iPads and other tablets may replace workers at fast-food restaurants because of Obamacare and other federal and state government mandates that dramatically increase the cost of doing business.

That is the assessment of Andy Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants, parent company of the Carl’s Jr and Hardee’s fast-food chains. Like other business leaders have declared, he also maintains that firms will likely hire more part-time employees to avoid the added costs imposed by Obamacare and other regulations.

You may remember the hot Carl’s Jr. Super Bowl ad with model Nina Agdal.

Insurers have gone on record warning of of premium sticker-shock under the ironically named Affordable Care Act. For example, the Ohio Department of Insurance has recently predicted a staggering 88 percent increase in health insurance premium costs in 2014.

Various employers around the country have already cautioned that they may pass along expensive insurance cost hikes to customers. Other employers are downgrading workers into part-time status so they no longer have eligibility for insurance coverage or purposely keeping headcount below 50 to avoid the law’s provisions — which means ongoing unemployment when jobseekers don’t get hired. Employers above the 50-worker threshold may find it more cost effective to drop health benefits entirely and pay the $2,000 fine per full-time worker.

Said Puzder about replacing flesh-and-blood employees with kiosks:

You’re going to go into a fast-food restaurant and order on an iPad or tablet instead of talking to a person because we don’t have to pay benefits for any of those things.

A supporter of technology, the CEO nonetheless lamented that the personal touch (as it were) is going to lost with iPad ordering as well as the opportunity for some companies to offer entry-level jobs to newcomers to the workforce.

As far as the burgeoning amount of part-time employment to avoid Obamacare, Pudzer insisted that his fast-food restaurants won’t be forcing anyone to go from full time to part time.  “Everybody is hiring more part-time employees … we’re not firing anyone to hire [part-time workers]. Through attrition, three full-time employees go away and you hire four part-time employees who basically have the same hours.”

Because the US Health and Human Services Department has yet to issue final Obamacare regulations, Pudzer explained that his company has been unable to definitively pinpoint how it will restructure its employee health benefits program.

CKE is headquartered in California but has no plans to expand the number of restaurants in that state because “California is not interested in having businesses grow,” due to intrusive regulations.”

As we have previously reported, some economists have blamed Obamacare for the continuing high unemployment rate.

Look on the bright side if there is one; iPad ordering may mean a greater likelihood that your food purchase comes out correctly.

Do you agree or disagree with the premise that “The ultimate victims [of overregulation] are middle-class entrepreneurs, like restaurant managers, and the low-skill workers they employ”?

iPads To Replace Workers At Some Fast Food Restaurants is a post from: The Inquisitr

Dr. Michael Ciampi is implementing his own brand of healthcare reform; he has stopped accepting any kind of health insurance and instead asks his patients to pay him directly at the end of the office visit. He evens posts his fee schedule online.

The Portland, Maine, primary care physician claims that avoiding any interaction with the insurance bureaucracy allows him to bring down costs for his patients and offer better, more personalized treatment options. “But the decision to do away with insurance allows Ciampi to practice medicine the way he sees fit, he said. Insurance companies no longer dictate how much he charges. He can offer discounts to patients struggling with their medical bills. He can make house calls.”

Eliminating the insurance paperwork improves both patient care and the bottom line, the doctor explains: “I’m freed up to do what I think is right for the patients. If I’m providing them a service that they value, they can pay me, and we cut the insurance out as the middleman and cut out a lot of the expense.”

Added Ciampi: “I’ve been able to cut my prices in half because my overhead will be so much less … If more doctors were able to do this, that would be real health care reform. That’s when we’d see the cost of medicine truly go down.”

Dr. Ciampi posts his price list at his family practice website. He charges $50 for a brief office visit for example; an annual physical is $150.

On the website, the doctor explains the philosophy behind his decision to stop accepting health insurance of any kind. “Practicing this way gives us the freedom to collaborate with patients to create treatment plans that work best for them, not plans which will save their insurance company the most money. Because we eliminate the insurance companies as the middleman in your healthcare, we reduce our costs so that we can charge lower and more reasonable rates than we had to when dealing with insurance. This savings is passed on to you.”

As the insurance scenario gets more and more complicated, Ciampi expects other doctors to go in this direction.

