• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

3M Co. will drop retirees from health plans, steer to Medicare

People should not be getting their insurance through their companies anyway. They're just hurting themselves by doing so.

Don't stop now, continue to enlighten us. :) Please continue to explain this.
 
Obama grapples with implementing unpopular health law before Nov. - The Hill's Healthwatch

The Obama administration is grappling with implementing the unpopular healthcare reform law in the weeks leading up to the midterm election.

Some regulations establishing the rules of the various pieces of the health overhaul passed by Congress have been issued, and others will be released in the years to come. But the threat of employers dropping their coverage because of the new law has emerged as a thorny political problem this fall.

The timing could not be worse
for the administration as undecided voters are making up their minds on which congressional candidates to support on Nov. 2.

Republicans are hammering Democrats on what they call “ObamaCare” while congressional Democrats, by and large, avoid the topic. A new poll by The Hill of 12 battleground districts in the House found that nearly one in four Democrats support a repeal of the health law.

Desperate not to violate the president’s pledge that people who like their coverage will be able to keep it, the administration recently granted 30 waivers from annual limit restrictions. Those waivers were quietly posted on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) website — without drawing attention to the fact that they’re exempting from the law’s patient protections plans that offer some of the weakest coverage.

The waivers are only valid for one year, raising the possibility that more employers will seek them in the future as the limits increase every year.

A lobbyist who requested anonymity said, “They have to be worried about other companies seeing this and following suit. If you hit a critical mass of exemptions, it seems to me that a major assumption of the reform package — that the government can simply set an expensive mandate and expect it to be followed — falls apart.”

During his Thursday briefing at the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked six different questions on the HHS waivers. The tenor: Now that the administration has started granting waivers, where will it stop — and doesn't doing so undermine healthcare reform?"I'm not worried that the dam is going to burst," Gibbs answered, referring to a potential deluge of waiver requests.

The debate on this issue heated up last week after The Wall Street Journal reported that McDonald’s was threatening to drop coverage for 30,000 employees if the company didn't get a waiver from the law’s medical loss ratio requirement for its so-called "mini-med plans.”

ah, the medical loss ratio requirement

just another of the poison pills contained in this ponderous and perverse piece, along with the mandate, the 1099's, the massive expansion of medicaid bankrolled blithely on the broken backs of already bankrupt states, the increased foot traffic thru er's, the difficulty in finding a physician...

the professional left, obstinately refusing to take their drug tests, brays about this abandonment of obamacare objectives, the hill goes on to report (open the link)

isn't basic competence a prerequisite from those who earn your endorsement?

oh well, party on
 
Last edited:
Don't stop now, continue to enlighten us. :) Please continue to explain this.

If your employer provides your health insurance, you are tied to your employer if your health needs increase to the point that no other employer will touch you. You can only hope that your current employer doesn't find a way to get rid of you.
If an employer doesn't have to provide your health insurance, they are more likely to hire you. Military retirees have an advantage there, at my last job, the company paid an air force retiree a portion of what they saved by not having to pay his health insurance.
One of my navy buddies stayed 20 years, not because he wanted to, but because his wife developed some kind of nasty incurable disease that would bankrupt him if he had to pay even 20% of her bills.
And don't think already having the job makes a difference. If you get too sick to work "up to expectations", they will find a way to get rid of you .
 
Last edited:
again, how can we know? how can YOU know?

We can know because there are enough businesses and insurance companies indicating that they are being affected by the reforms. It's easy, even if lazy, to just say they are all lying but it's highly unlikely that they all are.

The company I work for is picking up almost all of the premium increases, which will cost them multiple millions of dollars (they provided a specific amount). In other words, they are not reducing benefits or passing most of the increased cost on to the employees (my premiums are only going up about $5.00 a paycheck).

However, they did specify that due to the new reforms, both the BC/BS option and the self-insured option have increased costs more than in years past.

To just say they, and everyone else, are lying doesn't get you too far.
 
If your employer provides your health insurance, you are tied to your employer if your health needs increase to the point that no other employer will touch you. You can only hope that your current employer doesn't find a way to get rid of you.
If an employer doesn't have to provide your health insurance, they are more likely to hire you. Military retirees have an advantage there, at my last job, the company paid an air force retiree a portion of what they saved by not having to pay his health insurance.
One of my navy buddies stayed 20 years, not because he wanted to, but because his wife developed some kind of nasty incurable disease that would bankrupt him if he had to pay even 20% of her bills.
And don't think already having the job makes a difference. If you get too sick to work "up to expectations", they will find a way to get rid of you .

what was the disease?
 
