Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 23, 2011 11:08:27 GMT -8
Plenty of pro vs con discussion of Obama's signature "accomplishment" here. The comment section is, in my opinion, more important than the article itself. This post ends up being very long, deals with some very crucial aspects of ObamaCare and how they will impact every one of us.
Here are a few of the comments that I found especially important. (Pretty long but informative). . .
eannie Yesterday 07:37 AM
Can't agree more with the comments that say getting rid of employer health care is a good thing. One of the biggest revenue expenditures is the tax subsidy for employee provided health care. If we can get the money back in the public coffers it can only help to support the expanded coverage of low income people. The whole point of Obamacare is to begin to rationalize the patchwork, inefficient, overly expensive American health care system.
======================
johnr22 Today 06:20 AM in reply to Riggsveda
Be careful what you wish for. Look at Europe/Canada; they spend 1/3 per capita compared to the US and the result is:
1. An all-powerful govt bureaucracy; opaque and unresponsive. Nobody to complain to, and when you do complain, nobody listens.
2. VERY aggressive rationing to keep costs down.
2. Endless waiting lines, even for life critical items.
3. MUCH less care (quantity/quality) for the elderly; they're very expensive and there just isn't enough money.
4. Virtually nothing spent on R&D; no money for it. Ironically they rely heavily on the US....just like they do for Defense.
5. MUCH less high tech; again...just not enough money for it.
But...you WILL have the satisfaction of feeling good about yourself; about complimenting yourself on how GOOD and MORAL you are, now that everybody has "health care" (or should I say a health care card that qualifies you to get in line).
============================
Andrew Carvin
I hope Obamacare does destroy private insurance. Private insurance should really be called "your monthly mugging" considering how much the average person has to pay for it. Heck, at my last job HR told me with a straight face that it would cost a 1/4 of my monthly income to have it, AND I would still have a copay.
IT WAS CHEAPER TO NOT HAVE THE INSURANCE AND PAY OUT OF POCKET WHEN I GOT SICK.
Private insurance = greedy bastards who are more than willing to squeeze every last drop of money, and life out of you. show more show less
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply Larry A Yesterday 01:11 PM in reply to Andrew Carvin
You are illiterate when it comes to economics (capitalism) and healthcare, aside from your bigotry. It's a wonder why you don't support the notion that we should buy our home, car, food, computer, etc from the government. Cars, computers, and cell phones used to be out of reach to the average american due to the prohibitive cost and it was capitalism that lowered cost that people can now afford to purchase. However, the same cannot be said about healthcare and for good reason: it does not operate under a free-market system. As such the only way to contain costs to healthcare is to ration it. The problem with our healthcare had its origins with FDR. Goe educate yourself. ===========================
(Emphasis mine in this one. . . AzWm)
Pasing Obamacare Yesterday 11:19 AM
OF COURSE EMPLOYERS ARE GOING TO DROP COVERAGE! It’s cheaper for them to pay the penalty, employees get more subsidy from the government than many companies contribute towards premium, and employees in the exchange get to pick from EVERY INSURER IN THE EXCHANGE, where they get no pick in the employer-based market and must use what the boss chooses…DUH!
From the administrative side, the employer penalty is based on something no employer would or could know: the household income of their employees. Therefore, even for the ones offering insurance, if their contribution towards premium does not satisfy the requirements of Obamacare (employees cannot pay more than 9.8% of their household income towards coverage or they become eligible for federal subsidy…triggering the penalty), they have to pay anyway. The employer penalty is DESIGNED to generate over $40 BILLION in revenue; it does by making sure it cannot be avoided.This was covered in more detail by Shawn Fremstad at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in 2009. And I quote: “two employers with identical numbers of employees, compensation costs, and profits, could end up paying widely different amounts in penalties based on a fact – the income of other members of an employers family – over which they have no control and may have no knowledge”
The McKinsey report is correct. That might make an interesting article, coming from here )Learn about a better alternative to Obamacare: www.passingobamacare.com
This Obamacare law is SO RIDICULOUS!
================================
David1225 Yesterday 12:29 PM
Here's the rub, at least for me. The heath care law was supposed to deal with two major issues. First, it was supposed to stop the rapid escalation of health care prices. Second, it was supposed to bring the uninsured into a system under which their health care would cost less than what we are already paying for the kind "seat of the pants" approach that leads people into emergency rooms for the flu. The problem, however, is that it did neither -- and, moreover, added features that will only increase health care costs for everyone. All you need to know is that, after 2014, all health care plans will be "Cadillac" plans that have no annual or lifetime caps. Care to guess how much additional cost that will add?
===========================
David B Yesterday 01:01 PM
I suspect McKinsey is closer to reality. From a business perspective the math is simple: (a) what premiums do I pay now, (b) what is my administrative cost, (c) how much do I have to increase employee salaries to enable them to buy directly and (d) what penalty do I have to pay to the government. If a+b-c is greater than d then I toss them onto the government. I have omitted taxes inasmuch as a and c are both deductible but it could be a small factor. Obviously the rate of future increase in each element must be considered, but since health costs are increasing faster than salaries, it is most likely to encourage companies to dump employees onto the government. Most academic studies tend to underestimate or even exclude b but going to the government simplifies compliance significantly, especially amongst smaller employees without economies of scale. Its nothing personal, its just business by math!
================================
ParkerHurlburt Yesterday 04:31 PM in reply to Russell Edward Zagrodzky
Your statement "what happens then" is beyond everyone on Mother Earth and 99% of Democrats. This really isn't rocket science. As an employer (which I am) if it costs me less in 2015 to move everyone to the government plan, off they go. Also I have several friends who are doctors and they've said in 2015 they are going to a "concierge" service. By 2020 the only doctor government insured will see will have gotten their license in Mexico City, India or the Caribbean. D's are horrible about the "what next" and the Health Plan, and anything that has to do with economics. ==================================
Historyshowsus Yesterday 01:25 PM
Don't get me wrong guys, even tho I don't support Obamacare (mostly for ethical reasons) I have no problem with companies not providing health insurance. Why do you think it is so expensive? Because of corporate health plans it's a cash cow and the insurance companies know it.
A teacher in this era is unlikely to be able to buy decent health insurance on their pay. But my father, who was a teacher, did pay for his own insurance in the late 50s and early 60s. He could afford it because insurance had to attract customers. Now they don't need to attract customers because labor unions guarantee them millions of customers through corporate health plans and the price keeps going up.
This expense, along with ridiculous retirement plans, destroyed this countries steel industry, rail industry, airline industry (6 of 10 major airlines from the 70s are gone) and without Obama's bailout would have destroyed America's auto industry (for Chrysler their second government bailout).
However, Obamacare is not going to lower insurance costs because it mandates by law that YOU MUST PURCHASE INSURANCE (constitutionality still pending).
That is STILL a cash cow you idiots.
=====================================
VyronX
. . . . Folks, you don't need a fancy study to understand why employers WILL drop their group health plans. 1. health benefits are a huge expensive for companies, small or large. 2. for small businesses under 50 employees there is NO PENALTY at all to drop your employees. 3. even for larger employers the penalty is cheaper than continuing to provide the coverage. It doesn't take a math wizard to see the savings. (just look up the internal AT&T study at how much AT&T would save.)
The reason Obamacare is a joke is because the plan isn't collecting anywhere near enough tax revenue to handle this many people now buying their own individual SUBSIDIZED coverage on the exchanges. Additionally, the exchanges themselves are so restricted, allowing only 4 types of coverage offerings, and limiting every kind of current cost controls (co-pays, deductibles, HSAs, etc.) that they will only drive costs higher even as the whole contraption collapses under its own stupidity. Why do you think private insurance went along with this? The govt. has limited the market making it easy for the big players to inhibit competition & drive small players completely out of the market plus the govt. is subsidizing the purchase of private insurance for these same big health insurance companies. It's crony capitalism & you better believe it is going to cost A LOT more than Obamacare's original estimates.
On one hand it is better to have individuals buying their own coverage. But they should be buying it like they buy Auto or Home insurance - on an open marketplace providing a wide array of choices and options. Allowing consumer choice and creating a bigger market with more choices creates new ideas, options & better cost control. Either way consumption of health care must decline. This can be done by A. using govt. panels, regulations and controls to dictate treatments and limit care or B. allow individuals to make decisions based on cost and coverage for themselves.
For example, if I have $10,000 of MY MONEY in an HSA and I'm using a high-deductible health insurance plan to save costs, I might make different choices about having surgery on my shoulder. Say my deductible is $5,000 - that comes out of my savings account. So I actual make a consumer choice - does my shoulder really need fixed. And I talk about that with my Doctor and we make a choice. Maybe we elect to try a more cost-effective therapy. But I make the choice for myself. When everything is free - I'm just going to get it fixed. That's why our system doesn't work.
For all of you Canada and England lovers - their system simply does option B. and limits, denies, regulates & delays care in order to control cost. The big time top down decision making that socialists love. I think America is about individual freedom and individual choice. Option A is freedom to make your own choices.
===================================
motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/06/will-obamacare-destroy-private-insurance
AzWm
Here are a few of the comments that I found especially important. (Pretty long but informative). . .
eannie Yesterday 07:37 AM
Can't agree more with the comments that say getting rid of employer health care is a good thing. One of the biggest revenue expenditures is the tax subsidy for employee provided health care. If we can get the money back in the public coffers it can only help to support the expanded coverage of low income people. The whole point of Obamacare is to begin to rationalize the patchwork, inefficient, overly expensive American health care system.
======================
johnr22 Today 06:20 AM in reply to Riggsveda
Be careful what you wish for. Look at Europe/Canada; they spend 1/3 per capita compared to the US and the result is:
1. An all-powerful govt bureaucracy; opaque and unresponsive. Nobody to complain to, and when you do complain, nobody listens.
2. VERY aggressive rationing to keep costs down.
2. Endless waiting lines, even for life critical items.
3. MUCH less care (quantity/quality) for the elderly; they're very expensive and there just isn't enough money.
4. Virtually nothing spent on R&D; no money for it. Ironically they rely heavily on the US....just like they do for Defense.
5. MUCH less high tech; again...just not enough money for it.
But...you WILL have the satisfaction of feeling good about yourself; about complimenting yourself on how GOOD and MORAL you are, now that everybody has "health care" (or should I say a health care card that qualifies you to get in line).
============================
Andrew Carvin
I hope Obamacare does destroy private insurance. Private insurance should really be called "your monthly mugging" considering how much the average person has to pay for it. Heck, at my last job HR told me with a straight face that it would cost a 1/4 of my monthly income to have it, AND I would still have a copay.
IT WAS CHEAPER TO NOT HAVE THE INSURANCE AND PAY OUT OF POCKET WHEN I GOT SICK.
Private insurance = greedy bastards who are more than willing to squeeze every last drop of money, and life out of you. show more show less
Flag 1 person liked this. Like ReplyReply Larry A Yesterday 01:11 PM in reply to Andrew Carvin
You are illiterate when it comes to economics (capitalism) and healthcare, aside from your bigotry. It's a wonder why you don't support the notion that we should buy our home, car, food, computer, etc from the government. Cars, computers, and cell phones used to be out of reach to the average american due to the prohibitive cost and it was capitalism that lowered cost that people can now afford to purchase. However, the same cannot be said about healthcare and for good reason: it does not operate under a free-market system. As such the only way to contain costs to healthcare is to ration it. The problem with our healthcare had its origins with FDR. Goe educate yourself. ===========================
(Emphasis mine in this one. . . AzWm)
Pasing Obamacare Yesterday 11:19 AM
OF COURSE EMPLOYERS ARE GOING TO DROP COVERAGE! It’s cheaper for them to pay the penalty, employees get more subsidy from the government than many companies contribute towards premium, and employees in the exchange get to pick from EVERY INSURER IN THE EXCHANGE, where they get no pick in the employer-based market and must use what the boss chooses…DUH!
From the administrative side, the employer penalty is based on something no employer would or could know: the household income of their employees. Therefore, even for the ones offering insurance, if their contribution towards premium does not satisfy the requirements of Obamacare (employees cannot pay more than 9.8% of their household income towards coverage or they become eligible for federal subsidy…triggering the penalty), they have to pay anyway. The employer penalty is DESIGNED to generate over $40 BILLION in revenue; it does by making sure it cannot be avoided.This was covered in more detail by Shawn Fremstad at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in 2009. And I quote: “two employers with identical numbers of employees, compensation costs, and profits, could end up paying widely different amounts in penalties based on a fact – the income of other members of an employers family – over which they have no control and may have no knowledge”
The McKinsey report is correct. That might make an interesting article, coming from here )Learn about a better alternative to Obamacare: www.passingobamacare.com
This Obamacare law is SO RIDICULOUS!
================================
David1225 Yesterday 12:29 PM
Here's the rub, at least for me. The heath care law was supposed to deal with two major issues. First, it was supposed to stop the rapid escalation of health care prices. Second, it was supposed to bring the uninsured into a system under which their health care would cost less than what we are already paying for the kind "seat of the pants" approach that leads people into emergency rooms for the flu. The problem, however, is that it did neither -- and, moreover, added features that will only increase health care costs for everyone. All you need to know is that, after 2014, all health care plans will be "Cadillac" plans that have no annual or lifetime caps. Care to guess how much additional cost that will add?
===========================
David B Yesterday 01:01 PM
I suspect McKinsey is closer to reality. From a business perspective the math is simple: (a) what premiums do I pay now, (b) what is my administrative cost, (c) how much do I have to increase employee salaries to enable them to buy directly and (d) what penalty do I have to pay to the government. If a+b-c is greater than d then I toss them onto the government. I have omitted taxes inasmuch as a and c are both deductible but it could be a small factor. Obviously the rate of future increase in each element must be considered, but since health costs are increasing faster than salaries, it is most likely to encourage companies to dump employees onto the government. Most academic studies tend to underestimate or even exclude b but going to the government simplifies compliance significantly, especially amongst smaller employees without economies of scale. Its nothing personal, its just business by math!
================================
ParkerHurlburt Yesterday 04:31 PM in reply to Russell Edward Zagrodzky
Your statement "what happens then" is beyond everyone on Mother Earth and 99% of Democrats. This really isn't rocket science. As an employer (which I am) if it costs me less in 2015 to move everyone to the government plan, off they go. Also I have several friends who are doctors and they've said in 2015 they are going to a "concierge" service. By 2020 the only doctor government insured will see will have gotten their license in Mexico City, India or the Caribbean. D's are horrible about the "what next" and the Health Plan, and anything that has to do with economics. ==================================
Historyshowsus Yesterday 01:25 PM
Don't get me wrong guys, even tho I don't support Obamacare (mostly for ethical reasons) I have no problem with companies not providing health insurance. Why do you think it is so expensive? Because of corporate health plans it's a cash cow and the insurance companies know it.
A teacher in this era is unlikely to be able to buy decent health insurance on their pay. But my father, who was a teacher, did pay for his own insurance in the late 50s and early 60s. He could afford it because insurance had to attract customers. Now they don't need to attract customers because labor unions guarantee them millions of customers through corporate health plans and the price keeps going up.
This expense, along with ridiculous retirement plans, destroyed this countries steel industry, rail industry, airline industry (6 of 10 major airlines from the 70s are gone) and without Obama's bailout would have destroyed America's auto industry (for Chrysler their second government bailout).
However, Obamacare is not going to lower insurance costs because it mandates by law that YOU MUST PURCHASE INSURANCE (constitutionality still pending).
That is STILL a cash cow you idiots.
=====================================
VyronX
. . . . Folks, you don't need a fancy study to understand why employers WILL drop their group health plans. 1. health benefits are a huge expensive for companies, small or large. 2. for small businesses under 50 employees there is NO PENALTY at all to drop your employees. 3. even for larger employers the penalty is cheaper than continuing to provide the coverage. It doesn't take a math wizard to see the savings. (just look up the internal AT&T study at how much AT&T would save.)
The reason Obamacare is a joke is because the plan isn't collecting anywhere near enough tax revenue to handle this many people now buying their own individual SUBSIDIZED coverage on the exchanges. Additionally, the exchanges themselves are so restricted, allowing only 4 types of coverage offerings, and limiting every kind of current cost controls (co-pays, deductibles, HSAs, etc.) that they will only drive costs higher even as the whole contraption collapses under its own stupidity. Why do you think private insurance went along with this? The govt. has limited the market making it easy for the big players to inhibit competition & drive small players completely out of the market plus the govt. is subsidizing the purchase of private insurance for these same big health insurance companies. It's crony capitalism & you better believe it is going to cost A LOT more than Obamacare's original estimates.
On one hand it is better to have individuals buying their own coverage. But they should be buying it like they buy Auto or Home insurance - on an open marketplace providing a wide array of choices and options. Allowing consumer choice and creating a bigger market with more choices creates new ideas, options & better cost control. Either way consumption of health care must decline. This can be done by A. using govt. panels, regulations and controls to dictate treatments and limit care or B. allow individuals to make decisions based on cost and coverage for themselves.
For example, if I have $10,000 of MY MONEY in an HSA and I'm using a high-deductible health insurance plan to save costs, I might make different choices about having surgery on my shoulder. Say my deductible is $5,000 - that comes out of my savings account. So I actual make a consumer choice - does my shoulder really need fixed. And I talk about that with my Doctor and we make a choice. Maybe we elect to try a more cost-effective therapy. But I make the choice for myself. When everything is free - I'm just going to get it fixed. That's why our system doesn't work.
For all of you Canada and England lovers - their system simply does option B. and limits, denies, regulates & delays care in order to control cost. The big time top down decision making that socialists love. I think America is about individual freedom and individual choice. Option A is freedom to make your own choices.
===================================
motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/06/will-obamacare-destroy-private-insurance
AzWm
, the feds (through ObamaCare) have made those two types of policy illegal. Only four basic types will be offered on the exchanges. (And, by the way, just how many billions of dollars will be wasted in setting up the damned exchanges when simply doing away with state-by-state health insurance could have accomplished the same thing?) Explain to me why the government should limit my freedom of choice by deciding that I must choose from just four types of policy, none of which I specified? 