In another thread I mentioned some small business owners I am friends with saying that Obamacare will interfere with the ability of small busnesses to compete with large corporations. They went on to say that they are scrapping plans to hire new employees and possibly having to lay off employees that they otherwise would not have to as well as having to raise prices on their services.
I noticed this article about Papa John's where the CEO is saying essentually the same thing:
These are all people who have built succesful businesses, so shouldn't be just discounted because they do make a good case. Apparently talk of a 35% tax break is not enough to put their fears to rest.
I guess the question is now how will the chips fall when everything is said and done, and how much will Obamacare contribute to unemployment if it in fact does.
Lots of cut hours and part time hire...like no one saw this coming or its just small business getting back at Obama. Everyone has healthcare though...maybe...
I'm looking at opening a small business in the next year and a half, amongst other things the ACA certainly isn't helping the task of finding backers. Thankfully my personnel needs are pretty low in general. Shop staff will be a mix of part time and full time, and all of my instructor staff will be part time if not getting payed on commission.
Probably the latter, give'em a flat fee of "x" for each class taught, then a commission fee of "y" for every person in the course.
Regardless every full time position created is something I need to think long and hard about.
“The impending costs of health care do not give business owners confidence to open that extra store or to hire more people and create the economic output our country needs.”
Translation: the author believes more gakky jobs with no benefits is preferential to better jobs.
Jim Amos, CEO and chairman of Tasti D-Lite, a frozen yogurt franchise that operates in 14 states as well as globally, is certain of one thing: The ruling will hinder growth in the franchise space. “It’s going to force franchisees to shift workers to part-time to avoid the 50-employee threshold
Translation: Jim Amos lives in a magical world where the kid serving up frozen yogurt in the food court isn't a part-time, minimum-wage employee already.
"Health-care reform shouldn’t come on the backs of small business."
I think "small business" needs to be redefined. 50 employees is a big-box retailer such as Best Buy, or a chain of at least 4-5 smaller retailers like Tasti D-Lite.
Wait, I thought the topic was "what Obamacare will mean for business", not "what Obamacare will mean for businesses run by idiots who are afraid to expand a profitable business because they won't make quite as much profit as they thought", or "conservative business owners fire employees they were going to fire anyway and blame Obamacare because it's easier to say 'I had no choice' than to admit that you just want to make more money by cutting redundant employees".
Peregrine wrote: Wait, I thought the topic was "what Obamacare will mean for business", not "what Obamacare will mean for businesses run by idiots who are afraid to expand a profitable business because they won't make quite as much profit as they thought", or "conservative business owners fire employees they were going to fire anyway and blame Obamacare because it's easier to say 'I had no choice' than to admit that you just want to make more money by cutting redundant
employees".
You can say whatever insulting things you may about these people, calling them idiots or whatever in spite of the fact they run succesful businesses, but the fact remains that these will be the ones facing the challenges of running a business, not you. They will also be the ones that will be deciding if it's worth it to hire people full time or even to keep people on, not you.
Before calling someone an idiot for weighing out the risks to their livlihood and deciding trying to fund Obamacare will hurt them, try putting yourself in the shoes of a busnessman with a family worried about going beyond the means they have at their disposal by funding a social program and then being forced to shut their doors when they
can't make a profit because of it.
You can say whatever insulting things you may about these people, calling them idiots or whatever in spite of the fact they run succesful businesses, but the fact remains that these will be the ones facing the challenges of running a business, not you. They will also be the ones that will be deciding if it's worth it to hire people full time or even to keep people on, not you.
I call bs. Most small business owners have no idea about greater economic matters.
“The impending costs of health care do not give business owners confidence to open that extra store or to hire more people and create the economic output our country needs.”
Translation: the author believes more gakky jobs with no benefits is preferential to better jobs.
Jim Amos, CEO and chairman of Tasti D-Lite, a frozen yogurt franchise that operates in 14 states as well as globally, is certain of one thing: The ruling will hinder growth in the franchise space. “It’s going to force franchisees to shift workers to part-time to avoid the 50-employee threshold
Translation: Jim Amos lives in a magical world where the kid serving up frozen yogurt in the food court isn't a part-time, minimum-wage employee already.
"Health-care reform shouldn’t come on the backs of small business."
I think "small business" needs to be redefined. 50 employees is a big-box retailer such as Best Buy, or a chain of at least 4-5 smaller retailers like Tasti D-Lite.
I think we all know enough people that have gakky jobs that prefer working to being unemployed. There are enough families out there with
members doing full time gigs at a fast food place to make me think you must live in some great town where it's only high school kids working there.
Are you saying you'd like to redefine what a small business is so that even more would go under trying to keep up with the demands of Obamacare and more people would be unemployed?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: Isn't the US economy expected to grow strongly in the next year?
You can say whatever insulting things you may about these people, calling them idiots or whatever in spite of the fact they run succesful businesses, but the fact remains that these will be the ones facing the challenges of running a business, not you. They will also be the ones that will be deciding if it's worth it to hire people full time or even to keep people on, not you.
I call bs. Most small business owners have no idea about greater economic matters.
Enlighten us all please, in light of your great knowledge of these things which you no doubt gained by hiring people and keeping them employed for years.
John Schnatter is a tool. In order to prevent having to give health care to full-time employees, hes going to only hire part timers.
His argument is that the increased cost of 3mil a year in health insurance is to much. This is how much Papa Johns makes.
Revenue.......................US$ 1.126,397 billion (2010)[1]
Operating income..........US$ 86.744 million (2010)[1]
Net income....................US$ 51.940 million (2010)[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_John's_Pizza
In comparison, Howard Schultz the CEO of Starbucks has been giving his part-time employees health insurance for years now. Every year Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee beans.
d-usa wrote: It will be interesting how 2016 will look, with all out healthcare and non-failed businesses.
It's like we are reliving all the same arguments about minimum wage or the 40 hour workweek here...
I like what you're saying and I hope it is true, but right now the things I've posted are pretty much overwelmingly what I've been hearing small business owners talking about.
d-usa wrote: It will be interesting how 2016 will look, with all out healthcare and non-failed businesses.
It's like we are reliving all the same arguments about minimum wage or the 40 hour workweek here...
I like what you're saying and I hope it is true, but right now the things I've posted are pretty much overwelmingly what I've been hearing small business owners talking about.
They said the same thing about minimum wage, child labor laws, OSHA, overtime laws...
d-usa wrote: They said the same thing about minimum wage, child labor laws, OSHA, overtime laws...
This is true.
There is a valid concern that our healthcare costs are increasing as a whole though. We pay twice as much (as a percentage of GDP) than other countries, and the cost is increasing.
As a society its important for us to investigate why there is such inefficency in these systems and work to correct them.
labmouse42 wrote: There is a valid concern that our healthcare costs are increasing as a whole though. We pay twice as much (as a percentage of GDP) than other countries, and the cost is increasing.
As a society its important for us to investigate why there is such inefficency in these systems and work to correct them.
I expect the ever-expanding waistlines of North Americans has something to do with it.
And before anyone starts, Europeans are getting fatter, too.
Its not just small business that's gonna panic. I work for John Middleton, which is a subsidiary of Philip Morris (Owned by Altria). Yes, I work in the tobacco industry, which in June took a HUGE hit by Obama to fund Obamacare. Excise taxes went from $0.51 a pack to $1.51. Add that to the fact that the FDA now has jurisdiction over tobacco (thankfully not cigars yet) and I stand a pretty good chance at losing my career in the next year or so. Fully paid benefits for my family, lots of vacation time, best pay in the area for those that didn't finish school (though they just started a tuition reimbursement program to make us smrtr ). All gone in the next bit or so. I already have my resume out in the world, but not finding much to take the place of this job.
Seaward wrote: I expect the ever-expanding waistlines of North Americans has something to do with it.
And before anyone starts, Europeans are getting fatter, too.
I completely agree.
There is also other red-tape foolishness that can be cut. Let me give you a real world example.
I had to submit a claim. In order to submit this claim I had to mail it to one office who then faxxed it to another office. The fax was illegible and UHC required me to mail the claim form again. I offered to email them a scanned version, yet that was not sufficent. A fax was required.
That is one example that I encountered. I am sure there are thousands of more examples of waste that can be trimmed.
Isn't it great that all of these business leaders will no longer have to deal with "uncertainty" now that the ACA will be put into place. I know how much they hate and fear "uncertainty".
Easy E wrote: Isn't it great that all of these business leaders will no longer after to deal with "uncertainty" now that the ACA will be put into place. I know how much the hate and fear "uncertainty".
First post of the morning is always the hardest of the day!
I don't. Obesity is more common in America but not that much more common than the UK yet we still pay nearly half what the US does on health care per patient. There has to be some severe inefficencies or sheer profiteering in the US healthcare system to suck in so much money.
Palindrome wrote: I don't. Obesity is more common in America but not that much more common than the UK yet we still pay nearly half what the US does on health care per patient.
Employers making noise about this surprise me, as I'd have thought the restrictions already placed on full time work and amount of vacation and holiday, along with other existing benefits for full time employees was already making most positions part time. I certainly saw this working in a big box store for the last two years. Full timers leaving after many years were already being replaced by part timers positions, usually amounting to less hours combined than the full time hours that had departed.
Businesses have been pulling this gak for over a decade now, it's hardly news.
Testify wrote: Isn't the US economy expected to grow strongly in the next year?
I haven't heard much positive in those regards. I've heard predictions of a stock market collapse. More stagnant growth like we've seen all this year. Jim Rogers, whom from all I can gather is very knowledgeable on this stuff, certainly seems to think our outlook for the next couple of years is pretty grim.
Lots of worry about what type of hammer the EPA is rumored to be about to drop on the coal industry. Very likely substantial tax hikes are coming soon with the "fiscal cliff", on top of what we're gonna see with the ACA.
All in all from my perspective I wouldn't expect strong growth next year.
Palindrome wrote: I don't. Obesity is more common in America but not that much more common than the UK yet we still pay nearly half what the US does on health care per patient.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Full timers leaving after many years were already being replaced by part timers positions, usually amounting to less hours combined than the full time hours that had departed.
Businesses have been pulling this gak for over a decade now, it's hardly news.
I have an example of this happening in real life.
Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank opened up The Home Depot. When they ran the company, people who worked there would be called "Orange Blooded" because they had such loyalty to the company.
This was not without reason. When I worked at their corporate headquarters, a lady in accounting was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Bernie Marcus discovered this and called her into his office. He told her that Piedmont Hospital owed him a favor, so he got her immediate care by the best brain surgeon in Georgia.
Those are the kind of stories that inspire loyalty in a company.
At the stores, retired electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc were hired. These guys were paid a good wage, and you go walk up to any one of them and ask them questions about what you were doing. You would be speaking with an expert who did the work for 30+ years.
When Nardelli became CEO of The Home Depot, in his first year he fired all of those full time retirees and replaced them with part time employees -- because they were much cheaper. The "Orange Blooded" era of THD is passed.
And now Home Depot is an awful store with terrible customer service.
Until we realize that what is good for profit isn't necessarily good for business, and is usually not what is best for people, we'll never be able to have an actual adult conversation about issues such as the ACA.
Palindrome wrote: That information is 10 years old. You also aren't twice as fat so even though there will be an impact its far from the whole story.
Edit : Just google "country rates by obesity" and you will see many examples that the US is still at 30% obesity. No matter how you slice it, the US is still the fattest in the land. I am disagreeing with your point that the UK is fatter than the US.
Now I agree with you that there are other reasons that the US cost is so high. I even provided a real world example I've seen. Yet obesity rates also have contribute to the increased cost. They will continue to attribute to the increased cost in the UK.
Simply put, its more expensive to treat fat people due to the increased health risks they have. The US has more fat people egro it has higher costs than other countries. This of course does not rate for the double cost for health care, but does have an impact on the overall cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote: And now Home Depot is an awful store with terrible customer service.
Until we realize that what is good for profit isn't necessarily good for business, and is usually not what is best for people, we'll never be able to have an actual adult conversation about issues such as the ACA.
What's crazy is that you can have both. There is a book called "Good to Great" which illustrates how this can happen. You can treat your employees well, and be good to the community and still succeed.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Probably the latter, give'em a flat fee of "x" for each class taught, then a commission fee of "y" for every person in the course.
Obviously it's best to speak to an accountant, but I would be very wary of this practice, which is typically independent contracting. It's use has increased in the last decade or so and the IRS is cracking down.
OT:
I'm also looking to "start" a business by incorporating as soon as I can sit down and do the LLC paperwork. Truth be told I'm hoping that Obama in office makes it easier to get an SBA backed startup loan as he "invests" in America. I have my doubts. I'm not sure what the ACA implications will be for the self employed.
Kanluwen wrote: Wait, did the guy who owns Papa John's really call himself a "Small Business"?
Wow.
Well if you think about it, he's really a chain of small businesses working together under a brand name and single supplier. Having the single supplier (Papa John himself) allows all the small businesses (franchisees and chains of the same) to benefit from economies of scale without actually being the size a company needs to be to do so.
See, if you squint your eyes and tilt your head just right even Exxon is a small business!
And, labmouse, you're absolutely correct that you can run a business profitably while being ethical and treating your employees really well. Until you get bought out, need investment capital, or are otherwise destroyed so financial capital can turn around and make a quick dollar. I mean, a lot of the businesses Bain destroyed were good businesses giving people good jobs and making steady money, until they needed a bridge loan and pension funds were raided.
The ACA bill just makes a complicated business environment even more challenging...
That's the issue here... really.
What you'll see some outfits will do is to reduce the # of full-time employees and hire even more part-timers. I think the magic number is 50... any outfit with more than 50 full timers will trigger the more onerous part of the ACA bill.
Things would be a lot simpler and administrative costs and overhead would go way down if we went to a Single Payer nationalized healthcare system. But that would be Super Communism (measuring by the yardstick of what some folks consider to be Socialism).
Mannahnin wrote: Things would be a lot simpler and administrative costs and overhead would go way down if we went to a Single Payer nationalized healthcare system. But that would be Super Communism (measuring by the yardstick of what some folks consider to be Socialism).
Yeah... I agree with ya there... we spend so much $$$ on overall healthcare, it can't get that much more expensive than having a Canadian Model...right? (btw, Azazel, they ration healthcare there ya know! )
Most of the small business owners I know have been very concerned about the skyrocketing costs of healthcare for the past couple of decades of government inaction, and very eager for our lawmakers to do SOMETHING to start bringing costs into check. Tort reform was one approach that Republicans backed, which has been enacted in many states but failed at reducing costs.
azazel the cat wrote: I think "small business" needs to be redefined. 50 employees is a big-box retailer such as Best Buy, or a chain of at least 4-5 smaller retailers like Tasti D-Lite.
Number of employees in a business is normally counted as how many people are employed by the corporation in total. Not at each individual retail location. Different states usually place that figure at under 50, under 100, or under 200 employees, for tax and other legislative purposes.
Franchising operations blur the lines a bit, because individual stores may be their own businesses/corporate entities. Although a large chain like Papa John's should certainly be able to negotiate group health insurance rates based on the total employment figures including their franchises. John Schnatter's just an ideologue conservative who doesn't want to pay for insurance for his employees. He is the exact kind of business owner who protested minimum wage laws, overtime laws, safety regulations, child labor law restrictions (etc.) as bad things because they cut into his margins.
Mannahnin wrote:Things would be a lot simpler and administrative costs and overhead would go way down if we went to a Single Payer nationalized healthcare system. But that would be Super Communism (measuring by the yardstick of what some folks consider to be Socialism).
What amazes me is that some people who support ACA ardently deny that single payer is vastly superior. My sister in law is an ardent liberal who almost violently rejects a NHS solution in favor of ACA. I can't do anything but shake my head.
Mannahnin wrote:Things would be a lot simpler and administrative costs and overhead would go way down if we went to a Single Payer nationalized healthcare system. But that would be Super Communism (measuring by the yardstick of what some folks consider to be Socialism).
What amazes me is that some people who support ACA ardently deny that single payer is vastly superior. My sister in law is an ardent liberal who almost violently rejects a NHS solution in favor of ACA. I can't do anything but shake my head.
I'm having that same conversations with my local liberals(socialist)...
NHS/Canadia Medicare is more in their wheelhouse than the ACA.... what gives? It's it because it's Obama's signature bill?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: For me, ACA is a compromise step forward. It's not as far as we need to go, but it was desperately difficult to get even that much passed.
It's a mess... it really is. It will not do what it "said" it will do.
If this thread is hopping tonight, I'll post some specifics.
Mannahnin wrote: For me, ACA is a compromise step forward. It's not as far as we need to go, but it was desperately difficult to get even that much passed.
I think it makes insurance companies more powerful than consumers who are forced to pay for thier product which they can raise the price on as much as they want. Because it won't be what the consumer is willing to pay, it's what the consumer MUST pay. I would rather have a govt bureaucracy than an unchecked corporation in chars of my healthcare. Mostly because at the end of the day medicine should not be a for-profit endeavor.
Basically this is auto insurance round two.
AustonT wrote: Mostly because at the end of the day medicine should not be a for-profit endeavor.
I could not agree with you anymore on anything.
I work for the VA, and I know the VA gets lots of slack for lots of things, many of which are deserved. And while I can't speak for the clinic side of things, the inpatient hospital side is better than any for-profit and non-profit hospital I have ever worked. Is it perfect, not at all. But it is better than any system that is motivated by greed and profit.
As far as the whole "they will ration healthcare argument goes that usually follows any talk about government healthcare" goes (not directed at you): take a look at the fancy package you get at the beginning of each year from your insurance, the one that talks about what is and isn't covered. That is your rationed healthcare to ensure maximum profits.
Mannahnin wrote: For me, ACA is a compromise step forward. It's not as far as we need to go, but it was desperately difficult to get even that much passed.
I think it makes insurance companies more powerful than consumers who are forced to pay for thier product which they can raise the price on as much as they want. Because it won't be what the consumer is willing to pay, it's what the consumer MUST pay. I would rather have a govt bureaucracy than an unchecked corporation in chars of my healthcare. Mostly because at the end of the day medicine should not be a for-profit endeavor.
Basically this is auto insurance round two.
This is how I feel about it. The ACA's a half step and doesn't really /help/ any one or anything in the strictest sense of the term. Either go single payer or go all capitalist. In between just makes for problems.
Relapse wrote:I think we all know enough people that have gakky jobs that prefer working to being unemployed. There are enough families out there with
members doing full time gigs at a fast food place to make me think you must live in some great town where it's only high school kids working there.
Are you saying you'd like to redefine what a small business is so that even more would go under trying to keep up with the demands of Obamacare and more people would be unemployed?
There's a difference between "I work a gakky job to support my family" and "I work a gakky job that cannot possibly support a family". Anything in entry-level retail or service (such as a Tasti D-Lite or other food court shops) is the latter. And I live in Vancouver, Canada, where there are only two types of people who hold those positions: high school kids, and the otherwise unemployable. The circumstances you are referring to are unnatural in the First World, wherein massive unemployment has allowed businesses to exploit a captive workforce, forcing people to take jobs that are grossly overqualified for (requiring a master's degree in finance in order to be a bank teller, for example) because your country has attempted to erode its social welfare network.
whembly wrote:
Mannahnin wrote: Things would be a lot simpler and administrative costs and overhead would go way down if we went to a Single Payer nationalized healthcare system. But that would be Super Communism (measuring by the yardstick of what some folks consider to be Socialism).
Yeah... I agree with ya there... we spend so much $$$ on overall healthcare, it can't get that much more expensive than having a Canadian Model...right? (btw, Azazel, they ration healthcare there ya know! )
Wait... does that make me a commie?
I like to think of you as a convert. And the Canadian single-payer model actually costs less than the ACA model, or whatever the old model was called. It's partially because the prices charged to the single-payer are regulated/negotiated, and not entirely subject to the gouging whims of for-profit businesses.
Mannahnin wrote:Most of the small business owners I know have been very concerned about the skyrocketing costs of healthcare for the past couple of decades of government inaction, and very eager for our lawmakers to do SOMETHING to start bringing costs into check. Tort reform was one approach that Republicans backed, which has been enacted in many states but failed at reducing costs.
Small business owners shouldn't be concerned about tort reform. Tort reform is entirely a conversation started by lobby groups representing insurance companies and multinational corporations. Tort reform is a discussion entirely seperate from this one, which I feel is representative of the entire cancer of corruption found in the US legal system. (long story short, tort reform is entirely one-sided in favour of abusive corporations seeking to escape punishment for their actions)
Mannahnin wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:I think "small business" needs to be redefined. 50 employees is a big-box retailer such as Best Buy, or a chain of at least 4-5 smaller retailers like Tasti D-Lite.
Number of employees in a business is normally counted as how many people are employed by the corporation in total. Not at each individual retail location. Different states usually place that figure at under 50, under 100, or under 200 employees, for tax and other legislative purposes.
I suspect we agree on this. My point was that if you own 5 fast food locations, you cannot consider yourself a small business owner anymore, and I think the definition needs to reflect that. When I think "small business", I think a mom & pop hardware store or something, and that's what large business owners want me to think. I just don't want medium-to-large business owners to try and hide behind that mom & pop facade: "Mom & pop" do not own 5 locations.
Mannahnin wrote:For me, ACA is a compromise step forward. It's not as far as we need to go, but it was desperately difficult to get even that much passed.
It'll get much, much easier from here on out. Once everyone gets a taste of what it's like to have healthcare, you'll never be able to take it away without violence. And it'll be much, much easier to reform the ACA into a true universal healthcare system once you've got the hearts & minds behind you. Then, it's only a matter of time until the insurance industry has no choice but to die in a direct assault, so to speak.
AustonT wrote:Basically this is auto insurance round two.
In BC, auto insurance is mandatory for the driver, sort of the same way the ACA is with healthcare. Except the auto insurance is provided by the province (sort of), in the form of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. And it's awesome. Everyone on the road has auto insurance, and I think the price is the cheapest in Canada (considering what is covered). So, to nobody's surprise, my answer to you would be to socialize the entire process. Having trouble with the mandate to buy private insurance because it creates a captive consumer? Then feth the insurance company, and have the government provide it. It'll work out better for the consumer, and there won't ever be a consumer-vs-profit conflict of interest.
AustonT wrote:Basically this is auto insurance round two.
In BC, auto insurance is mandatory for the driver, sort of the same way the ACA is with healthcare. Except the auto insurance is provided by the province (sort of), in the form of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. And it's awesome. Everyone on the road has auto insurance, and I think the price is the cheapest in Canada (considering what is covered). So, to nobody's surprise, my answer to you would be to socialize the entire process. Having trouble with the mandate to buy private insurance because it creates a captive consumer? Then feth the insurance company, and have the government provide it. It'll work out better for the consumer, and there won't ever be a consumer-vs-profit conflict of interest.
I think you're agreeing with me but instead of just saying "yeah, I agree" you used a paragraph. They may ration healthcare in Canada but apparently they don't ration words.
Yeah... I agree with ya there... we spend so much $$$ on overall healthcare, it can't get that much more expensive than having a Canadian Model...right? (btw, Azazel, they ration healthcare there ya know! )
Wait... does that make me a commie?
I like to think of you as a convert. And the Canadian single-payer model actually costs less than the ACA model, or whatever the old model was called. It's partially because the prices charged to the single-payer are regulated/negotiated, and not entirely subject to the gouging whims of for-profit businesses.
I've always *liked* the Canadian model... our original spat was over "who has the besthealthcare"... and I don't think it was you, it was probably someone else who kept champion that WHO survey in 2000 that I took exception.
But, that's just it... the ACA doesn't necessarily makes things cheaper... it FORCES everyone to have some sort of coverage. Which in the end, isn't a bad thing. Those who opposes the ACA bill are mostly arguing the "we can do better" standpoint than, "let's go back to status-quo".
In theory giving people coverage should reduce costs overall just by itself. Presently we legally require hospitals to provide emergency care to anyone in need. We wind up paying for that emergency care via higher charges from and tax writeoffs for the hospitals. If people get proper preventive care and see the doctor in the office or the clinic before it gets to the emergency room stage, that's a lot cheaper care being provided and paid for.
Mannahnin wrote: In theory giving people coverage should reduce costs overall just by itself. Presently we legally require hospitals to provide emergency care to anyone in need. We wind up paying for that emergency care via higher charges from and tax writeoffs for the hospitals. If people get proper preventive care and see the doctor in the office or the clinic before it gets to the emergency room stage, that's a lot cheaper care being provided and paid for.
We'll see... and that'll take time to make that determination. In the meantime, everyone's cost will go up to address current sick population and those who hadn't been going to annual checkups.
Plus, as a nation... we ain't getting any younger.
There's a reason why the US spends more on healthcare per person than anyone else, but also still has the worst levels of care in the developed world (overall). It's simple once you think about - if you're paid for the amount of treatment you provide, then the main incentive is to provide more treatment to the best payers, regardless of whether or not that treatment is effective, needed, or could be better used elsewhere.
I'm still staggered by the idea that in a modern first-world democracy, you can die of an entirely curable disease simply because you can't pay for the treatment. If universal healthcare (even is using a flawed model) is Obama's only legacy for the US, then he's still got to go down as one of the greatest figures in American history - the number of lives that will be saved and the amount of suffering eased will be incredible.
As for myself in the UK, I'm immensely grateful we have the NHS already!
AustonT wrote:Basically this is auto insurance round two.
In BC, auto insurance is mandatory for the driver, sort of the same way the ACA is with healthcare. Except the auto insurance is provided by the province (sort of), in the form of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. And it's awesome. Everyone on the road has auto insurance, and I think the price is the cheapest in Canada (considering what is covered). So, to nobody's surprise, my answer to you would be to socialize the entire process. Having trouble with the mandate to buy private insurance because it creates a captive consumer? Then feth the insurance company, and have the government provide it. It'll work out better for the consumer, and there won't ever be a consumer-vs-profit conflict of interest.
I think you're agreeing with me but instead of just saying "yeah, I agree" you used a paragraph. They may ration healthcare in Canada but apparently they don't ration words.
I have nothing to respond with, you magnificent bastard.
whembly wrote: Those who opposes the ACA bill are mostly arguing the "we can do better" standpoint than, "let's go back to status-quo".
Yeah, that's the "Perfect Solution Fallacy"... it's pretty common in the far right. it's basically "this solution isn't perfect, so we might as well do nothing".
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will soon take on a new role as the sponsor of at least two nationwide health insurance plans to be operated under contract with the federal government and offered to consumers in every state.
Related
These multistate plans were included in President Obama’s health care law as a substitute for a pure government-run health insurance program — the public option sought by many liberal Democrats and reviled by Republicans. Supporters of the national plans say they will increase competition in state health insurance markets, many of which are dominated by a handful of companies.
The national plans will compete directly with other private insurers and may have some significant advantages, including a federal seal of approval. Premiums and benefits for the multistate insurance plans will be negotiated by the United States Office of Personnel Management, the agency that arranges health benefits for federal employees.
Walton J. Francis, the author of a consumer guide to health plans for federal employees, said the personnel agency had been “extraordinarily successful” in managing that program, which has more than 200 health plans, including about 20 offered nationwide. The personnel agency has earned high marks for its ability to secure good terms for federal workers through negotiation rather than heavy-handed regulation of insurers.
John J. O’Brien, the director of health care and insurance at the agency, said the new plans would be offered to individuals and small employers through the insurance exchanges being set up in every state under the 2010 health care law.
No one knows how many people will sign up for the government-sponsored plans. In preparing cost estimates, the Obama administration told insurers to assume that each national plan would have 750,000 people enrolled in the first year.
Under the Affordable Care Act, at least one of the nationwide plans must be offered by a nonprofit entity. Insurance experts see an obvious candidate for that role: the Government Employees Health Association, a nonprofit group that covers more than 900,000 federal employees, retirees and dependents, making it the second-largest plan for federal workers, after the Blue Cross and Blue Shield program.
The association, with headquarters near Kansas City, Mo., was founded in 1937 to help railway mail clerks with their medical expenses, and it generally receives high scores in surveys of consumer satisfaction.
Richard G. Miles, the association’s president, expressed interest in offering a multistate plan to the general public through insurance exchanges, but said no decision had been made.
“Our expertise in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would be useful in the private marketplace,” Mr. Miles said in an interview. “But we are concerned about the underwriting risk in providing insurance to an unknown group of customers.”
To be eligible to participate in the multistate program, insurers must be licensed in every state. The Government Employees Health Association recently bought a company that has the licenses it would need.
The new health care law stipulates that at least one of the multistate plans must provide insurance without coverage of abortion services. If a plan does cover abortions, it must establish separate accounts, one with money for abortion and one for all other medical services.
National insurance plans will be subject to regulation by the federal government, state insurance commissioners and state insurance exchanges. That mix could cause confusion for some consumers who have questions or complaints about their coverage.
The federal standards will pre-empt state rules in at least one respect: the national health plans will automatically be eligible to compete against other private insurers in the new exchanges, regardless of whether they have been certified as meeting the standards of those exchanges.
The administration has promised to “work cooperatively with states.” But it is unclear whether the government-sponsored plans will have to comply with all state laws and consumer protection standards; whether they will have to comply with state benefit mandates; and whether they will have to pay state fees and taxes levied on other insurers to finance exchange operations.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which represents state regulators, expressed alarm at the prospect of a double standard.
“It is absolutely essential that multistate plans compete on a level playing field with other qualified health plans, which are subject to state insurance law,” the association said in a letter to the Office of Personnel Management.
Consumer groups expressed similar concerns. The national insurance plans and other carriers must be subject to identical standards, they say, or consumers cannot make valid comparisons.
“Multistate plans have real potential benefits for consumers,” said Ronald F. Pollack, the executive director of Families USA, a liberal-leaning consumer group. “But there is also potential trouble if the multistate plans are exempted from some consumer protection standards.”
Robert E. Moffit, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he worried that “the nationwide health plans, operating under terms and conditions set by the federal government, will become the robust public option that liberals always wanted.”
Insurers are pleading with the Office of Personnel Management to provide more detailed guidance.
“We are concerned that O.P.M. has not yet released rules specifying the requirements for the multistate plan,” said Jay A. Warmuth, a lawyer at UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation’s largest insurers.
Rules for the new program have been under review by the White House for three months, and officials said they would be issued soon.
Basically, a nonprofit group (most likely GEHA, which runs an [apparently excellent] existing program for federal employees) will be set up as a nationwide insurance program available to anyone.
whembly wrote: Businesses will adapt, like they always do...
QFT
I was watching this one guy talk about how he was strongly considering cutting back employees to part time to save money. This guy has at least 3200 employees based upon 40 stores with 80 to 300 employees per store.
Now if this guy decides to cut his employees back in hours, some of them will look for work elsewhere. This will either be part time or full time work -- resulting in the loss of a trained worker. To make matters worse, most servers are part time, so his full time staff will come from the kitchen or management staff, further hurting his business.
So does this guy decide to fork out the health care for the employees he is currently hiring, or does he risk their loss to his business? Does he risk the bad press of being labeled as someone who is willing to cut employees back to save a buck.
Its a hard choice that he needs to make.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/zane-tankel-applebees-obamacare_n_2094568.html
Plus, as a nation... we ain't getting any younger.
Well when the boomers start dropping in...oh yeah now. That'll change. The old end of the boomers are about to be in thier 70's the youngest are hitting 50. Life expectancy is 78. Seems to me we'll be getting younger soon...
Plus, as a nation... we ain't getting any younger.
Well when the boomers start dropping in...oh yeah now. That'll change. The old end of the boomers are about to be in thier 70's the youngest are hitting 50. Life expectancy is 78. Seems to me we'll be getting younger soon...
In retrospect that seems a little cold.
Cold would be setting them out into the wild to fend for themselves when they can't work any more
Hedgehog wrote: There's a reason why the US spends more on healthcare per person than anyone else
Because we can...
, but also still has the worst levels of care in the developed world (overall).
By what measure?
It's simple once you think about - if you're paid for the amount of treatment you provide, then the main incentive is to provide more treatment to the best payers, regardless of whether or not that treatment is effective, needed, or could be better used elsewhere.
Uh... no... that's not how it works.
I'm still staggered by the idea that in a modern first-world democracy, you can die of an entirely curable disease simply because you can't pay for the treatment.
Er... what? That's just a loaded question as I ever see one.
If universal healthcare (even is using a flawed model) is Obama's only legacy for the US
News flash bucko... the ACA act (aka Obamacare) is NOT universal healthcare. The same system is in place, only that there's now a mandate that everyone must have insurance (private or state exchange).... and if you don't, you pay a fine to the IRS in which the money is funneled back into a combination of the state exchange and the private insurance (yeah, wrap your head around that one). it's the same system with some tweaks & regulatory overhaul
, then he's still got to go down as one of the greatest figures in American history - the number of lives that will be saved and the amount of suffering eased will be incredible.
LOLwut? Where are you getting this?
As for myself in the UK, I'm immensely grateful we have the NHS already!
Mannahnin wrote: For me, ACA is a compromise step forward. It's not as far as we need to go, but it was desperately difficult to get even that much passed.
It's a mess... it really is. It will not do what it "said" it will do.
If this thread is hopping tonight, I'll post some specifics.
Well... I guess there's some action on this thread.
Some weird stuff about the ACA bill(stolen from another site):
OBAMACARE FACT #1: BREASTFEEDING: All employers must now provide a “reasonable break time” and a “private place other than a bathroom” for employees to express breast milk for at least one year after childbirth. Employers with fewer than 50 employees “may” be exempt if they can demonstrate compliance would result in an “undue hardship.” [Section 4207, Affordable Care Act].
Other than a bathroom? So a special breast feeding lounge or something? I have absolutely nothing against breast feeding (quite the contrary), but this is a regulation that the federal government needed to impose on business owners in this economy? Really?
In addition,in defining the “essential health benefits package” that all health insurance policies must offer (under section 1302 of the Act), the Department of Health & Human Services has issued regulations requiring free coverage of breastfeeding supplies and counseling.
OBAMACARE .FACT #2: TRAINING HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS FOR “DIVERSITY”: There is BIG money in Obamacare for all things relating to “diversity,” which is crudely defined as “individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.” For example, section 5402–titled “Health Care Professionals Training for Diversity”– appropriates hundreds of millions of dollars to provide and expand scholarships and pay back student loans. Specifically, 5402 provides:
(1) An additional $25 million for paying back the student loans of “disadvantaged background” students– up to $30,000 per year– if they become faculty at a health profession school (nursing; medical schools; PA schools, etc.). The Secretary of HHS may also make grants/enter into contracts with such health profession schools to help subsidize the salaries of hiring such “disadvantaged background” students as faculty.
(2) About $250 million for scholarships to “disadvantaged background” students attending health profession schools ($51 million for fiscal year 2010 and “such sums as may be necessary” for the next 4 years).
(3) About $300 million for scholarships to “disadvantaged background” students who attend health profession schools and then agree to provide service in an “unserved or underserved population” area after graduation ($60 million for fiscal year 2010 and “such sums as may be necessary” for the next 4 years).
The grand total for these 3 items alone = $ 575 million over a 5 year period. Breathtaking boondoggle.
OBAMACARE FACT #3: Under section 4203 of the Affordable Care Act, all medical diagnostic equipment used by physicians, hospitals and other health care providers–e.g., ex-rays, exam tables, exam chairs, mammography equipment, MRIs, etc.– must be equipment that is “accessible to, and usable by, individuals with accessibility needs, and shall allow independent entry to, use of, and exit from the equipment by such individuals to the maximum extent possible.”
While I think we can all agree that this is a nice goal, is it really appropriate to mandate this, in this economy, regardless of its cost? Price tag: Unknown.
OBAMACARE FACT #4: $1.25 billion– yes, that’s “billion” with a “b”– for “centers of excellence for depression.“ [section 10410 of the Affordable Care Act] These centers will engage in research and treatment of depression.
Wow– really? $1.25 BILLION to universities and other entities to do something–treat and conduct research on depression–that they already have every incentive in the world to do? Indeed, there’s already a National Network of Depression Centers (NNDC)–consisting of 21 large institutions–that has functionally being doing this type of work since 2007.
What a boondoggle. Makes me depressed. Think I can get a grant?
Good to know my tax dollars aren’t being squandered in these tough economic times.
OBAMACARE FACT #5: SMOKE & MIRRORS: Section 8002 of Obamacare created the CLASS (Community Living Assistance Services & Supports) Program. CLASS was supposed to be a government-sponsored, voluntary long-term care insurance program funded via payroll deductions (with subsidies for low-income enrollees). Enrollees were required to pay into the CLASS insurance for 5 years– a “vesting” period– before they could draw any benefits.
Because of its long vesting period (during which time premiums were collected but benefits not paid out), CLASS was scored as “saving” taxpayers $80 billion– which was more than half of Obamacare’s supposed $143 billion in budgetary “savings.”
Guess what? In October 2011, the Obama Administration admitted what most smart folks had known all along: That the CLASS program was fiscally unsustainable and unworkable. Only sick people with expensive long-term care needs wanted to enroll and pay its hefty premiums. HHS Secretary Sebelius admitted, ““Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time.”
Epic fail.
The point is this... while those things that I just listed are admirable causes... is this something that needed to be in the ACA bill?
Congress could've just passed a law to create/manage the public exchange...
Passed another law to tweak the private insurance regulation...
Passed a separate law to address any shortcoming to Medicare...
Etc.
Instead, we got a massive whopper where lawmakers inserted their pet causes/lobby interest/shenanigans that had nothing to do with "fixing healthcare", which is making sure everyone has insurance and to drive down cost.
whembly wrote: Instead, we got a massive whopper where lawmakers inserted their pet causes/lobby interest/shenanigans that had nothing to do with "fixing healthcare", which is making sure everyone has insurance and to drive down cost.
You mean just like every single other law ever passed since the invention of democracy?
whembly wrote: Instead, we got a massive whopper where lawmakers inserted their pet causes/lobby interest/shenanigans that had nothing to do with "fixing healthcare", which is making sure everyone has insurance and to drive down cost.
You mean just like every single other law ever passed since the invention of democracy?
YEAH!
I would like to add (may have said this earlier) is that businesses and workers will adapt.
We'll be fine... might be painful for a few years, but we'll get through this.
Well when the boomers start dropping in...oh yeah now. That'll change. The old end of the boomers are about to be in thier 70's the youngest are hitting 50. Life expectancy is 78. Seems to me we'll be getting younger soon....
That will also have a good benifit on the social security system. The SS is a little lopsided right now because of the disproportionate number of elderly to young. As such, the SS ponzi scheme is having to dip into its T-Bill investment until the baby boomers die out.
This is, of course, one of the many reasons the SS system needs to be revisited. Its the worst investment you can make with your dollar.
Well when the boomers start dropping in...oh yeah now. That'll change. The old end of the boomers are about to be in thier 70's the youngest are hitting 50. Life expectancy is 78. Seems to me we'll be getting younger soon....
That will also have a good benifit on the social security system. The SS is a little lopsided right now because of the disproportionate number of elderly to young. As such, the SS ponzi scheme is having to dip into its T-Bill investment until the baby boomers die out.
This is, of course, one of the many reasons the SS system needs to be revisited. Its the worst investment you can make with your dollar.
Until they die out? SS will be technically bankrupty in just a few years. Suck it young people hahahahah!!!!
Frazzled wrote: Until they die out? SS will be technically bankrupty in just a few years. Suck it young people hahahahah!!!!
That is an inaccurate term poorly used.
Historically, Social Security has collected more than it paid out. The extra money built up in a trust fund that collects interest. But due to demographic and economic changes, it's expected that insurance payments will begin to exceed income in 2021. Around 2033, the fund will run out.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/15/5-huge-myths-about-social-security/
SS needs an overhaul, but it's not because the program is going 'bankrupt'. It's because the model SS uses is not a financially responsible one. SS takes money from all the people paying into the system, then hands benifits to the elderly. Any leftovers are put into US T-Bills.
Instead we should be investing our SS money. You should be able to invest it just like a 401k.
Well when the boomers start dropping in...oh yeah now. That'll change. The old end of the boomers are about to be in thier 70's the youngest are hitting 50. Life expectancy is 78. Seems to me we'll be getting younger soon....
That will also have a good benifit on the social security system. The SS is a little lopsided right now because of the disproportionate number of elderly to young. As such, the SS ponzi scheme is having to dip into its T-Bill investment until the baby boomers die out.
This is, of course, one of the many reasons the SS system needs to be revisited. Its the worst investment you can make with your dollar.
By T bills I assume you mean the Trust Fund, which is why it exists in the first place. The defenders of Social Security say that it's independently funded through at least 2036 but remember back in July 2011 when Obama couldn't guarantee that Social Security recipients would get thier checks? It's one or the other, it can't be both. SS doesn't need to be revisited as much as the truth about it needs to be told. So that we all know what's going on and if it's sustainable in the long term. We already now Medicare isn't.
Historically, Social Security has collected more than it paid out. The extra money built up in a trust fund that collects interest. But due to demographic and economic changes, it's expected that insurance payments will begin to exceed income in 2021.
Of course you meant 2010. Which is when SS started taking in less in taxes then it pays out.
There are many arguments against creating exchanges.
First, states are under no obligation to create one.
Second, operating an Obamacare exchange would be illegal in 14 states. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia have enacted either statutes or constitutional amendments (or both) forbidding state employees to participate in an essential exchange function: implementing Obamacare's individual and employer mandates.
Third, each exchange would cost its state an estimated $10 million to $100 million per year, necessitating tax increases.
Fourth, the November 16 deadline is no more real than the "deadlines" for implementing REAL ID, which have been pushed back repeatedly since 2008.
Fifth, states can always create an exchange later if they choose.
Sixth, a state-created exchange is not a state-controlled exchange. All exchanges will be controlled by Washington.
Seventh, Congress authorized no funds for federal "fallback" exchanges. So Washington may not be able to impose Exchanges on states at all.
Eighth, the Obama administration has yet to provide crucial information that states need before they can make an informed decision.
Ninth, creating an exchange sets state officials up to take the blame when Obamacare increases insurance premiums and denies care to the sick. State officials won't want their names on this disastrous mess.
Tenth, creating an exchange would be assisting in the creation of a "public option" that would drive domestic health-insurance carriers out of business through unfair competition. [edit: eh... viva la Canada! ]
Eleventh, Obamacare remains unpopular. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 38 percent of the public supports it.
Twelfth, defaulting to a federal exchange exempts a state's employers from the employer mandate — a tax of $2,000 per worker per year (the tax applies to companies with more than 59 employees, but for such companies that tax applies after the 30th employee, not the 59th). If all states did so, that would exempt 18 million Americans from the individual mandate's tax of $2,085 per family of four. Avoiding those taxes improves a state's prospects for job creation, and protects the conscience rights of employers and individuals whom the Obama administration is forcing to purchase contraceptives coverage.
Finally, rejecting an exchange reduces the federal deficit. Obamacare offers its deficit-financed subsidies to private health insurers only through state-created exchanges. If all states declined, federal deficits would fall by roughly $700 billion over ten years.
Oh look, Koch sponsored ultra conservative arguments against something Obama did were copy & pasted here, what a surprising thing to happen, I almost passed out in shock...
I think it is time for me to get the hell out of the OT before I get banned...
d-usa wrote: Oh look, Koch sponsored ultra conservative arguments against something Obama did were copy & pasted here, what a surprising thing to happen, I almost passed out in shock...
I think it is time for me to get the hell out of the OT before I get banned...
So you consider this particular response null and void?
Frazzled wrote: Until they die out? SS will be technically bankrupty in just a few years. Suck it young people hahahahah!!!!
That is an inaccurate term poorly used.
Historically, Social Security has collected more than it paid out. The extra money built up in a trust fund that collects interest. But due to demographic and economic changes, it's expected that insurance payments will begin to exceed income in 2021. Around 2033, the fund will run out.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/15/5-huge-myths-about-social-security/
SS needs an overhaul, but it's not because the program is going 'bankrupt'. It's because the model SS uses is not a financially responsible one. SS takes money from all the people paying into the system, then hands benifits to the elderly. Any leftovers are put into US T-Bills.
Instead we should be investing our SS money. You should be able to invest it just like a 401k.
Isn't the idea to exchange efficiency (401K) for stability (T-bills)?
Frazzled wrote: Until they die out? SS will be technically bankrupty in just a few years. Suck it young people hahahahah!!!!
That is an inaccurate term poorly used.
Historically, Social Security has collected more than it paid out. The extra money built up in a trust fund that collects interest. But due to demographic and economic changes, it's expected that insurance payments will begin to exceed income in 2021. Around 2033, the fund will run out.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/15/5-huge-myths-about-social-security/
SS needs an overhaul, but it's not because the program is going 'bankrupt'. It's because the model SS uses is not a financially responsible one. SS takes money from all the people paying into the system, then hands benifits to the elderly. Any leftovers are put into US T-Bills.
Instead we should be investing our SS money. You should be able to invest it just like a 401k.
Isn't the idea to exchange efficiency (401K) for stability (T-bills)?
No... not with the current interest rates. Not enough growth to even cover cost of living.
That's why the older generates in less risky investments (which is the safetest way) aren't making the returns they've expected 10-20 yrs ago.
Ninth, creating an exchange sets state officials up to take the blame when Obamacare increases insurance premiums and denies care to the sick. State officials won't want their names on this disastrous mess.
Tenth, creating an exchange would be assisting in the creation of a "public option" that would drive domestic health-insurance carriers out of business through unfair competition. [edit: eh... viva la Canada! ]
Eleventh, Obamacare remains unpopular. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 38 percent of the public supports it.
IMO, these three are the most egregious of the BS listed. Here's why:
Ninth, denying care to the sick is exactly what the ACA is designed to prevent.
Tenth, not likely, but in any case, boo-freakin'-hoo. There is already "unfair competition"; the insurance companies are just angry they might not be the big fish anymore.
Eleventh, this is an outright lie, and also irrelevant. This speaks to the mindless herd mentality that the authors feel drives their readers.
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote: Oh look, Koch sponsored ultra conservative arguments against something Obama did were copy & pasted here, what a surprising thing to happen, I almost passed out in shock...
I think it is time for me to get the hell out of the OT before I get banned...
So you consider this particular response null and void?
Uh, yeah, that's generally how it works. When the works of lying propaganda artists who are known for their propaganda and outright lies are posted, it's generally a good idea to consider the entire post null & void. It also severely damages the credibility of the person who regurgitated that propaganda.
whembly wrote:
TheHammer wrote: Anything Cato says is likely stupid and intentionally designed to be a lie.
Just like Fox News... amirite?
You can read something and have an opinion irregardless who's the source.
Just like 90% of Fox News. "Fair and balanced" only means 'we give equal credibility to opinions and outright BS as we do to facts'. That's why real news programming doesn't call themselves fair and balanced with regard to opinions; they report facts.
And "irregardless" is not a word. You mean irrespective or regardless.
Cato is Cato. They believe the free market is perfect and unassailable so everything they produce comes from the perspective that the free market is the solution to everything, and they are shameless about cherry picking data to back up that claim, even if the data they use are parts of studies that prove the opposite of what they assert.
There is ideology, which we all have and you're lying if you say otherwise, and then there's a willful ignorance to the world around you so your ideology can remain. Cato is bad and you should feel bad for citing them.
Ninth, creating an exchange sets state officials up to take the blame when Obamacare increases insurance premiums and denies care to the sick. State officials won't want their names on this disastrous mess.
Tenth, creating an exchange would be assisting in the creation of a "public option" that would drive domestic health-insurance carriers out of business through unfair competition. [edit: eh... viva la Canada! ]
Eleventh, Obamacare remains unpopular. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 38 percent of the public supports it.
IMO, these three are the most egregious of the BS listed. Here's why:
Ninth, denying care to the sick is exactly what the ACA is designed to prevent.
Tenth, not likely, but in any case, boo-freakin'-hoo. There is already "unfair competition"; the insurance companies are just angry they might not be the big fish anymore.
Eleventh, this is an outright lie, and also irrelevant. This speaks to the mindless herd mentality that the authors feel drives their readers.
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote: Oh look, Koch sponsored ultra conservative arguments against something Obama did were copy & pasted here, what a surprising thing to happen, I almost passed out in shock...
I think it is time for me to get the hell out of the OT before I get banned...
So you consider this particular response null and void?
Uh, yeah, that's generally how it works. When the works of lying propaganda artists who are known for their propaganda and outright lies are posted, it's generally a good idea to consider the entire post null & void. It also severely damages the credibility of the person who regurgitated that propaganda.
whembly wrote:
TheHammer wrote: Anything Cato says is likely stupid and intentionally designed to be a lie.
Just like Fox News... amirite?
You can read something and have an opinion irregardless who's the source.
Just like 90% of Fox News. "Fair and balanced" only means 'we give equal credibility to opinions and outright BS as we do to facts'. That's why real news programming doesn't call themselves fair and balanced with regard to opinions; they report facts.
And "irregardless" is not a word. You mean irrespective or regardless
.
First of all you grammar nazi... you're right... my bad (regardless).
Second of all... this doesn't help the poor as much as everyone thinks it will... they would still have some out of pocket expenses if they participate in the exchange. Right now, most of them dont pay anything as they'll show up in the ED. *shrugs*
Thirdly, the "unfair competition" statement of yours means you have no idea how the insurance companies work today.
Fourthly, I just wish someone with the Cojones to ask the american people... do we want the Private insurance model? Or, do we want single-payer? Without demagoging/advocating either system... both have good and bad things.
Also, Obamacare is STILL very unpopular. So, you're just ignoring that fact.
My piece? Just go single payer already. Sheesh... it ain't that hard.
Some Americans do not qualify for government-provided health insurance, are not provided health insurance by an employer, and are unable to afford, cannot qualify for, or choose not to purchase, private health insurance. When charity or "uncompensated" care is not available, they sometimes simply go without needed medical treatment.
17% of GDP spent by the U.S. on health care with ... 9% of GDP spent by much of the rest of the world
20% to 30% of health care spending is waste... five causes for the waste: (1) overtreatment of patients, (2) the failure to coordinate care, (3) the administrative complexity of the health care system, (4) burdensome rules and (5) fraud.
Some observers note that there is a solid body of evidence showing that a substantial proportion of U.S. health care expenditures is directed toward care that is not effective and may sometimes even be harmful.
Without health insurance, adults are more likely to be diagnosed with certain cancers that would have been detectable earlier by screening by a clinician if they had regularly visited a doctor. As a consequence, these adults are more likely to die from their diagnosed cancer or suffer poorer health outcomes
A 2008 study found that 101,000 people a year die in the U.S. that would not if the health care system were as effective as that of France, Japan, or Australia.
Among OECD nations for which data are available, the United States ranked third last for the health care of women (after Mexico and Hungary) and fifth last for men (Slovakia and Poland were also worse). See the table and source at YPLL for details.
In 2009, lack of health insurance was responsible for about 45,000 excess preventable deaths in the U.S.[137] Since then, as the number of uninsured has risen from about 46 million in 2009 to 48.6 million in 2012, the number of preventable deaths due to lack of insurance has grown to about 48,000 per year.
A study of international health care spending levels published in the health policy journal Health Affairs in the year 2000 found that the U.S. spends substantially more on health care than any other country in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and that the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study conclude that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S. than elsewhere. While the 19 next most wealthy countries by GDP all pay less than half what the US does for health care, they have all gained about six years of life expectancy more than the U.S. since 1970.
Among adults surveyed in the U.S., 37% reported that they had foregone needed medical care in the previous year because of cost; either skipping medications, avoiding seeing a doctor when sick, or avoiding other recommended care. The rate was even higher— 42%—among those with chronic conditions. The study reported that these rates were well above those found in the other six countries surveyed: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the UK.
And one very basic set of figures: world life expectancy rates. Noticeably the Us is below every first world country except some of the former Soviet-bloc nations in eastern Europe, who did not have access to morern medical care until 20 years ago, and are still catching up.
While Wikipedia is only one source of information, the number and nature of the quotes I've posted seem to at least partially bear out my comments... read the whole thing, and take a look at some of the citations.
Some Americans do not qualify for government-provided health insurance, are not provided health insurance by an employer, and are unable to afford, cannot qualify for, or choose not to purchase, private health insurance. When charity or "uncompensated" care is not available, they sometimes simply go without needed medical treatment.
17% of GDP spent by the U.S. on health care with ... 9% of GDP spent by much of the rest of the world
20% to 30% of health care spending is waste... five causes for the waste: (1) overtreatment of patients, (2) the failure to coordinate care, (3) the administrative complexity of the health care system, (4) burdensome rules and (5) fraud.
Some observers note that there is a solid body of evidence showing that a substantial proportion of U.S. health care expenditures is directed toward care that is not effective and may sometimes even be harmful.
Without health insurance, adults are more likely to be diagnosed with certain cancers that would have been detectable earlier by screening by a clinician if they had regularly visited a doctor. As a consequence, these adults are more likely to die from their diagnosed cancer or suffer poorer health outcomes
A 2008 study found that 101,000 people a year die in the U.S. that would not if the health care system were as effective as that of France, Japan, or Australia.
Among OECD nations for which data are available, the United States ranked third last for the health care of women (after Mexico and Hungary) and fifth last for men (Slovakia and Poland were also worse). See the table and source at YPLL for details.
In 2009, lack of health insurance was responsible for about 45,000 excess preventable deaths in the U.S.[137] Since then, as the number of uninsured has risen from about 46 million in 2009 to 48.6 million in 2012, the number of preventable deaths due to lack of insurance has grown to about 48,000 per year.
A study of international health care spending levels published in the health policy journal Health Affairs in the year 2000 found that the U.S. spends substantially more on health care than any other country in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and that the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study conclude that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S. than elsewhere. While the 19 next most wealthy countries by GDP all pay less than half what the US does for health care, they have all gained about six years of life expectancy more than the U.S. since 1970.
Among adults surveyed in the U.S., 37% reported that they had foregone needed medical care in the previous year because of cost; either skipping medications, avoiding seeing a doctor when sick, or avoiding other recommended care. The rate was even higher— 42%—among those with chronic conditions. The study reported that these rates were well above those found in the other six countries surveyed: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the UK.
And one very basic set of figures: world life expectancy rates. Noticeably the Us is below every first world country except some of the former Soviet-bloc nations in eastern Europe, who did not have access to morern medical care until 20 years ago, and are still catching up.
While Wikipedia is only one source of information, the number and nature of the quotes I've posted seem to at least partially bear out my comments... read the whole thing, and take a look at some of the citations.
No problem brother
We ain't perfect...
And yes, we spend a gak-ton on Healthcare comparibly to the rest of the western world... 'tis why I'm alright with single payer ala Canada or NHS.
I just take umbrage over the perception that our Healthcare is in the stone age. Frankly... the differences between the top nations (and I include USA) is negliable. They're ALL good.
The issue is access/cost... that's what's facing us here today.
And please wiki isn't the end-all-be-all...
That's like me "wiki-ing" stuff about the UK and me saying... "hey I readz some schnitz about the UK... so, I'm boss!".
Indeed - perhaps I should have said the US healthcare system seems to have problems - individual levels of healthcare can still be exceptional. It's that the overall focus doesn't seem to be on giving the best levels of care to those who need it the most, but on giving the most profitable levels of care to those who can pay the most?
And I know Wikipedia isn't the only source of information, it was simply the handiest when I did an internet search, there is a lot more data to back this all up. The UK-based New Scientist magazine frequently looks at healthcare issues, and the US is the first-world country most often singled out as having a flawed system, although part of that may also be because of it's size.
1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971.
2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113.
3. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105.
4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980.
5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004.
6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399.
Taxes that took effect in 2011:
7. Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959.
8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959.
Taxes that took effect in 2012:
9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957.
Taxes that take effect in 2013:
10. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93.
Capital Gains Dividends Other*
2012 15% 15% 35%
2013+ 23.8% 43.4% 43.4%
*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.
11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:
First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed 1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed
12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986
13. Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI ($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995
14. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389
15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994
16. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000
Taxes that take effect in 2014:
17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following
1 Adult 2 Adults 3+ Adults
2014 1% AGI/$95 1% AGI/$190 1% AGI/$285
2015 2% AGI/$325 2% AGI/$650 2% AGI/$975
2016 + 2.5% AGI/$695 2.5% AGI/$1390 2.5% AGI/$2085
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337
18. Employer Mandate Tax (Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346
Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years
19. Tax on Health Insurers ($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993
Taxes that take effect in 2018:
20. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956
That's not including any regulatory changes...
Here's a nice summary:
Spoiler:
The Employer Mandate
ObamaCare’s employer mandate is among the new laws most anti-growth provisions. When implemented, it will force most American businesses to offer government-approved health insurance to their employees or else pay new federal taxes for not doing so. This costly new requirement will make it more expensive for firms to hire workers in the future. Consequently, it will destroy jobs, and many firms are likely to slow down on hiring in anticipation of its implementation.
“Free-Rider” Provision
ObamaCare does not impose a straight-forward requirement that employers offer health insurance to workers. Proponents of the new law wanted to avoid the charge that the new law was directly imposing new costs on American business. So, instead, they created a back-door mandate, what they call the “free-rider” provision.
If a firm with at least 50 workers has a full-time employee who is getting federally-subsided insurance through an ”exchange,” then that employer must pay a penalty for failing to offer that worker acceptable insurance on the job. (Workers that are offered qualified coverage by an employer are ineligible for the new insurance subsidies provided in the exchanges.)
The tax is scheduled to begin in 2014 and the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will bring in approximately $10 billion in annual revenue once it’s fully implemented.
Penalties For Failure To Insure
For firms which do not offer insurance any insurance, have more than 50 employees, and have at least one employee receiving insurance subsidies, they must pay a tax of $2000 per subsidized employee. The tax is applied to all of a firm’s employees (after excluding the first 30), not just those that are subsidized. For example a firm with 51 employees would pay $42,000 in new annual taxes, and an additional $2,000 tax for every new hire.
For firms that do offer insurance, the penalty is the lesser of $2,000 for every employee (after exempting the first 30) or $3,000) for every employee receiving a subsidy.
The National Federation of Independent Business has a clear and informative table which examines the taxes assessed under different scenarios here.
Disincentives to Hire
ObamaCare’s employer mandate will discourage business development and growth. Small firms with 50 or fewer workers will have very strong disincentives to expand. These businesses can avoid the new penalties by staying small; growth will simply add new costs and burdens. Many businesses with low profit margins are unable to pay the substantial cost of providing comprehensive insurance to all of their employees or the new taxes under ObamaCare’s employer mandate. Once companies reach 50 employees, they are likely to turn to contractors and outsource work to evade the new mandate, even if such arrangements are less efficient than directly hiring new workers.
Part-Time and Seasonal Employees
Fines to employers under the employer mandate also are imposed on workers who are not full-time employees, where a combination of employees working 120 hours per month (around 30 hours per week) count as one employee. This provision in the bill especially hurts seasonal businesses, where it is frequently not cost effective to provide insurance benefits to an employee who will only be with the firm for a short period of time.
Penalizing Low Income Households
ObamaCare provides strong incentives for firms to avoid hiring workers from low-income households. Eligibility for subsidized insurance in the exchanges is based on household income, and firms can be penalized if one of their workers gets subsidized coverage in an exchange. Thus, firms have a strong incentive to find workers who won’t qualify for subsidized coverage, which may also lead to invasions of privacy. For instance, a restaurant might find it better to hire young waiters from upper-income neighborhoods, as opposed to low-income areas, because they would be less likely to qualify for subsidized insurance in the exchanges. ObamaCare therefore is penalizing the very households it was supposedly passed to help.
While it does create a more challenging environment, we'll adapt. We always do.
Easy E wrote: I'm really glad to hear that conservatives like Whembly and AustinT are now in full support of Single-Payer systems.
what do you mean "now"? I've always been in support of a final solution to the health care problem. I've been pretty open about my desire to socialize medicine and power since ai started postig in the OT.
Easy E wrote: I'm really glad to hear that conservatives like Whembly and AustinT are now in full support of Single-Payer systems.
what do you mean "now"? I've always been in support of a final solution to the health care problem. I've been pretty open about my desire to socialize medicine and power since ai started postig in the OT.
Erm... me too...??
I have issues with the ACA bill (which is NOT the path to socialized medicine ).
Smart people sometime say things that are stupid and then try to never talk about them again.
Stupid people say stupid gak and then bring them up again with a gak eating grin because they lack self awareness for when they're stupid.
Guess which one you are!
Automatically Appended Next Post: But, seriously, to reiterate:
Your crazy world view has Romney winning because polls are wrong, Hoover was a progressive because reasons, and you believe in universal healthcare so you backed Mitt Romney.
Easy E wrote: I'm really glad to hear that conservatives like Whembly and AustinT are now in full support of Single-Payer systems.
what do you mean "now"? I've always been in support of a final solution to the health care problem. I've been pretty open about my desire to socialize medicine and power since ai started postig in the OT.
Same. I just want a real one not the Obamacare fiasco we have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote: Wait, you guys are in favor of universal healthcare so you supported Mitt Romney?
feth me, I can't even begin to understand you people.
Easy E wrote: I'm really glad to hear that conservatives like Whembly and AustinT are now in full support of Single-Payer systems.
what do you mean "now"? I've always been in support of a final solution to the health care problem. I've been pretty open about my desire to socialize medicine and power since ai started postig in the OT.
Erm... me too...??
I have issues with the ACA bill (which is NOT the path to socialized medicine ).
Theoretically, it could be. As posted before, the government gets to set up a non-profit healthcare provider, which is made available to all citizens of any state. Any state is allowed to come up with something better of course. With enough people in said non-profit system, you begin to see real actual competition (instead of collusion) between health care providers like Cigna, UHC and the like. Those companies that couldn't compete would be weeded out. It is technically possible (if extremely unlikey in America's current health care climate) that the non-profit, government administered health care provider is left.
So.. it's a very long, convoluted and insanely unlikely course, but it is technically possible. (technically right... the best kind of right!)
I absolutely 100% agree, but I think we can also 100% agree that a flat-out replacement won't work. Literally driving the for-profit model into the ground, to the point where there is no profit is vicious way to go about the transition, but I suspect it will prove an effective one. After all, we already have the 20% profit limit in place thanks to ACA.
It's not a great solution, I agree. It is, however, a possible solution.
Well, until we have the GOP fighting tooth and nail to the last breath to preserve your aforementioned insurance lobbying group.
Frankly, getting rid of lobbying would be a great step forward in fixing a lot of the US's problems, imo.
streamdragon wrote: I absolutely 100% agree, but I think we can also 100% agree that a flat-out replacement won't work. Literally driving the for-profit model into the ground, to the point where there is no profit is vicious way to go about the transition, but I suspect it will prove an effective one. After all, we already have the 20% profit limit in place thanks to ACA.
You wanna know the funny thing? Profit margins never get close to that 20%.
It's not a great solution, I agree. It is, however, a possible solution.
Agreed... as Azazel alluded to, the best thing ACA act may do is to "convince" the electorate that the single-payer may be the best path to solving this issue.
Well, until we have the GOP fighting tooth and nail to the last breath to preserve your aforementioned insurance lobbying group.
Not just GOP... all congressional critters use these groups.
Frankly, getting rid of lobbying would be a great step forward in fixing a lot of the US's problems, imo.
Pie in the sky thinking... never gonna happen. In fact, the current law (names escapes me a the moment) encourages all those PAC groups.
streamdragon wrote: I absolutely 100% agree, but I think we can also 100% agree that a flat-out replacement won't work. Literally driving the for-profit model into the ground, to the point where there is no profit is vicious way to go about the transition, but I suspect it will prove an effective one. After all, we already have the 20% profit limit in place thanks to ACA.
You wanna know the funny thing? Profit margins never get close to that 20%.
It's not a great solution, I agree. It is, however, a possible solution.
Agreed... as Azazel alluded to, the best thing ACA act may do is to "convince" the electorate that the single-payer may be the best path to solving this issue.
Well, until we have the GOP fighting tooth and nail to the last breath to preserve your aforementioned insurance lobbying group.
Not just GOP... all congressional critters use these groups.
Frankly, getting rid of lobbying would be a great step forward in fixing a lot of the US's problems, imo.
Pie in the sky thinking... never gonna happen. In fact, the current law (names escapes me a the moment) encourages all those PAC groups.
1. I'll readily admit I have no idea what profit margins are actually like for any health insurance company. I don't work in that field, but I do know for a fact that many of them collude to set their prices as high as possible. Hence why I look forward to a non-profit getting in on the action.
2. I sincerely hope so. Most people don't seem to understand that uninsured people who do go to a hospital cause the costs of health insurance to sky rocket (though they are obviously not the only cause). Getting everyone even a semblance of insurane would be an amazing step.
3. Oh absolutely everyone uses lobbying groups. I just was referring to the various groups fighting ACA, which I would suspect are almost entirely on the GOP side of the fence. Heck, I believe Wisconsin and Missouri were passing legislation to deny ACA from taking place in their state, and arrest anyone seeking to implement it. Lunacy.
4. Don't take my dreams from me. Seriously though, those groups are vultures and the politician<->lobbyist circle jerk needs to stop. Both sides do it, and all of them should be ashamed of themselves right before being taken out behind the shed...
streamdragon wrote: I absolutely 100% agree, but I think we can also 100% agree that a flat-out replacement won't work. Literally driving the for-profit model into the ground, to the point where there is no profit is vicious way to go about the transition, but I suspect it will prove an effective one. After all, we already have the 20% profit limit in place thanks to ACA.
You wanna know the funny thing? Profit margins never get close to that 20%.
It's not a great solution, I agree. It is, however, a possible solution.
Agreed... as Azazel alluded to, the best thing ACA act may do is to "convince" the electorate that the single-payer may be the best path to solving this issue.
Well, until we have the GOP fighting tooth and nail to the last breath to preserve your aforementioned insurance lobbying group.
Not just GOP... all congressional critters use these groups.
Frankly, getting rid of lobbying would be a great step forward in fixing a lot of the US's problems, imo.
Pie in the sky thinking... never gonna happen. In fact, the current law (names escapes me a the moment) encourages all those PAC groups.
1. I'll readily admit I have no idea what profit margins are actually like for any health insurance company. I don't work in that field, but I do know for a fact that many of them collude to set their prices as high as possible. Hence why I look forward to a non-profit getting in on the action.
You know who's the biggest driving force for the reimbursements rates that insurance negotiate with care providers?
Believe it or not, it's Medicare. Most of the time, private insurers will start their reimbursements rates at the same rate that Medicare pays. (yeah... stunning).
2. I sincerely hope so. Most people don't seem to understand that uninsured people who do go to a hospital cause the costs of health insurance to sky rocket (though they are obviously not the only cause). Getting everyone even a semblance of insurane would be an amazing step.
Agreed.
3. Oh absolutely everyone uses lobbying groups. I just was referring to the various groups fighting ACA, which I would suspect are almost entirely on the GOP side of the fence. Heck, I believe Wisconsin and Missouri were passing legislation to deny ACA from taking place in their state, and arrest anyone seeking to implement it. Lunacy.
Last I count 15 states amended their constitution to prevent public exchanges. This is done for two main reasons:
1) It allows the state's attorney general standing to bring a case to the Supreme Court.
2) It keeps the "status quo" at the state level... otherwise, the new regulation (I believe that's Medicaid) would need the state's to raise taxes in order to cover the new regulatory changes.
4. Don't take my dreams from me. Seriously though, those groups are vultures and the politician<->lobbyist circle jerk needs to stop. Both sides do it, and all of them should be ashamed of themselves right before being taken out behind the shed...
Testify wrote: Then they'd save the money on the wages too. Double bonus!
I hope some kind of equilibrium gets struck by the time the dust settles so these people don't find themselves having to work two jobs to support their families.
Testify wrote: Then they'd save the money on the wages too. Double bonus!
I hope some kind of equilibrium gets struck by the time the dust settles so these people don't find themselves having to work two jobs to support their families.
Unless all employers on the US work together to cut hours, the magic of the free market will make employers who offer full time jobs with benefits the preferred and competitive option and workers will choose them over crappy jobs who will continue to fight with the GOP to screw over workers in order to protect big business and rich people.
Offer crappy pay and no benefits, end up with crappy workers.
Testify wrote: Then they'd save the money on the wages too. Double bonus!
I hope some kind of equilibrium gets struck by the time the dust settles so these people don't find themselves having to work two jobs to support their families.
Unless all employers on the US work together to cut hours, the magic of the free market will make employers who offer full time jobs with benefits the preferred and competitive option and workers will choose them over crappy jobs who will continue to fight with the GOP to screw over workers in order to protect big business and rich people.
Offer crappy pay and no benefits, end up with crappy workers.
Just for the record, there are plenty of Democrats out there that screw their workers over also. But the spirit of your statement is something I hope turns out to be correct.
He got four more years and Obamacare getting implemented....and people jumping at shadows already which we all knew the business were going to avoid getting fines and what not by cutting hours and hiring part time. The "scare talk" back then is coming into reality.
Testify wrote: Then they'd save the money on the wages too. Double bonus!
I hope some kind of equilibrium gets struck by the time the dust settles so these people don't find themselves having to work two jobs to support their families.
Not much hope of that. With this move, the weak economy gets even weaker, so business revenue will drop yet again.
And the politicians get blamed, even though it is bad long-term business thinking that is doing the damage.
I live in Canada and I gotta say I've been very impressed with our health care system. It needs work but when I see the stories coming out of states it makes my blood boil.
On the topic of "papa" john, he's a giant piece of howbouthatswearfilteryeah!
Testify wrote: Then they'd save the money on the wages too. Double bonus!
I hope some kind of equilibrium gets struck by the time the dust settles so these people don't find themselves having to work two jobs to support their families.
Unless all employers on the US work together to cut hours, the magic of the free market will make employers who offer full time jobs with benefits the preferred and competitive option and workers will choose them over crappy jobs who will continue to fight with the GOP to screw over workers in order to protect big business and rich people.
Offer crappy pay and no benefits, end up with crappy workers.
Objection your honor, it assumes facts not in evidence.
It's the capitolist version of the old Soviet saw: "As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."
Put another way: I'll work for crap wages if need be. But I won't have any enthusiasm or loyalty for the company. Nor will I exercise my intelligence to solve problems - at crap wages I'm not being paid for that, I'm being paid to be a warm body on the floor.
On the other hand, pay me a living wage with reasonable benefits, and now you will see the hardworking, dedicated, problem solving side of me that crap jobs never do.
Put another way: I'll work for crap wages if need be. But I won't have any enthusiasm or loyalty for the company. Nor will I exercise my intelligence to solve problems - at crap wages I'm not being paid for that, I'm being paid to be a warm body on the floor.
This.
There's nothing quite like being told you're unmotivated at your job by someone who earns twice what you do.
Vulcan wrote:It's the capitolist version of the old Soviet saw: "As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."
Put another way: I'll work for crap wages if need be. But I won't have any enthusiasm or loyalty for the company. Nor will I exercise my intelligence to solve problems - at crap wages I'm not being paid for that, I'm being paid to be a warm body on the floor.
On the other hand, pay me a living wage with reasonable benefits, and now you will see the hardworking, dedicated, problem solving side of me that crap jobs never do.
Sounds about right. I've always said that thinking pay starts at double minimum wage. Anything less is non-caffeinated, autopilot mode.
Easy E wrote: I'm really glad to hear that conservatives like Whembly and AustinT are now in full support of Single-Payer systems.
what do you mean "now"? I've always been in support of a final solution to the health care problem. I've been pretty open about my desire to socialize medicine and power since ai started postig in the OT.
Same. I just want a real one not the Obamacare fiasco we have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote: Wait, you guys are in favor of universal healthcare so you supported Mitt Romney?
feth me, I can't even begin to understand you people.
Not me.
So, to sum up. We want Universal Healthcare.... but we aren't in favor of the ACA because it is not perfect and will not move us to Universal Healthcare, so I will support politicians, political parties, and political ideology opposed to the ACA. Even though those leaders, parties, and ideas are also opposed to Universal Healthcare.
Vulcan wrote: It's the capitolist version of the old Soviet saw: "As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."
Put another way: I'll work for crap wages if need be. But I won't have any enthusiasm or loyalty for the company. Nor will I exercise my intelligence to solve problems - at crap wages I'm not being paid for that, I'm being paid to be a warm body on the floor.
On the other hand, pay me a living wage with reasonable benefits, and now you will see the hardworking, dedicated, problem solving side of me that crap jobs never do.
I found out recently that some of the people I work with earn twice or more what I do, but half less than half of my experience. Now, I know I'm a contractor, but that pretty much sent my brain into shutdown mode. No more busting my ass to solve complex issues they don't want to deal with, no more going above and beyond. You get my explicit contract work for exactly 40 hours a week, no more.
Vulcan wrote:It's the capitolist version of the old Soviet saw: "As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."
Put another way: I'll work for crap wages if need be. But I won't have any enthusiasm or loyalty for the company. Nor will I exercise my intelligence to solve problems - at crap wages I'm not being paid for that, I'm being paid to be a warm body on the floor.
On the other hand, pay me a living wage with reasonable benefits, and now you will see the hardworking, dedicated, problem solving side of me that crap jobs never do.
Sounds about right. I've always said that thinking pay starts at double minimum wage. Anything less is non-caffeinated, autopilot mode.
Quoted for truth. I had a mate going through a gakky IT job ask me why construction workers were payed so much better then he was. "Because in many of their jobs, in addition to being difficult, in poor conditions, and dangerous, they have to think to do their job instead of read a check list"
I haven't ever met a dumb welder who survived long in the trade
Frazzled wrote: Objection your honor, it assumes facts not in evidence.
Hang on, so now you're questioning the idea of personal material incentive?
So, pretty much now you're even throwing classical economics out the window, if it means you get to continue moaning about healthcare reform?
Personal material incentive (hereafter referred to as "carrot on a stick") is worth being questioned as a base assumption, as there are both viewpoints and circumstances that decrease its value as a motivator.
For example:
1) if someone has more than enough money that they can buy happiness, how can you motivate them with more money? Their economic happiness exists independent of you.
2) if someone is motivated by a higher purpose, for example, many army recruits who enlist out of a sense of duty, rather than their soldier's pay. A quarterly bonus won't make them more combat effective.
3) if someone hold internal motivations, akin to a sense of arete. They will work for their own pride, and you money means little to them.
I could go on....
TL;DR: economics is called the "dismal science" because even when everything is correct on paper, it still finds a way to be wrong.
azazel the cat wrote: Personal material incentive (hereafter referred to as "carrot on a stick") is worth being questioned as a base assumption, as there are both viewpoints and circumstances that decrease its value as a motivator.
In a general sense you have a point – the profit motive is not the absolute guide. It is merely above and beyond all else the strongest determinant, and questioning that is just silly.
I mean, seriously, go start a company. Tell people you want skilled, experienced labour and that you’re paying minimum wage. See how many independently wealthy people apply. See how many people apply out of a sense of duty. See how many people apply out of internal motivations.
Then change that rate of pay to the market average, and see how many more applicants you get.
Now go back and read Fraz’s post, that I was replying to. See how he’s questioning the very idea that the market will offer more money and more benefits to attract employees. Then think about crazy that is.
TL;DR: economics is called the "dismal science" because even when everything is correct on paper, it still finds a way to be wrong.
No, it’s mostly because it suffers a scourge of political intervention and a mass of ‘self taught experts’ that not even evolution has to tolerate.
It is a shame that the response to that by many people such as yourself is to dismiss economics, instead of making the effort to look past the political and stupid noise, and to listen to the people who are actually educated in this stuff.
azazel the cat wrote: Personal material incentive (hereafter referred to as "carrot on a stick") is worth being questioned as a base assumption, as there are both viewpoints and circumstances that decrease its value as a motivator.
In a general sense you have a point – the profit motive is not the absolute guide. It is merely above and beyond all else the strongest determinant, and questioning that is just silly.
I mean, seriously, go start a company. Tell people you want skilled, experienced labour and that you’re paying minimum wage. See how many independently wealthy people apply. See how many people apply out of a sense of duty. See how many people apply out of internal motivations.
Then change that rate of pay to the market average, and see how many more applicants you get.
Now go back and read Fraz’s post, that I was replying to. See how he’s questioning the very idea that the market will offer more money and more benefits to attract employees. Then think about crazy that is.
TL;DR: economics is called the "dismal science" because even when everything is correct on paper, it still finds a way to be wrong.
No, it’s mostly because it suffers a scourge of political intervention and a mass of ‘self taught experts’ that not even evolution has to tolerate.
It is a shame that the response to that by many people such as yourself is to dismiss economics, instead of making the effort to look past the political and stupid noise, and to listen to the people who are actually educated in this stuff.
Please don't attempt to straw man me. I didn't dismiss economics; I dismissed the notion that economic principles shouldn't be questioned.
Because they are not laws, as I also demonstrated in the same post.
The failing of economics is that it's scope is so vast that interpretations are always subject to viewpoint based upon what information to include and exclude in any given analysis, and the core principles only truly apply in the vacuum of the Perfect Market, which is a self-defeating principle.
Long story short, I merely pointed out that it is worth questioning. I probably agree with you on 90% of your argument; just not necessarily for the same reasons.
azazel the cat wrote: Please don't attempt to straw man me. I didn't dismiss economics; I dismissed the notion that economic principles shouldn't be questioned.
Of course economic principles should be questioned, and more to the point specific economic arguments should be questioned. But they should be questioned with informed economic arguments.
[quote[Because they are not laws, as I also demonstrated in the same post.
Economics doesn't dictate, or need to dictate that its principles are laws. Instead it states that they are general principles that hold true in most circumstances. It then sets about studying exactly what circumstances they hold more or less true.
As such, the idea that offering more money will attract more candidates and a generally better candidate than offering less money is a very strong general principle, that will hold true in almost all circumstances.
The failing of economics is that it's scope is so vast that interpretations are always subject to viewpoint based upon what information to include and exclude in any given analysis, and the core principles only truly apply in the vacuum of the Perfect Market, which is a self-defeating principle.
Not really, no.
The perfect market is a descriptor for what an ideal market would look like, and how it would benefit all parties. No market can reach that point (and only a a scarce few get at all close), but economic concepts don't stop existing in imperfect markets. People will still take what they perceive to be the utility maximising choice, producers will still aim to maximise profits, and the market will still settle into equilibrium situations. It's just that the actions of individual parties are unlikely to produce the optimum situation as it would in a perfect market. This has all kinds of implications, mostly to do with the possible need for government involvement, but that's it.
Long story short, I merely pointed out that it is worth questioning.
But there is only value in questioning economic principles when you do so with informed economic arguments. Failing to do that contributes as much to the conversation as creationists contribute to the development of evolution.
sebster wrote:Economics doesn't dictate, or need to dictate that its principles are laws. Instead it states that they are general principles that hold true in most circumstances. It then sets about studying exactly what circumstances they hold more or less true.
As such, the idea that offering more money will attract more candidates and a generally better candidate than offering less money is a very strong general principle, that will hold true in almost all circumstances.
"almost all circumstances" is the problem I have with this. I'll concede to "some" or even "most" if you qualify the circumstances, but not to "almost all". I'm merely trying to curb the hyperbolic language so that this can be a real discourse. The shame of it all is that as a general principle, I agree with you. However, my belief in the infallibility of that principle is nowhere near as stalwart as yours appears to be.
sebster wrote:The perfect market is a descriptor for what an ideal market would look like, and how it would benefit all parties. No market can reach that point (and only a a scarce few get at all close), but economic concepts don't stop existing in imperfect markets. People will still take what they perceive to be the utility maximising choice, producers will still aim to maximise profits, and the market will still settle into equilibrium situations. It's just that the actions of individual parties are unlikely to produce the optimum situation as it would in a perfect market. This has all kinds of implications, mostly to do with the possible need for government involvement, but that's it.
Now you need to set an operational definition of "utility", because you appear to be using a very rudimentary, patriarchal definition limited to monetary wealth. Were that the factual truth, the USA would have zero teachers, firefighters or policemen working in it, as most can make more performing easier jobs.
sebster wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:Long story short, I merely pointed out that it is worth questioning.
But there is only value in questioning economic principles when you do so with informed economic arguments. Failing to do that contributes as much to the conversation as creationists contribute to the development of evolution.
Honestly, I expected better than this from you.
Which informed economic argument would you like me to make? Shall I take a Keynesian approach? What about Fordism? Marxist? Neoclassical? How about the Birmingham school? There mere presence of these myriad viewpoints on economics implies that the all important "why" question is far more subjective than what you're claiming it to be. As I said, the raw data may be objective, but the decisions on what raw data to use and what to disregard as unrelated is quite subjective. Economists don't like to admit it, but they're basically just the political science pundits of the finance department.
Oh, and believe it or not, Creationists do provide a contribution to the development of the evolution argument in much the same way an in-ring opponent contributes to the education of a boxer. If evolution had nobody attempting to punch holes in the threory, then the theory would not be as strong and well-tested as it is. Think of it like they're playing the Devil's advocate, except they aren't playing. Try not to confuse a Creationist questioning evolution with a Creationist deliberately trying to obfuscate the theory.
This is an off-topic digression, but there are basically no Creationists doing real research or providing contrary arguments, though. There are a few who pretend to be doing so, but most of the quasi-scientific claims floated by them are pure junk or long-since debunked. Giving them the metaphorical role of sparring partner vastly overstates how much they have to offer to dialogue or pursuit of truth.
). All gone in the next bit or so. I already have my resume out in the world, but not finding much to take the place of this job.
)
Seriously though, those groups are vultures and the politician<->lobbyist circle jerk needs to stop. Both sides do it, and all of them should be ashamed of themselves right before being taken out behind the shed...
