I've provided links shooting down the fake stories that you claim are happening to the "majority" of Americans. Really can't take you seriously at this point. Back up your assertions or give over. Not sure why you seem so unclear on the burden of proof bur you've pretty much just purposely stated things that aren't true/or being willfully ignorant in trying to make an argument due to how upset you are about your personal situation.

Kimon
07-27-2014, 06:02 PM
Congratulations - according to your personal anecdote (careful, suttree doesn't like those), you're the first person I know of that hasn't had their benefits adversely affected. I also lost free dental coverage.

But no... that's not my sole source of animosity.

See, I'm a taxpayer too. Middle class. Big old tax called "Obamacare" that I was told I wouldn't be getting ever for any reason.

I won't source that, since we all know the Supreme Court ruling.



It's difficult for me to accurately assess what you were paying for before and what changed, without knowing what your prior plan was. The only hint you gave was that it didn't comply with the essential health benefits. That makes it sound like you previously had a predatory plan that extorted money, but provided you with no real coverage, or with exorbitant deductibles for coverage. If so, that certainly sounds like a useless plan, and would explain why you were forced to change plans, and to pay more.

As for those other links you provided, those might affect you, as a result of your job, but they don't seem like they would have any effect on most of the public.

As for your taxes, unless you are making more than 200,000, which is difficult to imagine since you say you are a medical biller, you shouldn't be seeing much if any direct taxation increase. Assuming at least that the below is still accurate, which seems to be the case.

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-new-obamacare-taxes-2012-7

eht slat meit
07-27-2014, 06:12 PM
Lol. I showed your claims around premiums to be dead wrong and you simply moved the goal posts.

I didn't set THOSE goal posts. You're arguing against Republican talking points. Republicans have claimed they are sky-rocketing. Republicans are idiots. They may sky-rocket in the future, as the insurance companies claim, but for right now, they're simply going up.

I provided a source for THAT claim already.


I've provided links shooting down the fake stories that you claim are happening to the "majority" of Americans.

I NEVER said that. In fact, the opposite.

"Agreed. Further extended with the absolute joke of Obamacare "success stories"."

You're either lying or didn't read my reply.

Really can't take you seriously at this point. Back up your assertions or give over

Here's a better idea - argue with me on things we actually disagree on, ffs. As for the sources.... done. Re-read the post.

And I do mean REALLY re-read it this time, so that you don't do something like ... call me a liar for agreeing with you.

It honestly looks like you just scanned it over, and filled in the recognizable bits with Republican talking points. Honestly, the Republicans ARE GODDAMNED IMBECILES. Do you get it?

Not sure why you seem so unclear on the burden of proof bur your pretty much just lying/or being willfully ignorant in trying to make an argument.

Here's a suggestion. I am neither Republican, conservative, nor tea partier.

Argue MY points, rather than theirs. I do my own research. You've clearly missed points we even AGREE on, so I'm a little skeptical of your ability to argue effectively here without resorting to partisan fallbacks, but I'll let it go at a mea culpa on your part.

eht slat meit
07-27-2014, 06:19 PM
The only hint you gave was that it didn't comply with the essential health benefits.

THis isn't a hint. It's an outright statement of reality. No plans had EHBs before Obamacare. All plans without EHBs are illegal. Therefore, they ceased to exist, whether they were predatory or not. The new plans may contain all the same benefits, but they MUST have EHBs. It is the law.

That makes it sound like you previously had a predatory plan that extorted money, but provided you with no real coverage, or with exorbitant deductibles for coverage.

Clarity - all insurance plans, predatory or not, MUST have EHBs. This is the law. This supposedly balances out predatory plans for those that had them... meanwhile, anyone that had already a good plan, just got extra fees they didn't want tacked on.

As for those other links you provided, those might affect you, as a result of your job, but they don't seem like they would have any effect on most of the public.

Insurance companies typically reason otherwise unless they have a card up their sleeves - their excuse is that THEY (not the employer) are covering these services at 100%, therefore the employer should have to pitch in. Hence the Hobby lobby whineage.

As for your taxes, unless you are making more than 200,000, which is difficult to imagine since you say you are a medical biller, you shouldn't be seeing much if any direct taxation increase.

Separate issue. First off, the bill itself is a tax. That's established. So I get taxed no matter what, same as everyone else in this. There's the direct tax via my health plan, then anything else that gets picked up by the government through subsidies to insurers and medicaid.

suttree
07-27-2014, 07:31 PM
@ eht

To be clear, I'm perfectly to willing to have what I've read and the stats I've seen shown wrong. I would like to see single payer. End of.

I didn't set THOSE goal posts.

?

See post #87.

Not to mention you then claimed that they are not only going up(which they do every year) but that will be going up "much further". That was shown to be false. These were "your" points mind, not some random claims. Hope we can agree on premiums now.


and the majority of Americans were kicked off existing plans so that they could be brought onto plans that are in line with ACA dictates

I've linked the stories being debunked on this count. So yeah would really like to see you back up the above.

For someone who claims to not have a dog in the fight, your sounding suspiciously Rush-lite in what you are complaining about. Honestly you're playing pretty loose with your arguments and how you are attempting to categorize things(as with the tax situation above). It just comes across as disingenuous, think that why you have poster questioning your takes.

eht slat meit
07-27-2014, 09:00 PM
@ eht
To be clear, I'm perfectly to willing to have what I've read and the stats I've seen shown wrong. I would like to see single payer. End of.

Same here. We'll never see it though. Reps/Dems hate single payer and it will not happen. End of.

?

See post #87.

Goalposts didn't change. We disagree on the status quo being normal, but the current situation is that we agree premiums are going up. Given that my premiums went up to accommodate ACA specifically, I'd say that's a proof of lack of normalcy.

