Twenty Things You May Not Know About ObamaCare

Now that ObamaCare has become law rather than just the fevered dream of leftie bloggers, it is time to begin discovering what is in it.  David Hogberg begins the process at Investor’s Business Daily.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers 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; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

Go here to read the rest.  The first impact most voters will feel from ObamaCare will be increased cost for the private insurance that they pay for or their employers pay for as none of these government mandates pay for themselves.  As I pay every cent of my own insurance I am especially appreciative of that fact and can’t wait to thank the politicians responsible for this at the polls in November.

Advertisements

30 Responses to Twenty Things You May Not Know About ObamaCare

  1. 5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

    That’s the kind of rhetoric that got the Democrats into power, as it shows absolutely no connection to reality. You want kids to get good jobs, they have to go to college. 4 years, that’s at least age 22 or 23, especially if they have to take an extra semester or two to finish the increasing amounts of “common curriculum” requirements b/c it’s very necessary for artists to know about biology. Let’s not get started if some poor 19 year old decided to switch a major. Now on top of that, college degrees are so plentiful it’s not that helpful to get a job, so you have to get a master’s degree. That’s 2 to 3 years. That places kids at about age…25 or 26.

    For example, I went to college, got delayed by Hurricane Katrina and graduated in 4 and a half years but I’m young for my class so I was 22 when i graduated in Dec. 08. Waited a semester for law school to started, started that when I was 23. I’ll graduate when I’m 25, take the bar and be sworn in later that year when I’m…26.

    Slackers? There are many of them, but not all of them.

  2. Donald R. McClarey says:

    Michael I am going to pay for my kids’ insurance: two until they have received their graduate degrees and one for the rest of his life. However, I do not want the government mandating that my insurance company be required to allow me to do so on my current policy. Actually by shopping around I have found that I can get cheaper policies for each of them individually. The government mandating this benefits a few people and increases the costs for everyone else. Of course when I went to school and law school I was covered only while I was at school, and the rest of the time went without insurance which was not unusual back in the Seventies and the early Eighties.

  3. Tito Edwards says:

    Michael was raised on entitlements since he’s from Louisiana.

    His indifference at Landreaux’s Louisiana Purchase shows how much he looks to government to solve all our problems.

    Like Quebec in Canada, it will be only time that Louisiana will turn into the People’s Republic of Cajunland.

  4. Jay Anderson says:

    Tito, that’s not a fair assessment of Michael.

    I disagree with his support of Obamacare (he opposes the fact that it doesn’t contain the Stupak language, but otherwise supports it). But that can be a legitimate area of disagreement without disparaging him as “raised on entitlements”.

    I mean, that’s just an overly harsh description of coonasses.

    😉

  5. Tito:

    Please educate yourself about the state of Louisiana. “-eaux” is pronounced “o.” So “go” can be written “geaux.” The way you wrote Landrieu (pronounced “Lan-drew”) would read “Landro.” Furthermore, not all of Louisiana is Cajun. Lafayette & Acadian are Cajun; New Orleans is Creole, Baton Rouge is a mix of the two with a good chunk of WASPs thrown in, and everything else in the state is a cultural extension of arkansas or texas.

    Furthermore, the only “entitlement” I ever lived off of was the Social Security & life insurance policy that paid us b/c my father died unexpectedly when I was 4. I’ll await your apology, if you can rid your mouth of a fairly large foot problem.

  6. Donald:

    My point was not to debate the economics of mandating these kids be covered but rather the ill advised description of such kids as “slackers.” When you’re like me, and you know many people of that age who are anything but slackers, it tends to turn you off to the rest of what’s being said, which is why I think the Republicans often tend to get themselves in trouble when making financial arguments.

  7. Tito Edwards says:

    Michael,

    Just driving the point of your indifference towards the Louisiana Purchase.

    I do appreciate the lecture on the history of Louisiana.

    I’m sorry for your loss of a father.

    For the record, a life insurance policy is not an entitlement.

    And yes, I do have big feet.

  8. Tito Edwards says:

    Michael,

    Calling a spade a spade is not being mean.

    It’s being truthful.

  9. Tito:

    I believe I said I was embarrassed (http://forthegreaterglory.blogspot.com/2009/11/louisiana-purchase.html) but didn’t think it as big a deal as some would have made. As the subsequent deals with Nelson and Stupak have shown, Landrieu’s sell-out was rather insignificant in the whole mess as Landrieu was going to vote for the bill (and the vote to hold it) anyway and just got some money for it. Dirty, but shrewd. I’d like to vote her out of office, but for bigger reasons than the LA purchase.

    As to the slackers, while I agree that it certainly true for some, that generalization is too broad and therefore not truthful.

    And “I’m sorry your dad died” is not “Sorry I accused you of living off entitlements without any basis,” which is the proper apology owed in this situation.

  10. Tito Edwards says:

    Michael D.,

    Sorry I accused you of living off entitlements without any basis.

