Obamacare and The Law of Unintended Consequences

[kbot]

Well, it's not like we didn't warn ya........


Higher health care premiums could cause Obamacare to death spiral

January 8, 2013 | 5:25 pm

Philip Klein

Senior Editorial Writer
The Washington Examiner


This weekend, the New York Times reported on a development that’s completely unsurprising to critics of President Obama’s national health care law: “Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.” The Times story heavily suggests that the problem is that Obamacare didn’t give federal regulators enough power to outright reject rate increases deemed too high. But Reason‘s Peter Suderman makes that case that the real culprit could be Obamacare itself — particularly its requirement that all insurance policies pay out at least 80 percent of what it collects in premiums on medical expenses. Known as the “medical loss ratio” (MLR) rule, this requirement creates an incentive for insurers to hike premiums by reducing their profit margins on any given policy.

Whatever the cause of the higher premiums, however, this trend presents a key structural challenge to Obamacare. The health care law aims to prevent insurers from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, to make sure that policies cover a specified package of benefits, and to limit how much extra money insurers can charge older and sicker patients. All of these provisions increase costs and decrease insurance industry profits. But through the mandate forcing individuals to purchase insurance, the law hopes to push enough younger and healthier Americans into the insurance pool to offset theses cost increases. This is where the problem with rising premiums comes in.

The Times story notes that, “Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.” This is precisely the population that the federal government hopes to induce to purchase insurance through the mandate. But as the Obama administration argued before the Supreme Court, those who choose not to purchase insurance would still be in compliance with the law so long as they paid the tax penalty for not purchasing insurance. Should premiums continue to rise, more and more uninsured Americans are going to choose to pay the penalty rather than purchase expensive insurance. And those who go without insurance are more likely to be the ones who can afford to do so — young and healthy Americans with limited medical expenses. Should this occur, insurers would have to raise premiums even more to subsidize the expenses of the sicker beneficiaries they must cover under the law. This, in turn, would cause additional people to forgo insurance and pay the fine. And so on. This is known in the health care policy community as the “death spiral” and it’s one of the biggest threats to the structure of Obamacare.

With most of the major provisions of the health care law going into effect in 2014, this will be an important trend to keep an eye on.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/higher-he ... le/2517939

[kbot]

OK, so it's Taco Bell. But, someone's relying on the paycheck....... Wonder if we'll start seeing this trend continue with other franchises as the new mandate kicks-in.

Taco Bell Franchise Cuts Worker Hours, Cites ObamaCare

Posted Wed, 2013-01-09 08:27 by BMM

An Oklahoma Taco Bell will cut employees hours in order to avoid ObamaCare. 2014 is when firms with 50 or more employees are mandated to provide health insurance to all full-time workers, or face fines.A worker who had her hours cut and a mother of three, Johnna Davis, speaks out on a local news station:


She says her manager held a meeting before Christmas, saying employees' hours would be cut in the new year. "They informed everybody that nobody was considered full-time any longer, that everybody was now considered part-time, and [they] would be cutting hours back to 28 hours or less due to Obamacare," Davis said. Under the Affordable Care Act, companies are required to provide insurance to its full-time employees, or face fines. Davis would've qualified for an insurance plan. [Full story at Oklahoma's News9}

NOTE: The Affordable Health Care Act uses full-time equivalents (FTE), not actual full-time employees. The fact that a business establishment only uses 37 full time employees, but then uses more part timers to equal the workload does not matters to the tax law. What is counted is the total hours for which the employer pays wages to all employees during the year. Each equivalent of 2080 hours is considered one full-time worker.

For the average franchise owner, a mom & pop that employs under ten full time equivalents, you'll be given major tax credits to help offshoot your costs should you decide to provide health care. There are no tax penalties for small firms with less than 25 full time employees that choose not to provide health care
http://www.bluemaumau.org/taco_bell_fra ... _obamacare

[kbot]

And, apparently Mennonite cabinetmakers are getting wacked as well.


