The Insurance Mandate Shell Game

[g5000]

The argument in favor of the health insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a.k.a. “ObamaCare”, says that everyone uses the health care system sooner or later, and that those who willfully don’t have insurance when they eventually get sick will cost all of us money.

I will show how this is a shell game.

Shell # 1: The real reason the ACA has the mandate is to offset the cost of another provision which requires health insurance companies to insure people with “pre-existing conditions”. This linkage is only brought up when it is convenient. It is not convenient when trying to paint the willfully uninsured as a bunch of hypothetical future burdens on society. But the willfully uninsured actually are a cash cow. Their healthy bodies will be forced to pay premiums to even out the risk pool and share the real burden of paying for those who have pre-existing conditions.

So don’t let this linkage between the two be hidden by Shell #1.



Shell #2: The ACA has subsidies in in it. A family of four that earns up to $92,000, and a single person who earns up to $44,680, will have their health insurance subsidized.

That is FOUR TIMES THE POVERTY LEVEL.

Nearly half of all Americans will be subsidized by the taxpayers for their health insurance.

Yeah. Half. You heard that right. The median household income is $51,914.

Half may be a conservative estimate.

The argument that the uninsured are costing taxpayers money today is completely obliterated by the fact the taxpayers will be paying for health insurance for likely at least half of America.

And you can be DAMN SURE the subsidies will be a political football forevermore as the Democrats unceasingly work to increase them every election cycle to buy votes.

So don’t let the “the uninsured are costing us money under the status quo” argument be Shell #2.



Shell #3: “Roll out the cancer lady!” ObamaCare is portrayed as the only solution. We are presented with the scenario of choosing between the status quo or ObamaCare. This is known in logic as a fallacy of the excluded middle, and betrays the common liberal way of thinking which goes like this:

1. The government must do something.

2. This is something.

3. The government must do this.

To garner support for their illogic, the Left does not hesitate to use another logical fallacy known as the appeal to emotion. They will roll out a sympathetic figure to show us there is really only ONE choice. This shameless and evil exploitation of the sick and injured in order to acquire something free for themselves is the third shell.

Don’t let the cancer lady be Shell #3.

 

[VaYank5150]

The argument in favor of the health insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a.k.a. “ObamaCare”, says that everyone uses the health care system sooner or later, and that those who willfully don’t have insurance when they eventually get sick will cost all of us money.

I will show how this is a shell game.

Shell # 1: The real reason the ACA has the mandate is to offset the cost of another provision which requires health insurance companies to insure people with “pre-existing conditions”. This linkage is only brought up when it is convenient. It is not convenient when trying to paint the willfully uninsured as a bunch of hypothetical future burdens on society. But the willfully uninsured actually are a cash cow. Their healthy bodies will be forced to pay premiums to even out the risk pool and share the real burden of paying for those who have pre-existing conditions.

So don’t let this linkage between the two be hidden by Shell #1.



Shell #2: The ACA has subsidies in in it. A family of four that earns up to $92,000, and a single person who earns up to $44,680, will have their health insurance subsidized.

That is FOUR TIMES THE POVERTY LEVEL.

Nearly half of all Americans will be subsidized by the taxpayers for their health insurance.

Yeah. Half. You heard that right. The median household income is $51,914.

Half may be a conservative estimate.

The argument that the uninsured are costing taxpayers money today is completely obliterated by the fact the taxpayers will be paying for health insurance for likely at least half of America.

And you can be DAMN SURE the subsidies will be a political football forevermore as the Democrats unceasingly work to increase them every election cycle to buy votes.

So don’t let the “the uninsured are costing us money under the status quo” argument be Shell #2.