    If that is insufficient, I’ll consider naming my first born after you.

  11. Tito:

    That is sufficient, which is good, as because of my experience with Edwin & John, I don’t know if I want an “Edwards” named after me

    😉

  12. Tito Edwards says:

    Michael Edwards has a nice ring to it!

    Yeah, I know about Edwin Edwards.

    He’s Cajun and so he’s probably of French descent.

    Me on the other hand, I’m Norman-Welsh with no French.

    So there’s no relation at all.

  13. Sydney Carton says:

    Slackers?

    Those who do not work shall not eat. Right?

  14. Donna V. says:

    Tito: the Cajun countries of Louisiana voted for McCain/Palin in ’08. Many Cajuns, like this blogger http://mostlycajun.com/wordpress/, emphasize that New Orleans is Creole, not Cajun and have no great love for that city. I’m fond of the Cajuns and I consider lumping them all in with the pro-abort party and the call girl Mary Landrieu to be an unwarranted insult.

  15. Joe Hargrave says:

    I’m fond of the Cajuns too, for their cuisine 🙂

    I’ve never had it in Louisiana, but if any of you ever pass through Phoenix, don’t miss a chance to eat at Baby Kay’s Cajun Kitchen. It’s my favorite place to eat, ever.

  16. Donna V. says:

    Joe: I’ve been to Louisiana several times and on each trip, I gained 4 pounds – and it was worth it, because every bite of food I had down there was delicious.

    I’ve also been to Phoenix on 3 occasions, but sadly, missed Baby Kay’s. I was on the lookout for good Mexican food there – and I found it!

  17. 5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

    That’s the kind of rhetoric that got the Democrats into power, as it shows absolutely no connection to reality.

    I dunno, I think it might end up ringing true to a lot of people. I went to college, and by the time I was 26 I was married, had two kids, owned a hous and was paying for health insurance.

    Further, only 40% of Americans actually end up earning an undergrad degree, much less a graduate degree. So 60% hit the full time work force even sooner than I did at 22.

    The thing that will rankle about that 26 rule is that since everyone who’s actually out supporting himself with a decent job will be required to have health insurance through his work (which means paying hefty costs for it if he’s working a low end job where his company doesn’t pay for much of the premium) it will be the people who are working full time through college, the people who don’t go to college, and the people who graduate quickly and go straight into the workforce who are paying the higher insurance costs stemming from covering the 25-year-old kids of some upper middle class couple while he gets his MBA or goes to law school. It’s a redistribution up the income ladder rather than down.

    There are other solutions to the problem. Full time college students can get fairly inexpensive student insurance in many cases — though the $500 a semester seemed like too much to me at the time and I eventually ended up skipping it and going uninsured. (As soon as I did that, I injured myself and had to pay out of pocket, so I had to grit my teeth and pay. Though in the end I still spent less than if I’d kept the insurance.)

    Sure, it’s lousy, and another expense on college students who feel like they’re already paying too much on everything, but I don’t think it’s out of line for those of us who spend an extra 4+ idle years in order to land ourselves an average salary 20k higher than those without degrees to have to pay for the privilege.

  18. You should check out the additional analysis currently on tap at http://culturewarnotes.com – it links to my blog discussion of how ObamaCare will kill off the elderly by eliminating hospital coverage.

    “How Death Panels Made It In” –

  19. restrainedradical says:

    You would like to buy a car without seat belts and without insurance or a license? Tough.

    Most of those on the list are things that prudent people, insurers, or employers should be doing anyway. #10 is the only one I find really objectionable. #10 is a provision often seen in legislation to limit tax avoidance. I just think $2,500 is too low.

    Re #5: Med students get out of school at 25 or 26. Slackers are either insured by their parents which is functionally identical to forcing employers to cover them or they get covered under Medicaid. All this provision does is shift some of the costs from the state to the employers. I oppose it but it’s really not that big of a deal.

  20. Art Deco says:

    You would like to buy a car without seat belts and without insurance or a license? Tough.

    The license is not a feature of the car and the addition of the seat belt has a minimal effect on the price of the vehicle. Try some other tack.

  21. Though there is a certian similarity to cars in that one way car makers can keep their ASPs (average sell price) up is by getting the government to mandate new safety features. If every car is required to have a new $1000 feature, car makers are able to expand their total revenue base on the same unit sales without worrying about being under sold by cheaper car makers.

    When people ask why it is that car MPG hasn’t improved more over the last forty years, one of the reasons is new mandated safety features which have increased average car weight. Thus, a new SmartCar or Mini ends up weighing rather more than a 1980’s Honda Civic or other sub-compact, and getting similar mileage, despite huge increases in our technical abilities around engine efficiency and such.

    Under a mandate which specifies minimum levels of coverage, one of the major ways for insurance companies to increase their profits (and for care providers to do the same) will be to lobby for new types of care to be covered by the mandate. Once everyone has to pay for the coverage anyway, usage will naturally go up.

