Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"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.
"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.
you make it sound as if there is only ONE flaw.... The flaws overflowith.
A good ponzi scheme is when no one knows they are in one..... so it works for a while and everyone is happy until it crashes..
obamacare is one huge ponzi scheme...and we know about if from the start...
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.
"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.
"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.
you make it sound as if there is only ONE flaw.... The flaws overflowith.
A good ponzi scheme is when no one knows they are in one..... so it works for a while and everyone is happy until it crashes..
obamacare is one huge ponzi scheme...and we know about if from the start...
Its not a Ponzi scheme.
You, however, are a moron.
"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.
Those that can will cut back to 48 employees. those that can will put everyone else on a part time status.
Form Mitt Romney campaign's own websiteand1 What is RomneyCare? Major accomplishments and a brief overview
RomneyCare was the first significant healthcare reform to happen in the U.S. for decades.
The primary goal of RomneyCare was to provide all citizens in MA with access to affordable health insurance and to eliminate the free riders who expected the government or taxpayers to pay for their health care. The plan did an extraordinary job of covering nearly half a million people who were previously uninsured without raising taxes. Under RomneyCare, the citizens of MA can be assured that they will retain their health coverage when they move from job to job, or if they suffer financial hardship.
Highlights of what RomneyCare has accomplished after 5 years of being in affect:
1 - Nearly every Massachusetts citizen is covered. A recent study showed that 98.1% of adults and 99.8% of children now have medical insurance. This is by far the highest rates in the nation. The overall national rate is 83%, with Texas having the worst rates in the nation at 74%. In Texas, one out of every six children is uninsured.
2 - Many more businesses are offering medical insurance to their employees. Now 76% of employers of medical insurance to their employees, compared with 70% just five years ago. The national rate remained at 60%.
3 - The overall costs of the program to the state have not exceeded expectations. At the time of passage, Romney predicted that the new law would add just 1 to 1.5% to the state budget. Last year the additional cost to the state was only 1.2% precisely where Romney predicted it would be even though the costs to the state would be much lower if the Massachusetts legislature and Governor Patrick (Romneys successor) hadnt added significant costs to the healthcare law. (This is covered more thoroughly in Section 6 What changes would Romney make to RomneyCare?)
4 - The cost of health care premiums for individuals who buy insurance without the help of an employer have gone down dramatically. According to FactCheck.org, individuals who bought insurance on their own saw a major drop in premiums, as much as a 40% decline, according to some figures. On average, premiums dropped between 18%-20% for the average individual buying health insurance on their own.
5 - RomneyCare remains exceptionally popular among state residents. Studies repeatedly confirm that 67-84% of Massachusetts residents are happy with the plan and would not go back to the old system if given the chance.
The Creation of RomneyCare
Remember that the overall goal of RomneyCare was to provide all citizens with access to affordable health insurance and to eliminate the free riders who expected the government or taxpayers to pay for their health care. The plan did an extraordinary job of covering nearly half a million people who were previously uninsured without raising taxes.
In order to accomplish the goal of covering all the citizens of MA, Romney put together a team of business experts, not a typical political team, to explore new options for providing health insurance to more citizens. The members of this team included a former investment banker, a Bain & Company partner, a professor from MIT, an expert in federal health programs, a Washington policy guru, and experts from the Heritage Foundation. For more than a year, Romney and his team studied the details of health insurance in their state.
One of the most surprising things that the team discovered was that only 20% of the uninsured were truly too poor buy health insurance. This is a very important point because it had generally been assumed that all the uninsured fell into this category. 40% of the uninsured had the financial means to purchase health insurance but simply refused to do so. The last 40% of the uninsured were people who were able to partially pay for their insurance premiums, but could not afford all of it.