Despite claims to the contrary when Obamacare, a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act, narrowly passed Congress on a straight party-line vote, insurers all over the country are forecasting huge premium increases when the law goes into effect in 2014.

Would you consider going to a direct-pay physician who no longer accepts insurance?

Maine Family Doctor Ditches Health Insurance, Goes Direct Pay is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, dubbed Obamacare, dictates that a health insurance exchange will operate in every state. Today, four more states joined the list of states approved to operate their own State Partnership Marketplaces.

“HHS will continue to work collaboratively with all states to build the Marketplace,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a press release. “Working together, we will be ready in seven months when consumers will be able to use the new marketplace to easily purchase quality, affordable health insurance plans.”

The Department of Health and Human services has conditionally approved Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and West Virginia to operate their own State Partnership Marketplaces.

Today’s addition brings the number of states approved to partially or fully run their own exchanges up to 24 along with Washington, D.C. Several other states have proposed alternative approaches to running exchanges sometime in 2014.

“Whether you’re uninsured or just want to explore new options, the Marketplace will offer you apples-to-apples comparisons of costs and coverage between health insurance plans,” Secretary Sebelius said in a blog post last month. “You can compare all your insurance options based on price, benefits, quality, and other features that may be important to you, in plain language that makes sense.”

Health insurance marketplaces will offer consumers access to health plans, tax credits, and cost sharing assistance. They present both individuals and small businesses with a place to compare policies and premiums. Applicants cannot be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Obamacare’s latest health insurance marketplaces will be ready for enrollment in October.

[Image via ShutterStock]

Obamacare Health Insurance Marketplaces Appear In More States is a post from: The Inquisitr

When the Supreme Court upheld the controversial health care reform two weeks ago, the National Retail Federation (NRF) expressed its intent to redouble its efforts to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, better known as ObamaCare. As House Republicans set out to vote on repealing health care reform today, the NRF remains vocal in its disagreement over the law.

The National Retail Federation is the world’s largest retail trade association and the voice of retail worldwide.

In a statement released this morning, NRF President and CEO Matthew Shay commented on today’s House vote to repeal the health care reform law:

“At a time when the economy is still struggling to recover, Congress needs to repeal the health care law before it costs millions of Americans their jobs.

Congress set out to make health care more accessible by making it more affordable. Instead, what we may well get is a perfect storm of unintended consequences that drives up costs so high that many companies likely will be forced to cut back their payrolls or discontinue health care coverage even if it means paying fines. Instead of making health care more available, the Affordable Care Act is likely to cost many workers both their jobs and their health insurance.

It’s time for Congress to go back to work and come up with true bipartisan health care reform that focuses first on reducing costs and addressing the fundamental flaws of our health care system, rather than destroying jobs and penalizing the very employers who today voluntarily pay for health insurance. As an industry that provides health care coverage for millions of American workers and their families, retail will continue to work with lawmakers to achieve that goal.”

The NRF also recently established a special website to help focus its grassroots and political campaign against health care reform.

Retailers believe that the new health care reform law is bad for business because, instead of making health care more affordable, the mandates are too tricky. As the NRF commented in a joint statement with the National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR):

“NRF and NCCR believe the mandate on employers is both punitive and anti-growth — and ultimately hazardous to our economy. Efforts to reduce the cost of health coverage are insufficient and the law is too complex to administer.”

Today’s House vote will decide the fate of the retail industry in the United States.

Do you think that the new health care reform law will be detrimental to retailers?

Retailers Fight To Repeal Health Care Reform is a post from: The Inquisitr

As we reported earlier, CNN and Fox incorrectly reported the opposite news earlier — and here is an image of the old “Dewey Defeats Truman” pic, reworked.

Dewey Defeats Truman, Modern Version: CNN Incorrectly Reports SCOTUS Mandate Decision is a post from: The Inquisitr

Health care reform was upheld Thursday by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling, but viewers tuned in to CNN or Fox News didn’t know that right away.

In a rush to break the news, both networks initially reported that parts of the reform act commonly known as “ObamaCare” had been struck down. The Arlington, Va., based WJLA News took screencaps of the networks coverage, showing that at 10:08 a.m. CNN’s Twitter feed claimed that the individual mandate had been struck down.