  22. Nate Wildermuth says:

    Lord, Donald, it seems to me that you live in a different segment of society than I do.

    Yesterday I had the privilege of talking with some high school dropouts taking their GED. These “adults” (kids, really) weren’t raised well enough to even know to brush their teeth once a week, let alone stay in school, let alone not get pregnant, let alone not getting tattoos on your breasts and then wearing clothes to reveal them to everyone who walks by (including married men like myself!). These kids are working at a antique shop for minimum wage and not getting close to 40 hours a week. Need I mention health insurance?

    These kids deserve better from their world, even if it isn’t in the form of ‘Obamacare’.

  23. Art Deco says:

    These youths you describe do not sound optimal for the work of selling antiques.

    I would like to see them have something better from their world (if we recognize the dangers of speaking of deserts). The thing is:

    1. First dollar coverage of medical expenses by the state is not economically sustainable except at gross social cost;

    2. There will always be occupational strata and variation in the quantum of education received and digested;

    3. Schoolteachers, insurers, civil servants in the welfare department, and antique dealers generally have one thing in mind: they are not your mother.

  24. Donald R. McClarey says:

    “Lord, Donald, it seems to me that you live in a different segment of society than I do.”

    My factory worker parents, to whom I owe everthing I have accomplished in this life, forgot to tell me about the silver spoon in my mouth.

    All sorts of opportunities in honest employment and education for those “yutes” Nate. All they have to do is seize it.

  25. Nate Wildermuth says:

    I didn’t mean to imply that you grew up in privilege Donald, though I did make an assumption about your current state of life not being one of poverty. Still, I meant no insult and apologize for any offense I gave. Nonetheless, it seems to me that you’ve got wonderful parents, hard working and faithful, and that they passed this down to you. And I’m sure you’ve passed that down to your children. Thank God! That’s the way it is supposed to work.

    In contrast, the kids I’m speaking implied that they were raised, or are even living with, their grandparents. One young man I spoke with related how it took him two years of applications to get the job at the antique store, and that he’s been doing as much side work as possible – mowing lawns, fixing cars, and so forth. His aim in taking the GED is to get into a technical school so as to become a mechanic. God bless him, and please pray for his efforts. I relate his story to show how much is stacked against him. He needs his fingers to do the times tables, and may not pass the GED. He would not pass an interview for any good job, not without serious preparation, a good haircut, and a new speech patterns.

    It took me six months to get a job as a janitor, and I consider myself an attractive candidate. There are not, in the greater Saint Louis area, all sorts of opportunities for honest employment or education – especially not for people at the margins of society, for those raised by lazy or faithless parents, or not raised by parents at all.

    When I say that we live in different segments, I’m making an assumption about your good-will – that you can’t be having the same kind of discussions I’m having, that you can’t be meeting the same kind of people I’m meeting, that you can’t be experiencing the level of poverty, degradation, and despair that I’m experiencing. Because I can’t imagine how you could see what I see, and still have the perspective you do.

    And yet I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again! I appreciate your honest posts, and look forward to your next one.

  26. Donald R. McClarey says:

    Thank you Nate. No offense taken. Dwight, the town in which I live, is a rather old fashioned small town in that people of all sorts of economic status live cheek by jowl. Family connections tend to matter more than economic status and those often cross economic lines. A fair amount of my legal practice involves people who are poor or lower middle class and so I am in daily contact with people who are either getting by or not getting by.

    You are quite right that many kids today often grow up in households with poor excuses for parents. I am often the court appointed guardian ad litem for such kids and I often think wolves would do a better job parenting the kids that their parents do.

    Nonetheless I do think that opportunities abound for people in our society no matter their upbringing with hard work, education, for example those individuals getting their GEDs that you wrote about, and a bit of luck. It can be discouraging in a bad economy, and this is the worst economy in my lifetime, but I have no doubt the economy will eventually recover.

    As to your personal situation, my best wishes for its improvement. You are obviously intelligent, your heart is in the right place, and I pray that you attain a position commensurate with your obvious abilities.

  27. Darwin:

    Apparently I was unclear, but my objection was to the term “slacker.” The reality is that many 26 year olds don’t have jobs b/c they are not slacking off and instead working to get an education in order to be more productive. I think this is something that society ought to encourage, not try to penalize.

  28. Art Deco says:

    I think if our school system worked properly, students 26 years of age would be those returning to school after a half dozen years of regular work or would be those attending school as an appendix to their regular work day. Contemporary practices in schooling have artificially elongated the juvenile time of life.

  29. Nate Wildermuth says:

    Thanks, Donald, and blessings on your practice!

  30. restrainedradical says:

    The license is not a feature of the car and the addition of the seat belt has a minimal effect on the price of the vehicle. Try some other tack.

    You missed the point entirely. Try again.

    DarwinCatholic, it appears most of the weight increase in today’s car is the result of consumers demanding more from their cars, not government mandates.

%d bloggers like this: