The Flaw in Obamacare?

[Navy1960]

"In CBO and JCT's judgment, a sharp decline in employment-based health insurance as a result of the ACA is unlikely, and, if it occurred, would not dramatically increase the cost of the ACA."

While this might not be the right thread to post this, my assertion is a simple one, as most know by now that companies with over 50 employee's will be required under the ACA to provide coverage for their employee's or pay a fine of 2,000.00 per employee it should come as no surprise. The problem with that is that most companies healthcare cost range from 12, to 15K per employee according to the CBO as well as several other studies. Given these factors, the incentive for a company to simply drop coverage and pay the fine is very high. It's my humble opinion that this is the biggest flaw in the ACA and if these companies begin to do this and from my reading some already have begun, then the law itself will become too costly to sustain and will result in not more people covered but less and further will result in higher insurance costs and not lower ones. While I am open to other conclusions here, at this point I have yet to see anything that convinces me otherwise save for the competition argument which states that employers will have an incentive to carry health insurance to attract employee's against those who don't.

 

[Ernie S.]

Let's see here...
51 employees: If I provide health care, my cost is $612,000
51 employees: If I elect to pay the fine, my cost is $102,000
49 employees: My cost is $0.00

 

[Mad Scientist]

ObamaCare depends on the economy growing at a 6-8% clip. Who thinks that will happen anytime soon?

 

[Greenbeard]

While this might not be the right thread to post this, my assertion is a simple one, as most know by now that companies with over 50 employee's will be required under the ACA to provide coverage for their employee's or pay a fine of 2,000.00 per employee it should come as no surprise. The problem with that is that most companies healthcare cost range from 12, to 15K per employee according to the CBO as well as several other studies.

The penalty payments are an additional cost to the employer on top of the employee's compensation package; health benefits are not. You don't "save" by slicing $12,000 off of your employee's compensation (in the form of eliminating health benefits), you'll need to substitute wages or some other equivalent benefit in its place if the market for labor is at all competitive.

The difference, however, when you substitute wages is that the equivalent amount of wages is actually higher than the value of the health benefits because of the tax privileges you and employees forgo in making the switch. Then add on the extra $2,000 on top of that accrued due to the switch.

There's a reason that a sharp decline in employer-sponsored coverage is unlikely and, indeed, wasn't seen in Massachusetts, which has lower employer penalties than the ACA (employer-sponsored coverage there actually rose after their reforms passed).

 

[jwoodie]

Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. You must be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to pay for it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated as outpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happen in 2013 & 2014!












Age 76Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have been getting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out the needle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got very quiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that my insurance takes care of it.



She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr. about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but they had tried every-thing they could but Medicare is beginning to turn many things away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. She was brushing at tears and said, "Some day they too will get old", I am so very sorry!!

Please for the sake of many good people. . . ..be informed please .

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS...

At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment

* see page 272



What Nancy Pelosi didn't want us to know until after the healthcare bill was passed. Remember she said, "We have to pass the Bill so that we can see what's in it." Well, here it is.

Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number

THE CARE BILL HB 3200

JUDGE KITHIL IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.



Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX - highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200

Please read this....... especially the reference to pages 58 & 59

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

**
Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

**
Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

**
Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

**
Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

**
Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

**
Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

**
Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.



**
Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

**
Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.


HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress.
Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas

 

[Greenbeard]

Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number

THE CARE BILL HB 3200

The Affordable Care Act was. H.R. 3590.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Navy: More companies seem to be trying to cap employee hours at 30 part time or less to avoid the benefits requirements. If I had a business i would do this anyway, cut jobs in half and hire two people to spread the opportunity. To have two working people (even though the hours or less) rather than one person jobless. Then people can choose whether to get a second job elsewhere, go to school or volunteer with the other half of their time.

I am working two jobs and have been since 2008 when the economy slumped and i lost my overtime. I may not be able to replace my full time job when it disappears. So I will be one of these people juggling two part-time jobs, which I use to pay for programs and volunteers in communities who are trying to fix the problems of bad govt. We've been struggling for years to do this ourselves, and now it looks like more and more of the nation will be facing the same struggles. How do you work to support yourself, while also supporting efforts to fix govt yourself, when fighting against full time govt and political professionals being PAID full time with benefits to keep it as messed up as it is? Until they have to pay the costs, they have no motivation to change it. They are rewarded and funded in the millions to play political wargames against each other while the working people suffer the consequences.