At the same time, viewers watching CNN saw the incorrect information posted on television, and reporter John King said the justices “gutted” the law in “a direct blow to President Obama,” USA Today reported. Readers at CNN.com saw a banner also claiming the mandate had been struck down. Fox News also reported that the high court had declared the mandate unconstitutional, WJLA reported.

Despite much uncertainty over the future of health care reform, the court voted 5-4 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act in full. The deciding vote came from Chief Justice John Roberts, who moved to the left to uphold the act that many conservatives believed would be found unconstitutional. The ruling means that individuals who do not purchase medical insurance coverage can be subject to a tax.

The errors were since corrected by both CNN and Fox News, both on television and on their respective websites.

The error was picked up by several media outlets, but Associated Press reporters have been told to lay off the networks. Jim Romenesko reported that a regional editor issued a memo for reporters to “stop taunting on social networks about CNN and others’ SCOTUS ruling mistake and the AP getting it right” and instead let the organization’s reporting on health care reform take the lead.

Health Care Reform Reporting Screw Up: CNN, Fox News Report It Wrong is a post from: The Inquisitr

In a historic decision today, the Supreme Court upheld a critical piece of the health care reform President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The piece of health care reform, which is also commonly referred to as “ObamaCare,” requires all Americans to acquire health insurance. The decision also upholds an individual tax mandate for individuals who do not buy into medical insurance coverage.

The response to the Supreme Court decision on health care reform has been mixed.

As CBS News reports, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling:

“Today’s decision makes one thing clear: Congress must act to repeal this misguided law. Obamacare has not only limited choices and increased health care costs for American families, it has made it harder for American businesses to hire.”

In a press release released today, the National Retail Federation echoes McConnell’s sentiments:

“As the voice of retailers of all types and sizes, we’re disappointed by today’s ruling. The Court missed an opportunity to redress the many shortcomings of the law.

As it stands, the law wrongly focuses more on penalizing employers and the private sector than reducing health costs. For these reasons, NRF has been a consistent skeptic of the Affordable Care Act.”

The National Retail Federation is the world’s largest retail trade association and the voice of retail worldwide. According to the press release, the group has been working closely with lawmakers since the Affordable Care Act emerged in 2010 in the hopes that the new health care reform would help make health insurance coverage more accessible and affordable. However, the group believes that the law as stands is “riddled with punitive mandates and penalties that were as unreasonable as they were unworkable.”

“Although the Court upheld the law’s constitutionality, many problems remain: it penalizes employers too much; it doesn’t do enough to reduce the cost of health care; and it is unreasonably complicated and difficult to implement and administer.

This law will have a dramatic, negative impact on every employer and employee in the United States and further constrain job creation and economic growth.”

The National Retail Foundation plans to redouble its efforts to repeal the recent health care reform.

However, not all groups have negative feelings about the Supreme Court’s upholding of the health care reform law. As Meka Sales, a public health professional from Charlotte, NC, told CBS News:

“We were totally unprepared for such a favorable decision. I think tears were on deck for a disappointment but what an incredible surprise. The room was filled with complete joy and a sense of justice for those that will have access to health care in the future.”

The American Medical Association (AMA) in a press release today also supports the Supreme Court’s upholding health care reform. Founded in 1847, the AMA’s mission is to promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health. The AMA believes that health care reform will be beneficial to public health:

“This decision protects important improvements, such as ending coverage denials due to pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps on insurance, and allowing the 2.5 million young adults up to age 26 who gained coverage under the law to stay on their parents’ health insurance policies. The expanded health care coverage upheld by the Supreme Court will allow patients to see their doctors earlier rather than waiting for treatment until they are sicker and care is more expensive. The decision upholds funding for important research on the effectiveness of drugs and treatments and protects expanded coverage for prevention and wellness care, which has already benefited about 54 million Americans.”

Furthermore, although groups in opposition to health care reform believe the new law will cause undue burdens on individuals and small business, the AMA believes otherwise:

“The health reform law upheld by the Supreme Court simplifies administrative burdens, including streamlining insurance claims, so physicians and their staff can spend more time with patients and less time on paperwork. It protects those in the Medicare ‘donut hole,’ including the 5.1 million Medicare patients who saved significantly on prescription drugs in 2010 and 2011. These important changes have been made while maintaining our American system with both private and public insurers.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), an organization that which represents 60,000 pediatricians, also supports the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold health care reform. As AAP President Robert W. Block, MD, FAAP, states in a press release:

“Today, the Supreme Court upheld a law that invests in children’s health from the ground up. The Academy endorsed the Affordable Care Act because it addresses the same ‘A-B-C’ goals that are entrenched in our mission and in our 82 years of child health advocacy: providing all children in this country with Access to health care services, age-appropriate Benefits to meet their unique needs, and high-quality, affordable health care Coverage.”

