AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 24, 2013 20:56:15 GMT -5
Your still deflecting Paul. So you've got nothing to propose that solves the lack of access and affordability of millions to health insurance? I'm still waiting to hear the "replace" part of the "repeal and replace" that you and others keep proposing. Everything I've heard suggested doesn't come close to fixing the major issues with health insurance like the ACA. You may not like the ACA, but just admit you've got nothing better to offer. I haven't deflected a bit. I offered as a solution to the problem- the solution to everything human beings have ever wanted or needed: the free market. You have offered government. Not only historically a failure at solving problems, but more often than not THE problem. The free market is historically how we fix things. The free market is so amazing it fixes problems we don't even know we have- and the solutions are so ubiquitous that we take most of them for granted. The free market in healthcare is unassailable because it's never been tried- my proposal is, the free market has provided the absolute best products and services to the most people at the lowest price of any other means of distributing resources- so why don't we get out of the way, deregulate and try it? You have yet to explain how PPACA lives up to its promise of providing accessible, affordable healthcare to anyone- let alone millions. I have explained to you directly: 1. The fact that PPACA does nothing about pre-existing conditions because it does not address the affordability of premiums for high risk insureds. 2. The fact that PPACA has caused premiums to skyrocket. 3. The fact that PPACA has casused millions to LOSE their insurance coverage. 4. The fact that PPACA has caused hourly workers to lose what coverage they had, forced full time workers to part time status costing them pay. 5. The fact that PPACA has cost many people their jobs outright 6. The fact that PPACA has prevented the expansion of businesses, and thus hiring nation-wide. 7. The fact that PPACA was not ready for prime time and has been a catastrophic failure even in its simplest task- a website the government spent three years and $.6 billion dollars to develop, never end to end beta tested, and which they're spending more on. You keep insisting you have this mystical understanding of PPACA, so am I wrong on any of these points? You have seven points to respond to, and it's a free country so if you don't want to address them- don't. I don't give a shit. But don't look for anymore discussion from me until you get done explaining how PPACA solves a damn thing.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 24, 2013 20:58:11 GMT -5
My dad is a CPA (not practicing anymore) but in the 80's he was practicing and as early as 1989 when I joined the Navy he explained to me about the fact that even at that time the government's own experts described the program as "actuarily unsound" and financial planners that used to talk about Social Security as one of the three legs of the financial stool (at this time- in 1989) were increasingly starting to talk about a fourth leg: work. If you recall, this was in the shadow of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which so graciously lifted earnings "limits" so as to "allow" people drawing social security to continue working- until they die, I guess. And don't even get me started on the "return" on Social Security taxes had they been invested in an indexed fund. You speak so authoritatively... if only you could get your language correct. "Actuarily" is not a word. A statistician who crunches numbers for the Insurance industry is called an "actuary". ("Actuary" is a noun) That statistician performs "actuarial" tasks. ("Actuarial" is an adjective) The actuary's statistical analyses are done "actuarially" ("actuarially" is an adverb). But "actuarily"... is nonsense. It's not a word. It's not merely grammatical sloppiness or careless spelling. Actually, it's gibberish. Losing an argument? Use the Grammar NAZI out: ![](https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/409673_100402823438493_255015443_n.jpg)
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 24, 2013 21:00:40 GMT -5
And frankly- like the rest of the sane, rational people in America- I'm far too impatient with this discussion to continue it. So good- no need to post more spurious articles or studies- and you can continue to ignore facts that contradict most of what you post. One less bomb thrower. You and your 10% that have convinced themselves that Obamacare is equivalent to the Holocaust and the Tea Party stands for the majority can continue your bubble life with president Romney.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 24, 2013 21:05:22 GMT -5
Your still deflecting Paul. So you've got nothing to propose that solves the lack of access and affordability of millions to health insurance? I'm still waiting to hear the "replace" part of the "repeal and replace" that you and others keep proposing. Everything I've heard suggested doesn't come close to fixing the major issues with health insurance like the ACA. You may not like the ACA, but just admit you've got nothing better to offer. 1. The fact that PPACA does nothing about pre-existing conditions because it does not address the affordability of premiums for high risk insureds. 2. The fact that PPACA has caused premiums to skyrocket. 3. The fact that PPACA has casused millions to LOSE their insurance coverage. 4. The fact that PPACA has caused hourly workers to lose what coverage they had, forced full time workers to part time status costing them pay. 5. The fact that PPACA has cost many people their jobs outright 6. The fact that PPACA has prevented the expansion of businesses, and thus hiring nation-wide. 7. The fact that PPACA was not ready for prime time and has been a catastrophic failure even in its simplest task- a website the government spent three years and $.6 billion dollars to develop, never end to end beta tested, and which they're spending more on. You keep insisting you have this mystical understanding of PPACA, so am I wrong on any of these points? You have seven points to respond to, and it's a free country so if you don't want to address them- don't. I don't give a shit. But don't look for anymore discussion from me until you get done explaining how PPACA solves a damn thing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 BULLSHIT! 7 Somewhat true
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 8, 2024 7:08:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 21:28:32 GMT -5
Whether it's "Godwin's Law" or "Grammar nazi", Paul knows all the dodges. But I don't see why his claim of "Don't doubt me. EVER." should be exempt from criticism on the basis of spelling or grammatical error. See, it's like this... if a person says "axe" when then should say "ask", it impacts their credibility. Doesn't it? Spell Check
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 21:42:44 GMT -5
Your still deflecting Paul. So you've got nothing to propose that solves the lack of access and affordability of millions to health insurance? I'm still waiting to hear the "replace" part of the "repeal and replace" that you and others keep proposing. Everything I've heard suggested doesn't come close to fixing the major issues with health insurance like the ACA. You may not like the ACA, but just admit you've got nothing better to offer. I haven't deflected a bit. I offered as a solution to the problem- the solution to everything human beings have ever wanted or needed: the free market. You have offered government. Not only historically a failure at solving problems, but more often than not THE problem. The free market is historically how we fix things. The free market is so amazing it fixes problems we don't even know we have- and the solutions are so ubiquitous that we take most of them for granted. The free market in healthcare is unassailable because it's never been tried- my proposal is, the free market has provided the absolute best products and services to the most people at the lowest price of any other means of distributing resources- so why don't we get out of the way, deregulate and try it? You have yet to explain how PPACA lives up to its promise of providing accessible, affordable healthcare to anyone- let alone millions. I have explained to you directly: 1. The fact that PPACA does nothing about pre-existing conditions because it does not address the affordability of premiums for high risk insureds. 