Shell #3: “Roll out the cancer lady!” ObamaCare is portrayed as the only solution. We are presented with the scenario of choosing between the status quo or ObamaCare. This is known in logic as a fallacy of the excluded middle, and betrays the common liberal way of thinking which goes like this:

1. The government must do something.

2. This is something.

3. The government must do this.

To garner support for their illogic, the Left does not hesitate to use another logical fallacy known as the appeal to emotion. They will roll out a sympathetic figure to show us there is really only ONE choice. This shameless and evil exploitation of the sick and injured in order to acquire something free for themselves is the third shell.

Don’t let the cancer lady be Shell #3.

And what does the GOP do to counter? Scare the shit out of everyone with "death panels". REALLY??

 

[g5000]

And what does the GOP do to counter? Scare the shit out of everyone with "death panels". REALLY??

The GOP actually had at least two alternative plans offered, but that did not fit the Left's narrative which said the GOP was the "party of no".

There was also a better alternative offered by the Democratic Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden. The story of his getting shunted aside by his own party is one which should be explored by those who think the Democratic Party had the people's best interests at heart with ObamaCare.


As for "death panels" thing, I personally would like to pull the plug on Sarah Palin. She has done irreparable damage to the GOP.

But what alternatives would I like to see, you perhaps are wondering?

I am glad you asked.

First, raise the retirement age. When the retirement age of 65 was established under FDR by the creation of Social Security in 1935, the average life expectancy was 60, and only 6 percent of the US population was over 65.

When Medicare was established under LBJ in 1965, the average life expectancy was 70.

Today, nearly 8 decades after 65 was set as the retirement age, the average life expectancy is 78, and 12 percent of the US population is over 65. We have literally doubled our entitlement burden.

If you go to work at 18 and retire at 65, you are paying into the system for 47 years, and drawing from our treasury for 13 years.

By simply raising the retirement age to 70 (and not even going 5 years beyond life expectancy as FDR did), you pay into the system for 5 more years and draw out for 5 years less.

Huge savings for Medicare, which is the larger part of our nation’s medical expenses.



Second, eliminate employer-provided health insurance (EPHI). EPHI has been bending the health care cost curve upward ever since it was demanded as a job benefit by labor unions.
Rather than eliminate EPHI, ObamaCare entrenches it, making it a mandatory benefit by employers, or they must pay a fine. Unbelievable!

Not only that, Obama himself deliberately and dramatically raised the tax exemption ceiling for EPHI.

You see, the average family health insurance benefit is $12,000. This is a benefit you receive from your employer which is not taxed as income.

There are EPHI plans provided to some workers that are worth much more than that. These are known as “Cadillac plans” and labor unions are famous for them.

Congress had set the tax exemption ceiling for EPHI to $18,000. Any EPHI value above that would be taxed as income. But Obama personally pen and inked it to $27,000.

And this man has the balls to tell us tax cuts for the rich are costing the rest of us money!

Eliminate EPHI. You should buy health insurance the same way you buy your auto, home, and life insurance. And you should be able to buy it across state lines the same way you buy your auto, home, and life insurance.

If you don’t insure your car and you crash it, does the American taxpayer pay off your car loan?

No. That’s preposterous.

If you don’t insure your home and it burns down, does the American taxpayer pay off your mortgage?

No. That’s preposterous.

If you don’t insure your life and you die in a car crash, does the American taxpayer give your widow half a million bucks?

No. That’s preposterous.

If you don’t insure your health and you get sick, should the American taxpayer pay your hospital bill?

No. That’s preposterous.

These are just a couple of several ideas which are much better alternatives to the abortion called ObamaCare.

 

[VaYank5150]

And what does the GOP do to counter? Scare the shit out of everyone with "death panels". REALLY??

The GOP actually had at least two alternative plans offered, but that did not fit the Left's narrative which said the GOP was the "party of no".

There was also a better alternative offered by the Democratic Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden. The story of his getting shunted aside by his own party is one which should be explored by those who think the Democratic Party had the people's best interests at heart with ObamaCare.


As for "death panels" thing, I personally would like to pull the plug on Sarah Palin. She has done irreparable damage to the GOP.

But what alternatives would I like to see, you perhaps are wondering?

I am glad you asked.

First, raise the retirement age. When the retirement age of 65 was established under FDR by the creation of Social Security in 1935, the average life expectancy was 60, and only 6 percent of the US population was over 65.

When Medicare was established under LBJ in 1965, the average life expectancy was 70.

Today, nearly 8 decades after 65 was set as the retirement age, the average life expectancy is 78, and 12 percent of the US population is over 65. We have literally doubled our entitlement burden.

If you go to work at 18 and retire at 65, you are paying into the system for 47 years, and drawing from our treasury for 13 years.

By simply raising the retirement age to 70 (and not even going 5 years beyond life expectancy as FDR did), you pay into the system for 5 more years and draw out for 5 years less.

Huge savings for Medicare, which is the larger part of our nation’s medical expenses.



Second, eliminate employer-provided health insurance (EPHI). EPHI has been bending the health care cost curve upward ever since it was demanded as a job benefit by labor unions.
Rather than eliminate EPHI, ObamaCare entrenches it, making it a mandatory benefit by employers, or they must pay a fine. Unbelievable!

Not only that, Obama himself deliberately and dramatically raised the tax exemption ceiling for EPHI.

You see, the average family health insurance benefit is $12,000. This is a benefit you receive from your employer which is not taxed as income.

There are EPHI plans provided to some workers that are worth much more than that. These are known as “Cadillac plans” and labor unions are famous for them.

Congress had set the tax exemption ceiling for EPHI to $18,000. Any EPHI value above that would be taxed as income. But Obama personally pen and inked it to $27,000.

And this man has the balls to tell us tax cuts for the rich are costing the rest of us money!

Eliminate EPHI. You should buy health insurance the same way you buy your auto, home, and life insurance. And you should be able to buy it across state lines the same way you buy your auto, home, and life insurance.

If you don’t insure your car and you crash it, does the American taxpayer pay off your car loan?

No. That’s preposterous.

If you don’t insure your home and it burns down, does the American taxpayer pay off your mortgage?

No. That’s preposterous.

If you don’t insure your life and you die in a car crash, does the American taxpayer give your widow half a million bucks?

No. That’s preposterous.

If you don’t insure your health and you get sick, should the American taxpayer pay your hospital bill?

No. That’s preposterous.

These are just a couple of several ideas which are much better alternatives to the abortion called ObamaCare.

Are you suggesting that under law, our employers MUST provide Health Insurance? Surely, you jest?

 

[Claudette]

I like it but is it viable??

 

[g5000]

The three shells of the ACA are deftly moved about. You think the ball is under Shell #1 and have a liberal nailed on the fact that the willfully uninsured are actually a cash cow and not a future burden?

Presto! They reveal the ball is under Shell #3 and suddenly the conversation is about a pathetic and sad cancer lady.


Recognize the tricks of the confidence game.

 

[g5000]

Are you suggesting that under law, our employers MUST provide Health Insurance? Surely, you jest?

No joke. The ACA requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance to their employees or pay a fine.

So not only is the government dicating what you must buy, it is also dictating what fringe benefits business owners must provide.

This is a massive expansion of government control over all of our lives.

 

[Decepticon]

Healthcare is a "fringe" benefit?

If you CONZ are so worried about the costs of healthcare and who has to pay for it, then advocate for to socialized medicine or STFU.

 

[VaYank5150]

Are you suggesting that under law, our employers MUST provide Health Insurance? Surely, you jest?

No joke. The ACA requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance to their employees or pay a fine.

So not only is the government dicating what you must buy, it is also dictating what fringe benefits business owners must provide.

This is a massive expansion of government control over all of our lives.

I completely understand what the ACA does. Now, if your supposition that the unions FORCED employers to provide Health Insurance prior to the ACA, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So, for the record, the unions did not FORCE business to do anything that they felt wasn't a sound business decision, right?

 

[g5000]

Are you suggesting that under law, our employers MUST provide Health Insurance? Surely, you jest?

No joke. The ACA requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance to their employees or pay a fine.

So not only is the government dicating what you must buy, it is also dictating what fringe benefits business owners must provide.

This is a massive expansion of government control over all of our lives.

I completely understand what the ACA does. Now, if your supposition that the unions FORCED employers to provide Health Insurance prior to the ACA, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So, for the record, the unions did not FORCE business to do anything that they felt wasn't a sound business decision, right?

The unions made EPHI a demand of labor negotiations. I would not say "FORCED". Over time, this new benefit became a corporate standard. Even many companies that do not have labor union employees now offer it to their employees.

This is not sound business practice, as some employers are beginning to realize. The cost of health insurance is rising faster than inflation, ironically in part due to the existence of EPHI, and so the rising cost of offering that benefit is hurting employers.

 

[DiamondDave]

Healthcare is a "fringe" benefit?

If you CONZ are so worried about the costs of healthcare and who has to pay for it, then advocate for to socialized medicine or STFU.

Nah... we'll stick to opening up competition... having individuals or any type of group (HOA, Moose club, bowling league, gym members, etc) negotiate, shop, and choose not only their provider but the level of benefits they wish to have... and everyone paying for their own... and if they choose not to carry insurance, be prepared to incur the bill that can break you completely if you cannot pay.... or be prepared to be at the mercy of lines or the willingness of free clinics to treat you for the minor things like the flu, rashes, hearing checks, vd, etc

 

[VaYank5150]

No joke. The ACA requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance to their employees or pay a fine.

So not only is the government dicating what you must buy, it is also dictating what fringe benefits business owners must provide.

This is a massive expansion of government control over all of our lives.

I completely understand what the ACA does. Now, if your supposition that the unions FORCED employers to provide Health Insurance prior to the ACA, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So, for the record, the unions did not FORCE business to do anything that they felt wasn't a sound business decision, right?

The unions made EPHI a demand of labor negotiations. I would not say "FORCED". Over time, this new benefit became a corporate standard. Even many companies that do not have labor union employees now offer it to their employees.

This is not sound business practice, as some employers are beginning to realize. The cost of health insurance is rising faster than inflation, ironically in part due to the existence of EPHI, and so the rising cost of offering that benefit is hurting employers.

This in fact, IS a very sound business practice. At a time when many employers have chosen to freeze or even cut EPHI for it's employees, forward thinking companies realize just how important this benefit is to prospective employees, and it is a tool they use, above and beyond salary to attract the very best talent. Capitalism at it's finest, if you ask me...

 

[g5000]

I completely understand what the ACA does. Now, if your supposition that the unions FORCED employers to provide Health Insurance prior to the ACA, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So, for the record, the unions did not FORCE business to do anything that they felt wasn't a sound business decision, right?

The unions made EPHI a demand of labor negotiations. I would not say "FORCED". Over time, this new benefit became a corporate standard. Even many companies that do not have labor union employees now offer it to their employees.

This is not sound business practice, as some employers are beginning to realize. The cost of health insurance is rising faster than inflation, ironically in part due to the existence of EPHI, and so the rising cost of offering that benefit is hurting employers.

This in fact, IS a very sound business practice. At a time when many employers have chosen to freeze or even cut EPHI for it's employees, forward thinking companies realize just how important this benefit is to prospective employees, and it is a tool they use, above and beyond salary to attract the very best talent. Capitalism at it's finest, if you ask me...

Nonsense.

Do employers offer auto insurance as a regular benefit? No. But they offer a wage high enough that you can afford your own auto insurance.

Do away with EPHI. Attract talent with wages and salary. Why, there's a stunning concept! That way you know precisely what you are getting and what you are worth.

Then people can spend their income to buy their own health insurance tailored EXACTLY they way the want it instead of having to accept whatever kind of coverage their employer gives them.

They can spend as much or as little as they like, and keep the CHANGE.

You want the birth control pill covered in your health insurance? Well, if you are buying your own insurance, they have an app for that!

 

[VaYank5150]

The unions made EPHI a demand of labor negotiations. I would not say "FORCED". Over time, this new benefit became a corporate standard. Even many companies that do not have labor union employees now offer it to their employees.

This is not sound business practice, as some employers are beginning to realize. The cost of health insurance is rising faster than inflation, ironically in part due to the existence of EPHI, and so the rising cost of offering that benefit is hurting employers.

This in fact, IS a very sound business practice. At a time when many employers have chosen to freeze or even cut EPHI for it's employees, forward thinking companies realize just how important this benefit is to prospective employees, and it is a tool they use, above and beyond salary to attract the very best talent. Capitalism at it's finest, if you ask me...

Nonsense.

Do employers offer auto insurance as a regular benefit? No. But they offer a wage high enough that you can afford your own auto insurance.

Do away with EPHI. Attract talent with wages and salary. Why, there's a stunning concept!

Then people can buy their own health insurance tailored EXACTLY they way the want it instead of having to accept whatever kind of coverage their employer gives them.

You want the birth control pill covered in your health insurance? Well, if you are buying your own insurance, they have an app for that!

Do you REALLY want to go with that analogy? My auto insurance runs me about $800.00/year. My EPHI benefit is closer to $8,200.00/year. Do the math.

 

[g5000]

Do you REALLY want to go with that analogy? My auto insurance runs me about $800.00/year. My EPHI benefit is closer to $8,200.00/year. Do the math.

I am doing the math. Your fringe benefit is a hidden and variable amount. With a direct salary nothing is hidden. You know exactly what you are worth and what you are getting.

Instead of spending the average of $12,000 a year providing a benefit, the employer would pay you the $12,000 as part of your salary. Part of McCain's plan was to then give you a tax credit to use that extra pay toward health insurance.

Then you can go and spend as much of that additional $12K on health insurance as you CHOOSE. You have a choice!

And you can keep the CHANGE.

Isn't the left pro-CHOICE? Didn't they vote for CHANGE?

Instead, they got an ever increasing cost institutionalized by law. That's not change! That's being owned by special interests.

 

[g5000]

The left whines for an employer mandate.

Then they whine about what they want employers to be forced to include in their mandated coverage. "Free" birth control is only the beginning.

Surely you can project where this will lead. Surely you can project the increased costs.

 

[VaYank5150]

Do you REALLY want to go with that analogy? My auto insurance runs me about $800.00/year. My EPHI benefit is closer to $8,200.00/year. Do the math.

I am doing the math. Your fringe benefit is a hidden and variable amount. With a direct salary nothing is hidden. You know exactly what you are worth and what you are getting.

Instead of spending the average of $12,000 a year providing a benefit, the employer would pay you the $12,000 as part of your salary. Part of McCain's plan was to then give you a tax credit to use that extra pay toward health insurance.

Then you can go and spend as much of that additional $12K on health insurance as you CHOOSE. You have a choice!

And you can keep the CHANGE.

Isn't the left pro-CHOICE? Didn't they vote for CHANGE?

Instead, they got an ever increasing cost institutionalized by law. That's not change! That's being owned by special interests.

Math isn't really your strong suit, is it? My employer employs nearly 68,000 in the United States. Do you have ANY idea the buying power they have with insurance companies with that sort of employee base? Insurance companies will THROW themselves at my employer year after year, begging to be chosen. Do you REALLY think I could on my own, get the same levels of coverage and deductibles as I do while being part of a 68,000 member policy? REALLY?

 

[g5000]

Do you REALLY want to go with that analogy? My auto insurance runs me about $800.00/year. My EPHI benefit is closer to $8,200.00/year. Do the math.