Furthermore, the AAP believes that health care reform will help keep children healthy:

“Pediatricians have already seen firsthand that health reform works. Since the Affordable Care Act took effect, millions of children with pre-existing conditions gained health care coverage; 14 million children with private insurance received preventive health services with no co-pay; and 3.1 million more young adults gained coverage through their parents’ plans. These are just a few of the law’s investments in child health, with many more set to take effect over the next few years as affirmed by today’s decision.”

What do you think about the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the health care reform law?

Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Reform, Responses Mixed is a post from: The Inquisitr

Health insurance companies were an ally to Pres. Obama when the Affordable Care Act was coming into shape, but now the health insurance industry’s super lobbying group is spending millions of dollars on a campaign to convince the public to defeat the legislation.

American Health Insurance Plans, a massive lobbying group for insurers, has spent $102.4 million in efforts to defeat the legislation, Forbes reported. The lobbying group had initially cut a deal with Obama to support the legislation when it was passed in 2010, but in the past year used a legal but secretive process to filter money to the Chamber of Commerce, the report stated.

The cash was funneled under the radar by moving giant sums to the Chamber under the heading “advocacy,” Forbes reported. Doing this allowed AHIP to maintain a public stance in favor of Obamacare even as it worked feverishly for its defeat.

The lobbying group funneled $16.2 million during the final push to pass the bill, the National Journal ‘s Influence Alley reported. The link between AHIP and the Chamber was originally unveiled by Bloomberg’s Drew Armstrong, who found an $86 million payment to the chamber in the same year that AHIP reported giving $87 million to unnamed advocacy groups for “grassroots outreach, education and mobilization, print, online, and broadcast advertising and coalition building efforts” regarding health care reform.

Neera Tanden, senior advisor for health care reform at the Department of Health and Human Services, told Forbes that the secret funding came down to what is known as the Medical Loss Ratio. This was a provision requiring health insurance companies to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on health care expenditures, and any excess not spent in that manner had to be returned to customers.

Health Insurance Companies Secretly Spending Millions To Defeat Healthcare Reform is a post from: The Inquisitr

Health insurance is a nearly entirely American issue, being a stand-alone country in the first world in not providing single payer health care to our citizens.

In recent years, the health insurance issue has risen to cacophony levels — before the economy tanked, the number of Americans shut out of health insurance plans due either to employment or pre-existing conditions was far lower. But as an increasing number of American jobs — along with the health insurance coverage most Americans rely on their employment to provide — disappeared, the rising cost and diminishing availability of health insurance for a growing number of Americans could no longer be ignored.

But while most Americans are able to find some form of health insurance, those who do not face far less favorable outcomes when seeking treatment. And as the Supreme Court looks at the very, very watered down (almost enough to be homeopathic) health insurance coverage act known alternately as the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, one advocacy group has cited a rather grim number of deaths due to the fact that America can’t get it together when it comes to health insurance and just provide single payer like literally every single other developed country in the world.

According to Families USA, a health care consumer advocacy group, 26,000 Americans die each year due to the fact they are not covered by health insurance or not covered enough by health insurance, compared to other countries. CNN quotes Ron Pollack of Families USA, who says:

“The Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress to address an American tragedy and an American shame… The fact remains that for the millions of Americans without health coverage, only the Affordable Care offers the promise of access to affordable coverage and to a longer and healthier life.”

Pollack addressed the ongoing lack of care experienced by those who do not have health insurance, and emphasized:

“For almost 50 million Americans, not having health insurance isn’t trivial, or just an inconvenience or a minor budget challenge… Because of the way we currently provide and charge for health care, many millions of Americans without health coverage are denied regular access to quality care, and many of these people face an unjust sentence of a less healthy life and an earlier death.”

