Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[classicman]

Why would they choose not to in this case? Something has got to be different.
This is all I could find.

New York (May 21, 2010) -- A federal judge has endorsed vision insurer Vision Service Plan's argument that it does not have to do business with a courtroom adversary, denying eyeglass maker Aspex Eyewear Inc.'s bid for an injunction to keep it “in-network” while the two engage in patent and antitrust litigation.

Aspex has not shown it is likely to succeed in its antitrust case against VSP, Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California...

Perhaps its because they are no longer an "in-network" provider.
Thats what must have happened.

ETA - just found it - thats what happened.

[Undertoad]

VSP moved Aspex from in-network to not in-network. That is the insurance terminology for VSP saying they are no longer providing insurance for Aspex frames.

[classicman]

OH, I got that now. I didn't get that out of what Spex posted.
I've worked for several and dealt with many insurance companies and providers over the years - in my experience, that happens all the time.

That just happened to a major ambulance company that I had to deal with last year. I hope that my input was part of the reason why they are no longer in-network.
In fact, I hope they go out of business.

[classicman]

Without knowing all the background on the company, we don't know why they chose to no longer keep them as an in-network provider. Perhaps there is another company that is selling comparable products at a more reasonable rate.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Don't you read your own links?

Citing ongoing “commercial disputes” between the two companies, the letter said VSP “has re-examined its business relationship” with Aspex as a consequence of that situation.

[classicman]

Occasionally. Usually I just post them here for the retired dwellars to read and point out the good parts.

[classicman]

Here is the "final" ruling.

[classicman]

Cartoonish explanation of reform

This Kaiser/Cokie Roberts cartoon explaining ObamaCare is getting a lot of attention. Great production values…

… but lousy on substance. Here’s why. It parrots the administration’s line that the bill brings down the deficit, but it doesn’t discuss:

—The cost of implementing the law, which the CBO says will be well over $100 billion
—The payment reductions that Medicare’s chief actuary admits will drive many health providers out of business
—The “doc fix” that could cost more than $300 billion
Other than that, the cartoon is great!

Joe Antos will have more on the high costs of ObamaCare on American.com tomorrow.

[TheMercenary]

McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers

By Drew Armstrong, Bloomberg Business News
Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.
Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014.


REFORM: A consumer primer for health insurance changes in 2011
HEALTH CARE: New website compares coverage prices

"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got."

The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 people. San Diego-based Jack in the Box's waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald's asked to excuse 115,000.

The plans will be exempt from rules intended to keep people from having to pay for all their care once they reach a preset coverage cap. McDonald's, which offers the programs as a way to cover part-time employees, told the Obama administration it might re-evaluate the plans unless it got a waiver.

McDonald's and Jack in the Box didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

The waiver program is intended to provide continuous coverage until 2014, when government-organized marketplaces will offer insurance subsidized by tax credits, says HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo.

The regulations would have hit some insurance plans for young adults in the universal coverage program run by the state of Massachusetts. The program, enacted in 2006, has a plan for individuals ages 18 to 26 who can't get coverage through work, covering about 5,000 people. The waiver obtained by the state "will give us time to implement the transition plan in a manner designed to mitigate premium increases," says Dick Powers, a spokesman for the state program.

The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...terstitialskip

[Spexxvet]

Good, upstanding corporate citizens, they are.

[Happy Monkey]

I heard that the McDonald's plan cost the employee about $700 per year and had a maximum yearly payout of about $2000. That sounds more like a way to get money back from the employee than a benefit.

[Shawnee123]

That's OK. You've seen the commercials, right? All the employees are healthy and happy and robust and they probably never need health insurance.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

That's OK. You've seen the commercials, right? All the employees are healthy and happy and robust and they probably never need health insurance.

And they have all those Ronald McDonald Houses for when the employees get sick.

[classicman]

The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I heard that the McDonald's plan cost the employee about $700 per year and had a maximum yearly payout of about $2000. That sounds more like a way to get money back from the employee than a benefit.

That's equivalent to a plan costing $580 bucks a month, with a $20,000 max payout. Those are pretty standard numbers on many health plans. What it really boils down to is most people don't have the discipline to save that money each month for their inevitable health crisis down the road. To a certain degree health insurance is just an enforced savings plan.