As for the future, you sourced the CBO admitting to being wrong about premiums being where we agree they are, and then speculating that they'll be roughly the same in the future. THe insurance industry on the other hand, unsurprisingly, is more knowledgeable and completely disagrees. Greed trumps speculation every time.

http://money.msn.com/health-and-life-insurance/article.aspx?post=9d4c8bdb-7bee-4ccc-80d9-f0d09b1bc0f3

Hope we can agree on premiums now.

Unless you're calling the insurers liars, I'd say we do agree on everything except the normalcy of the current situation.

I've linked the stories being debunked on this count. So yeah would really like to see you back up the above.

Why are you STILL attacking me on this? I agreed with you, goddamnit. I simply supplemented it by pointing out the same holds for success stories. I believe that the nature of the Obamacare specifically makes a status quo of success stories and horrors stories normal, because one group benefits at the expense of another. However, Dems and Reps trump common sense, meaning that the majority of these stories will be pure propaganda on both sides.

Note, there's a link for that now.

For someone who claims to not have a dog in the fight,

As pointed out to Kimon, I have multiple chihuahuas in this fight getting mauled by a pack of pitbulls. I don't claim a complete lack of bias, and being independent of partisan bullshit doesn't mean I don't have a dog in the fight.

It just comes across as disingenuous, think that why you have poster questioning your takes.

Given that you're still trying to push this ugly little agenda after I went back and posted all the sources you asked for, I think you should be questioning your own integrity before you question mine.

suttree
07-27-2014, 09:18 PM
THe insurance industry on the other hand, unsurprisingly, is more knowledgeable and completely disagrees.

*cough*

From my link earlier according to the Kaiser Family Foundation:

That helps explain some of the biggest changes in 2015 premiums—big cuts are most likely from insurers that were especially cautious about 2014 and ended up doing better than they expected, while big increases are most likely from plans that thought they'd end up with healthier customers than they did.

An influx of new insurers is also helping to keep premium increases in check, according to health care analysts. Major insurers, including UnitedHealthcare, are entering more states' exchanges next year after sitting on the sidelines for 2014.

So yeah, on average they're expected to stay in line with what they have been.


Why are you STILL attacking me on this? I agreed with you, goddamnit. I simply supplemented it by pointing out the same holds for success stories. I believe that the nature of the Obamacare specifically makes a status quo of success stories and horrors stories normal, because one group benefits at the expense of another. However, Dems and Reps trump common sense, meaning that the majority of these stories will be pure propaganda on both sides.


Because it simply isn't true. The same does not hold for success stories and you haven't backed up your claims as I did. Now to be clear I'm not putting it past the administration to spin things in a good light. But when you have horror story after horror story debunked(including the official response to the POTUS) and the factcheckers showing that in reality these people would be better off now (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/11/1283774/-Koch-brothers-fake-Obamacare-victim-Julie-Boonstra-made-to-look-even-more-foolish-and-exploited), one can not call that equal.

What I'm attacking is your claim that the "majority" of Americans have had their plans canceled and are now paying more/are worse off. You certainly have not sourced that and can't as it's demonstrably false.

Edit: One other thing, the reason I claimed disingenuous in regards to your argument is not because I think you have some partisan agenda. It's because your are pissed about your own situation(perhaps rightly so) and it shows with your tax argument, that people with great plans had extra fees that they didn't want tacked on, etc. It's causing your overall viewpoint to be skewed here.

eht slat meit
07-27-2014, 11:16 PM
*cough*

From my link earlier according to the Kaiser Family Foundation:


So yeah, on average they're expected to stay in line with what they have been.

So in the end, we're both right. You with your statistical averages and me with my practical realities. Because in reality, a person's life is not a statistical average on a maths chart. The very real result of what you quote is just that - some people get screwed, while others benefit.

Because it simply isn't true. The same does not hold for success stories and you haven't backed up your claims as I did.

Uh, no. I linked it. You don't get to ignore sources that you demanded and pretend they don't exist because they don't support your partisan world view.

Repeating the link to one case that you've already linked doesn't mean I haven't. You demanded it, I gave it, you're wrong.

What I'm attacking is your claim that the "majority" of Americans have had their plans canceled and are now paying more/are worse off.

%100 of American had their plans canceled because their plans were illegal under the new law.

Whether they are worse or better off is the argue we had a few paragraphs back. That's been sourced, by both of us. you don't get to turn around and acknowledge that sourcing and proof I've already provided don't exist.

Again, you didn't debunk me. Both of us are correct on that point. One does not cancel the other.

You certainly have not sourced that and can't as it's demonstrably false.

No, it's not demonstrably false until YOU PROVIDE A SOURCE showing that most people with new EHB-enhanced plans are better off. Quite frankly, you can't do that, because I already went over why you're wrong in the discussion about EHBs. Kimon already sourced that for me. Thanks Kimon!

Edit: One other thing, the reason I claimed disingenuous in regards to your argument is not because I think you have some partisan agenda.

Attacking my integrity because I have skin in the game isn't much different. Everyone has skin in the game except the partisan jackasses in both party leaderships who are only banking on winning and losing. Given that you seem to have skin in the game as well, doesn't that put your own integrity under the exact same scrutiny?

Yeah, it does, so step off. This is nothing more than a cheap means of undermining my arguments without having the balls to outright call me a liar.

It's because your are pissed about your own situation(perhaps rightly so)

I'm irritated yes, pissed no. I have a bunch of student loan debt, a job which theoretically puts me in the middle class with a nice health plan, and I'm told that I need to be punished for that by paying more, rather than dealing with my own financial needs first. The pure egotistical self-centeredness of that is breathtaking, and it's hard to get pissed off about that, because there's no target for any actual anger.