At the end of a year of research and being immersed in the details as Romney describes it, the team created a plan where all citizens of MA were required to purchase health insurance and the state would subsidize those who were too poor to purchase health insurance on their own. The plan would be paid for by simply redirecting money that was already allocated to pay for free-riders, and using that money to instead help those without any coverage to buy insurance. The subsidy for the poor was on a sliding scale where the poorest would get a greater percentage of money, and people received less and less of a subsidy as their incomes went up and they were more able to afford it on their own.
RomneyCare Passage and Popularity
The plan was approved by two conservative Republicans who were George W. Bushs Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, Tommy Thompson and Mike Leavitt. Furthermore, the plan was supported overwhelmingly in the MA legislature with 198 house reps supporting the bill and only 2 voting against it 99% voting in favor of the plan! The bill also passed through the state senate without a single dissenting vote and it was supported by nearly every special interest group in the state. (As of September 2011, 33 of the 36 Republicans in the MA legislature endorsed Romney for president further illustrating the sustained support for Romney and his tenure as Governor of MA.)
Physician and New York Times bestselling author Atul Gawande wrote in The New Yorker magazine on January 26, 2009 that the plan remains extremely popular among the citizens of MA and that a large majority would not want to go back to the old system. Recent polls show that 84% of MA residents are satisfied with the plan!
RomneyCare provides the citizens of Massachusetts better access to healthcare and ultimately healthier, longer lives. The plan provided healthcare that is both portable and affordable, something that people have been trying to achieve about for decades.
Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why do you think he lost?
..................NEWS FLASH!!!
Massachusetts is one of 50 states. What may work in Massachusetts may not work in Texas!
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.
Yes I can
Page 157 Sec. 1513, Sec. 4 paragraph A Full Time Employment
http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf
It says;
In General as revised by Sec. 10106 (f)(1)
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.
We have always had full time employment at a 40 hours per week.
It has now changed to 30 hours per week.
you make it sound as if there is only ONE flaw.... The flaws overflowith.
A good ponzi scheme is when no one knows they are in one..... so it works for a while and everyone is happy until it crashes..
obamacare is one huge ponzi scheme...and we know about if from the start...
Its not a Ponzi scheme.
You, however, are a moron.
sure it is...
sorry you are to dumb to see that.
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!
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?
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!
Is Applebee's going out of business? If they aren't, it is not a failure. The failure is that people do not want to pay $50 for a plate oc rubbery Applebee's chicken.
Obamacare is going to blow up in the country's face. Its 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.
I'm sure you can show everyone where that's specified.
Yes I can
Page 157 Sec. 1513, Sec. 4 paragraph A Full Time Employment
http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf
It says;
In General as revised by Sec. 10106 (f)(1)
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.
We have always had full time employment at a 40 hours per week.
It has now changed to 30 hours per week.
Its only as defined for the purposes of the health care law.
Overtime still starts at 40 hours.
Jeez stop being dumb.
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
Yes I can
Page 157 Sec. 1513, Sec. 4 paragraph A Full Time Employment
http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf
It says;
In General as revised by Sec. 10106 (f)(1)
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.
We have always had full time employment at a 40 hours per week.
It has now changed to 30 hours per week.
Its only as defined for the purposes of the health care law.
Overtime still starts at 40 hours.
Jeez stop being dumb.
If you have a full time employee who works over 30 hours per week, with more than 50 employees, you will be required to pay for their health care or drop the private health care they now have and have them go on the New Health Care bill. Still having to pay the penalty of 2,000.00 per employee to put them on the New Health Care bill
As many business have less than 50 employees many will not pay for the health care or the penalties because they can't afford either one.
You then have to drop some full time employees and also make some of them part time employees.
This is going to effect the restaurant business and franchises big time.
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 employers contribution is the employers money and not theirs, the consumers perception is distorted (as is the providers), 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 employers 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 states 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 nations 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
Interesting enough, you are still misrepresenting the mandate the Heritage Foundation was arguing for despite the fact that you have been corrected multiple times.
Form Mitt Romney campaign's own websiteand
Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why do you think he lost?
NEWS FLASH!!!
Massachusetts is one of 50 states. What may work in Massachusetts may not work in Texas!
