Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Obamacare / Healthcare Reform - News & Discussion

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Obamacare / Healthcare Reform – News & Discussion

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 1,426 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #379197

    myliftkk
    Participant

    howatzer said:
    So this doesn’t have anything to do with my insurance company having to extend coverage to folks with preexisting conditions and to employee’s 26 year old kids? Seems like that might incur some extra costs for them that they’d pass on to me.

    Highly unlikely that those two regs affected your premium price via HR deductions. 26 year old kids are generally healthy, and insurers already had to cover pre-existing conditions for company policies anyhow. Granted, insurers might be raising prices to a limited/slight extent because they’re taking hits on the individual policy side (which is where the pre-existing condition thing comes into play), but in many cases the insurers just drop out of the individual market altogether.

    One regulation (slipped my memory earlier) that’s probably hitting them is the reg that they have to devote 80% of fees to patient care. Meaning, if they were working a sweet gig before and hardly paying anything to patient care, now they need to pay more, and so in order to extract their old profit margin, they’re going to raise your rates. A number of insurers’ policies already met that threshold, but there were plenty that weren’t anything more than profit generators with little interest in patient care management.

    I’d say that reg, plus that fact some large providers saw big swings (10% ~ mirroring unemployment rates) in patient reimbursement from insurance payers to medicaid and hence asked remaining insurers to pay more, are the bottom line reasons you’ll see increases depending on your policy and your geographic location.

    #379198

    Twixlen
    Participant

    I work for a large corp and my premiums also didn’t go up. Bonus, we actually saw a small increase in coverage for some plans.

    Anecdotally, I’ve heard some folks who work for small companies, where the business owner is more directly tied to the employees in some fashion, whose employers are rabidly anti-Obama, talking about their employers messing with policies out of spite, or threatening to close their doors entirely because they were now beholden to supply healthcare.

    #379199

    News
    Participant

    Critics: Ohio dragging its feet on health-insurance exchanges
    By Catherine Candisky
    The Columbus Dispatch Wednesday November 30, 2011 7:14 AM

    Consumer advocates urged the Kasich administration yesterday to start working on a key component of the federal health-care law — the creation of state insurance exchanges where individuals and small businesses can shop for health coverage.

    READ MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/11/30/critics-ohio-dragging-its-feet-on-health-insurance.html

    #379200

    News
    Participant

    Ohio Faces Federal Deadline To Set Up Health Insurance Exchange
    9:47AM
    November 30, 2011
    by Karen Kasler
    Statehouse Bureau Chief, Ohio Public Radio and Television

    There’s a hard deadline coming in the federal health insurance law – states need to take some steps by the end of next year, or the federal government will do it for them. Supporters of the law fear that deadline will be missed. But opponents say the state shouldn’t be trying to comply.

    READ MORE: http://beta.wosu.org/news/2011/11/30/ohio-faces-federal-deadline-to-set-up-health-insurance-exchange/

    #379201

    myliftkk
    Participant

    Ok, so apparently all the other side has left in this fight is to try to latch onto a fairly uncontroversial rule and make a huge amount of hay of it.

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) gave a rare floor speech Wednesday threatening legislative action if the Obama administration does not reverse its rule requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control without copays.

    “If the president does not reverse the Department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must,” Boehner said. “This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand.”

    [url=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/boehner-threatens-legislative-action-if-obama-does-not-reverse-birth-control-rule.php?ref=fpnewsfeed]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/boehner-threatens-legislative-action-if-obama-does-not-reverse-birth-control-rule.php?ref=fpnewsfeed[/url]

    #379202
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    myliftkk said:
    Ok, so apparently all the other side has left in this fight is to try to latch onto a fairly uncontroversial rule and make a huge amount of hay of it.

    Uncontroversial?

    Perhaps no one in your circle cares, but government forcing religious organizations to pay for abortions and birth control is not uncontroversial in other circles.

    I’m not sure that Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC applies here, but even if such a thing is legal ( and the courts will decide that ) it’s still insulting. There’s precident[/url] for religious groups shutting down instead of modifying their policies to comply with onerous laws.

    Perhaps that’s the point.

    #379203

    Twixlen
    Participant

    I find the controversy frankly confusing. Churches are exempt. What isn’t exempt are church affiliated workplaces – schools, universities, hospitals. It’s safe to say that the majority of people working in a Catholic-based hospital aren’t Catholic. And, while they have to cover BC, in no way are women forced to take/use it. It’s still their personal choice.

    I think what a lot of women are hearing from this latest onslaught – of all religions and of all political stripes (but for the extremists) – is that men (legislators) don’t want women to be equally covered in regards to insurance. Ninety-nine percent of all women will use some form of birth control at some point in their lives – 98% of Catholic women. And many of them will do it for reasons that have nothing to do with precious, precious semen, and everything to do with health and well-being.

    The GOP – unwilling to believe that women are smart enough to make their own medical decisions. Good times.

    #379204

    Twixlen
    Participant

    rus said:
    Uncontroversial?

    Perhaps no one in your circle cares, but government forcing religious organizations to pay for abortions and birth control is not uncontroversial in other circles.

    Abortions? Huh? Are you now one of those people who believes that a task that can be accomplished in a tube in a lab = a person?