"In CBO and JCT's judgment, a sharp decline in employment-based health insurance as a result of the ACA is unlikely, and, if it occurred, would not dramatically increase the cost of the ACA."

While this might not be the right thread to post this, my assertion is a simple one, as most know by now that companies with over 50 employee's will be required under the ACA to provide coverage for their employee's or pay a fine of 2,000.00 per employee it should come as no surprise. The problem with that is that most companies healthcare cost range from 12, to 15K per employee according to the CBO as well as several other studies. Given these factors, the incentive for a company to simply drop coverage and pay the fine is very high. It's my humble opinion that this is the biggest flaw in the ACA and if these companies begin to do this and from my reading some already have begun, then the law itself will become too costly to sustain and will result in not more people covered but less and further will result in higher insurance costs and not lower ones. While I am open to other conclusions here, at this point I have yet to see anything that convinces me otherwise save for the competition argument which states that employers will have an incentive to carry health insurance to attract employee's against those who don't.

 

[Bfgrn]

Interestingly, this is an essay written by Robert Moffit from the Heritage Foundation back in 1994. It was part of the conservative effort to come up with their alternative to Hillary-care.

Robert Moffit was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation at the time.

In late January 1994 The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Princeton University sponsored a conference entitled “Universal Coverage: How Best to Achieve It?” At that conference several prominent economists and policymakers presented papers on the pros and cons of employer and individual mandates. In response, a number of others offered comments on various aspects of the mandate question. Here Health Affairs presents the views of two respondents.


Personal Freedom, Responsibility, And Mandates
by Robert E. Moffit

Perspectives: Personal Freedom, Responsibility, and Mandates

A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

 

[emilynghiem]

Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. You must be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to pay for it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated as outpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happen in 2013 & 2014!

Dear Jwoodie: I may not make it far into 2013 to see the rest of this.

I threatened to go on hunger strike if the politics don't stop, if the parties don't admit and accept fiscal responsibility for their leaders' own cost to taxpayers for bad policies.

And given the stubbornness of Dem party leaders, on whose behalf I offer to apologize to American citizens and taxpayers (if they refuse to apologize for losses in Libya, and also in my home district of Freedmen's Town also destroyed while focus on and funding of elections has detracted from defending national security and history), I don't expect even a hunger strike to be a blip on the map.
The girl in Canada who killed herself after her video went online exposing bullying was not heard of until after it was too late. The men in Libya are dead after their repeated requests for backup help went unanswered. I would like to honor these men by not allowing the same things to keep happening. I would like to ask fellow citizens to be more like those heroes, who did the right thing at all costs, and put their Constitutional duty and oaths of defense first, and NOT be like the people who failed to respond not knowing what to do.

I will ask for help to do the right thing, to ask all parties to come together and take responsibility for the costs incurred to taxpayers for the parties' or individuals' acts of either crime, corruption or other violations or abuse of civil, criminal, Constitutional or other laws.
And commit to investing restitution into corrections to rebuild jobs, communities, and economy in America instead of charging the cost of wrongs, debts and damages to taxpayers. We need to accept ownership, and quit blaming other people or parties.

I will be the first to apologize on behalf of fellow Democrats, and ask help of fellow members and leaders to fix our own debts and damages we owe as a Party. And ask the GOP to please do the same, starting with the excessive spending on the Iraq War that is blamed on Bush. Blaming Bush or GOP is not fixing it or getting it paid back to taxpayers. If jobs can be created to track the accountability for misspending, collect or lend against the debts and paying back into sustainable programs for business development and education, then we won't have this dependency on govt that the GOP does not want to fund. Those members can fund their own programs and policies with the money their leaders can trace back to who misspent it, and how to get that paid back to the taxpayers. We need to have this agreement between both parties, instead of waging war on either the poor or the rich.
The accountability should be with the people, whether poor or rich, who committed crimes that cost the taxpayers. Hold your own constituents responsible, create jobs to correct the problems and to reinvest restitution into rebuilding America, one business or one community at a time, and quit wasting millions if not billions of dollars blaming the other Party.

Go fix your own Party first, and pay for your own policies and programs by collecting against debts and damages from crime and corruption among your own voting base.
Both Parties can achieve their goals this way, and quit charging taxpayers for mistakes!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

"In CBO and JCT's judgment, a sharp decline in employment-based health insurance as a result of the ACA is unlikely, and, if it occurred, would not dramatically increase the cost of the ACA."

While this might not be the right thread to post this, my assertion is a simple one, as most know by now that companies with over 50 employee's will be required under the ACA to provide coverage for their employee's or pay a fine of 2,000.00 per employee it should come as no surprise. The problem with that is that most companies healthcare cost range from 12, to 15K per employee according to the CBO as well as several other studies. Given these factors, the incentive for a company to simply drop coverage and pay the fine is very high. It's my humble opinion that this is the biggest flaw in the ACA and if these companies begin to do this and from my reading some already have begun, then the law itself will become too costly to sustain and will result in not more people covered but less and further will result in higher insurance costs and not lower ones. While I am open to other conclusions here, at this point I have yet to see anything that convinces me otherwise save for the competition argument which states that employers will have an incentive to carry health insurance to attract employee's against those who don't.

Paying the fine essentially reduces the total value of compensation you are able to pay the employee by 2k. You can afford to compensate your employees more if you avoid the fine and give them health care. Lower compensation = lower quality employees.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you even have a doctor under obamacare you'll be lucky. My doctor is gone, his practice is being seen by a physician's assistant employed by the county health care system.

 

[peach174]

The new health care act has redefined a 40 hour work week to a 30 hour work week.

Businesses with 50 or more employees who average at least 30 hours of work a week will be subject to the Obamacare insurance coverage mandate.

Companies are reportedly planning large layoffs due to the implementation of Obamacare.

But, companies can potentially avoid being subject to Obamacare's insurance requirements by limiting employees’ weekly hours to less than the 30 hour level defined by Obamacare as “full-time.”

A little-known section in the ObamaCare health reform law defines “full-time” work as averaging only 30 hours per week, a definition that will affect some employers who utilize part-time workers to trim the cost of complying with the ObamaCare rule that says businesses with 50 or more full-time workers must provide health insurance or pay a fine.

“The term ‘full-time employee’ means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week,” section 1513 of the law reads. ( section 4, paragraph A.)

That section, known as the employer mandate, requires any business with 50 or more full-time employees to provide at least the minimum level of government-defined health coverage to those employees. In other words, a business must provide insurance if it has 50 or more employees working an average of just 30 hours per week, which is 10 hours per week fewer than the traditional 40-hour work week.

Thus, by cutting employees’ hours to ensure they average less than the 30 per week, employers could potentially avoid the cost of providing the minimum insurance levels mandated by Obamacare.

Seniors will be hit the hardest from the new heatlh care bill because of the payment caps.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If you even have a doctor under obamacare you'll be lucky. My doctor is gone, his practice is being seen by a physician's assistant employed by the county health care system.

Only one doctor in your county?

Will doctors be able to practice forever without Obama?

 

[4Horsemen]

Say goodnight Grandpa!

 

[Avorysuds]

Obamacare is going to blow up in the country's face. It’s really too bad so many people like Greenbread are out there lying their ass off about the consequences. You more or less are fined to have too many empoloyees that work too many hours, that is how the country will view the ACA.

 

[Greenbeard]

Obamacare is going to blow up in the country's face. It’s really too bad so many people like Greenbread are out there lying their ass off about the consequences.

Facts that are unpleasant to you are not "lies." Point on your big boy pants and learn to face reality.

 

[HomeInspect]

Applebee's just announced it will be dismissing employees due to Obamcare. let's see... how many companies is that now.. how many more to come?. This bullshit is a job killer, no matter how you look at it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Applebee's just announced it will be dismissing employees due to Obamcare. let's see... how many companies is that now.. how many more to come?. This bullshit is a job killer, no matter how you look at it.

NEWSFLASH - companies blaming their failures on Obama!

 

[jwoodie]

Paying the fine essentially reduces the total value of compensation you are able to pay the employee by 2k. You can afford to compensate your employees more if you avoid the fine and give them health care. Lower compensation = lower quality employees.

Astounding Alice-in-Wonderland thinking. Why don't we raise the minimum wage to $100/hr? Then we would have nothing but higher quality employees!

 

[Avorysuds]

Applebee's just announced it will be dismissing employees due to Obamcare. let's see... how many companies is that now.. how many more to come?. This bullshit is a job killer, no matter how you look at it.

NEWSFLASH - companies blaming their failures on Obama!

You mean like Obama blames his failures on Bush?