So come next year, the Obamacare plan changes the minimum weekly hours to qualify for health coverage from 32/wk to 28/wk. The thought there was that everyone working 30 hours a week would now qualify for coverage, thus companies would be forced to offer it and pay for it.
But here's the rub. Say you make $8/hr, which is the CA minimum and what damn near every part time employee out here makes. At 30 hours a week you make $960 before taxes in a 4 week month. Now for your company to insure you, that runs them on average $325(for my companies plan as an example) per month in premiums. So right off the bat Obamacare raises the cost of an employee by about 33%, as that employee now costs $1285/mo.
I can tell you right now that companies across the country are not going to eat a 33% increase in costs without making it up somewhere. In most cases this is exactly what will happen(my own company included, as much as I'd rather it didn't): All part time employees now get cut down to 26 hours per week, and the 4 hours per week get picked up by hiring another employee. For my small team of 7 people, that means that the same amount of hours worked equates to me hiring 1 extra person, in order to save $1300 in healthcare premiums(after the new guy gets paid), and my current team takes home 13% less money.
This is what companies will do, they will cut hours to save money on insurance premiums. The only person this benefits really is the 1 guy I have to hire since I have to cut hours. 7 people lose for the gain of 1.
One problem I see is that(for my own workers) most of them already have coverage from their spouses, but because the risk is there for them to qualify for company insurance, they are not allowed to work more hours(which both myself and they would prefer). There is no opt out option for them to say they don't want coverage at all, but want more hours consistently.
I don't see how this is a good thing. Wal Mart sure as gak isn't going to eat 33% increase in labor costs, they'll just hire 14% more people to save the difference and continue business as always.
Aerethan wrote: I don't see how this is a good thing. Wal Mart sure as gak isn't going to eat 33% increase in labor costs, they'll just hire 14% more people to save the difference and continue business as always.
Just speculation, but maybe that's an unintentional, but welcome, side effect - it means more Americans being hired so the figures for those out of work drop.
Aerethan wrote: I don't see how this is a good thing. Wal Mart sure as gak isn't going to eat 33% increase in labor costs, they'll just hire 14% more people to save the difference and continue business as always.
Just speculation, but maybe that's an unintentional, but welcome, side effect - it means more Americans being hired so the figures for those out of work drop.
At the cost of income for 7 people who already don't make very much? I could understand a 13% hit on people who make 100k a year, but when your annual income is $11,000 then it is no small thing to lose $1500 of it so that someone else can have a job.
It is the wrong way of going about creating jobs for low income workers. And creating more minimum wage jobs isn't really what we should be shooting for, given that $960/mo isn't really enough to live on if you live alone and have rent to pay.
azazel the cat wrote: You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.
Raising the minimum wage doesn't do anyone any good. All of a sudden your taking more money from the people providing the jobs. When their margin gets smaller, they have to pass it on, especially if their margin is already small.
You can't just wave a wand and make more money appear for businesses to give to people.
I'd like to think the morass was intentional, designed to force us into a state paid system. I fear its just incredible incompetence on the part of the drafters who drafted it, and the Congress that voted on it before they read it, and President who signed it.
I'd like to think the morass was intentional, designed to force us into a state paid system. I fear its just incredible incompetence on the part of the drafters who drafted it, and the Congress that voted on it before they read it, and President who signed it.
Good news about this all is we know exactly who foisted this monstrocity onto us. 2014 is going to be an ugly year for some congresscritters.
azazel the cat wrote: You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.
I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.
I'll get on board with this when you can explain to me why a burger flipper at Burger King is entitled to a "reasonable" life. Lets go one step forward, and figure out what that "reasonable" life will cost.
I'd like to think the morass was intentional, designed to force us into a state paid system. I fear its just incredible incompetence on the part of the drafters who drafted it, and the Congress that voted on it before they read it, and President who signed it.
Good news about this all is we know exactly who foisted this monstrocity onto us. 2014 is going to be an ugly year for some congresscritters.
In the words of the immortal bard: Fire 'em all. Let God sort 'em out.
azazel the cat wrote: You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.
I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.
Except raising the minimum wage doesn't do that.
It increases costs for employers, including many wages that are not minimum wage but have automatic increases if the minimum is raised. These costs are then passed on to the customers, who are the same people that just had their wages raised, so in reality it changes the numbers and nothing else. The standard of living is not increased.
Standard of living can be raised one of two ways.
1) An individual person can have his wages increased. Something like a raise accompanying a promotion for example.
2) The price of consumer goods drops without a corresponding decrease in wages. This increases the purchasing power of those wages. Decreasing inflation can also do this.
azazel the cat wrote: You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.
I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.
No.
Thats not the point of minimum wage. You want a livable wage you have to have the skills perquisite to that. Just breathing and showing up shouldn't be enough.
besides, define reasonable. We have illegals crossing thousands of miles of desert for that minimum wage, and live on it just fine, sending money back to their families south.
azazel the cat wrote: You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.
I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.
I'll get on board with this when you can explain to me why a burger flipper at Burger King is entitled to a "reasonable" life.
Why is he not? Why is having a job that someone considers lowly not entitled to a life? Or is it because his job is lowly he doesnt deserve resonable pay?
Beside, have you worked on a grill before? IT is hard work, I work on a girll, daily i have to clean out grease traps, clean out fryers and cook food, sometime 5-10 different order all by myself.
And what makes you valuable enough to keep around as a burger flipper? There are plenty of others that will work your job for the same pay. An unskilled teenager can do it and we've got those coming out of our ears.
Flipping burgers is not a job that is worth full benefits. Hard work or not, its unskilled labor that doesn't have a supply shortage.
When it becomes difficult to find people to flip burgers that is when the job will pay more. No sooner.
whembly wrote: Plus many skilled Union Jobs would be more expensive... as much of their hourly rates are contractually tied to what the state's minimum wage.
So, raising the minimum wage isn't the simple answer.
No... it is the simple answer. It's just the wrong answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: And what makes you valuable enough to keep around as a burger flipper? There are plenty of others that will work your job for the same pay. An unskilled teenager can do it and we've got those coming out of our ears.
Flipping burgers is not a job that is worth full benefits. Hard work or not, its unskilled labor that doesn't have a supply shortage.
When it becomes difficult to find people to flip burgers that is when the job will pay more. No sooner.
What he said, it's the supply vs demand argument. There is no shortage of supply of unskilled labor, so it's going to be worth less.
Quite frankly, I scoff at the idea that unskilled laborer should be paid on an equivalent scale of what I make.
jobsa aren't entitlements. They are consideration for services and goods produced.
Why is having a job that someone considers lowly not entitled to a life?
I didn't see anyone saying someone should get the death penalty for working minimum wage. Working at McDonalds..well thats a different story.
Or is it because his job is lowly he doesnt deserve resonable pay?
Getting there. The services he provides only warrant a certain level of agreed upon consideration.
Beside, have you worked on a grill before?
Yes I did. It is very hard work. It also doesn't pay way. One should look to move up in the world.
IT is hard work, I work on a girll, daily i have to clean out grease traps, clean out fryers and cook food, sometime 5-10 different order all by myself.
yes it is hard work. One should not do it very long.
azazel the cat wrote: You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.
I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.
I'll get on board with this when you can explain to me why a burger flipper at Burger King is entitled to a "reasonable" life.
Why is he not? Why is having a job that someone considers lowly not entitled to a life? Or is it because his job is lowly he doesnt deserve resonable pay?
Beside, have you worked on a grill before? IT is hard work, I work on a girll, daily i have to clean out grease traps, clean out fryers and cook food, sometime 5-10 different order all by myself.
I spent 2 and a half years working fast food. Then I grew up and got a real job. I learned a real skill. I'm earning pay on the scale of it (really less then what I'm worth, but what can you do?)
Why is he not? Why is having a job that someone considers lowly not entitled to a life? Or is it because his job is lowly he doesnt deserve resonable pay?
Beside, have you worked on a grill before? IT is hard work, I work on a girll, daily i have to clean out grease traps, clean out fryers and cook food, sometime 5-10 different order all by myself.
Because labor value is not based upon how hard it is; it's based upon supply and demand. As the barrier to entry for flipping burgers is about the lowest one can get, it's one of the lowest paying jobs you can find. On the contrary, finding someone who can maintain a server room, provide 3rd level support for 60+ products, including customer facing contact when necessary, handle enough programming to be able to personally implement special project when necessary, and as about an hour ago, also be a project manager for a massive global company-wide application to be implemented over the next year, all at the same time, is not so easy.
And don't get me wrong, I have flipped burgers, cleaned out grease traps and fryers, and dealt with 5-10 (at times, possibly more) customer orders all by myself. I've also made pizzas, done personal computer repair, been a salesman, shoveled gak, and other jobs involving odd combinations of physical and metal labor. Most of those were miserable, intolerable jobs. For several years, I actually lived off of a combination of two minimum wage jobs, totaling 40 hours, so I have little pity for people who say they can't.
Amusingly, I consider the restaurant work to be some of most enjoyable. I got to work with my hands, producing meaningful output that contributed toward some actual purpose (as opposed to hollow powerpoint slides that cause more harm than good), and I kept all my thoughts and idea as my own during that period of time. I could go home and do anything.
Compare that with now, where I never know what I'm going to have to do every day I wake up, I'm too distracted by needing to multitask to really focus on what I need to do let alone what I want to think about, and the job follows me home when it needs to, I'd almost take back the burger-flipper job, as it seems like the easier one.
Do I wish you got paid more? Absolutely. Do I wish that I got paid more? Absolutely. Do I understand why neither of us do? Yes.
I wonder how this will affect me. I'm currently employed in Ohio by a company from California that is a child company of a NJ company... I believe it will impact my life as I remember that the Californian employees have cheaper dental coverage since it was available to them only in their state, but we have to have a different service/provider because we're not in California.
Why is he not? Why is having a job that someone considers lowly not entitled to a life? Or is it because his job is lowly he doesnt deserve resonable pay?
Beside, have you worked on a grill before? IT is hard work, I work on a girll, daily i have to clean out grease traps, clean out fryers and cook food, sometime 5-10 different order all by myself.
Because labor value is not based upon how hard it is; it's based upon supply and demand. As the barrier to entry for flipping burgers is about the lowest one can get, it's one of the lowest paying jobs you can find. On the contrary, finding someone who can maintain a server room, provide 3rd level support for 60+ products, including customer facing contact when necessary, handle enough programming to be able to personally implement special project when necessary, and as about an hour ago, also be a project manager for a massive global company-wide application to be implemented over the next year, all at the same time, is not so easy.
And don't get me wrong, I have flipped burgers, cleaned out grease traps and fryers, and dealt with 5-10 (at times, possibly more) customer orders all by myself. I've also made pizzas, done personal computer repair, been a salesman, shoveled gak, and other jobs involving odd combinations of physical and metal labor. Most of those were miserable, intolerable jobs. For several years, I actually lived off of a combination of two minimum wage jobs, totaling 40 hours, so I have little pity for people who say they can't.
Amusingly, I consider the restaurant work to be some of most enjoyable. I got to work with my hands, producing meaningful output that contributed toward some actual purpose (as opposed to hollow powerpoint slides that cause more harm than good), and I kept all my thoughts and idea as my own during that period of time. I could go home and do anything.
Compare that with now, where I never know what I'm going to have to do every day I wake up, I'm too distracted by needing to multitask to really focus on what I need to do let alone what I want to think about, and the job follows me home when it needs to, I'd almost take back the burger-flipper job, as it seems like the easier one.
Do I wish you got paid more? Absolutely. Do I wish that I got paid more? Absolutely. Do I understand why neither of us do? Yes.
I do agree that jobs are based not on work but skillset, But the way the original comment was worded as if those who just flip burgers are not entitled to a resonable life just for their job. I do not think they should make bank, what im saying is that it should be enough to live on. Maybe then we wouldnt have to deal with having to subsidize people who dnt make enough because employer only pay them very little
For my company, I have the following:
Kaiser $419ish for just my 2 kids, another $379 if I added my wife, per month. Luckily my kids still have state benefits for another year so I don't have to eat that cost yet.
Vision: $15/mo for myself and the wife
Dental: $40/mo for me and the wife(kids have state benefits still for this as well)
Life Insurance $24/mo for me and the wife.
Now if I add my wife and both kids to my health coverage, that absorbs nearly 25% of my net income, which is no trivial issue.
If those rates go up, I won't be able to afford coverage and still put food on the table with one income.
Luckily me moving to Texas will offset rent enough that I can absorb some of the costs, but insurance as it stands is far too expensive for both companies and employees.
Taking hours away from employees will not in any way help the economy or low income families, but if hours are not cut, then prices on goods must rise to offset it, thus absorbing any added income the employees would have had from those hours.
whembly wrote: Plus many skilled Union Jobs would be more expensive... as much of their hourly rates are contractually tied to what the state's minimum wage.
So, raising the minimum wage isn't the simple answer.
No... it is the simple answer. It's just the wrong answer.
Right... just highlighting the fact that the supports thinks it's a simple fix.
Aerethan wrote: For my company, I have the following:
Kaiser $419ish for just my 2 kids, another $379 if I added my wife, per month. Luckily my kids still have state benefits for another year so I don't have to eat that cost yet.
Vision: $15/mo for myself and the wife
Dental: $40/mo for me and the wife(kids have state benefits still for this as well)
Life Insurance $24/mo for me and the wife.
Now if I add my wife and both kids to my health coverage, that absorbs nearly 25% of my net income, which is no trivial issue.
If those rates go up, I won't be able to afford coverage and still put food on the table with one income.
Luckily me moving to Texas will offset rent enough that I can absorb some of the costs, but insurance as it stands is far too expensive for both companies and employees.
Taking hours away from employees will not in any way help the economy or low income families, but if hours are not cut, then prices on goods must rise to offset it, thus absorbing any added income the employees would have had from those hours.
I've heard the cheapest Kali rates are going to be around $20,000 a year, which blew my mind.
I wonder how this will affect me. I'm currently employed in Ohio by a company from California that is a child company of a NJ company... I believe it will impact my life as I remember that the Californian employees have cheaper dental coverage since it was available to them only in their state, but we have to have a different service/provider because we're not in California.
Your company is still bound by Ohio's insurance regulation. Doesn't matter if the HQ is in a different state.
One of the reason why insurance is so needlessly expensive is that each and every states has their own requirement/regulations for these packages. They're also not ALLOWED to sell those plans they offer in your state to outside state clients...
Then... throw the ACA act on top of that... what do you get?
Why is he not? Why is having a job that someone considers lowly not entitled to a life? Or is it because his job is lowly he doesnt deserve resonable pay?
Beside, have you worked on a grill before? IT is hard work, I work on a girll, daily i have to clean out grease traps, clean out fryers and cook food, sometime 5-10 different order all by myself.
Because labor value is not based upon how hard it is; it's based upon supply and demand. As the barrier to entry for flipping burgers is about the lowest one can get, it's one of the lowest paying jobs you can find. On the contrary, finding someone who can maintain a server room, provide 3rd level support for 60+ products, including customer facing contact when necessary, handle enough programming to be able to personally implement special project when necessary, and as about an hour ago, also be a project manager for a massive global company-wide application to be implemented over the next year, all at the same time, is not so easy.
And don't get me wrong, I have flipped burgers, cleaned out grease traps and fryers, and dealt with 5-10 (at times, possibly more) customer orders all by myself. I've also made pizzas, done personal computer repair, been a salesman, shoveled gak, and other jobs involving odd combinations of physical and metal labor. Most of those were miserable, intolerable jobs. For several years, I actually lived off of a combination of two minimum wage jobs, totaling 40 hours, so I have little pity for people who say they can't.
Amusingly, I consider the restaurant work to be some of most enjoyable. I got to work with my hands, producing meaningful output that contributed toward some actual purpose (as opposed to hollow powerpoint slides that cause more harm than good), and I kept all my thoughts and idea as my own during that period of time. I could go home and do anything.
Compare that with now, where I never know what I'm going to have to do every day I wake up, I'm too distracted by needing to multitask to really focus on what I need to do let alone what I want to think about, and the job follows me home when it needs to, I'd almost take back the burger-flipper job, as it seems like the easier one.
Do I wish you got paid more? Absolutely. Do I wish that I got paid more? Absolutely. Do I understand why neither of us do? Yes.
I do agree that jobs are based not on work but skillset, But the way the original comment was worded as if those who just flip burgers are not entitled to a resonable life just for their job. I do not think they should make bank, what im saying is that it should be enough to live on. Maybe then we wouldnt have to deal with having to subsidize people who dnt make enough because employer only pay them very little
And who decides what is enough to live on? What is a "reasonable life" anyway?
Flipping burgers is a, pardon the turn of phrase, "crap" job. You are not entitled to a reasonable life, that is something you earn for yourself. Work at an absolutely rock bottom job like flipping burgers at McDs or Burger King = get paid rock bottom wages.
Yes, you can't exactly raise a family and live in a nice apartment working at Burger King. That's why you try to get a job elsewhere that pays more(and consequently requires a better skillset)
If you aren't qualified for a better job or are but the job market is competitive and can afford to hire overqualified people then that's just how the chips fall. The economy sucks right now and there's a glut of qualified experienced jobseekers. You'll just have to wait for things to get better. The government's job isn't to hold your hand and make sure everyone makes it.
Im not saying it does, It screwed alot up, but atleast it is trying. And I'm saying that something needs to be done about insurance, i know far too many people that decide to just not take insurance because they don't make enough. but they make too much to be on state benifits.
I do agree that jobs are based not on work but skillset, But the way the original comment was worded as if those who just flip burgers are not entitled to a resonable life just for their job. I do not think they should make bank, what im saying is that it should be enough to live on. Maybe then we wouldnt have to deal with having to subsidize people who dnt make enough because employer only pay them very little
Well then, what IS reasonable? Where does that money come from?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im not saying it does, It screwed alot up, but atleast it is trying. And I'm saying that something needs to be done about insurance, i know far too many people that decide to just not take insurance because they don't make enough. but they make too much to be on state benifits.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im not saying it does, It screwed alot up, but atleast it is trying. And I'm saying that something needs to be done about insurance, i know far too many people that decide to just not take insurance because they don't make enough. but they make too much to be on state benifits.
It happens, I would think that for 90% of the time, you pay for health insurance that you don't ever use. I've had vision, health, and dental for about 9 months because of my job, and I've yet to use them because I don't need them (the dental thing I do, because I am in dire need for a checkup :(), but if I don't have health insurance, and I aspirate a thumbtack (something my old housemate did), I would not want to be stuck paying the bill of 50 grand to remove a fething thumbtack from his lung... the 3k that he owed was much more manageable, all because he pays 150 bucks or so a month for health insurance (idk what our rates are atm)
hotsauceman1 wrote: One of the biggest problems with insurance is that it is barely regulated and run by people that think you are better off dead.
While insurance is pretty fethed up right now, do you really think the government will change anything if they were in charge?
The government has to think about money too. If they're in charge of insurance they may also deny coverage based on prior history. Or even worse, simply string you along in waiting lines hoping you die before its your turn.
It just changes who's the face at the top.
The Hospital can't deny you treatment for a mandatory surgery. All insurance does is foot the bill, not determine if it happens or not. Without insurance, you have to pay it yourself that's all.
An uninsured person isn't denied medical treatment, they just have to pay for it themselves.
Yeah, going into debt because of a medical emergency sucks but it sure beats being dead. Life isn't fair, get over it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: One of the biggest problems with insurance is that it is barely regulated and run by people that think you are better off dead.
With how much health insurance costs, I might financially be better off dead, as at least then my life insurance would pay for a house for the family. I shouldn't make more money for dying than it costs to stay alive.
The real reason medical costs are expensive isn't because of insurance. Its because of the overinflated costs of medicine.
And medical companies charge those prices because they can.
You want to seriously reduce medical costs? Make it so medicine patents expire much quicker than they do, so competition between companies can drive the prices down.
Insurance companies aren't the bad guy here, its the companies that actually make the medicine.
Inhale a thumbtack. Back in like September/October, my housemate was down in the basement updating his computer, and he had a thumbtack in his mouth (like how one might chew on a pen), and he coughed/sneezed and inhaled the thumbtack. It got lodged in one of the bronchial tubes and almost fell into his lung. He went to the hospital for a day or so and they couldn't get it out. They flew him up to Cleveland and they eventually pulled it out of his lungs... The entire ordeal would have cost him 50 grand... Insurance dropped it to about 3.
Ok, maybe im wrong. I just think that sometimes people get thrown gak in life and rather then people trying to help them we look at them and say they need to get out of the path. Let me put it this way, My cousin worked as a truck driver, the very job that caused him to have a bad knee, he had to take a few weeks off for it to recover, but the insurance cut him off when they found out he didnt have a job, so he couldnt get the drugs to make his knee better, so he was not able to go back to work. He was about a year later after it was fully healed. But that year was crap.
Or my mother who nearly had to pay a 5000$ hospital bill because she got a treatment her insurance said it wouldnt pay for.
Grey Templar wrote: The real reason medical costs are expensive isn't because of insurance. Its because of the overinflated costs of medicine.
And medical companies charge those prices because they can.
You want to seriously reduce medical costs? Make it so medicine patents expire much quicker than they do, so competition between companies can drive the prices down.
Insurance companies aren't the bad guy here, its the companies that actually make the medicine.
You want to really cut costs? Ban all medical equipment invented after 1938. It will do wonders.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, maybe im wrong. I just think that sometimes people get thrown gak in life and rather then people trying to help them we look at them and say they need to get out of the path. Let me put it this way, My cousin worked as a truck driver, the very job that caused him to have a bad knee, he had to take a few weeks off for it to recover, but the insurance cut him off when they found out he didnt have a job, so he couldnt get the drugs to make his knee better, so he was not able to go back to work. He was about a year later after it was fully healed. But that year was crap.
Or my mother who nearly had to pay a 5000$ hospital bill because she got a treatment her insurance said it wouldnt pay for.
Yup, add in something there about how the few times you do actually get helped out by some sort of outside assistance you marginalize it so that you can pretend you got whereever you have entirely on your own two feet, and that's basically how humanity works.
Other than grouphugs and daisy necklaces, how do you propose we fix it? I'm genuinely curious
I will admit that I dont, But i see far too many people thinking insurance is just fine as it is with it not needing to be fixed at all.
Also, dont underestimate the power of a daisy, those things are terrifying.
hotsauceman1 wrote: One of the biggest problems with insurance is that it is barely regulated and run by people that think you are better off dead.
100% completely false.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: The real reason medical costs are expensive isn't because of insurance. Its because of the overinflated costs of medicine.
And medical companies charge those prices because they can.
You want to seriously reduce medical costs? Make it so medicine patents expire much quicker than they do, so competition between companies can drive the prices down.
Insurance companies aren't the bad guy here, its the companies that actually make the medicine.
Eh... medication costs in general isn't the biggest driver for the rising cost.
However, the PATENT laws themselves really do need to be addressed to prevent Drug Manufacturer from "reformulating" existing drugs to ensure they lock down that market. (see here if you want more info, see this)
There are 3 huge factors...
1) We're getting older as a nation and we're generally an unhealthy population
2) Because we're getting older, we need more manpower to staff the healthcare organization. Employed people has always been the largest expense in running a healthcare organization. This is why you're hearing that Nursing Staff's hours are cut and/or their overtime opportunity hours are reduced.
3a) Finally, Government Assistance programs, such as Medicare/medicaide, the reimbursement rates is arbitrarily being reduced. Math dictates that the money has to come from somewhere else to make up the different. Either by charging more elsewhere, or cutting operational costs, or even shutting down those services.
3b) This is one of the major reason why we're seeing an explosion of "concierge cash only physicians".
azazel the cat wrote: You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.
I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.
I'll get on board with this when you can explain to me why a burger flipper at Burger King is entitled to a "reasonable" life. Lets go one step forward, and figure out what that "reasonable" life will cost.
Let's lay a little game here. Monday, a miracle occurs and everyone has a college degree - bachelor's minimum. Tuesday, another miracle occurs - everyone has a job in the field of their degree, making good money ($50K at least) and starts Wednesday.
Lunchtime Wednesday. To celebrate the double miracle, you and all your new coworkers decide to go out to lunch at a nice restaurant. Hunh. They're all closed.
A not-so-nice restaurant? Nope, closed as well.
Fast food? Nope, no luck.
Okay, we'll go to the grocery store and get stuff for a picnic. Nope, they're closed too! In fact, ALL retail stores are closed! What happened?
Oh yeah. All the retail people now have degrees and work in offices. Two weeks later, society melts down because there's no one stocking fresh food at the grocery stores, there's no one ringing the sales out, there's no one flipping burgers, and 90% of the population is out of food.
So as you can see, those people making minimum wage in retail are a necessary part of a functioning economy. With that in mind, how do you justify paying them 25% LESS than the poverty level - assuming they are actually working 40 hours a week, which NONE of them are?
azazel the cat wrote: You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.
I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.
I'll get on board with this when you can explain to me why a burger flipper at Burger King is entitled to a "reasonable" life. Lets go one step forward, and figure out what that "reasonable" life will cost.
Let's lay a little game here. Monday, a miracle occurs and everyone has a college degree - bachelor's minimum. Tuesday, another miracle occurs - everyone has a job in the field of their degree, making good money ($50K at least) and starts Wednesday.
Lunchtime Wednesday. To celebrate the double miracle, you and all your new coworkers decide to go out to lunch at a nice restaurant. Hunh. They're all closed.
A not-so-nice restaurant? Nope, closed as well.
Fast food? Nope, no luck.
Okay, we'll go to the grocery store and get stuff for a picnic. Nope, they're closed too! In fact, ALL retail stores are closed! What happened?
Oh yeah. All the retail people now have degrees and work in offices. Two weeks later, society melts down because there's no one stocking fresh food at the grocery stores, there's no one ringing the sales out, there's no one flipping burgers, and 90% of the population is out of food.
So as you can see, those people making minimum wage in retail are a necessary part of a functioning economy. With that in mind, how do you justify paying them 25% LESS than the poverty level - assuming they are actually working 40 hours a week, which NONE of them are?
hotsauceman1 wrote: I will admit that I dont, But i see far too many people thinking insurance is just fine as it is with it not needing to be fixed at all.
Also, dont underestimate the power of a daisy, those things are terrifying.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not championing things the way they are. I'd love to have a GB style system, for example. All I'm saying is that what we had was bad, but what we're getting is going to be much worse.
whembly wrote: However, the PATENT laws themselves really do need to be addressed to prevent Drug Manufacturer from "reformulating" existing drugs to ensure they lock down that market..
Yeah, that's pure garbage. I think the 7 year window of exclusive sales is fine, but the reformulations just piss all over the whole idea. It desperately needs to be re-addressed.
Additionally I'd love to see something to spur companies into producing the high-effort low-profit drugs such as flu shots. Those really are something that is hard to work in with a for-profit health system, but clearly low cost, highly accessible flu shots are in the public interest.
Wait one....anyone else notice a "college degree" not so good anymore? Its more like they're after tech people. I've two degree's Associative in Surgical Tech and a Bachelor on Aircraft Maintenance Production Management....something freaking silly like that....oh and my Airframe and Power Plant License from those classes. Lets not forget the crash course on a "Movement Coordinator" which I think translate to the RL to something else...I can't remember at the moment but that a high five figure job with security clearences...mine are good for another 4 yrs...I retire next month....22 yrs in....asshats wanted to keep me longer so had to do a drug deal with them but right now I'm getting the feeling its not education they want....its the experience they want and how wide spread that experience...
Grey Templar wrote: And what makes you valuable enough to keep around as a burger flipper? There are plenty of others that will work your job for the same pay. An unskilled teenager can do it and we've got those coming out of our ears.
No, an unskilled teenager CANNOT do it. I've worked with unskilled teenagers, they either become SKILLED teenagers or they go out the door.
Cooking burgers, dressing buns, keeping orders straight, keeping your temper around donkey cave customers as well as keeping your work area clean and safe, ON TOP OF doing all in a minimum of time IS a skill... and it's nowhere NEAR as easy as you think.
Try working a grill sometime when it's 100 degrees plus and do all that sometime. It's a very enlightening experience as to just how much work it takes to be a lowly fast food worker.
I noticed, makes me kinda scared TBH, Im not tech savy( My mind isnt build for stuff like that) so im wondering if i can even get a job.
Ugh, Maybe the "Those who cant, Teach" is true
whembly wrote: However, the PATENT laws themselves really do need to be addressed to prevent Drug Manufacturer from "reformulating" existing drugs to ensure they lock down that market..
Yeah, that's pure garbage. I think the 7 year window of exclusive sales is fine, but the reformulations just piss all over the whole idea. It desperately needs to be re-addressed.
That... and "some" tort reforms too... the malpractice insurance are insane. That's why you see doctors forming up LLC (see OB\GYN) to help mitigate operational costs.
Additionally I'd love to see something to spur companies into producing the high-effort low-profit drugs such as flu shots. Those really are something that is hard to work in with a for-profit health system, but clearly low cost, highly accessible flu shots are in the public interest.
They're required to be low cost because... here it is... Government says so. There's no incentive unfornately... that's why you only see one or two major companies making these flu shots.
Not sure what to do here other than to give them tax incentives... but, then, folks will complain it's a "corporate subsidy" which starts that never-end argument.
azazel the cat wrote: You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.
I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.
I'll get on board with this when you can explain to me why a burger flipper at Burger King is entitled to a "reasonable" life. Lets go one step forward, and figure out what that "reasonable" life will cost.
Let's lay a little game here. Monday, a miracle occurs and everyone has a college degree - bachelor's minimum. Tuesday, another miracle occurs - everyone has a job in the field of their degree, making good money ($50K at least) and starts Wednesday.
Lunchtime Wednesday. To celebrate the double miracle, you and all your new coworkers decide to go out to lunch at a nice restaurant. Hunh. They're all closed.
A not-so-nice restaurant? Nope, closed as well.
Fast food? Nope, no luck.
Okay, we'll go to the grocery store and get stuff for a picnic. Nope, they're closed too! In fact, ALL retail stores are closed! What happened?
Oh yeah. All the retail people now have degrees and work in offices. Two weeks later, society melts down because there's no one stocking fresh food at the grocery stores, there's no one ringing the sales out, there's no one flipping burgers, and 90% of the population is out of food.
So as you can see, those people making minimum wage in retail are a necessary part of a functioning economy. With that in mind, how do you justify paying them 25% LESS than the poverty level - assuming they are actually working 40 hours a week, which NONE of them are?
Short of 'they suck so they don't deserve it....'
The alternative to this is that you can still get your McDonald's burger from the 40 dollar menu along with your $50 medium coke or choose to go somewhere that offers modest food for $150.
Your ending point still stands 100% true. All things considered, I'd probably pay 25% more for my hamburger if I could never hear the words "increase the minimum wage" uttered like it was some kind of no-brainer panacea.
1. Healthcare is generally inelastic - you will pay a significant portion of your income to stay alive, if possible. Medical groups are well aware of this, and price accordingly.
2. Society quixotically demands that people must be treated, even if they cannot pay, while not providing reimbursement to medical groups for said coverage. This indirectly raises the cost of care for all other patients, as the medical groups pass the costs onto people who can pay.
3. Cost efficiencies and medical care are often orthogonal; from a cost of treatment perspective it's better if a patient dies early than has to remain on insurance long-term. Obviously that does not go over well with patients.
I find people are that against subsidized healthcare, but are for requiring care regardless of ability to pay to have a very odd stance. It seems contradictory - no mater what, someone is going to pay the cost of treatment, and it's going to be the people with insurance. Why defer that to an secondary cost instead of making it primary cost to society, so it at least has a modicum of transparency?
Grey Templar wrote: And what makes you valuable enough to keep around as a burger flipper? There are plenty of others that will work your job for the same pay. An unskilled teenager can do it and we've got those coming out of our ears.
No, an unskilled teenager CANNOT do it. I've worked with unskilled teenagers, they either become SKILLED teenagers or they go out the door.
Cooking burgers, dressing buns, keeping orders straight, keeping your temper around donkey cave customers as well as keeping your work area clean and safe, ON TOP OF doing all in a minimum of time IS a skill... and it's nowhere NEAR as easy as you think.
Try working a grill sometime when it's 100 degrees plus and do all that sometime. It's a very enlightening experience as to just how much work it takes to be a lowly fast food worker.
I've worked in the kitchen... sure its a skill, but I got paid by what the market is willing to pay.
Grey Templar wrote: And what makes you valuable enough to keep around as a burger flipper? There are plenty of others that will work your job for the same pay. An unskilled teenager can do it and we've got those coming out of our ears.
No, an unskilled teenager CANNOT do it. I've worked with unskilled teenagers, they either become SKILLED teenagers or they go out the door.
Cooking burgers, dressing buns, keeping orders straight, keeping your temper around donkey cave customers as well as keeping your work area clean and safe, ON TOP OF doing all in a minimum of time IS a skill... and it's nowhere NEAR as easy as you think.
Try working a grill sometime when it's 100 degrees plus and do all that sometime. It's a very enlightening experience as to just how much work it takes to be a lowly fast food worker.
Its still an unskilled profession and I would think you would be aware of what skilled vs unskilled means in this context but clearly you don't.
Jihadin wrote: Wait one....anyone else notice a "college degree" not so good anymore? Its more like they're after tech people. I've two degree's Associative in Surgical Tech and a Bachelor on Aircraft Maintenance Production Management....something freaking silly like that....oh and my Airframe and Power Plant License from those classes. Lets not forget the crash course on a "Movement Coordinator" which I think translate to the RL to something else...I can't remember at the moment but that a high five figure job with security clearences...mine are good for another 4 yrs...I retire next month....22 yrs in....asshats wanted to keep me longer so had to do a drug deal with them but right now I'm getting the feeling its not education they want....its the experience they want and how wide spread that experience...
College degree has quickly become something unessential in any tech-related industry worth working in. Seems to be mostly the old-school places that actually get really uptight about that.
Hell, I have no college degree and I'm doing well enough. Not five figures well, but when you take in the cost of living in STL, I can afford to drink, play 40k, and still put some aside.
I noticed, makes me kinda scared TBH, Im not tech savy( My mind isnt build for stuff like that) so im wondering if i can even get a job.
Ugh, Maybe the "Those who cant, Teach" is true
Ugh Hotsauce...the NCO in me wants me to reach through and choke you. Since I can't do that the your "Uncle Sargie Wilkie from a distant bloodline" going to point something out to you. You owe me twenty pushups after this. How well do you know 40K army rules and capabilities? How well you know the General rules to play? Its how you perceive it. Look at it from a tech view.
1. Healthcare is generally inelastic - you will pay a significant portion of your income to stay alive, if possible. Medical groups are well aware of this, and price accordingly.
That's true... because it's really like that with any business...right?
Medical Groups will often work with you if you make the effort. I couldn't afford the "left overs" charges after my first born... so, I call Patient Accounting about my predicament and they put me on a $25/mo payment plan.
2. Society quixotically demands that people must be treated, even if they cannot pay, while not providing reimbursement to medical groups for said coverage. This indirectly raises the cost of care for all other patients, as the medical groups pass the costs onto people who can pay.
Yup... it's because of this reason why I'd advocate for us to implement a Canadian style single payor system, but also allow a secondary market to allow folks to pay for better service.
3. Cost efficiencies and medical care are often orthogonal; from a cost of treatment perspective it's better if a patient dies early than has to remain on insurance long-term. Obviously that does not go over well with patients.
In short... death panels.
Or, really... if a patient is really old, a determination is made to make the patient's comfortable (moar pain meds) until expiration rather than paying for expensive procedures to extend the patient'slife.
It's ugly... but, it happens in every social medical system.
Here in the states, it's whether or not you can pay for it. (there are some restrictions, but the general gist is this).
So, do you want death panels? Or, if you can pay for it, make such determination yourselves?
It's not an easy question to reconcile.
I find people are that against subsidized healthcare, but are for requiring care regardless of ability to pay to have a very odd stance. It seems contradictory - no mater what, someone is going to pay the cost of treatment, and it's going to be the people with insurance. Why defer that to an secondary cost instead of making it primary cost to society, so it at least has a modicum of transparency?
People likes being sheltered. Most people don't understand or even wanna know the harsh truths.
Hell, I have no college degree and I'm doing well enough. Not five figures well, but when you take in the cost of living in STL, I can afford to drink, play 40k, and still put some aside.
Hey! Score one for living in the ol' Mid-West!
I was shocked, but did you know that St. Louis is one of the fastest growing IT market?
I noticed, makes me kinda scared TBH, Im not tech savy( My mind isnt build for stuff like that) so im wondering if i can even get a job.
Ugh, Maybe the "Those who cant, Teach" is true
Ugh Hotsauce...the NCO in me wants me to reach through and choke you. Since I can't do that the your "Uncle Sargie Wilkie from a distant bloodline" going to point something out to you. You owe me twenty pushups after this. How well do you know 40K army rules and capabilities? How well you know the General rules to play? Its how you perceive it. Look at it from a tech view.
This is true, it's at least 70% attitude. I've met really bright people who have told themselves that they're not "technical people" and just have their minds shut down when it involves anything box-shaped with lights on it. Alternatively, there's people who have broken themselves of that, and can do anything technical they genuinely wish to.
My sister, the art major, has managed her own Linux install she's used throughout college, and has actually asked me for help on something once in four years.
Compare that with the fact that we've interviewed 10 people in the last two weeks for a position who graduated with computer related degrees who couldn't give us answers to the most basic of computer/networking questions.
If you're going to turn a blind eye to the facts that a) retail is bloody hard work, and b) is utterly necessary to the economy, and c) cannot be left to the teenagers alone, because they spend a large amount of the workday in SCHOOL, I don't know what to tell you.
Hell, I have no college degree and I'm doing well enough. Not five figures well, but when you take in the cost of living in STL, I can afford to drink, play 40k, and still put some aside.
Hey! Score one for living in the ol' Mid-West!
I was shocked, but did you know that St. Louis is one of the fastest growing IT market?
WTF? *shrugs*
Good for me.
Yeah, I've heard that. Surprised me, but it kinda makes sense when you think about it. We're kind of a decent sized up in the States, and yet cost of living is small enough to be one of the more viable places to stick people barring going outside the country.
Ugh Hotsauce...the NCO in me wants me to reach through and choke you. Since I can't do that the your "Uncle Sargie Wilkie from a distant bloodline" going to point something out to you. You owe me twenty pushups after this. How well do you know 40K army rules and capabilities? How well you know the General rules to play? Its how you perceive it. Look at it from a tech view.
That actually reminds me, I forgot to do my pushups for today. I never thought of it that way, I mean If i really put my mind to it I may be able to get it.
Ugh Hotsauce...the NCO in me wants me to reach through and choke you. Since I can't do that the your "Uncle Sargie Wilkie from a distant bloodline" going to point something out to you. You owe me twenty pushups after this. How well do you know 40K army rules and capabilities? How well you know the General rules to play? Its how you perceive it. Look at it from a tech view.
That actually reminds me, I forgot to do my pushups for today. I never thought of it that way, I mean If i really put my mind to it I may be able to get it.
It sounds corny, but when you put your mind to any task, you can pretty much get it done. I will say there are some cases it just won't happen, but they are very few and far between.
Vulcan wrote: If you're going to turn a blind eye to the facts that a) retail is bloody hard work, and b) is utterly necessary to the economy, and c) cannot be left to the teenagers alone, because they spend a large amount of the workday in SCHOOL, I don't know what to tell you.
Yes, its necessary. its still not worth anything other than minimum wage+a few bucks and maybe basic benefits and that only on a case by case basis.
That's true... because it's really like that with any business...right?
Medical Groups will often work with you if you make the effort. I couldn't afford the "left overs" charges after my first born... so, I call Patient Accounting about my predicament and they put me on a $25/mo payment plan.
That they price accordingly? Sure. The inelastic part... not so much. And yeah, most organizations understand the game and will work with bit players, because they'd rather get something than nothing. And becomes some of them do consider it the compassionate thing to do. But they are a business, first and foremost - with all that entails good and bad.
Yup... it's because of this reason why I'd advocate for us to implement a Canadian style single payor system, but also allow a secondary market to allow folks to pay for better service.
Agreed. You're going to pay the cost, either directly or indirectly, so suck it up and deal. Or be willing to let people die. I'm not willing to accept the latter, so for me it just makes sense to get the payments in the open where you can haggle them.
Grey Templar wrote: Flipping burgers is a, pardon the turn of phrase, "crap" job. You are not entitled to a reasonable life, that is something you earn for yourself. Work at an absolutely rock bottom job like flipping burgers at McDs or Burger King = get paid rock bottom wages.
Just checking, you don't look down on fast food workers because of their jobs, do you?
Grey Templar wrote: Flipping burgers is a, pardon the turn of phrase, "crap" job. You are not entitled to a reasonable life, that is something you earn for yourself. Work at an absolutely rock bottom job like flipping burgers at McDs or Burger King = get paid rock bottom wages.
Just checking, you don't look down on fast food workers because of their jobs, do you?
They are there doing a job, that in itself is worthy of respect.
Demanding they earn equivalent pay for doing a job that took a whole 1 day to learn (the more difficult tasks) to those who spent years (such as myself) in training is not worthy of it.
To find an income bracket that hasn't lost spending power in the past 40 years, you have to go all the way up to the 85th percentile. Everyone below that has LOST spending power. (To find an income bracket that gained spending power, you're looking at the 97th percentile - 85-96% ran hard to stand still. The rest of us run hard to loose ground.)
A big part of this is stagnation in wage increases. There simply is no upward pressure, because the spending power represented by minimum wage has decreased between 25 and 50%, depending on who does the calculations and what rate of interest they use. On the other hand, there is plenty of DOWNWARD pressure, from executives who want bigger bonuses, from the demise of unionized labor, and from the ever-increasing number of people in the workforce.
So the lack of increases to the minimum wage - and the loss of spending power over time that represents - translates into a lack of increases in ALL wages, with the corresponding loss of spending power. It hits YOU in the pockets just as much as it does the burger-flipper. YOUR wages should be higher as well.
And before you get on the whole 'it'll just increase costs across the board', I'll point out that in then 1960s we managed to pay the equivalent of between $12 and $16 an hour in minimum wage and STILL have a strong economy.
Yes, and the reason for the loss in spending power has nothing to do with a lack of increase in the minimum wage. It has everything to do with inflation and increasing costs of production.
Increasing the minimum wage will do nothing to change the problem. its simply something politicians do to score brownie points with the voters so they can stay in office without doing anything to actually fix the problem.
Vulcan wrote: Let's run one more point by the lot of you then.
To find an income bracket that hasn't lost spending power in the past 40 years, you have to go all the way up to the 85th percentile. Everyone below that has LOST spending power. (To find an income bracket that gained spending power, you're looking at the 97th percentile - 85-96% ran hard to stand still. The rest of us run hard to loose ground.)
A big part of this is stagnation in wage increases. There simply is no upward pressure, because the spending power represented by minimum wage has decreased between 25 and 50%, depending on who does the calculations and what rate of interest they use. On the other hand, there is plenty of DOWNWARD pressure, from executives who want bigger bonuses, from the demise of unionized labor, and from the ever-increasing number of people in the workforce.
So the lack of increases to the minimum wage - and the loss of spending power over time that represents - translates into a lack of increases in ALL wages, with the corresponding loss of spending power. It hits YOU in the pockets just as much as it does the burger-flipper. YOUR wages should be higher as well.
And before you get on the whole 'it'll just increase costs across the board', I'll point out that in then 1960s we managed to pay the equivalent of between $12 and $16 an hour in minimum wage and STILL have a strong economy.
Minimum wage when I worked as a grocery bagger 14 years ago was $5.15 in Michigan. Now it's $7.40. That's a 40% increase of minimum wage in that 14 year time frame. So your arguing we've seen a 40% (averaged your number out) decrease in purchasing power, yet in 1/3rd of that time we've seen a 40% increase in wage.
With those numbers, what would we need minimum wage to be?
azazel the cat wrote: You're right. The minimum wage should be raised. If Wal-Mart doesn't like it, then they don't have to retail in California.
I agree, minimum wage should be brough up to where you can reasonably live on it.
Except raising the minimum wage doesn't do that.
It increases costs for employers, including many wages that are not minimum wage but have automatic increases if the minimum is raised. These costs are then passed on to the customers, who are the same people that just had their wages raised, so in reality it changes the numbers and nothing else. The standard of living is not increased.
Standard of living can be raised one of two ways.
1) An individual person can have his wages increased. Something like a raise accompanying a promotion for example.
2) The price of consumer goods drops without a corresponding decrease in wages. This increases the purchasing power of those wages. Decreasing inflation can also do this.
It seems that most people miss this point. You can want a good standard of living for someone all you want, but an employer has to pass those costs on somehow. Higher minimum wages, along with having to buy Obamacare for his employees is going to force an employer to raise prices for his goods. Suddenly the minimum wage earner is back where he started as far as affording goods and services.
whembly wrote: However, the PATENT laws themselves really do need to be addressed to prevent Drug Manufacturer from "reformulating" existing drugs to ensure they lock down that market..
Yeah, that's pure garbage. I think the 7 year window of exclusive sales is fine, but the reformulations just piss all over the whole idea. It desperately needs to be re-addressed.
Additionally I'd love to see something to spur companies into producing the high-effort low-profit drugs such as flu shots. Those really are something that is hard to work in with a for-profit health system, but clearly low cost, highly accessible flu shots are in the public interest.
1. You have to provide support or have the government do it directly (which is an option).
2. You have to effectively immunize (pardon the pun) them against lawsuits. Most vaccine makers quit making vaccines because of lawsuits in the last 20 years.
Note: Frazzled fully supports a modified Canadian style system which layers in advantages from other systems (don't follow-lead!) if it were in fact run by Canadians or maybe Germans. Actual US government workers - God what did we do to deserve such hell on earth???
Vulcan wrote: If you're going to turn a blind eye to the facts that a) retail is bloody hard work, and b) is utterly necessary to the economy, and c) cannot be left to the teenagers alone, because they spend a large amount of the workday in SCHOOL, I don't know what to tell you.
Yes, its necessary. its still not worth anything other than minimum wage+a few bucks and maybe basic benefits and that only on a case by case basis.
If it was worth more it would pay more. Managers and their managers make more. A Sam's Club Manager in my younger days (something I was looking at) can pull $250K.
Minimum wage when I worked as a grocery bagger 14 years ago was $5.15 in Michigan. Now it's $7.40. That's a 40% increase of minimum wage in that 14 year time frame. So your arguing we've seen a 40% (averaged your number out) decrease in purchasing power, yet in 1/3rd of that time we've seen a 40% increase in wage.
With those numbers, what would we need minimum wage to be?
14 years ago Cigarettes were $1 to $2 a pack. Now they are $5-6 a pack. That is between a 250-600% increase in cost for a bagger. This also ignores that most grocery stores don't have baggers anymore so the minimum wage for them is now $0.00.
Minimum wage when I worked as a grocery bagger 14 years ago was $5.15 in Michigan. Now it's $7.40. That's a 40% increase of minimum wage in that 14 year time frame. So your arguing we've seen a 40% (averaged your number out) decrease in purchasing power, yet in 1/3rd of that time we've seen a 40% increase in wage.
With those numbers, what would we need minimum wage to be?
14 years ago Cigarettes were $1 to $2 a pack. Now they are $5-6 a pack. That is between a 250-600% increase in cost for a bagger. This also ignores that most grocery stores don't have baggers anymore so the minimum wage for them is now $0.00.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I noticed, makes me kinda scared TBH, Im not tech savy( My mind isnt build for stuff like that) so im wondering if i can even get a job.
Ugh, Maybe the "Those who cant, Teach" is true
Please don't insult my degree and future career. Teaching is probably one of the more difficult jobs I've come across, but that's a topic for another thread.
Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare that they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting.
The fear: Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive.
Democratic and Republican leaders are taking the issue seriously, but first they need more specifics from the Office of Personnel Management on how the new rule should take effect — a decision that Capitol Hill sources expect by fall, at the latest. The administration has clammed up in advance of a ruling, sources on both sides of the aisle said.
If the issue isn’t resolved, and massive numbers of lawmakers and aides bolt, many on Capitol Hill fear it could lead to a brain drain just as Congress tackles a slew of weighty issues — like fights over the Tax Code and immigration reform.
The problem is far more acute in the House, where lawmakers and aides are generally younger and less wealthy. Sources said several aides have already given lawmakers notice that they’ll be leaving over concerns about Obamacare. Republican and Democratic lawmakers said the chatter about retiring now, to remain on the current health care plan, is constant.
Rep. John Larson, a Connecticut Democrat in leadership when the law passed, said he thinks the problem will be resolved.
“If not, I think we should begin an immediate amicus brief to say, ‘Listen this is simply not fair to these employees,’” Larson told POLITICO. “They are federal employees.”
Republicans, never a fan of Democratic health care reform, are more vocal about the potential adverse effects of the provision.
“It’s a reality,” said Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas). “This is the law. … It’s going to hinder our ability with retention of members, it’s going to hinder our ability for members to take care of their families.” He said his fellow lawmakers are having “quiet conversations” about the threat.
Alabama Rep. Jo Bonner said the threat is already real, especially for veteran lawmakers and staff. If they leave this year, they think they can continue to be covered under the current health care plan.
“I’ve lost one staffer who told me in confidence that he had been here for a number of years and the thought of losing the opportunity to keep his health insurance on Dec. 31 [forced him to leave]. He could keep what he had and on Jan. 1 he would go into that big black hole,” said Bonner, who had already planned his resignation from Congress. “And then I’ve got another staff member that I think it will be a factor as she’s contemplating her future.”
Lawmakers and aides on both sides of the aisle are acutely aware of the problems with the provision. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have discussed fixes to the provision. Boehner, according to House GOP sources, believes that Reid must take the lead on crafting a solution. Since Republicans opposed the bill, Boehner does not feel responsible to lead the effort to make changes.
The Affordable Care Act — signed into law in 2010 — contained a provision known as the Grassley Amendment, which said the government can only offer members of Congress and their staff plans that are “created” in the bill or “offered through an exchange” — unless the bill is amended.
Currently, aides and lawmakers receive their health care under the generous Federal Employee Health Benefits Program.
The government subsidizes upward of 75 percent of the premiums for the health insurance plans. In 2014, most Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers are expected to be put onto the exchanges, and there has been no guidance whether the government will subsidize those premiums. This is expected to cause a steep spike in health insurance costs.
There have been many options for fixing the problem discussed throughout the year, including administrative fixes and legislative tweaks. One scenario seen as likely on Capitol Hill would have OPM simply decide that the government could still subsidize insurance on the exchanges.
House Democratic leadership says the issue must be resolved.
“The leadership has assured members that fixing this issue is a top priority,” said one Democratic leadership aide. “This issue must be fixed by administrative action in order that the flawed Grassley Amendment’s spirit is honored and all staff and members are treated the same.”
It could be politically difficult to change this provision. The provision was put in the bill in the first place on the theory that if Congress was going to make the country live under the provisions of Obamacare, the members and staff should have to as well.
The uncertainty has created a growing furor on Capitol Hill with aides young and old worried about skyrocketing health care premiums cutting deeply into their already small paychecks. Some longtime aides and members of Congress, who previously had government subsidized health care for life, are concerned that their premiums will now come out of their pension.
If their fears are borne out, the results could be twofold. Some junior staff will head for the private sector early while more seasoned aides and lawmakers could leave before the end of the year so they can continue under the old plan.
Several lawmakers said departures could run the gamut from low-level staff to legislative aides, to senior aides and lawmakers. Capitol Hill is an attractive workplace for politically ambitious college graduates, but a core of Capitol Hill aides stick around for decades, serving as institutional knowledge, and earning prized retirement packages.
OPM, which administers benefits for federal employees, is expected to rule in the coming months on how congressional health care is to be administered.
OPM did not respond to a request for comment.
More than a dozen senior aides interviewed by POLITICO about the issue declined to be named out of fear for future job prospects. The problem is most acutely felt at the staff level, where aides make between $35,000 and roughly $170,000 and budgetary problems have all but stopped pay increases and bonuses. Lawmakers have questioned leadership aides about the future of their health care.
“Between the constant uncertainty surrounding sequestration, and the likelihood aides will soon be paying for the subsidy portion of their health care coverage, congressional office budgets are being squeezed once again, and it’s causing a lot of concern amongst chiefs of staff regarding how to best handle the situation,” said one chief of staff to a senior Democratic member of the House. “Do we give raises to junior level aides so they can afford to pay for their higher health care costs, and if so, where do we find the funds to do so? Additionally, leadership has been relatively silent in terms of providing guidance to offices, which is frustrating.”
There are other ways that aides can fully avoid this problem. If they’re married, they can join their spouse’s health care plan. If they are 65, they can go on Medicare.
But the focus right now is centered on lawmakers trying to figure out how to offset potential increases in premiums.
“I know other members are doing the same thing in terms of what we can do to offset [premiums],” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said. “You are particularly limited now because of course we’ve had the cuts in the [member office allowances] on top of this. You just don’t have a lot of options.”
Cole added, “A lot of the staff stays on largely because of the benefit levels and particularly if you’ve got people with families and it’s extraordinarily important to them … it’s just not right.”
Federal employees should enjoy the same system that everyone will be on...
And then people wonder why there seems to be such a disconnect between Washington, and the rest of the country. Good thing we passed that into law so we could find out what we were getting, right?
hotsauceman1 wrote: I noticed, makes me kinda scared TBH, Im not tech savy( My mind isnt build for stuff like that) so im wondering if i can even get a job.
Ugh, Maybe the "Those who cant, Teach" is true
Please don't insult my degree and future career. Teaching is probably one of the more difficult jobs I've come across, but that's a topic for another thread.
I want to b a teacher too, I hate that phrase too, But sometimes i just wonder if it is true.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I noticed, makes me kinda scared TBH, Im not tech savy( My mind isnt build for stuff like that) so im wondering if i can even get a job.
Ugh, Maybe the "Those who cant, Teach" is true
Please don't insult my degree and future career. Teaching is probably one of the more difficult jobs I've come across, but that's a topic for another thread.
I want to b a teacher too, I hate that phrase too, But sometimes i just wonder if it is true.
As with everything, it's true to an extent. I know some people (and have had a few teachers) that fit that phrase perfectly. I've also had some teachers that were bad at teaching as well as anything else they've attempted to do. I've also has some amazing teachers that could do things I wouldn't be able to given 10 years.
Then there are the teachers that are brilliant but have zero teaching skills. Like my chem teacher. Brilliant guy, but he couldn't give a decent lecture to save his life.
Yeah, I had a professor who was an amazing operating systems guy. I think he'd contributed several Linux patches himself. Completely brilliant.
Guy was also utterly dysfunctional. He could lecture well enough, but the moment someone asked a question or something went off the rails, like a projector not working or something, he couldn't ever get himself going again. As he only taught a single 300 and 400 level course and did grad school classes, I kind of suspect that he had to rehearse every class lecture the night before.
Reading through this thread makes me appreciate the UK a whole lot more.
The thought of health insurance and loss of the NHS would literally terrify me.
Out of curiosity. Since insurance generally has to be renewed. What happens to those on long term health problems or learning difficulties (or both like my daughter) when that renewal is up? Do the insurance companies ramp up the price of their renewal to nigh impossible levels, refuse insurance and in that case what happens then? Are their subsidies for the long term sick if insurance won't touch them and would it impact on their treatment, such as organ donation preference to insured patients etc?
I'm intrigued as health insurance and life without an NHS is pretty much an alien concept for me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Ian a Brit despite what my little flag says. For some reason it keeps on insisting I'm American.
When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) was being debated, proponents were accused of saddling Americans with inferior and expensive health care while keeping generous coverage for themselves at taxpayer expense. To rebut that allegation and build confidence in the bill, a provision was added mandating that members of Congress – and their staff members – get there coverage through the new exchange system the bill set up. Now that the time to sign up for exchange coverage is nearing, a Democratic member, Rep. John Larson (D., Conn.), is saying that “this is simply not fair” – as key staff members head for the exits to avoid Obamacare.
When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) was being debated, proponents were accused of saddling Americans with inferior and expensive health care while keeping generous coverage for themselves at taxpayer expense. To rebut that allegation and build confidence in the bill, a provision was added mandating that members of Congress – and their staff members – get there coverage through the new exchange system the bill set up. Now that the time to sign up for exchange coverage is nearing, a Democratic member, Rep. John Larson (D., Conn.), is saying that “this is simply not fair” – as key staff members head for the exits to avoid Obamacare.
The irony? The man voted for it.
I don't think words exist to express how little sympathy I have for Rep. Larson. Looks like it's good enough for the little people, but not good enough for the chattering class.
Maybe next time he'll read a Bill before he votes on it.
Eetion wrote: Reading through this thread makes me appreciate the UK a whole lot more.
Cheers... glad you feel that way.
The thought of health insurance and loss of the NHS would literally terrify me.
NHS ain't going no where... But, ya'll do pay for it via taxes. I'd be interested to see what's the true cost of NHS operation.
Out of curiosity. Since insurance generally has to be renewed.
Correct, most employer based plans are part of your compensation package.
What happens to those on long term health problems or learning difficulties (or both like my daughter) when that renewal is up?
Nothing... your rates are generally what tier you'd want (Bronze, Silver and Gold) and the differences between those threes are generally co-pays rates.
Do the insurance companies ramp up the price of their renewal to nigh impossible levels, refuse insurance and in that case what happens then?
Pre-Obamacare. It's possible that insurance can drop you if you were discovered to have expensive "Pre-existing" conditions. Generally, these are coditions whereby you'd qualify for state/federal insurance (medicare/medicaid). It's just that private insurance are generally better than the state/federal ran plans.
Another way (pre-Obamacare), the insurance would have a "lifetime benefit amount"... which is generally rare to reach that figure. You'd have to have multiple heart surgery or be a transplant receipiant to reach that figure. Even then, it's rare you'd reach that because your condition would likely qualify you for state/federal insurance.
Both of those are now illegal due to Obamacare laws (these are the good things in that act). It does drive up overall costs, but most folks aren't complaining about that.
Are their subsidies for the long term sick if insurance won't touch them and would it impact on their treatment, such as organ donation preference to insured patients etc?
Yup... Medicare/Medicaid covers those folks.
I'm intrigued as health insurance and life without an NHS is pretty much an alien concept for me.
It's not the wild west that many non-American mistake it for... there are MANY government assitance programs to help those in need.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Ian a Brit despite what my little flag says. For some reason it keeps on insisting I'm American.
Maybe Dakka is trying to tell you something.
Better yet, just ask the Brits who immigrated here like MGS and DreadClaw.
Just realize, healthcare here is different. Not necessarily bad or worst.
When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) was being debated, proponents were accused of saddling Americans with inferior and expensive health care while keeping generous coverage for themselves at taxpayer expense. To rebut that allegation and build confidence in the bill, a provision was added mandating that members of Congress – and their staff members – get there coverage through the new exchange system the bill set up. Now that the time to sign up for exchange coverage is nearing, a Democratic member, Rep. John Larson (D., Conn.), is saying that “this is simply not fair” – as key staff members head for the exits to avoid Obamacare.
The irony? The man voted for it.
The irony there is delicious. This act is "exhibit A" of why "Large Comprehensive" laws is a bad idea. Just pass each things on it's own merits (ie, prevent insurance from dropping pre-existing condition folks, abolish the lifetime limits, etc...).
Ah yes, while we get half %$#@ measures, our friends and allies the world over have single payer health care which while it means taxes are used to cover you and your neighbors etc, it
A) Frees up small and large companies from having to spend more than their tax dollars.
B) makes sure that no one worries whether or not they have somewhere to go for health issues\
C) Ensures that ER's are not used in place of doctor visits by the poor, in which case the hospitals pass the costs to the Insurance companies who in turn, pass it onto their premium payers in higher premium hikes to cover the costs of taking care of the poor, so those crying about "Socialism" here are in fact being secretly "socialized" by your insurance company anyway, at least with single payer coverage it will be honest and out in the open. That and as was in a Frontline episode on medicine, if you want more or better coverage, the private medical insurance companies will be there as long as you pay for it above what basic coverage will do for you.
I don't think words exist to express how little sympathy I have for Rep. Larson. Looks like it's good enough for the little people, but not good enough for the chattering class.
Maybe next time he'll read a Bill before he votes on it.
You do realize that due to how wordy bills are, how big some of them get, and how many of them get pushed in front of representatives at a time, almost none of the representatives read any of them (Except the one paragraph they are asked to vote on) just to shuffle it through, right?
It's a system of (Hyperbolically speaking)
Rep asking another rep/ person they trust who read parts of it: "What does this bill do?"
That person: "Free ice cream for all people in congress."
Rep: "Sweet, signed!"
*Rep signs bill that increases tax on dairy products*
And remember, no one even knew what Obamacare did, even after voting for it.
I don't think words exist to express how little sympathy I have for Rep. Larson. Looks like it's good enough for the little people, but not good enough for the chattering class.
Maybe next time he'll read a Bill before he votes on it.
You do realize that due to how wordy bills are, how big some of them get, and how many of them get pushed in front of representatives at a time, almost none of the representatives read any of them (Except the one paragraph they are asked to vote on) just to shuffle it through, right?
It's a system of (Hyperbolically speaking)
Rep asking another rep/ person they trust who read parts of it: "What does this bill do?"
That person: "Free ice cream for all people in congress."
Rep: "Sweet, signed!"
*Rep signs bill that increases tax on dairy products*
And remember, no one even knew what Obamacare did, even after voting for it.
Then those representative should be thrown out of office.
IT'S. THEIR. JOB. TO. READ. THE. fething. BILL.
The ACA Bill is a stain on their record. The D's got spanked in 2010... I'm curious how it's going to go for them in 2014.
I don't think words exist to express how little sympathy I have for Rep. Larson. Looks like it's good enough for the little people, but not good enough for the chattering class.
Maybe next time he'll read a Bill before he votes on it.
You do realize that due to how wordy bills are, how big some of them get, and how many of them get pushed in front of representatives at a time, almost none of the representatives read any of them (Except the one paragraph they are asked to vote on) just to shuffle it through, right?
It's a system of (Hyperbolically speaking)
Rep asking another rep/ person they trust who read parts of it: "What does this bill do?"
That person: "Free ice cream for all people in congress."
Rep: "Sweet, signed!"
*Rep signs bill that increases tax on dairy products*
And remember, no one even knew what Obamacare did, even after voting for it.
Wait....what?
seem to remember a recent discussion on the gun laws here that the law was rejected because of the small print that many people disagreed with or rejected element of it.
So the gun legislation is given a fine tooth comb but major health care reforms aren't?
I would hope that kind of negligence isn't commonplace in government.
whembly wrote:The ACA Bill is a stain on their record. The D's got spanked in 2010... I'm curious how it's going to go for them in 2014.
About the same.
I'm not so sure... if that's the case, then the (R)s would overtake the Senate. *shrugs* I wouldn't bet on it. I can see it happen on '16 though once most of ACA is implemented.
I don't think words exist to express how little sympathy I have for Rep. Larson. Looks like it's good enough for the little people, but not good enough for the chattering class.
Maybe next time he'll read a Bill before he votes on it.
You do realize that due to how wordy bills are, how big some of them get, and how many of them get pushed in front of representatives at a time, almost none of the representatives read any of them (Except the one paragraph they are asked to vote on) just to shuffle it through, right?
It's a system of (Hyperbolically speaking)
Rep asking another rep/ person they trust who read parts of it: "What does this bill do?"
That person: "Free ice cream for all people in congress."
Rep: "Sweet, signed!"
*Rep signs bill that increases tax on dairy products*
And remember, no one even knew what Obamacare did, even after voting for it.
Then those representative should be thrown out of office.
IT'S. THEIR. JOB. TO. READ. THE. fething. BILL.
The ACA Bill is a stain on their record. The D's got spanked in 2010... I'm curious how it's going to go for them in 2014.
Agreed, but to change this, you would have to change how politicians see things; if they can slip one sentence in that says something beneficial for them, they will. That's why most bills are way longer than five pages; Make something one page, everyone can read it. Make something fifty pages, and no one "has the time" to read the entire thing, so you might be able to sneak a paragraph or two in that changes the nature of the bill entirely, to be "noticed" long after the bill is signed. It's not the person proposing the bill's fault they didn't read the fine print, anyway.
Now imagine having the 300-odd congressmen, the Senate, the state governors, the state "congresses" (I really don't know what they are actually called), and the president's cabinet sending you bills, along with your constituents sending letters and e-mails about their concerns over certain bills/laws, and you can quickly imagine the reading material piling up. It's too much for any one person to read and keep up with on a timely schedule.
I don't think words exist to express how little sympathy I have for Rep. Larson. Looks like it's good enough for the little people, but not good enough for the chattering class.
Maybe next time he'll read a Bill before he votes on it.
You do realize that due to how wordy bills are, how big some of them get, and how many of them get pushed in front of representatives at a time, almost none of the representatives read any of them (Except the one paragraph they are asked to vote on) just to shuffle it through, right?
It's a system of (Hyperbolically speaking)
Rep asking another rep/ person they trust who read parts of it: "What does this bill do?"
That person: "Free ice cream for all people in congress."
Rep: "Sweet, signed!"
*Rep signs bill that increases tax on dairy products*
And remember, no one even knew what Obamacare did, even after voting for it.
Wait....what?
seem to remember a recent discussion on the gun laws here that the law was rejected because of the small print that many people disagreed with or rejected element of it.
So the gun legislation is given a fine tooth comb but major health care reforms aren't?
I would hope that kind of negligence isn't commonplace in government.
Sometimes you get caught, sometimes you don't.
Sometimes you have a mole/spy/whatever in the other guys corner reading bills for him and telling him to vote in your favor.
Agreed, but to change this, you would have to change how politicians see things; if they can slip one sentence in that says something beneficial for them, they will. That's why most bills are way longer than five pages; Make something one page, everyone can read it. Make something fifty pages, and no one "has the time" to read the entire thing, so you might be able to sneak a paragraph or two in that changes the nature of the bill entirely, to be "noticed" long after the bill is signed. It's not the person proposing the bill's fault they didn't read the fine print, anyway.
Now imagine having the 300-odd congressmen, the Senate, the state governors, the state "congresses" (I really don't know what they are actually called), and the president's cabinet sending you bills, along with your constituents sending letters and e-mails about their concerns over certain bills/laws, and you can quickly imagine the reading material piling up. It's too much for any one person to read and keep up with on a timely schedule.
Being too busy or that Bill's text is too much is no excuse for NOT reading said bill prior to voting.
I have no sympathy in this regard... they have to job to do... do it well.
whembly wrote:The ACA Bill is a stain on their record. The D's got spanked in 2010... I'm curious how it's going to go for them in 2014.
About the same.
I'm not so sure... if that's the case, then the (R)s would overtake the Senate. *shrugs* I wouldn't bet on it. I can see it happen on '16 though once most of ACA is implemented.
I think you're kidding yourself. Once the full ACA is implemented, the GOP has no chance of taking it away, and anyone who tries will get voted out of office. That's one of the reasons the GOP has tried to avoid implementing it at all costs: once someone has health care, god help you if you're the politician that tries to strip them of it.
whembly wrote:The ACA Bill is a stain on their record. The D's got spanked in 2010... I'm curious how it's going to go for them in 2014.
About the same.
I'm not so sure... if that's the case, then the (R)s would overtake the Senate. *shrugs* I wouldn't bet on it. I can see it happen on '16 though once most of ACA is implemented.
I think you're kidding yourself. Once the full ACA is implemented, the GOP has no chance of taking it away, and anyone who tries will get voted out of office. That's one of the reasons the GOP has tried to avoid implementing it at all costs: once someone has health care, god help you if you're the politician that tries to strip them of it.
If it's implemented and still a gak sandwich... It'll get modified/repealed. Bank it brah!
djones520 wrote: Raising the minimum wage doesn't do anyone any good. All of a sudden your taking more money from the people providing the jobs. When their margin gets smaller, they have to pass it on, especially if their margin is already small.
You can't just wave a wand and make more money appear for businesses to give to people.
Minimum wage doesn't work that way. Economics doesn't work that way.
I mean, for starters, the idea that business will 'pass on' the minimum wage cost in full is just gobbledigook. Businesses will charge what that can charge, that is not only how it is, it is how it supposed to be. What limits how much they can charge is the reality that they exist in a competitive market - people will move to other products if the company charges too much. None of that changes when there's an increase in minimum wage. Instead you'll see some portion of the cost get passed on in higher prices, and much of the increased cost just get absorbed in to the company through lower profits.
Which means a minimum wage means the employee gets an extra dollar, and consumers as a whole pay some portion, let's say 50c, while employers pay another 50c. When the minimum wage is as woefully low as it is in the US, this is a good thing.
And lastly, the business isn't 'providing the job'. There is nothing magical about a business. It exists because there is a demand for a product. If it did not exist, another business would move in to supply that demand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: I'll get on board with this when you can explain to me why a burger flipper at Burger King is entitled to a "reasonable" life.
Because he's a human being and we, as a society, have decided we aren't complete donkey-caves.
It increases costs for employers, including many wages that are not minimum wage but have automatic increases if the minimum is raised. These costs are then passed on to the customers, who are the same people that just had their wages raised, so in reality it changes the numbers and nothing else. The standard of living is not increased.
Your theory only works if everyone in society is on minimum wage, and the only cost to production is wages. As that isn't true, your theory is junk.
Here's how it actually works;
You have some portion of the population on minimum wage, let's say 5%. You increase the minimum wage by some amount, let's say 12.5%, from $8 to $9. And let's say 60% of the cost of production is in wages. And for simplicity's sake we'll assume the whole of the cost increase is passed on to consumers.
This means that minimum wage increase will lead to an increase in the price of goods by 0.375% (12.5% * 60% * 5%).
For the 5% of people who are on the minimum wage, they have a pay increase of 12.5%, which is slightly offset by a rise in costs of 0.375%, for an overall increase in living standards of 12.08%.
For the 95% earning over the minimum wage, they see a rise in the cost of goods of 3.75%.
Overall, it's a zero sum game, but given how much more of a difference money makes when you have very little compared to when you have a lot, the end result is a pretty clear gain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Plus many skilled Union Jobs would be more expensive... as much of their hourly rates are contractually tied to what the state's minimum wage.
So, raising the minimum wage isn't the simple answer.
No. Raising the minimum wage is both the easiest and best answer to one specific problem in the US - the issue of the working poor.
It doesn't answer anything to do with Obamacare (I don't really know why it was raised at all to be honest).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: And what makes you valuable enough to keep around as a burger flipper? There are plenty of others that will work your job for the same pay. An unskilled teenager can do it and we've got those coming out of our ears.
Flipping burgers is not a job that is worth full benefits. Hard work or not, its unskilled labor that doesn't have a supply shortage.
'Worth full benefits' of course meaning 'entitled to health care insurance that will cover their costs when they get sick'.
All of which, ultimately, boils down to your opinion on whether or not an individual is worthy is just a load of irrelevant bs. There needs to be a system in which that person's healthcare is paid, because if that person gets sick society won't and in fact can't deny treatment. If the company doesn't pay, then that person likely gets medicaid. Which means you're paying anyway, just through higher taxes rather than through a more expensive hamburger. And if they slip through the cracks of medicaid and aren't covered, well then they default on their hospital bill, and you end up paying anyway when the hospital recoups those costs through higher bills on everyone else.
I mean, this is where the I got mine you can go and get fethed Mr Minimum wage worker theory isn't just odious in terms of its morals, its also just fething stupid. The poor have medical costs, just like everyone else. And because you're moral enough not to deny coverage, they still get treated. Inventing whackjob rationals for why their healthcare shouldn't cost money doesn't make their healthcare cost society any less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: What he said, it's the supply vs demand argument. There is no shortage of supply of unskilled labor, so it's going to be worth less.
Quite frankly, I scoff at the idea that unskilled laborer should be paid on an equivalent scale of what I make.
And I scoff at the nonsense idea that's slipped in to the kind of populist economics that sites like Dakka like to indulge in that what you earn is what you're 'worth'? Just, fething hell, it doesn't work that way. It was never meant to.
The market is a great system because it's efficient, and effective at assigning resources according to the overall needs of society. But the idea that what you're paid is what your're worth is just so fething stupid. I mean, go and look and see what a nurse gets paid. Then compare their pay to what some fuckhead running a herbal medicine store clears in a year.
The market is a great system, but it is a rough and ready system, and a long way from perfect. The idea that it perfectly defines what a person's labour is worth is utter, utter junk.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: While insurance is pretty fethed up right now, do you really think the government will change anything if they were in charge?
The government has to think about money too. If they're in charge of insurance they may also deny coverage based on prior history. Or even worse, simply string you along in waiting lines hoping you die before its your turn.
It just changes who's the face at the top.
Living in a country with government provided health insurance with an optional private system, all I can do is tell you your description above is so far from reality that it beggars belief.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: SO...when Obamacare goes full bore......the US crashes?
If we believe people who keep making those claims. But believing them would mean believing a group of people's who's record basically consists of playing chicken little everytime a piece of major reform is put in place... and given the US isn't a Mad Max wasteland, I'm inclined to believe those people are basically a collection of liars and lunatics that no-one should listen to at all.
I mean, did anyone other than me get a fit of giggles when Liz Cheney's quoted Reagan's famous warning about Medicare?
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it and then hand it to them with the well-taught lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don’t do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free."
That was from 1961 and he was talking about Medicare. That was installed, and then proceded to help provide necessary medical care to people without ever turning the US in to a socialist dystopia.
And here's Time magazine talking about the imminent demise of Medicaid in 1969;
"In theory, the four-year-old Medicaid program gives states what amounts to a blank check from the U.S. Treasury. In practice, the program—designed to finance medical care for the needy—has proved to be a tremendous drain on state treasuries as well. Even though federal handouts cover at least 50% of the costs, several leading Medicaid states —including New York, California and Michigan—have been forced to slash aid to their “medically indigent” because the runaway rise in hospital, drug and doctors’ bills threatened to engulf their budgets in red ink. Now Medicaid’s first state dropout has taken place."
And now there's Obamacare, and we're assured that this time the sky really is falling.
What is lost in these sort of discussions is that we are talking about human beings. Being human, they deserve a liveable wage.
Not to mention, raising the minimum wage is good for the economy. People with lower income spend a lot more of their money on stuff, which leads to more money for more people that spend it on stuff...It all feeds itself and improves the economy.
This is not true with the people with the higher incomes. They tend to save their money and not spend it. This hurts the economy as the money doesn't circulate and then stagnates.
All the people saying that minimum wages jobs aren't doing work worth increasing it, then you also need to look at the worth of the people at the top. No way is the CEO of the company doing more than 25 times the worth of work as the burger-flipper, and should be compensated appropriately (this includes benefits, stock options, bonuses, etc).
skyth wrote: What is lost in these sort of discussions is that we are talking about human beings. Being human, they deserve a liveable wage.
Not to mention, raising the minimum wage is good for the economy. People with lower income spend a lot more of their money on stuff, which leads to more money for more people that spend it on stuff...It all feeds itself and improves the economy.
This is not true with the people with the higher incomes. They tend to save their money and not spend it. This hurts the economy as the money doesn't circulate and then stagnates.
All the people saying that minimum wages jobs aren't doing work worth increasing it, then you also need to look at the worth of the people at the top. No way is the CEO of the company doing more than 25 times the worth of work as the burger-flipper, and should be compensated appropriately (this includes benefits, stock options, bonuses, etc).
But raising minimum wage only helps if the cost of good stays the same, if those costs go up in relation to minimum wage (or minimum wage rises to meet those costs) then we're not really getting anywhere are we?
skyth wrote: What is lost in these sort of discussions is that we are talking about human beings. Being human, they deserve a liveable wage.
No no one deserves anything, except to get out of my way.
Not to mention, raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.
No actually.
People with lower income spend a lot more of their money on stuff, which leads to more money for more people that spend it on stuff...It all feeds itself and improves the economy.
Your graps of economics is staggering.
This is not true with the people with the higher incomes. They tend to save their money and not spend it. This hurts the economy as the money doesn't circulate and then stagnates.
Saving bad. Spending good. I bet you voted for Obama didn't you, or can you vote yet?
All the people saying that minimum wages jobs aren't doing work worth increasing it, then you also need to look at the worth of the people at the top.
Don't worry they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
No way is the CEO of the company doing more than 25 times the worth of work as the burger-flipper, and should be compensated appropriately (this includes benefits, stock options, bonuses, etc).
Ok, so since minimum wage took off instead of wtf I was talking about:
My team makes $10/hr working from home, which is good money for an entry level job, even more so for one you don't have to get out of bed for.
Most of my employees are either students who take night classes, or have spouses with better income. In both cases, they don't NEED health benefits since they already have coverage(I think 1 of my team isn't insured, not 100% on it thought). What they DO need are more hours, and more money. But I can't give it to them(as much as I would) because the risk of them needing company coverage is too high an increase in their cost(25-33%).
So now in 2014, those same people who don't want/need coverage from my company get their hours reduced because the limit is dropping rather significantly, meaning they each have less money, and I'll have to hire someone to make up the hours, which in turn makes my job busier since it's another person to manage and train.
Even if you make $24/hr, there should be some manner of opting out of benefits and being able to work full time with the understanding that benefits cannot/will not be offered for the position at any point.
There will never be a time when my team gets health coverage from the company, simple as that, the cost is too high. They can get more hours though, and now those hours are being dictated by the government.
My company is not very big(about 75 people), we don't get any massive savings on our health coverage premiums.
It's a POS bill unfortunately. It's also what the American people voted for. I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I voted against it, and I can't be affected by it, so I say let America feel it's tender mercies for a little while. Feel the consequences of buying into the BS that they took hook line and sinker.
whembly wrote: Plus many skilled Union Jobs would be more expensive... as much of their hourly rates are contractually tied to what the state's minimum wage.
So, raising the minimum wage isn't the simple answer.
No. Raising the minimum wage is both the easiest and best answer to one specific problem in the US - the issue of the working poor.
Most UNION collective bargained agreement stipulates that if the state/federal minimum wage rises, then the Union rates rises as well. That's why you see UNION involvement whenever this get kicked around.
It doesn't answer anything to do with Obamacare (I don't really know why it was raised at all to be honest).
Someone brought up minimum wage in this tread... *shrug*
This is not true with the people with the higher incomes. They tend to save their money and not spend it. This hurts the economy as the money doesn't circulate and then stagnates.
Saving bad. Spending good. I bet you voted for Obama didn't you, or can you vote yet?
Needing to resort to a personal attack shows your argument's lack of merit, but as far as macro economics is concerned, saving too much IS bad.
No way is the CEO of the company doing more than 25 times the worth of work as the burger-flipper, and should be compensated appropriately (this includes benefits, stock options, bonuses, etc).
25? This isn't Japan. Think 800x.
Japan or the US doesn't matter. Nothing the executives do make them deserving of such a disproportionate compensation as compared to the workers, and that right there is what is killing the economy.
Alfndrate wrote: But raising minimum wage only helps if the cost of good stays the same, if those costs go up in relation to minimum wage (or minimum wage rises to meet those costs) then we're not really getting anywhere are we?
But goods don't raise in price equal to the increase in minimum wage. As I already said, that would only be the case if the only cost to every good was wages, and every single person in the economy was on the minimum wage.
To repost the maths explaining this;
"You have some portion of the population on minimum wage, let's say 5%. You increase the minimum wage by some amount, let's say 12.5%, from $8 to $9. And let's say 60% of the cost of production is in wages. And for simplicity's sake we'll assume the whole of the cost increase is passed on to consumers.
This means that minimum wage increase will lead to an increase in the price of goods by 0.375% (12.5% * 60% * 5%).
For the 5% of people who are on the minimum wage, they have a pay increase of 12.5%, which is slightly offset by a rise in costs of 0.375%, for an overall increase in living standards of 12.08%.
For the 95% earning over the minimum wage, they see a rise in the cost of goods of 3.75%."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote: The minimum wage is not actually very good, guys. From one liberal to another, please stop talking about it like it's super positive.
You're wrong. The pure economic benefits of the minimum wage are immense, even before you worry about all that social fairness stuff.
Simply put, with a decent minimum wage you make a significent dent in to the problems of the poverty trap. When a person earns $3 or $4 an hour, then just to make ends meet he has to work a second job. Any hope of spending time away from work studying massively drops away. And all that work is just to keep a roof over your head, any hope of saving to get a little money behind you. The effect on social mobility is massive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Most UNION collective bargained agreement stipulates that if the state/federal minimum wage rises, then the Union rates rises as well. That's why you see UNION involvement whenever this get kicked around.
Yeah, I know, but ultimately that's an argument against unions, not an argument to keep making life really hard for people who are actually on the minimum wage.
Someone brought up minimum wage in this tread... *shrug*
Yeah, I know. I saw it happen, didn't really follow the logic of how it related to Obamacare so I didn't say anything. And then when I got suckered in to debating minimum wage, I thought I'd just mention it in passing. I wasn't personally questioning you on the issue or anything like that, sorry I didn't make that clear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Needing to resort to a personal attack shows your argument's lack of merit, but as far as macro economics is concerned, saving too much IS bad.
Sort of, but not really. Saving is bad in certain, specific, acute situations. ie Saving right now is bad now, because of the GFC you have a situation where too many people are saving too much, and even at interest rates near zero people aren't saving enough.
In general though, savings are good because they provide the funds for investment. Rather than being a dollar not spent, it is instead a dollar left at the bank, which is then loaned to an investor, who spends it on capital, which not only has the same immediate stimulus as consumer spending, it has the added advantage of increasing economic capacity long term.
Japan or the US doesn't matter. Nothing the executives do make them deserving of such a disproportionate compensation as compared to the workers, and that right there is what is killing the economy.
I agree that the rates of pay at the top are too high. But it isn't killing the economy, that's just a political argument of convenience with really no economic numbers behind it to substantiate it.
But goods don't raise in price equal to the increase in minimum wage. As I already said, that would only be the case if the only cost to every good was wages, and every single person in the economy was on the minimum wage.
To repost the maths explaining this;
"You have some portion of the population on minimum wage, let's say 5%. You increase the minimum wage by some amount, let's say 12.5%, from $8 to $9. And let's say 60% of the cost of production is in wages. And for simplicity's sake we'll assume the whole of the cost increase is passed on to consumers.
This means that minimum wage increase will lead to an increase in the price of goods by 0.375% (12.5% * 60% * 5%).
For the 5% of people who are on the minimum wage, they have a pay increase of 12.5%, which is slightly offset by a rise in costs of 0.375%, for an overall increase in living standards of 12.08%.
For the 95% earning over the minimum wage, they see a rise in the cost of goods of 3.75%."
But wouldn't real-world prices sidestep that, and increase to optimum price, i.e. what the market will bear?
djones520 wrote: It's a POS bill unfortunately. It's also what the American people voted for. I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I voted against it, and I can't be affected by it, so I say let America feel it's tender mercies for a little while. Feel the consequences of buying into the BS that they took hook line and sinker.
so far the results have been devastating, the cost of health care has dropped for the first time in 40 years
djones520 wrote: It's a POS bill unfortunately. It's also what the American people voted for. I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I voted against it, and I can't be affected by it, so I say let America feel it's tender mercies for a little while. Feel the consequences of buying into the BS that they took hook line and sinker.
so far the results have been devastating, the cost of health care has dropped for the first time in 40 years
No they haven't. Their rate of growth has slown, but they are still climbing. 6.3% this year, expected to be between 6.5 and 7.5% next year if we're lucky and some of the harsher forecasts of Obamacare aren't the truth. There are predictions out there that we'll see a 37% rise in price in 2017.
djones520 wrote: It's a POS bill unfortunately. It's also what the American people voted for. I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I voted against it, and I can't be affected by it, so I say let America feel it's tender mercies for a little while. Feel the consequences of buying into the BS that they took hook line and sinker.
so far the results have been devastating, the cost of health care has dropped for the first time in 40 years
No they haven't. Their rate of growth has slown, but they are still climbing. 6.3% this year, expected to be between 6.5 and 7.5% next year if we're lucky and some of the harsher forecasts of Obamacare aren't the truth.
djones520 wrote: It's a POS bill unfortunately. It's also what the American people voted for. I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I voted against it, and I can't be affected by it, so I say let America feel it's tender mercies for a little while. Feel the consequences of buying into the BS that they took hook line and sinker.
so far the results have been devastating, the cost of health care has dropped for the first time in 40 years
You must be living on a different planet then the rest of the United States.
djones520 wrote: It's a POS bill unfortunately. It's also what the American people voted for. I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I voted against it, and I can't be affected by it, so I say let America feel it's tender mercies for a little while. Feel the consequences of buying into the BS that they took hook line and sinker.
so far the results have been devastating, the cost of health care has dropped for the first time in 40 years
No they haven't. Their rate of growth has slown, but they are still climbing. 6.3% this year, expected to be between 6.5 and 7.5% next year if we're lucky and some of the harsher forecasts of Obamacare aren't the truth.
cost, not rate of growth, thanks
Are you dense? Costs have risen by that amount. They raise every year. The amount that they raise by has slown, but the COSTS KEEP RAISING.
djones520 wrote: It's a POS bill unfortunately. It's also what the American people voted for. I feel a bit bad for saying this, but I voted against it, and I can't be affected by it, so I say let America feel it's tender mercies for a little while. Feel the consequences of buying into the BS that they took hook line and sinker.
so far the results have been devastating, the cost of health care has dropped for the first time in 40 years
No they haven't. Their rate of growth has slown, but they are still climbing. 6.3% this year, expected to be between 6.5 and 7.5% next year if we're lucky and some of the harsher forecasts of Obamacare aren't the truth.
cost, not rate of growth, thanks
Are you dense? Costs have risen by that amount. They raise every year. The amount that they raise by has slown, but the COSTS KEEP RAISING.
I would like to see a source, because my medical insurance went up in the past several months...
Thats your insurance raising prices in anticipation for, I dont know, the sun rising? do they need a real reason? I said healthcare cost, which does directly effect insurance prices, but isn't the only factor.
"Hey is it cold outside?"
"ITS HUMID!"
"... thats sort of related to what I was saying...."
Automatically Appended Next Post: also DJ, that report is 8 months old
I can't speak on rates increasing as I had state benefits until this year.
I do know that $760/month out of pocket is a ton of money for a family of 4 with an income of only $60k/yr and the rent that I have.
Hell my rent eats up 50% of my take home income alone because of the area I live in.
As it stands, I don't make enough money to provide healthcare for my whole family and not starve. I can afford it for the kids, but the extra $400 is our grocery money, so the wife is SOL if she loses her job.
I would like to see a source, because my medical insurance went up in the past several months...
Thats your insurance raising prices in anticipation for, I dont know, the sun rising? do they need a real reason? I said healthcare cost, which does directly effect insurance prices, but isn't the only factor.
"Hey is it cold outside?"
"ITS HUMID!"
"... thats sort of related to what I was saying...."
Automatically Appended Next Post: also DJ, that report is 8 months old
I noticed you didn't actually respond with the requested data support. I'm sensing full of it, you are.
I would like to see a source, because my medical insurance went up in the past several months...
Thats your insurance raising prices in anticipation for, I dont know, the sun rising? do they need a real reason? I said healthcare cost, which does directly effect insurance prices, but isn't the only factor.
"Hey is it cold outside?"
"ITS HUMID!"
"... thats sort of related to what I was saying...."
Automatically Appended Next Post: also DJ, that report is 8 months old
I noticed you didn't actually respond with the requested data support. I'm sensing full of it, you are.
Don't you guys own cars? what something costs, and what you will pay for them are /very/ different things
I work for a company that distributes drugs, our profit margins are what you may consider madness, and it all comes out of your insurance money (well, most of it) and there are various controls in place to keep drug prices from dropping that everyone in the industry does.
From your quoted WSJ report (note the key word "increased")
Compared with a year earlier, the medical prices index increased 2.2%. That’s higher than the overall 1.4% gain in consumer prices but still the slowest annual expansion since the 1970s.
The Labor Department’s index only intends to measure consumers’ out-of-pocket costs, but as a huge buyer of medical care the government can influence prices more broadly.
Grundz... the reality was that the ACA act (Affordable Care Act) was sold to the public that it'll drive down healthcare cost. It's not driving down anything....
That's the issue.
Had they NOT done that... that is, had they just said "hey, you'll be getting these Extra amenities/protection" instead of say "it'll definately make healthcare more affordable, I don't think we'd be having anywhere near the acrimonious debates of the ACA act.
Grundz... the reality was that the ACA act (Affordable Care Act) was sold to the public that it'll drive down healthcare cost. It's not driving down anything....
That's the issue.
Had they NOT done that... that is, had they just said "hey, you'll be getting these Extra amenities/protection" instead of say "it'll definately make healthcare more affordable, I don't think we'd be having anywhere near the acrimonious debates of the ACA act.
As it still hasn't been implemented yet, it still hasn't been proven to not do xyz.
It'll turn into the same thing as wealth inequality honestly, ACA sets up its own insurance program which is at a level that the market can support, ideally private insurance can provide better/cheaper service, or they can just not do that and keep all the money for themselves using the uncertainty ACA has presented as an excuse to jack up rates (which is what they've done). Lets put it this way, insurance companies all raise their rates because of market uncertainty (they say) this in turn makes ACA look bad, which also serves as helping destroy ACA that will damage them in the long run, its a win/win
The healthcare industry has pretty much the ideal situation right now, they have a product you absolutely cannot live without, and can charge anything they want for it, and they will get their money for it anyway through insurance (generally) Imagine if you will being a distributor, and relying not on volume, but on a 300+% markup, before it gets to the store to sell it, and you have my business, we even pay next day shipping on every box that goes out the door, for free, because our margins are so silly that fedex/ups next day service is a pittance.
So what you are saying is that drug companies should have a far shorter lifespan on drug patents, so that generics come out faster and cheaper, therefore insurance rates will drop?
AFAIK hospitals use mostly generic meds for everyday cases already. So the real issue would be prescriptions at home. I know Prozac in it's heyday was something like $90 per pill, and have seen Percocet and other's go for near that until insurance kicks in.
I know that Lexapro was $200/month not long ago.
So if Obamacare really wanted to lower insurance rates, which you are asserting are based off drug prices, then the ACA should have put caps in place on those prices, or severely reduced the length of patent protection for them.
The problem is that (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) drug companies are able to extend the patent on a product if they can find some new medical benefit to the product correct? I think this has happened with cialis and a few other drugs like it.
Alfndrate wrote: The problem is that (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) drug companies are able to extend the patent on a product if they can find some new medical benefit to the product correct? I think this has happened with cialis and a few other drugs like it.
No, the current patent during for pharmaceuticals are okay (I believe it's 7 years). The PROBLEM is that many companies would try to reformulate existing patents with other components that are clinically insignificant. See here...
What's driving up costs is more than just drugs... it's things like:
-FDA constantly changing the rules
-Government intervention
-For-profit insurance markets
-Tort laws
-Medial Malpractice markets
-Low unemployments
-and on, and on...
EDIT:
The bill is just a gak sandwich... there's all kinds of silly, stupid gak they incorporated in these types of "comprehensive" massive bills. I'm mean, look at the current shenanigans with the proposed immigration reform... Amendment Would Give Amnesty/Legal Status to Any Would-Be Immigrant Displaced by 'Climate Change'. It's things like these that these congress-critters think we're idiots.
Selection for the panel still not happening......sucker going to bomb from the get go. Since we're about to stop borrowing money for OEF soon we can pick up the slack from there
daedalus wrote: But wouldn't real-world prices sidestep that, and increase to optimum price, i.e. what the market will bear?
That is what the new optimum price would be*, as it factors in the increase in the cost of production from the increase in minimum wage. Because it represented the actual price increase you'd see across goods in the market. Look at my calculations again, and keep in mind that wages are only one portion of the cost of production, and minimum wage workers are only a portion of the overall workforce.
*Assuming perfectly inelastic demand, which is rare, but a good enough simplification for this discussion. The actual price rise would be somewhere between 0% and 3.75%
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: No they haven't. Their rate of growth has slown, but they are still climbing. 6.3% this year, expected to be between 6.5 and 7.5% next year if we're lucky and some of the harsher forecasts of Obamacare aren't the truth. There are predictions out there that we'll see a 37% rise in price in 2017.
Long term budget projections by the CBO are improving for the first time in decades, and its entirely driven by the reduction in healthcare costs in the long term, which is driven by the Obamacare reforms.
Seb... part of the reason why the CBO say that is because the FEDS arbitrarily cut the reimbursement amount to the providers. That is sending some serious shockwaves to the providers and it's getting ugly.
And then, there is this... the ACA act was this lifelong Democrat Louisiana State Senator's last straw:
whembly wrote: Grundz... the reality was that the ACA act (Affordable Care Act) was sold to the public that it'll drive down healthcare cost. It's not driving down anything....
That's the issue.
But that's not true. The growth of healthcare spending is reducing. Seriously, look at the CBO estimates. For the first time in a decade you can look at the 2025 projections and not panic.
whembly wrote: Grundz... the reality was that the ACA act (Affordable Care Act) was sold to the public that it'll drive down healthcare cost. It's not driving down anything....
That's the issue.
But that's not true. The growth of healthcare spending is reducing. Seriously, look at the CBO estimates. For the first time in a decade you can look at the 2025 projections and not panic.
You're missing the point.
The act was sold to the American People that it'll make their Healthcare costs more affordable. Now, to the average american voters, what does that really says?
I'll tell you, it means "it'll be cheaper than what you're paying now". That was the politics of this act, which was very misleading. Of course, after the passing, the rate of growth would be lower (remains to be seen).
Tort & malpractice are a very small portion of the market. Bloated compared to elsewhere in the world, I'll grant you, but still a very minor part of the overall picture.
For profit insurance markets I'll grant you, though it isn't the 'for profit' element exactly, but the weird nature of the US healthcare market itself. Basically you have all the issues of for-profit in healthcare (as briefly as possible healthcare is way too complex for the average consumer to make an informed choice, and so exploitation is rife), but added to that, it isn't even the end consumer making the final choice - most insurance is paid for by his employer. The employer doesn't know what each employee wants in his healthcare, who'd be willing to pay more to reduce co-pays etc. With a for profit market (other than the problems of consumers lacking information), for all the problems at least the end result should reflect consumer demands... but because of the screwy structure of US healthcare you don't even have that.
But I don't think that's nearly as big an issue as the basic disfunction in the market - in most cases a patient is charged for each procedure undertaken, not simply for treatment. Consider if you got in a taxi, and instead of being charged for the distance travelled, the driver charged you for every turn, every change of lane, every instance of hitting the brake or the accelerator. You know full well that driver would find the strangest, whackiest way to the destination, that involved as many side streets and lane changes as he could justify. And that, unforunately, is what happens in healthcare. And while out and out exploitation is fairly rare, thanks to the ethics of most people in healthcare, there exists no downward price pressure from the cost of treatments - an MRI that's unecessary is done anyway, because the hospital isn't paying for it, and the end result is an overtreatment of anyone with decent insurance. Which, of course, means decent insurance costs way more than it should.
whembly wrote: Grundz... the reality was that the ACA act (Affordable Care Act) was sold to the public that it'll drive down healthcare cost. It's not driving down anything....
That's the issue.
But that's not true. The growth of healthcare spending is reducing. Seriously, look at the CBO estimates. For the first time in a decade you can look at the 2025 projections and not panic.
Reduced growth means feth all, as it is STILL growth.
The ACA has Affordable in the title, yet unless that bill says in 2 years time that rates will be 50% than they are now, it does nothing. I don't care if the rates keep going up, because I can't afford them now anyway.
The fact that health coverage for a family of 4 is equal to the average rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in which that family likely lives is insane.
The act was sold to the American People that it'll make their Healthcare costs more affordable. Now, to the average american voters, what does that really says?
I'll tell you, it means "it'll be cheaper than what you're paying now". That was the politics of this act, which was very misleading. Of course, after the passing, the rate of growth would be lower (remains to be seen).
See, what you're describing there is the problem of selling a responsible, long term cost control bill to the people. Because all the people ask is 'what's in it for me'. Explaining that it will put a limit on the cost to the country as a whole, and therefore play a major role in ensuring long term budget stability just doesn't register.
Which, along with Democratic cowardice, is why this bill has been sold so poorly to the population.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aerethan wrote: Reduced growth means feth all, as it is STILL growth.
The what? Everything grows. The only sensible questions are whether a thing is growing in line with overall economic growth, and if it is more than that whether that higher growth can be sustained in the long term.
Tort & malpractice are a very small portion of the market. Bloated compared to elsewhere in the world, I'll grant you, but still a very minor part of the overall picture.
For profit insurance markets I'll grant you, though it isn't the 'for profit' element exactly, but the weird nature of the US healthcare market itself. Basically you have all the issues of for-profit in healthcare (as briefly as possible healthcare is way too complex for the average consumer to make an informed choice, and so exploitation is rife), but added to that, it isn't even the end consumer making the final choice - most insurance is paid for by his employer. The employer doesn't know what each employee wants in his healthcare, who'd be willing to pay more to reduce co-pays etc. With a for profit market (other than the problems of consumers lacking information), for all the problems at least the end result should reflect consumer demands... but because of the screwy structure of US healthcare you don't even have that.
But I don't think that's nearly as big an issue as the basic disfunction in the market - in most cases a patient is charged for each procedure undertaken, not simply for treatment. Consider if you got in a taxi, and instead of being charged for the distance travelled, the driver charged you for every turn, every change of lane, every instance of hitting the brake or the accelerator. You know full well that driver would find the strangest, whackiest way to the destination, that involved as many side streets and lane changes as he could justify. And that, unforunately, is what happens in healthcare. And while out and out exploitation is fairly rare, thanks to the ethics of most people in healthcare, there exists no downward price pressure from the cost of treatments - an MRI that's unecessary is done anyway, because the hospital isn't paying for it, and the end result is an overtreatment of anyone with decent insurance. Which, of course, means decent insurance costs way more than it should.
It's actually way more convoluted than that... let me see if I can break it down for you.
I'm going to use "me" as an example of a typical health insurance plan provided by the employer.
A) My employer pays a premium per employee for said plan and offers it to my as part of my compensation.
-Every year, I'm ask to pick from 3 different "plans". THis is misleading as the plan is the same, the only difference is what my CO-PAY would be, and which doctor's group I can select from. Think of it as the BRONZE, SILVER or GOLD plan with that the copays are cheaper the higher you go, but you pay "a little bit more" out of the paycheck depending on how high you go.
B) Regular Doctor's visit... head cold, sprained wrist, essentially non-life threatening ailments, you make an appointment (usually within that week), pay your co-pay (Mine is $25) per visit. Based on that visit's outcome, you may be prescribed with medications (Mine range from free up to $30/perscription) or you'd get referred to a specialist.
C) Going to specialist, is another copay ($30 to $50) per visit and general treatment are usually covered (ie, x-ray, MRI, consultation).
-getting the picture?
D) Let's talk about catastrophic events. I had kidney stones (I have only one left) and I'm telling ya, it's fething brutal. I was driven to nearest emergency room (ED) and the nurse took one look at me and escorted my ass to a room and started pumping me fluid and dilaudid (greatest pain meds eva!). I barely got my name out and allergies before she shot me up. That whole trip with all medications, xray, whathave you costed me $100. The next day, I had surgery to manually remove the stones (I could pass that fether).
Here's the kicker, my insurance pays a flat rate for my diagnosis (Kidney Stones with some renal failure) to that provider. This is part of the problem... there's no transparency in the inner workings how insurances pays to the provider. Some providers negotiates better/cheaper rates for certain insurance... there's a huge "industry" with that and there's no transparent consistency in this process. The only consist thing is that most insurance re-imbursement rates to the providers are set to what Medicare/Medicaid pays.
Essentially, the way to look at it... it's like this. Say you complain about "Chest Pains" and go into the ED. That provider is going to get "x dollars" from either the patient's private insurance or from Medicare (government pays lower usually). It does NOT matter what kind of treatement is done... which meds were given, what labs were done... if the providers pay more in the treatment of the patients than what they recieved, they're SOL (which is extremely common). This is why care providers are purposely "disconnected" from the business side of this whole operation, so that their clinical judgement don't get clouded by how much things costs.
Also, fraud... MOST fraud comes in the form of the provider's administrators CODING the patient's visit to a particular diagnosis. I can't remember the statistic, but most fraud are accidental rather than intential. It's because this whole process is insanely complicated. These codes are what the government/insurances determines the re-imbursement rates to the providers. Case in point, a provider receives less payment for early onset renal diseases than ESRD (end stage renal disease), because generally ESRD treatment are more expensive.
Then you throw in the variation to the population who are able to pay...
Weird medication/supply costs across the industry...
Providors spending more money to maintain compliance to new Regulation (It's called Meaningful Use (MU) in ACA). Providors are spending so much money to qualify for MU that any additional $$$ from the government won't cover it (the expectation was that the providers would get a boon... now, it's looking like a boondogle).
The ACA essentially doubled-down on the CURRENT MODEL.... if the health care model pre-ACA was gakky, it's still going to be gakky moving forward. The CBO doesn't account for future industry changes, so it shouldn't be used as gospel.
Doctor's offices and Hosptials are cutting staff and in some cases shutting down ahead of this.
There's not enough time for the State Exchange to be setup, which REALLY NEEDS to be ready by the end of the year. The providers are the ones who'll get screwed, if the exchange are not setup in time.
In the hospital system that I work for, 58% of the patient's walking through our doors where charity cases... meaning, we didn't get one cent from their visit. It's only going to get worst in the next couple of years. Tell me how an operation can maintain that figure?
Point being, ACA is a gak sandwich...
*shrugs*
My job will be interesting in the next couple of years. o.O
The act was sold to the American People that it'll make their Healthcare costs more affordable. Now, to the average american voters, what does that really says?
I'll tell you, it means "it'll be cheaper than what you're paying now". That was the politics of this act, which was very misleading. Of course, after the passing, the rate of growth would be lower (remains to be seen).
See, what you're describing there is the problem of selling a responsible, long term cost control bill to the people. Because all the people ask is 'what's in it for me'. Explaining that it will put a limit on the cost to the country as a whole, and therefore play a major role in ensuring long term budget stability just doesn't register.
Which, along with Democratic cowardice, is why this bill has been sold so poorly to the population.
Right... now you're seeing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aerethan wrote: Reduced growth means feth all, as it is STILL growth.
The what? Everything grows. The only sensible questions are whether a thing is growing in line with overall economic growth, and if it is more than that whether that higher growth can be sustained in the long term.
whembly wrote: It's actually way more convoluted than that... let me see if I can break it down for you.
I know the system, I've read about in a fair bit of detail.
And yeah, a consumer ending up with a list of three options that only change the co-pays is exactly what I'm talking about - a whole world of insurance options out there, and the end consumer doesn't actually gets to choose anything but the co-pay.
Here's the kicker, my insurance pays a flat rate for my diagnosis (Kidney Stones with some renal failure) to that provider. This is part of the problem... there's no transparency in the inner workings how insurances pays to the provider.
Absolutely. The spaghetti string mess of how stuff gets paid for is another major part of the problem. Not only for the horrendous administration cost of following the money trail through all those people, and also because it makes it really hard to drive economic rationalisation through the system.
Essentially, the way to look at it... it's like this. Say you complain about "Chest Pains" and go into the ED. That provider is going to get "x dollars" from either the patient's private insurance or from Medicare (government pays lower usually). It does NOT matter what kind of treatement is done... which meds were given, what labs were done... if the providers pay more in the treatment of the patients than what they recieved, they're SOL (which is extremely common). This is why care providers are purposely "disconnected" from the business side of this whole operation, so that their clinical judgement don't get clouded by how much things costs.
As I've been told, that disconnect exists in only some parts of the industry. The idea is to have that disconnect put through more of the system, to remove the cost incentive of over-treatment.
Also, fraud... MOST fraud comes in the form of the provider's administrators CODING the patient's visit to a particular diagnosis. I can't remember the statistic, but most fraud are accidental rather than intential.
Well, if it ain't on purpose it ain't fraud... but otherwise that's just backing up what I already said, direct exploitation of the system is quite rare
The ACA essentially doubled-down on the CURRENT MODEL.... if the health care model pre-ACA was gakky, it's still going to be gakky moving forward. The CBO doesn't account for future industry changes, so it shouldn't be used as gospel.
Of course, the current bill falls a long way short of the massive overhaul the industry needs. But rejecting the bill because some other bill would have been better is just not practical, when you look at the political shitstorm created just to get this half measure to fall over the line.
Greater reforms is just no practical in this current political climate.
Right... now you're seeing it.
Now I'm seeing it? I was making that point before the bill passed...
Essentially, the way to look at it... it's like this. Say you complain about "Chest Pains" and go into the ED. That provider is going to get "x dollars" from either the patient's private insurance or from Medicare (government pays lower usually). It does NOT matter what kind of treatement is done... which meds were given, what labs were done... if the providers pay more in the treatment of the patients than what they recieved, they're SOL (which is extremely common). This is why care providers are purposely "disconnected" from the business side of this whole operation, so that their clinical judgement don't get clouded by how much things costs.
As I've been told, that disconnect exists in only some parts of the industry. The idea is to have that disconnect put through more of the system, to remove the cost incentive of over-treatment.
That's just it... it really isn't "over treatment", unless you're describing defensive medicine? There's a whole debate shebang on that topic. o.O
As to the "system", I'm hoping in my lifetime, we'd going with the Canadian or German model.
Right... now you're seeing it.
Now I'm seeing it? I was making that point before the bill passed...
whembly wrote: That's just it... it really isn't "over treatment", unless you're describing defensive medicine? There's a whole debate shebang on that topic. o.O
No, I mean over-treatment, procedures that are far greater than what's necessary. It's pretty basic agency stuff, when the person deciding the course of treatment takes on the risk of failure, but someone else takes on the cost of the process, you end up with a bias towards the least risky, most expensive option. Which means MRI scans where the likelihood of them detecting anything unexpected is minute, and it means pills being proscribed for stuff that simply doesn't need treatment.
And yeah, preventative medicine is also badly needed. Unfortunately that also comes back to the bad economic structures of the current system - when a person's healthcare is not tied to their provider, but to their employer, why would the healthcare provider invest in preventative options for patients? You might improve the health of those workers, but most of them will move employers within five years and you've crapped away your money. But change that relationship, so people buy their own healthcare, and you change the market - suddenly insurers can expect, and reward, consumers staying with one healthcare provider. Preventative medicine becomes a sensible option, to some extent (though optimum amounts would likely still require government action, per the experience in other markets).
As to the "system", I'm hoping in my lifetime, we'd going with the Canadian or German model.
I think the German, or perhaps more likely the Swiss model, is something that the US could transition to fairly pratically, over a decade or two. They're still pretty expensive models, but at least you can see them from where you're standing now, if you get my meaning
That's true...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I remember the last time this thread popped up. Were a lot more supporter of Obamacare behind this then there are now.....W...T....F.....Chuck..
And the numbers in creationist threads around the internet* are scarily close to even. Until you realise that there's always more reason for a person to take up for their cause when they aren't the status quo. ACA is rolling in, becoming the norm, what's to be gained from arguing it again?
*Thankfully on Dakka for the last year or so they've been pretty one sided towards sanity...
whembly wrote: Seb... I'm not sure you appreciate the dichotomy of this.
Obama promised that premiums would go down by $2,500 by the end of his first term...
The average employer premium has actually gone up by $3,065...
If you have a business, who would be damaged by something that you can help counteract by raising prices (and as a bonus make more profit), would you?
of the top 5 insurance providers, 4 of them had a 10% -> 30% increase in profit in over the last year, if they're raising prices because of obamacare cost, where is that profit coming from?
Of course, anyone with at least two neurons to rub together who pays attention to what's going knows that is what will (and has) happen.
The issue is that the low-information voter trusted/believe what the Dems/Obama promised... and now, we are all paying for it.
Doesn't make it any less of a gak sammich.
Sorry I edited while you were typing this so I"ll go again
these places are raising rates because it makes them more money, and they have an excuse to, it has the bonus of weakening a law that will hurt them in the long run.
The reduced-cost projection did not take into account that rich dirtbags will be rich dirtbags, and also the cost savings wont come into play until actual implementation, which has been problematic.
Of course, anyone with at least two neurons to rub together who pays attention to what's going knows that is what will (and has) happen.
The issue is that the low-information voter trusted/believe what the Dems/Obama promised... and now, we are all paying for it.
Doesn't make it any less of a gak sammich.
Sorry I edited while you were typing this so I"ll go again
these places are raising rates because it makes them more money, and they have an excuse to, it has the bonus of weakening a law that will hurt them in the long run.
The reduced-cost projection did not take into account that rich dirtbags will be rich dirtbags, and also the cost savings wont come into play until actual implementation, which has been problematic.
You do know you're providing evidence in a round-a-bout way how crappy this bill is... dontcha?
You're kinda right and kinda wrong.
Obamacare's provision (efficiency rules) that 80% of the funds insurances receive must go towards the plan... that started LAST YEAR.
In practice what this does is force the Insurers who failed to meet Obamacare's arbitrary efficiency rules to send rebates... which last year averages about $71. o.O This year, it's going to be about half that.
So, Grundz... your soapbox that insurance companies are the main driver of cost is not totally accurate. It's way more complicated than that.
The reduced-cost projection did not take into account that rich dirtbags will be rich dirtbags, and also the cost savings wont come into play until actual implementation, which has been problematic.
If only there was a means for a set of rich dirtbags to predict how other rich dirtbags were going to react to the Act.
So here's the problem, from my small, market-centric point of view.
Obamacare is ultimately, long-term, going to lower insurance premiums.
This lowering of cost is going to be done by an increasing of competition (more/broader provider pool) and by increasing the number of healthy people in the pool (mandatory participation).
Over the SHORT term, what this does is radically increase the amount of money injected into the insurance industry. This is what will long-term create more competition, by creating a rich enough incentive (profits) for others to step up and compete for a slice of the pie. For now, though, the people with the pie simply get more pie.
The confounding factor here is that congruent with this big short term boost in revenue is an increase in complexity, regulation, and oversight (to a business person this translates to cost) that requires a responsible business person to then increase their prices to cover costs. This is what we've already felt over the last year or so.
At the same time, the big increase in complexity, regulation, and oversight also creates a much higher hurdle for a new operator (that new competition that is supposed to help lower costs) reducing the likelihood that they can enter.
So over the near-term, which is likely 5 years or so, what Obamacare does by mandating participation but also increasing uncertainty and barrier to entry really just creates a windfall of profits for existing, large insurance operators. They've got cover to raise their prices pre-emptively and increased competition is probably minimal in the meantime because we still do not truly understand what Obamacare actually is or does, exactly.
You also have the complication of young people opting to pay the penalty because that will be a lower cost than going on Obamacare. In the event that they do get sick, they simply go onto Obamacare THEN.
Long story short, the money that we, in aggregate, pay out to the healthcare industry has gone up and will continue to go up for the resaonable forseeable future.
And this is the exact opposite of what was promised by the administration.
sourclams wrote: So here's the problem, from my small, market-centric point of view.
Obamacare is ultimately, long-term, going to lower insurance premiums.
This lowering of cost is going to be done by an increasing of competition (more/broader provider pool) and by increasing the number of healthy people in the pool (mandatory participation).
Over the SHORT term, what this does is radically increase the amount of money injected into the insurance industry. This is what will long-term create more competition, by creating a rich enough incentive (profits) for others to step up and compete for a slice of the pie. For now, though, the people with the pie simply get more pie.
The confounding factor here is that congruent with this big short term boost in revenue is an increase in complexity, regulation, and oversight (to a business person this translates to cost) that requires a responsible business person to then increase their prices to cover costs. This is what we've already felt over the last year or so.
At the same time, the big increase in complexity, regulation, and oversight also creates a much higher hurdle for a new operator (that new competition that is supposed to help lower costs) reducing the likelihood that they can enter.
So over the near-term, which is likely 5 years or so, what Obamacare does by mandating participation but also increasing uncertainty and barrier to entry really just creates a windfall of profits for existing, large insurance operators. They've got cover to raise their prices pre-emptively and increased competition is probably minimal in the meantime because we still do not truly understand what Obamacare actually is or does, exactly.
You also have the complication of young people opting to pay the penalty because that will be a lower cost than going on Obamacare. In the event that they do get sick, they simply go onto Obamacare THEN.
Long story short, the money that we, in aggregate, pay out to the healthcare industry has gone up and will continue to go up for the resaonable forseeable future.
And this is the exact opposite of what was promised by the administration.
Thanks... you elaborated this much more eloquently that I ever did.
whembly wrote: Seb... I'm not sure you appreciate the dichotomy of this.
Obama promised that premiums would go down by $2,500 by the end of his first term...
And that's a fair criticism of Obama.
But the lies a saleman tells doesn't change what the product delivers.
The average employer premium has actually gone up by $3,065...
What's Kaiser's 2008 release got to do with it?
And yeah, the price has gone up, but only if you compare apples with telephones. The minimum standards offered in healthcare have gone up, and all these claims about what healthcare can offer are based on comparing the lowest plans pre-ACA and the lowest plans under ACA, while completely ignoring the fact that the new plans give the consumer a hell of a lot more.
sourclams wrote: This lowering of cost is going to be done by an increasing of competition (more/broader provider pool) and by increasing the number of healthy people in the pool (mandatory participation).
Over the SHORT term, what this does is radically increase the amount of money injected into the insurance industry. This is what will long-term create more competition, by creating a rich enough incentive (profits) for others to step up and compete for a slice of the pie. For now, though, the people with the pie simply get more pie.
Not really, as the people who are buying in to the healthcare system only because of mandatory participation typically have very shallow pockets. They're just not the big injection of money that is going to change the industry.
And in a country of 300 million, in which about 70-80% are already contributing, you just aren't going to get a meaningful change in market dynamics from a few million more contributors. What economies of scale exist in a 200 million strong industry don't change for a 300 million strong industry.
The serious, big deal that changes absolutely everything is the inability to deny coverage. I don't think people realise how big a deal that is. It used to be that anyone a private insurers deemed likely to cost more money than they could make would be denied coverage... that person would still be treated, and the cost (after the person paid what they could with whatever assets they had) would be worn by the hospital & government. Now the insurer pays that. It is a big deal.
So over the near-term, which is likely 5 years or so, what Obamacare does by mandating participation but also increasing uncertainty and barrier to entry really just creates a windfall of profits for existing, large insurance operators. They've got cover to raise their prices pre-emptively and increased competition is probably minimal in the meantime because we still do not truly understand what Obamacare actually is or does, exactly.
Actually, given the profit limits on healthcare providers, that point is pretty debateable.
whembly wrote: Seb... I'm not sure you appreciate the dichotomy of this.
Obama promised that premiums would go down by $2,500 by the end of his first term...
And that's a fair criticism of Obama.
Thanks... been trying to get that outta ya.
But the lies a saleman tells doesn't change what the product delivers.
I've always said there was some stuff in ACA act that had merits.
It's like a bacon wrapped pile of gak. The bacon is awesome, but collectively... it's still bacon-wrapped gak.
The average employer premium has actually gone up by $3,065...
What's Kaiser's 2008 release got to do with it?
And yeah, the price has gone up, but only if you compare apples with telephones. The minimum standards offered in healthcare have gone up, and all these claims about what healthcare can offer are based on comparing the lowest plans pre-ACA and the lowest plans under ACA, while completely ignoring the fact that the new plans give the consumer a hell of a lot more.
What plans??
Clock is ticking....
sourclams wrote: This lowering of cost is going to be done by an increasing of competition (more/broader provider pool) and by increasing the number of healthy people in the pool (mandatory participation).
Over the SHORT term, what this does is radically increase the amount of money injected into the insurance industry. This is what will long-term create more competition, by creating a rich enough incentive (profits) for others to step up and compete for a slice of the pie. For now, though, the people with the pie simply get more pie.
Not really, as the people who are buying in to the healthcare system only because of mandatory participation typically have very shallow pockets. They're just not the big injection of money that is going to change the industry.
And in a country of 300 million, in which about 70-80% are already contributing, you just aren't going to get a meaningful change in market dynamics from a few million more contributors. What economies of scale exist in a 200 million strong industry don't change for a 300 million strong industry.
The serious, big deal that changes absolutely everything is the inability to deny coverage. I don't think people realise how big a deal that is. It used to be that anyone a private insurers deemed likely to cost more money than they could make would be denied coverage... that person would still be treated, and the cost (after the person paid what they could with whatever assets they had) would be worn by the hospital & government. Now the insurer pays that. It is a big deal.
So over the near-term, which is likely 5 years or so, what Obamacare does by mandating participation but also increasing uncertainty and barrier to entry really just creates a windfall of profits for existing, large insurance operators. They've got cover to raise their prices pre-emptively and increased competition is probably minimal in the meantime because we still do not truly understand what Obamacare actually is or does, exactly.
Actually, given the profit limits on healthcare providers, that point is pretty debateable.
Erm... "profit limits on healthcare providers"?? What?
And yeah, the price has gone up, but only if you compare apples with telephones. The minimum standards offered in healthcare have gone up, and all these claims about what healthcare can offer are based on comparing the lowest plans pre-ACA and the lowest plans under ACA, while completely ignoring the fact that the new plans give the consumer a hell of a lot more.
I assume you're talking about things that haven't yet gone into effect. This year, my insurance plan changed in such a way that as far as I can tell, quite literally the only thing I'm getting from my insurance plan (which still has a monthly premium) is the ability to spend pre-tax dollars out of pocket toward, from what I can tell, full price medical expenses.
whembly wrote: Thanks... been trying to get that outta ya.
I've never been adverse to criticising Obama. It's just that when we chat, it's normally about the GOP talking points about Obama, which I pretty much never agree with.
Erm... "profit limits on healthcare providers"?? What?
Don't you mean the limit on insurance industries?
Yeah. My bad. What an swap I made in my head...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: I assume you're talking about things that haven't yet gone into effect. This year, my insurance plan changed in such a way that as far as I can tell, quite literally the only thing I'm getting from my insurance plan (which still has a monthly premium) is the ability to spend pre-tax dollars out of pocket toward, from what I can tell, full price medical expenses.
I'm talking more the minimum standards healthcare plans need to meet. A lot of the old, super cheap plans don't exist anymore, because they didn't meet the minimum standards for healthcare plans.
So the trick has been to say 'look at the cheapest plan that used to be available, and compare it to the cheapest plan available now' while ignoring that the cheapest plan in the new scheme gives a much, much better piece of insurance.
daedalus wrote: I assume you're talking about things that haven't yet gone into effect. This year, my insurance plan changed in such a way that as far as I can tell, quite literally the only thing I'm getting from my insurance plan (which still has a monthly premium) is the ability to spend pre-tax dollars out of pocket toward, from what I can tell, full price medical expenses.
I'm talking more the minimum standards healthcare plans need to meet. A lot of the old, super cheap plans don't exist anymore, because they didn't meet the minimum standards for healthcare plans.
So the trick has been to say 'look at the cheapest plan that used to be available, and compare it to the cheapest plan available now' while ignoring that the cheapest plan in the new scheme gives a much, much better piece of insurance.
Was there a minimum standard for healthcare previously? I wasn't aware of that. Looking at it, I feel like instead of raising the bar, they provided a blueprint for determining how low the bar can legally be set, which happened to be lower than my bar.
Of course, I suppose the most direct thing to do would be to hate my employer and my insurance company for acting upon that rather than providing me with the same quality of insurance I had before. From what I've seen, my job is not necessarily competitive with other workplace's offerings anyway. It may be worth a change.
A very interesting ACA development is taking place in Massachusetts today as the state that “inspired” Obamacare tries to reconcile its current law with the new federal law. Push back in the compliance effort is coming from an unexpected source, the senior Democratic budget writer in the State Senate, Senator Stephen Brewer, presumably with support from the Senate President as well. The amendment that was filed would force President Obama’s good friend Governor Deval Patrick (D), and his Administration, to seek a waiver from certain elements of Obamacare. The move could come to a head if the provision lands on the Governor’s desk, resulting in an embarrassing political moment for the Obama Administration since the ACA is forcing significant changes to a state law they claim acted as a model in Washington.
Turns out, the conventional wisdom comparing Romneycare and Obamacare has proven to be overly simplistic, as this is the third ACA-related bill being debated in the Commonwealth. The latest sizable 100-section bill controversially writes into law an abdication of insurance regulation to the federal government and is the basis for the amendment. While state officials have known for some time that the ACA-required changes to rating factors would result in “extreme premium increases” and spike premiums for 60% of small companies (some as high as 50+%) in the state, the best the Patrick Administration could do was spread the increases out over 3 years under an agreement from CMS.
The new ACA bill produced a flurry of debate in the House last week, mostly from the Republicans, with Democrats calling it a bill of “minor technical changes.” However, in the State Senate the bill faces a surprising push back from the lead budget writer and a long serving Democrat, as numerous questions remain about the bill. See my 10 Questions About ACA Implementation in Massachusetts.
The chairman’s amendment includes the following:
SECTION 102A. The commonwealth, by and through the governor or the governor’s designee, shall formally request a federal waiver to avoid the adverse effects of rating and rule changes to the Massachusetts merged market, to protect consumers and businesses in the commonwealth and in an effort to maintain current Massachusetts rating and rule requirements. All negotiations with any federal agency concerning this waiver shall be conducted in consultation with a member of the house of representatives as appointed by the speaker of the house and a member of the senate as appointed by the senate president. The governor, or the governor’s designee shall file a detailed report describing the waiver application and waivers received, along with all documentation, including, but not limited to, all related written and verbal responses from the Department of Health and Human Services, with the clerks of the senate and house not later than October 1, 2014. The governor shall report monthly to the joint committee on health care financing and the house and senate committees on ways and means on the status of the waiver request under this section.
The amendment signals a sea change in the state as even pro-ACA business groups, such as the Associated of Industries in Massachusetts (AIM), have now joined the call for a waiver.
The Obama administration is postponing for one year the requirement that businesses cover their workers under Obamacare.
The administration said late Tuesday that the move recognized that the reporting requirements – the steps businesses have to take to show they were complying with the rules — were complex and they would try to streamline them over the next year.
There will be no penalties the first year on businesses that don’t cover workers. Small businesses, with fewer than 50 workers, were already exempt from that rule. Most large businesses do cover employees now.
The move does not affect the individual mandate – the requirement that most Americans get insurance. And it doesn’t delay the new marketplaces where people and small businesses can sign up for coverage starting in October.
“The Administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA [Affordable Care Act} mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin. This is designed to meet two goals. First, it will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees,” the Treasury Department said in a blog post.”
Most big businesses already cover their workers, Treasury noted.
The Treasury Department, which enforces the employer requirements, announced the news in a blog post late Tuesday afternoon. The policy change was initially reported by Bloomberg News.
Remember... this doesn't change the individual mandate.
What this tells me is that business are still uncertain as to how all this plays out... uncertaincy
The Obama administration is postponing for one year the requirement that businesses cover their workers under Obamacare.
The administration said late Tuesday that the move recognized that the reporting requirements – the steps businesses have to take to show they were complying with the rules — were complex and they would try to streamline them over the next year.
There will be no penalties the first year on businesses that don’t cover workers. Small businesses, with fewer than 50 workers, were already exempt from that rule. Most large businesses do cover employees now.
The move does not affect the individual mandate – the requirement that most Americans get insurance. And it doesn’t delay the new marketplaces where people and small businesses can sign up for coverage starting in October.
“The Administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA [Affordable Care Act} mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin. This is designed to meet two goals. First, it will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees,” the Treasury Department said in a blog post.”
Most big businesses already cover their workers, Treasury noted.
The Treasury Department, which enforces the employer requirements, announced the news in a blog post late Tuesday afternoon. The policy change was initially reported by Bloomberg News.
Remember... this doesn't change the individual mandate.
What this tells me is that business are still uncertain as to how all this plays out... uncertaincy
That is going to affect a very small fraction of workers and it is going to suck REALLY HARD for those people. Brutal.
2 of the largest health insurance providers have stopped providing individual accounts in California because of this. 58,000 people will have to find new insurance.
Here's really the big question: From where does the administration derive the right to unilaterally change this misbegotten law without Congressional action? Just because this law is so horribly screwed up... where does the administration think it has the unilateral power to alter it?
Also... notice that this unilateral executive decision puts off the effects of this destructive legislation until after the 2014 elections.
Perhaps congress should do something about this...
EDIT: Also, the people already laid off because of this is going to be really pissed.
Another year for the Employers to find ways to cut people hours of work to fall below mandatory insurance requirement. Two more "part timers" hired to make up the slack would be cheaper.
Still no push to get board members yet. Jebus...talk about the golden achievement of a goat rope policy implementation.. Dem's are going to have a hard reelection. This and the fallout from the EPA new policy on coal plants. The Immigration Policy still in the House? I've a feeling they're fine combing it to make better improvements and throw it back at the senate. Hopefully no one's going to add more pork barrel projects into it.
The Obama administration is postponing for one year the requirement that businesses cover their workers under Obamacare.
The administration said late Tuesday that the move recognized that the reporting requirements – the steps businesses have to take to show they were complying with the rules — were complex and they would try to streamline them over the next year.
There will be no penalties the first year on businesses that don’t cover workers. Small businesses, with fewer than 50 workers, were already exempt from that rule. Most large businesses do cover employees now.
The move does not affect the individual mandate – the requirement that most Americans get insurance. And it doesn’t delay the new marketplaces where people and small businesses can sign up for coverage starting in October.
“The Administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA [Affordable Care Act} mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin. This is designed to meet two goals. First, it will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees,” the Treasury Department said in a blog post.”
Most big businesses already cover their workers, Treasury noted.
The Treasury Department, which enforces the employer requirements, announced the news in a blog post late Tuesday afternoon. The policy change was initially reported by Bloomberg News.
Remember... this doesn't change the individual mandate.
What this tells me is that business are still uncertain as to how all this plays out... uncertaincy
What it tells me is that, if implemented in 2014 the Democrats would have lost the Senate in a big way, and are running scared of sadnwich O gak that is the ACA. Solution - put it off until after the election!
This of course is going to hammer the Presidential election, but I bet that it gets pushed off again and again.
What it tells me is that, if implemented in 2014 the Democrats would have lost the Senate in a big way, and are running scared of sadnwich O gak that is the ACA. Solution - put it off until after the election!
This of course is going to hammer the Presidential election, but I bet that it gets pushed off again and again.
Yeah... the other thing that bothers me is that this administration is unilaterlally putting this off...
This the penalty is a tax... no?
So, another way to look at this is now, this administration to selectively delaying/enforcing a tax.
What it tells me is that, if implemented in 2014 the Democrats would have lost the Senate in a big way, and are running scared of sadnwich O gak that is the ACA. Solution - put it off until after the election!
This of course is going to hammer the Presidential election, but I bet that it gets pushed off again and again.
Yeah... the other thing that bothers me is that this administration is unilaterlally putting this off...
This the penalty is a tax... no?
So, another way to look at this is now, this administration to selectively delaying/enforcing a tax.
That's a dangerous precedent dude.
The law is a million pages long. I'm sure there's something in there that gives the power to postpone the provisions by up to X years to the head of Y agency etc etc etc. That kind of thing is always in these huge laws.
What it tells me is that, if implemented in 2014 the Democrats would have lost the Senate in a big way, and are running scared of sadnwich O gak that is the ACA. Solution - put it off until after the election!
This of course is going to hammer the Presidential election, but I bet that it gets pushed off again and again.
Yeah... the other thing that bothers me is that this administration is unilaterlally putting this off...
This the penalty is a tax... no?
So, another way to look at this is now, this administration to selectively delaying/enforcing a tax.
That's a dangerous precedent dude.
The law is a million pages long. I'm sure there's something in there that gives the power to postpone the provisions by up to X years to the head of Y agency etc etc etc. That kind of thing is always in these huge laws.
Nope.
No provisions like that all. Even then, that's not a normal thing the congress critters would do.
Case in point: Some tried to put in triggers in the Gang of 8 Immigration bill to secure the border first before provisions of the amnesty stuff kicks in... those never made it in the final bill.
What it tells me is that, if implemented in 2014 the Democrats would have lost the Senate in a big way, and are running scared of sadnwich O gak that is the ACA. Solution - put it off until after the election!
This of course is going to hammer the Presidential election, but I bet that it gets pushed off again and again.
Yeah... the other thing that bothers me is that this administration is unilaterlally putting this off...
This the penalty is a tax... no?
So, another way to look at this is now, this administration to selectively delaying/enforcing a tax.
That's a dangerous precedent dude.
The law is a million pages long. I'm sure there's something in there that gives the power to postpone the provisions by up to X years to the head of Y agency etc etc etc. That kind of thing is always in these huge laws.
Nope.
No provisions like that all. Even then, that's not a normal thing the congress critters would do.
Case in point: Some tried to put in triggers in the Gang of 8 Immigration bill to secure the border first before provisions of the amnesty stuff kicks in... those never made it in the final bill.
Depending on the format/output, with the subsequent regulations it's about 20-40,000 pages long.
That's ginormous.
The section that describes that Employer Mandate will have something like "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013."
It's CONGRESS' job to dictate what/when legislation are enacted.
It's the EXECUTE'S job to implement said legislation on specified date.
The right way to do this is to ask Congress to update it with a new date. Not going to happen though...
The Irony here is this: What's the GOP going to do anyways? Sue Obama to implement this clusterfeth?
Depending on the format/output, with the subsequent regulations it's about 20-40,000 pages long.
That's ginormous.
The section that describes that Employer Mandate will have something like "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013."
It's CONGRESS' job to dictate what/when legislation are enacted.
It's the EXECUTE'S job to implement said legislation on specified date.
The right way to do this is to ask Congress to update it with a new date. Not going to happen though...
The Irony here is this: What's the GOP going to do anyways? Sue Obama to implement this clusterfeth?
It's congress' job to dictate when it should be enacted, but if congress passes a law that gives the power to postpone to someone, then that has the force of law.
All it would take is a single line saying something like "The director of the IRS may postpone the enactment of this by up to 12 months for the purposes of x,y,z" blah blah. You know? If congress passed that line, then it counts as congress saying when it will start.
It's congress' job to dictate when it should be enacted, but if congress passes a law that gives the power to postpone to someone, then that has the force of law.
All it would take is a single line saying something like "The director of the IRS may postpone the enactment of this by up to 12 months for the purposes of x,y,z" blah blah. You know? If congress passed that line, then it counts as congress saying when it will start.
That remains to be seen if that's actually in this Act.
I suppose the Whitehouse can simply issue an Execute Order... that might be the other legal way to do that.
Frazzled wrote: What it tells me is that, if implemented in 2014 the Democrats would have lost the Senate in a big way, and are running scared of sadnwich O gak that is the ACA. Solution - put it off until after the election!
This of course is going to hammer the Presidential election, but I bet that it gets pushed off again and again.
Yup. Normally you don't delay something that is a vote winner. And it's not like Obama needs to worry about the next election if he isn't running
Nope... nothing in the ACA bill allows anyone to delay the implementation of the Employer Mandate:
Spoiler:
PART II—EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES
SEC. 1511. AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT FOR EMPLOYEES OF LARGE
EMPLOYERS.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is amended by inserting
after section 18 (29 U.S.C. 218) the following:
‘‘SEC. 18A. AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT FOR EMPLOYEES OF LARGE
EMPLOYERS.
‘‘In accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary,
an employer to which this Act applies that has more than 200
full-time employees and that offers employees enrollment in 1 or
more health benefits plans shall automatically enroll new full-
time employees in one of the plans offered (subject to any waiting
period authorized by law) and to continue the enrollment of current
employees in a health benefits plan offered through the employer.
Any automatic enrollment program shall include adequate notice
and the opportunity for an employee to opt out of any coverage
the individual or employee were automatically enrolled in. Nothing
in this section shall be construed to supersede any State law which
establishes, implements, or continues in effect any standard or
requirement relating to employers in connection with payroll except
to the extent that such standard or requirement prevents an
employer from instituting the automatic enrollment program under
this section.’’.
SEC. 1512. EMPLOYER REQUIREMENT TO INFORM EMPLOYEES OF COVERAGE OPTIONS.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is amended by inserting
after section 18A (as added by section 1513) the following:
‘‘SEC. 18B. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with regulations promulgated
by the Secretary, an employer to which this Act applies, shall
provide to each employee at the time of hiring (or with respect
to current employees, not later than March 1, 2013), written
notice—
‘‘(1) informing the employee of the existence of an
Exchange, including a description of the services provided by
such Exchange, and the manner in which the employee may
contact the Exchange to request assistance;
‘‘(2) if the employer plan’s share of the total allowed costs
of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent
of such costs, that the employee may be eligible for a premium
tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 and a cost sharing reduction under section 1402 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if the employee
purchases a qualified health plan through the Exchange; and
‘‘(3) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan
through the Exchange, the employee will lose the employer
contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by
the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution
may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes.
‘‘(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) shall take effect with
respect to employers in a State beginning on March 1, 2013.’’.
SEC. 1513. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 4980H. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS REGARDING
HEALTH COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) LARGE EMPLOYERS NOT OFFERING HEALTH COVERAGE.—
If—
‘‘(1) any applicable large employer fails to offer to its full-
time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll
in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-
sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) for any
month, and
‘‘(2) at least one full-time employee of the applicable large
employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having
enrolled for such month in a qualified health plan with respect
to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing
reduction is allowed or paid with respect to the employee,
then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment equal to the product of the applicable payment amount and
the number of individuals employed by the employer as full-time
employees during such month.
‘‘(b) LARGE EMPLOYERS WITH WAITING PERIODS EXCEEDING 30
DAYS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any applicable large
employer which requires an extended waiting period to enroll
in any minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)), there is hereby
imposed on the employer an assessable payment, in the amount
specified in paragraph (2), for each full-time employee of the
employer to whom the extended waiting period applies.
‘‘(2) AMOUNT.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the amount
specified in this paragraph for a full-time employee is—
‘‘(A) in the case of an extended waiting period which
exceeds 30 days but does not exceed 60 days, $400, and
‘‘(B) in the case of an extended waiting period which
exceeds 60 days, $600.
‘‘(3) EXTENDED WAITING PERIOD.—The term ‘extended
waiting period’ means any waiting period (as defined in section
2701(b)(4) of the Public Health Service Act) which exceeds
30 days.
‘‘(c) LARGE EMPLOYERS OFFERING COVERAGE WITH EMPLOYEES
WHO QUALIFY FOR PREMIUM TAX CREDITS OR COST-SHARING REDUCTIONS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If—
‘‘(A) an applicable large employer offers to its full-
time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to
enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible
employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2))
for any month, and
‘‘(B) 1 or more full-time employees of the applicable
large employer has been certified to the employer under
section 1411 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act as having enrolled for such month in a qualified health
plan with respect to which an applicable premium tax
credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid with
respect to the employee,
then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable
payment equal to the product of the number of full-time
employees of the applicable large employer described in
subparagraph (B) for such month and 400 percent of the
applicable payment amount.
‘‘(2) OVERALL LIMITATION.—The aggregate amount of tax
determined under paragraph (1) with respect to all employees
of an applicable large employer for any month shall not exceed
the product of the applicable payment amount and the number
of individuals employed by the employer as full-time employees
during such month.
‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—For purposes of this
section—
‘‘(1) APPLICABLE PAYMENT AMOUNT.—The term ‘applicable
payment amount’ means, with respect to any month, 1
⁄12 of
$750.
‘‘(2) APPLICABLE LARGE EMPLOYER.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable large employer’
means, with respect to a calendar year, an employer who
employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees
on business days during the preceding calendar year.
‘‘(B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYERS.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—An employer shall not be considered to employ more than 50 full-time employees if—
‘‘(I) the employer’s workforce exceeds 50 full-
time employees for 120 days or fewer during the
calendar year, and
‘‘(II) the employees in excess of 50 employed
during such 120-day period were seasonal workers.
‘‘(ii) DEFINITION OF SEASONAL WORKERS.—The term
‘seasonal worker’ means a worker who performs labor
or services on a seasonal basis as defined by the Secretary of Labor, including workers covered by section
500.20(s)(1) of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations
and retail workers employed exclusively during holiday
seasons.
‘‘(C) RULES FOR DETERMINING EMPLOYER SIZE.—For
purposes of this paragraph—
‘‘(i) APPLICATION OF AGGREGATION RULE FOR
EMPLOYERS.—All persons treated as a single employer
under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 414
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated
as 1 employer.
‘‘(ii) EMPLOYERS NOT IN EXISTENCE IN PRECEDING
YEAR.—In the case of an employer which was not in
existence throughout the preceding calendar year, the
determination of whether such employer is an
applicable large employer shall be based on the average
number of employees that it is reasonably expected
such employer will employ on business days in the
current calendar year.
‘‘(iii) PREDECESSORS.—Any reference in this subsection to an employer shall include a reference to
any predecessor of such employer.
‘‘(3) APPLICABLE PREMIUM TAX CREDIT AND COST-SHARING
REDUCTION.—The term ‘applicable premium tax credit and cost-
sharing reduction’ means—
‘‘(A) any premium tax credit allowed under section
36B,
‘‘(B) any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and
‘‘(C) any advance payment of such credit or reduction
under section 1412 of such Act.
‘‘(4) FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘full-time employee’ means
an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours
of service per week.
‘‘(B) HOURS OF SERVICE.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall prescribe such regulations, rules, and guidance as may be necessary to determine the hours of service of an employee, including rules
for the application of this paragraph to employees who
are not compensated on an hourly basis.
‘‘(5) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any calendar year
after 2014, each of the dollar amounts in subsection (b)(2)
and (d)(1) shall be increased by an amount equal to the
product of—
‘‘(i) such dollar amount, and
‘‘(ii) the premium adjustment percentage (as
defined in section 1302(c)(4) of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act) for the calendar year.
‘‘(B) ROUNDING.—If the amount of any increase under
subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $10, such increase
shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $10.
‘‘(6) OTHER DEFINITIONS.—Any term used in this section
which is also used in the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act shall have the same meaning as when used in such
Act.
‘‘(7) TAX NONDEDUCTIBLE.—For denial of deduction for the
tax imposed by this section, see section 275(a)(6).
‘‘(e) ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any assessable payment provided by
this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the
Secretary, and shall be assessed and collected in the same
manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter
68.
‘‘(2) TIME FOR PAYMENT.—The Secretary may provide for
the payment of any assessable payment provided by this section
on an annual, monthly, or other periodic basis as the Secretary
may prescribe.
‘‘(3) COORDINATION WITH CREDITS, ETC..—The Secretary
shall prescribe rules, regulations, or guidance for the repayment
of any assessable payment (including interest) if such payment
is based on the allowance or payment of an applicable premium
tax credit or cost-sharing reduction with respect to an employee,
such allowance or payment is subsequently disallowed, and
the assessable payment would not have been required to be
made but for such allowance or payment.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for chapter
43 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:
‘‘Sec. 4980H. Shared responsibility for employers regarding health coverage.’’.
(c) STUDY AND REPORT OF EFFECT OF TAX ON WORKERS’
WAGES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Labor shall conduct
a study to determine whether employees’ wages are reduced
by reason of the application of the assessable payments under
section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added
by the amendments made by this section). The Secretary shall
make such determination on the basis of the National Compensation Survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(2) REPORT.—The Secretary shall report the results of the
study under paragraph (1) to the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives and to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.
SEC. 1514. REPORTING OF EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart D of part III of subchapter A of
chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by
section 1502, is amended by inserting after section 6055 the following new section:
‘‘SEC. 6056. LARGE EMPLOYERS REQUIRED TO REPORT ON HEALTH
INSURANCE COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Every applicable large employer required
to meet the requirements of section 4980H with respect to its
full-time employees during a calendar year shall, at such time
as the Secretary may prescribe, make a return described in subsection (b).
‘‘(b) FORM AND MANNER OF RETURN.—A return is described
in this subsection if such return—
‘‘(1) is in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, and
‘‘(2) contains—
‘‘(A) the name, date, and employer identification
number of the employer,
‘‘(B) a certification as to whether the employer offers
to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an
eligible employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section
5000A(f)(2)),
‘‘(C) if the employer certifies that the employer did
offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the
opportunity to so enroll—
‘‘(i) the length of any waiting period (as defined
in section 2701(b)(4) of the Public Health Service Act)
with respect to such coverage,
‘‘(ii) the months during the calendar year for which
coverage under the plan was available,
‘‘(iii) the monthly premium for the lowest cost
option in each of the enrollment categories under the
plan, and
‘‘(iv) the applicable large employer’s share of the
total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan,
‘‘(D) the number of full-time employees for each month
during the calendar year,
‘‘(E) the name, address, and TIN of each full-time
employee during the calendar year and the months (if
any) during which such employee (and any dependents)
were covered under any such health benefits plans, and
‘‘(F) such other information as the Secretary may
require.
‘‘(c) STATEMENTS TO BE FURNISHED TO INDIVIDUALS WITH
RESPECT TO WHOM INFORMATION IS REPORTED.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Every person required to make a return
under subsection (a) shall furnish to each full-time employee
whose name is required to be set forth in such return under
subsection (b)(2)(E) a written statement showing—
‘‘(A) the name and address of the person required
to make such return and the phone number of the information contact for such person, and
‘‘(B) the information required to be shown on the return
with respect to such individual.
‘‘(2) TIME FOR FURNISHING STATEMENTS.—The written statement required under paragraph (1) shall be furnished on or
before January 31 of the year following the calendar year
for which the return under subsection (a) was required to
be made.
‘‘(d) COORDINATION WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—To the maximum extent feasible, the Secretary may provide that—
‘‘(1) any return or statement required to be provided under
this section may be provided as part of any return or statement
required under section 6051 or 6055, and
‘‘(2) in the case of an applicable large employer offering
health insurance coverage of a health insurance issuer, the
employer may enter into an agreement with the issuer to
include information required under this section with the return
and statement required to be provided by the issuer under
section 6055.
‘‘(e) COVERAGE PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENTAL UNITS.—In the
case of any applicable large employer which is a governmental
unit or any agency or instrumentality thereof, the person appropriately designated for purposes of this section shall make the
returns and statements required by this section.
‘‘(f) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, any term used
in this section which is also used in section 4980H shall have
the meaning given such term by section 4980H.’’.
(b) ASSESSABLE PENALTIES.—
(1) Subparagraph (B) of section 6724(d)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions), as amended
by section 1502, is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of
clause (xxiii), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (xxiv)
and inserting ‘‘or’’, and by inserting after clause (xxiv) the
following new clause:
‘‘(xxv) section 6056 (relating to returns relating
to large employers required to report on health insurance coverage), and’’.
(2) Paragraph (2) of section 6724(d) of such Code, as so
amended, is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (FF), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph
(GG) and inserting ‘‘, or’’ and by inserting after subparagraph
(GG) the following new subparagraph:
‘‘(HH) section 6056(c) (relating to statements relating
to large employers required to report on health insurance
coverage).’’.
(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for subpart
D of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code, as
added by section 1502, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘Sec. 6056. Large employers required to report on health insurance coverage.’’.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to periods beginning after December 31, 2013.
SEC. 1515. OFFERING OF EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING QUALIFIED
HEALTH PLANS THROUGH CAFETERIA PLANS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (f) of section 125 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
‘‘(3) CERTAIN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING QUALIFIED HEALTH
PLANS NOT QUALIFIED.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified benefit’ shall
not include any qualified health plan (as defined in section
1301(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)
offered through an Exchange established under section
1311 of such Act.
‘‘(B) EXCEPTION FOR EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE EMPLOYERS.—
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to any
employee if such employee’s employer is a qualified
employer (as defined in section 1312(f)(2) of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act) offering the employee
the opportunity to enroll through such an Exchange in
a qualified health plan in a group market.’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Subsection (f) of section 125
of such Code is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘For purposes of this section, the term’’
and inserting ‘‘For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term’’, and
(2) by striking ‘‘Such term shall not include’’ and inserting
the following:
‘‘(2) LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE NOT QUALIFIED.—The
term ‘qualified benefit’ shall not include’’.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
So... again... what are the Republicans going to do? SUE the whitehouse to implement this?
whembly wrote: Nope... nothing in the ACA bill allows anyone to delay the implementation of the Employer Mandate:
Spoiler:
PART II—EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES
SEC. 1511. AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT FOR EMPLOYEES OF LARGE
EMPLOYERS.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is amended by inserting
after section 18 (29 U.S.C. 218) the following:
‘‘SEC. 18A. AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT FOR EMPLOYEES OF LARGE
EMPLOYERS.
‘‘In accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary,
an employer to which this Act applies that has more than 200
full-time employees and that offers employees enrollment in 1 or
more health benefits plans shall automatically enroll new full-
time employees in one of the plans offered (subject to any waiting
period authorized by law) and to continue the enrollment of current
employees in a health benefits plan offered through the employer.
Any automatic enrollment program shall include adequate notice
and the opportunity for an employee to opt out of any coverage
the individual or employee were automatically enrolled in. Nothing
in this section shall be construed to supersede any State law which
establishes, implements, or continues in effect any standard or
requirement relating to employers in connection with payroll except
to the extent that such standard or requirement prevents an
employer from instituting the automatic enrollment program under
this section.’’.
SEC. 1512. EMPLOYER REQUIREMENT TO INFORM EMPLOYEES OF COVERAGE OPTIONS.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is amended by inserting
after section 18A (as added by section 1513) the following:
‘‘SEC. 18B. NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with regulations promulgated
by the Secretary, an employer to which this Act applies, shall
provide to each employee at the time of hiring (or with respect
to current employees, not later than March 1, 2013), written
notice—
‘‘(1) informing the employee of the existence of an
Exchange, including a description of the services provided by
such Exchange, and the manner in which the employee may
contact the Exchange to request assistance;
‘‘(2) if the employer plan’s share of the total allowed costs
of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent
of such costs, that the employee may be eligible for a premium
tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 and a cost sharing reduction under section 1402 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if the employee
purchases a qualified health plan through the Exchange; and
‘‘(3) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan
through the Exchange, the employee will lose the employer
contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by
the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution
may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes.
‘‘(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) shall take effect with
respect to employers in a State beginning on March 1, 2013.’’.
SEC. 1513. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 4980H. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS REGARDING
HEALTH COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) LARGE EMPLOYERS NOT OFFERING HEALTH COVERAGE.—
If—
‘‘(1) any applicable large employer fails to offer to its full-
time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll
in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-
sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) for any
month, and
‘‘(2) at least one full-time employee of the applicable large
employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having
enrolled for such month in a qualified health plan with respect
to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing
reduction is allowed or paid with respect to the employee,
then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment equal to the product of the applicable payment amount and
the number of individuals employed by the employer as full-time
employees during such month.
‘‘(b) LARGE EMPLOYERS WITH WAITING PERIODS EXCEEDING 30
DAYS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any applicable large
employer which requires an extended waiting period to enroll
in any minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)), there is hereby
imposed on the employer an assessable payment, in the amount
specified in paragraph (2), for each full-time employee of the
employer to whom the extended waiting period applies.
‘‘(2) AMOUNT.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the amount
specified in this paragraph for a full-time employee is—
‘‘(A) in the case of an extended waiting period which
exceeds 30 days but does not exceed 60 days, $400, and
‘‘(B) in the case of an extended waiting period which
exceeds 60 days, $600.
‘‘(3) EXTENDED WAITING PERIOD.—The term ‘extended
waiting period’ means any waiting period (as defined in section
2701(b)(4) of the Public Health Service Act) which exceeds
30 days.
‘‘(c) LARGE EMPLOYERS OFFERING COVERAGE WITH EMPLOYEES
WHO QUALIFY FOR PREMIUM TAX CREDITS OR COST-SHARING REDUCTIONS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If—
‘‘(A) an applicable large employer offers to its full-
time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to
enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible
employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2))
for any month, and
‘‘(B) 1 or more full-time employees of the applicable
large employer has been certified to the employer under
section 1411 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act as having enrolled for such month in a qualified health
plan with respect to which an applicable premium tax
credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid with
respect to the employee,
then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable
payment equal to the product of the number of full-time
employees of the applicable large employer described in
subparagraph (B) for such month and 400 percent of the
applicable payment amount.
‘‘(2) OVERALL LIMITATION.—The aggregate amount of tax
determined under paragraph (1) with respect to all employees
of an applicable large employer for any month shall not exceed
the product of the applicable payment amount and the number
of individuals employed by the employer as full-time employees
during such month.
‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—For purposes of this
section—
‘‘(1) APPLICABLE PAYMENT AMOUNT.—The term ‘applicable
payment amount’ means, with respect to any month, 1
⁄12 of
$750.
‘‘(2) APPLICABLE LARGE EMPLOYER.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable large employer’
means, with respect to a calendar year, an employer who
employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees
on business days during the preceding calendar year.
‘‘(B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYERS.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—An employer shall not be considered to employ more than 50 full-time employees if—
‘‘(I) the employer’s workforce exceeds 50 full-
time employees for 120 days or fewer during the
calendar year, and
‘‘(II) the employees in excess of 50 employed
during such 120-day period were seasonal workers.
‘‘(ii) DEFINITION OF SEASONAL WORKERS.—The term
‘seasonal worker’ means a worker who performs labor
or services on a seasonal basis as defined by the Secretary of Labor, including workers covered by section
500.20(s)(1) of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations
and retail workers employed exclusively during holiday
seasons.
‘‘(C) RULES FOR DETERMINING EMPLOYER SIZE.—For
purposes of this paragraph—
‘‘(i) APPLICATION OF AGGREGATION RULE FOR
EMPLOYERS.—All persons treated as a single employer
under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 414
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated
as 1 employer.
‘‘(ii) EMPLOYERS NOT IN EXISTENCE IN PRECEDING
YEAR.—In the case of an employer which was not in
existence throughout the preceding calendar year, the
determination of whether such employer is an
applicable large employer shall be based on the average
number of employees that it is reasonably expected
such employer will employ on business days in the
current calendar year.
‘‘(iii) PREDECESSORS.—Any reference in this subsection to an employer shall include a reference to
any predecessor of such employer.
‘‘(3) APPLICABLE PREMIUM TAX CREDIT AND COST-SHARING
REDUCTION.—The term ‘applicable premium tax credit and cost-
sharing reduction’ means—
‘‘(A) any premium tax credit allowed under section
36B,
‘‘(B) any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and
‘‘(C) any advance payment of such credit or reduction
under section 1412 of such Act.
‘‘(4) FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘full-time employee’ means
an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours
of service per week.
‘‘(B) HOURS OF SERVICE.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall prescribe such regulations, rules, and guidance as may be necessary to determine the hours of service of an employee, including rules
for the application of this paragraph to employees who
are not compensated on an hourly basis.
‘‘(5) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any calendar year
after 2014, each of the dollar amounts in subsection (b)(2)
and (d)(1) shall be increased by an amount equal to the
product of—
‘‘(i) such dollar amount, and
‘‘(ii) the premium adjustment percentage (as
defined in section 1302(c)(4) of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act) for the calendar year.
‘‘(B) ROUNDING.—If the amount of any increase under
subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $10, such increase
shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $10.
‘‘(6) OTHER DEFINITIONS.—Any term used in this section
which is also used in the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act shall have the same meaning as when used in such
Act.
‘‘(7) TAX NONDEDUCTIBLE.—For denial of deduction for the
tax imposed by this section, see section 275(a)(6).
‘‘(e) ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any assessable payment provided by
this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the
Secretary, and shall be assessed and collected in the same
manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter
68.
‘‘(2) TIME FOR PAYMENT.—The Secretary may provide for
the payment of any assessable payment provided by this section
on an annual, monthly, or other periodic basis as the Secretary
may prescribe.
‘‘(3) COORDINATION WITH CREDITS, ETC..—The Secretary
shall prescribe rules, regulations, or guidance for the repayment
of any assessable payment (including interest) if such payment
is based on the allowance or payment of an applicable premium
tax credit or cost-sharing reduction with respect to an employee,
such allowance or payment is subsequently disallowed, and
the assessable payment would not have been required to be
made but for such allowance or payment.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for chapter
43 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:
‘‘Sec. 4980H. Shared responsibility for employers regarding health coverage.’’.
(c) STUDY AND REPORT OF EFFECT OF TAX ON WORKERS’
WAGES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Labor shall conduct
a study to determine whether employees’ wages are reduced
by reason of the application of the assessable payments under
section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added
by the amendments made by this section). The Secretary shall
make such determination on the basis of the National Compensation Survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(2) REPORT.—The Secretary shall report the results of the
study under paragraph (1) to the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives and to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.
SEC. 1514. REPORTING OF EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart D of part III of subchapter A of
chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by
section 1502, is amended by inserting after section 6055 the following new section:
‘‘SEC. 6056. LARGE EMPLOYERS REQUIRED TO REPORT ON HEALTH
INSURANCE COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Every applicable large employer required
to meet the requirements of section 4980H with respect to its
full-time employees during a calendar year shall, at such time
as the Secretary may prescribe, make a return described in subsection (b).
‘‘(b) FORM AND MANNER OF RETURN.—A return is described
in this subsection if such return—
‘‘(1) is in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, and
‘‘(2) contains—
‘‘(A) the name, date, and employer identification
number of the employer,
‘‘(B) a certification as to whether the employer offers
to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an
eligible employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section
5000A(f)(2)),
‘‘(C) if the employer certifies that the employer did
offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the
opportunity to so enroll—
‘‘(i) the length of any waiting period (as defined
in section 2701(b)(4) of the Public Health Service Act)
with respect to such coverage,
‘‘(ii) the months during the calendar year for which
coverage under the plan was available,
‘‘(iii) the monthly premium for the lowest cost
option in each of the enrollment categories under the
plan, and
‘‘(iv) the applicable large employer’s share of the
total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan,
‘‘(D) the number of full-time employees for each month
during the calendar year,
‘‘(E) the name, address, and TIN of each full-time
employee during the calendar year and the months (if
any) during which such employee (and any dependents)
were covered under any such health benefits plans, and
‘‘(F) such other information as the Secretary may
require.
‘‘(c) STATEMENTS TO BE FURNISHED TO INDIVIDUALS WITH
RESPECT TO WHOM INFORMATION IS REPORTED.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Every person required to make a return
under subsection (a) shall furnish to each full-time employee
whose name is required to be set forth in such return under
subsection (b)(2)(E) a written statement showing—
‘‘(A) the name and address of the person required
to make such return and the phone number of the information contact for such person, and
‘‘(B) the information required to be shown on the return
with respect to such individual.
‘‘(2) TIME FOR FURNISHING STATEMENTS.—The written statement required under paragraph (1) shall be furnished on or
before January 31 of the year following the calendar year
for which the return under subsection (a) was required to
be made.
‘‘(d) COORDINATION WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—To the maximum extent feasible, the Secretary may provide that—
‘‘(1) any return or statement required to be provided under
this section may be provided as part of any return or statement
required under section 6051 or 6055, and
‘‘(2) in the case of an applicable large employer offering
health insurance coverage of a health insurance issuer, the
employer may enter into an agreement with the issuer to
include information required under this section with the return
and statement required to be provided by the issuer under
section 6055.
‘‘(e) COVERAGE PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENTAL UNITS.—In the
case of any applicable large employer which is a governmental
unit or any agency or instrumentality thereof, the person appropriately designated for purposes of this section shall make the
returns and statements required by this section.
‘‘(f) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, any term used
in this section which is also used in section 4980H shall have
the meaning given such term by section 4980H.’’.
(b) ASSESSABLE PENALTIES.—
(1) Subparagraph (B) of section 6724(d)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions), as amended
by section 1502, is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of
clause (xxiii), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (xxiv)
and inserting ‘‘or’’, and by inserting after clause (xxiv) the
following new clause:
‘‘(xxv) section 6056 (relating to returns relating
to large employers required to report on health insurance coverage), and’’.
(2) Paragraph (2) of section 6724(d) of such Code, as so
amended, is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (FF), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph
(GG) and inserting ‘‘, or’’ and by inserting after subparagraph
(GG) the following new subparagraph:
‘‘(HH) section 6056(c) (relating to statements relating
to large employers required to report on health insurance
coverage).’’.
(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for subpart
D of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code, as
added by section 1502, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘Sec. 6056. Large employers required to report on health insurance coverage.’’.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to periods beginning after December 31, 2013.
SEC. 1515. OFFERING OF EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING QUALIFIED
HEALTH PLANS THROUGH CAFETERIA PLANS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (f) of section 125 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
‘‘(3) CERTAIN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING QUALIFIED HEALTH
PLANS NOT QUALIFIED.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified benefit’ shall
not include any qualified health plan (as defined in section
1301(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)
offered through an Exchange established under section
1311 of such Act.
‘‘(B) EXCEPTION FOR EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE EMPLOYERS.—
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to any
employee if such employee’s employer is a qualified
employer (as defined in section 1312(f)(2) of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act) offering the employee
the opportunity to enroll through such an Exchange in
a qualified health plan in a group market.’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Subsection (f) of section 125
of such Code is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘For purposes of this section, the term’’
and inserting ‘‘For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term’’, and
(2) by striking ‘‘Such term shall not include’’ and inserting
the following:
‘‘(2) LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE NOT QUALIFIED.—The
term ‘qualified benefit’ shall not include’’.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
So... again... what are the Republicans going to do? SUE the whitehouse to implement this?
You seriously have to read the entire thing to be sure. Such a provision could be placed anywhere in the law, not just the top level provisions. Other than "the definitions go up front", a law can be written in any order.
The move raises some bizarro questions of precedent: can a future, conservative administration suspend the mandates? What about the Social Security & Medicare mandate?
See what I mean?
The employer mandate is part of the law itself, duly enacted by the Democrat led Congress and signed by O. What authority does O have to suspend it unilaterally? Is that part of the “Save Democrats’ Asses Enabling Act of 2013″?
Businesses had 4 years to plan/adjust for this... what's another year going to do? This is nothing more than to defer the impact of the law on businesses during the 2014 midterm election year, avoiding ugly headlines about businesses cutting staff levels or reducing worker hours to get around the mandate.
Scarred by years of Republican attacks over Obamacare, with more in store next year, Democrats have settled on an unlikely strategy for the 2014 midterms: Bring it on. [whembly: !!! wth?!?!]
Party strategists believe that embracing the polarizing law — especially its more popular elements — is smarter politics than fleeing from it in the House elections. The new tack is a marked shift from 2010, when Republicans pointed to Obamacare as Exhibit A of Big Government run amok on their way to seizing the House from Democrats.
But the Democratic bear hug, reflecting a calculation it’s probably impossible to shed their association with the law even if they wanted to, is still a high-wire public relations act. The White House has consistently struggled with messaging on Obamacare, hoping the public would gain an appreciation for the health care makeover as its benefits became apparent. That never really happened, but Democrats seem to be banking that it finally will.
The strategy will be put to the test as the law kicks in next year and is implemented in the months leading up to the election — with the inevitable snafus and critical media coverage as the public gets its first up-close view of the massive undertaking.
California Rep. Scott Peters, a freshman Democrat who narrowly won election last year, said he doesn’t agree with every part of the law. But he said he’s not afraid of addressing health care — far from it.
“I don’t have any problem talking about it,” Peters, who hails from a San Diego-area swing district, said in an interview. “I think it’s a big issue. I think it’s going to be talked about more than immigration or guns.”
One early sign of the shift: After House Republicans brought a health care repeal measure to the floor last month — the 37th time they’ve tried — Peters joined a cast of other Democratic incumbents from competitive districts to criticize the GOP for the maneuver.
In 2010, Democratic congressional candidates in tough races actively promoted their opposition to the just-passed law, in some cases running ads blasting it. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee privately instructed members and candidates to change the subject if they were asked about the health care law in town hall meetings or on the campaign trail.
Look for that to change in 2014, say party strategists.
“In 2010, the benefits of ACA were theoretical and Democratic candidates ran away from it. If you were in a tough race and asked about health care,” a senior Democratic official told POLITICO, “you changed the topic. In 2014, Democrats can talk about the positives, position themselves as consumer advocates to make it work and go on offense against Republicans for wanting to take the benefits away.”
That doesn’t mean every Democrat in the country will be singing from the mountaintops about how much they love the overhaul or running TV ads praising it – there’s still plenty in it that turns off voters in conservative-leaning districts where the battle for the House will be waged.
But Democratic strategists are convinced there’s plenty to like in the law — such as coverage for pre-existing conditions, eliminating lifetime caps on coverage and allowing children to stay on their parents’ health care plans until they are 26 — and are coaching lawmakers and candidates girding for tough races next year to hammer home those benefits.
“Fix the bad, keep the good, and move on” is the message House hopefuls are being advised to use. Offer help to voters navigating the ins and outs of the altered health care system. And flip the script on Republicans by accusing them of wanting to do away with the most popular provisions, the strategy goes.
As they lay the groundwork for the midterms, officials from both parties are betting that health care will play a starring role. In 2010, Republicans used the issue to tap into a vein of nationwide anger at Obama’s far-reaching agenda. In 2012, health care took a backseat as the personalities of the presidential race, Obama and Mitt Romney, dominated the campaign.
In 2014, as the law moves from the theoretical to the practical, health care is once again likely to get top billing.
“By the time campaigns are being waged in 2014, the key parts of the law will be in place. It’s a subject that inevitably will be fought over because events will drive it there,” said Geoff Garin, a top Democratic pollster. “Given that, it’s much better to be proactive and the party on offense than be on defense, as was the case in 2010.”
“We’re in a different place than we were four years ago. We’re dealing with something that’s been in law and the only real political question on health care is whether we’re going forward or backward. Democrats feel confident that there is a very positive story to tell about the Affordable Care Act and its benefits for average Americans,” Garin added.
Republicans, for their part, believe Obamacare — along with the IRS scandal and other recent administration controversies — will allow them to make a powerful argument to voters next year about the dangers of government overreach. They’re confident that public wariness of the health care law is bound to grow over the next year and that it will spell trouble for Democrats running in moderate-to-conservative parts of the country.
Last month, the National Republican Congressional Committee conducted a poll in Utah Rep. Jim Matheson’s suburban Salt Lake City and found that 72 percent want implementation of the law stopped or delayed. An NRCC survey in Illinois Rep. Brad Schneider’s suburban Chicago district showed 57 percent favor stopping or delaying implementation.
“No issue should cause more sleepless nights for Democrats than Obamacare,” said Brock McCleary, a GOP pollster who conducted the surveys for the NRCC.
“There’s great concern about the ability to implement the law in seven months,” McCleary said. “I think you have to search high and low for someone who says implementation is going great … Whether you agree or disagree with the law, implementation is a problem.”
The NRCC has already begun targeting Democrats, last week unveiling billboards tying four incumbents to the health care bill.
Democrats admit that implementation will face some hurdles and fully expect Republicans to spotlight those blemishes in TV ads.
But the White House and congressional Democrats have in recent weeks launched a messaging offensive aimed at blunting the anticipated GOP barrage. Before the Memorial Day recess, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi distributed a 78-page binder instructing members on how to sell the bill in their districts, and White House officials ranging from Obama to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack highlighted the benefits of the bill in a spree of university commencement speeches.
In the special House election last month in South Carolina, Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch distanced herself from Obamacare (she supported it, but with major caveats). But that race, which Colbert Busch lost to former Gov. Mark Sanford, was an outlier because the district is more conservative than the typical swing House district.
At the very least, Democrats say, four years’ worth of scrutiny, bad press and political attacks have lowered expectations for success of the rollout of the new system. They figure a smoother-than-anticipated launch will play to their benefit.
“The reality is, this is coming on line,” said John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster who has conducted extensive public opinion research on the health care bill. “The expectations are so low that the Obama administration will meet those expectations and possibly exceed them.”
Now that the Whitehouse is tacitly admitting failure...
You seriously have to read the entire thing to be sure. Such a provision could be placed anywhere in the law, not just the top level provisions. Other than "the definitions go up front", a law can be written in any order.
not really... trying to use "CNTRL + F" to find any buzzwords where it empowers the Executive Branch leeway to delay implementation to no luck...
The employer mandate is part of the law itself, duly enacted by the Democrat led Congress and signed by O. What authority does O have to suspend it unilaterally? Is that part of the “Save Democrats’ Asses Enabling Act of 2013″?
As I said a million times, if the law itself has a provision down in its million pages giving that authority, then it too was duly enacted by congress.
Duly enacted by congress actually still counts powers granted in laws duly enacted by congress. If congress enacts a law which contains both a date and the power to change that date, then said law is binding. You don't get to just pick some parts of a law and say that they are duly enacted while saying that others aren't.
Again, this is assuming there's some line in the thousands of pages granting the ability to postpone to some particular agency head.
If there isn't such a line in those thousands of pages, then the authority has to come from somewhere else. Any number of other tax laws might have granted it. This stuff gets really complicated and you're trying to make it really black and white.
You seriously have to read the entire thing to be sure. Such a provision could be placed anywhere in the law, not just the top level provisions. Other than "the definitions go up front", a law can be written in any order.
not really... trying to use "CNTRL + F" to find any buzzwords where it empowers the Executive Branch leeway to delay implementation to no luck...
Are you claiming to have ctrl+f'd the entire ACA for every possible legal term for postpone?
You seriously have to read the entire thing to be sure. Such a provision could be placed anywhere in the law, not just the top level provisions. Other than "the definitions go up front", a law can be written in any order.
not really... trying to use "CNTRL + F" to find any buzzwords where it empowers the Executive Branch leeway to delay implementation to no luck...
Are you claiming to have ctrl+f'd the entire ACA for every possible legal term for postpone?
You seriously have to read the entire thing to be sure. Such a provision could be placed anywhere in the law, not just the top level provisions. Other than "the definitions go up front", a law can be written in any order.
not really... trying to use "CNTRL + F" to find any buzzwords where it empowers the Executive Branch leeway to delay implementation to no luck...
Are you claiming to have ctrl+f'd the entire ACA for every possible legal term for postpone?
Tried other combination/permutations too... still search by the way.
There are thousands of ways to word such a provision that you might not expect. Ctrl+f is not sufficient. Someone needs to actually read it all and tell us if it's in there.
I know you want to be mad at obama and claim that he's overstepping his bounds, and god knows I think this postponement is dumb and political, but you need to calm down and do your due diligence here. Law is complicated.
There are thousands of ways to word such a provision that you might not expect. Ctrl+f is not sufficient. Someone needs to actually read it all and tell us if it's in there.
I know you want to be mad at obama and claim that he's overstepping his bounds, and god knows I think this postponement is dumb and political, but you need to calm down and do your due diligence here. Law is complicated.
Just watch the blog-o-sphere.
If there's a provision allowing this, the traditional supporters will be sure to get the word out.
I honestly wonder if the Administration has developed 'buyer's remorse' over Obamacare, or if they think that this is just a little hurdle to get past the midterm elections and then it'll all be rosy after.
One of the ways this economic recovery differs significantly from... every other economic recovery is that decline in unemployment did not 'lead' increases in corporate profits. The typical order of a recovery is 1. Production increases, 2. Unemployment declines, 3. Profits increase. This leads back to 1. and the virtuous cycle gains traction.
What we've broadly seen here is that profits led considerably the decline in unemployment, and continue to do so. A big part of this is the lack of hiring by small companies. A big part of that, according to surveys and simple common sense, is uncertainty over healthcare legislation and the true cost back to the business of that incremental person.
I really wonder if the Obama administration believes that this postponement will 'satisfy' small business owners and a big round of new hirings is imminent that will boost Democratic support into 2014. If so, they're likely to be woefully disappointed as the postponement is indeed applauded but results in no material shift in behavior by these small business owners.
There are thousands of ways to word such a provision that you might not expect. Ctrl+f is not sufficient. Someone needs to actually read it all and tell us if it's in there.
I know you want to be mad at obama and claim that he's overstepping his bounds, and god knows I think this postponement is dumb and political, but you need to calm down and do your due diligence here. Law is complicated.
Just watch the blog-o-sphere.
If there's a provision allowing this, the traditional supporters will be sure to get the word out.
Stay tuned.
Yeah, that's fine. If one isn't found, either in ACA or in some other tax law somewhere, within a few weeks, then you can commence freaking out.
There are thousands of ways to word such a provision that you might not expect. Ctrl+f is not sufficient. Someone needs to actually read it all and tell us if it's in there.
I know you want to be mad at obama and claim that he's overstepping his bounds, and god knows I think this postponement is dumb and political, but you need to calm down and do your due diligence here. Law is complicated.
Just watch the blog-o-sphere.
If there's a provision allowing this, the traditional supporters will be sure to get the word out.
Stay tuned.
Yeah, that's fine. If one isn't found, either in ACA or in some other tax law somewhere, within a few weeks, then you can commence freaking out.
But, who's going to force the Whitehouse to actually implement this on time? Don't you see how hysterical all this is?
My twittah feed is going full bore snark mode... one of the best I've seen:
You know who really feels stupid right now? All those people who bribed the White House for Obamacare waivers. Suckers!
sourclams wrote: I honestly wonder if the Administration has developed 'buyer's remorse' over Obamacare, or if they think that this is just a little hurdle to get past the midterm elections and then it'll all be rosy after.
One of the ways this economic recovery differs significantly from... every other economic recovery is that decline in unemployment did not 'lead' increases in corporate profits. The typical order of a recovery is 1. Production increases, 2. Unemployment declines, 3. Profits increase. This leads back to 1. and the virtuous cycle gains traction.
What we've broadly seen here is that profits led considerably the decline in unemployment, and continue to do so. A big part of this is the lack of hiring by small companies. A big part of that, according to surveys and simple common sense, is uncertainty over healthcare legislation and the true cost back to the business of that incremental person.
I really wonder if the Obama administration believes that this postponement will 'satisfy' small business owners and a big round of new hirings is imminent that will boost Democratic support into 2014. If so, they're likely to be woefully disappointed as the postponement is indeed applauded but results in no material shift in behavior by these small business owners.
All of that is more true in a recession based on a lack of supply. This particular recession features a lack of demand, so the order of recovery is a little different and relies heavily on consumer confidence.
So in that sense, uncertainty over ACA is hurting recovery, but not quite in the way you present here. It's the employees worried about losing coverage or having hours cut that aren't spending, which is keeping the businesses from needing to hire people, etc etc.
sourclams wrote: I honestly wonder if the Administration has developed 'buyer's remorse' over Obamacare, or if they think that this is just a little hurdle to get past the midterm elections and then it'll all be rosy after.
You mean in the way that unions and worker on the Hill now want exemptions from the ACA after helping get it passed? It's not a great sign when your supporters and staff want nothing to do with it.
sourclams wrote: I really wonder if the Obama administration believes that this postponement will 'satisfy' small business owners and a big round of new hirings is imminent that will boost Democratic support into 2014. If so, they're likely to be woefully disappointed as the postponement is indeed applauded but results in no material shift in behavior by these small business owners.
I wonder if this will have much of an impact. Most businesses will know that if they hire someone now they are still liable for their ACA costs in a years time. It could even backfire for the Administration - lots of new hires now, and then lots of redundancies and cut backs once the ACA kicks in.
Rented Tritium wrote: All of that is more true in a recession based on a lack of supply. This particular recession features a lack of demand, so the order of recovery is a little different and relies heavily on consumer confidence.
What 'supply' are you referencing? Monetary supply? The M1 multiple for this go-round is tremendously low as injections mostly just sit hard upon the sidelines, which is indicative of a lack of appetite by the physical producers to embrace 'risky' behavior; i.e. expansion. It's precisely this lack of risk appetite (although we can also look to increased regulation/scrutiny and shift in sentiment over the past 10 years as a culprit) that results in sluggish hirings, translating to lack of demand.
I think it safe to say that "everywhere" employers aren't offering full-time employment. This really does hurt young, non-professionals that rely on part-time employment and are unlikely to have material healthcare needs due to being young and healthy.
Rented Tritium wrote: All of that is more true in a recession based on a lack of supply. This particular recession features a lack of demand, so the order of recovery is a little different and relies heavily on consumer confidence.
What 'supply' are you referencing? Monetary supply? The M1 multiple for this go-round is tremendously low as injections mostly just sit hard upon the sidelines, which is indicative of a lack of appetite by the physical producers to embrace 'risky' behavior; i.e. expansion. It's precisely this lack of risk appetite (although we can also look to increased regulation/scrutiny and shift in sentiment over the past 10 years as a culprit) that results in sluggish hirings, translating to lack of demand.
Goods and services.
See, your first step was production increasing. That's not the problem. There is enough good investment money in the system that production can increase any time it needs to. The problem is that consumer demand for goods and services is too low to warrant increasing production. Look at how many businesses are playing it safe and sitting on reserves. It's not because they're unsure, they have shareholders to answer to and they've got a responsibility to maximize share value. If people with a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value are choosing not to increase production, it actually means there isn't enough demand.
The ACA hurts either way, because both the businesses and the employees are worried about it, but in this case the employees are the ones slowing down the recovery by being nervous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote: I think it safe to say that "everywhere" employers aren't offering full-time employment. This really does hurt young, non-professionals that rely on part-time employment and are unlikely to have material healthcare needs due to being young and healthy.
Yeah, as if the post-college job market wasn't bad enough, right?
sourclams wrote: I think it safe to say that "everywhere" employers aren't offering full-time employment. This really does hurt young, non-professionals that rely on part-time employment and are unlikely to have material healthcare needs due to being young and healthy.
Yeah, as if the post-college job market wasn't bad enough, right?
Not easy being an immigrant either when your qualifications, and references, are from outside the US
Rented Tritium wrote: See, your first step was production increasing. That's not the problem. There is enough good investment money in the system that production can increase any time it needs to. The problem is that consumer emand for goods and services is too low to warrant increasing production.?
Yeah, I don't think your POV is syncing up with what we've already seen develop in the broader markets. Production did increase. Demand for that production also increased, as evidenced by general rise in prices (notably home values/housing starts). There is enough liquidity and credit that reinvestment in physical production and manufacturing that it can rebound, and there's more than enough money circulating that the services sector (speaking primarily to financial services, not fast food restaurants) is not creating a bottleneck.
The way in which production has increased, however, has come by increasing productivity per person on the existing headcount. Overtime is increased and automation is increased, reinvestment in process and allowing the same person to do things 'better' has increased. This is how headcount/hiring increase has been largely skipped over to-date. Businesses have adopted more up-front costs (overtime, training, equipment and process purchases) to avoid hiring another full-timer. That is a completely rational behavior.
So the economy is doing much better, but it is doing so in a way that amplifies the gap between 'haves' and 'have-nots'.
Rented Tritium wrote: Less so in sectors which already offered insurance as a matter of course.
Yes, less so, but the 'professional' sectors are doing the same. In the intermediate term, 'not hiring' will amount to the same as 'reduction in force' given the size of the inactive labor pool and slight population growth.
No idea. Maybe none. I just roll my eyes at "traditional media" histrionics.
Okay... I'm willing to hold my "outrage" at bay until we get more information.
But, humor me for a moment...
Let's say that there's nothing in the ACA bill or there's no existing government function that would allow the WH to delay the implementation.
Don't you see this as a potential problem? At the very least, a showdown between Congress and the WH?
The whole irony about this thing is that nothing will be done. I mean, is the GOP going to sue the WH to actually implement this thing? o.O
-if the GOP was smart, they'd use this to hammer their Democratic opponents. (but, they'll likely feth that up)
-if this does go uncontested, what does that mean for future presidents?
Only court cases create precedent. If someone doesn't get challenged in court and upheld, then it doesn't really create a precedent, so you don' t have to worry much about that.
As for strategy, the republicans are going to use it in attack ads a la "obamacare was so bad that the democrats won't even enforce it themselves"
sourclams wrote: One of the ways this economic recovery differs significantly from... every other economic recovery is that decline in unemployment did not 'lead' increases in corporate profits. The typical order of a recovery is 1. Production increases, 2. Unemployment declines, 3. Profits increase. This leads back to 1. and the virtuous cycle gains traction.
Huh?
It's been said so many times during and since the recession that it's gotten to be a cliche, but I'll repeat it for you here - there is no typical recovery. It's like Tolstoy said, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"... well happy economies are all alike, every unhappy economy is unhappy in its own way. There is no regular pattern to recovery, and the bigger the economic shock, the more that holds true.
Seriously? I thought you were trained and worked in economics?
Anyhow, recessions can be supply side driven or demand driven.
A supply side recession involves a shock to production, typically a sudden ramp up in the costs of production, so that formerly profitable production is no longer profitable, and stops. The classic example is the late 70s double whammy of massive increases in the price of oil and wage inflation.
A demand driven recession involves inadequate aggregate demand. Typically this is due to increased sensitivity to balance sheet risk, people and firms looking to reduce debt and increase savings through reduced consumption/investment. Unfortunately, of course, what works for the individual doesn't work well for the economy as a whole, producing an overall reduced level of aggregate demand.
sebster wrote: It's been said so many times during and since the recession that it's gotten to be a cliche, but I'll repeat it for you here - there is no typical recovery. It's like Tolstoy said, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"... well happy economies are all alike, every unhappy economy is unhappy in its own way. There is no regular pattern to recovery, and the bigger the economic shock, the more that holds true.
That's fine that you feel that way, but it really doesn't change that unemployment remains high and part-time positions have a disproportionate share of unemployment decline. When we look at the broad trends, the US economy is doing well. It is doing well in a way that is largely leaving the bottom quintile earners in the US utterly in the dust. Part of the reason is the ability for employers to figure out how to fulfill the needs of their business while circumventing headcount. This is a big deviation from historical norm. So the question to truly begin to understand recent events is 'what exactly is disincenting businesses from hiring more people?'. There is, of course, no one issue to wag your finger at there but you're nuts if you don't think Obamacare and the regulatory uncertainty that still years-later surrounds it, isn't a big contributor.
Seriously? I thought you were trained and worked in economics?
Anyhow, recessions can be supply side driven or demand driven.
A supply side recession involves a shock to production, typically a sudden ramp up in the costs of production, so that formerly profitable production is no longer profitable, and stops. The classic example is the late 70s double whammy of massive increases in the price of oil and wage inflation.
A demand driven recession involves inadequate aggregate demand. Typically this is due to increased sensitivity to balance sheet risk, people and firms looking to reduce debt and increase savings through reduced consumption/investment. Unfortunately, of course, what works for the individual doesn't work well for the economy as a whole, producing an overall reduced level of aggregate demand.
I appreciate your jumping in straight from the textbook, but 'Supply' and 'Demand' are not distinct separate variables here. The recent recession in the US was caused by an overleveraged housing sector causing financial contraction (as the result of systemic overexposure) that dried up credit. Oversupply of housing inventories and weak owner balancesheets precipitated and lengthened this Soros-style bubble and disintegration of money supply resulted in economic slowdown that killed demand.
Since the bit that you quoted is without context, I'll remind you that it was a previous poster who used the 'supply' word, and in an effort to carry on the discussion I queried in which capacity he was using the term. I didn't think he was using it in the broadest sense of definition because the conversation had largely carried beyond that point. Pulling out textbook definitions would have been like responding to a 'how do I tweak my Space Wolves Drop Pod list' thread with 'Hey, Space Marines have a 3+ armor save but no invul, so they're resilient but can still die pretty easy'.
Aren't those unions some of the most vocal supporters of the ACA? Now why would you campaign for something that is not actually in your interests......
sourclams wrote: That's fine that you feel that way, but it really doesn't change that unemployment remains high and part-time positions have a disproportionate share of unemployment decline. When we look at the broad trends, the US economy is doing well. It is doing well in a way that is largely leaving the bottom quintile earners in the US utterly in the dust. Part of the reason is the ability for employers to figure out how to fulfill the needs of their business while circumventing headcount. This is a big deviation from historical norm. So the question to truly begin to understand recent events is 'what exactly is disincenting businesses from hiring more people?'. There is, of course, no one issue to wag your finger at there but you're nuts if you don't think Obamacare and the regulatory uncertainty that still years-later surrounds it, isn't a big contributor.
It doesn't really matter how I feel, that economic downturns and the subsequent recoveries differ wildly is pretty broadly understood piece of economic history. Read about it, if you're interested.
As such, your argument that this recovery is somehow strangely jobless in a way that's never happened before simply doesn't work. And that's before we get on to the 'and therefore Obamacare' bit at the end.
I appreciate your jumping in straight from the textbook, but 'Supply' and 'Demand' are not distinct separate variables here.
Of course they are. There's no situation in which people's tendency to consume and people tendency to supply can be the same thing. They are always related, but very much not the same thing. Talking about this current recession in terms of supply issues just makes no sense, because it simply isn't driven by rising costs of supply. Obamacare may make certain types of employment more expensive, but against that you have four years of flat wages growth, and falling commodity prices.
The problem is that we are still in the midst of deleveraging, with companies and private building up assets to reduce their indebtedness. This keeps aggregate demand down, which in turn gives businesses no reason to expand and employ new staff.
Since the bit that you quoted is without context, I'll remind you that it was a previous poster who used the 'supply' word, and in an effort to carry on the discussion I queried in which capacity he was using the term. I didn't think he was using it in the broadest sense of definition because the conversation had largely carried beyond that point. Pulling out textbook definitions would have been like responding to a 'how do I tweak my Space Wolves Drop Pod list' thread with 'Hey, Space Marines have a 3+ armor save but no invul, so they're resilient but can still die pretty easy'.
No, the puzzle was someone asking 'how do I tweak my Space Wolves Drop Pod list' and you replying 'please clarify what you mean by Drop Pod'.
Aren't those unions some of the most vocal supporters of the ACA? Now why would you campaign for something that is not actually in your interests......
Aren't those unions some of the most vocal supporters of the ACA? Now why would you campaign for something that is not actually in your interests......
Yep... makes you wonder huh?
I like that Illinois Senate candidates summation of the bill since it seems pretty much on the mark. Too bad more people hadn't listened to her about it so we wouldn't be in the mess that's currently going on because of it and heading into the bigger gak storm coming.
Having to pass it before we knew what was in it, more unions jumping ship, staff in political offices wanting exemptions, and deferring large parts of the Bill until after the election..... not a single part of that screams "Good idea"
Yeesh... the (D)s are going to get hammered in the '14 election for Obamacare...
The Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee will later today release the following chart, detailing the rising projected cost of President Obama's signature legislation, Obamacare:
The latest estimate, as the chart details, is that Obamacare will cost $2.6 trillion dollars in its first real decade. The bill does not fully go into effect until 2014, therefore the estimate begins with that year.
"President Obama promised a joint session of Congress in 2009 to spend $900 billion over ten years on his health care law: 'Now, add it all up, and the plan that I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.' Adding up all the different spending provisions in the health care law, however, (including closing the Medicare 'donut hole,' implementation costs, and other spending) total gross spending over the FY 2010–19 period is about $1.4 trillion, based on CBO estimates," the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff explains. "And most of the major spending provisions in the law do not even take effect until 2014. Congressional Democrats delayed these provisions in order to show only six years of spending under the plan in the original 10-year budget window (from FY2010-19) used by CBO at the time the law was enacted. Therefore, the original estimate concealed the fact that most of the law’s spending only doesn’t even begin until four years into the 10-year window. A Senate Budget Committee analysis (based on CBO estimates and growth rates) finds that that total spending under the law will amount to at least $2.6 trillion over a true 10-year period (from FY2014–23)—not $900 billion, as President Obama originally promised."
The chart is being released now to coincide with the House vote later today to repeal Obamacare.
whembly wrote: Yeesh... the (D)s are going to get hammered in the '14 election for Obamacare...
The Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee will later today release the following chart, detailing the rising projected cost of President Obama's signature legislation, Obamacare:
The latest estimate, as the chart details, is that Obamacare will cost $2.6 trillion dollars in its first real decade. The bill does not fully go into effect until 2014, therefore the estimate begins with that year.
"President Obama promised a joint session of Congress in 2009 to spend $900 billion over ten years on his health care law: 'Now, add it all up, and the plan that I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.' Adding up all the different spending provisions in the health care law, however, (including closing the Medicare 'donut hole,' implementation costs, and other spending) total gross spending over the FY 2010–19 period is about $1.4 trillion, based on CBO estimates," the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff explains. "And most of the major spending provisions in the law do not even take effect until 2014. Congressional Democrats delayed these provisions in order to show only six years of spending under the plan in the original 10-year budget window (from FY2010-19) used by CBO at the time the law was enacted. Therefore, the original estimate concealed the fact that most of the law’s spending only doesn’t even begin until four years into the 10-year window. A Senate Budget Committee analysis (based on CBO estimates and growth rates) finds that that total spending under the law will amount to at least $2.6 trillion over a true 10-year period (from FY2014–23)—not $900 billion, as President Obama originally promised."
The chart is being released now to coincide with the House vote later today to repeal Obamacare.
This just gets better and better with each new revelation.
