Key differences between Obamacare and Romneycare

[TheGreatGatsby]

A cumulative fair share contribution and a mandate to insure every employee are two different things.

The employer mandate in Massachusetts and the employer mandate in the ACA do differ, but you haven't described either one correctly.

In Massachusetts, employers with more than 10 employees paid a penalty if (1) they didn't have a certain percentage of their workers enrolled in a company plan, or (2) they weren't paying for a certain percentage of employees' premiums purchased on the employees' own.

Under the ACA, employers with more than 50 employees pay a penalty if (1) they don't make an offer of coverage to their employees (note: almost all employers of this size already do make such an offer), and (2) some of their employees are getting public subsidies in an exchange.

Of course, if you're one of those who (wrongly) believes that the ACA was designed such that there are no public subsidies in states with federally facilitated exchanges, then you also believe that the ACA's employer mandate was (1) a state prerogative, and (2) not applicable in most states today.

Furthermore, don't pretend that Obama is about the competition. Health costs have skyrocketed under him; and in the 08 debates he was clear about not wanting competition at the national level. Pretty damn hypocritical for a guy who wants to control health care at the national level, I'd say.

Health care cost growth since the ACA passed has been the lowest ever recorded in the United States. Across the board--health spending growth has slowed, health care price inflation has slowed, premium growth in group and non-group markets has slowed, the taxpayers have seen the price tags for the public health insurance programs slashed again and again.

Nothing like this, of this duration and scale, has ever happened before in American health care.

Health care spending [in 2013] grows at lowest-ever rate
Per Capita Medicare Spending is Actually Falling
Employee Health Insurance Costs Barely Increased This Year [2014]
O-Care premiums stable nationwide [going into 2015]
ACA coverage expansion costs lower than expected [in FY2014]

Just like conservatives predicted five years ago!

As for "national level" competition, by that are you saying you want to be flown to see an out-of-state doctor or go to an out-of-state hospital every time you have a medical issue? For most of the rest of us, health care is a pretty local thing.

Okay, yea not having a certain apparently loosely defined or undefined percentage insured versus calling an employee who works thirty hours a week and mandating insurance are two different things. And even then, Obama made his ass faced standards arbitrary by granting all his exemptions. I'm guessing that's what you're calling so-called subsidies, btw.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

That's not even a tangent on any item in this thread that preceded it.

 

[JoeB131]

Now everyone knows you're lying. Nobody's plan just suddenly goes/went down. Meanwhile, my plan still tripled.

well, my payment went down. What my employer pays, who cares.

Yeah, i guess it's harder to believe my monthly payment dropped by $10.00 than it is to believe that yours tripled.

That tells me either 1) You were lying or 2) the Policy you had was such shit that you were pretty much relying on luck not to get sick.

 

[JoeB131]

That's not even a tangent on any item in this thread that preceded it.

Sure it is. It shows what complete retards Libertarians are.
You all want to live in a civilized society, you just don't want to contribute to one.

 

[Greenbeard]

Okay, yea not having a certain apparently loosely defined or undefined percentage insured versus calling an employee who works thirty hours a week and mandating insurance are two different things. And even then, Obama made his ass faced standards arbitrary by granting all his exemptions. I'm guessing that's what you're calling so-called subsidies, btw.

I'm not really all that interested in your reasons for thinking Romney's employer penalty is better than Obama's.

The point is you said "Romneycare does not penalize employers for not providing health insurance" when, as any employer (with more than 10 employees) in Massachusetts can tell you, it absolutely did. The weird contortions to pretend that Romneycare is something other than the template for the insurance reform provisions of the ACA are just sad at this point.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Now everyone knows you're lying. Nobody's plan just suddenly goes/went down. Meanwhile, my plan still tripled.

well, my payment went down. What my employer pays, who cares.

Yeah, i guess it's harder to believe my monthly payment dropped by $10.00 than it is to believe that yours tripled.

That tells me either 1) You were lying or 2) the Policy you had was such shit that you were pretty much relying on luck not to get sick.

I've said on many occasions that my payments tripled; and I made a thread on it. I don't give a sh__ if you believe it or not. And I frankly think you're a worm who wouldn't care if your employer was paying more if you even have one.

You don't know a damn thing about insurance in the second place. Actuaries do the jobs to make number two a non-reality.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Okay, yea not having a certain apparently loosely defined or undefined percentage insured versus calling an employee who works thirty hours a week and mandating insurance are two different things. And even then, Obama made his ass faced standards arbitrary by granting all his exemptions. I'm guessing that's what you're calling so-called subsidies, btw.

I'm not really all that interested in your reasons for thinking Romney's employer penalty is better than Obama's.

The point is you said "Romneycare does not penalize employers for not providing health insurance" when, as any employer (with more than 10 employees) in Massachusetts can tell you, it absolutely did. The weird contortions to pretend that Romneycare is something other than the template for the insurance reform provisions of the ACA are just sad at this point.

I thought we had come to an accord that the OP was erroneous and that there is a penalty to employers not providing health insurance (at least to an aforementioned degree and based upon the parameters of 10 or more employees); but if you want to beat that dead horse....

Secondly, my aim is not to argue that Romneycare is better than Obamacare. My aim is to explore the clear differences. And even if in theory, you found they were the same, that would not change the fact that Obamacare is an unconstitutional piece of garbage legislation.

 

[JoeB131]

I've said on many occasions that my payments tripled; and I made a thread on it. I don't give a sh__ if you believe it or not. And I frankly think you're a worm who wouldn't care if your employer was paying more if you even have one.

You don't know a damn thing about insurance in the second place. Actuaries do the jobs to make number two a non-reality.

Actually, the only thing I need to know about insurance is that the one time I made a claim, my employer and the insurance company did their level best to screw me. After that, Single Payer became the goal.

We spend twice what other countries spend per capita and we only cover 75% of the population adequately. We add expense onto every product made or sold, and it makes us less competitive.

But you want to keep this less efficient system because, "Doooy, Freeeedom!"