• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Supreme Court to hear ACA case mandatory contraception

EatLeadCommie said:
I will check out the link when I get home. However, I would assert that comparisons to other countries are likely to be greatly off since the US has loads of fat people eating at mcdonalds and a very different ethnic makeup than the rest of the world.

It is a stretch to say that due process laws require money to secure. These are fundamental rights. Yes, they are tested in courts of law, but so is just about everything, to include rights of speech and religion. If you want to say that something like abortion is a right that we pay for, I'd submit that it is a right (cough cough) that one has the choice to exercise and thus pay for.

Anyway, the debate over whether HC should be a right or not is a healthy one. I happen to think that even if one were to think that it is, it is not on par with those so-called god given rights our founders gave much thought to 220+ years ago.


----------
Tapatalk.
Click to expand...

If access to health care is a right, health care costs money, and some citizens have no money, their right to access health care is meaningless. We do not deny due process to people when they have no money. People are not required to pay a fee to make the police get a warrant before they search their house. Rather, the government taxes all citizens and uses the money to create the infrastructure necessary to protect the right, like judges, juries, and courthouses, and even provides lawyers to those who cannot afford one - the right to counsel having been recognized as an intrinsic part of the right to due process.* Conceptually, health care is no different. If it is a right, then society must pay for people to have access to it. A right that only the wealthy can access is no right at all.

In any case we are effectively treating health care as a right already. Everyone over 65 gets Medicare, the very poor get Medicaid, and the poor people in the middle are guaranteed care when they show up at the ER. The issue is that we are providing access to this right in the most inefficient, inexpensive manner of any of our peer countries, spending vastly more money on it per capita even adjusted for cost of living, and getting worse health outcomes. As a country we have less access to doctors, more deaths due to lung cancer and respiratory illness despite having lower smoking rates than peer countries, spend less time in the hospital but pay more for it - the list goes on. Fixing this is freaking important.

* I recognize that this falls very short of the ideal because states (especially southern states) chronically underfund the justice system and especially public defenders, but that's a different thread.
 
RJKarl said:
Then please tell me how it works.
Click to expand...

Well I can tell you how mine works. Your suggestion that people who have HSA accounts are out of luck once they've spent the money in their HSA, is not true.

I have an HSA health insurance plan through Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina. I pay a monthly premium. This monthly premium is much lower than if I had a traditional health insurance plan.

I pay my monthly premium. In addition to paying my monthly premium I can put up to $6250 a year into my HSA account. These are pretax dollars.

When I go to the doctor I present my Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina card and I pay negotiated rates. I pay out-of-pocket up to the point of meeting my deductible. My deductible for 2013 is about $5600. Any money out of my HSA account that I do not spend rolls over to the next year. Once I have met my deductible all of my covered health care is covered 100% by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.

When I started this plan several years ago I ran the numbers and determined that by paying a reduced premium, and putting that money that I would otherwise pay to premium into an HSA account I come out way ahead in the long run. Eventually, I will likely have enough built up in my HSA account that I could stop making contributions if I wanted to.

Of course, this plan is not ACA compliant, so will be terminated at the end of next year and I will have to move to a more expensive plan.
 
I think it's pretty ridiculous to say that health care isn't on par with the rights given by the founding fathers since germ theory hadn't been hypothesized/discussed yet. As far as I know, hardly anybody knew anything remotely basic about health care so of course the founding fathers didn't talk about it. This doesn't mean it isn't a problem and that society hasn't evolved. If we're just basing rights on what our founding fathers identified and commanded, then black people and women couldn't vote.
 
Does your HSA pay your deductible costs?

What's covered by your other insurance?
 
RJKarl said:
It's not at all like HSAs. In my situation, you'd be buying insurance to protect yourself. With HSAs, if you have an illness, condition or accident that costs more than you have in the bank, you are shit out of luck.

HSAs work for rich, healthy people. They would be a disaster to young couple or a growing family. Or for people with ongoing conditions.

A perfect example was my friend's GF went into the hospital for four days (no operations) and the bill was over $34,000. Let's say she was 30 yo and $15,000 in an HSA. She'd be on the hook for another $19,000+. Then every penny for the foreseeable future would come out of her pocket.

HSAs will lead to massive numbers of personal bankruptcies.

This is much like privatizing SS. That works those with means but would destroy low and lower-middle income earners.

These two policies are typical RW brainwashing events. They help the rich and destroy most of the rest of the public.
Click to expand...

Um, wow. Just so wrong on virtually every front.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account
 
KitchinDeac said:
Well I can tell you how mine works. Your suggestion that people who have HSA accounts are out of luck once they've spent the money in their HSA, is not true.

I have an HSA health insurance plan through Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina. I pay a monthly premium. This monthly premium is much lower than if I had a traditional health insurance plan.

I pay my monthly premium. In addition to paying my monthly premium I can put up to $6250 a year into my HSA account. These are pretax dollars.

When I go to the doctor I present my Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina card and I pay negotiated rates. I pay out-of-pocket up to the point of meeting my deductible. My deductible for 2013 is about $5600. Any money out of my HSA account that I do not spend rolls over to the next year. Once I have met my deductible all of my covered health care is covered 100% by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.

When I started this plan several years ago I ran the numbers and determined that by paying a reduced premium, and putting that money that I would otherwise pay to premium into an HSA account I come out way ahead in the long run. Eventually, I will likely have enough built up in my HSA account that I could stop making contributions if I wanted to.

Of course, this plan is not ACA compliant, so will be terminated at the end of next year and I will have to move to a more expensive plan.
Click to expand...

Great summary. So glad you mentioned paying the alloweds here. Its the hidden benefit of HSAs. You can also fund the HSA as you incur claims. Just an easy way to pay all expenses pre-tax.

There are ACA eligible HSA plans so dont give up just yet!
 
Yes I pay my expenses up to deductible out of my HSA account. It covers the same things that are covered by a standard BCBS plan.

I also selected a plan that did not include maternity coverage, because I determined that the additional monthly premium was more than it was worth. I did this even though my wife and I planned to have more children and in fact did have another child in 2013. Another added benefit of an HSA plan is it gives you ready cash to pay medical expenses. As in all other circumstances, cash is king. Because I had cash on hand to pay the bill immediately I was able to negotiate the labor and delivery bill down to about 40%. Also, because we were paying the bill ourselves, we requested an itemized copy of the bill in my wife reviewed it and found that we were charged for several medications and services that she did not actually get. Blue Cross and Blue Shield would have not had any way to know what services my wife actually did get, and would I just paid the bill!

I recognize that HSA plans are not for everyone. Not everyone has the ability or self-control to put thousands of dollars of money into an account like that every year. However, for people who can do want to do this, HSA plans are great.
 
KitchinDeac said:
Yes I pay my expenses up to deductible out of my HSA account. It covers the same things that are covered by a standard BCBS plan.

I also selected a plan that did not include maternity coverage, because I determined that the additional monthly premium was more than it was worth. I did this even though my wife and I planned to have more children and in fact did have another child in 2013. Another added benefit of an HSA plan is it gives you ready cash to pay medical expenses. As in all other circumstances, cash is king. Because I had cash on hand to pay the bill immediately I was able to negotiate the labor and delivery bill down to about 40%. Also, because we were paying the bill ourselves, we requested an itemized copy of the bill in my wife reviewed it and found that we were charged for several medications and services that she did not actually get. Blue Cross and Blue Shield would have not had any way to know what services my wife actually did get, and would I just paid the bill!

I recognize that HSA plans are not for everyone. Not everyone has the ability or self-control to put thousands of dollars of money into an account like that every year. However, for people who can do want to do this, HSA plans are great.
Click to expand...



The CHDeac plan is for the feds to put HSA $ into accounts for folks making less than $x. Everyone needs some skin the the HC game...
 
One additional thing that we have done for our employees, at their suggestion, is to use their bonuses to first fund their HSA. It doesn't matter to us whether we give them an additional paycheck or just dump the money into the HSA, but on their end they see the major pre-tax benefit. For the younger ones for whom we have contributed but they don't use it much, they can manage their investment options like their 401(k). Some now have several years worth of deductibles built up.

We've had our HDHP/HSA plan for about 4 years now, and everyone loves it. We've had several employees get cancer or require major operations during this period, and the 100% coverage over the deductible was a godsend for them compared to the co-pays applicable to our old plan. The only wrinkle came this year when we had to renew as of 12/1 instead of 1/1 to give us another 11 months of the plan before it risks becoming ACA-noncompliant. As usual, thanks Obama.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
One additional thing that we have done for our employees, at their suggestion, is to use their bonuses to first fund their HSA. It doesn't matter to us whether we give them an additional paycheck or just dump the money into the HSA, but on their end they see the major pre-tax benefit. For the younger ones for whom we have contributed but they don't use it much, they can manage their investment options like their 401(k). Some now have several years worth of deductibles built up.

We've had our HDHP/HSA plan for about 4 years now, and everyone loves it. We've had several employees get cancer or require major operations during this period, and the 100% coverage over the deductible was a godsend for them compared to the co-pays applicable to our old plan. The only wrinkle came this year when we had to renew as of 12/1 instead of 1/1 to give us another 11 months of the plan before it risks becoming ACA-noncompliant. As usual, thanks Obama.
Click to expand...

But, but, but . . . he knows what is best for you and your employees. You're just too dumb to see that clearly.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I think it's pretty ridiculous to say that health care isn't on par with the rights given by the founding fathers since germ theory hadn't been hypothesized/discussed yet. As far as I know, hardly anybody knew anything remotely basic about health care so of course the founding fathers didn't talk about it. This doesn't mean it isn't a problem and that society hasn't evolved. If we're just basing rights on what our founding fathers identified and commanded, then black people and women couldn't vote.
Click to expand...

You're talking about two different kind of rights. Those identified (not granted) by the founders are ours inherently because we are alive. No one has to provide them for us. Health care is different in that regard. A doctor, nurse, technician, someone has to provide it. Therefore, IMO, it is not on par with those identified as "unalienable" rights.

I have no problem with healthcare being made a legal right, though. Everyone should have access to it.
 
Shorty said:
You're talking about two different kind of rights. Those identified (not granted) by the founders are ours inherently because we are alive. No one has to provide them for us. Health care is different in that regard. A doctor, nurse, technician, someone has to provide it. Therefore, IMO, it is not on par with those identified as "unalienable" rights.

I have no problem with healthcare being made a legal right, though. Everyone should have access to it.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree with all of this, I was just addressing ELC's comment about god-given rights and my own opinion on his comment.
 
Deacon923 said:
If access to health care is a right, health care costs money, and some citizens have no money, their right to access health care is meaningless. We do not deny due process to people when they have no money. People are not required to pay a fee to make the police get a warrant before they search their house. Rather, the government taxes all citizens and uses the money to create the infrastructure necessary to protect the right, like judges, juries, and courthouses, and even provides lawyers to those who cannot afford one - the right to counsel having been recognized as an intrinsic part of the right to due process.* Conceptually, health care is no different. If it is a right, then society must pay for people to have access to it. A right that only the wealthy can access is no right at all.

In any case we are effectively treating health care as a right already. Everyone over 65 gets Medicare, the very poor get Medicaid, and the poor people in the middle are guaranteed care when they show up at the ER. The issue is that we are providing access to this right in the most inefficient, inexpensive manner of any of our peer countries, spending vastly more money on it per capita even adjusted for cost of living, and getting worse health outcomes. As a country we have less access to doctors, more deaths due to lung cancer and respiratory illness despite having lower smoking rates than peer countries, spend less time in the hospital but pay more for it - the list goes on. Fixing this is freaking important.

* I recognize that this falls very short of the ideal because states (especially southern states) chronically underfund the justice system and especially public defenders, but that's a different thread.
Click to expand...

Good post. Yet as you recognize, we already provide HC for the poor and elderly. I don't think that's recognizing a right, per se, so much as it is taking care of those who are least able to take care of themselves. For those in the middle, we recognize that they are fully capable of taking care of themselves.

Cost and efficiency are a different matter altogether from the right to HC, though those things (particularly the inefficiency part) are why you see so much resistance to the idea of single payer.

Anyway, this thread has kind of taken a turn away from the legal elements of the SCOTUS challenge. I don't think the Catholic Church's objection is involved in this case, but I would expect it to be rolled into it by the time the case is heard.
 
We don't "provide" for the elderly. They paid for it.
 
RJKarl said:
We don't "provide" for the elderly. They paid for it.
Click to expand...

Any serious analysis will show that the greatest generation and the boomers are going to get far more out of medicare than they ever paid in.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
 
The use of "we" and "they" is the funniest part of that post.
 
Deacon923 said:
Here is an interesting analysis of the Hobby Lobby case.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/will-the-roberts-court-follow-its-own-religious-freedom-precedent/283917/
Click to expand...

That’s because to assert a right to control employees’ private choice will be to hold that religious people—or, even more ominously, some favored religious people—are more easily injured than others, that their free-exercise rights trump those of their employees.
Click to expand...

This is what I can't get beyond. They are not forced to pay for contraceptives. I just fail to see how it would be any different for an employee to use money from their wages to pay for contraceptives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top