The Flaw in Obamacare?

[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.

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

Nothing is working out "as planed" for Obama. Hell, he couldn't even tell the difference between Obamacare being a mandate or a tax, or where the funding came from.

 

[KissMy]

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.

You may not agree with Greenbread, but he really knows his shit on Obamacare, Romneycare & the ACA. He can whip anyone's ass on this board with the facts on these laws. I have been reading his post for a couple of years now & have not seen a lie he has posted yet.

 

[peach174]

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!

NEWSFLASH -It's the new Health Care bill
laying off employees is not failure. You lay off employees to keep from going out of business.
Failure means going out of business.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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!

Minimum wage isn't what we're talking about.


When you're ready to stop being stupid let us know.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

laying off employees is not failure.

If laying off employees is a "success" then you shouldn't be disappointed to hear companies are doing it. Why do you oppose their success?

 

[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!

You mean like Obama blames his failures on Bush?

Obama blames Bush's failures on Bush.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"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.

Yeah....this was discussed, much-earlier, when ACA was first being proposed....to the for-profit insurance carriers' dismay.

The first benefit....employers will be able to pay employees more, if they're not expected to provide health-care.

Yeah...those folks, who've raved about already having health-care insurance (that their employer provided) will be expected to apply themselves more....but, even employers are getting used to the idea of....

Health Insurance Exchanges

 

[peach174]

laying off employees is not failure.

If laying off employees is a "success" then you shouldn't be disappointed to hear companies are doing it. Why do you oppose their success?

Never said it was success.
It's called survival.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

ObamaCare depends on the economy growing at a 6-8% clip.

Where'd you get that information?

(Porky Limbaugh doesn't count.)​

 

[Qantrill]

The flaw...? All of it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"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.

A lot of jobs do not require high caliber employees.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Very creative......

 

[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.

A lot of jobs do not require high caliber employees.

I didn't say anything about caliber.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Great Article!!!!!​

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

A lot of jobs do not require high caliber employees.

I didn't say anything about caliber.

Some jobs do not require high quality employees.

Just look at the government.

Oh and by the way:

http://thesaurus.com/browse/caliber

Main Entry:
caliber  [kal-uh-ber]
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: capacity; character
Synonyms: ability, appetency, capability, competence, constitution, dignity, distinction, endowment, essence, faculty, force, gifts, habilitation, merit, nature, parts, power, quality, scope, stature, strength, talent, value, virtue, worth, worthiness

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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).

I see you are really good at making unjustified assumptions.

Just to correct your idiocy here, health care costs do add to the cost of employment. Arguing that they are part of the cost, and then saying that the fines aren't, just makes you look incompetent.

The really strange thing is that there is a really simple way to avoid both the fine and the cost of insurance, one that every idiot who supports this abomination is ignoring. All an employer has to do is make sure that everyone who works for him is working fewer than 30 hours a week. since part time employees don't expect benefits, there is no need to worry about not supplying them to remain competitive, especially if entire industries switch over to using part time employees.

Keep telling yourself that this will work despite all the economic indicators that it won't, all I have to do is wait until the house of cards collapses in order to be proven correct, you have to keep arguing against common sense and human nature.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A lot of jobs do not require high caliber employees.

I didn't say anything about caliber.

Some jobs do not require high quality employees.

Those tend to be the jobs that pay dick and result in the federal and local governments picking up the tabs on the health care expenses of the uninsured minimum wage worker and their families.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I didn't say anything about caliber.

Some jobs do not require high quality employees.

Those tend to be the jobs that pay dick and result in the federal and local governments picking up the tabs on the health care expenses of the uninsured minimum wage worker and their families.

Tissue?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Jesus Christ, every plan has flaws.

Why is the half filled glass always half empty with wingnuts?

Things will work out. Massachusetts plan, the one Romney signed that the Democratic legislature passed, had flaws. They have mostly been addressed.

No one really rags on the Massachusetts health insurance plan anymore.

In three years, you all will look like complete fools

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

I'm sure you can show everyone where that's specified.​

Implementation Timeline​

​