Putting things in Perspective

[Mr.Fitnah]

In the case of ObamaCare, pricing and costs are distorted. Bureaucrats in the 159 new agencies will set prices without regard to the cost structure. Consumers will be shielded from true costs, thus distorting demand upward. Artificially low prices will drive many suppliers out of business as they are forced to provide products or services at a loss - leading to the inevitable rationing.

But this was the goal all along.

Its the first step
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW4IKM9hzS4]YouTube - Baby steps to single payer[/ame]

 

[Immanuel]

How? Before this bill, the significant reason that people couldn't get health insurance on their own was the cost. This bill did very little to address the cost. Your claim that the bill gives companies an "excuse" not to cover workers is speculation at best. Also, you seem to be claiming that companies give health insurance benefits out of the kindness of their hearts - which is retarded. Also, Obama's bill added a penalty to NOT covering employees - a penalty that wasn't there before.

In case you don't realize it, the penalty does not come close to the cost of providing health insurance to its employees. Not even close. With the mandate... every employee is going to have to become insured. Meaning they are not going to have the choice of not taking the insurance coverage. Meaning that if employers do offer health insurance benefits their costs are going to skyrocket. To avoid the penalty they also have to cover at least 60%. That is going to make the cost prohibitive.

Most small businesses are not going to have a choice but to drop coverage completely and pay the penalties and for small businesses of less than 50 employees, they don't even have to worry about the penalties.

Companies have been giving benefits because it has been expected of them. To attract employees they offer the benefit. However, they know that a lot of employees do not take the benefit. Now, employees are not going to have a choice. Where I was working before we had approximately 50% of our staff who did not take health insurance for various reasons usually because they didn't want to pay their portion of the expense. Under this bill that 50% will become more like 95% or more considering that there are a few who will use their spouse's coverage because everyone will have to have coverage. My employer covered about 70% of my costs. Under this bill he can only possibly drop that to 60% to avoid paying the fine. I'm telling you, he was losing his business as it was, now you want to increase the costs (by making him cover 100% of his employees) including part time employees? He simply can't do it. He will have no choice but to stop paying all insurance for everyone.

Since he has less than 50 employees he does not even need to worry about the penalty. He would be a fool to continue to maintain coverage.

By the way, thank you for pointing out that this bill does little to address the costs. The way many proponents are presenting this, one would think health care was going to be free. It isn't.

Immie

Don't get me wrong, I don't like this bill at all. I'm just sick of people claiming that this bill is "Socialism" and will destroy America. This bill does almost nothing to address the health insurance problem in this country - it's a status quo bill, not a revolutionary one.

I believe we'll also have to wait and see how the bill affects costs and employer coverage. I know that you've got your opinion of how it will end up - but I'm not sure I agree with you. We'll just have to wait and see in 2014 or whenever it actually goes into effect.

Honestly, I hope to hell I am wrong.

I am throwing out what I see as a potential outcome. I'm not always right... um if ever.

My description of what I see happening to employers is what I think will happen. Some will have the revenue to cover the increased costs but I come from a small business background and the small businesses I know of simply can't take on the additional costs of covering all employees including part timers.

Immie

 

[Dante]

Comments such as these from the right are why Republicans are not going to take control of Congress or the Presidency. Unfortunately these thoughts are becoming the standard for the Party.

Except both of those are comments from left leaning members here.

As mentioned, we know costs will skyrocket. The lowered Medicaid payouts will be reversed when it is discovered that doctors wont work for migrant worker wages. Lower tax revenues from the mandates to insure plus higher spending equals insolvency.

We know no such thing. Opinions are n-o-t facts.

migrant worker wages?

 

[The Rabbi]

Comments such as these from the right are why Republicans are not going to take control of Congress or the Presidency. Unfortunately these thoughts are becoming the standard for the Party.

Except both of those are comments from left leaning members here.

As mentioned, we know costs will skyrocket. The lowered Medicaid payouts will be reversed when it is discovered that doctors wont work for migrant worker wages. Lower tax revenues from the mandates to insure plus higher spending equals insolvency.

We know no such thing. Opinions are n-o-t facts.

migrant worker wages?

In much the same way that it is only opinion that dropping a rock will result in it hitting the ground.
Please name two government entitlement programs that did not wildly exceed budget projections.

 

[Flopper]

If you have a serious illness such as cancer or heart disease, healthcare can easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. In a large company with say 10 or 20 thousand employees, the cost of your health care is easily covered by the premiums of the many employees so the insurance company has no real risk plus the cost to service the policy is low. In a company with just a few employees, the premiums are very high for a good insurance plan because the insurance company is taking a risk and they have a high cost to service the policy.

With the new healthcare law, small employers would purchase a policy through an insurance exchange in which thousands of small business are grouped together to form a large insurance group. The cost is lowered in a number ways. Risk is reduced due to the size of the group. Administrative costs are lower for a large group. And finally competitive bidding could be used to get the lowest price. This will radically reduce the cost of insurance to small employers. In addition tax credits will be available to help offset cost. I really don’t think we need fear job lose in small companies due to the healthcare bill.

 

[gslack]

If you have a serious illness such as cancer or heart disease, healthcare can easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. In a large company with say 10 or 20 thousand employees, the cost of your health care is easily covered by the premiums of the many employees so the insurance company has no real risk plus the cost to service the policy is low. In a company with just a few employees, the premiums are very high for a good insurance plan because the insurance company is taking a risk and they have a high cost to service the policy.

With the new healthcare law, small employers would purchase a policy through an insurance exchange in which thousands of small business are grouped together to form a large insurance group. The cost is lowered in a number ways. Risk is reduced due to the size of the group. Administrative costs are lower for a large group. And finally competitive bidding could be used to get the lowest price. This will radically reduce the cost of insurance to small employers. In addition tax credits will be available to help offset cost. I really don’t think we need fear job lose in small companies due to the healthcare bill.

While I agree with a lot of what you say, your numbers and details are not quite right.

A company with 10-20 employees is in the bottom level of companies that can even get insurance coverage on their own. They are in fact a small business and any insurance they get would undoubtedly go through the system you described above.

HCR bill may not result in job loss directly, but as insurance companies die off and merge to compete, the resulting conditions will result in massive changes across the board.

Changes like a new multi-tiered billing code going by the insurer and its strength. HMO's with even stricter policies on treatment and who, what, and where the policy holder can go for treatment. They will have to do this to be able to give insurance at a competitive cost.

And along with these changes we will see a rise in costs to companies while they try to avoid imparting that cost to employees. This will be by government restriction rather than company conscience. When that happens job loss will occur. The extent and depth no one can say really, but it will occur nonetheless.

 

[California Girl]

If you have a serious illness such as cancer or heart disease, healthcare can easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. In a large company with say 10 or 20 thousand employees, the cost of your health care is easily covered by the premiums of the many employees so the insurance company has no real risk plus the cost to service the policy is low. In a company with just a few employees, the premiums are very high for a good insurance plan because the insurance company is taking a risk and they have a high cost to service the policy.

With the new healthcare law, small employers would purchase a policy through an insurance exchange in which thousands of small business are grouped together to form a large insurance group. The cost is lowered in a number ways. Risk is reduced due to the size of the group. Administrative costs are lower for a large group. And finally competitive bidding could be used to get the lowest price. This will radically reduce the cost of insurance to small employers. In addition tax credits will be available to help offset cost. I really don’t think we need fear job lose in small companies due to the healthcare bill.

Really? You don't think small business are gonna have to shed jobs? Tell that to my dad who is not only moving his business out of the state of CA, the state where he was born and raised - because the taxes are crippling him. But, he's laying people off and has no intention of employing the same number again. And, my dad used to be able to take on people that others considered unemployable (like young people with no GED and usually some criminal record) and train them. He can't do that anymore - and that is because of our stupid ******* assholes in DC. (Both sides - the only thing that appears to cross the floor is the boundless ability of politicians to be corrupt ******* bastards).

Oh, and posting in red makes you look like an attention seeking brat. Everyone here is perfectly capable of reading stuff without you jumping up and down and screaming 'READ ME! READ ME!' Just sayin'.

 

[gslack]

If you have a serious illness such as cancer or heart disease, healthcare can easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. In a large company with say 10 or 20 thousand employees, the cost of your health care is easily covered by the premiums of the many employees so the insurance company has no real risk plus the cost to service the policy is low. In a company with just a few employees, the premiums are very high for a good insurance plan because the insurance company is taking a risk and they have a high cost to service the policy.

With the new healthcare law, small employers would purchase a policy through an insurance exchange in which thousands of small business are grouped together to form a large insurance group. The cost is lowered in a number ways. Risk is reduced due to the size of the group. Administrative costs are lower for a large group. And finally competitive bidding could be used to get the lowest price. This will radically reduce the cost of insurance to small employers. In addition tax credits will be available to help offset cost. I really don’t think we need fear job lose in small companies due to the healthcare bill.

Really? You don't think small business are gonna have to shed jobs? Tell that to my dad who is not only moving his business out of the state of CA, the state where he was born and raised - because the taxes are crippling him. But, he's laying people off and has no intention of employing the same number again. And, my dad used to be able to take on people that others considered unemployable (like young people with no GED and usually some criminal record) and train them. He can't do that anymore - and that is because of our stupid ******* assholes in DC. (Both sides - the only thing that appears to cross the floor is the boundless ability of politicians to be corrupt ******* bastards).

I feel for your dad on this.... I am very sorry.

I just had to let my assistant go after 3 years because of cutbacks in government spending in my field. As a contractor I am limited in what I can do... Its contract...

 

[editec]

According to the CBO, the new healthcare law will cost a trillion dollars over the next 10 yrs. or about 100 billion a year. Those are pretty big numbers but let’s put it in perspective. The federal budget is 3.5 trillion dollars or 3,500 billion dollars. The cost of the new healthcare law will only add about 2.85% to federal spending, all of which is covered by increases in taxes and cost cuts. Fox News, the unofficial voice of the Republican Party continues to report that the new healthcare bill, will bankrupt the country. Would anyone like to explain just how this law is going to bankrupt the country?