2. The fact that PPACA has caused premiums to skyrocket. 3. The fact that PPACA has casused millions to LOSE their insurance coverage. 4. The fact that PPACA has caused hourly workers to lose what coverage they had, forced full time workers to part time status costing them pay. 5. The fact that PPACA has cost many people their jobs outright 6. The fact that PPACA has prevented the expansion of businesses, and thus hiring nation-wide. 7. The fact that PPACA was not ready for prime time and has been a catastrophic failure even in its simplest task- a website the government spent three years and $.6 billion dollars to develop, never end to end beta tested, and which they're spending more on. You keep insisting you have this mystical understanding of PPACA, so am I wrong on any of these points? You have seven points to respond to, and it's a free country so if you don't want to address them- don't. I don't give a shit. But don't look for anymore discussion from me until you get done explaining how PPACA solves a damn thing. LOL! When you got nothing in the way of solutions to offer, keep repeating that someone else's solutions aren't perfect. Feel free to offer you better solutions any time. Although I like EVT's responses I will go a little more in depth. 1. Now you are just making things up. No one is charged a different premium based on health conditions. This was one of the issues that kept many from buying insurance and has since been fixed by the ACA. 2. Not really. It just brought individual premiums in line with current group premiums. They only went up because they were kept artificially low previously because insurance companies were allowed to pick and choose who to insure. This was one of the issues that kept so many from buying insurance and has now been fixed by the ACA. Basically items 1 & 2 are because individual insurance now has to function like group insurance has been functioning (and functioning just fine) for decades. 3. I would question the "millions" part, but it is kind of irrelevant. The ACA has caused some people to change their insurance policy. They didn't lose insurance, they just have to find a different policy. Just like if colgate stopped making toothpaste you wouldn't be forced to go through life without ever using toothpaste again. You just have to find a new brand. Yeah, you can bitch about it, but in the real world laws change all the time and businesses and people change accordingly. Just like how you can't buy a new car without seatbelts in it anymore, car makers were forced to change the cars they offered to adjust for laws. Insurers are being forced to do the same thing. 4. This is happening to a small minority, such a small group it is really irrelevent, but I will address anyway. For those losing their coverage through work - so what? Now instead of getting a single shitty policy offered by their employer, they can choose from dozens of different policies - kind of a little more free market - I would think you would approve. And without you going on a rant on why insurance is generally offered by employers, I think we can agree it is pretty stupid to have insurance tied to your employer, so I don't see this as a bad thing. For those going part time, again happening to a small minority - they have a shitty employer. But, big picture I would think this isn't all bad. Fewer unemployed, but more underemployed. Now you won't have so many unemployed people sucking up benefits and not paying any taxes ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) . 5. I have heard nothing of the sort. Got a link on that? 6. Some businesses may be acting cautiously as they don't fully know what will happen over the next year, but hiring hasn't come to a halt. My company has increased their workforce by around 25% to their highest level ever over the past year. I don't think you are in any way looking at a nationwide trend of companies refusing to hire. If hiring another person brings in more profit, then no smart business would hold off due to owing a small fine. If you have links that say otherwise, then feel free to share. But, I think you are looking at a small number of companies using the ACA as an excuse for this and other behaviors (layoffs, hour reductions, etc). 7. The federal exchange has had problems that they are dealing with. Given the still 4 months of time to sign up and other ways to sign up, it isn't the end of the world. And you keep ignoring the fact that many states have exchanges that are running just fine. So how does the ACA solve some issues? Well those with pre-existing conditions can buy on a fair playing field with everyone else. Those with low incomes can get help affording insurance. Insurance companies are no longer allowed to pass off crap as actual insurance. Insurance companies can't someone when they get sick. It also allows people to retire early as they will be able to buy insurance and not need to get it through an employer. It allows people to become entrepenuers without having to worry about how they will get insurance for themselves and their family. Free market works really well in certain areas - health insurance isn't one of them. Why? Because in a free market there is no incentive to offer insurance to someone that will potentially (or definitely) cost more than they will pay in premiums. Because they is no reason to keep someone insured when they come down with cancer and will only cost your company money. These type of people only cost the company money. The free market can't solve that. It can't make certain people profitable to insure. If someone needs medication that costs $1K per month, then you need to get well over $12K in premiums from the individual to not lose money. Probably a lot higher because if they are taking that level of meds, then they have some serious health problems that will likely cost big money. So you need huge premiums (that said person could never afford) or you need to raise everyone's rates to compensate. But, if you raise everyone's rates, then you aren't as competitve with those companies that would just refuse to insure such a person. As a result, you have to refuse to insure that person as well or else you can't compete. So the free market leaves those with health conditions screwed. You keep touting it as the solution, but you don't seem to realize why it doesn't work for certain people. This is why our current system sucks. ACA fixes that. Maybe not in the best way possible, but I have still heard nothing from you that would fix the same issue. So what is your solution? I explained in what ways the ACA is good and addressed why the free market has not and will not work for health insurance. So offer up something better. I'm listening...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,550
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 21:44:10 GMT -5
the Heritage chart is complete bullshit. just look at VIRGINIA. it doesn't even pass the sniff test. anyone who actually CARED about looking utterly ridiculous would never publish such data. but apparently, in desperation, Heritage doesn't really care if they look, act, and smell like Krusty The Clown, they are gonna go ahead and lay their already alarmingly poor reputation on the line in a Sysyphan attempt to kill the ACA. good luck with that. That's a really good way to look at it ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png) They are going to be pushing this boulder uphill forever I guess- and why not- they still are not over the New Deal. I have an idea- vote to repeal it some more over the next few years- and don't forget to put the country's finances in jeopardy over it at every opportunity either. Eventually you will win ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/crazy.gif) (Or you could act like the people we pay you to be and find a way to improve it, adjust it, etc. through compromise- otherwise known as governing) uncork the crazy sauce.....it looks like someone has marched off to Nazi land. argument having been lost, my work here is done.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,550
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 21:48:06 GMT -5
Your still deflecting Paul. So you've got nothing to propose that solves the lack of access and affordability of millions to health insurance? I'm still waiting to hear the "replace" part of the "repeal and replace" that you and others keep proposing. Everything I've heard suggested doesn't come close to fixing the major issues with health insurance like the ACA. You may not like the ACA, but just admit you've got nothing better to offer. I haven't deflected a bit. I offered as a solution to the problem- the solution to everything human beings have ever wanted or needed: the free market.. we tried that. that is how we got the ACA. so, in essence, you have offered us our problem back? i think we will pass. thanks anyways.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 24, 2013 22:31:35 GMT -5
Godwin, hon, we loves ya. We does! ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/grin.png)
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Oct 24, 2013 23:36:12 GMT -5
The only failure of ObamaCare is that it's failing too soon. Republicans are mad because they could have stopped this idiocy several times if only someone would have listened. Democrats are worried that the failure of the technology will cause corrections to a doomed mathematical equation, that band-aid the program allowing it to linger for decades, instead of implode into socialist healthcare, I mean single payer system. It is time for republicans to give up and join me as a capitalist in favor sinle-payer. The USA has been pretty successful at being both socialist and capitalist at the same time. You can send your kids to the government sponsored liberal indoctrination daycare or a private school. You can rely on retirement welfare tax reimbursement (ssi) or save privately for added quality of life in retirement. You can send a parcel USPS or guarantee prompt arrival in the private system. I get that taxes are going to skyrocket to fund healthcare for everyone, but on the other hand no one was ever really denied healthcare when they needed it. Plus in the private system they had access to he best care in the world, and under government control, they will have the post office level of service, that should save money. Most importantly, I know that like everything else the US government socialized, there will be a private market allowed to exist, also, for those of us that can afford better.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 8, 2024 7:08:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 8:10:57 GMT -5
And frankly- like the rest of the sane, rational people in America- I'm far too impatient with this discussion to continue it. Lol! Just admit it, you've got nothing. You hate the law but can't come up with something better. It sucks, but this is why Republicans are failing to kill the ACA. There is no better solution that keeps a free market aspect to insurance while ensuring everyone has access at the same time. And the old system sucks enough that many of us feel like going back would be a step backwards. as i was stuck in traffic last night, i was listening to Mark Levin The issue that Angel brings up is a valid one.....how do we help those that CANT get insurance because of poor health, or pre existing conditions The question here has to start with numbers..... How many are in this category? Forget for a moment those that cant afford insurance....just ones that CANT get a policy because of poor health, or preexisting conditions 500k? 1 million? more? or is the number that high? Helping these people i believe is the number one priority of the bill? so....if the feds were to fund it 100%, could these people be enrolled in the state medicaid programs? and would that suffice for them? Lets start there.....could this work? yes? no? why? We can discuss those UNABLE to afford policies once we get these settled.....
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Oct 25, 2013 8:12:27 GMT -5
just saw this morning. the overwhelming majority of folks who were able to enroll on the state exchanges, enrolled into Medicaid NY was lowest at 64%. Washington the highest at 87%. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/sad.png) could cause serious issues www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50157835n
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 8, 2024 7:08:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 8:26:37 GMT -5
the medicaid side is going to explode in numbers
especially for those states that took the feds money and changed the requirements to get on medicaid
and yes....this is going to be a budget buster for a lot of states
dj doesnt agree.....he thinks it is no big deal....especially for california
some of the red state governors were thinking ahead imo
maybe not popular now, but come another 5 years, and they will be the ones smiling
|
|
AGB
Familiar Member
Joined: Jun 9, 2011 14:27:49 GMT -5
Posts: 745
|
Post by AGB on Oct 25, 2013 8:49:09 GMT -5
So how does the ACA solve some issues? Well those with pre-existing conditions can buy on a fair playing field with everyone else. Those with low incomes can get help affording insurance. Insurance companies are no longer allowed to pass off crap as actual insurance. Insurance companies can't someone when they get sick. It also allows people to retire early as they will be able to buy insurance and not need to get it through an employer. It allows people to become entrepenuers without having to worry about how they will get insurance for themselves and their family. Since you threw out the single mom with two kids, making $30k earlier... hi.. *waves*. My employer offers insurance, so that eliminates subsidies. My individual plan is borderline to the Cadillac tax, so I'm guessing it is not crap. For now, insuring my son will save me from that tax, since as a family we are under the $27k limit (my daughter is over 18 and on her own now). Getting the insurance has never been an issue for me, but with a $1k deductible for each of us and an 80/20 split, actually getting healthcare is another thing. Don't get me wrong, I take my kid in for the stuff you mentioned, ear infections, well visits, etc. It's my responsibility as his parent to provide this for him. I skip it for myself, because even after the insurance discount, a simple appointment still runs around $150. I consider it pretty much catastrophic insurance. I just recently got done paying for my son's appendectomy from 2 year ago. I'm still making payments on an mri I had a year ago. Obamacare hasn't changed a thing for me, and it seems many people don't realize that affordable insurance premiums do not actually translate into affordable healthcare.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 25, 2013 8:58:20 GMT -5
I haven't deflected a bit. I offered as a solution to the problem- the solution to everything human beings have ever wanted or needed: the free market. You have offered government. Not only historically a failure at solving problems, but more often than not THE problem. The free market is historically how we fix things. The free market is so amazing it fixes problems we don't even know we have- and the solutions are so ubiquitous that we take most of them for granted. The free market in healthcare is unassailable because it's never been tried- my proposal is, the free market has provided the absolute best products and services to the most people at the lowest price of any other means of distributing resources- so why don't we get out of the way, deregulate and try it? You have yet to explain how PPACA lives up to its promise of providing accessible, affordable healthcare to anyone- let alone millions. I have explained to you directly: 1. The fact that PPACA does nothing about pre-existing conditions because it does not address the affordability of premiums for high risk insureds. 2. The fact that PPACA has caused premiums to skyrocket. 3. The fact that PPACA has casused millions to LOSE their insurance coverage. 4. The fact that PPACA has caused hourly workers to lose what coverage they had, forced full time workers to part time status costing them pay. 5. The fact that PPACA has cost many people their jobs outright 6. The fact that PPACA has prevented the expansion of businesses, and thus hiring nation-wide. 7. The fact that PPACA was not ready for prime time and has been a catastrophic failure even in its simplest task- a website the government spent three years and $.6 billion dollars to develop, never end to end beta tested, and which they're spending more on. You keep insisting you have this mystical understanding of PPACA, so am I wrong on any of these points? You have seven points to respond to, and it's a free country so if you don't want to address them- don't. I don't give a shit. But don't look for anymore discussion from me until you get done explaining how PPACA solves a damn thing. LOL! When you got nothing in the way of solutions to offer, keep repeating that someone else's solutions aren't perfect. Feel free to offer you better solutions any time. Although I like EVT's responses I will go a little more in depth. 1. Now you are just making things up. No one is charged a different premium based on health conditions. This was one of the issues that kept many from buying insurance and has since been fixed by the ACA. Incorrect: www.tampabay.com/news/health/pre-existing-health-condition-insurance-premium-too-expensive-for-many/1119922(Only about the 10th time I've addressed this) So, we're back to you can have coverage IF you can AFFORD it, which is fine- but now we're back to how best to control prices- and the best way would be to market price ALL insurance so that there's a big enough risk pool to bring DOWN premiums, AND so there are specialized, customized policies high risk individuals can choose. PPACA does NOTHING to solve this problem- the free market could, if we'd let it, and it's not theory- it already works in most areas of life. 2. Not really. It just brought individual premiums in line with current group premiums. They only went up because they were kept artificially low previously because insurance companies were allowed to pick and choose who to insure. This was one of the issues that kept so many from buying insurance and has now been fixed by the ACA.
So, now you're admitting that the government is forcing lower risk individuals to subsidize higher risk people. Instead of a market-based, consumer driven solution that might develop a risk pool for the chronically ill and high risk and who might also be cared for by charity- the government is going to force people not just to buy insurance that they may or may not want, but to subsidize the purchase of insurance by others- for whom it is still too expensive. You have YET to explain how PPACA solves the problem? You are describing what I've just described- how PPACA makes the problem worse. Not how it solves the problem. Bringing individual premiums "in line with current group premiums" is NOT what it does. Group premiums are always going to be lower. One free market solution to the problem of individuals competing against large group purchasers is to allow (currently prohibited) small business and other organizations to form associations to buy healthcare- this idea, decades old conservative idea, is commonly referred to as "Association Health Plans". It's sad that going into PPACA we already had restrictions driving up the price and that we need to get "permission" from government to do something that just makes sense, isn't it? ObamaCare actually has the potential to allow AHP's (Association Health Plans) IF (and it's a pretty big IF) the Obama regime implements the ObamaCare "MSPs" - Multi-State-Plans. It's one of the provisions that will survive as ObamaCare is dismantled- but you know the PPACA so well, I'm sure you already knew this / thought of this. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/cool.png) Basically items 1 & 2 are because individual insurance now has to function like group insurance has been functioning (and functioning just fine) for decades. 3. I would question the "millions" part, but it is kind of irrelevant. The ACA has caused some people to change their insurance policy. They didn't lose insurance, they just have to find a different policy. Just like if colgate stopped making toothpaste you wouldn't be forced to go through life without ever using toothpaste again. You just have to find a new brand. Yeah, you can bitch about it, but in the real world laws change all the time and businesses and people change accordingly. Just like how you can't buy a new car without seatbelts in it anymore, car makers were forced to change the cars they offered to adjust for laws. Insurers are being forced to do the same thing. This breaks a key promise of Obama in selling this steaming pile of legislative excrement to the American public: if you like your plan, you can keep it. You're hedging. And you're failing to explain how the PPACA SOLVES ANY PROBLEMS we had PRIOR TO the PPACA? 4. This is happening to a small minority, such a small group it is really irrelevent, but I will address anyway. For those losing their coverage through work - so what? Now instead of getting a single shitty policy offered by their employer, they can choose from dozens of different policies - kind of a little more free market - I would think you would approve. And without you going on a rant on why insurance is generally offered by employers, I think we can agree it is pretty stupid to have insurance tied to your employer, so I don't see this as a bad thing. For those going part time, again happening to a small minority - they have a shitty employer. But, big picture I would think this isn't all bad. Fewer unemployed, but more underemployed. Now you won't have so many unemployed people sucking up benefits and not paying any taxes ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) . Yeah- I've read the spin, too. As few as 100,000 workers. I question the validity of this claim since the "29.5" practice is so widespread and affects the service sector in a service driven economy. But for 100,000 people- the people that need those hours the most- many of whom already had insurance before ObamaCare mandates screwed it up- are now uninsured and working part time. So, for their sacrifice- what do we get? Even assuming we buy the statist argument that the needs of the many are more important than the needs of a few- and these few are really irrelevant and don't matter- what problem did the PPACA solve that makes it worth the sacrifice? Or, more accurately- aren't we just adding them to the ObamaCare list of casualties? 5. I have heard nothing of the sort. Got a link on that? I'm going to assume you're just joking around now. How does PPACA solve the 9 million that have left the workforce since Obama took office? How does PPACA solve the massive numbers of people that have gone from work to welfare under Obama? 6. Some businesses may be acting cautiously as they don't fully know what will happen over the next year, but hiring hasn't come to a halt. My company has increased their workforce by around 25% to their highest level ever over the past year. I don't think you are in any way looking at a nationwide trend of companies refusing to hire. If hiring another person brings in more profit, then no smart business would hold off due to owing a small fine. If you have links that say otherwise, then feel free to share. But, I think you are looking at a small number of companies using the ACA as an excuse for this and other behaviors (layoffs, hour reductions, etc).You're response is an anecdote from your company really? To take a question you recently posted: got a link on this claim? I do- job creation weakens. Not anecdotal, but real data: www.cnbc.com/id/1011319157. The federal exchange has had problems that they are dealing with. Given the still 4 months of time to sign up and other ways to sign up, it isn't the end of the world. And you keep ignoring the fact that many states have exchanges that are running just fine. Not sure how Obama has the authority to change the law unilaterally, but apparently Obama has now gone all "Ted Cruz" and delayed signup deadline. thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/330293-obamacare-sign-up-delay-amid-dem-fears-of-midterm-backlashMore Democrats realizing ObamaCare is political suicide as it implodes. uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/24/uk-usa-healthcare-idUKBRE99M17920131024As of three days ago, in one of the five states so screwed up ObamaCare might actually lower premiums- New York- NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HAD ENROLLED. ZERO. ZIP. NOT A ONE.
Read more: www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/white-house-deems-health-glitches-unacceptable-gop-calls-obamacare-doa-article-1.1491281#ixzz2ik3Plak2So how does the ACA solve some issues? Well those with pre-existing conditions can buy on a fair playing field with everyone else. <<< DEBUNKED. THIS ARGUMENT IS DEAD, I WILL NOT REVISIT IT. Your Goebbels-like rambling of victory for those with pre-existing conditions is now on official "IGNORE". Those with low incomes can get help affording insurance. NOPE. Insurance companies are no longer allowed to pass off crap as actual insurance. Unspecific, and undocumented accusation. Insurance companies can't someone when they get sick. Existing law covers this. It also allows people to retire early as they will be able to buy insurance and not need to get it through an employer. Still NOPE. It allows people to become entrepenuers without having to worry about how they will get insurance for themselves and their family. And again- NOPE. Free market works really well in certain areas - health insurance isn't one of them. Why? Because in a free market there is no incentive to offer insurance to someone that will potentially (or definitely) cost more than they will pay in premiums. Because they is no reason to keep someone insured when they come down with cancer and will only cost your company money. These type of people only cost the company money. The free market can't solve that. It can't make certain people profitable to insure. If someone needs medication that costs $1K per month, then you need to get well over $12K in premiums from the individual to not lose money. Probably a lot higher because if they are taking that level of meds, then they have some serious health problems that will likely cost big money. So you need huge premiums (that said person could never afford) or you need to raise everyone's rates to compensate. But, if you raise everyone's rates, then you aren't as competitve with those companies that would just refuse to insure such a person. As a result, you have to refuse to insure that person as well or else you can't compete. So the free market leaves those with health conditions screwed. You keep touting it as the solution, but you don't seem to realize why it doesn't work for certain people. This is why our current system sucks. ACA fixes that. Maybe not in the best way possible, but I have still heard nothing from you that would fix the same issue. Interesting theory- unsupported by historical facts. So what is your solution? I explained in what ways the ACA is good and addressed why the free market has not and will not work for health insurance. So offer up something better. I'm listening... You deflected and spouted nonsense. As far as I'm concerned the debate is over. Think what you want, but I'll be watching with great interest to see HOW, not IF ObamaCare implodes. You keep living in your little fantasy.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 25, 2013 11:36:44 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 25, 2013 11:39:44 GMT -5
www.nrcc.org/2013/10/24/9-states-horrendous-obamacare-enrollment-numbers/1. Alaska – 0 ObamaCare Enrollments AK 0 Source: EnrollMaven.com 2. Delaware – 1 ObamaCare Enrollment DE 1 Source: EnrollMaven.com 3. Florida – 1 ObamaCare Enrollment FL 1 Source: EnrollMaven.com 4. Hawaii – 0 ObamaCare Enrollments HI 0 Source: EnrollMaven.com 5. Iowa – 16 ObamaCare Enrollments IA 16 Source: EnrollMaven.com 6. Michigan – 0 ObamaCare Enrollments MI 0 Source: EnrollMaven.com 7. North Dakota – 16 ObamaCare Enrollments ND 16 Source: EnrollMaven.com 8. Oregon – 0 ObamaCare Enrollments OR 0 Source: EnrollMaven.com 9. South Dakota – 23 ObamaCare Enrollments SE 23
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 25, 2013 11:41:40 GMT -5
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 11:55:42 GMT -5
just saw this morning. the overwhelming majority of folks who were able to enroll on the state exchanges, enrolled into Medicaid NY was lowest at 64%. Washington the highest at 87%. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/sad.png) could cause serious issues www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50157835nI don't actually think that is surprising at this point, although it could be concerning if the trend doesn't change. But, if you are going online to buy insurance and picking from a bunch of plans & prices you have never reviewed before, how long to you take to make the decision? Especially if you know, no matter when you buy between now & 12/15 insurance kicks in 1/1/14 regardless. I would think a lot of people are taking time to review their plans, options, and budget. Whereas with medicaid, you are either in or out. Medicaid doesn't require any decision-making and there would be no reason to delay signing up when you learn you qualify.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 12:00:55 GMT -5
So how does the ACA solve some issues? Well those with pre-existing conditions can buy on a fair playing field with everyone else. Those with low incomes can get help affording insurance. Insurance companies are no longer allowed to pass off crap as actual insurance. Insurance companies can't someone when they get sick. It also allows people to retire early as they will be able to buy insurance and not need to get it through an employer. It allows people to become entrepenuers without having to worry about how they will get insurance for themselves and their family. Since you threw out the single mom with two kids, making $30k earlier... hi.. *waves*. My employer offers insurance, so that eliminates subsidies. My individual plan is borderline to the Cadillac tax, so I'm guessing it is not crap. For now, insuring my son will save me from that tax, since as a family we are under the $27k limit (my daughter is over 18 and on her own now). Getting the insurance has never been an issue for me, but with a $1k deductible for each of us and an 80/20 split, actually getting healthcare is another thing. Don't get me wrong, I take my kid in for the stuff you mentioned, ear infections, well visits, etc. It's my responsibility as his parent to provide this for him. I skip it for myself, because even after the insurance discount, a simple appointment still runs around $150. I consider it pretty much catastrophic insurance. I just recently got done paying for my son's appendectomy from 2 year ago. I'm still making payments on an mri I had a year ago. Obamacare hasn't changed a thing for me, and it seems many people don't realize that affordable insurance premiums do not actually translate into affordable healthcare. This is true. Healthcare doesn't become free. But, it does become a lot easier to get treated if you have insurance. It is also a lot easier to deal with hitting your max-out-of-pocket that is in the 5-10K range than it is to figure out what to do if you don't have insurance and the treatment you need is going to be $40K. The ACA doesn't fix everything by any means. I just think it fixes a lot of issues and haven't heard better proposals to fix these issues. It may actually be too bad your company isn't dropping your insurance. For very low income folks, not just the premiums are being subsidized, but the copays and deductables are subsidized as well. Not sure if that would help you or not.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,881
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 25, 2013 12:12:27 GMT -5
Be careful AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP - all these negative posts are starting to renind me of all those anti-Obama election poll results you posted last year. And we all know the results of those, don't we. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png)
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 25, 2013 12:19:55 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 25, 2013 12:21:59 GMT -5
Be careful AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP - all these negative posts are starting to renind me of all those anti-Obama election poll results you posted last year. And we all know the results of those, don't we. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png) Oh, buddy- if that's what you think, you are so wrong- SO wrong. And I'll tell you why: Nobody had to write a check to vote for little Barry. With ObamaCare, it's get out your checkbook time, and that will ALWAYS abruptly end a liberal policy. See, the fundamental liberal promise is that you can have whatever you want, and someone else will pay for it. Here, you're losing what you have, being ordered to buy something else, and PAY for it. This thing is DEAD.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 25, 2013 12:24:04 GMT -5
Since you threw out the single mom with two kids, making $30k earlier... hi.. *waves*. My employer offers insurance, so that eliminates subsidies. My individual plan is borderline to the Cadillac tax, so I'm guessing it is not crap. For now, insuring my son will save me from that tax, since as a family we are under the $27k limit (my daughter is over 18 and on her own now). Getting the insurance has never been an issue for me, but with a $1k deductible for each of us and an 80/20 split, actually getting healthcare is another thing. Don't get me wrong, I take my kid in for the stuff you mentioned, ear infections, well visits, etc. It's my responsibility as his parent to provide this for him. I skip it for myself, because even after the insurance discount, a simple appointment still runs around $150. I consider it pretty much catastrophic insurance. I just recently got done paying for my son's appendectomy from 2 year ago. I'm still making payments on an mri I had a year ago. Obamacare hasn't changed a thing for me, and it seems many people don't realize that affordable insurance premiums do not actually translate into affordable healthcare. This is true. Healthcare doesn't become free. But, it does become a lot easier to get treated if you have insurance. It is also a lot easier to deal with hitting your max-out-of-pocket that is in the 5-10K range than it is to figure out what to do if you don't have insurance and the treatment you need is going to be $40K. The ACA doesn't fix everything by any means. I just think it fixes a lot of issues and haven't heard better proposals to fix these issues. It may actually be too bad your company isn't dropping your insurance. For very low income folks, not just the premiums are being subsidized, but the copays and deductables are subsidized as well. Not sure if that would help you or not. Oh brother. You have yet to make one sensible, credible remark that you can back up regarding the supposed "benefits" of the PPACA. You're really floundering.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 12:33:34 GMT -5
And everytime we point out that the article is 3 years old and irrelevent to what is happening now. That was an article regarding the temporary programs they set up immediately for those with pre-existing conditions. Those programs are gone and folks will be buying on the exchanges. The new law is that no one can be charged a different premium based on health. For someone who bitches about the law so much, you sure don't know shit about it and keep bringing up the same debunked claims. We already went free market. People went uninsured because no one would sell them affordable insurance. As I've said, the free market fails with insurance. You're moving the goal post. Your claim was that the ACA caused people to lose their jobs outright - Prove it. If you want to talk about how it doesn't help with jobs - well couldn't that claim be made about almost everything congress does? The purpose of the bill is healthcare, not jobs. If it actually cost jobs directly, I want a link. Yeah, but prove that relates to the ACA (which has been law for 3 years). You said it was a fact that the ACA has prevented the expansion of business. A weak jobs report doesn't prove that there was any causation. You made the claim - back it up. It could have just as linked to republicans plan to defund the govt or just the fact that the economy is still slow to recover. What that article actually said is the they had delayed sending the data on to the insurers. There are actually 35,000+ that have enrolled in New York. OK...ignore facts and keep repeating an irrelevent 3 year old article if you want. That makes your argument more compelling ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/rolleyes.gif) Ummm...OK. Care to elaborate, because you are wrong. What do you think the subsidies do? Insurance companies basically used to be allowed to put together whatever type of policy they wanted. I once had a policy through my workplace that had such great coverage as "$100/day towards hospital stay", which we all know basically is useless with the price of hospitalization. There also use to be plans where you could buy insurance for a specific type of condition - "heart attack - $4.35/month", "breast cancer - $6.50/month". As much as insurers and some companies wanted to pass this sort of stuff off as insurance, it was basically crap. Now there are minimum coverages required. Not totally: www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29mon1.html?_r=0 LOL. I love this. You are so clearly wrong you can't even dispute the things I am saying. The best you can do is NOPE. This is a fact. People who didn't have access to insurance outside of an employer now do. I deflected nothing. I answered you point by point. You are the one that refuses to offer a better solution. Because we both know you don't have one. Honestly, based on much of what you are saying, you seem to have a very limited understanding of the law. Much of what you are claiming is just factually wrong. You have run out of responses and are resorting to just saying NOPE because you can't even counter what I am saying. I will file this under another claim of "Don't Doubt Me Ever". You can consider the debate over, but we have seen how it generally turns out for you when you have really strong opinions not backed by any actual facts.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 12:42:49 GMT -5
This is true. Healthcare doesn't become free. But, it does become a lot easier to get treated if you have insurance. It is also a lot easier to deal with hitting your max-out-of-pocket that is in the 5-10K range than it is to figure out what to do if you don't have insurance and the treatment you need is going to be $40K. The ACA doesn't fix everything by any means. I just think it fixes a lot of issues and haven't heard better proposals to fix these issues. It may actually be too bad your company isn't dropping your insurance. For very low income folks, not just the premiums are being subsidized, but the copays and deductables are subsidized as well. Not sure if that would help you or not. Oh brother. You have yet to make one sensible, credible remark that you can back up regarding the supposed "benefits" of the PPACA. You're really floundering. Really? Have you ever tried to get seen by a doctor or get a procedure without insurance? They don't just let you walk in for surgery and say they will send you the bill. You have to have payments set up and often prepay. I remember the issues we had just getting my H a strep test when he was uninsured. Had to provide a $75 deposit to even see the doctor for something that simple. It isn't impossible by any means, but you need the cash or a system setup for payment usually. Things low income people have trouble getting. Now if you are going to fall back on the old "anyone can get healthcare in the ER" thing. That is true. But, try to get the ER to perform a needed surgery if the current condition isn't life threatening.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Oct 25, 2013 12:52:02 GMT -5
FYI, you can't really have a decent debate with a crazy person.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 12:57:27 GMT -5
FYI, you can't really have a decent debate with a crazy person. Sigh...Probably why most everyone else has given up on this thread. You can't argue with someone that doesn't actually use facts.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,436
|
Post by swamp on Oct 25, 2013 13:04:12 GMT -5
I'm starting to doubt Him...........
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 8, 2024 7:08:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 13:05:37 GMT -5
My bits are bold. I don't expect anybody to read them.
1. Now you are just making things up. No one is charged a different premium based on health conditions. This was one of the issues that kept many from buying insurance and has since been fixed by the ACA. The study I read (here’s a discussion of it for you: www.nber.org/reporter/summer05/pauly.html) indicated that risk pooling in unregulated state markets prior to state-level community rating and guaranteed issue reforms was actually surprisingly high. Low risk insureds were 2-3% more likely than average to be accepted, while high risk insureds were about 8% less likely. The reason for this surprisingly high level of risk pooling was that guaranteed renewability plans – of the sort being cancelled left and right by insurers across the states in the wake of Obamacare’s, let’s be kind, “implementation” – did a lot of the job of guaranteed issue. This also helped keep premium distortion lower than ACA fans like to think it was (see Pauly again). On the other hand, when the Massachusetts legislature enacted these state-level reforms in 1996 to help folks out, there was a net 40% increase in healthcare premiums 10 years later – it was in response to this increasing problem of lack of affordability that Romneycare was proposed, and Patrickcare implemented in 2006. Importantly, these trumpeted reforms of the ‘Affordable Care Act,’ while speciously popular, as a matter of historical record make healthcare substantially less affordable – and, as a matter of historical record, don’t significantly shift the needle on risk pooling (certainly not by anything like the 40% premium increase that shifts low-risk insureds out of the insurance market, again exactly the opposite desired effect).
2. Not really. It just brought individual premiums in line with current group premiums. They only went up because they were kept artificially low previously because insurance companies were allowed to pick and choose who to insure. This was one of the issues that kept so many from buying insurance and has now been fixed by the ACA. But risk-pooling in the individual insurance market, even in states without CR and GI reforms, was already approximately equivalent to group market risk-pooling because the insurance model is optimized that way. Again, insurance companies were rejecting about 8% of high-risk insureds. The CR and GI reforms provably drive away about that percentage of low-risk insureds, which is why you see across the board premium hikes. The differential between the highest and lowest premiums probably decreases, but the average is a worse deal for everybody, and a spectacularly worse deal for the poor healthy schmo subsidizing everybody else’s nicotine addiction, sexual promiscuity, obesity, etc, etc. Which is why the next nanny-state step is to start legislating those behaviors in the name of provision of the public good of healthcare – excuse me, healthcare insurance (it’s important not to forget, as drafters of ACA chose to forget, that the two are not synonymous).Basically items 1 & 2 are because individual insurance now has to function like group insurance – (it already did to a far larger extent than you might believe – Ed.) has been functioning (and functioning just fine) for decades. 3. I would question the "millions" part, but it is kind of irrelevant. The ACA has caused some people to change their insurance policy. They didn't lose insurance, they just have to find a different policy. Just like if colgate stopped making toothpaste you wouldn't be forced to go through life without ever using toothpaste again. You just have to find a new brand. Yeah, you can bitch about it, but in the real world laws change all the time and businesses and people change accordingly. Just like how you can't buy a new car without seatbelts in it anymore, car makers were forced to change the cars they offered to adjust for laws. Insurers are being forced to do the same thing. Millions of people have received notice that their plans are changing because of Obamacare. See here: healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2013/10/week-two-of-obamacare-federal-health.html#more. Laszewski estimates 16 million, so you can question him. You get an eviction notice that says “you’re not losing your home: this is a glorious opportunity to find a new one. By the end of the month, or else.” Yeah, you can quibble about it, but you lost your house. Somebody promised us “you will be able to keep your plan. Period.” For 85% of pre-Obamacare plans issued before March 2010, that is not true. That is a LOT of voters impacted. Insurers are being forced to change. Why be so coy about the obvious corollary that so are the consumers of their product? Because that change is negative for the vast majority of those people.4. This is happening to a small minority, such a small group it is really irrelevent, but I will address anyway. For those losing their coverage through work - so what? Now instead of getting a single shitty policy offered by their employer, they can choose from dozens of different policies - kind of a little more free market - I would think you would approve. And without you going on a rant on why insurance is generally offered by employers, I think we can agree it is pretty stupid to have insurance tied to your employer, so I don't see this as a bad thing. For those going part time, again happening to a small minority - they have a shitty employer. But, big picture I would think this isn't all bad. Fewer unemployed, but more underemployed. Now you won't have so many unemployed people sucking up benefits and not paying any taxes . How glib of you. Underemployment is actually a really serious problem in this country, a structural labor issue that well predates this President and even the Pelosi Congress. To the extent that the ACA exacerbates the problem (see here: workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/tag/affordable-care-act/ - they’re refreshingly honest about how PPACA mimics on a grand scale the President’s “negotiating” stance on the small scale: make the alternative to acquiescence so appallingly costly that even the merely relatively ruinous leftist option becomes desirable) it’s not a good thing. Underemployed people tend to have less disposable income than unemployed people, bizarrely enough, because they lose access to certain benefits-in-kind that they then have to make up out-of-pocket. If you subscribe to the view that aggregate demand drives economic growth, and I’m sure you do, call it a hunch, then your insouciance over the conversion from full-time to part-time work is as astonishing as your insouciance over the conversion from permanent to temporary work is callous.
5. I have heard nothing of the sort. Got a link on that? www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/18/citing-obamacare-cleveland-clinic-to-cut-300m-warns-of-layoffs
www.theglobaldispatch.com/indiana-hospital-network-blames-obamacare-for-jobs-cuts-70943/
www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/16/medical-supply-giant-stryker-corp-makes-pre-emptive-strike-against-pending/
freebeacon.com/medicare-cuts-obamacare-prompt-hospital-layoffs/
blog.heritage.org/2013/10/23/how-obamacare-hurts-you-if-youre-looking-for-a-job/
I’ll admit, I didn’t do a very thorough job answering this one; these are just five links from the first page of a Google search on “cut jobs citing Obamacare.” There are around 32 million more, although you hear what you listen out for, I guess.
6. Some businesses may be acting cautiously as they don't fully know what will happen over the next year, but hiring hasn't come to a halt. My company has increased their workforce by around 25% to their highest level ever over the past year. I don't think you are in any way looking at a nationwide trend of companies refusing to hire. If hiring another person brings in more profit, then no smart business would hold off due to owing a small fine. If you have links that say otherwise, then feel free to share. But, I think you are looking at a small number of companies using the ACA as an excuse for this and other behaviors (layoffs, hour reductions, etc). Ah, anecdotal evidence. Good for one side, bad for the other. Leaving aside the fact that I’ve got five anecdotal counterexamples listed above. It is notoriously difficult to prove counterfactual arguments either way, and I consider this a weak argument against Obamacare on that basis – partisans on either side can fit what they see to their chosen frame by arguing that the counterfactual would be so much worse or better than what we have now. More generally this is the problem with arguing against any implemented policy as opposed to any proposed policy – never mind that the criticisms of unworkability, overcomplexity, expense, inefficiency, waste, perverse incentives, failure to actually expand the safety net to create genuinely universal healthcare, reduction of choice, reduction of access to actual care, and increased burdens on existing state and Federal programs (Medicaid particularly bearing the brunt in this case, which is ironic when you consider what the stated aims of PPACA are – side note: who here knows what the specific stated aims of this reform are?), have all arguably come to pass and are all arguably trending worse for the foreseeable future: ACAbots can still loyally chant it would have been worse, honest.
7. The federal exchange has had problems that they are dealing with. Given the still 4 months of time to sign up and other ways to sign up, it isn't the end of the world. And you keep ignoring the fact that many states have exchanges that are running just fine. Baghdad Bob, is that you? If taking three and a half years and $100 billion to produce a Byzantine web portal based on decade-outdated architecture – that apparently crashed under the weight of 2000 users but is supposed to provide affordable healthcare for 19 million – is ‘problems;’ what would ‘failure’ look like to you? Even Ezra Klein can call this anatid a duck.
Incidentally, to the point that states are running ‘just fine’ – I’d be interested to see your data on this. Washington state, with a million uninsureds to worry about, is about 5% towards its total target based on its reporting, and is doing better than anybody else on a viable metric (New York state reckons 100,000 people checking out the rates of subsidy is the equivalent of 100,000 people purchasing a product; if that were the case, cold calling would be a lot easier for insurance salesmen than it is).
Also, the information coming out of the portal is unreliable, meaning insurers are obliged to manually rather than automatically process applications. That doesn’t just mean delays, increased risks of error, security breaches, etc.; it also significantly increases overhead. But because PPACA mandates a medical loss ratio, this increase in overhead can’t be made up with premium hikes. It has to be eaten by the insurer off the bottom line, which creates a pressure towards failure of the private insurance market.
This pressure is most likely to hurt smaller insurers upon whose competitive pricing the market-reform element of PPACA in theory rests; big players will continue to operate virtual monopolies and will be of course ‘too big to fail.’ The more information comes out about the demographic skew of people who are actually purchasing insurance through healthcare.gov, the more obvious it’s going to be to everybody that the economics are insanely undoable, because reform focused on expanding access to healthcare insurance rather than increasing affordability of healthcare provision. The problems it purports to solve – inadequate risk-pooling in unregulated markets; profiteering by greedy insurers; cynical exploitation of benefits by unscrupulous employers – were all both less contributory to healthcare inflation pre-reform and remain essentially unimproved post-reform but at a massive socialized cost (in fact, hydra-headed cost of all sorts) to everybody.
I’m only scratching the surface of how bad this is. And predictably so – it was a pre-conference bill, and those are never drafted with a view to implementation, they’re always drafted with an expectation they will be shredded and stitched back together in conference. Except Dems in 2010 knew they would not survive that conference, so they dodged it, and dumped it on us.
Still, at least all of us who can afford healthcare insurance can now count contraceptives towards our deductibles. So that’s a big policy win.
|
|