I should be pissed off, I have damn fine reason to be, but there's an emotional investment required for that. I don't have that.

What I do have, is the sense to do my own research and find out what the real truth is, and who exactly I should be "irritated" at and for what reason.

Quite frankly, the viewpoint skew that you're talking about is a natural bias, and EVERYONE possesses it. you don't get to undermine my position using that argument without accepting it in your own. Nobody is bias-free.

That said, some are far worse than others - this is inclusive of the Dems/Reps and their partisan zealots who will say and do anything to win a debate, including shutting that debate down.

Kimon
07-28-2014, 12:04 AM
%100 of American had their plans canceled because their plans were illegal under the new law.


Could I get a clarification on what you mean by this? Do you just mean that plans had to be adjusted to fit the new protocols? I wouldn't consider that being the same as cancelled. For instance, I still have the same BCBS card and policy, my plan was not in any discernible way cancelled.

Also, on the point of the essential health benefits. Perhaps plans were not required to cover all these prior to the change, but mine did. Did yours? You were never completely clear on this point, and this would obviously be important in understanding whether or not it is fair or unfair that your rates have changed.

eht slat meit
07-28-2014, 06:15 AM
Could I get a clarification on what you mean by this? Do you just mean that plans had to be adjusted to fit the new protocols?

The terminology is canceled, not adjusted, and I believe that's because the plans are a matter of contract between subscriber and carrier, with one plan costing less, and another costing more. The cheaper plan ceases to exist and is replaced by another. This IS the terminology used by both administration and insurance carriers, I believe. One blames the other and vice a versa.

I wouldn't consider that being the same as cancelled.

You might not. They do, as do I.

For instance, I still have the same BCBS card and policy, my plan was not in any discernible way cancelled.

Your policy, and the price you paid for it, ceased to exist. A piece of plastic isn't your policy.

Also, on the point of the essential health benefits. Perhaps plans were not required to cover all these prior to the change, but mine did.

... That's not possible. EHBs didn't exist before "the change", if you're referring to Obamacare. If your plan covered all the same benefits as an EHB does already, then that's happy coincidence for you, and probably why your insurance doesn't cost more.

Did yours? You were never completely clear on this point, and this would obviously be important in understanding whether or not it is fair or unfair that your rates have changed.

If you're under the impression that my rate change was a matter of an arbitrary adjustment by the insurer, in the name of rising premiums, let me dispel THAT myth right away - employers were mandated by law to notify employees immediately of the changes being made and exactly how they impacted the employees.

Kimon
07-28-2014, 08:44 AM
The terminology is canceled, not adjusted, and I believe that's because the plans are a matter of contract between subscriber and carrier, with one plan costing less, and another costing more. The cheaper plan ceases to exist and is replaced by another. This IS the terminology used by both administration and insurance carriers, I believe. One blames the other and vice a versa.


You might consider any change as cancellation, but no one in the public seems to agree. If I still have the same policy number, how is that cancellation? Your plan was cancelled because it was judged deficient, mine was not.

... That's not possible. EHBs didn't exist before "the change", if you're referring to Obamacare. If your plan covered all the same benefits as an EHB does already, then that's happy coincidence for you, and probably why your insurance doesn't cost more.

That's not the point that I was making. The term essential health benefits wasn't used, but if those elements were covered before, they were covered before.

Which gets us to the point I was trying to make here...

If you're under the impression that my rate change was a matter of an arbitrary adjustment by the insurer, in the name of rising premiums, let me dispel THAT myth right away - employers were mandated by law to notify employees immediately of the changes being made and exactly how they impacted the employees.

That was not my way of wondering whether your rates were arbitrarily going up, it was my way of politely indicating that the layman's impression would be that your new insurance was covering more elements than it had before, elements which the government considered essential. Hence the cause of your rates being increased. Which would strike me as reasonable. I get why you do not like paying more, but I also get why the government would have questioned whether such policies that had not covered such essentials should have been allowed to call themselves health insurance.

suttree
07-28-2014, 10:25 AM
So in the end, we're both right. You with your statistical averages and me with my practical realities. Because in reality, a person's life is not a statistical average on a maths chart. The very real result of what you quote is just that - some people get screwed, while others benefit.

In most cases not if they do the proper research as to what's available and again you need to do away with trying to play both sides of the coin. Gruber's stats have shown to be pretty damn close on this count. There are far more "winners" in terms of practical realities.


Given that my premiums went up to accommodate ACA specifically, I'd say that's a proof of lack of normalcy.

Wut? How on earth is that proof of your earlier claim? Were not seeing increases outside the norm. Your premiums would have went up regardless.


Uh, no. I linked it.

Please link the post again, I must have missed your source.


%100 of American had their plans canceled because their plans were illegal under the new law.

Source needed. As Kimon said you are way off base here and you sure as hell have not supported this claim. You need to start directly linking to what you think supports it and why. Wonder why you keep being so vague on this one?

Anyway here is something to mull over in relation to cancellations.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/03/03/how-many-nongroup-policies-were-canceled-estimates-from-december-2013/


Quite frankly, you can't do that, because I already went over why you're wrong in the discussion about EHBs.

Kimon already covered this in his last post.


I have a bunch of student loan debt, a job which theoretically puts me in the middle class with a nice health plan, and I'm told that I need to be punished for that by paying more, rather than dealing with my own financial needs first. The pure egotistical self-centeredness of that is breathtaking, and it's hard to get pissed off about that, because there's no target for any actual anger.

So what's the alternative. Go bankrupt due to sub par features in your old plan? Freeload off the system and gamble on not buying insurance? There is a social contract in play here.


What I do have, is the sense to do my own research and find out what the real truth is, and who exactly I should be "irritated" at and for what reason.


