Got a Cadillac health plan? Get ready to kiss it good bye!

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by PSGator66, Aug 12, 2013.

  1. PSGator66
    Offline

    PSGator66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    6,509
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +925
    • Like Like x 1
  2. HudsonGator
    Offline

    HudsonGator New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,328
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +7
    Cadillac plans distort the market and cause people to not be efficient users of a finite product, healthcare.

    That's why they are trying to phase them out, to make people become better consumers of healthcare.
  3. GatorNorth
    Offline

    GatorNorth Premium Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    10,196
    Likes Received:
    375
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings Received:
    +1,391
    What's the basis for taxing what a willing buyer and willing seller are paying for in the open marketplace, other than creating another pool of funds for indigent care.

    Of course, I am sure Congressional plans will be exempt.
  4. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    Those with Cadillac plans will begin paying a "luxury tax" much like large market, free spending baseball and basketball teams currently pay. Didn't realize that someone who can afford a better level of service is creating a competition issue. But then again, Robin Hood (I mean Obama) likes to take from some to give to others
  5. ironhead1
    Offline

    ironhead1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,858
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +366
    Did you post that with a straight face?
    So you believe a family that wishes to purchase a plan with reasonable deductibles they can afford and reasonable monthly premiums they can afford are not good consumers of healthcare?

    Im not sure I've ever read a more ignorant, out of touch with reality post in my 12 tears on To Hot
    .............and thats saying something.

    First off. The threshold is ridiculous
    A family that pays 700 a month for a family plan would easily qualify here with the employers contribution

    The consumers who have no skin in the game ie:, no insurance....would be the bad stewards of a finite product. You see, once said product is free, and all competition has been driven out if the market, every sniffle or paper cut will be met with a doctors visit. People who are responsible enough to pay huge premium monthly and have a deductible to meet would be better stewards of healthcare.

    This is designed for one thing. A single payer system
    Therefore the Government will be your healthcare God

    So you must believe the government is a better steward of YOUR healthcare than you can be yourself

    That.............
    Is just sad
    But indicative if the take care of me mindset of today's so called Americans
    We should all be ashamed.




    .
  6. demosthenes
    Offline

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,478
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Ratings Received:
    +1,244
    If healthcare is a finite product then your rationale would justify the wholesale regulation of every market.
  7. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,229
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +738
    Don't think they distort the market.

    That said I agree to a point wrt being efficient users when many of the beneficiaries do not see the actual cost of the plan as it is generally paid for by the employer (employee may pay a percentage but most just look at the net on their pay stub...).
  8. icequeen
    Offline

    icequeen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    5,508
    Likes Received:
    2,397
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Ratings Received:
    +4,137
    Maybe that's why our policy didn't change much - for years, our policy has included all that stuff that's "new" - 0$ copay on annual exams, preventative stuff, we have no copay on our kids' doctor visits, $50 ER copay, etc. I feel sorry for everyone whose rates are going up, though.

    This obamacare is accomplishing the opposite goal it looks like. Instead of getting insurance for those who have none, now you'll have those that have no insurance PLUS the "underinsured" who are one illness away from being without a place to live or a job. And you know employers are looking at this as yet another reason to cut back on employee hours, and eventually hiring. You'll have a bunch of part-time employees being asked to work full time work loads with no benefits.
  9. GolphinGator
    Online

    GolphinGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,846
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Gainesville/ Micanopy
    Ratings Received:
    +282
    So I guess you buy cars with no air or automatic transmission.
  10. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    I would predict the unions will get this little tax "squashed". They got a $850 B bone (Porkulus) thrown to them after Obama's first election. Squashing this little tax would cost the treasury chump change. And I'm sure the CBO would score the squash "revenue neutral".
  11. toon66
    Offline

    toon66 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    6,337
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +857
    This already happening at colleges and universities across the country except part-time instructors are having their hours cut to nothing. Full-time tenured instructors are being pushed to lower-level courses and to pick up their work load. I feel sorry for the part-timers but chances are they voted for the guy. I don't feel sorry for the tenured profs because many have been country clubbing for years anyway. Plus, they probably voted for the guy.
  12. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    You wonder how these numbnuts who supported Obama are spinning this deal?
    • Like Like x 1
  13. icequeen
    Offline