To put the health insurance death toll in perspective, we’ve launched two wars and spent untold amounts of money avenging the 3,000 deaths on September 11th. Had we instead spent the money we had on those wars on health insurance for American citizens, we could be avoiding a death toll that each year is basically like nine September 11ths.

Health Insurance Coverage Gaps Kill 26,000 Each Year, Advocacy Group Says is a post from: The Inquisitr

As November 2012 creeps up on us this might just be remembered as the most important election of our lifetimes. The reason being is that what happens over the next four years may just be the most important in our nation’s future. The problem is that both candidates for the office of President are so painfully out of touch with America that it is very conceivable that they just may screw it up worse than they already have.

For the sake of this article let’s just go ahead an make the assumption that President Obama is going to be running against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. The problem with the both of them is that they are basically the same person. They are both so out of touch that they may just not even understand everyday people and this can guide their policy decisions to disaster.

Let’s take a look at a few of the issues that the both of them will screw up and take us all down with them.

Taxes (Obama): President Obama has made it clear that he wants to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year. This should be an issue he owns because so few people make that much money and almost everyone supports the tax increases (even some of those people who make over $250,000). The problem with Obama’s policy on taxes is that he doesn’t want to take the money he would raise on the tax increase an use it to set America on a sane financial course. He wants to claim that the revenues will help him spend bucketloads of tax payer money, far exceeding what he will raise from the wealthy. The Center for Taxation, a non-profit analyst group estimates that the tax increases Obama wants will raise $47 billion dollars over the next 10 years. The same group estimate that the national debt is projected to climb by more than $7 TRILLION dollars in that same time period.

Taxes (Romney): Mitt Romney wants to do the opposite of President Obama. He thinks the best thing to do for a country that is posting more than $1 trillion dollars a year in deficit spending is to cut everyone’s taxes. He also is allowing the sound byte to rule over common sense. 50% of the American people pay no income taxes at all so his tax cut will not affect them at all. The rest of the middle class will see less than $5,000 per year in tax reductions and in most cases significantly less than that. Yet Romney and his friends who are among the Super Wealthy will see a tax cut of tens of millions of dollars. I am not a fan of taxing the rich just because they are rich but doesn’t it get to a point where they have to at least pay something? Romney himself is worth more than $200 million dollars and he paid less than 15% of his income in taxes this past year. Isn’t that a problem when the system allows him to do this at all? Of course it does.

Healthcare (Obama): President Obama was one of the first Presidents in decades to fundamentally want to change the way healthcare works in America. Before his second year in office was complete he managed to pass the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. I applaud the President for going after the issue and for even passing something. The problem is that in his zeal to get something passed, he abandoned what he knows the country needs (single payer system) and instead threw all of us to the wolves. He is forcing us to buy a product from the same companies that have been raising the cost of medicine for years and screwing us at every turn. He thinks he put adequate safeguards into the bill that the government can protect us from the insurance companies. The problem is that sooner or later with the trillions of dollars these companies are going to make if the individual mandate is held up in court, the insurance companies will be able to get their lobbyists to change the rules to benefit them even more.

Healthcare (Romney):Romney’s plan is simply this. He doesn’t have one! he has vowed to make repealing Obamacare his number 1 priority but he has no idea what to replace it with. So after the insurance companies have been raising rates by up to 350% in anticipation of the Obamacare mandatory services, the inability to exclude people for preexisting conditions and having to keep children on their parent’s policies until they are 26, they will be free to drop all those provisions and do you think they will drop prices…yeah right.

These are just two of the issues I will get into right now. Please check my column in the future as I get into more of the reasons why these two candidates are wrong for America and what we can do to take our country back.

Left and Right is a three times weekly column by Inquistr writer H. Scott English examining the hottest political issues of the day, the candidates running for public office and the 2012 elections.

[Left and Right] Why This Election Matters So Much and So Little (Part 1) is a post from: The Inquisitr

Mitt Romney spoke about Health Insurance on Tuesday, but was very vague when it came to the topic of covering those with pre-existing conditions. He said that there should be rules against companies denying insurance to those who have held insurance before. He had no answer for those who have never been able to get insurance.

Romney said Tuesday night on NBC’s “Tonight Show with Jay Leno,

“People who have been continuously insured … then they get real sick and they happen to lose a job or change jobs, they find, gosh, I’ve got a pre-existing condition, I can’t get insured. I’d say, ‘no no no. As long as you’ve been continuously insured, you ought to be able to get insurance going forward.”