This nation is already bankrupt.

It has been morally bankrupted for the last century.

It will be more morally bankrupted, and eventually it will be financially bankrupted if we don't find SOME WAY to get people back to work at jobs that pay a LIVING WAGE.

The source of all wealth is human LABOR...not debt, not financials, not real estate or insurance, either.

Wealth comes from LABOR.

We have systematically made it impossible for enough of us to make a living.

Sheesh! How ******* hard is this for people to figure out, anyway?

 

[The Rabbi]

According to the CBO, the new healthcare law will cost a trillion dollars over the next 10 yrs. or about 100 billion a year. Those are pretty big numbers but let’s put it in perspective. The federal budget is 3.5 trillion dollars or 3,500 billion dollars. The cost of the new healthcare law will only add about 2.85% to federal spending, all of which is covered by increases in taxes and cost cuts. Fox News, the unofficial voice of the Republican Party continues to report that the new healthcare bill, will bankrupt the country. Would anyone like to explain just how this law is going to bankrupt the country?

This nation is already bankrupt.

It has been morally bankrupted for the last century.

It will be more morally bankrupted, and eventually it will be financially bankrupted if we don't find SOME WAY to get people back to work at jobs that pay a LIVING WAGE.

The source of all wealth is human LABOR...not debt, not financials, not real estate or insurance, either.

Wealth comes from LABOR.

We have systematically made it impossible for enough of us to make a living.

Sheesh! How ******* hard is this for people to figure out, anyway?

The source of human wealth is labor? Really?
How is it that when 90% of people worked on small family farms the GDP was probably a tenth of what it is today?

 

[Flopper]

I agree that there are significant taxes required to support this program. There are some taxes that hit businesses large and small but there are significant tax credits for small business. Drug companies, insurance companies, medical equipment manufactures, and high income earners are effected as well as individuals. The highest tax I have seen is 3.8% on high income earners. Most other taxes are less.

What we seem to be missing is there are huge benefits in having a healthier country. Because we can't put a dollar figure on it, it's assumed to have no value at all, which is ridiculous.

We can argue the pros and cons of the law till doomsday, which will change nothing. It will be virtual impossible to repeal the law until after Obama leaves office. By then it will be firmly established. The court challenge is a real long shot. I do think there will be a number of changes made in the law which will address some of the problems pointed out here.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

According to the CBO, the new healthcare law will cost a trillion dollars over the next 10 yrs. or about 100 billion a year. Those are pretty big numbers but let’s put it in perspective. The federal budget is 3.5 trillion dollars or 3,500 billion dollars. The cost of the new healthcare law will only add about 2.85% to federal spending, all of which is covered by increases in taxes and cost cuts. Fox News, the unofficial voice of the Republican Party continues to report that the new healthcare bill, will bankrupt the country. Would anyone like to explain just how this law is going to bankrupt the country?

This nation is already bankrupt.

It has been morally bankrupted for the last century.

It will be more morally bankrupted, and eventually it will be financially bankrupted if we don't find SOME WAY to get people back to work at jobs that pay a LIVING WAGE.

The source of all wealth is human LABOR...not debt, not financials, not real estate or insurance, either.

Wealth comes from LABOR.

We have systematically made it impossible for enough of us to make a living.

Sheesh! How ******* hard is this for people to figure out, anyway?

The source of human wealth is labor? Really?
How is it that when 90% of people worked on small family farms the GDP was probably a tenth of what it is today?

Your fallacy is assuming the labour theory of value- that is, you assume the amount of human labour required to produce determines directly and entirely its market value.

True, the average citizen need not labour as intensely in the past, but he is able to produce a surplus of the essentials you refer to, allowing him to produce goods designed to satisfy mere desire. Also, technological innovation allows the extraction of raw materials on a larger scale and the production of finer goods such as electronics on the large scale.

However, none of this is achieved without human effort at every stage, as the process has yet to be fully mechanized and automatized.

 

[The Rabbi]

This nation is already bankrupt.

It has been morally bankrupted for the last century.

It will be more morally bankrupted, and eventually it will be financially bankrupted if we don't find SOME WAY to get people back to work at jobs that pay a LIVING WAGE.

The source of all wealth is human LABOR...not debt, not financials, not real estate or insurance, either.

Wealth comes from LABOR.

We have systematically made it impossible for enough of us to make a living.

Sheesh! How ******* hard is this for people to figure out, anyway?

The source of human wealth is labor? Really?
How is it that when 90% of people worked on small family farms the GDP was probably a tenth of what it is today?

Your fallacy is assuming the labour theory of value- that is, you assume the amount of human labour required to produce determines directly and entirely its market value.

True, the average citizen need not labour as intensely in the past, but he is able to produce a surplus of the essentials you refer to, allowing him to produce goods designed to satisfy mere desire. Also, technological innovation allows the extraction of raw materials on a larger scale and the production of finer goods such as electronics on the large scale.

However, none of this is achieved without human effort at every stage, as the process has yet to be fully mechanized and automatized.

Actually that's Editec's fallacy, not mine.