    icequeen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    5,508
    Likes Received:
    2,397
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Ratings Received:
    +4,137
    They're huddled in a dark corner, rocking back and forth in a fetal position, muttering, "but Bush...but Bush...but Bush...but Bush...savior...Obama...savior...change...the precious!"
  14. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,697
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +744
    The difference with healthcare is service cannot be denied because of failure to pay. It is what makes the healthcare market unique, and the problems significant. Of course nobody is going to buy a car to drive today without an engine and tires, unless they purchase the engine and tires separately. But if you wanted to purchase a Cadillac and all you could afford was the body w/no engine, no tires, etc., you are not going to be able to drive a new Caddy home from the dealership.

    In contrast, whether you are rich or a pauper, you show up at an ER needing immediate surgery to save your life, you are going to get it. Cost and who pays is secondary.

    Now, let's see what would happen if this model was applied to the automobile industry. Anyone who wants/needs a Cadillac can now get one, even if a person cannot afford it. Cadillac dealers would not be able to turn away customers with no ability to pay or secure financing, and the millionaire and beggar can both pull out of the lot in a new Escalade. What do you think would happen to the automobile market?

    Well, prices for those who could afford the new Caddy would go up to cover the costs of those getting the car for free. And the most expensive car? Well, GM would stop producing it because there would be little incentive/profit in it. Sounds like socialism? That's because it is.

    But therein lies the problem with healthcare. I defining characteristic with capitalism is the ability to deny service/product to those who can't afford it. And it's fine for those who can't roll out of a dealership with a new Cadillac, because there are plenty of other options. Perhaps a new Chevy would be better? Or a used car? Or public transportation? In short, there are options. But with healthcare, if someone needs an emergency triple bypass, what are the options? Do it and save the life, or deny those who can't pay and let them die.

    As a society, we have decided that the life is worth saving regardless of a person's ability to pay. And our choice is now, either go back on that stance and allow healthcare professionals to deny service to the indigent, or find a way to pay for everyone's healthcare. Obamacare isn't perfect, but it's an attempt to do the latter. And unfortunately, that means those with Cadillac healthcare plans will end up with lessor plans.
  15. icequeen
    Offline

    icequeen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    5,508
    Likes Received:
    2,397
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Ratings Received:
    +4,137
    So if both the millionaire and the beggar can drive away with the Escalade, then why bother working? Why bother getting a job? If the government is going to give you everything that a working person has (and in some cases MORE) then why bother? This is why so many are simply giving up and just going on disability for whatever they can find...I've seen women in front of me using SNAP while carrying a Coach purse I've seen for over $200 as a clearance price....

    But somehow, this is fair, correct?
  16. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,697
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +744
    So you are in favor of denying healthcare to the indigent? If no, what are the other options to pay for their care?

    The free market works great for almost everything. The problem with healthcare is the commodity is human health. While we can put a price on a new Escalade at around $65,000 base price, what's the price of a human life. The beggar walking into a Caddy showroom is going to be escorted out as soon as the dealership realizes their inability to pay. A hospital ER doesn't have that option.
  17. icequeen
    Offline

    icequeen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    5,508
    Likes Received:
    2,397
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Ratings Received:
    +4,137
    You're talking the difference between allowing for basic, lifesaving care/preventative (which I'm all for) versus the higher-end plans that offer so much more, including in some cases plastic surgery riders. Should someone who is dying be denied care? No they shouldn't. Should someone who is looking to get their acne cleared up get it for free? No. Should someone who has cancer be able to get the medicines they need? Absolutely. Should someone who is looking to get free Viagra and other such meds get them for free? No.