Romney made sure to add that Obamacare should be repealed and the issue should be there for the States to decide.

Obamacare addresses the issue of those with pre-existing conditions with an individual mandate, a requirement that all Americans purchase an insurance policy. Romney acknowledged that there is a huge problem when those with pre-existing conditions try to get insurance without having been covered before.

Romney said “people who have done their best to get insured,” even with a pre-existing condition, should be able to get insurance adding that there have to be safeguards in the system for those who just wait to get insurance until they are sick.

Romney told Jay Leno,

“Well, if they’re 45 years old, and they show up and they say, ‘I want insurance because I’ve got a heart disease, it’s like, ‘Hey guys, we can’t play the game like that. You’ve got to get insurance when you’re well, and if you get ill, then you’re going to be covered.”

Mitt Romney signed a bill into law in his home state of Massachusetts when he was governor which is referred to as Romneycare. It also contained the individual mandate, which Romney now says he doesn’t support.

Mitt Romney Fumbles When It Comes to Pre-Existing Conditions is a post from: The Inquisitr

Critics of President Barack Obama like to blame the Commander in Chief for continually skyrocketing gas prices and out of control healthcare costs they blame on his reforms to the insurance system, but like with the cost of fuel, rising health insurance prices are a problem that preceded the Obama administration.

A recent survey reveals that Americans are finding that their health insurance covers far fewer bits of essential care- and that their employers oftentimes pick up fewer of the expenses they’ve grown accustomed to seeing covered under health insurance plans. According to the survey- detailed in the Huffington Post- employers are viewing the new healthcare exchanges as providing flexibility to new hires and existing employees:

“For companies, this opens up new possibilities. ‘The options, which range from continuing to discontinuing health plan sponsorship, include offering an employer-sponsored plan to only a portion of the population and providing employees with a defined contribution for use in the exchanges,’ the report says.”

Nearly half of the employers surveyed- 45%- said they would be likely or very likely to encourage staff to look at health insurance exchanges. And scarily, only 3% voiced a commitment to assisting workers in securing health insurance in the wake of rising costs. But while it may be tempted to blame reforms for “driving up” the cost of health insurance, the spikes have been a long time coming- and the health care reform initiative was an attempt to help Americans access services. HuffPo explains:

“The decline in the availability of health insurance at work predates Obama’s health law. From 1999 to 2011, the share of firms that offer coverage declined from 66 percent to 60 percent, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation… Fewer than one-fourth of companies said they were “very confident” they would still provide health benefits in 10 years.”

It seems if anything, health insurance is set to become harder to obtain for many Americans despite the Obama administration’s best efforts to stave off the crisis. Have you lost your health insurance or gone uncovered in recent years?

Health Insurance Costs More, Covers Less, Survey Says, and Decline Predated ‘Obamacare’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Health insurance costs are on the rise again, and businesses in California will be turning to high deductible medical insurance plans in an effort to stem the cost of group plans. Many of the largest health care providers in California, such as Anthem, will be raising their rates by an average of 8 to 14 percent for thousands of policy holders with individual coverage. This is causing companies who are required to offer benefits to their workers to only give the options for high-deductible plans, in an effort to shield themselves from higher costs.

These hikes in medical premiums will surpass the national average cost of health care by 3.5%. As an individual who pays over $100 for the bare essentials of medical care per month, the thought that costs will be raising again this year is frightening. Imagine if the prices for groceries were to rise as fast as those of medical insurance.

To give you an example, my medical insurance (with a provider I will not name), went from $113 to $132 from the 2010 to 2011 fiscal year. That’s a raise of $19. Imagine going to the grocery store one day, and spending $75 in groceries, then going back the next week, only to find out that the same exact order costs 14.5 percent more (the percentage the unnamed company raised the premium rate). That same order, just one week later, would cost a little bit over $85.

Do you think that what the health insurance providers are doing is right? Are they really considering their customers when they hike their rates up so much, causing both businesses and individuals to pay the price? Or is there more to the story than this?

Businesses Turn to High Deductible Medical Insurance is a post from: The Inquisitr

Critics of the health care reform act passed under President Obama have generally gone one of two ways: either saying that the reforms don’t go far enough and should have obliterated profit-centric insurance companies entirely, or contending that due to the law, companies will be “forced” to pass rising costs on to workers or otherwise compensate by trimming workforces or benefit levels.