If your employer provides your health insurance, you are tied to your employer if your health needs increase to the point that no other employer will touch you. You can only hope that your current employer doesn't find a way to get rid of you.
If an employer doesn't have to provide your health insurance, they are more likely to hire you. Military retirees have an advantage there, at my last job, the company paid an air force retiree a portion of what they saved by not having to pay his health insurance.
One of my navy buddies stayed 20 years, not because he wanted to, but because his wife developed some kind of nasty incurable disease that would bankrupt him if he had to pay even 20% of her bills.
And don't think already having the job makes a difference. If you get too sick to work "up to expectations", they will find a way to get rid of you .

not anymore, thanks to obama.
 
not anymore, thanks to obama.

many will deny that there is even one thing in "obamacare" that is good....
I have a grandchild who will very likely use up the 3 million cap on her insurance, but now there can be no caps. You wouldn't know she is sick, to just look at her, but that is because the chemo is working to keep the brain tumor growth to a minimum. But it won't be long and they will have to stop the chemo and start using radiation, to her brain, which will cause damage.
Plus, she can now remain on her parents policy til she is 26...
 
We can know because there are enough businesses and insurance companies indicating that they are being affected by the reforms. It's easy, even if lazy, to just say they are all lying but it's highly unlikely that they all are.

The company I work for is picking up almost all of the premium increases, which will cost them multiple millions of dollars (they provided a specific amount). In other words, they are not reducing benefits or passing most of the increased cost on to the employees (my premiums are only going up about $5.00 a paycheck).

However, they did specify that due to the new reforms, both the BC/BS option and the self-insured option have increased costs more than in years past.

To just say they, and everyone else, are lying doesn't get you too far.

And they are to always be believed? Not saying they are lying, but that we shouldn't just accept their word either. Doing so would be no different than just saying they are lying. Insurance premiums have been going up for a long time. Who was to blame before health care reform?
 
Last edited:
And they are to always be believed? Not saying they are lying, but that we shouldn't just accept their word either. Doing so would be no different than just saying they are lying. Insurance premiums have been going up for a long time. Who was to blame before health care reform?
the world wonders.....
I knew when my bosses were lying, their lips were moving.
And when they couldn't do enough damage on their own, they hired "consultants".
 
Yes, because a military base (delegated power) is the same as health insurance (not delegated).

Your missing the point, once offices are created and filled with employees, getting rid of them is very difficult. How long do you think any politician will stay in office by putting people out of work.
 
many will deny that there is even one thing in "obamacare" that is good...

joe manchin who's currently collapsing in his campaign to keep kkk byrd's seat in coal rich west virginia, thinks there's one thing in obamacare that is good---the pre existing clause

he only wants to "kill the rest of it, start with what you agree on"

Race is tight for Byrd's Senate seat in West Virginia - CNN.com

the trouble is he was for the health care bill before he was against it

now, he's republican lite

he has lots of problems in the mountain state, obama's personals are 32 to 67 unpopular

manchin "admits the president's unpopularity in west virginia is an issue, 'it has made a difference in my race'"

is governor manchin spinning?
 
And they are to always be believed? Not saying they are lying, but that we shouldn't just accept their word either. Doing so would be no different than just saying they are lying. Insurance premiums have been going up for a long time. Who was to blame before health care reform?

No, but I am much more likely to believe employers and insurance companies, when so many are coming out and stating that it is making a difference in the premiums that will have to be charged.

Common sense will also tell you that insurance premiums are going up due to the reforms. You can't add benefits (no pre-ex, no recissions, adults covered on their parents policy until 26YO, no limits) without there being associated costs.

Additionally, you wouldn't have the administration having to grant waivers to companies to prevent them from having to drop employee insurance without there being truth to what the employers are stating.

Lastly, most states, and health care reform requires that a certain percentage of health insurance premiums be used for health care. What would be the point of increasing premiums for health insurance if there weren't costs associated with the reform? Increasing the premium without increased costs, would just cause them to run afoul of the already existing laws and the new laws as put forth by the reforms.
 