Yet for someone who claims to have done this you seem fairly misinformed on a good amount of the particulars.

Davian93
07-28-2014, 10:31 AM
I'd prefer it if SBC weighed in on the whole insurance plan issue...though I will say that 99.9% of GOP claims regarding cancelled plans are total BS and a gross mischaracterization of what actually occurred.

For example, lots of companies cancelled plans every year and then replaces them with a new plan...you know, that whole open enrollment period that every single employee at every major employer goes though every year.

suttree
07-28-2014, 02:28 PM
So was able to message within someone whose job requires them to know a ton about the ACA. Here is how they weighed in on the "cancellation" and "tax" issues raised.

Firstly, everyone's insurance plan is canceled every year. That has nothing to do with the ACA, its just that insurance plans only last one year. Usually you'll find that you can renew your plan with only minor changes (maybe a slightly higher co-pay on a couple types of prescription drugs), but its almost never the exact same plan. So anyone who says that everyone's plan was canceled last year is being completely disingenuous, and anyone who says that everyone's plan was canceled last year because of the ACA is being dishonest.

That aside, the main claim being offered here is that the ACA's requirements required such major changes to insurance plans that no one was able to get a plan similar to the one they already had so that the cancelation was much more painful and difficult to respond to than the usual "yeah, yeah. I'll just renew my old plan with whatever new charges the insurer added." This is also untrue, and for multiple reasons:

1) EHB requirements don't apply to large group plans.

2) States set their own EHB requirements, and in almost every case they simply picked the existing small group plan with the largest enrollment in their state and said that that plan is their EHB benchmark; meaning that plans subject to the requirements need to cover everything that plan is covering. This means that everyone already enrolled in that plan isn't going to be affected, and that most other people will only be barely affected because most small group plans are pretty comparable.

3) People with individual market plans were the most likely to be legitimately affected and not be able to find a plan similar to what they previously had. However, for the most part, the plans they previously had were garbage. Also, its damn near impossible to get an accurate read on exactly how many people are in the individual market, but prior to the ACA the best guess was around 10 million people.

4) Everyone in Medicaid, and that's over 50 million people right there, are completely unaffected because Medicaid doesn't work the same way as other insurance.

As for the other ACA market reforms, such as reinsurance and guaranteed availability, the entire premise of the law is that while those would make plans more expensive, the individual mandate will counter that by increasing the pool of consumers. Its too early to know for sure if that will work out, but last year at least, insurers' premium increases were no higher than they usually were (in fact they were a bit lower on average; although that's likely related to the general slowdown in health care spending).

Second, on the tax issue. Taxes are revenue, the law is an expenditure. If we don't like certain revenues or expenditures, we can vote for people who will change them, but we don't get to say that we're being double taxed because we don't like where our tax dollars are going.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding, and what they're saying is that the law raised taxes on 100% of Americans; which is so laughably and completely wrong that I don't know where to begin. Yes there are some new taxes in the law, but they are pretty narrowly targeted (not only on people making over $200,000 though; for instance there's the medical device tax). There's also the individual mandate tax, which most people have the potential to be affected by but that few are; the IRS estimates that 4 million people (i.e. 1.2% of Americans) will have to pay it on their next return.

As Dav said, would like to hear what SBC thinks about all of this as well.

Kimon
07-28-2014, 02:45 PM
So was able to message within someone whose job requires them to know a ton about the ACA. Here is how they weighed in on the "cancellation" and "tax" issues raised.



As Dav said, would like to hear what SBC thinks about all of this as well.

Thanks Suttree, that was far more informative, and easier to follow than eht's ramblings.

suttree
07-28-2014, 04:34 PM
Oh and in relation to the Hobby Lobby ruling...

Well played satanists. Well played indeed. (http://www.salon.com/2014/07/28/satanists_want_hobby_lobby_style_religious_exempti on_from_anti_choice_counseling_law/)

Loved this gem:


“While we feel we have a strong case for an exemption regardless of the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court has decided that religious beliefs are so sacrosanct that they can even trump scientific fact,” Satanic Temple spokesperson Lucian Greaves said in a Monday statement. ”This was made clear when they allowed Hobby Lobby to claim certain contraceptives were abortifacients, when in fact they are not. Because of the respect the Court has given to religious beliefs, and the fact that our our beliefs are based on best available knowledge, we expect that our belief in the illegitimacy of state* mandated ‘informational’ material is enough to exempt us, and those who hold our beliefs, from having to receive them.”

Frenzy
07-28-2014, 09:09 PM
i know, right!

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-29-2014, 09:44 AM
As Dav said, would like to hear what SBC thinks about all of this as well.

Your friend pretty much put together the facts. The only thing I would argue is plans don't (or didn't) actually "cancel" every year...they came up for renewal and if you did nothing they usually renewed automatically.

Yes, the individual plans were garbage in the past. Most people on the individual side are benefitting from better plans, but they also might be paying more. Old plans were usually considered catastrophic plans...people had them with outrageously high out of pocket costs for deductibles, etc, but either had them for a specific reason (they needed a drug card or wanted them to keep from going bankrupt if something serious happened).

I work on the group side--employer provided coverage--and the rules are different. Plans DID change, but nothing too shocking. The carriers just winnowed their huge menu of options. One local carrier had over 10,000 combinations of plans in the past to choose from...tweak that office visit, this Rx copay, change the chiro visits, charge an ER copay, blah blah blah. That particular carrier is now offering 30 plans. 30. From 10,000. So people CAN scream on tv they "took my plan away". Well, no, not really, it is pretty damn close, just a few tweaks with minimal cost changes. So if your plan went from a $30 Office Visit to a $20 regular doc/$30 Specialist Office Visit, changed chiro to a maximum of 30 visits instead of 12 per year, and your drug card went from a $10/$40/80 to a $10/40/80 plus 20% for spcecialty drugs...well OMG THEY CANCELLED MY PLAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PUT ME ON TV!!! Um, but isn't it an improvement in a many ways too? And the carrier probably would have done that anyway...they were always changing stuff, PPACA didn't suddenly make that happen.

I have been in this business for 20 years now and premiums have fluctuated in increases. For the most part renewals come in standardly (i.e. no plan change, or minimal) around 8-12%. Some years were 25-30%. States could cap those increases, and in Michigan it was 30%. I have seen ONE reduction in 20 years. ONE. The last two years are pretty much standard trend between 8-12%. Not out of the ordinary at all so far.


Plans are not taxation. Plans are required now, and if you DON'T have them you will be fined/taxed.


None of my clients have cancelled their coverage. Small groups could, with no fines, but they haven't and don't plan to anytime soon. I have many, many, many friends in the industry at other agencies and carriers and I do not know of a single employer that has cancelled coverage. Most plans are almost identical to what they had in the past. The biggest changes are the 100% preventive coverage (and that was coming ANYWAY with most carriers, some had already done it!! ALREADY DONE IT, because it made sense to make people healthy early for free rather than --for example-- pay for a heart bypass in 5 years because of late detection). And the Rx changes. Those were coming too, Americans abuse Rx rather than eating less, exercising more and just TRYING to get healthy.

I got tired of this thread pages ago and quit reading it, sorry. I took a deep breath and read more after someone PMd me for an opinion, then saw my name popping up. I appreciate the idea that my opinion is wanted on this, but I am by no means an expert. NO ONE IS. YOU ARE NOT EITHER. DEAL WITH THAT. Political crap can spin things both ways, and neither have any place in the reality of the day to day goings on.

So yeah, on the group side, costs have not skyrocketed, plans have not been "cancelled" (in the way it is being portrayed) and all the screaming and yelling is just that...political screaming and yelling. It serves no purpose and the stuff they are fighting over is THE WRONG STUFF.

The Hobby Lobby ruling was correct in regards how PPACA was written and the historical interpretation of law. Whether I PERSONALLY think it was (edit: whether it was MORALLY) right or wrong doesn't really matter.


The expansion of the ruling is not over contraceptives. It was a recommendation for everyone who had previously fought this issue, or had something pending, to re-strategize and focus only on the abortive side.

As I said before, this wasn't a birth control issue, this was an abortion issue.

Davian93
07-29-2014, 10:26 AM
Thanks for your input, SBC...it is much appreciated.

suttree
07-29-2014, 10:35 AM
Thanks for your input, SBC...it is much appreciated.

Ditto. Cheers for that, very informative.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-29-2014, 10:43 AM
The gain most likely goes to the insurance company, which is part of what makes the issue so ridiculous.

Not necessarily. Insurance companies now have a cap as to the amount of money they can "make" on a plan. 85% (on large groups, and 80% on small groups) of all premiums collected MUST go towards claim payments and "improvements" in health. That leaves only 15% for overhead, etc. If they go over that, they have to rebate the enrollees/groups.

I have seen a number rebates in the last two years, primarily on the small group HMO side and larger groups with multi-plans and primarily PPOs.


So if the underwriting changes, even in a statistically small way, it could go back to the premium payers. Depends on how close the companies are shaving that 85%

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-29-2014, 10:52 AM
Sorry, Sauce, but you're just factually wrong on this one. Hormonal based birth control does not act as an abortive agent. It prevents conception and actually decreases the chance that a fertilized egg will be killed by the woman's own reproductive system.
[/url]

They can act as abortives, to dismiss that is seeing only through one side of the argument. The argument boils down to the abortion issue, and WHEN people think life begins. I can show you arguments one for one on both sides of this in regards to statistics for how it affects fertilized eggs. Again, personal opinion aside, this ruling follows the current laws and medical guidelines.

Believe me. I am FORCED to look at ALL the information on both sides of this and offer an impartial analysis. Dismissing one side as funky science vs. religion just doesn't fly. Both sides have legitimate arguments, regardless which side you fall personally.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-29-2014, 10:54 AM
If you're under the impression that my rate change was a matter of an arbitrary adjustment by the insurer, in the name of rising premiums, let me dispel THAT myth right away - employers were mandated by law to notify employees immediately of the changes being made and exactly how they impacted the employees.

That was already required. Every year. In every handbook. By law. And could be audited by the government.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-29-2014, 10:57 AM
%100 of American had their plans canceled because their plans were illegal under the new law.



No. That is so wrong I am laughing.

I have a number of group clients who had no change to their plans other than the 100% coverage for preventive care being added.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-29-2014, 11:05 AM
Single Payer system is coming.


Get used to the idea, because it will happen eventually. The carriers are already streamlining in anticipation of it.


Ok, is that enough for you guys?


I am gonna say it again. Even I don't understand every implication of this stuff, and I do this for a living--and have for TWENTY YEARS. So soapboxes aside, please stop being nasty to people who disagree with your opinions. Stop listening to the news and thinking you understand all of it. Reporters and politicians don't even TRY to understand things, they look for a way to BENEFIT from something.

Debate class was the best time ever spent in school for me. Having to ARGUE a side of a situation I found abhorrent was quite the learning experience.

Davian93
07-29-2014, 11:32 AM
Single Payer system is coming.

Get used to the idea, because it will happen eventually. The carriers are already streamlining in anticipation of it.


Ok, is that enough for you guys?


I am gonna say it again. Even I don't understand every implication of this stuff, and I do this for a living--and have for TWENTY YEARS. So soapboxes aside, please stop being nasty to people who disagree with your opinions. Stop listening to the news and thinking you understand all of it. Reporters and politicians don't even TRY to understand things, they look for a way to BENEFIT from something.