It seems Wal-Mart is feeding the latter group’s grumblings, despite an original assertion the mega-retailer favored health care reforms. The company has announced a shift in coverage burden to its notoriously poorly-paid workforce, as well as some cuts to coverage for employees who work fewer hours. Wal-Mart has come in for criticism in the past for passing its insurance costs on to taxpayers with a workforce eligible for and often reliant on programs like Medicaid, but it doesn’t seem this factored into the decision of one of the largest employers in the US.

Spokesman for Wal-Mart Greg Rossiter told the New York Times:

“Over the last few years, we’ve seen our health care rates increase and it’s probably not a surprise that this year will be no different. We made the difficult decision to raise rates that will affect our associates’ medical costs. The decisions made were not easy, but they strike a balance between managing costs and providing quality care and coverage.”

While it seems the problem can’t be tackled until Americans face the fact that a for-profit healthcare system has become unaffordable for a growing number of Americans, many still believe that moves to reform health care and make access more affordable are a step in the wrong direction. However, it seems that Wal-Mart’s decision to drop some employees- part-timers at over 30 hours per week- may be changed by law when the reforms go into effect in 2014.

Health Care Benefits Cost Being Passed On to Employees By Wal-Mart is a post from: The Inquisitr

One of the most commonly bemoaned aspects of the American health care system by advocates of a single payer plan- that Americans on average pay far more for a far less comprehensive standard of care- is how doctors are mired in the costs and labor of dealing with health insurance companies, a new study finds.

Unlike their Canadian peers, American docs spend a significant amount of money and time on health plans- resources that could be allocated to providing care, not to mention upping their margins- at $82,975 in the US per per physician, versus $22,205 for Canadian docs. The study, published in the August issue of Health Affairs, also finds that American doctors spend nearly three and a half hours per week directly interacting with health plans, versus 2.2 hours a week for physicians in Canada.

For nurses and medical assistants in the US, that number skyrockets to over 20 hours a week, compared to 2.6 hours per nurse or medical assistant in Canada. Inefficiencies could be rooted out, the study says, by managing more information via electronic means than paper, phone or fax.

Would you like to see America convert to single payer health care plans, or do you prefer the private health insurance system?

Health Insurers Drive American Doctors’ Costs Up Nearly 4X, Study Says is a post from: The Inquisitr

Children with public insurance like Medicaid are far less likely to receive urgent dental care than their counterparts with private insurance such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, recent “undercover” research has found in Illinois.

The study, published in Pediatrics, had six research assistants call 85 dental practices in Illinois. The researchers posed as the mothers of a non-existant 10-year-old child with an urgent injury to a front tooth. If not treated, the hypothetical problem carried risk of infection, cosmetic concerns, pain and other serious considerations.

Half the dental practices called were enrolled in Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Plan (CHIP). Overall, 36.5% of children enrolled in CHIP or Medicaid were able to get an emergency appointment, versus 95.4% of privately insured kids. Only 7% of the 36.5% of publicly insured kids were on Medicaid.

Even among Medicaid-enrolled dentists, only 68% of the “moms” were able to secure appointments for their children, versus 100% of the moms who purported to have private insurance. One of the study’s co-authors had this to say about the discouraging numbers:

“That’s a huge difference,” said study co-author Dr. Karin Rhodes, director of the division of emergency care policy research at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy and Practice. “This gives irrefutable numbers. I think there’s a real disparity between oral health and traditional medical care in this country.”

Rhodes noted that in the study, money talked:

“I think many dentists shy away from emergency care because they have to follow up” when they know they may not be equitably reimbursed, Rhodes said. “I also found it disturbing a lot of dentists who turned down patients … said they were willing to see the child if the mother would pay cash.”

Researchers say that without better funding for public programs, the disparity will persist.

Dentists far less likely to accept kids on Medicaid, group finds is a post from: The Inquisitr

Whole Foods is supposedly a great company to be employed with.

Unless you’re a big fat fatty, in which case Whole Foods would like to remind you that you’re less valuable to them than your thin co-workers. While Whole Foods offers a 30% discount to workers who are skinny- with a BMI below a certain number- if you’ve got junk in the trunk, the rate of your discount plummets 10% to a paltry 20%.