    #379205
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Twixlen said:
    I find the controversy frankly confusing. Churches are exempt. What isn’t exempt are church affiliated workplaces – schools, universities, hospitals. It’s safe to say that the majority of people working in a Catholic-based hospital aren’t Catholic. And, while they have to cover BC, in no way are women forced to take/use it. It’s still their personal choice.

    I see where you’re coming from, but I’m very uncomfortable with government dictating that religious institutions must violate their core beliefs to comply with the law.

    If women demand their workplace provide coverage for abortions / birth control, they’re free to find another workplace. If that means the religious institution has serious problems hiring people ( to the point, perhaps, they are unable to continue ) then so be it.

    #379206
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Twixlen said:
    Abortions? Huh? Are you now one of those people who believes that a task that can be accomplished in a tube in a lab = a person?

    Oh, I’m in favor of abortion.

    What I don’t like is government forcing people to violate their own beliefs.

    #379207

    Twixlen
    Participant

    rus said:
    I see where you’re coming from, but I’m very uncomfortable with government dictating that religious institutions must violate their core beliefs to comply with the law.

    If women demand their workplace provide coverage for abortions / birth control, they’re free to find another workplace. If that means the religious institution has serious problems hiring people ( to the point, perhaps, they are unable to continue ) then so be it.

    In my eyes, religiously affiliated institutions such as hospitals are required to serve *all* people – regardless of that person’s religion. It would be different if they only served a congregation (directly – I realize that many churches do other things). If anything, it inpinges on the rights of the people who work there to *not* include them.

    Also – your insistence on adding abortion into a debate about birth control is some Rick Santorum level nutbaggery.

    #379208

    SusanB
    Participant

    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/cardinal-egan-criticized-for-retracting-apology-on-sex-abuse-crisis/?scp=1&sq=bishop%20apology&st=cse

    It is clear that today we have a much better understanding of this problem,” he wrote. “If in hindsight we also discover that mistakes may have been made as regards prompt removal of priests and assistance to victims, I am deeply sorry.”

    Now, 10 years later and in retirement, [b]Cardinal Egan has taken back his apology[/b].In a interview with Connecticut magazine published on the magazine’s Web site last week, a surprisingly frank Cardinal Egan said of the apology, “I never should have said that,” and added, “I don’t think we did anything wrong.”

    He said many more things in the interview, some of them seemingly at odds with the facts. He repeatedly denied that any sex abuse had occurred on his watch in Bridgeport. He said that even now, the church in Connecticut had no obligation to report sexual abuse accusations to the authorities. (A law on the books since the 1970s says otherwise.) And he described the Bridgeport diocese’s handling of sex-abuse cases as “incredibly good.”

    This church? Are we kidding? Even my Catholic friends are disgusted by this kind of stuff.

    #379209
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    If God hates the pill I wonder what he/she thinks about bj’s?

    #379210
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Twixlen said:
    In my eyes, religiously affiliated institutions such as hospitals are required to serve *all* people – regardless of that person’s religion. It would be different if they only served a congregation (directly – I realize that many churches do other things). If anything, it inpinges on the rights of the people who work there to *not* include them.

    Also – your insistence on adding abortion into a debate about birth control is some Rick Santorum level nutbaggery.

    Exactly how is this “nutbaggery”? From what I can see, this requirement does force religious organizations to pay for abortions. You saying that’s not the case?

    Or are you just trying to shut me up by insulting me?

    ETA: On a related note, perhaps all religious hospitals should shut down. Solves the problem neatly.

    #379211
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    http://www.toledoblade.com/Religion/2012/01/29/Bishops-condemn-insurance-mandate.html

    The largest Catholic employer in northwest Ohio is Mercy, with 7,500 employees at hospitals and medical offices throughout the area as well as at Mercy College of Ohio. Medical Mutual of Ohio administers Mercy’s self-funded health plan, which has different tiers of coverage with varying deductible and co-pay levels so employees can go outside the Mercy system for care.

    As a religious employer, Mercy does not provide coverage for contraceptive services, but it will be required to once the ruling goes into effect even though the services are not consistent with the system’s religious beliefs, Mercy said in a statement. Patient care at Mercy facilities will not be affected, only the insurance benefits for employees, it said.

    “As a faith-based organization, we are disappointed with the ruling by the Department of Health and Human Services that failed to broaden the definition of a religious employer to include Catholic health systems like Mercy,” Mercy said in the statement.

    Catholic health-care systems nationwide, including Mercy and Cincinnati parent Catholic Health Partners, are working with the Catholic Health Association to determine how best to respond to the ruling, according to Mercy.

    The challenges the regulations pose for many groups remain unresolved, and more discussion on appropriate conscience protections is needed, according to the Catholic Health Association.

    “We do believe there’s a need for a national conversation on this,” said Fred Caesar, association spokesman.

    Bobbi Schelkun of Toledo, a senior nursing student at Mercy College of Ohio, is not Catholic but said she believes that Catholic schools and hospitals should not have to provide health care that conflicts with their religions teachings.

    Nurses and other employees have the right to use contraceptives, but that doesn’t mean a Catholic organization should have to pay for it, said Ms. Schelkun, a member of Mercy’s Nursing Advisory Board, a panel of students that meets with nursing program directors.

    “I don’t think they should have to go against their values as organizations,” she said.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 1,426 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

The Columbus Coffee Festival Returns with a “Curated Take Home Box Experience”

CLICK HERE TO PLACE YOUR ORDER