Debate class was the best time ever spent in school for me. Having to ARGUE a side of a situation I found abhorrent was quite the learning experience.

We can certainly hope so...

Of course, wont that put you out of a job along with a good chunk of the insurance industry (other than supplemental insurance plans for things not fully covered under Single Payer that is)

fdsaf3
07-29-2014, 12:16 PM
Single Payer system is coming.

ICD-10 is coming....and has been for how many years now?

I know, I know, it's really being implemented this fall. Like, for serious this time. No, really!

Health care reform is a topic which is really close to my heart. It's also something that is incredibly slow and painful to accomplish. In my state, Minnesota, there have been efforts to reform healthcare by aggregate insurance claims into a claims repository. The intent was to provide the lay public with a report which outlined the relative cost and quality of each hospital (and, eventually, outpatient facility - not just ambulatory clinics). Guess what? Various groups with large amounts of political pull kicked and screamed and shut the process down. We still have insurance companies who are choosing not to be compliant with the law.

Single payer healthcare in this country may or may not be coming...I don't know. But I do know that health care reform is going to continue to be a tremendously difficult policy issue to make progress on.

GonzoTheGreat
07-29-2014, 12:32 PM
ICD-10 is coming....and has been for how many years now?
It'll probably happen not very long after commercial nuclear fusion takes off.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-29-2014, 12:33 PM
We can certainly hope so...

Of course, wont that put you out of a job along with a good chunk of the insurance industry (other than supplemental insurance plans for things not fully covered under Single Payer that is)

No, my job title would probably just change.

PPACA did not originally make accommodations for agents, but realized pretty quickly they had no way of directing people who needed help. So "directors and navigators" were created. Special training (3 or 4 hours of online reading! geeee, tough! ---sarcasm there---but you had to already be a licensed agent/consultant) is required and a stamp of approval is given. I was already a Medicare Supplement approved consultant, so that would be similar on the Single Payer side. Much more detailed and regulated.

Agents vs. Consultants has always been a distinction (separate licensing in states is required for those). I am both, and the road will likely just go down the Consulting path for Single Payer stuff. Fine with me, I make more money that way. : )



The intent was to provide the lay public with a report which outlined the relative cost and quality of each hospital (and, eventually, outpatient facility - not just ambulatory clinics).


most reputable insurance carriers already provide that information on their websites and in the enrollee pages...if people would take the time to actually, ya know, check out the abundance of tools available to them. :D

fdsaf3
07-29-2014, 01:03 PM
They might, but the advantage of what we were doing (full disclosure: I work on the team doing this research) is that we have insurance claims for almost all Minnesotans for almost all of their services at almost all facilities. This allowed us to do mathematical case-mix and payer-mix adjustments to compare across facilities and payers.

suttree
07-30-2014, 12:52 PM
They can act as abortives, to dismiss that is seeing only through one side of the argument.

Could you expand on this a bit. It was my understanding that when the drugs were developed there was a theory that they could potentially act as an abortifacient and that the theory has since been disproven by science?

NY Times
The owners of Hobby Lobby told the Court that they were willing to cover some forms of contraception but believed that the so-called morning-after pills and two kinds of IUDs can cause what they believe to be a type of abortion, by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall or causing an already implanted egg to fail to thrive.

As colleagues have noted (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html), the scientific consensus is against this idea, and it’s worth reviewing some basics here....

IUDs come in a number of forms. They can be inert, or have copper or hormones embedded within them. Most scientists believe that they interfere with the ability of sperm to get to an egg in time to fertilize it before they die.
Research does not support the idea that they prevent fertilized eggs to implant. The journal Fertility and Sterility published a study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Absence+of+Chorionic+Gonadotropin+in+Sera+of +Women+Who+Use+Intrauterine+Devices) in 1985 that followed three groups of women for 15 months. One group had an IUD, one group had their tubes tied, and one group was trying to get pregnant. They then measured hormone levels to see if fertilization occurred. It did so only in the group trying to get pregnant.
Another study (http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13625180903519885) found that a telltale sign of fertilization — a surge of the hormone human chorionic gonadotropin — occurred in only 1 percent of 100 cycles in women using IUDs. This would be consistent with the failure rate of IUDs in general. In other words, IUDs do not appear to work by aborting a fertilized egg.
Emergency contraception, which is really just a large dose of the hormones in a birth control pill, works in a similar manner (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all). The pills can thicken the mucus in the cervix to make it difficult for sperm to reach the egg, and they prevent ovulation from occurring in the first place. Because the doses of medication are very short-term, they probably cannot affect the uterine lining in such a way as to affect implantation.
Moreover, the fact that both of these forms of contraception can fail, and allow pregnancies to occur, provides evidence that if a fertilization occurs, it can move on to implant and grow.

Davian93
07-30-2014, 02:33 PM
My problem with the actual case: Hobby Lobby had zero issue funding these things UNTIL Obamacare told them they had to...now its an issue for them? Its all just BS politics for them and, like most "christians", they are massive hypocrites.

Also, why don't their "christian" morals prevent them for sourcing all their items from essentially slave and child labor in China? God doesn't care about that but cares this much about abortion (which isnt even really mentioned in the Bible)?

I despise hypocrisy...especially religious hypocrisy.

suttree
07-30-2014, 02:37 PM
Also, why don't their "christian" morals prevent them for sourcing all their items from essentially slave and child labor in China? God doesn't care about that but cares this much about abortion (which isnt even really mentioned in the Bible)?

I despise hypocrisy...especially religious hypocrisy.

The worst part (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/) about their hypocrisy:

In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime, Mother Jones has uncovered numerous investments on the part of Hobby Lobby’s retirement fund in a wide variety of companies producing abortion and contraception related products.