Who are the marketing whizzes behind this divisive and cruel policy? Why it’s none other than CEO John Mackey, who, when not fighting health care reform, is busy astroturfing it up on internet forums. Mackey helpfully gets down and douchey to his staff, in a letter:

Mr Mackey said the company hoped the programme would be “empowering and fun for team members who enjoy a challenge”, and that the company was not taking anything away from workers who chose not to participate.

“These new higher discounts are incentives to encourage our team members to be healthier and to lower our healthcare costs,” he said. “We believe this is a win-win programme that will help both our team members and our shareholders.”

Being as limited food budgets are known to increase obesity rates, this strategy is retarded. However, as no one working in retail can afford to shop at Whole Foods, I think the discount thing isn’t going to affect Whole Foods employees one way or the other, so it kind of cancels out except for being totally judgmental and insulting. It is unclear whether staff will be further incentivized by having co-workers chant “boom, boom, boom” under their breath as fat employees walk by or having POS terminals pop up helpful messages like, “do you really need a whole pound of organic cocoa nubs? Well, if you think so…” during staff purchases.

Whole Foods blatantly discriminates against staff “of size” is a post from: The Inquisitr

A 33 year-old morbidly obese man with no health coverage was returned untreated to a recliner in his home in March after a knee injury.

Daniel Webb became unable to walk or leave his home after the injury, for which he was unable to receive treatment. Webb’s wife Ada tried to no avail to obtain disability and medical coverage for her husband, who remained in the chair for nearly nine months, covered in sores and human excrement. Webb was removed from the home by EMS workers who had to cut a hole in Webb’s trailer to move his body. He died of cardiac arrest within hours of removal from the chair.

EMS workers have said that Webb weighed between 800-900 lbs, but his wife Ada puts the figure closer to 500 lbs. Ada Webb met her husband on MySpace, and Daniel Webb died on what would have been their second anniversary. While she told press it was the worst anniversary she could imagine, Daniel’s was far better because he was with Jesus. The clip below shows Ada Webb talking to a reporter about the difficulties the Webb family faced in treating Daniel.

[Source]

Uninsured Daniel Webb sent to La-z-boy to die is a post from: The Inquisitr

This doesn’t come as much of a shock really, but health insurance companies in Britain, Canada and the U.S. have invested at least $4.4 billion in tobacco companies.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has confirmed that at least $4.4 billion in health insurance company funds are invested in companies whose subsidiaries produce tobacco in the form of cigarettes, cigars and chewing tobacco.

According to the study, US insurer Prudential Financial has $US264.3 million dollars invested among three US tobacco companies, including Reynolds America and Philip Morris.

Canadian insurer Sun Life Financial, which sells life, disability and health insurance, has a stock portfolio with more than one billion dollars in two tobacco companies, including $US890 million in Philip Morris.

Tobacco is the leading cause of lung cancer as well as a major risk factor for heart attack, stroke, pulmonary disease and other types of cancer. According to the World Health Organisation, it is a contributing factor in 5.4 million deaths a year.

So, all you non-smokers out there, how do you feel about your health insurance premiums being invested in companies that produce products that are slowly killing you?

[Source: News.com.au]

Health Insurance Companies have $4.4 Billion Invested in Tobacco Production is a post from: The Inquisitr

That wacky mob PETA, fresh from “flouring” Lindsay Lohan in Paris has sent a letter to BlueCross BlueShield health insurance company in Vermont on behalf of their 2 million members asking that health insurance premiums be raised for meat eaters and reduced for vegetarians.

They state that meat eating is linked to some of America’s “deadliest diseases” and that agreeing to this request will result in the company saving money, which we all know PETA cares about.

PETA argues that a a cut in insurance premiums would give people an “incentive” to do without meat and that will make them healthier. The letter also warns of the danger of E coli outbreak. I would be more worried about catching the outbreak of smug, superiority that normally accompanies being a vegetarian and PETA member.

BlueCross BlueShield said that discrimination on the grounds of eating preferences was illegal in every state. They obviously didn’t feel the need to add the bit about how they couldn’t give a crap about what PETA thinks anyway.

Via ecosalon

PETA says meat eaters should pay more insurance is a post from: The Inquisitr