The best part of the law is requiring people to buy insurance....I know half a dozen people/families that have lots of toys and non-essentials of life, but not health insurance. They CAN afford it, but that would mean giving up cell phones, cable TV, premium channels, more cars than they need, etc. These same families have filed bankruptcy at least once each.
Who do you think pays for their health care?
 
it's a fair question, except we've learned from detailed analyses by the nyt and its affiliate boston globe that in massachusetts romneycare, designed just like the bigger and badder obamacare to REDUCE er costs, actually INCREASES them, see links above

who's gonna pay for the 12 million americans suddenly swelled into already overstrained medicaid?

ask democrat gubs bill richardson, christine gregoire, bill ritter, brian switzer, phil bredesen (globe link above)

ask harry's son rory

Rory Reid: Healthcare reform could end up hurting Nevada - The Hill's Healthwatch

why did hhs exempt 30 megacorps in such headlong hurry?

what's sibelius' answer gonna be to the next 100 who apply?

how you gonna keep what you got when employers give up?

how are the newest 12 million gonna find doctors?

yup, lots of questions

no answers

so here we are
 
The best part of the law is requiring people to buy insurance....I know half a dozen people/families that have lots of toys and non-essentials of life, but not health insurance. They CAN afford it, but that would mean giving up cell phones, cable TV, premium channels, more cars than they need, etc. These same families have filed bankruptcy at least once each.
Who do you think pays for their health care?

Yes, there are people that can afford insurance, yet don't purchase it. These people still won't purchase insurance until they are sick, but will simply pay the fine - since it's smaller then the premiums.

However, if they do actually purchase the insurance, it won't cause the nation's health care spending (as a whole) to decrease. By having insurance, they are more likely to go to the doctor for minor things (cough, scrape) and will still have to go to the doctor for the big things (MI, CVA, etc).

I've also seen studies that show increased preventitive maintenance (something your friends will now obtain free) actually causes increased national spending on healthcare. The reason put forth was that you can't tell who would have been affected by the disease being prevented, so you have to provide it to everyone. Everyone receiving the preventative care is a larger cost, overall, then caring for the relatively small percentage that will actually contract the disease/condition.

What increasing insurance coverage to more people will do is more evenly spread the greater costs to everyone that has insurance or pays their bills without insurance. Again, it won't actually reduce the nation's overall spending on healthcare.
 
Yes, there are people that can afford insurance, yet don't purchase it. These people still won't purchase insurance until they are sick, but will simply pay the fine - since it's smaller then the premiums.

However, if they do actually purchase the insurance, it won't cause the nation's health care spending (as a whole) to decrease. By having insurance, they are more likely to go to the doctor for minor things (cough, scrape) and will still have to go to the doctor for the big things (MI, CVA, etc).

I've also seen studies that show increased preventitive maintenance (something your friends will now obtain free) actually causes increased national spending on healthcare. The reason put forth was that you can't tell who would have been affected by the disease being prevented, so you have to provide it to everyone. Everyone receiving the preventative care is a larger cost, overall, then caring for the relatively small percentage that will actually contract the disease/condition.

What increasing insurance coverage to more people will do is more evenly spread the greater costs to everyone that has insurance or pays their bills without insurance. Again, it won't actually reduce the nation's overall spending on healthcare.
If there are copays, people are less likely to go in for scrapes and bruises...which is a problem when I was in the military. Dependent care was free, so some dependents went in for little stuff....
Will paying the fines get them instant coverage?
 
No, but I am much more likely to believe employers and insurance companies, when so many are coming out and stating that it is making a difference in the premiums that will have to be charged.

Common sense will also tell you that insurance premiums are going up due to the reforms. You can't add benefits (no pre-ex, no recissions, adults covered on their parents policy until 26YO, no limits) without there being associated costs.

Additionally, you wouldn't have the administration having to grant waivers to companies to prevent them from having to drop employee insurance without there being truth to what the employers are stating.

Lastly, most states, and health care reform requires that a certain percentage of health insurance premiums be used for health care. What would be the point of increasing premiums for health insurance if there weren't costs associated with the reform? Increasing the premium without increased costs, would just cause them to run afoul of the already existing laws and the new laws as put forth by the reforms.

that's not actually correct. If more well and healthy people pay premiums, by a large margin, it would more than cover the costs of adding those with pre-existing conditions and other added benefits. Employers don't want insurance hassles at all, and that is incentive to misrepresent the burden. Insurance companies make the most money if they take in and don't pay out, giving them reason to misrepresent. So, I would spend any time "believeing" anyone. Instead, more objective and verifiable information should be asked for and given.
 
that's not actually correct. If more well and healthy people pay premiums, by a large margin, it would more than cover the costs of adding those with pre-existing conditions and other added benefits. Employers don't want insurance hassles at all, and that is incentive to misrepresent the burden. Insurance companies make the most money if they take in and don't pay out, giving them reason to misrepresent. So, I would spend any time "believeing" anyone. Instead, more objective and verifiable information should be asked for and given.
In fact, insurance companies have already said that they don't mind covering people with pre-existing conditions, if everybody is insured. They can't operate at a loss and stay in business. The real bad guys here are those who can pay, but won't.
 