Lancaster County Company on Forefront of Religious Challenge to Obamacare Law

January 2, 2013 4:21 PM

By Cherri Gregg

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — A federal judge in Philadelphia has granted a Lancaster County, Pa. company a ten-day reprieve from penalties for violating the Affordable Care Act. The firm sued, arguing that the law’s provision requiring it to pay for contraceptive services for female employees violates the owners’ religious beliefs.

Norman Hahn and his sons own Conestoga Wood Specialities Corporation, which makes cabinets in Lancaster County.

The Hahns, who are Mennonite Christians, believe it would be a sin to pay for certain contraception services.
So they filed a lawsuit seeking to block the $95,000-per-day fine they would have to pay, beginning January 1st, for failure to comply with the law.



“This is just one step in an intellectual battle happening all across the country,” says University of Pennsylvania law professor Ted Ruger, who lectures on the Affordable Care Act and says that allowing commercial companies to opt out of the women’s health provision is a slippery slope.

“It could work a fundamental change in the way we regulate businesses,” says Ruger. “Every business is owned by somebody who may have their own religious view. It may be Quakers who object to paying taxes that fund the war effort, it may be people who object to paying for certain types of contraception.”

“The law exempts religions,” says Robert Field, professor of health management and policy at Drexel University. “A church or synagogue or a mosque is definitely excluded from having to comply. The next category is religious organizations, like a religiously affiliated college or hospital. There we are still waiting for word from the government on whether they need to comply with this.”

Field says Conestoga Wood Specialties does not fall into either of these categories.

“It goes to almost anything that the government does that it could infringe on someone’s religious beliefs,” says Field. “There is strong case law from the Supreme Court that if a law is religiously neutral — doesn’t single out a religion — then everyone must comply with it.”

The judge is expected to hear the case on Friday. Both Ruger and Field say that regardless of the outcome, they expect the case to be appealed.




http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/0 ... acare-law/

[kbot]

And here, I am sure, that Obamacare will fully kick-in and pick-up the slack

Snippet:

The Little Sisters of the Poor take care of elderly patients in 31 countries, but on Dec. 16 a representative told the congregation of Saint Raymond of Peñafort Church in Springfield, Va., that her order could conceivably be forced to pull out of the United States if paying fines and penalties is the only alternative to compromising on the doctrines of their religion.

Read more:[url]http:// http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/19/obama ... z2HWeu9jJI[/URL]

So, in order to comply with the Obama mandate, all these facilities will probably close. Nice..........

Let's see, they predominately deal with care of the elderly. Many such facilities are sponsored by religious organizations, so it will be interesting to see if THIS trends nationwide among other religious groups. Guess it's time to plan on bringing Mom and Dad back home..... Gee, how with THAT reality impact the two wage-earner home, huh?

Directory of Homes


Brooklyn Province

Queen of Peace Residence
110-30 221st Street
Queens Village, New York
11429-2597
(718)464-1800

Jeanne Jugan Residence
2999 Schurz Avenue
Bronx New York
10465-3826
Phone: 347 329 1800

St Ann’s Novitiate
110-39 Springfield Blvd
P.O. Box 280356
Queens Village, NY
11429-2513
Phone: (718) 464-4920

Our Lady of Hope Residence
1 Jeanne Jugan Lane
Latham New York
12110-3098
Phone: 518 785 4551

St. Joseph’s Residence
1365 Enfield Street
Enfield, Connecticut
06082-4900
(860)741-0791

Our Lady of Providence
31 Britton Drive
Flemington, New Jersey
08822-4609
(908)782-4495

Jeanne Jugan Residence
964 Main Street
Pawtucket, Rhode Island
02860-4896
(401)723-4314

Holy Family Home
5300 Chester Avenue
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19143-4993
(215)729-5153

Holy Family Residence
2500 Adams Avenue
Scranton, Pennsylvania
18509-1597
(570)343-4065

Jeanne Jugan Residence
186 Highland Avenue
Somerville, Massachusetts
02143-1595
(617)776-4420