    Basic services can (and have) been provided for those who are "indigent". The issue becomes people who are now looking at these increased coverages, the rise in disability payments, the increased use of SNAP benefits and saying well why bother? A lot of these people are not "indigent" - they have houses, cars, even jobs in some cases (as long as they're below a certain income threshold). So no, I don't think it's fair that someone is getting the government to pay for their food, their medical care, and probably making their car/house payments for them via disability while there are people out there who are busting their behinds in 2, sometimes 3 jobs and can barely make ends meet.

    What's going to happen, and has increased now and will continue to happen, is those who had really good coverage will get adequate coverage, those who had adequate coverage will probably get dropped or have to become "underinsured", and those who are on the government portion will be fine. As usual, it's the middle people that are going to get squeezed out of being able to have the coverages they need, so you're going to see an increase in the underinsured who are going to have even less discretionary income for spending in this still-fragile economy. Which leads to jobs being trimmed down, etc.
  18. ThePlayer
    Offline

    ThePlayer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    28,376
    Likes Received:
    527
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,429
    Is this why 6 million+ Americans renounced their citizenship?
  19. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,697
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +744
    The problem is, the cost of healthcare is rising, and has been rising for the past few decades. Here's a chart that tracks just 2000 through 2009 (all before Obamacare) that shows the gap between healthcare costs and income.

    [​IMG]

    As you can see, the gap grew more than 100% before Obamacare.

    A big part of the issue is indigent and elderly care. When someone gets thousands of dollars worth of work done and cannot pay, those costs are passed on to everyone. And medical bills are the #1 cause for people to file bankruptcy. Again, in 2009, a person with insurance and high medical bills owed an average of $17,750. Without insurance? Nearly $10,000 more. And things haven't gotten much better the last four years, as medical bills are still the #1 cause for bankruptcy today.

    So that's 2 million people a year, all with an average bill of around $20,000 (assuming 70% insured), leaving hospitals and other care facilities with an unpaid bill of $40 billion. Sure, they might get a few pennies on the dollar if they are lucky.

    That isn't saying that there aren't people gaming the system, or getting things for free that they don't deserve. But the main issue here are people who can't pay their medical bills. A woman with a Coach purse paying for food with a SNAP card may actually have a legit reason to have one (foster kids). And even if she doesn't that fraud isn't what is driving up medical costs. It's the fact that we do not, nor cannot deny services for those who cannot pay for a service that is often very costly. So either we start denying services again, or we figure out a way to pay for it.
  20. icequeen
    Offline

    icequeen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    5,508
    Likes Received:
    2,397
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Ratings Received:
    +4,137
    Yet somehow spreading the cost in a way where insurers are going to jack up their rates even MORE isn't going to contribute to an even larger gap? Say that your policy had a $7500 deductible. Well now it's going to be $12,000 and your premium shot up. Now your premium is at a point where you can't pay it, so you have to drop coverage. So now you or your family gets an illness that once was covered by insurance but now you're the one out of pocket for.

    Lifesaving care should always be provided - no one's disputing that, but it's going overboard now.

    As for fraud:
    We have a case featured in the news here where a man called 911 and received over 600 ambulance rides to the ER because he didn't want to give himself an injection of his insulin. But he didn't want his daughter doing it either so he'd call 911. Or he'd call 911 for a cold. Or if he needed to get his teeth checked. All on public assistance. Because 911 can't turn someone away, they take him.

    And no, if you're receiving SNAP you should not be able to afford or go get a $200 Coach purse, or be seen loading said groceries into a higher-end vehicle. I don't care if it is for a foster kid. If you're affording that purse while caring for the foster kid, and that money is meant for the kid, then that's fraud. And for the most part if you qualify for SNAP, you're also going to qualify for other forms of government assistance.

    There are all kinds of instances of Medicare/Medicaid fraud and these all jack up the prices of healthcare.

    And I'm pretty sure that hospitals have been building paying for the uninsured/underinsured for years. If you've looked at a hospital billing statement there is ZERO way Tylenol in OTC strength costs $10 a pill. Pretty sure that's being inflated. Part for profit, part to pay for those who can't. All this is doing is keeping the hospital fees/bills high, raising people's premiums, and making an even bigger mess.

Share This Page