Hobby Lobby is currently seeking relief from certain contraception benefit requirements of Obamacare in a United States Supreme Court case that promises to be a landmark decision on the rights of corporations and the extension of personal religious protections to corporate entities. In the case of the Hobby Lobby corporation, the company is closely held by the Green family who purport to have strong religious objections to certain types of contraceptive devices and are suing to protect those religious rights....

Redden additionally notes that, in a brief submitted to the Court in support of Hobby Lobby’s position in the case, the company specifically names contraceptive products such as Plan B, Ella, and IUDs as violating their religious beliefs because they work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus.

According to the Green family, interfering with an already fertilized egg is tantamount to abortion—an act unacceptable to the family and one they refuse to participate in no matter what the Affordable Care Act may require .

However, it turns out that the owners of Hobby Lobby do not appear to have any problem with profiting from the companies that manufacture the very products that so grievously offend their religious principles...
Hobby Lobby is entitled to no such admiration—only contempt. You simply can’t say that you will give your all in defense of your closely held beliefs when it suits you while seeking to make money in violation of those beliefs.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-30-2014, 02:37 PM
Could you expand on this a bit. It was my understanding that when the drugs were developed there was a theory that they could potentially act as an abortifacient and that the theory has since been disproven by science?

NY Times

This article (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/heres-why-hobby-lobby-thinks-iuds-are-like-abortions/284382/), by The Atlantic, is one of the best explanations about IUDs. Again, doesn't mean you (or I) have to agree, but the point of not knowing exactly HOW and WHEN devices and pills work in the process is fairly accepted. THAT is the argument, as is the use of an IUD after potential implantation. Whether you agree or not with the definition of when life begins, dismissing THEIR viewpoint doesn't do much for argument sake.

Article says:


The Atlantic Home

Here's Why Hobby Lobby Thinks IUDs Are Like Abortions

By Olga Khazan

The next big Obamacare battle hinges partly on an inch-long piece of plastic wrapped in copper. The Supreme Court will soon decide whether companies—in this case, the Pennsylvania cabinet-maker Conestoga Wood and the Christian crafts chain Hobby Lobby—can deny insurance coverage for certain forms of birth control, a provision mandated by the Affordable Care Act, on religious grounds.
This case has gotten a bit confusing because Hobby Lobby already covers 16 types of birth control, including birth control pills. The company’s resistance is specifically to two types of emergency “morning after pills”—Plan B and Ella—as well as a more long-term form of birth control, a T-shaped widget known as a intrauterine device, or IUD.

There are two major types of IUDs: hormonal and copper. Both kinds work by making it harder for the sperm to reach the egg (more on this later), and they are very effective—only about one woman out of 100 will get pregnant with one. IUDs are the most common form of birth control worldwide, but only about 8.5 percent of American women use them.


A copper IUD (Ho/AP)

So why are they these little baby-proofing contraptions the subjects of a Supreme Court case?

Hobby Lobby claims that IUDs and morning-after pills are more like abortifacients, meaning they kill fertilized embryos, than they are like contraceptives. And their reasoning rests on the fact that, with the exception of condoms, we don’t know exactly how most forms of birth control work, every time they work.

Okay, flashback to sixth grade: A pregnancy requires a very delicate ballet to unfold inside the reproductive system. The sperm must find its way to the egg and chassé its way inside it, a process called “fertilization.” (Here’s a very dramatic video of this process, if you’re interested.)

Then, the fertilized egg must attach to the uterus in a process known as “implantation.” The egg grows and grows and becomes a fetus, which hangs out in the uterus until its grand jeté nine months later.

Condoms and birth control pills help with the first part. Condoms keep the sperm from going anywhere. Birth control pills prevent ovulation, or the release of the egg into the fallopian tubes. The so-called “morning-after” pill is just a really hefty dose of the birth control pill, and it interferes with ovulation and fertilization. Both hormonal and copper IUDs do a number of things, including preventing the sperm from reaching the egg and making the uterus less hospitable.


Diagram of an inserted IUD. (Screenshot: mDhil Health.)

So, does an IUD kill the would-be fetus or simply prevent the egg and sperm from becoming a fetus? It depends on your definition of pregnancy. Most doctors agree that a pregnancy occurs when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus, but many people, including Hobby Lobby executives, think it happens when the egg becomes fertilized by the sperm. To them, if something interferes with a fertilized egg’s assemblé to the uterus, it’s an abortion.

ACOG representatives told me in an email that copper IUDs mostly work before implantation occurs—copper is toxic to sperm and kills it before it gets to the egg.

But the copper IUD can also be used as emergency contraception if it’s inserted up to five days after unprotected sex (and then simply left in to serve as longer-term birth control). And when used in that way, the copper-laden environment might also prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. It might. We just don’t know. The dance of the egg, the IUD, and its molecules changes on a case-by-case and whoopee-by-whoopee basis.

And that’s the part Hobby Lobby takes issue with: They think that “sperm + egg = future baby,” so the fertilized egg’s potential destruction by the IUD is unacceptable.

According to the brief, the Green family, Hobby Lobby’s founders, “each signed a Statement of Faith … obligating them to conduct the businesses according to their religious beliefs, to “honor God with all that has been entrusted” to them, and to “use the Green family assets to create, support, and leverage the efforts of Christian ministries.” And they allow “their faith to guide business decisions.”

This case has any number of ramifications, including that if the Court rules for Hobby Lobby, business owners who have religious beliefs that conflict with blood transfusions or fertility treatments could also hypothetically deny coverage for those procedures, as well.

What’s also interesting here is how the abortion debate often erupts over these micro-moments in human development. Several state legislatures have recently tasked themselves with figuring out exactly when fetuses feel pain, and now a majority-male court must examine a complex contraceptive process that not even the best ob-gyns can predict perfectly. Before, we were arguing about whether life begins at conception, but now we're quibbling over the definition of conception itself.