In fact, insurance companies have already said that they don't mind covering people with pre-existing conditions, if everybody is insured. They can't operate at a loss and stay in business. The real bad guys here are those who can pay, but won't.

I know. That's why without the public option there had to be a mandate. I sometimes don't think people make the connections, which is why so many want to stop insurance companies from denying due to pre-existing conditions, but don't want a mandate.
 
In fact, insurance companies have already said that they don't mind covering people with pre-existing conditions, if everybody is insured. They can't operate at a loss and stay in business. The real bad guys here are those who can pay, but won't.

The reason for rates going up, is because the healthcare bill forced insurance companies to lower their operating capital from 25% to 15%. That 15% has to generate as much cash as the 25% did and the only way to do that is to take 15% from a larger pie.
 
The reason for rates going up, is because the healthcare bill forced insurance companies to lower their operating capital from 25% to 15%. That 15% has to generate as much cash as the 25% did and the only way to do that is to take 15% from a larger pie.
Really? I don't believe it...
 
If there are copays, people are less likely to go in for scrapes and bruises...which is a problem when I was in the military. Dependent care was free, so some dependents went in for little stuff....

Less likely, perhaps, but people do it all the time. I know many, including my wife, who will go in all the time for small stuff. She has insurance, the $20.00 co-pay isn't a big deal to her and many others.

Will paying the fines get them instant coverage?
No, they pay the fines while they are still healthy then sign up for insurance once something happens. The people you are describing will obviously do this, since it's essentially what they are doing now.
 
So 3M is CHOOSING not to provide health insurance for thier employees over 65 by electing for a cheaper alternative, therefore enabling them to cut costs and hire more people.

I'll take the trade.
 
that's not actually correct. If more well and healthy people pay premiums, by a large margin, it would more than cover the costs of adding those with pre-existing conditions and other added benefits.

I'm not convinced that is a true statement. Getting rid of benefit limits, not allowing insurance companies to deny benefits, etc, etc, will more than make up for the benefit of adding healthy people to the pool. As it is now, with the limitations on insurance, a small percentage of the population is using a large percentage of the health care. By removing all the limitations, I would suspect that a larger percentage of the nation will begin using an even larger percentage of the health care.

This can be seen in MA, which has insurance mandates. Their insurance premiums in that state have increased faster than the rest of the country - since Romneycare was passed. This even with their governor illegally ordering the insurance commissioner to deny any premium increases on small businesses and individual policies. This was found illegal by a state judge and those premium increases are beginning to come in and be approved - which means the states premiums will increase even faster than they already had.

Employers don't want insurance hassles at all, and that is incentive to misrepresent the burden. Insurance companies make the most money if they take in and don't pay out, giving them reason to misrepresent. So, I would spend any time "believeing" anyone. Instead, more objective and verifiable information should be asked for and given.

In other words, anyone that says something I don't want to believe is lying and part of the conspiracy. I've found that you can't argue with conspiracy theorists. I used to help out at a homeless shelter, and there was this one guy there that believed there was some type of conspiracy with the way toilets flushed (I can't recall the specifics). You Couldn't prove him wrong. No matter what you said, it was all part of the conspiracy. and that's not something you can ever disprove.
 
Last edited:
Yes, there are people that can afford insurance, yet don't purchase it. These people still won't purchase insurance until they are sick, but will simply pay the fine - since it's smaller then the premiums.

However, if they do actually purchase the insurance, it won't cause the nation's health care spending (as a whole) to decrease. By having insurance, they are more likely to go to the doctor for minor things (cough, scrape) and will still have to go to the doctor for the big things (MI, CVA, etc).

I've also seen studies that show increased preventitive maintenance (something your friends will now obtain free) actually causes increased national spending on healthcare. The reason put forth was that you can't tell who would have been affected by the disease being prevented, so you have to provide it to everyone. Everyone receiving the preventative care is a larger cost, overall, then caring for the relatively small percentage that will actually contract the disease/condition.

What increasing insurance coverage to more people will do is more evenly spread the greater costs to everyone that has insurance or pays their bills without insurance. Again, it won't actually reduce the nation's overall spending on healthcare.

And yet Australia where health care IS free the cost is much much much lower. With a caveat. Some people DO try and abuse the system but they are gently encouraged not to do so (I.e. turning up to the hospital with vague stomach pains and packed bags and admitting you have just been tossed out of your accomodation will NOT get you admitted to the hospital but it might get you a chair in the waiting room overnight.

but even here our difficulty is often getting people to admit they ARE sick because "they don't want to bother anyone" so you get women (men are wussier) with massive cancerous growths in obvious severe pain, appologising for making a fuss
 
Back
Top Bottom