I am doing the math. Your fringe benefit is a hidden and variable amount. With a direct salary nothing is hidden. You know exactly what you are worth and what you are getting.

Instead of spending the average of $12,000 a year providing a benefit, the employer would pay you the $12,000 as part of your salary. Part of McCain's plan was to then give you a tax credit to use that extra pay toward health insurance.

Then you can go and spend as much of that additional $12K on health insurance as you CHOOSE. You have a choice!

And you can keep the CHANGE.

Isn't the left pro-CHOICE? Didn't they vote for CHANGE?

Instead, they got an ever increasing cost institutionalized by law. That's not change! That's being owned by special interests.

Math isn't really your strong suit, is it? My employer employs nearly 68,000 in the United States. Do you have ANY idea the buying power they have with insurance companies with that sort of employee base? Insurance companies will THROW themselves at my employer year after year, begging to be chosen. Do you REALLY think I could on my own, get the same levels of coverage and deductibles as I do while being part of a 68,000 member policy? REALLY?

You have no idea how insurance works, do you?

Have your costs been going down? No.

Which one of your insurance policies has been increasing at the fastest rate; auto, home, or health?

The insurance you buy on your own, or the one to which you are a complete hostage?

Hmmmm.

Connect the dots, my friend.

 

[VaYank5150]

I am doing the math. Your fringe benefit is a hidden and variable amount. With a direct salary nothing is hidden. You know exactly what you are worth and what you are getting.

Instead of spending the average of $12,000 a year providing a benefit, the employer would pay you the $12,000 as part of your salary. Part of McCain's plan was to then give you a tax credit to use that extra pay toward health insurance.

Then you can go and spend as much of that additional $12K on health insurance as you CHOOSE. You have a choice!

And you can keep the CHANGE.

Isn't the left pro-CHOICE? Didn't they vote for CHANGE?

Instead, they got an ever increasing cost institutionalized by law. That's not change! That's being owned by special interests.

Math isn't really your strong suit, is it? My employer employs nearly 68,000 in the United States. Do you have ANY idea the buying power they have with insurance companies with that sort of employee base? Insurance companies will THROW themselves at my employer year after year, begging to be chosen. Do you REALLY think I could on my own, get the same levels of coverage and deductibles as I do while being part of a 68,000 member policy? REALLY?

You have no idea how insurance works, do you?

Have your costs been going down? No.

Which one of your insurance policies has been increasing at the fastest rate; auto, home, or health?

The insurance you buy on your own, or the one to which you are a complete hostage?

Hmmmm.

Connect the dots, my friend.

My EPHI has been basically flat over the past three years. However, we did change providers as a way to save on the plans. In fact, my homeowner's policy has gone down, but only because I took the time to shop it....twice. And as far as auto insurnace? $800.00 for comprehensive with $100 deductible? This is probably the cheapest auto insurance premium I have EVER had. Connect my dots, will ya?

 

[g5000]

My EPHI has been basically flat over the past three years.

As far as you know. Perhaps your share has not changed much, but this is not true for most Americans.

And how much has your employer's cost share gone up? You probably have no way of knowing, but I would bet it has nearly doubled in the past ten years.

With a federal requirement for employers to buy insurance, they will be over a barrel. Insurance companies will have some leverage since they know a company HAS to buy insurance. This will not work out well. Especially since health insurance companies are restricted by law from selling across state lines. This gives insurance companies a virtual oligopoly within their regions.

The federal law also sets a minimum fine for each uninsured employee. This is a gigantic price fixing scheme for insurance companies, is it not? If you know going in what fines an employer will have to pay if he does not buy your product, you have a serious advantage.

And if the employer is forced by law to provide specific things in their coverage, like birth control and whatever else the left will whine for now that it is mandatory coverage, this also gives the insurance companies lots of leverage.

No, this will drive up the costs of healthcare even more, I'm afraid.