Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Osama-Care


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 XCR1250

XCR1250

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,841 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:19 AM


Obamacare Begins To Derail
By Larry M. Elkin Feb 5, 2013, 11:21 AM Author's Website

Although the major provisions of the Affordable Care Act won’t take effect until next year, the first cars are already beginning to derail in this legislative train wreck.

Unions, for example, are starting to realize what many employers have seen coming since the law passed: The legislation will drive up the cost of health insurance, rather than drive it down. Though labor groups enthusiastically backed the Affordable Care Act at the time, the reality of rising costs has driven them to press the Obama administration for government subsidies to union workers. Such subsidies, which the law never envisioned for the employees of small, unionized employers who provide insurance, would drive up the cost of the law.

The unions are belatedly recognizing that without the subsidies, employers will either drop their insurance altogether as costs rise or risk losing business to non-unionized competitors with lower overhead.

The Obama administration thus far has declined to provide the subsidies, but it risks alienating a key Democratic ally if it holds firm. And the unions are unlikely to back down. Union leaders point out that for workers, losing union-negotiated health insurance would undermine one of the central points of joining a union in the first place. (Of course, the central purpose of the new law was to make health insurance available to everyone, union or not, so the only thing unions can try to offer their members is better or cheaper coverage than the rest of us enjoy. Now they want the rest of us to subsidize this for them.)

Meanwhile, the Treasury has issued regulations applying the Affordable Care Act’s rules regarding affordability of workplace-provided insurance to only the cost of covering the employee’s health care, not to the cost of covering other family members. The Internal Revenue Service, meanwhile, has proposed a workaround to the fact that employers generally don’t know their employees’ total family income by suggesting an “affordability safe harbor.” This would only require employers to act on information they actually know, which is much more practical, but which means workers’ children and family members, who would not be eligible for subsidies, may be left without an option they can afford. The result, as the law’s advocates are finally realizing, is that families that do not qualify for programs like Medicaid may remain uncovered. So much for universal health coverage, unless we further expand government-paid programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

These problems are only the beginning. Since the law requires insurers to accept practically all applicants regardless of their health, sick people will always seek coverage, while healthy ones will often opt to do without the expense. This phenomenon of “adverse selection,” as actuaries call it, will simply drive insurance premiums still higher, leading even more people to choose to go without coverage and more employers to abandon it, even if doing so triggers penalties.

As I have written before, the law’s penalties for individuals who choose to go without coverage are effectively toothless. For many people it will just make good economic sense, at least in the short term, to risk the penalty.

Employers, like individuals, will face penalties under the new law for failing to provide coverage – but only employers with more than 50 full-time employees. We are already hearing of instances in which employers are limiting hiring or reducing employees’ hours to avoid the mandate. And even when employers decide to shoulder ever-rising insurance costs, those same employers will have less money for other forms of compensation. It’s a trade-off many employees are beginning to notice. Professor Nicole Huberfeld of the University of Kentucky told The New York Times, “Many Americans believe [health insurance] is something they get free. But employers pay lower wages because they provide insurance.”

The former director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter R. Orszag, told Congress the same thing when it considered requiring employers to report insurance costs on employees’ W-2 forms. “The economic evidence is overwhelming, the theory is overwhelming, that when your firm pays for your health insurance, you pay through reduced take home pay,” he said.

As Americans prepare for the full force of the Affordable Care Act to take effect next year, many are only now beginning to realize how profoundly wrong the “affordable” part of the name will prove. Wishful thinking was enough to get the law passed in 2010, but it won’t change the reality when the law takes effect in 2014.



#2 Snake

Snake

    No one is perfect, and I'll let you know it

  • USA Contributing Members
  • 40,402 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:25 AM

Most will pay the fine instead of buying insurance.

What a fail of epic proportions.

#3 Mainecat

Mainecat

    .

  • USA Contributing Members
  • 51,023 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:26 AM

Not worth a response.

#4 gravy davey

gravy davey

    Boondocker

  • CDN Contributing Members
  • 24,194 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:31 AM

:fluffy:

#5 Anler

Anler

    The ETEC...It owns you...

  • USA Contributing Members
  • 34,631 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:36 AM

Not surprising not too many people here know jack shit about unions and much less how the insurance is handled and operated. This Blog is complete bullshit. The methods described make absolutely no sense and are not even possible. Mind you its good bait for the weak minded and easily influenced but totally false and not based in fact or reality... Move along..

#6 Sleepr2

Sleepr2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21,903 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:54 AM

Not surprising not too many people here know jack shit about unions and much less how the insurance is handled and operated. This Blog is complete bullshit. The methods described make absolutely no sense and are not even possible. Mind you its good bait for the weak minded and easily influenced but totally false and not based in fact or reality... Move along..


If Obamicare is so wonderful why are so many unions opting out?

#7 Anler

Anler

    The ETEC...It owns you...