St. Joseph’s Home
140 Shepherd Lane
Totowa, New Jersey
07512-2198
(973)942-0300


Baltimore Province

St. Martin’s Home
601 Maiden Choice Lane
Baltimore, Maryland
21228-3698
(410)744-9367

St. Paul’s Home
476 Riddle Road
Cincinnati, Ohio
45220-2493
(513)281-8001

Sts. Mary and Joseph Home
4291 Richmond Road
Cleveland, Ohio
44122-6199
(216)464-1222

St. Augustine’s Home
2345 West 86th Street
Indianapolis, Indiana
46260-1981
(317)872-6420

Sacred Heart Home
1655 Mcgill Avenue
Mobile, Alabama
36604-1299
(251)476-6335

Mary Joseph Residence
for the Elderly (Closed)
P.O. Box 741028
New Orleans, LA
70174
Baltimore Province
(410)744-9367

Jeanne Jugan Residence
185 Salem Church Road
Newark, Delaware
19713-2997
(302)368-5886

Sacred Heart Home
930 S. Wynn Road
Oregon, Ohio
43616-3599
(419)698-4331

Sts. Peter and Paul Home
1028 Benton Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15212-1694
(412)307-1100

St. Joseph’s Home
1503 Michaels Road
Henrico, Virginia
23229-4899
(804)288-6245

Jeanne Jugan Residence
4200 Harewood Road, N.E.
Washington, D.C.
20017-1554
(202)269-1831
(Postulate) (202)832-9009


Chicago Province

St. Joseph’s Home
80 West Northwest Highway
Palatine, Illinois
60067-3582
(847)358-5700

St. Mary’s Home
2325 North Lakewood Avenue
Chicago, Illinois
60614-3112
(773)935-9600

Sacred Heart Home
3629 West 29th Avenue
Denver, Colorado
80211-3601
(303)433-7221

St. John’s Home
1236 Lincoln Avenue
Evansville, Indiana
47714-1056
(812)464-3607

Villa Guadalupe
1900 Mark Avenue
Gallup, New Mexico
87301-4822
(505)863-6894

Jeanne Jugan Center
8745 James A. Reed Road
Kansas City, Missouri
64138-4490
(816)761-4744

St. Joseph’s Home
15 Audubon Plaza Drive
Louisville, Kentucky
40217-1371
(502)636-2300

St. Louis Residence
3225 N. Florissant Avenue
Saint Louis, Missouri
63107-3521
(314)421-6022

Holy Family Residence
330 South Exchange Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota
55102-2311
(651)227-0336

St. Anne’s Home
300 Lake Street
San Francisco, California
94118-1357
(415)751-6510

Jeanne Jugan Residence
2100 South Western Avenue
San Pedro, California
90732-4331
(310)548-0625
(Los Angeles area)

http://www.littlesistersofthepoor.org/r ... -directory

[Diogenes]

This is only the beginning.

I deal with this daily and in fact was on the phone for over an hour with a client today about this very topic.

It is only starting

[SquidInk]

I don't understand. The Sisters deal with the elderly, yet they are concerned about being forced to provide contraception... to the elderly?

Or, do they object and want to 'pull out' on principle?

[SquidInk]

The first steps on the pathway to a true healthcare solution remain the same, through all of the clamor and rage of denial:

• remove insurance from the equation, except for catastrophic (unlikely) circumstances
• remove employers from their man-in-the-middle position, between me and a doctor
• dismantle the FDA and other good-ole-boy networks which work against the taxpayers who fund their pathetic existence & replace them with modern agencies
• dismantle the university-as-free-research-ecosystem. Companies should pay for the research they require, not offset those costs onto the taxpayers and students who fund the universities.

[kbot]

This is only the beginning.

I deal with this daily and in fact was on the phone for over an hour with a client today about this very topic.

It is only starting

Is is only the beginning. This will broadly affect the economy. Wit all the talk about "religiously-spinsored" organizations and contraceptives, who would have thought of Taco Bell, Burger King and the Mennonites? Everyone was bashing the Catholics.....

[kbot]

I don't understand. The Sisters deal with the elderly, yet they are concerned about being forced to provide contraception... to the elderly? Does 'Obama' declare that all females must ingest/receive contraceptive? Is 'Obama' requiring males of any age to wear prophylactics at all times?

Or, do they object and want to 'pull out' on principle?

Yes, they serve the elder population. But, they also hire non-religious staff, and, in order to not be exposed to massive fines with Obamacare for refusing to be hypocritical in their beliefs, and provide contraceptives and abortion meds, they will most probably have to close down operations here in the US.

Let me tell you, the hospital I work at was founded by an order of Dominican nuns. Most are elderly now, but they ran this place for over a hundred years. What many, especially Obama and Sebelius don't think about is that many religious would rather close their operations rather than compromise on their beliefs. Sebelius, especially, alleging that she is a Catholic (although I doubt a practicing orthodox Catholic) should have known this. And, as with non-religious businesses, such as Walmart, Taco Bell and Burger King, there's a lot that Obama has apparently taken for granted. Now that the huge fines are out there that he - as well as these companies' employees, are beng surprised to find that a now-growing numbe of companies wil do what companies have always done, and that this to fnid a way to shift the burden off themselves and onto someone else. Some are cutting staff in order to get under the limit of employees, some, such as the Sisters, are considering just closing up shop altogether in what they view, as a now hostile environment. Can't - and don't- blame them, Hopefully Obama will find all these newly released workers jobs. Not gonna hold my breath......

[kbot]

The first steps on the pathway to a true healthcare solution remain the same, through all of the clamor and rage of denial:

• remove insurance from the equation, except for catastrophic (unlikely) circumstances
• remove employers from their man-in-the-middle position, between me and a doctor
• dismantle the FDA and other good-ole-boy networks which work against the taxpayers who fund their pathetic existence & replace them with modern agencies
• dismantle the university-as-free-research-ecosystem. Companies should pay for the research they require, not offset those costs onto the taxpayers and students who fund the universities.

Sounds good. You forgot ambulance-chasing lawyers who promise paintiffs the world on a silver platter.......

You also forgot the requirement that healthcare facilities provide mountains of internal documentation proving that they did "A", "B" and "C" in order to demonstrate "quality". The amount of manpower devoted to these administrtaive tasks which are required by the goverbnment and insurers is incredible

[SquidInk]

Sounds good. You forgot ambulance-chasing lawyers who promise paintiffs the world on a silver platter.......

You also forgot the requirement that healthcare facilities provide mountains of internal documentation proving that they did "A", "B" and "C" in order to demonstrate "quality". The amount of manpower devoted to these administrtaive tasks which are required by the goverbnment and insurers is incredible

Agree, 100%.

How do we separate gratuitous 'ambulance chasing' from legitimate malpractice lawsuits? IMHO, we need watchdogs, and we need to re-introduce real, personal responsibility/ liability into the corporate world.

[Diogenes]

I don't understand. The Sisters deal with the elderly, yet they are concerned about being forced to provide contraception... to the elderly?

Or, do they object and want to 'pull out' on principle?

OK I get it

[kbot]

Agree, 100%.

How do we separate gratuitous 'ambulance chasing' from legitimate malpractice lawsuits? IMHO, we need watchdogs, and we need to re-introduce real, personal responsibility/ liability into the corporate world.

Tell you what would put the brakes on these types of lawsuits real quick - monetarily penalize the lawyers who bring these types of lawsuits. This way, if the claim has merit, fine, bring the suit to court and let the cjhips fall where they may. On the other hand, if the suit has no chance, then they'd think twice. Maybe....

[kbot]

OK I get it

I must be tired.........

[Dale O Sea]

I must be tired.........

I could be wrong, but there may be a big hint between the apostrophes in the post Diogenes cited...