Another Obamacare delay

Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year.

BladeRunner wrote:It's obvious why they want it delayed.

There's an election coming up.

pse1124 wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/13/yet-another-white-house-obamacare-delay-out-of-pocket-caps-waived-until-2015/?partner=yahootix

Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year.

While I feel it's good that it's delayed, the crap should never have passed in the first place.

And when is someone going to tell this sham of a president, that no, you can't do whatever you want, and no, you cannot just pick and choose parts of a law that you want or don't want to follow. It doesn't work that way. The president and Ms. gottspassittofindoutwhat'sinit, created this stupid monstrosity, now deal with the consequences. I don't know how this behavior is defensible, but I bet someone will try.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

pse1124 wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/13/yet-another-white-house-obamacare-delay-out-of-pocket-caps-waived-until-2015/?partner=yahootix

Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year.

While I feel it's good that it's delayed, the crap should never have passed in the first place.

And when is someone going to tell this sham of a president, that no, you can't do whatever you want, and no, you cannot just pick and choose parts of a law that you want or don't want to follow. It doesn't work that way. The president and Ms. gottspassittofindoutwhat'sinit, created this stupid monstrosity, now deal with the consequences. I don't know how this behavior is defensible, but I bet someone will try.

From your link:
"One of the most significant is its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs, such as co-pays and deductibles. Section 2707(b) of the Public Health Service Act, as added by Obamacare, requires that “a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for the any participant or beneficiary.” Annual limits on cost-sharing are specified by Section 1302(c) of the Affordable Care Act; in addition, starting in 2014, deductibles are limited to $2,000 per year for individual plans, and $4,000 per year for family plans."

-------------------------------
Curious - what do others here think of the 'lifetime limit' and the 'deductible limit' ?
Does your current insurance carrier have either or both of those? Do you like it?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:It's obvious why they want it delayed.

There's an election coming up.

Do tell us - what is "obvious"?
How would such a delay affect any elections? (I assume that you are referring to the congress elections - members who will assume office after the delay)

Do you think that the delay will sway the votes of those awaiting the out-of-pocket caps implementation?
Do you think it will sway votes (or campaign donations) of the big insurance companies?
. . . . . or what? Please explain.

(BTW - it's nice to see you participate in an actual discussion on a relevant topic. This one could be interesting, as various views are expressed)

BladeRunner wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:It's obvious why they want it delayed.

There's an election coming up.

Do tell us - what is "obvious"?
How would such a delay affect any elections? (I assume that you are referring to the congress elections - members who will assume office after the delay)

Do you think that the delay will sway the votes of those awaiting the out-of-pocket caps implementation?
Do you think it will sway votes (or campaign donations) of the big insurance companies?
. . . . . or what? Please explain.

(BTW - it's nice to see you participate in an actual discussion on a relevant topic. This one could be interesting, as various views are expressed)

Yawn........

You really can't see it, can you?

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

pse1124 wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/13/yet-another-white-house-obamacare-delay-out-of-pocket-caps-waived-until-2015/?partner=yahootix

Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year.

While I feel it's good that it's delayed, the crap should never have passed in the first place.

And when is someone going to tell this sham of a president, that no, you can't do whatever you want, and no, you cannot just pick and choose parts of a law that you want or don't want to follow. It doesn't work that way. The president and Ms. gottspassittofindoutwhat'sinit, created this stupid monstrosity, now deal with the consequences. I don't know how this behavior is defensible, but I bet someone will try.

From your link:
"One of the most significant is its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs, such as co-pays and deductibles. Section 2707(b) of the Public Health Service Act, as added by Obamacare, requires that “a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for the any participant or beneficiary.” Annual limits on cost-sharing are specified by Section 1302(c) of the Affordable Care Act; in addition, starting in 2014, deductibles are limited to $2,000 per year for individual plans, and $4,000 per year for family plans."

-------------------------------
Curious - what do others here think of the 'lifetime limit' and the 'deductible limit' ?
Does your current insurance carrier have either or both of those? Do you like it?

What do you think will happen to insurance premiums when the lifetime payout limit is changed to infinity and yearly deductibles are capped at $2,000?

I realize you think this is big gubernut giving it to the man but it is just the opposite.  The reason they are delaying this implementation (illegal) is they don't want premiums to skyrocket before the midterm elections. Now go buy your school supplies....

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:It's obvious why they want it delayed.

There's an election coming up.

Do tell us - what is "obvious"?
How would such a delay affect any elections? (I assume that you are referring to the congress elections - members who will assume office after the delay)

Do you think that the delay will sway the votes of those awaiting the out-of-pocket caps implementation?
Do you think it will sway votes (or campaign donations) of the big insurance companies?
. . . . . or what? Please explain.

(BTW - it's nice to see you participate in an actual discussion on a relevant topic. This one could be interesting, as various views are expressed)

Yawn........

You really can't see it, can you?

lol - I really didn't expect you to contribute to this (or any) meaningful discussion. You lived up to that expectation. Maybe you could wait and see what those nasty "other posters" on your coveted "other forum" have to say about it.

BladeRunner wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:It's obvious why they want it delayed.

There's an election coming up.

Do tell us - what is "obvious"?
How would such a delay affect any elections? (I assume that you are referring to the congress elections - members who will assume office after the delay)

Do you think that the delay will sway the votes of those awaiting the out-of-pocket caps implementation?
Do you think it will sway votes (or campaign donations) of the big insurance companies?
. . . . . or what? Please explain.

(BTW - it's nice to see you participate in an actual discussion on a relevant topic. This one could be interesting, as various views are expressed)

Yawn........

You really can't see it, can you?

lol - I really didn't expect you to contribute to this (or any) meaningful discussion. You lived up to that expectation. Maybe you could wait and see what those nasty "other posters" on your coveted "other forum" have to say about it.

If you don't want people talking about another forum on here, why are you the one bringing it up?

Maybe that's how people in Aberdeen operate.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Blade - since Darth was unresponsive on this:
"Many insurance companies have both of those features now. Does yours? Do you pay a very high premium? What about medicare?
Many have lower deductibles. Many cap the out-of-pocket expense, too."
Perhaps you have some thoughts . . . .?
-----------------

Since it was you, Blade, who asserted that the delay was due to 'elections'; perhaps you can answer/discuss this:
"Which political party do you think might suffer (or be helped) because of this delay? Any candidates in particular?"

First, there was the delay of Obamacare’s Medicare cuts until after the election. Then there was the delay of the law’s employer mandate. Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead. Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year.

These mandates have already had drastic effects on a number of colleges and universities, which offer inexpensive, defined-cap plans to their healthy, youthful students. Premiums at Lenoir-Rhyne University in Hickory, N.C., for example, rose from $245 per student in 2011-2012 to between $2,507 in 2012-2013.

The University of Puget Sound paid $165 per student in 2011-2012; their rates rose to between $1,500 and $2,000 for 2012-2013. Other schools have been forced to drop coverage because they could no longer afford it.

Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead.

Skeptical wrote:From the link in the first post in this thread.

Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead.

IIRC this thing call "Obamacare" was rammed through the Democrat controlled congress and signed into law by the President thereby making it the law of the land to be obeyed.

Now that same President is taking it upon himself .. or at least his administration is deciding which parts of the law of the land to enforce and when.

I have been searching for the constitutional authority that allows the President to pick and choose which laws or parts of laws to follow/enforce since I first heard this.

Who is going to help out and cite the authority for what Obama wants to do?

Skeptical wrote:From the link in the first post in this thread.

Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead.

IIRC this thing call "Obamacare" was rammed through the Democrat controlled congress and signed into law by the President thereby making it the law of the land to be obeyed.

Now that same President is taking it upon himself .. or at least his administration is deciding which parts of the law of the land to enforce and when.

I have been searching for the constitutional authority that allows the President to pick and choose which laws or parts of laws to follow/enforce since I first heard this.

Who is going to help out and cite the authority for what Obama wants to do?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Blade - I am curious as to the original source of your quote about a couple of colleges providing health insurance to their students.

A few questions come to mind:
Are these students also employees of the college?
Is the college in the insurance business? Possibly contracting with a provider on this?
I wouldn't imagine that they would have many enrollees - since the "age 26" part of the ACA has been in effect for several years. Students would nearly always opt to stay on their parents' plan. In fact, that is/was considered a big plus of the ACA since the beginning.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Blade - I am curious as to the original source of your quote about a couple of colleges providing health insurance to their students.

A few questions come to mind:
Are these students also employees of the college?
Is the college in the insurance business? Possibly contracting with a provider on this?
I wouldn't imagine that they would have many enrollees - since the "age 26" part of the ACA has been in effect for several years. Students would nearly always opt to stay on their parents' plan. In fact, that is/was considered a big plus of the ACA since the beginning.

Only to the JT's of the world.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/13/yet-another-white-house-obamacare-delay-out-of-pocket-caps-waived-until-2015/

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Skeptical wrote:From the link in the first post in this thread.

Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead.

IIRC this thing call "Obamacare" was rammed through the Democrat controlled congress and signed into law by the President thereby making it the law of the land to be obeyed.

Now that same President is taking it upon himself .. or at least his administration is deciding which parts of the law of the land to enforce and when.

I have been searching for the constitutional authority that allows the President to pick and choose which laws or parts of laws to follow/enforce since I first heard this.

Who is going to help out and cite the authority for what Obama wants to do?

Skeptical - As you probably know, the legislative branch of our government enacts the laws & the executive branch executes them.
I don't think it is 'picking and choosing' which laws or parts of laws. With this new and complex law (PPACA), various parts will naturally be enacted before other parts. As with any major change in a system (government or private), it takes time. You certainly didn't expect it to happen instantly/overnight, did you? I would guess that many various factors determine which parts are implemented earlier & which later.