  • USA Contributing Members
  • 34,631 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:06 AM

If Obamicare is so wonderful why are so many unions opting out?

Dude, you dont know what the fuck you are talking about so just stop trying to act like you do...

#8 Sleepr2

Sleepr2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21,903 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:07 AM

Dude, you dont know what the fuck you are talking about so just stop trying to act like you do...


Then answer the question.

#9 Anler

Anler

    The ETEC...It owns you...

  • USA Contributing Members
  • 34,631 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:10 AM

Then answer the question.

Unions provide their members with excellent coverage. So thats why.

#10 Sleepr2

Sleepr2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21,903 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:14 AM

Unions provide their members with excellent coverage. So thats why.


But they were the biggest supporters of obambi care?

More "do as I say, not as I do"

#11 spin_dry

spin_dry

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25,440 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 10:03 AM

If Obamicare is so wonderful why are so many unions opting out?

What specific unions? The article doesn't say. Overall a fairly worthless OP.

#12 Naturally Aspirated

Naturally Aspirated

    Baby, I'm the bourgeoisie!

  • USA Contributing Members
  • 46,944 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:23 PM

Most will pay the fine instead of buying insurance.

What a fail of epic proportions.

I agree, what a stupid mess.

Neal

#13 f7ben

f7ben

    Member

  • USA Contributing Members
  • 50,018 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:26 PM

I agree, what a stupid mess.

Neal

it seems that was the point from the start , just another 1000 pages of bureaucracy on the books and another revenue stream for the government....not to mention the propagation of the cradle to grave mentality that is gripping the nation

#14 CCrev440

CCrev440

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,806 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:33 PM

The plan is to destroy the health insurance industry and have everyone on Medicare.

#15 Naturally Aspirated

Naturally Aspirated

    Baby, I'm the bourgeoisie!

  • USA Contributing Members
  • 46,944 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:35 PM

it seems that was the point from the start , just another 1000 pages of bureaucracy on the books and another revenue stream for the government....not to mention the propagation of the cradle to grave mentality that is gripping the nation

I agree, it's a giant blunder by Obama.

Neal



#16 CCrev440

CCrev440

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,806 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:37 PM

http://www.realclear..._obamacare.html


DR. CARSON: Here's my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed -- pretax -- from the time you're born 'til the time you die. When you die, you can pass it on to your family members, so that when you're 85 years old and you got six diseases, you're not trying to spend up everything. You're happy to pass it on and there's nobody talking about death panels.

Number one. And also, for the people who were indigent who don't have any money we can make contributions to their HSA each month because we already have this huge pot of money. Instead of sending it to some bureaucracy, let's put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care.

Edited by CCrev440, 08 February 2013 - 06:37 PM.


#17 Highmark

Highmark

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18,356 posts

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:19 AM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/07/dr_benjamin_carson_addresses_national_prayer_breakfast_criticizes_obamacare.html


DR. CARSON: Here's my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed -- pretax -- from the time you're born 'til the time you die. When you die, you can pass it on to your family members, so that when you're 85 years old and you got six diseases, you're not trying to spend up everything. You're happy to pass it on and there's nobody talking about death panels.

Number one. And also, for the people who were indigent who don't have any money we can make contributions to their HSA each month because we already have this huge pot of money. Instead of sending it to some bureaucracy, let's put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care.


Seen this guy on Hannity. He is something else. This is the type of man we need in the WH.

#18 Mainecat

Mainecat

    .

  • USA Contributing Members
  • 51,023 posts

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:21 AM

Seen this guy on Hannity. He is something else. This is the type of man we need in the WH.


A step up or down from Palin?

#19 KIVALO

KIVALO

    Sailing: The religion of wind & water, women & wine

  • USA Contributing Members
  • 42,493 posts

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:21 AM

it seems that was the point from the start , just another 1000 pages of bureaucracy on the books and another revenue stream for the government....not to mention the propagation of the cradle to grave mentality that is gripping the nation


The bigger of the two issues. That needs to stop or we will be well and truly fucked, if we are not already.

#20 Highmark

Highmark

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18,356 posts

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:41 AM

A step up or down from Palin?


Did you watch the speech?

The guy is the head of pediatric neurology at Johns Hopkins. He's no Palin or Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson

Carson's hand-eye coordination and three-dimensional reasoning skills made him a gifted surgeon.[2] After medical school, he became a neurosurgery resident at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. Starting off as an adult neurosurgeon, Carson became more interested in pediatrics. He believed that with children, "what you see is what you get,[2] ... when they’re in pain they clearly show it with a frown on their face or when they are happy they show it by smiling brightly."

At age 33, he became the youngest major division director in Johns Hopkins history, as Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery. Carson's other surgical innovations have included the first intrauterine procedure to relieve pressure on the brain of a hydrocephalic fetal twin, and a hemispherectomy, in which a young girl suffering from uncontrollable seizures had one half of her brain removed.

Edited by Highmark, 11 February 2013 - 01:12 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users