This article available online at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/heres-why-hobby-lobby-thinks-iuds-are-like-abortions/284382/

Copyright © 2014 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved.

Davian93
07-30-2014, 02:42 PM
So a bunch of idiot businessmen who are not scientists have an opinion...and its a new one since they had zero issues with this a couple years ago, and that is sufficient for making a legal medical decision these days.


Now kids, what type of dinosaur did Jesus ride into Jerusalem?

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-30-2014, 02:45 PM
Like I said before, for every article (by reputable, respected sides) that takes one view, there is another directly opposing.

Because this is MY JOB, I must show and discuss both sides of an issue when asked. My opinion does not matter, and anyone who pushes either side is acting unethically.


And, again. This isn't new. Birth Control, in particular the devices, were not commonly covered in even the recent past. To add them to a plan (called a plan rider) was extra paperwork, extra cost. Once they were added more commonly, churches, schools etc could specifically waive the coverage, as were (and still are) voluntary abortions and voluntary sterilization.

Even if the commonly accepted "The Pill" was covered, most employers passed that extra cost along in the employee contributions.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-30-2014, 02:59 PM
This is a cute little Obamacare provision that requires insurers to add a three month period onto their HEX plans. What this period does is allows the patient to continue receiving services without paying their premium - the insurer will pay the provider without telling them until after the first month. The first month's the important one. If, at the end of the mandatory grace period, payment still isn't received, the payer takes back EVERY LAST CENT from the doctor..

Missed this first time around...

this "little Obamacare provision" actually is an echo of the guidelines for COBRA coverage, from which most of the PPACA guidelines were cribbed. COBRA = 1986-87. Check your political chart. That one doesn't fly.

Also, insurance carriers and doctors can then direct bill, up to and including using collection agency, to get their money back.

Davian93
07-30-2014, 03:07 PM
Missed this first time around...

this "little Obamacare provision" actually is an echo of the guidelines for COBRA coverage, from which most of the PPACA guidelines were cribbed. COBRA = 1986-87. Check your political chart. That one doesn't fly.

Also, insurance carriers and doctors can then direct bill, up to and including using collection agency, to get their money back.

Damnit Obama!

http://img.fark.net/images/cache/850/i/in/fark_in3cAxAbsw02gRRupWfDgOGSIYw.jpg?t=QlNYUrvg-Tg-qEKqSQ9qvQ&f=1407124800

Kimon
07-30-2014, 03:16 PM
Like I said before, for every article (by reputable, respected sides) that takes one view, there is another directly opposing.

Because this is MY JOB, I must show and discuss both sides of an issue when asked. My opinion does not matter, and anyone who pushes either side is acting unethically.


And, again. This isn't new. Birth Control, in particular the devices, were not commonly covered in even the recent past. To add them to a plan (called a plan rider) was extra paperwork, extra cost. Once they were added more commonly, churches, schools etc could specifically waive the coverage, as were (and still are) voluntary abortions and voluntary sterilization.

Even if the commonly accepted "The Pill" was covered, most employers passed that extra cost along in the employee contributions.

If Hobby Lobby is really interested in preventing abortions statistical studies would indicate that they should be funding programs to distribute free birth control instead...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/07/1312252/-Colorado-teen-birth-rates-plummet-thanks-to-contraceptive-program#

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-30-2014, 03:28 PM
If Hobby Lobby is really interested in preventing abortions statistical studies would indicate that they should be funding programs to distribute free birth control instead...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/07/1312252/-Colorado-teen-birth-rates-plummet-thanks-to-contraceptive-program#

::: SIGH ::::


Hobby Lobby does provide birth control. And, most likely, some of those fall under the absolutely free category of certain drug plan structures.


Ok, I am done. I gave up on this thread, but was ASKED to comment on some of the out of control, incorrect assumptions, conceptual stuff.

I did, but I am out again.

People cannot, and will not, look beyond the headlines to truly think about both sides of this very, very specific argument, very, very complicated issue that went to the Supreme Court. I cannot help that.

suttree
07-30-2014, 04:01 PM
@SBC

So to be clear it goes against the scientific consensus. But because there is some debate that a it may rarely prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, Hobby Lobby is calling that an abortion? Even with that last bit from the Time article?

Moreover, the fact that both of these forms of contraception can fail, and allow pregnancies to occur, provides evidence that if a fertilization occurs, it can move on to implant and grow.

Khoram
07-30-2014, 04:30 PM
Now kids, what type of dinosaur did Jesus ride into Jerusalem?

He rides in on a T-Rex:

http://www.weakstream.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/jesussauris.png

Raptor Jesus comes in later.

GonzoTheGreat
07-31-2014, 03:38 AM
He rides in on a T-Rex:

http://www.weakstream.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/jesussauris.png
Did Jesus borrow that miniature T-Rex from Paris Hilton? I've never seen her with such a beast, I admit, but there are a number of photos where she has a similarly shrunk doggy in her handbag. I wouldn't know anyone else with both the money and the inclination to order a bonsai T-Rex.

Davian93
07-31-2014, 10:25 AM
Did Jesus borrow that miniature T-Rex from Paris Hilton? I've never seen her with such a beast, I admit, but there are a number of photos where she has a similarly shrunk doggy in her handbag. I wouldn't know anyone else with both the money and the inclination to order a bonsai T-Rex.

Dude, its clearly a juvenile T-Rex....I mean, get a grip.

GonzoTheGreat
07-31-2014, 12:02 PM
You mean to say that Paris Hilton doesn't have a miniature T-Rex?
What is the world coming to, these days. :mad: