So, apparently the right-wing guys weren't just doing a Chicken Little impersonation? Too bad these same labor unions were so damned politically partisan that they didn't "stand up for the little guy" when it mattered.
Unions: Obamacare Will Shatter Backbone of Middle Class
The Affordable Care Act now has a formidable opponent in U.S. labor unions. The unions were a key ally in the law’s passage: They spent a large sum of money on the congressional campaigns of Democrats in 2006 and 2008, and union leaders lobbied in favor of health care reform in 2009 and 2010. But with growing worries that the legislation will disrupt the health benefits of its members, America’s largest unions are asking Congress to step in.
Representatives of three of the nation’s largest unions sent a letter to Democratic Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada and Nancy Pelosi of California on Thursday.
“When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act, you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat,” letter said. “Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.”
The letter was written by James P. Hoffa, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Joseph Hansen, international president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; and Donald Taylor, the president of Unite-Here, a union representing hotel, airport, food service, gaming, and textile workers.
Their letter noted that their respective unions have long been supporters of the idea that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. “We have also been strong supporters of you,” the three union presidents wrote. “In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.”
But the problem is that “this vision has come back to haunt us.”
The union leadership is seeking “reasonable regulatory interpretations” to the Affordable Care Act that would help prevent the destruction of nonprofit health plans. However, according to the letter, earlier requests for government action have been “disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies.” In their opinion, this disregard compares unfavorably with how the administration responded to requests made by other so-called stakeholders, citing the government’s decision to make a “huge accommodation” for the employer community by extending the deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.
“Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it,” wrote the union leaders. “The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios.”
The letter lists three complaints. First, that the law creates an incentive for employers to keep workers’ hours below 30 hours per week. Second, that millions of Americans, including a great majority of union members, are covered by nonprofit health insurance plans. But with the implementation of Obamacare, union workers will be “treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens.” Finally, the letter argued that while union, nonprofit plans will not receive the same subsidies, they will be taxed to pay for those subsidies.
Hoffa, Hansen, and Taylor believe that there are “common-sense” fixes that can be made to the legislation that will allow union members to keep their current plans and benefits as Congress and President Barack Obama promised. Unless the changes are made, they said that pledge is hollow.
“We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions,” the letter concluded.
Breotan wrote: So, apparently the right-wing guys weren't just doing a Chicken Little impersonation? Too bad these same labor unions were so damned politically partisan that they didn't "stand up for the little guy" when it mattered.
Unions: Obamacare Will Shatter Backbone of Middle Class
The Affordable Care Act now has a formidable opponent in U.S. labor unions. The unions were a key ally in the law’s passage: They spent a large sum of money on the congressional campaigns of Democrats in 2006 and 2008, and union leaders lobbied in favor of health care reform in 2009 and 2010. But with growing worries that the legislation will disrupt the health benefits of its members, America’s largest unions are asking Congress to step in.
Representatives of three of the nation’s largest unions sent a letter to Democratic Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada and Nancy Pelosi of California on Thursday.
“When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act, you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat,” letter said. “Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.”
The letter was written by James P. Hoffa, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Joseph Hansen, international president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; and Donald Taylor, the president of Unite-Here, a union representing hotel, airport, food service, gaming, and textile workers.
Their letter noted that their respective unions have long been supporters of the idea that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. “We have also been strong supporters of you,” the three union presidents wrote. “In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.”
But the problem is that “this vision has come back to haunt us.”
The union leadership is seeking “reasonable regulatory interpretations” to the Affordable Care Act that would help prevent the destruction of nonprofit health plans. However, according to the letter, earlier requests for government action have been “disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies.” In their opinion, this disregard compares unfavorably with how the administration responded to requests made by other so-called stakeholders, citing the government’s decision to make a “huge accommodation” for the employer community by extending the deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.
“Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it,” wrote the union leaders. “The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios.”
The letter lists three complaints. First, that the law creates an incentive for employers to keep workers’ hours below 30 hours per week. Second, that millions of Americans, including a great majority of union members, are covered by nonprofit health insurance plans. But with the implementation of Obamacare, union workers will be “treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens.” Finally, the letter argued that while union, nonprofit plans will not receive the same subsidies, they will be taxed to pay for those subsidies.
Hoffa, Hansen, and Taylor believe that there are “common-sense” fixes that can be made to the legislation that will allow union members to keep their current plans and benefits as Congress and President Barack Obama promised. Unless the changes are made, they said that pledge is hollow.
“We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions,” the letter concluded.
This strikes me as just as annoying as the politicians scrambling to fix their own issues after they realized what they voted in.
Regime chang....eerrrr think their be a turn over soon of democrats to republicans in quite a few states...now off to McD's for some double cheese burgers...
edit
I remember quite a few people defending ACA/Obamacare on here defending it to the hilt awhile back
If you like what you have now, why were you campaigning for the bill in the first place?
Pretty much.
Just like whembly I'm struggling to feel any sympathy for the Unions, or anyone else, who campaigned long and hard for the ACA on the basis of ideology alone.
Polonius wrote: Every argument against Obamacare eventually boils down to this: "I don't want to pay for it."
And that's all they are complaining about.
Disagree... it's also HOW it's been implemented.
Nobody, outside of insurers or doctors or other participants in the health industry, care a hill of beans about how its implemented if it doesn't change their cost and/or standard of care.
I'm not saying it's a bad argument. There's plenty of evidence that this is going to somehow allow insurers to make more money, doctors make less, and everybody pay more.
If you like what you have now, why were you campaigning for the bill in the first place?
Pretty much.
Just like whembly I'm struggling to feel any sympathy for the Unions, or anyone else, who campaigned long and hard for the ACA on the basis of ideology alone.
A lot of unions, believe or not, want to expand. A lot of low wage unionized employees work without health insurance. The labor movement has always worked to improve the lot of all workers.
SilverMK2 wrote: I hear in America you have to pay for healthcare.
I hear in Britain... everyone pays.
Yep, as part of basic taxation. Means that we pay significantly less for healthcare than you guys both as individuals and as a society. But i guess since your insurance payments go only to providing you (and anyone else on your policy) with healthcare treatment and no one else... not even other people who get insurance from the same company, it can be hard to see a tiny fraction of the money you would otherwise pay on an NHS style system be taken out of your wage and used to pay for universal healthcare for all.
I know i frequently wish that I could pay a fortune on insurance that doesnt cover the majority of things i might want insurance to cover...
Polonius wrote: Every argument against Obamacare eventually boils down to this: "I don't want to pay for it."
And that's all they are complaining about.
Disagree... it's also HOW it's been implemented.
Nobody, outside of insurers or doctors or other participants in the health industry, care a hill of beans about how its implemented if it doesn't change their cost and/or standard of care.
Erm... 'scuse me? *I* care and I'm not he only one.
I'm not saying it's a bad argument. There's plenty of evidence that this is going to somehow allow insurers to make more money, doctors make less, and everybody pay more.
Yup.
Just like a bandage, it needs to be ripped off quickly and reapplied with the Canadian (or German) model.
Okay, sure, there is thoughtful critique to be made about implementation. But that has long been drowned out by far louder, and angrier, opposition to any "socialized medicine."
(Because a service that everybody needs, where the Feds are already buying or setting the price of like 1/3 of it, is a super free market.)
Polonius wrote: A lot of unions, believe or not, want to expand. A lot of low wage unionized employees work without health insurance. The labor movement has always worked to improve the lot of all workers.
And as is being made apparent the law that they campaigned so vigorously for is not (and it seems, never was) the solution that they were looking for. Now they are campaigning for relaxed immigration and amnesty for illegal immigrants, something else that is likely to bite them in the future.
Polonius wrote: A lot of unions, believe or not, want to expand. A lot of low wage unionized employees work without health insurance. The labor movement has always worked to improve the lot of all workers.
And as is being made apparent the law that they campaigned so vigorously for is not (and it seems, never was) the solution that they were looking for. Now they are campaigning for relaxed immigration and amnesty for illegal immigrants, something else that is likely to bite them in the future.
Well, either the unions have terrible lawyers (not true), the law somehow changed since it was passed (not true) or the regulations the administration is promulgating are not what they unions expected (most likely true).
I'm a government union worker, but even I'll admit that Unions tend to be, at hte national level, very, very whiny.
If you're enjoying a politcal opponent "get what he asked for," then by all means enjoy. This seems to be a scrape mostly about how much the union insurers will have to pay, with the fig leaf of "OMG, employers will cut full time jobs over this."
Polonius wrote: Well, either the unions have terrible lawyers (not true), the law somehow changed since it was passed (not true) or the regulations the administration is promulgating are not what they unions expected (most likely true).
I'm a government union worker, but even I'll admit that Unions tend to be, at hte national level, very, very whiny.
If you're enjoying a politcal opponent "get what he asked for," then by all means enjoy. This seems to be a scrape mostly about how much the union insurers will have to pay, with the fig leaf of "OMG, employers will cut full time jobs over this."
All Unions are whiny. By highlighting what they see as issues they try to stay relevant to their members, and the old adage is true "[t]he squeaky wheel gets the grease".
I think we're back to my first comment in this thread - I have little sympathy for the Unions because they didn't attempt to find out what sort of impact this legislation would have, they just supported it (and encouraged their members to support it) because the Administration proposing it has a similar political orientation as they do.
Polonius wrote: A lot of unions, believe or not, want to expand. A lot of low wage unionized employees work without health insurance. The labor movement has always worked to improve the lot of all workers.
And as is being made apparent the law that they campaigned so vigorously for is not (and it seems, never was) the solution that they were looking for. Now they are campaigning for relaxed immigration and amnesty for illegal immigrants, something else that is likely to bite them in the future.
Well, either the unions have terrible lawyers (not true), the law somehow changed since it was passed (not true) or the regulations the administration is promulgating are not what they unions expected (most likely true).
And they were warned that this could happen... remember the additional tax on "Cadillac Plans"?
I'm a government union worker, but even I'll admit that Unions tend to be, at hte national level, very, very whiny.
I guess they couldn't get a permanent waiver from the HHS...
If you're enjoying a politcal opponent "get what he asked for," then by all means enjoy. This seems to be a scrape mostly about how much the union insurers will have to pay, with the fig leaf of "OMG, employers will cut full time jobs over this."
Eh... I think it stems from that fact that most Union tend to be pro Democrat issues and will advocate for those things on their behalf.
The short version is that Unions were supposed to be exempt from many of the taxes and requirements, but the administration decided to either broaden those waivers for everybody (like the cadillac plan tax) or not grant the unions the privileges they wanted.
The short version is that Unions were supposed to be exempt from many of the taxes and requirements, but the administration decided to either broaden those waivers for everybody (like the cadillac plan tax) or not grant the unions the privileges they wanted.
And this latest news about the Unions and the ACA just shows what can result from arguing based on ideology rather than facts. Now the Unions have to comply with the requirements that they would have foisted on others because of their ideological bent? My sympathy is now slipping into negative numbers
The short version is that Unions were supposed to be exempt from many of the taxes and requirements, but the administration decided to either broaden those waivers for everybody (like the cadillac plan tax) or not grant the unions the privileges they wanted.
The law doesn't promise that... it's up to the administration.
That's a bad precedent if you ask me.
Furthermore, why should UNION Cadillac plans be exempted and not private entity's Cadillac plans?
Polonius....you gave in to easy to Whembly.....Me.....I just string him along.....make him feel comfy and warm....and then chop him off at the knee's.....steal his wobble blanket along with all his cookie and milk....and just left him with a bottle of water and a few tic tacs letting him think their motrin.
Polonius wrote: It's like I said up top: nobody wants to pay for it.
And I'm telling you it's more than that.
sigh.
Fine.
Unions, like most vocal critics of Obamacare, do so because they don't want to pay for it.
Thanks... now we're on the same spectrum!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Polonius....you gave in to easy to Whembly.....Me.....I just string him along.....make him feel comfy and warm....and then chop him off at the knee's.....steal his wobble blanket along with all his cookie and milk....and just left him with a bottle of water and a few tic tacs letting him think their motrin.
And in my BIRTHDAY SUIT as well!
But, as the holy Emprah my witness, I'd be back with a million dollar smile.
Jihadin wrote: Polonius....you gave in to easy to Whembly.....Me.....I just string him along.....make him feel comfy and warm....and then chop him off at the knee's.....steal his wobble blanket along with all his cookie and milk....and just left him with a bottle of water and a few tic tacs letting him think their motrin.
Internet arguments are, of course, a negative sum game. all players end up with less than they started.
Arguments about semantics is like strip poker at a retirement home. Not only does everybody lose, they look bad doing so.
Well, if by good you mean woefully ineffecient, expensive, and with poor results.
I mean, i have great health care. But I've got good insurance and live near one of the best hospitals in the world.
I would not want to be uninsured or live in a rural area, that's for damn sure.
that said...
There are ways we could radically improve overall health in this country for dirt cheap, through low cost clinics staffed by nurse practitioners, and by emphasizing more holistic health.
And we need to have a serious conversation as a country about how much money we should spend on low probability treatments. Death panels are terrifying, but there has to be cost/benefit ratio consideration.
Polonius wrote: Well, if by good you mean woefully ineffecient, expensive, and with poor results.
I mean, i have great health care. But I've got good insurance and live near one of the best hospitals in the world.
I would not want to be uninsured or live in a rural area, that's for damn sure.
I'm not picking on you, but I generally want to know...
When you were growing up, going to school... you wanted a good paying job and all that. Did having good insurance come into the equation?
Probaly by the time I was old enough to understand what it was. Defintely by the time I was an adult and didn't have any!
I wasn't sick much as a kid, so it wasn't a big deal for me, but I knew I wanted the same or better standard of living as my family.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Even someone that is uninsured can get the operation they need. They just get saddled with debt or the government picks it up.
Its all about who is paying for it. We don't deny anybody an operation or care they need.
If you need an operation you are going to get it, insurance or not. Its just that aftermath that can be messy.
that is, at best, semi-true.
In practice, yes most people can get care on credit and never pay. However... hospitals do track that, and they don't offer any more care until you pay up.
emergency or life threatening conditions are a differen story of course, but it's not quite as simple.
Also, you trade being dead for a lifetime of terrible credit. I mean, that's a trade we'd all make, but it makes it hard to really advance.
Well VA covers most my injuries/ailments I "collected" over the years...but then I'm already cover by the government health insurance due to the wife being a federal employee..I be to in a couple of months once I'm recovered from the Chemo treatment (100% remission)...I retire twice...VA Disability...I do believe I'm going to stay current with whatever little blue pull is next over the future...
Chongra...left to right on top bar...go to 22......then slide down to E7...is my base pay before taxes
How much is your life worth? How much is your loved one's life worth? Hundreds of thousands probably doesn't even come close. The amount of the surgery shouldn't compare.
If you aren't willing to accept the debt I suppose we could let you die. It is the patients choice.
To say I want to live, but I don't value my life enough to pay for it is a bit of a double standard.
Polonius wrote: Well, if by good you mean woefully ineffecient, expensive, and with poor results.
I mean, i have great health care. But I've got good insurance and live near one of the best hospitals in the world.
I would not want to be uninsured or live in a rural area, that's for damn sure.
I'm not picking on you, but I generally want to know...
When you were growing up, going to school... you wanted a good paying job and all that. Did having good insurance come into the equation?
Probaly by the time I was old enough to understand what it was. Defintely by the time I was an adult and didn't have any!
I wasn't sick much as a kid, so it wasn't a big deal for me, but I knew I wanted the same or better standard of living as my family.
That's been pretty much my experience. The way I look at it... it's part of the compensation package. So when I see that the UNIONS believed/advocated/whatever for an exemption for their plans... but jo-blo mr. private insurance plan would have to pay for those additional taxes, that just rubs me wrong. That's where I was coming from.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Even someone that is uninsured can get the operation they need. They just get saddled with debt or the government picks it up.
Its all about who is paying for it. We don't deny anybody an operation or care they need.
If you need an operation you are going to get it, insurance or not. Its just that aftermath that can be messy.
that is, at best, semi-true.
To certain degree and in some cases, it's true.
In practice, yes most people can get care on credit and never pay. However... hospitals do track that, and they don't offer any more care until you pay up.
Careful there brah... if you walk in the ED, they must stablize you regardless of your ability to pay. Even for extended sickness for inpatient visit, they'll still treat you. They won't just throw you out in the streets to die.
emergency or life threatening conditions are a differen story of course, but it's not quite as simple.
Yup... every case is different too.
Also, you trade being dead for a lifetime of terrible credit. I mean, that's a trade we'd all make, but it makes it hard to really advance.
Here's a solution... Work with Patient Accounts to come up with a payment plan. Most of the time, you won't pay for the full bill. If not, there's bankruptcy! (hey... I did that... 'tis ain't so bad )
I'd rather be alive with bad credit than dead with good credit.
pshaw...!
bad credit, smad smedit...
I'm in Chapter 13 bankruptcy (due to divorce and stoopid young spending habits)... that's the one where you're on 5 year payment plan. Wanna know a good thing about this? Creditors (to claim and to issue new credits) cannot talk to you! The Silence is invigorating!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: Obamacare is bad for the middle-class? No really! It's almost like that's exactly what every Republican told ya before voting.
#dealwithit
LOL! That's my canned response from now on...
DC congressional workers worried about ACA insurance?
UNIONs worried about the additional taxes? #dealwithit
Polonius wrote: Every argument against Obamacare eventually boils down to this: "I don't want to pay for it."
And that's all they are complaining about.
Disagree... it's also HOW it's been implemented.
Nobody, outside of insurers or doctors or other participants in the health industry, care a hill of beans about how its implemented if it doesn't change their cost and/or standard of care.
I'm not saying it's a bad argument. There's plenty of evidence that this is going to somehow allow insurers to make more money, doctors make less, and everybody pay more.
If you like what you have now, why were you campaigning for the bill in the first place?
Pretty much.
Just like whembly I'm struggling to feel any sympathy for the Unions, or anyone else, who campaigned long and hard for the ACA on the basis of ideology alone.
A lot of unions, believe or not, want to expand. A lot of low wage unionized employees work without health insurance. The labor movement has always worked to improve the lot of all workers.
As I recall, almost half the country that voted against Obama cared about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would be concerened if doctors don't like it since a lot of them are quitting their practices over it. The ones I've talked to about always say that all the extra paper work generated and liabilities they will be subject to if the paper work is not perfect absolutely hate it.
Historians will look back on today’s two House votes to repeal the employer mandate and the individual mandate as the beginning of the end for Obamacare.
President Obama’s decision to postpone the employer mandate has opened the floodgates of hostility to the individual mandate.
A recent poll indicates only 12% (one out of every eight Americans) favor implementing the individual mandate next year.
In a free society laws cannot be imposed on an unwilling country by 12% of the people.
In that simple fact lies the beginning of the end of Obamacare.
Today’s votes will begin to reflect that reality.
The shift to specific repeal steps is an important and absolutely correct next phase for House Republicans.
While House Republicans have voted three times to repeal all of Obamacare, everyone understood that those were symbolic since the Democrat-controlled Senate would never pass them and President Obama would veto them.
These two votes are different.
They target two increasingly unpopular and indefensible parts of Obamacare.
They set the stage for Senate Democrats who are up for reelection to face tougher and tougher questions when they go home.
Logically, the first vote, Congressman Tim Griffin’s The Authority for Mandate Delay Act (H.R. 2667) is going to be very hard for Democrats to explain back home if they vote against it.
Congressman Griffin has codified the Obama Administration’s illegal postponement of the employer mandate. Since there is no provision in the Constitution for the President to suspend parts of laws and enforce others, the administration’s action was clearly illegal. By making it legal, Griffin sets up what would in chess be termed a fork. Either way Democrats vote, they are in trouble. Their leadership has argued it is unnecessary to pass a law but that sets their members up to go home and explain why the President’s illegal behavior is acceptable while also explaining why they voted against postponing the mandate.
The second bill, Congressman Todd Young’s Fairness for American Families Act (H.R. 2668), sets up an even tougher vote for Democrats.
Obamacare in general has been losing ground with the American people. Gallup has reported recently that disapproval is at 52% in July up from 45% last November.
There are profound practical reasons why Obamacare is collapsing. As Congressman Young testified to the Rules Committee:
Obamacare has made health insurance more expensive for individuals. President Obama promised a $2,500 premium decrease, but states that have released premium rate filings in the ObamaCare exchanges for 2014 are seeing massive premium increases. For example, Ohioans are facing an 88 percent premium increase, Californians an 81 percent increase, and Marylanders a 100-150 percent increase. A report by the House Energy and Commerce Committee reveals “consumers purchasing health insurance on the individual market may face premium increases of nearly 100 percent on average, with potential highs eclipsing 400 percent.”
As the details of Obamacare continue to emerge, even strong supporters are turning against the law.
Just this week the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE (all major unions) sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi saying that the unions’ support for Democrats and Obamacare “has come back to haunt us” and that the law will “destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.”
The president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers released a statement calling “for repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act.”
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers said that Obamacare “is threatening the multiemployer health plan coverage of 26 million Americans” and that the union “cannot afford to sit on the sidelines as the ACA threatens to harm our members.”
In addition to the emerging union hostility, Obamacare is being battered by stories every day about rising costs and declining jobs.
Universities are discovering that they have to shift to part time employees.
Hospitals are discovering their costs being pushed up by Obamacare.
Small businesses are reporting that they are too afraid of rising Obamacare costs to hire anyone. The law is also hurting current employees. A recent Chamber of Commerce survey found that 74 percent of small businesses will fire employees or cut hours under Obamacare.
When your union allies are turning against you, the American people are turning against you, and even your news media allies find themselves having to write negative story after negative story, your program is on the verge of collapse.
Obamacare will collapse step by step until only the wreckage and the bureaucracy are left.
House Republicans should begin planning hearings in 2014 on solutions after Obamacare. That will further hasten the collapse of the last great centralized bureaucratic effort of our lifetime.
Obama delayed the Employer's portion of providing health insurance package by one year. I understand and accept that portion needs to fine tuned before it get implemented. I also understand that it might help democrats that are up for reelection in the senate to help them remain in control.
House Republicans voted to also extend the individual mandates by one year along with Obama extending the Employer's mandate. So if democrats and Obama vote it down or veto it......well....that's self infected.....
Democrats and Obama are saying it would be bad for the people already enrolled in it. I don't remember anyone mentioning of throwing them off it...
Grey Templar wrote: When the people that voted for something are trying to make themselves exempt, the BS meter should start screaming and immediately explode.
Grey Templar wrote: When the people that voted for something are trying to make themselves exempt, the BS meter should start screaming and immediately explode.
Historians will look back on today’s two House votes to repeal the employer mandate and the individual mandate as the beginning of the end for Obamacare.
President Obama’s decision to postpone the employer mandate has opened the floodgates of hostility to the individual mandate.
A recent poll indicates only 12% (one out of every eight Americans) favor implementing the individual mandate next year.
In a free society laws cannot be imposed on an unwilling country by 12% of the people.
Meh. The people are similarly in favour of banning the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. That they might be too stupid to realise you can't ban denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions without an individual mandate says a lot about the quality of debate the public was presented with over healthcare, but it doesn't say much about the viability of the ACA reforms as a whole.
Also, Gingrich productions?!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, if that system didn't have other gross flaws that make the switch undesirable.
So you work to continue reforms to reach a system that's actually functional.
Or you continue pissing about the reforms that are being brought in, trying to return to an old system that was entirely disfunctional.
This is another of those times I hate being right about something. Myself and a few others here saw Obamacare for the cluster feth it is and was going to cause.
Now it appears everyone else is beginning to get the picture.
Because people who are bitching about stuff and are screaming about how prices are going to rise are an accurate source of information and are an accurate example of how things are going to be screwed up.
But actual states that have published the rates under the new implementation of exchanges and other areas that show that prices have fallen should be ignored.
Just another case of "feth everything if I have to pay $1 more! Kill it with fire!"
d-usa wrote: Because people who are bitching about stuff and are screaming about how prices are going to rise are an accurate source of information and are an accurate example of how things are going to be screwed up.
People also need to learn how the the media and news reporting works. Any system will have problems and screw ups, and it will be those things that are reported on. As Matthew Yglesias wrote yesterday "You never read a newspaper article headlined "A Bunch of People Got Free Dental Care Today Because They Live In A State That Offers Dental Benefits Under Medicaid""
But actual states that have published the rates under the new implementation of exchanges and other areas that show that prices have fallen should be ignored.
See the price drop in New York? The average is a 50% reduction. But I didn't see that posted here for some reason...
d-usa wrote: Because people who are bitching about stuff and are screaming about how prices are going to rise are an accurate source of information and are an accurate example of how things are going to be screwed up.
People also need to learn how the the media and news reporting works. Any system will have problems and screw ups, and it will be those things that are reported on. As Matthew Yglesias wrote yesterday "You never read a newspaper article headlined "A Bunch of People Got Free Dental Care Today Because They Live In A State That Offers Dental Benefits Under Medicaid""
But actual states that have published the rates under the new implementation of exchanges and other areas that show that prices have fallen should be ignored.
See the price drop in New York? The average is a 50% reduction. But I didn't see that posted here for some reason...
Nobody wants your facts, we have emotions to take care of things around here!
With reports like this coupled with statements of doctors and now unions and politicians trying to exempt themselves, it's no wonder people are not happy at the prospect of Obamacare:
Relapse, that's a load of bollocks. If you went digging around the american system you could find plenty of horror stories. I lived in the UK for 2 years and while the NHS isn't perfect, it is a great system for healthcare, far better than Ireland's half way house.
If you want private insurance in the UK you can still have it, too.
Germany's system is okay but because it's based around insurance I feel it's more expensive than it needs to be, but the quality of care is very good.
Germany's system is okay but because it's based around insurance I feel it's more expensive than it needs to be, but the quality of care is very good.
Having been stationed in Germany, and my first child born in their medical system, I think that it works a gak ton more efficiently than the US system does.
The problem that I still have with "Obamacare" is that it seems to be forgetting the first two letters of it's actual acronym: Affordable and Care. It'd have been one thing to mandate health insurance, but strip away an insurance company's ability to deny you coverage (and they'd also have to limit how much the insurers could charge premiums, or else all them "high risk" patients would pay their whole paycheck just to follow the law), while simultaneously doing the Mass. thing, where if you cannot afford a standard insurance plan, the government would help people find appropriate care, or insure them themselves.
I'm not all that up on what Obamacare does, the American healthcare system is very complex compared to what I'm used to. So I don't often comment on that, specifically. What gets my goat is when there's all this hysteria about other nations healthcare systems, when-
A. Obamacare is not like any of those systems from what I can tell.
B. The hysteria is founded in nonsense and cherry picked disaster stories you could find in any system.
C. When confronted with people who actually use those systems saying they are okay, people just ignore them and keep on with the same lunacy.
The German system (I've only been here a year) seems to me to offer a very comprehensive level of care, and they're very thorough in making sure you get all the treatments you might need. As a self employed person I can't get onto the general insurance so I have private, and it's a bit pricey compared to at home where the system isn't as insurance based. Seems to me the insurance companies will always do well out of a system like that.
The British system is great at ensuring that everyone gets treated, and looking after the very old, the very sick or those with chronic illnesses. It's a minor pain to work with if you, for example, need a same day appointment for something, but the fact that it is so comprehensive, easy to understand and most of all cheap makes up for it.
The Irish system is a sort of half way house between the two (the german and british systems), our public system was partially dismantled by ideologically driven economic liberals following a neoconservative ideology in the late nineties and early turn of the century. It is pretty dysfunctional because it is a half way house, our doctors tend to emigrate, and the administrative side of it is our most poorly run and toxic branch of the civil service.
So my experience would tend to make me lean towards a fairly "one speed" system for health, which is easy to understand. Either something like Germany or something like the NHS.
Da Boss wrote: I'm not all that up on what Obamacare does, the American healthcare system is very complex compared to what I'm used to. So I don't often comment on that, specifically. What gets my goat is when there's all this hysteria about other nations healthcare systems, when-
A. Obamacare is not like any of those systems from what I can tell.
B. The hysteria is founded in nonsense and cherry picked disaster stories you could find in any system.
C. When confronted with people who actually use those systems saying they are okay, people just ignore them and keep on with the same lunacy.
That's mostly due to being poorly informed, which is pretty much inevitable given the amount of misinformation out there. I don't know a single person who's read the bill in it's entirely. Frankly, I do not believe I have the reading comprehension skills to understand the legalsleeze of the bill, even if I did try to read it.
To your points though:
A. Those of us not taken in by the "death panel" horror stories actually find that to be a problem, and would prefer it to be more like other nation's healhcare.
B. This part really confuses me, other than hallow political points, I'm not sure what any of the big players get out of rallying against the bill.
C. Well, that's just good old fashioned cognitive dissonance. If you can get an idea past the "fact" stage and to the "faith" stage, you can't possibly shake them of it, and they'll hate you for trying. Look at the people wanting Snowden brutally and publicly killed or the long line of people defending the wealthy during the OWS stuff
d-usa wrote: Because people who are bitching about stuff and are screaming about how prices are going to rise are an accurate source of information and are an accurate example of how things are going to be screwed up.
People also need to learn how the the media and news reporting works. Any system will have problems and screw ups, and it will be those things that are reported on. As Matthew Yglesias wrote yesterday "You never read a newspaper article headlined "A Bunch of People Got Free Dental Care Today Because They Live In A State That Offers Dental Benefits Under Medicaid""
But actual states that have published the rates under the new implementation of exchanges and other areas that show that prices have fallen should be ignored.
See the price drop in New York? The average is a 50% reduction. But I didn't see that posted here for some reason...
sigh... that's New York you're talking about... one of these most heavily regulated, most convoluted healthcare market in the states, with some of the highest individual market premiums. Forbes already called that out a while back:
The other approach is to do what Obamacare does: to impose an individual mandate that dragoons the healthy into subsidizing the sick, and to subsidize the cost of the inflated health premiums for some low-income individuals, so at least they can afford coverage. …
As a result, Obamacare does have the effect of lowering premiums in New York, to a weighted average of $301 a month: a 39 percent decrease from 2013 rates, and a 16 percent decrease from 2010 rates. …
It’s always better to see rates go down rather than up, but you have to remember the context. New York’s rates will still be three times higher than those found in California before Obamacare. And the Times inflated the impact of the ACA, implying that average premiums in New York City exceed $1,000 today vs. $308 under Obamacare; by our analysis, using a fairer comparison, the five-borough average for affordable coverage was $695, with a much lower average upstate.
So... we can certainly see some go down in the most heavily regulated markets (read, traditionally blue states). But, by and large, everyone else's will go up.
At this point, I think defending ACA in it's current iteration is a lost cause now politically.
Meh. The people are similarly in favour of banning the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
That they might be too stupid to realise you can't ban denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions without an individual mandate says a lot about the quality of debate the public was presented with over healthcare, but it doesn't say much about the viability of the ACA reforms as a whole.
Wut? Where do you see that? Please direct me to the information supporting this assertation.... if anything, that's one of the popular aspect of this bill, along with keeping your college kids on parent's plan, abolition of lifetime insurance, etc...
So the fact that every state has gone down (actual evidence, despite people saying previously that even these states will go up) is still ignored, and people saying that prices will go up (after they were wrong before) still know what they are talking about?
Da Boss wrote: I'm not all that up on what Obamacare does, the American healthcare system is very complex compared to what I'm used to. So I don't often comment on that, specifically. What gets my goat is when there's all this hysteria about other nations healthcare systems, when-
A. Obamacare is not like any of those systems from what I can tell.
B. The hysteria is founded in nonsense and cherry picked disaster stories you could find in any system.
C. When confronted with people who actually use those systems saying they are okay, people just ignore them and keep on with the same lunacy.
The German system (I've only been here a year) seems to me to offer a very comprehensive level of care, and they're very thorough in making sure you get all the treatments you might need. As a self employed person I can't get onto the general insurance so I have private, and it's a bit pricey compared to at home where the system isn't as insurance based. Seems to me the insurance companies will always do well out of a system like that.
The British system is great at ensuring that everyone gets treated, and looking after the very old, the very sick or those with chronic illnesses. It's a minor pain to work with if you, for example, need a same day appointment for something, but the fact that it is so comprehensive, easy to understand and most of all cheap makes up for it.
The Irish system is a sort of half way house between the two (the german and british systems), our public system was partially dismantled by ideologically driven economic liberals following a neoconservative ideology in the late nineties and early turn of the century. It is pretty dysfunctional because it is a half way house, our doctors tend to emigrate, and the administrative side of it is our most poorly run and toxic branch of the civil service.
So my experience would tend to make me lean towards a fairly "one speed" system for health, which is easy to understand. Either something like Germany or something like the NHS.
d-usa wrote: So the fact that every state has gone down (actual evidence, despite people saying previously that even these states will go up) is still ignored, and people saying that prices will go up (after they were wrong before) still know what they are talking about?
Every state's go down?
Where do you see that?
EDIT: Also, I think many folks are discounting something important... What your premium costs depends on what you get in it. I think they mean if you (an individual purchaser) do not renew the policy that you have now, you can satisfy the requirement to have insurance by purchasing your policy thru the health care exchange marketplace, and you can pick one that costs half of what the one you have now costs.
It will not be the same policy as far as I can figure, it will suit the standards set out by HHS... like having the no copay contraceptives and whateverthehellelse Madame Secretary wants you to have…but those other things you want that she thinks you don’t need or she might tax you for, I am not sure that is going to be in the cheaper policy, especially a difference in your copays for things, I think they want you to have a high deductible, when you might not have had that with your expensive policy. I don’t think it is apples to apples in this comparison, just that this new policy counts with the feds, so they are concluding you don’t “have” to pay more. I think they want everyone to pay the first $500. at the hospital if you are not on Medicaid.
d-usa wrote: So the fact that every state has gone down (actual evidence, despite people saying previously that even these states will go up) is still ignored, and people saying that prices will go up (after they were wrong before) still know what they are talking about?
Every state's go down?
Where do you see that?
The states that I have seen publish their prices after implementing exchanges have had some rate reductions. It's almost like that "capitalism" and "competition in the market place" that the Republicans are always taking about but are fighting here actually works.
I am fairly certain that we would have read about rate increases as a result of the exchanges because somebody would have been sure to post them here.
d-usa wrote: So the fact that every state has gone down (actual evidence, despite people saying previously that even these states will go up) is still ignored, and people saying that prices will go up (after they were wrong before) still know what they are talking about?
Every state's go down?
Where do you see that?
The states that I have seen publish their prices after implementing exchanges have had some rate reductions. It's almost like that "capitalism" and "competition in the market place" that the Republicans are always taking about but are fighting here actually works.
I am fairly certain that we would have read about rate increases as a result of the exchanges because somebody would have been sure to post them here.
Okay... but, I haven't seen it elsewhere.... and that's only for STATES that are participating in the Exchanges. In Missouri, we'd likely default to the Federal Exchange, if they're ready.
Again, temper your cheer when you see that insurance going down... m'kay. The plans may offer much lower "coverage" than the original pre-ACA plans. I do know that the current employer provided insurances are still going UP.
Massachusetts is another state that, prior to Romneycare, had a dysfunctional individual insurance market. I wrote a month ago that “there are a handful of states that have Massachusetts-like problems in their individual markets: Maine, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Washington. Those states are unlikely to see much impact from Obamacare on insurance premiums; indeed premiums there might even go down. But nearly every other state will endure significant disruptions as Obamacare goes into full effect.” So if you live in those states (other than Washington), you may do okay in the individual insurance market. If not, you likely won’t. ... As a guy who lives in Manhattan, I’m glad to see Obamacare move the city’s individual insurance market in the right direction. But New York’s rates will remain far higher than they are in other states. And in those other states—states like California and Ohio—premiums are set to go up dramatically. ...
The states that have published had their rates to down for comparative plans that offer the same coverage and copays as cheaper plans.
If these plans had less coverage or were more expensive we would have already had Relapse post about this latest SNAFU of ObamaCare.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And if the states don't participate and default to the federal exchange, and if that exchange is worse than states than run their own, then I guess we know which party to thank for that.
d-usa wrote: The states that have published had their rates to down for comparative plans that offer the same coverage and copays as cheaper plans.
If these plans had less coverage or were more expensive we would have already had Relapse post about this latest SNAFU of ObamaCare.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And if the states don't participate and default to the federal exchange, and if that exchange is worse than states than run their own, then I guess we know which party to thank for that.
Only 26 states are currently participating in creating their own exchange (minus the ones that do already, ie Romenycare/Washington state).
With all this talk of premiums going down and the insurance some one getting with it quite possibly not as good, I think this is the time to put that chart up from the other thread showing how much more Obamacare is going to cost this country than we were told.
Relapse wrote: With all this talk of premiums going down and the insurance some one getting with it quite possibly not as good, I think this is the time to put that chart up from the other thread showing how much more Obamacare is going to cost this country than we were told.
Relapse wrote: With reports like this coupled with statements of doctors and now unions and politicians trying to exempt themselves, it's no wonder people are not happy at the prospect of Obamacare:
whembly wrote: sigh... that's New York you're talking about... one of these most heavily regulated, most convoluted healthcare market in the states, with some of the highest individual market premiums.
Yeah, and that high price is driven mostly by New York preventing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Which meant the young and healthy mostly dropped out of healthcare (knowing they could get it if they got sick). Which is why you need the individual mandate...
At this point, I think defending ACA in it's current iteration is a lost cause now politically.
That is a big, big call. It's pretty similar to calls made about The New Deal as that was rolled out, and about Medicare as it was rolled out.
Wut? Where do you see that? Please direct me to the information supporting this assertation.... if anything, that's one of the popular aspect of this bill, along with keeping your college kids on parent's plan, abolition of lifetime insurance, etc...
Sorry, my post probably wasn't too clear. I was saying that ACA bans denial of coverage, and people are very in favour of that. So the Gingrich productions piece says that only 12% of people support the individual mandate, but ignores that similar numbers support the part that prevents denial of coverage... and that you can't have one without the other (or else you get the New York situation).
The analysis on the Gingrich site is akin to arguing that no-one likes taxation, therefore it is inevitable that we will soon not have taxation. While ignoring that while they don't like taxation, people are still in favour of all the things that money pays for, and you can't have all those services without tax revenue to pay for it.
Yeah... seriously... ego trip much?
That guy's whole career has basically been an ego trip.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: It will not be the same policy as far as I can figure, it will suit the standards set out by HHS... like having the no copay contraceptives and whateverthehellelse Madame Secretary wants you to have…but those other things you want that she thinks you don’t need or she might tax you for, I am not sure that is going to be in the cheaper policy, especially a difference in your copays for things, I think they want you to have a high deductible, when you might not have had that with your expensive policy. I don’t think it is apples to apples in this comparison, just that this new policy counts with the feds, so they are concluding you don’t “have” to pay more. I think they want everyone to pay the first $500. at the hospital if you are not on Medicaid.
Actually, one of the problems with the comparisons has been the comparing of new schemes to schemes offered under the old act that offered so little insurance, and with such a high co-pay that they're not legal under ACA. Picking out the apples to apples comparisons only makes the ACA look better.
Anyone tracking how much waivers are to be giving out? Also how is the system suppose to cover the loss funds from the waiver? Passing it to the production of items? Just curious you know.
Once all the waivers are done, we will all be exempt from the ACA/Obamacare. All of us. There will probably be some court ruling somewhere, where some guy running a hobby business from his garage will argue he can not afford it, and will be given a waiver.
The rest of the masses will follow suit, by finding some difficult to find form, located in a government office, probably a welfare office, but only if you specifically ask for the form by the correct form title and number.
IRS employees have a prominent role in Obamacare, but their union wants no part of the law.
National Treasury Employees Union officials are urging members to write their congressional representatives in opposition to receiving coverage through President Obama’s health care law.
The union leaders are providing members with a form letter to send to the congressmen that says “I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.”
The NTEU represents 150,000 federal employees overall, including most of the nearly 100,000 IRS workers.
Like most other federal workers, IRS employees currently get their health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which also covers members of Congress.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp offered the bill in response to reports of congressional negotiations that would exempt lawmakers and their staff from Obamacare.
“Camp has long believed every American ought to be exempt from the law, which is why he supports full repeal,” Camp spokeswoman Allie Walkersaid.
“If the Obamacare exchanges are good enough for the hardworking Americans and small businesses the law claims to help, then they should be good enough for the president, vice president, Congress and federal employees,” she also said. [whembly: See?! SEE! Bazinga!]
“The NTEU represents Internal Revenue Service employees who have the responsibility to enforce much of the health insurance law, especially in terms of collecting the taxes and distributing subsidies that finance the whole system,” said Paul Kersey, director of Labor Policy at the Illinois Policy Institute.
“IRS agents will also collect data and apply penalties for those who fail to comply with many of Obamacare’s requirements,” Kersey said.
What is even funnier by the Repuvlican backlash against the ACA is that while they invoke the 10th Amendment, states should be the ones to take care of it, what have those states done to assist in their own health care? Nothing. Because of that, the Federal government has decided to take matters into its own hands.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: What is even funnier by the Repuvlican backlash against the ACA is that while they invoke the 10th Amendment, states should be the ones to take care of it, what have those states done to assist in their own health care? Nothing. Because of that, the Federal government has decided to take matters into its own hands.
Meh... they're not really invoking the 10th at all here brah.
Mainly... it's a bad bill/system such that the ELECTED officials and FEDERAL employees do NOT want to even participate in this.
The other thing I heard that REALLY pisses me off even more, is that some Congress-critters are thinking of cutting funding to the VA to move most military servicemen/women to ACA. My retort... feth no. If anything the VA needs to be the pre-eminent healthcare system....(this is coming from someone who doesn't benefit from VA at all). Bottom line, if there's ANY discussion to cut benefits from Military, all other Federal department must go first.
Because it's the only thing stopping the Fascist/Communist/Jihadist armies arrayed against us and lurking around every corner from rushing in and taking over our country In all seriousness I am 100% convinced that we can get our military running efficiently on significantly less money than it was being paid previously (although I've talked to some people who pretty much say they have no clue how they're going to continue operating with the massive funding cut they received lately). It kind of pisses me off that defence, really the core reason a government exists, is "discretionary" spending while wellfare is "non-discretionary".
Also my dad uses the VA for a lot of his medical stuff, and (at least up in the netherlands of Idaho) it's one of the most poorly run inefficient organizations I've ever seen. No idea if what they really need is more money or just a quick kick in the pants.
Also my dad uses the VA for a lot of his medical stuff, and (at least up in the netherlands of Idaho) it's one of the most poorly run inefficient organizations I've ever seen. No idea if what they really need is more money or just a quick kick in the pants.
I have no idea either, as I'm not familiar with the VA. I have friends that have complained about it a great deal, but people complain about healthcare all the time; so I can't form an opinion without further research.
We got people who hate us and will never come back (and people who came in the 80s and 90s are more than likely right) and we have others that swear by us.
The backlog of evaluations and approvals is unacceptable though and it is truly a failure on our part.
That's applying for VA disability....11-12 months....going through a bunch of stuff...unlike Federal Employee's that takes less time then us and get more then on a federal disability....the article I posted back awhile go is a good indicator. VA and the Federal Disbility compensationwhatever is two different animals
As to why the US Military is so special. Either in peace or war time we do more then just the average Joe Smoe on the block.
Jihadin wrote: That's applying for VA disability....11-12 months....going through a bunch of stuff...unlike Federal Employee's that takes less time then us and get more then on a federal disability....the article I posted back awhile go is a good indicator. VA and the Federal Disbility compensationwhatever is two different animals
As to why the US Military is so special. Either in peace or war time we do more then just the average Joe Smoe on the block.
^ This.
Dogma... I've been on record here that I truly believe that the VA system ought to be the crown jewel of health. Congress should've started there, pour money into the system to be such a great program so that other non-service Americans would say "Hey... that's a GREAT system... what would it take to implement that for all Americans"?
Dogma... I've been on record here that I truly believe that the VA system ought to be the crown jewel of health. Congress should've started there, pour money into the system to be such a great program so that other non-service Americans would say "Hey... that's a GREAT system... what would it take to implement that for all Americans"?
The trouble is that there are many people that would resent such action, especially if "service" were framed as equivalent to "military".
Dogma... I've been on record here that I truly believe that the VA system ought to be the crown jewel of health. Congress should've started there, pour money into the system to be such a great program so that other non-service Americans would say "Hey... that's a GREAT system... what would it take to implement that for all Americans"?
The trouble is that there are many people that would resent such action, especially if "service" were framed as equivalent to "military".
Uh... really? o.O
The VA is exactly such system... just needs more funding and structural changes. It's a good, decent system... but, it can ABSOLUTELY be made better. That's the point.
VA= Veterans Affair........does not include regular Federal Employee's...Federal Employee's do not qualify for Tricare.....Tricare is strictly military active, reserve, and retired while Federal Employee's have Medicaid
Jihadin wrote: VA= Veterans Affair........does not include regular Federal Employee's...Federal Employee's do not qualify for Tricare.....Tricare is strictly military active, reserve, and retired while Federal Employee's have Medicaid
Ouze I think you misread what Whembly saying. Base a similar model of Tricare Prime, now that it is clarified of the medical system, for the Civilian Indig's. Tricare is handle by the VA. If compare to the ACA.....Tricare wins. Tricare is much more acceptable to the medical profession then the ACA is. Quick example a appendectomy. Tricare will only pay a certain amount. Say the procedure cost 1300 dollars. Tricare pays 1100. Reason....this from the OR time I did as a SurgTech...you only open supplies when needed. You do not open supplies and not have them not used at all.
I think you mean Dogma, not me. I'm familiar with the healthcare for both federal and military, as my wife is a former federal employee and my stepson was on Tricare from his dad, who is a former Marine.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: What is even funnier by the Repuvlican backlash against the ACA is that while they invoke the 10th Amendment, states should be the ones to take care of it, what have those states done to assist in their own health care? Nothing. Because of that, the Federal government has decided to take matters into its own hands.
Meh... they're not really invoking the 10th at all here brah.
Really? Rick Perry threatened to secede if the ACA passed. He claims, as did 15-something other atates that the mandates violated 10th amendment protections for the states. However, most of those states are the ones that need it the most.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: What is even funnier by the Repuvlican backlash against the ACA is that while they invoke the 10th Amendment, states should be the ones to take care of it, what have those states done to assist in their own health care? Nothing. Because of that, the Federal government has decided to take matters into its own hands.
Meh... they're not really invoking the 10th at all here brah.
Really? Rick Perry threatened to secede if the ACA passed. He claims, as did 15-something other atates that the mandates violated 10th amendment protections for the states. However, most of those states are the ones that need it the most.
Yup... really.
What the states are mainly objecting to is to expand their own Medicaid programs and establish their own state ran insurance exchange. Those two things would incur enormous costs to the states (which taxes would necessarily need to rise in order to pay for it). The writers of the ACA bill thought that the states would jump on board and establish their own state exchange. However, half the states chose not too and thus it'll fall on the Federal Government manage/create the exchange and right now, it doesn't look like that the Feds would be ready by November...
I mean, just look at the following instances... okay?
A) The Elected officials (Prez, Congress, etc...) are exempt for the ACA bill. Why is that?
B) The Congressional staffers don't want to be on Obamacare (they'd rather keep their own Fed insurance)... Why is that?
C) As to the OP... the UNIONS are now realizing that it could impact their own plans and they're objection to the current iteration of Obamacare... Why is that?
D) The SIEU union (most government workers) are objecting to this... Why is that?
E) The fething IRS fething UNION reps, don't want to be placed in the same healthcare system that they're CURRENTLY empowered to enforce on taxpayers... Why is that?
See my drift?
It's like, they don't want the same system that the Plebs get... they want their own special, gold-plated plans.
I thought Rick Perry was still standing on that stage, trying to remember what the third federal agency he wanted to eliminate was.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: A) The Elected officials (Prez, Congress, etc...) are exempt for the ACA bill. Why is that?
B) The Congressional staffers don't want to be on Obamacare (they'd rather keep their own Fed insurance)... Why is that?
C) As to the OP... the UNIONS are now realizing that it could impact their own plans and they're objection to the current iteration of Obamacare... Why is that?
D) The SIEU union (most government workers) are objecting to this... Why is that?
E) The fething IRS fething UNION reps, don't want to be placed in the same healthcare system that they're CURRENTLY empowered to enforce on taxpayers... Why is that?
See my drift?
It's like, they don't want the same system that the Plebs get... they want their own special, gold-plated plans.
And you don't have a problem with that?
Honestly, I really don't. The exemption for elected officials consists of, at the Federal level, a bit over 500 people, almost all of whom are rich enough that the normal rules of the game don't make any sense anyway. Its a nice rallying cry with some symbolic power, but in terms of substance it doesn't really mean anything. Adding in the Federal staffers, and then you've probably got a point that Federal insurance is fairly generous, or that the overall benefits package is.
The Unions are protesting, as we've already discussed, because acting as a middle man for insurances is a tidy little earner for them. And of course those groups that are used to a cut of pie are going to complain. But cutting those non-productive groups out of the chain is a good thing, and huge saver to the cost of healthcare.
My understanding is that Whembly wants current members of the military, veterans, and the associates* of both to receive preferential treatment with regard to healthcare spending. To my mind this is hypocritical, as it places several categories of people on pedestals for reasons that cannot be materially distinguished from those which he has provided in the excoriation of Congress for the exemptions it has created for its members.
My understanding is that Whembly wants current members of the military, veterans, and the associates* of both to receive preferential treatment with regard to healthcare spending. To my mind this is hypocritical, as it places several categories of people on pedestals for reasons that cannot be materially distinguished from those which he has provided in the excoriation of Congress for the exemptions it has created for its members.
*As presently defined.
Okay... two things... what I just proposed is probably unconstitutional since it confers a sort of "nobility" class. Which, you do have a point. But, I seriously doubt anyone would try to stop something like this from be implemented.
Secondly, we sorta already have that... it's called Medicare!
I thought Rick Perry was still standing on that stage, trying to remember what the third federal agency he wanted to eliminate was.
Yeah... he's a goofball. Evidently, he was heavily medicated due to his back surgery. Should've known better to go through the primary with that ailment as he came out as a bumbling fool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: A) The Elected officials (Prez, Congress, etc...) are exempt for the ACA bill. Why is that? B) The Congressional staffers don't want to be on Obamacare (they'd rather keep their own Fed insurance)... Why is that? C) As to the OP... the UNIONS are now realizing that it could impact their own plans and they're objection to the current iteration of Obamacare... Why is that? D) The SIEU union (most government workers) are objecting to this... Why is that? E) The fething IRS fething UNION reps, don't want to be placed in the same healthcare system that they're CURRENTLY empowered to enforce on taxpayers... Why is that?
See my drift?
It's like, they don't want the same system that the Plebs get... they want their own special, gold-plated plans.
And you don't have a problem with that?
Honestly, I really don't. The exemption for elected officials consists of, at the Federal level, a bit over 500 people, almost all of whom are rich enough that the normal rules of the game don't make any sense anyway.
Nice try... of course the elected officials wouldn't really see/feel how the ACA works... I'm talking about the 2.8 million federal civilians that may get lumped into the ACA insurance exchange.
Its a nice rallying cry with some symbolic power, but in terms of substance it doesn't really mean anything. Adding in the Federal staffers, and then you've probably got a point that Federal insurance is fairly generous, or that the overall benefits package is.
Yup... see my previous point.
The Unions are protesting, as we've already discussed, because acting as a middle man for insurances is a tidy little earner for them. And of course those groups that are used to a cut of pie are going to complain. But cutting those non-productive groups out of the chain is a good thing, and huge saver to the cost of healthcare.
But... they have it good now and thought they'd be exempted. How do you figure that in this case, it's "non-productive"??? Don't you see the irony?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Saw this on my twitter feed about this NYT interview with Obama is something else... it's because "He can, so shut up":
... NYT: People questioned your legal and constitutional authority to do that unilaterally -- to delay the employer mandate. Did you consult with your lawyer?
MR. OBAMA: Jackie, if you heard me on stage today, what I said was that I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve their security --
NYT: No, but specifically –
MR. OBAMA: -- but where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.
And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case. But there’s not an action that I take that you don't have some folks in Congress who say that I'm usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret. But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions -- very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.
I am concerned about the folks who I spoke to today who are working really hard, are trying to figure out how they can send their kids to college, are trying to make sure that they can save for their retirement. And if I can take steps on their behalf, then I’m going to do so. And I would hope that more and more of Congress will say, you know what, since that’s our primary focus, we’re willing to work with you to advance those ideals. But I’m not just going to sit back if the only message from some of these folks is no on everything, and sit around and twiddle my thumbs for the next 1,200 days.
NYT: Polls this week have shown your health care law has lost support. What are you going to be doing to build support?
MR. OBAMA: We’re going to implement it. ...
Evidently if Congress doesn’t do what he wants, he enjoys legal authority under the Doin’ Good For The People Clause of the Constitution to do it himself.
Nothing is going to happen from this... it isn't like someone is going to take this to court to force the employer mandate... eh? It's interesting that when a law is inconvenient for the president politically (mid-term election is coming!), even when it’s part of his own signature legislation, he can simply ignore it. Because... he says so.
Look who posted an op-ed on the WSJ:
Love that pict!
Anyhoo... here's the article... Imma going to do some fisking:
By HOWARD DEAN
Continuing efforts by congressional Republicans to "defund" further implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, even if it takes shutting down the federal government, are willfully destructive. As Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.) told the press last week, "I think it's the dumbest idea I've ever heard . . . as long as Barack Obama is president the Affordable Care Act is gonna be law."
Clearly, the foremost achievement of President Obama's first term is the Affordable Care Act, and when fully implemented the law will move America closer to universal health coverage—something many progressives have sought for years. Like it or not, the law—at least its foundation—is here to stay, and lawmakers ought to focus over the next year on ensuring a relatively smooth implementation.
Although I've been critical of many components of the law, there is still much to applaud. Accountable Care Organizations could eliminate duplicative services and prevent medical errors while seeking to reduce costs for individuals, particularly if their creation ultimately leads to the end of fee-for-service medicine, as I believe it will. In addition, the Health Insurance Marketplace exchange systems, once implemented, will provide individuals with competitive plan options based on price, services, quality and other factors. Even more important, the exchanges will make the process of securing health insurance much easier and more transparent for millions who don't currently have it.
The administration's decision to delay implementation of the employer mandate until 2015 will help funnel individuals and families who do not get insurance through their employer into the exchanges. While this may benefit the participating insurers in the short term, this also accelerates the trend toward divorcing health care from employment. This is not a radical idea, and was even proposed by Sen. John McCain in his 2008 presidential campaign. That development will lead to the end of job lock for workers and contribute to a more competitive American business community in the longer run.
That said, the law still has its flaws, and American lawmakers and citizens have both an opportunity and responsibility to fix them.
There now... being a good supportive Democrat there... now what's next?
One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.
Now... I could've swore this was mentioned by a certain someone... now... who was that?
...
still thinking...
...
...
Oh yeah! By none other than Sara Palin's Death Panel statement where she was roundly criticized for... imagine that would ya?
There does have to be control of costs in our health-care system. However, rate setting—the essential mechanism of the IPAB—has a 40-year track record of failure. What ends up happening in these schemes (which many states including my home state of Vermont have implemented with virtually no long-term effect on costs) is that patients and physicians get aggravated because bureaucrats in either the private or public sector are making medical decisions without knowing the patients. Most important, once again, these kinds of schemes do not control costs. The medical system simply becomes more bureaucratic.
Would someone please tell Mr. Dean here that he's making too much sense! My head is going splody:
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the IPAB, in its current form, won't save a single dime before 2021. As everyone in Washington knows, but less frequently admits, CBO projections of any kind—past five years or so—are really just speculation. I believe the IPAB will never control costs based on the long record of previous attempts in many of the states, including my own state of Vermont.
I'm shocked!... SHOCKED! That "everyone in Washington knows" that the CBO projections beyond 5 years is purely BS. SHOCKED!
If Medicare is to have a secure future, we have to move away from fee-for-service medicine, which is all about incentives to spend more, and has no incentives in the system to keep patients healthy. The IPAB has no possibility of helping to solve this major problem and will almost certainly make the system more bureaucratic and therefore drive up administrative costs.
Nodding with Mr. Dean here...
To date, 22 Democrats have joined Republicans in the House and Senate in support of legislation to do away with the IPAB. Yet because of the extraordinary partisanship on Capitol Hill and Republican threats to defund the law through the appropriations process, it is unlikely that any change in the Affordable Care Act will take place soon.
Yup... partisan politics at it's best. Congress critters don't care if American gets the shaft...
The IPAB will cause frustration to providers and patients alike, and it will fail to control costs. When, and if, the atmosphere on Capitol Hill improves and leadership becomes interested again in addressing real problems instead of posturing, getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on.
Some of us can say (namely Palin)... "I told ya so!".
whembly wrote: Yeah... he's a goofball. Evidently, he was heavily medicated due to his back surgery. Should've known better to go through the primary with that ailment as he came out as a bumbling fool.
That was the claim that came after, yeah. It might be true. But outside of that campaign the guy has hardly been an impressive specimen of intellectual reasoning, so I'm not overly inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Nice try... of course the elected officials wouldn't really see/feel how the ACA works... I'm talking about the 2.8 million federal civilians that may get lumped into the ACA insurance exchange.
Yeah, and my point is that individuals being unhappy about being moved from one scheme to another doesn't actually say anything about the new scheme, because its entirely likely that the old scheme was just too generous.
It's like, say your mate has a kid, and that kid is pissed because your mate is buying them an Accord. You can't look at that situation and say 'therefore Accords suck'. What you can do is look at the situation and see that the kid is pissed because they had previously been used to driving Dad's BMW...
Now, that might not be the situation, but the point is just saying 'someone is pissed' says nothing about the healthcare on offer. To actually have some substance, you have to go through the healthcare they can expect to collect through the exchanges, and point out where you feel it is inadequate for a person on a Federal wage.
But... they have it good now and thought they'd be exempted. How do you figure that in this case, it's "non-productive"??? Don't you see the irony?
I see the irony in Republicans trying to score political points by mentioning that the unions are upset about losing a nice little money earner, yeah
And the middle man is non-productive by definition. He might sometimes be necessary (private insurance is basically a middle man, afterall), but in situations where he isn't necessary, or you can make him unecessary, then its always a good idea to cut him and save the transaction costs. The system has changed to make the group purchasing of insurance no longer necessary.
whembly wrote: Nice try... of course the elected officials wouldn't really see/feel how the ACA works... I'm talking about the 2.8 million federal civilians that may get lumped into the ACA insurance exchange.
Yeah, and my point is that individuals being unhappy about being moved from one scheme to another doesn't actually say anything about the new scheme, because its entirely likely that the old scheme was just too generous.
You don't know that Seb... you're over generalizing here... case in point. Did you know that the current exchange only covers advanced breast cancer diagnosis/treatment for women aged 50 and over? I personally know 2 women who has breast cancer... and they were in their thirties. (note, this will get changed, but it highlights the problem).
It's like, say your mate has a kid, and that kid is pissed because your mate is buying them an Accord. You can't look at that situation and say 'therefore Accords suck'. What you can do is look at the situation and see that the kid is pissed because they had previously been used to driving Dad's BMW...
Now, that might not be the situation, but the point is just saying 'someone is pissed' says nothing about the healthcare on offer. To actually have some substance, you have to go through the healthcare they can expect to collect through the exchanges, and point out where you feel it is inadequate for a person on a Federal wage.
Sorry dude... but, that's a horrible analogy. I think you're mixing your experience of your state sponsored healthcare and trying to impose it over here.
Folks are pissed because they worked hard for a particular health insurance.. remember, it's part of their benefit/compensation package from their employer/union.
That's different from what you experience in Au/Canada or in other parts of Europe that has state healthcare.
But... they have it good now and thought they'd be exempted. How do you figure that in this case, it's "non-productive"??? Don't you see the irony?
I see the irony in Republicans trying to score political points by mentioning that the unions are upset about losing a nice little money earner, yeah
And the middle man is non-productive by definition. He might sometimes be necessary (private insurance is basically a middle man, afterall), but in situations where he isn't necessary, or you can make him unecessary, then its always a good idea to cut him and save the transaction costs. The system has changed to make the group purchasing of insurance no longer necessary.
We're trading one fething middle man for another... the ACA is the SAME system as it always has been. It's NOT the pie-in-the-sky system that AU/Canadian/UK enjoys! All it is that the FEDERAL government now dictate rules (up to the head of HHS... who has sweeping powah now) what the state exchange should be and new regulation that private insurance would have to abide by, who are at a distinct comptetive disadvantage compared to the state exchanges.
I said it before... it's still a gak sandwich of a law. This isn’t about making sense or seeing the light. This is about Leftism or, really Statism (notice I didn't say Liberalism)... in that its intentional stratagems and deceits and how brilliantly Leftists exploit failure, turn crisis into opportunity. Obscuring and spinning the truth of the death panels, hidden costs, the 50 full-time employee rule, the birth control pill for all... at the outset was necessary and intentional. Now, the argument against death panels, 50 employees, etc... — and the feigned mea culpas and vows to rectify (see my Dean post above)— is a preemptive attempt to force the Republicans into a partial fix which in fact concedes the institutional reality of Obamacare — as opposed to an effort to defund or repeal the entire thing. If Republicans don’t agree, they’re left holding the bag on all the bad things coming out of this act, ie death panels. The goal is to fob off the horror of the death panels and such on Republicans, just as they are trying to hysterically fob off the horror and failure of Detroit on them (which will work because low information voters are ignorant of that fact).
Because... you know... it's the Republican's fault.
To be honest... I've already conceded the institutional realities of Obamacare. All the noise from Ted Cruz & company to defund Obamacare is impossible. Because it was written into law in the same manner as Medicare and Social Security as it's part of the "Mandatory Spending" entitlement. So, even if the Stop the Government ala Gingrich in '94 happens, most of Obamacare rules/taxs/subsidy would still kick in... and there's one thing that we know to be an almost absolute truth. Once an entitlement goes live, it's impossible to get rid of... doesn't make it any less of a gak sandwich law.
You don't know that Seb... you're over generalizing here... case in point.
Well, no he does know that. If a person is unhappy about a system which they are a party to, it does not mean that the system itself is bad, only that the person is unhappy. Now, they may be unhappy for legitimate reasons, or they may be unhappy due to something frivolous. Indeed, Sebster alludes to this very fact in his post when he notes that emphasizing specific reasons for the dissatisfaction of a particular person, or group of people, is far more important than emphasizing the dissatisfaction itself.
Its the difference between being constructive, and adding to the, already prodigious, amount of noise surround ACA.
Folks are pissed because they worked hard for a particular health insurance.. remember, it's part of their benefit/compensation package from their employer/union.
Yes, and employers and unions alter benefit and compensation packages all the time, and have done so in order to achieve statutory compliance in the past. Simply because you were compensated in a particular manner before does not entitle you to similar compensation in the future, even if all else is held equal.
This isn’t about making sense or seeing the light. This is about Leftism or, really Statism (notice I didn't say Liberalism)... in that its intentional stratagems and deceits and how brilliantly Leftists exploit failure, turn crisis into opportunity Obscuring and spinning the truth of the death panels, hidden costs, the 50 full-time employee rule, the birth control pill for all... at the outset was necessary and intentional.
So, if it isn't about "making sense or seeing the light" am I to infer that it is about reifying your own political beliefs?
At any rate, spin and selective emphasis are part and parcel to democratic governance. Singling out Leftists and Statists because they utilize these tactics is myopic in the extreme.
Now, the argument against death panels, 50 employees, etc... — and the feigned mea culpas and vows to rectify (see my Dean post above)— is a preemptive attempt to force the Republicans into a partial fix which in fact concedes the institutional reality of Obamacare — as opposed to an effort to defund or repeal the entire thing.
Interestingly, that's essentially as much of a favor to the Republicans as it is an excellent strategy on the part of the Democrats, because eliminating the ACA in its entirety is essentially impossible. The GOP would be much better served in focusing on specific issues with the bill that it finds especially onerous, and devoting itself to handling those.
If Republicans don’t agree, they’re left holding the bag on all the bad things coming out of this act, ie death panels. The goal is to fob off the horror of the death panels and such on Republicans, just as they are trying to hysterically fob off the horror and failure of Detroit on them (which will work because low information voters are ignorant of that fact).
What's hilarious is that a great many of my Democratically inclined friends have much the same to say about the GOP regarding "...the death panels and such..."
Honestly the last 4.5 years have been pretty interesting, as both sides (especially the associated elements of the peanut gallery) have essentially resorted to using arguments that are mirror images on each other; creating what is little more than a shouting match.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: What is even funnier by the Repuvlican backlash against the ACA is that while they invoke the 10th Amendment, states should be the ones to take care of it, what have those states done to assist in their own health care? Nothing. Because of that, the Federal government has decided to take matters into its own hands.
Meh... they're not really invoking the 10th at all here brah.
Really? Rick Perry threatened to secede if the ACA passed. He claims, as did 15-something other atates that the mandates violated 10th amendment protections for the states. However, most of those states are the ones that need it the most.
Incorrect. Rick Perry threatened to secede. Rick Perry's hair, which really runs the governorship, disagreed.
You don't know that Seb... you're over generalizing here... case in point.
Well, no he does know that. If a person is unhappy about a system which they are a party to, it does not mean that the system itself is bad, only that the person is unhappy. Now, they may be unhappy for legitimate reasons, or they may be unhappy due to something frivolous. Indeed, Sebster alludes to this very fact in his post when he notes that emphasizing specific reasons for the dissatisfaction of a particular person, or group of people, is far more important than emphasizing the dissatisfaction itself.
Its the difference between being constructive, and adding to the, already prodigious, amount of noise surround ACA.
I was referring to his "because its entirely likely that the old scheme was just too generous" blurb... not how unhappy folks are.
We can have an cordial discussion here w/o the rah-rah Republican vs Democrat politicking... hence, why I'm stirring the pot!
Folks are pissed because they worked hard for a particular health insurance.. remember, it's part of their benefit/compensation package from their employer/union.
Yes, and employers and unions alter benefit and compensation packages all the time, and have done so in order to achieve statutory compliance in the past. Simply because you were compensated in a particular manner before does not entitle you to similar compensation in the future, even if all else is held equal.
Right... that's true. I was trying to elaborate on this point as it's different from his perspective.
This isn’t about making sense or seeing the light. This is about Leftism or, really Statism (notice I didn't say Liberalism)... in that its intentional stratagems and deceits and how brilliantly Leftists exploit failure, turn crisis into opportunity Obscuring and spinning the truth of the death panels, hidden costs, the 50 full-time employee rule, the birth control pill for all... at the outset was necessary and intentional.
So, if it isn't about "making sense or seeing the light" am I to infer that it is about reifying your own political beliefs?
Not really...
At any rate, spin and selective emphasis are part and parcel to democratic governance. Singling out Leftists and Statists because they utilize these tactics is myopic in the extreme.
So...you're a accept the status quo guy...eh? I'm singling them out IN THIS INSTANCE to explain how it all came about.
Now, the argument against death panels, 50 employees, etc... — and the feigned mea culpas and vows to rectify (see my Dean post above)— is a preemptive attempt to force the Republicans into a partial fix which in fact concedes the institutional reality of Obamacare — as opposed to an effort to defund or repeal the entire thing.
Interestingly, that's essentially as much of a favor to the Republicans as it is an excellent strategy on the part of the Democrats, because eliminating the ACA in its entirety is essentially impossible.
Huh? I don't follow... if the voters really want the ACA repealed, they could face being primaried.
The GOP would be much better served in focusing on specific issues with the bill that it finds especially onerous, and devoting itself to handling those.
I actually agree with you there... or, they could shock the nation and advocate for single payer with a repeal/replace package (plus, change tax codes to support it). Never gunna happen tho.
If Republicans don’t agree, they’re left holding the bag on all the bad things coming out of this act, ie death panels. The goal is to fob off the horror of the death panels and such on Republicans, just as they are trying to hysterically fob off the horror and failure of Detroit on them (which will work because low information voters are ignorant of that fact).
What's hilarious is that a great many of my Democratically inclined friends have much the same to say about the GOP regarding "...the death panels and such..."
They're blaming Republicans for this? o.O
Honestly the last 4.5 years have been pretty interesting, as both sides (especially the associated elements of the peanut gallery) have essentially resorted to using arguments that are mirror images on each other; creating what is little more than a shouting match.
You're right about that... they're all crooks.
Here's an interesting analysis on how it sorta went down and how now Congress and their aides are forced to use the state exchange, but the Government isn't allowed to help with the premiums:
Today’s NYT had an amusing story about how members of Congress and their staffs are concerned about a provision in the PPACA that requires them to obtain insurance through exchanges because, among other things, it will require a substantial increase in out-of-pocket costs.
Under a wrinkle that dates back to enactment of the law, members of Congress and thousands of their aides are required to get their coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.
But the law does not provide any obvious way for the federal government to continue paying its share of the premiums for the comprehensive coverage.
If the government cannot do so, it could mean an additional expense of $5,000 a year for individuals and $11,000 for families under some of the most popular plans.
Not surprisingly, that idea is unpopular on Capitol Hill. . . .
With the exchanges scheduled to open in just nine weeks, the Obama administration is struggling to come up with a creative interpretation of the health care law that would allow the federal government to kick in for insurance as private employers do, but so far an answer has proved elusive.
The issue is politically charged because the White House and Congress are highly sensitive to any suggestion that lawmakers or their aides are getting special treatment under the health law. The administration is already under fire from Republicans for delaying a requirement that larger businesses offer insurance to their full-time employees.
The article also provides a useful reminder that what became the PPACA was a draft bill that its supporters never intended to become law. The Senate-passed health care reform bill was intended to serve as the Senate’s contribution to a House-Senate conference that would iron out all the final details. Yet after Scott Brown was elected to the Senate, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority and had to use the Senate bill as the basis for the final law. From the NYT account:
Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the Senate was responsible for the provision requiring lawmakers and many aides to get insurance in the exchanges.
“We had to take the Senate version of the health care bill,” Ms. DeGette said. “This is not anything we spent time talking about here in the House.”
Another House Democrat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “This was a stupid provision that never should have gotten into the law.”
Because the Senate bill was used as the basis for the PPACA, and only subject to limited reconciliation amendments, there are quite a few provisions were enacted that were not what health care reform supporters wanted. (This likely explains the language at issue with the IRS tax credit rule too.) The problem is that intentions are not law, and if Congress passes an imperfect or ill-conceived statute, it’s still the law of the land.
Here's how I'd sum that article up...
That was a cleverly designed poison pill inserted into the law by the herculean ACA opponent Chuck Grassley. This provision is currently working as intended... it was intended to cause pain and confusion for legislators and their staffs, and it's succeeding. (Of course, it's real purpose was deterring Senate Democrats from moving ahead on the ACA, and in that it failed. ) It's obviously poison pill designed to table the bill... wondering if Pelosi wished she read the bill before passing it?
Grassley snuck in this act by "saying" it put the Senate and their staffers on the same footing as their constituents (not true). What happened here is just like that a hypothetical worker, who had access to generous employer-provided healthcare met all the standards set forth by ACA... all the sudden found that their employers had no clear way to legally kick in a share of the premiums, as most private employers do today.
Again, that impacts only the Congressional critters and their aides... not the other Federal Employees who'd still qualify for their current FEHBP. I was wrong about that earlier... I thought they were exempt. It's just that most Senator/House can afford private insurance... it's just makes things really expensive for the Congressional aides. The optics would be REALLY bad now if Congress tries to fix that now.
Obama Solves Health Care Problem for Lawmakers, Staff (Updated)
Updated: 10:41 p.m. | Just a day after President Barack Obama told Senate Democrats he had personally engaged in the issue of his signature health care law’s effect on lawmakers and their staff, it appears there’s a solution.
Word began circulating around Capitol Hill that the Office of Personnel Management would soon issue guidance to address the way the health care law’s exchanges affect members of Congress and those employed in their offices. Senate aides initially declined to discuss the matter, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed the existence of a deal to CQ Roll Call leaving the Capitol late Thursday — and a White House official confirmed details of the plan later Thursday evening.
Basically, OPM needed to determine that the federal government could help pay the cost of premiums on the exchanges for congressional employees.
“I’m glad it’s done,” the Nevada Democrat said, directing a request for details to the White House.
A White House official confirmed to CQ Roll Call that OPM will issue the new regulation next week, and in turn lawmakers and aides will not be eligible for the law’s tax credits and subsidies to buy insurance.
During a meeting in the Capitol Wednesday with the Senate Democratic caucus, Obama said that he would personally step in to work on the issue before the health care law’s requirement that those on Capitol Hill get insurance through the exchanges. Obama’s comments were first reported by Politico and later confirmed by CQ Roll Call.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., released a statement Thursday night reiterating that staff and lawmakers must sign up for the exchanges.
“Members of Congress and their staffs must enroll in health marketplaces as the Affordable Care Act requires.
“As we continue our work to ensure the smooth implementation of this law and look forward to the start of enrollment on October 1st, we will continue our efforts this August to educate consumers on the law’s provisions and tout the critical benefits already in place for millions of Americans,” she said, with no mention of the deal that OPM is set to announce.
The decision is the latest made by the administration to try and smooth the implementation of the law. Obama had earlier come under fire for his decision to not enforce the employer mandate for a year without passing a legislative fix.
Not a bad plan to do this waaay before the mid-term election.
No, I'm a guy that has studied politics for 11 years and has never encountered a system of governance in which spin, and selective emphasis can be removed from the equation; nor can I imagine a system in which they could be. Because, at the end of the day, you cannot please everyone and so you must make your decisions at least palatable to those who are not immediately in favor of them.
Huh? I don't follow... if the voters really want the ACA repealed, they could face being primaried.
They face the same problem if no progress is made in repealing the ACA. However, with certain Democrats now vowing to rectify the deficiencies of the bill, Republicans now have the opportunity to call their bluff (assuming it is one) and make headway on actually fixing the legislation as written.
At least assuming loud proclamations of doing the impossible are no longer sufficient to hold, or take, office; which they probably are.
chaos0xomega wrote: If its bad for unions it can only be a good thing... right?
maybe in some twisted world if it was something that was a detriment to the unions and a benefit to the workers at large, maybe... But when we all have to abide by something that feths over the normal person and the unions... not a good thing.
The average price for the lowest-cost ObamaCare "bronze" plan in eight states is 122% higher than the cheapest plan currently available in those states, according to an IBD analysis of rate filings and a recent Government Accountability Office report.
The late July report, largely overlooked by the press, provides detailed information on insurance plans today in all 50 states, from the cheapest plans offered to a 30-year-old nonsmoker to the most expensive plans 55-year-old couples can buy.
A separate report from the Maryland insurance department lists the lowest-cost "bronze" plans proposed for ObamaCare exchanges in eight states.
Comparing the two reveals a wide gulf between the cheapest plans available now and those that will be sold next year under ObamaCare.
In Ohio, for example, the least expensive "bronze" plan for a 25-year-old will cost $1,956 a year. That's almost three times higher than the cheapest plan in that state today, and higher than even the median-priced plan in the state, according to the GAO report.
In Virginia, the lowest "bronze" premium is $1,608 — which is 252% higher than the cheapest policy available today.
And Maryland's least expensive ObamaCare plan will be 83% higher than the lowest-cost plan sold in that state this year.
Aetna (AET) on Thursday pulled out of Maryland's exchange after state officials pressed it to lower its proposed rates by up to 29%.
Subsidies, Benefits Touted
ObamaCare backers point out that many people couldn't get these current low rates either because they aren't sold in their local area, or because of their health status. And these plans often include higher deductibles and skimpier benefits than ObamaCare allows.
They also point out that exchange subsidies will offset higher ObamaCare costs for many, and that in any case, higher premiums are worth it given the protections against coverage denials and the more comprehensive benefits required.
But not everyone will be eligible for these subsidies, which phase out entirely at 400% of the poverty rate. And even with them, costs will still go up for many. A young worker making $20,000 in Maryland, for example, would pay about $1,000 for the cheapest ObamaCare plan, after the subsidy. That's still $278 more than the least expensive plan offered in the state today.
And higher rates pose a significant risk to ObamaCare's success. If not enough young people sign up, premium costs will spiral upward.
That's been the experience in six states that have already imposed ObamaCare-style market reforms — known as "guaranteed issue" and "community rating."
These rules prevent insurers from denying coverage or charging more to people who are sick. But they can easily backfire.
The average price for the lowest-cost ObamaCare "bronze" plan in eight states is 122% higher than the cheapest plan currently available in those states, according to an IBD analysis of rate filings and a recent Government Accountability Office report.
The late July report, largely overlooked by the press, provides detailed information on insurance plans today in all 50 states, from the cheapest plans offered to a 30-year-old nonsmoker to the most expensive plans 55-year-old couples can buy.
A separate report from the Maryland insurance department lists the lowest-cost "bronze" plans proposed for ObamaCare exchanges in eight states.
Comparing the two reveals a wide gulf between the cheapest plans available now and those that will be sold next year under ObamaCare.
In Ohio, for example, the least expensive "bronze" plan for a 25-year-old will cost $1,956 a year. That's almost three times higher than the cheapest plan in that state today, and higher than even the median-priced plan in the state, according to the GAO report.
In Virginia, the lowest "bronze" premium is $1,608 — which is 252% higher than the cheapest policy available today.
And Maryland's least expensive ObamaCare plan will be 83% higher than the lowest-cost plan sold in that state this year.
Aetna (AET) on Thursday pulled out of Maryland's exchange after state officials pressed it to lower its proposed rates by up to 29%.
Subsidies, Benefits Touted
ObamaCare backers point out that many people couldn't get these current low rates either because they aren't sold in their local area, or because of their health status. And these plans often include higher deductibles and skimpier benefits than ObamaCare allows.
They also point out that exchange subsidies will offset higher ObamaCare costs for many, and that in any case, higher premiums are worth it given the protections against coverage denials and the more comprehensive benefits required.
But not everyone will be eligible for these subsidies, which phase out entirely at 400% of the poverty rate. And even with them, costs will still go up for many. A young worker making $20,000 in Maryland, for example, would pay about $1,000 for the cheapest ObamaCare plan, after the subsidy. That's still $278 more than the least expensive plan offered in the state today.
And higher rates pose a significant risk to ObamaCare's success. If not enough young people sign up, premium costs will spiral upward.
That's been the experience in six states that have already imposed ObamaCare-style market reforms — known as "guaranteed issue" and "community rating."
These rules prevent insurers from denying coverage or charging more to people who are sick. But they can easily backfire.
The hilarity that will ensue with this piece of crap legislation is going to be a grand thing to experience. I just hope the unions and all others who helped foist this on us get to enjoy it in full measure instead of somehow sliming their way out of it.
Even Aetna is withdrawing from Maryland's state exchange:
Aetna Inc pulled out of Maryland’s health insurance exchange being created under President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law after the state pressed it to lower its proposed rates by up to 29 percent. …
In an August 1 letter sent to the Maryland Department of Insurance, Aetna said the state’s requirement for rate reductions off its proposed prices would lead it to operate at a loss. The rate reductions include products from Aetna and Coventry Health Care, which it bought this spring.
“Unfortunately, we believe the modifications to the rates filed by Aetna and Coventry would not allow us to collect enough premiums to cover the cost of the plans, including the medical network and service expectations of our customers,” Aetna said in the letter to insurance commissioner Therese Goldsmith.
According to online documents, Aetna had requested an average monthly premium of $394 a month for one of its plans and the agency had approved an average rate of $281 per month.
It's all part of the government's master plans to drive the insurance industry out of business!
The average price for the lowest-cost ObamaCare "bronze" plan in eight states is 122% higher than the cheapest plan currently available in those states, according to an IBD analysis of rate filings and a recent Government Accountability Office report.
We've been over this so many times. Comparing the cheapest plans under ACA and the cheapest plans pre-ACA is not comparing the same things. The ACA has raised the minimum standards for what a healthcare plan can allow, which means you're complaining that it costs you $2,000 to buy a car, but last year it only cost you $900 to buy a rusted out piece of crap that was missing an engine and only had three wheels.
And no, ACA isn't going to be cheaper for everyone. But that is a nonsense standard to require of any new proposal. Instead, the system should be, across the whole, an improvement for most. Which the ACA is.
The average price for the lowest-cost ObamaCare "bronze" plan in eight states is 122% higher than the cheapest plan currently available in those states, according to an IBD analysis of rate filings and a recent Government Accountability Office report.
We've been over this so many times. Comparing the cheapest plans under ACA and the cheapest plans pre-ACA is not comparing the same things. The ACA has raised the minimum standards for what a healthcare plan can allow, which means you're complaining that it costs you $2,000 to buy a car, but last year it only cost you $900 to buy a rusted out piece of crap that was missing an engine and only had three wheels.
Bad analogy... Seb, it's waaaaay more complex than simple economics. Take of the rose colored glasses and step way.
We all knew that the cost will go up, it wasn't SOLD to us that way.
And no, ACA isn't going to be cheaper for everyone. But that is a nonsense standard to require of any new proposal. Instead, the system should be, across the whole, an improvement for most. Which the ACA is.
My definition of improvement must be different than yours... o.O
Can we new call Obama a liar then? He said Premiums Will Decrease 3000% So You Should Get A Raise:
Easy E wrote: I can't wait until next election when the Republicans run an anti-Obamacare strategy.... again.
Yup... it's going to be brutal as the effects of the ACA is kicking in gear. Much easier for everyone to relate how this is a gak sammich.
Here's an Ad that's going to be devestating:
Obama had to solve the problem created on Capitol Hill by simply ignoring the law he championed. The addition of the Congressional mandate was to ensure that the two-tiered system did not get created by politicians unwilling to absorb the consequences they impose on everyone else. That’s how the ACA became law... which was a sneaky gambit to insert that poison pill by Sen. Grassley. This is nothing more than a political ploy to protect the governing class from the laws it creates that both the Administration and Congressional Democrat pushed this unpopular law onto the American people.
If Congress was so adamant about getting a waiver, why didn’t they pass the laws necessary to create it? It was the Democrats who were too embarrassed to publicly appeal for the rescue, for obvious reasons and the fact that they didn't READ the bill before it was passed, which is why they went to the White House for the solution... rather than pass a waiver or exemption in the US Senate, which they currently control. Instead of changing the statutes by which the REST-OF-US have to live, the Democrats in the WH and Congress have simply decided not to apply it to themselves.
The Democrats are going to own it in 2014. Ads like that are going to be brutal and they're not going to be able to defend against that.
Here's another bit of evidence of just how popular this thing is... The OFA attracts ONE person for Obamacare event... that's pretty damning that it could only attract one volunteer in Centreville, VA, which is full of federal workers, is evidence of the vast disconnect between Obama's policies and the general public.
Sure, I'm sure the base will eat it up and get fired oup to vote. Just like always. There are very few "new" people the Republicans can attract with the same rhetoric.
The real question is, can the Dems fire up their own base like they did in the last election cycle? Since it is a coalition of minorities, young voters, etc they can attract new voters still.
If 2010 is any example, the answer to my question is no.
whembly wrote: Bad analogy... Seb, it's waaaaay more complex than simple economics. Take of the rose colored glasses and step way.
Yeah, it is complex. Which is why the act of comparing almost useless insurance options pre-ACA to the minimum schemes in the new system is such obvious political hackery.
Can we new call Obama a liar then? He said Premiums Will Decrease 3000% So You Should Get A Raise:
Well I guess you better continue to not vote for Obama, in the next presidential election that he constitutionally cannot run in.
Meanwhile, what actually matters is ACA. Not what some guy said about ACA, but what it actually is. Which means if some guy, even the president, said something about ACA that isn't true, that doesn't actually change what ACA actually is. Which means you don't reject a policy because someone oversold it.
sebster wrote: Which means you don't reject a policy because someone oversold it.
Why not?
The policy... the ACA itself is still a gak sandwich. It's doubling down on the SAME fething SYSTEM that completely ignores to root cause why all of this started.
It's about holding our elected officials accountable.
Easy E wrote: Sure, I'm sure the base will eat it up and get fired oup to vote. Just like always. There are very few "new" people the Republicans can attract with the same rhetoric.
Yeah, it'll be yet another election where the Republicans are more and more dependant on anti-Democratic rhetoric fired at the same vote blocs. And it might even work this next time, if the Dems run a weak campaign, which is always reasonably likely.
But ultimately, just playing road block in Washington and scaring the same white people about the other side can't be anything more than a holding strategy. At some point the party needs to find a reason of its own to be in government, and needs to make that new message appeal to new voters.
This guy is fast becoming my favourite blogger, and note he runs an economics blog, and this is the first time I've seen him post on politics. He certainly isn't an economist/political pundit like Krugman. And also note that while I have no clue what his real politics are, it's pretty clear he's not a liberal.
He makes the point that it isn't just Republican elections that have delivered poor results for conservatives, but the value system of conservatives don't seem to be delivering results. For all the talk of the sanctity of marriage, divorce rates are highest in the bible belt. The Southern states have the lowest rates of social mobility, and flat income growth. It's a model that isn't delivering, and anyone that looks at the results would be mad to decide that's those concepts are what the country needs more of.
He likens it to the 300 years of long term failure Europe suffered through the Crusades (though the story is far from as one-sided as Noah represents, much like US conservatism's story in the last couple of decades isn't one of constant failure, more one of long term failure in aggregate), ending with the route in the battle of Nicopolos. Following this, for all sorts of complex reasons, Europe starting doing things differently, and in time became not just the new power region of the world, but actually took control of almost the whole world. Well, Nicopolos hasn't happened yet for US style conservatism, but they appear to be in the midst of a protracted decline.
And, for what it's worth, I'd say perhaps the more interesting comparison is to old school trade unionism, which faced its own Nicopolos in the late 70s, early 80s, due to its inability to see the writing on the wall in the decline of blue collar manufacturing in the developed world. Instead of rebuilding its model towards an international style (protecting worker's rights regardless of nationality), or transitioning to union protection of service jobs, or restyling themselves away from militant politics towards being a series supporting professional bodies, they've suffered their own, steady decline and drift towards history's dustbin.
And the comparison is, I think, more valid than the feudal economics of Europe, because, well, the death of European feudal structures was nothing but good - there was no good in there to save and so its complete disappearance was the best result. Whereas trade unionism, like conservatism, has a lot of good in it, and a lot of value to offer if it works in the right way.
He said this brand new Mercedes would only cost me $5, but it turns out it actually cost me $15. He lied, and as a result I'm going to take back this brand new Mercedes and insist I get my $15 back.
$15 for a Mercedes is still a freaking bargain, and you'd be barking mad to return it, even if you are pissed at the salesman.
The policy... the ACA itself is still a gak sandwich. It's doubling down on the SAME fething SYSTEM that completely ignores to root cause why all of this started.
If that were true I think we'd be seeing some actual substance about how its delivering poor results. Instead we're seeing conversation about how its application is kind of murky, procedurally speaking, and how it isn't as good as was promised, and how certain groups that benefitted nicely under the old model aren't happy they don't get a slice of the new pie.
None of which actually says anything bad about the policy, and what it will deliver to people.
It's about holding our elected officials accountable.
You hold elected officials accountable by voting them out of office. Rejecting policy because someone exaggerated how good it was doesn't really make a lot of sense.
The ACA is NOT a Mercedes. Its more like a 20 year old station wagon that needs a new engine and tranny when you were promised a Mercedes in perfect condition.
If the Republicans would give even the slightest token effort towards replacing the ACA with something better, then I might actually listen to the noise they keep on making.
Instead we get "our system was really crap and the new one is less crap. But it's still crap so we don't want it. So we will go back to the old crap that was worse, because that is how you fix things!"
If republicans would really care about fixing things, they would fully fund and implement the ACA so that everyone can see how horrible it really is and then replace it with something better.
But they just want to protect the old business model.
Except its not better than what we had before. Its some stuff thats better, and then a bunch of stuff thats worse. Plus it was sold to us under false pretenses. It was claimed that it would be cheaper, and not just a little cheaper. A lot cheaper. When its exactly the opposite.
If it was all that it was claimed to be, the Unions wouldn't be trying to jump ship.
And they don't need to fund it and implement it. They just need to voice their opposition to it, so that when the **** hits the fan people will see they were right about it.
Grey Templar wrote: Except its not better than what we had before. Its some stuff thats better, and then a bunch of stuff thats worse.
And getting rid of the stuff that's better because you don't like the stuff that's worse doesn't make any sense. If the Republicans were not completely stupid they would reform the stuff that's bad, instead of trying to get rid of everything including the good stuff.
Plus it was sold to us under false pretenses..
Who cares? Do you agree 100% that the Iraq was was a giant failure and a disgrace to our military? It was sold to us under false pretenses.
If you want to throw away a $50 because somebody told you it would be a $100 then be my guest. I will just look at you and continue to shake my head.
Except you can't really treat a law by its parts. You have the whole package.
Yes, they could just go after the bad stuff specifically. Yes, I would like them to do that, but its not as big a deal for me. I'd sacrifice the good stuff to get rid of the bad.
Iraq wasn't sold under false pretenses. We thought he had WMDs, we didn't know for sure. Turned out he didn't, big deal. We also thought the Iraq army would put up more of a fight.
Grey Templar wrote: Iraq wasn't sold under false pretenses. We thought he had WMDs, we didn't know for sure. Turned out he didn't, big deal. We also thought the Iraq army would put up more of a fight.
WMD's was just one of the reasons we went in. Also, both the Republicans AND the Democrats voted to authorize our military action in Iraq. That's right, the Democrats voted for it, too.
Grey Templar wrote: Iraq wasn't sold under false pretenses. We thought he had WMDs, we didn't know for sure. Turned out he didn't, big deal. We also thought the Iraq army would put up more of a fight.
WMD's was just one of the reasons we went in. Also, both the Republicans AND the Democrats voted to authorize our military action in Iraq. That's right, the Democrats voted for it, too.
So?
It was sold to the public that they had connection to AQ and had WMDs. Both of which turned out not to be true. It doesn't matter if the people who said so thought it was true, it still turned out not to be.
So either false pretenses (or people saying things that they thought were true that turn out not to be) are a deal breaker on everything, or they are not a deal breaker on anything.
Grey Templar wrote: The ACA is NOT a Mercedes. Its more like a 20 year old station wagon that needs a new engine and tranny when you were promised a Mercedes in perfect condition.
First up, that isn't how analogies work.
Second up, so fething what? That just changes the complaint to something more like 'I was promised a Mercedes and all I'm getting an engine and transmission replacement for my current car.... and therefore I'm going to refuse the engine and transmission replacement'.
Which is still fething stupid.
You think the policy was oversold and you don't like that, well then complain about how it was sold. But its still a new engine and transmission replacement, where the alternative is to just keep driving a busted up car that needs an engine replacement and a new transmission.
And lastly the whole 'ACA was sold on a lie' thing is pretty damn weak, because the only people making that complaint are the folk who already opposed it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If republicans would really care about fixing things, they would fully fund and implement the ACA so that everyone can see how horrible it really is and then replace it with something better.
But they just want to protect the old business model.
Good post, especially the point on Republicans simply not offering any alternative, but just looking to pull down ACA.
I would disagree though on them wanting to protect the old model. I don't think anyone actually wants that. I think its more that the Republicans attempted a political strategy to hammer Obama's political capital by sinking his flagship policy - healthcare reform (not necessarily a bad strategy given it worked on Clinton).
But the gamble didn't pay off. ACA got up. And in the wake of it, well the Republicans can let their party become the party that fought to oppose all those people having healthcare where they had none, and oppose all those people denied coverage for pre-existing conditions where now they have coverage. Or they can make one final attempt to tank ACA through political shenanigans, and escape what could be a generational hit to their party's legitimacy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: If it was all that it was claimed to be, the Unions wouldn't be trying to jump ship.
The unions aren't jumping ship. They're being cut out of the loop. The difference in those two things is massive.
And they don't need to fund it and implement it. They just need to voice their opposition to it, so that when the **** hits the fan people will see they were right about it.
It's a long standing strategy that when the other side is putting bad policy in place, you make lots of noise about it and you vote against it, but you don't actually stop it. You don't play any procedural games to fight any part of it. You just make sure the other side owns the policy, and then you let them reap the consequences.
The Republicans aren't doing that with ACA. They're fighting each and every piece of its implementation tooth and nail. And if you're think they're doing that out of genuine concern that ACA might harm the average taxpayer then I've got a bridge to sell you.
They're not doing it because their opposition was a calculated political gamble that failed, and now that ACA is going to come in and people are going to be covered where they wouldn't have been, and reasonable healthcare is going to become cheaper,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Except you can't really treat a law by its parts. You have the whole package.
Umm, you can. A reform bill can be passed, saying 'take out this bit, and add in these bits, but leave the rest of it as it was'. Who taught you civics?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Also, both the Republicans AND the Democrats voted to authorize our military action in Iraq. That's right, the Democrats voted for it, too.
Which is a very good reason to condemn the complete spinelessness of Democrats in the post 9/11 world, but in no way is it a defence of the lies told about why an invasion of Iraq was necessary.
d-usa wrote:If the Republicans would give even the slightest token effort towards replacing the ACA with something better, then I might actually listen to the noise they keep on making.
Instead we get "our system was really crap and the new one is less crap. But it's still crap so we don't want it. So we will go back to the old crap that was worse, because that is how you fix things!"
d-usa wrote:If the Republicans would give even the slightest token effort towards replacing the ACA with something better, then I might actually listen to the noise they keep on making.
Instead we get "our system was really crap and the new one is less crap. But it's still crap so we don't want it. So we will go back to the old crap that was worse, because that is how you fix things!"
Yeah, but that's conservatism in a nutshell.
I disagree with the whole premise that the ACA makes is less crappy guys. I'd say, overall... the unintended consequences makes things worst.
Case in point: Employers are dropping fulltime positions now to avoid the 50 fulltime threshold that forces employers to offer healthcare benefit. Most of my friends were impacted by this.
Easy E wrote: Newsflash: employers were dropping full-time people before ACA and would have continued to drop them without ACA.
Citation please.
Seb... there are numerous stories that employers FLAT OUT stated that they're dropping full timers due to the ACA regulations... to circumvent the 50 fulltime threshold to offer insurance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: And what has the ACA done to make anything better?
Seriously? You can now get coverage when you've got a pre-existing condition. How are you not aware of this, after all this time?
So... that's it? All is forgiven... that right there is worth whatever worts in the ACA?
Again... I think you're letting your bias through with what you experience at home. This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So you are arguing against the ACA because it has not lowered under-employment? Or reversed the pre-ACA trend of under-employment?
*sigh*
It's the unintended consequences that fugly dude... what's galling is that it was predicted. This is an exercise of "I told ya so"...
dogma wrote: Because, at the end of the day, you cannot please everyone and so you must make your decisions at least palatable to those who are not immediately in favor of them.
The same is comically true in business presentations. Spin it, baby.
Cities and towns across the country are pushing municipal unions to accept cheaper health benefits in anticipation of a component of the Affordable Care Act that will tax expensive plans starting in 2018.
The so-called Cadillac tax was inserted into the Affordable Care Act at the advice of economists who argued that expensive health insurance with the employee bearing little cost made people insensitive to the cost of care. In public employment, though, where benefits are arrived at through bargaining with powerful unions, switching to cheaper plans will not be easy.
Cities including New York and Boston, and school districts from Westchester County, N.Y., to Orange County, Calif., are warning unions that if they cannot figure out how to rein in health care costs now, the price when the tax goes into effect will be steep, threatening raises and even jobs.
“Every municipality with a generous health care plan is doing the math on this,” said J. D. Piro, a health care lawyer at a human resources consultancy, Aon Hewitt.
But some prominent liberals express frustration at seeing the tax used against unions in negotiations.
“I think it was misguided all along,” Robert B. Reich, the former labor secretary, said in an e-mail. When the law was being written, he said, he worried that the tax was “a blunt instrument that could too easily become a bargaining chit for cutting back benefits of workers.”
“Apparently, that’s what it’s become,” Mr. Reich, who is a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, said.
Under the tax, plans that cost above a certain threshold in 2018 — $10,200 annually for individual plans and $27,500 for family plans, with slightly higher cutoffs for retirees and those in high-risk professions like law enforcement — will be taxed at 40 percent of their costs in excess of the limit. (The thresholds will rise with inflation after 2018.)
State and local governments across the country tend to offer more expensive health plans than private businesses do, and workers often accept smaller wage increases to retain their benefits. Because of this, state and local government employees are expected to be disproportionately represented among those whose plans will be subject to the tax.
New York City expects its two most popular employee health plans to reach taxable Cadillac levels by 2018 or shortly after. This year, the city projects that it will pay a total of $7,128 for individuals and $18,249 for families in its most popular plan, including the costs the city pays into union welfare funds to cover prescription drug benefits. That is above the national average for employer-sponsored health care coverage, which last year was $5,615 for single coverage and $15,745 for family coverage, according to a 2012 Kaiser Family Foundation survey.
The total health care cost for the city’s nearly 300,000 municipal employees, pre-Medicare-age retirees and their dependents is expected to approach $8 billion by 2018.
In a letter in April to the head of a labor coalition, Caswell F. Holloway IV, deputy mayor for operations, said the Cadillac tax would cost New York City $22 million in 2018, increasing to $549 million in 2022. (This year, the total city budget, excluding federal and state aid, is just over $50 billion.)
“We know that, on the current trajectory, we’re going to be hit with that tax and it would increase very steeply,” Mr. Holloway said.
So the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, in its final months in office, is asking municipal unions to agree to seek new bids for the city’s health insurance business, hoping to lower premiums. It has already achieved one small victory, getting the city’s current primary insurer to freeze premiums for one year if it keeps the city’s business, the mayor said on Friday.
But lower-cost plans are likely to involve greater out-of-pocket costs and more limited networks of doctors, and so far, the response from labor has been cool.
Ninety-five percent of city employees and 93 percent of retirees are in the two largest plans, which require employees to pay nothing toward their premiums. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation survey, the average contribution by public employees throughout the country is 12 percent for individual plans and 23 percent for family plans.
Harry Nespoli, the chairman of the Municipal Labor Committee, the labor coalition that negotiates with the city on health care, said that he was concerned about the tax, but also that the burden of any cuts would fall largely on workers at the bottom of the pay scale.
Mr. Nespoli said his staff was looking over the request for proposals that the city had written, but he said he was skeptical that the process of seeking new health insurance could be completed before the next administration.
“We’re not going to turn around and do a $7 billion contract that affects our members for the next 10 years out without looking at it very carefully,” he said.
Most of Boston’s 20,000 employees are currently in plans that by 2018 would exceed the tax threshold. The city and its unions are preparing a request for proposals for new insurance coverage.
“The tax is going to be a hit, and, if you’re not expecting it, it’s going to be very shocking,” said Meredith Weenick, the chief financial officer for Boston.
Jim Finley, the executive director of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said he thought it would be hard for Connecticut towns and cities to get their unions to agree to cheaper health care benefits to avoid the tax.
“In the end, it’s the taxpayer that’s going to bear that burden,” Mr. Finley said.
In Orange County, Calif., the Newport Mesa Unified School District warned employees during contract negotiations that if the district’s health care costs continued rising at the current rate, the district could face a $2.3 million burden from the tax in 2018.
The teachers’ union ultimately agreed to accept greater out-of-pocket costs to reduce the increase in its premium this year to 3 percent from 6 percent, but union leaders said they resented the district’s using the threat of the tax as a negotiating tactic.
Municipal unions opposed the inclusion of the tax in the health care law, and it was partly their efforts that succeeded in delaying its effective date until 2018.
Steven Kreisberg, the director of collective bargaining and health care policy at the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, said the term Cadillac tax was misleading, because it “connotes a certain aspect of luxury in these health plans that is just factually incorrect.”
The announcement last month that the Obama administration would delay by a year the mandate that larger employers offer coverage to their workers does not affect the timing of the excise tax, although it may provide encouragement to those who hope that the assessment will be delayed or scrapped altogether.
“Some skeptics, and I’m not one of them, say that that’s why the tax was put into effect in 2018 — that it’s far enough away that people can consider whether or not they really want it to go into effect,” Mr. Piro, the health care lawyer, said.
Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was a paid consultant to the Obama administration on health care policy, said forcing state and local governments to rein in health care costs was exactly what the tax was intended to do.
“This is intended to shift compensation away from excessively generous health insurance toward wages,” he said.
In New York, if the Bloomberg administration does not succeed in getting new health insurance before the end of the year, the problem will fall in the lap of the next mayor.
Mr. Holloway said the Bloomberg administration, like many city governments, had long been concerned about the rising cost of health care and its impact on the budget.
But the 2018 tax “adds a sense of real urgency to getting a handle on this,” he said.
“We’ve got to start thinking about this now,” he continued. “Why is it that my plan is so expensive per person? What are the ways that we could get that under control?”
I am a fierce champion of single payer. I am on the board of California OneCare, one of the most active single payer organizations in California. But right now, we are several heartbeats away from the opening of the health insurance exchanges. So let's take a real world look at what we might expect.
Take a deep breath and continue reading.
The task facing the administration is Herculean, quite literally changing the psyche of the American people. American have long accepted that in this country healthcare is a privilege reserved to the affluent and those still with employer provided insurance. We're now being told, throw away those beliefs the future is here, and the future belongs to those who buy for-profit private insurance.
We've segued from each man/woman for herself, to we're all in this together.
The biggest and most critical hurdle is to sell the young 18-34 year old cohort on the need for them to enroll. Without this group of Americans, which the Administration estimates is around 2.7 million strong, the exchanges will implode due to a phenomenon called adverse selection.
Enroll America
Despite my grave reservations and deep concern about the implementation of Obamacare, I would urge anyone who can lend a hand, to go to the web site of Enroll America and do whatever you can, to help get young people happily enrolled. Without their participation, We. Are. Toast.
As Robert Pear wrote yesterday in the New York Times,"For Obamacare to Work, Everyone Must Be In". And the sine qua non of the ACA are the young invincibles who must be persuaded to enroll.
So struggling Americans, still reeling from the 2008 crisis, are being asked/required to accept the for-profit insurance industry, and pay staggering premiums and deductibles, just to get a foot in the door to the most expensive, but far from the best healthcare system in the world. We are being told that the barbaric belief system which continues to be embraced by tens of millions, that healthcare is only for those who can pay, is all wrong, and a new day has arrived.
Up until now, healthcare in the United States has been a privilege. Some would argue, and I would agree, that even with the new day we are all awaiting, healthcare will remain a privilege and as many of us have long feared, many/most of us who will comply with the law, will have insurance in name only.
What do we mean by insurance in name only?
The situation in New York State is instructive, and helps explain what it means to be insured, but in reality to be dangerously underinsured.
A few weeks ago, headlines trumpeted that New York would see premiums drop by up to 50%. This was misleading. New York had among the highest premiums in the nation because we are a pure community rating, guaranteed issue state--one of six or seven community rating states in the country.
This meant that insurers had to sell insurance to anyone who could pay for it. Pre-existing conditions did not taint New York State. Young and old, all paid the same. So, guess what happened? Young people dropped out, and the pool shrunk to just people who really needed to be insured--the sick, those with chronic conditions. New York could brag about offering health insurance to everyone--with one caveat, if you could pay among the highest rates in the country! I would be dead or would have filed for medical bankruptcy, if I weren't a resident of NY State.
Obamacare is supposed to ameliorate this problem of adverse selection by mandating that everyone buy, so the older and sicker will in effect be subsidized by the young and healthy.
But returning to the reality on the ground, what kind of check will I and other New Yorkers be writing every month, and what will we get for it?
If you focus on the Silver Plan, you'll find that the deductible is $2000 with a maximum out of pocket cap of $5000.
But in order to access these magnanimous benefits, if you select, say Oxford, and live in the New York City vicinity, as I do, you'll pay a monthly premium of $555.48 X 12 = $6,665.76, then you've got the $2000 deductible which brings your immediate costs to $8665.76.
Then you've got, co-pays and co-insurance on top of this. You've got to incur an additional $3000 after the deductible to hit your out-of-pocket cap.
What we're really seeing play out is an overhaul of the insurance model codified by the Affordable Care Act. It will be all but impossible (except for the mega rich), to buy insurance offering what is called first dollar coverage. This means we will all be required to pay steep premiums and deductibles but may not have the financial resources to actually access healthcare.
“Obamacare is making underinsurance the new normal,” said Woolhandler. “It will reduce the number of uninsured from 50 million to 30 million, but the new coverage is full of holes. Americans deserve the kind of first-dollar, comprehensive coverage that Canadians already have. But that’s only affordable under a single-payer system that cuts out the private insurance middlemen.”
Yes, thanks to the ACA, there are a couple of preventative screenings included in these huge costs, but overall, what we have going on here is a huge shifting of costs onto the backs of the insured.
As we all know, there is zero price transparency in the US healthcare system, so God help you if you plan on calling around to get the best price for a bypass before signing up.
And when you pay for that bypass, you'd do yourself a favor by considering getting it in a country with far better outcomes, at a fraction of the cost than in the United States.
http://s53.photobucket.com/user/nyceve/media/blog_health_rankings_usa_oecd.jpg.html I am reminded on days like today, that President Obama campaigned on the idea that people like me would see something like a $2500 reduction in health insurance costs.
Easy E wrote: Newsflash: employers were dropping full-time people before ACA and would have continued to drop them without ACA.
Citation please.
Seb... there are numerous stories that employers FLAT OUT stated that they're dropping full timers due to the ACA regulations... to circumvent the 50 fulltime threshold to offer insurance.
Of course they are going to say it was because of the ACA, what else are they going to say?
Easy E wrote: Newsflash: employers were dropping full-time people before ACA and would have continued to drop them without ACA.
Citation please.
Seb... there are numerous stories that employers FLAT OUT stated that they're dropping full timers due to the ACA regulations... to circumvent the 50 fulltime threshold to offer insurance.
Of course they are going to say it was because of the ACA, what else are they going to say?
Those stories are just that... stories.
So then, disregard everything you can't prove firsthand?
Oh, I took it as a general comment because the alternative, that you're criticising ACA for its failure to reverse job losses, is completely nutbar.
ACA is about the quality and cost to the country of healthcare. Claiming its bad because it hasn't reversed the trend in job losses is like complaining that Apple and its i-phones are bad because they've done nothing to improve the mileage of family sedans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Seb... there are numerous stories that employers FLAT OUT stated that they're dropping full timers due to the ACA regulations... to circumvent the 50 fulltime threshold to offer insurance.
You asked for a citation that people were dropping employee before ACA and would have continued to do so without ACA. I gave you one.
Personally, on that specific piece of law I agree with you - having a hard cap on when costs kick in is bad policy. It is disappointing that insufficient political will was shown to avoid that problem (the best solution is to have a tax on employers under 50 employees, scaling up slightly with each employee, so by the time you get to 49 employees the cost is almost equal to the cost of providing healthcare to 50 employees... the tax could be avoided by providing health insurance to your employees).
Actually, the best solution is just to detach health insurance from employers entirely, but that's a whole other thing...
So... that's it? All is forgiven... that right there is worth whatever worts in the ACA?
Again... I think you're letting your bias through with what you experience at home. This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.
No, it doesn't justify ACA of itself (personally I'm sold on ACA almost entirely through the long term cost cutting measures, because it became clear to me about 8-10 years ago that future US fiscal stability was dependant almost entirely on effective healthcare cost control). But it is an answer to the question asked by djones520 (or at least what I thought at the time was the question asked by djones520, turns out his question was far sillier).
No... it's the ACA didn't prevent austerity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: And here comes the PUBLIC union's complaint via the NYT:
That isn't a problem. That's what reigning in the costs of healthcare is supposed to look like.
whembly wrote: And here comes the PUBLIC union's complaint via the NYT:
That isn't a problem. That's what reigning in the costs of healthcare is supposed to look like.
Why do you have a problem with this?
Yup...
Unions by far advocated this...
Unions now are say "Naw, we don't like this"...
Whembly says: "told ya so".
And, reigning in the costs? Um... wut? It's going UP faster than pre-ACA dude. Like I said before, if the current system is gakky, then why double-down on said system as say "it's better"?
I work in the healthcare industry in MO... we just had a meeting going over some of the details.
Right now, there is ZERO optimism it's going to work, purely on the fact that the younger folks won't participate in the exchange. The subside models are so wonky, it'll be cheaper to just pay the tax than to participate in the exchange. What'll happen is that in itself will drive the premiums on the exchange even HIGHER than anticipated... to the point that folks will NOT pay it.
Guess what? When they get sick, guess where they'll go? The ED. Like pre-ACA if they didn't have insurance.
Most of the large hospital systems and medical offices are collaborating to setup free clinics to try head this off... the trouble there, is that they'll pass on the costs on those who participate in the plans. Again... pretty much the same fething thing pre-ACA.
And as I already explained, cutting out unecesarry middle men is a good thing, and one of the best ways of lowering overall costs. When that middleman starts moaning, no-one should care, unless they're trying to score political points.
And, reigning in the costs? Um... wut? It's going UP faster than pre-ACA dude.
You keep swapping the cost to the individual in for the cost to the nation. Again, we've been through that before.
Anyhow, here's the CBO's estimate on the impact on the deficit;
Like I said before, if the current system is gakky, then why double-down on said system as say "it's better"?
Applying reforms isn't 'doubling down'. I mean, you've said yourself how you the US can't just swing in to a public system overnight, and I agree, and given that, the ACA is the best possible first step given the political environment towards a functioning healthcare system.
Right now, there is ZERO optimism it's going to work, purely on the fact that the younger folks won't participate in the exchange. The subside models are so wonky, it'll be cheaper to just pay the tax than to participate in the exchange. What'll happen is that in itself will drive the premiums on the exchange even HIGHER than anticipated... to the point that folks will NOT pay it.
Yeah, the mandate tax is too low. If you want to start campaigning to raise it, I'll be happy to support you. But good luck with that campaign
And as I already explained, cutting out unecesarry middle men is a good thing, and one of the best ways of lowering overall costs. When that middleman starts moaning, no-one should care, unless they're trying to score political points.
Buddy... you know I love ya...
But, in a "free market" model... cutting out the middle man and letting the government participate in the same environment (as opposed to, say... just creating a single-payor system) is just BAD. You know this.
And, reigning in the costs? Um... wut? It's going UP faster than pre-ACA dude.
You keep swapping the cost to the individual in for the cost to the nation. Again, we've been through that before.
Anyhow, here's the CBO's estimate on the impact on the deficit;
CBO, or really ANY other organization cannot really predict 4/5 years in the future. So, please don't treat the CBO as gospel.
What's funny is that you're ignoring is that the total costs keeps getting re-calculated EVERY YEAR which is growing at a faster rate.
Like I said before, if the current system is gakky, then why double-down on said system as say "it's better"?
Applying reforms isn't 'doubling down'. I mean, you've said yourself how you the US can't just swing in to a public system overnight, and I agree, and given that, the ACA is the best possible first step given the political environment towards a functioning healthcare system.
That's the crux of the argument that the anti-ACA crowd is saying... there's a better way to do this.
Right now, there is ZERO optimism it's going to work, purely on the fact that the younger folks won't participate in the exchange. The subside models are so wonky, it'll be cheaper to just pay the tax than to participate in the exchange. What'll happen is that in itself will drive the premiums on the exchange even HIGHER than anticipated... to the point that folks will NOT pay it.
Yeah, the mandate tax is too low. If you want to start campaigning to raise it, I'll be happy to support you. But good luck with that campaign
Yep... it's all about incentive/disincentive. Right now, there's an incentives to NOT partcipate in the Exchange. We need everyone to participate in the system in order for it to work.
It's all about the basic principle of incentives and disincentives... unless, you believe employers will ALWAYS do things for altruistic reasons. O.o
Sorry, I can't cite it because no one is dumb enough to say, "Yes, we decided to short people's hours so we could cut-costs on full-time benefits and increase our own profits. Avoiding Obamacare penalties is just a side benefit." Instead, they will say it is because of Obamacare that they were "forced" to do it.
As the graph Sebs posted showed, the reduction in full-time workers was happening anyway before Obamacare. Therefore, if Obamacare never happened, then the trend was still to reduce jobs and increase underemployment. There were economic incentives to do this before Obamacare.
Plus, as Sebs said the point of Obamacare is not to create jobs but reduce Healthcare costs by insuring more people and pooling risk in a way that could actually squeak through the Congress.
Sorry, I can't cite it because no one is dumb enough to say, "Yes, we decided to short people's hours so we could cut-costs on full-time benefits and increase our own profits. Avoiding Obamacare penalties is just a side benefit." Instead, they will say it is because of Obamacare that they were "forced" to do it.
That's more of how bad the overall market has been... true. It's just that the new regulation from ACA is coming at a WORST time.
Again, you're missing the point. Every businesses will do what they can to increase profits. If the current model (ie, have more full-timers) will EAT into a businesses profit margin, only an idiot would say.. ermagawd, business owners are evil cause they don't want to pay more full timers. It's all about THE BOTTOM LINE! Bad business... bad.
I'll let you in a secret. Owners have a business to make money. duh.
As the graph Sebs posted showed, the reduction in full-time workers was happening anyway before Obamacare. Therefore, if Obamacare never happened, then the trend was still to reduce jobs and increase underemployment. There were economic incentives to do this before Obamacare.
True... I'm just arguing that ACA made it worst.
Plus, as Sebs said the point of Obamacare is not to create jobs but reduce Healthcare costs by insuring more people and pooling risk in a way that could actually squeak through the Congress.
Yup... guess what. Healthcare cost ain't dropping. Wishing it so hard ain't going to happen.
Just saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This encapsulate it nicely:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In today's news conference:
So... the president didn’t unilaterally suspend part of a law, he did it in concert with business leaders from around the country (his donors)? That’s good to know. I think I will suspend the speed limit for myself after consulting with my friends in the racing community
Or better yet, since Obama has set the PRECEDENT, a Republican Prez could you know, unilaterally suspend any/all ACA functions. Cuz... shut up!
Yet Another White House Obamacare Delay: Out-Of-Pocket Caps Waived Until 2015
First, there was the delay of Obamacare’s Medicare cuts until after the election. Then there was the delay of the law’s employer mandate. Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead. Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year.
According to the Congressional Research Service, as of November 2011, the Obama administration had missed as many as one-third of the deadlines, specified by law, under the Affordable Care Act. Here are the details on the latest one.
Obamacare contains a blizzard of mandates and regulations that will make health insurance more costly. One of the most significant is its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs, such as co-pays and deductibles. Section 2707(b) of the Public Health Service Act, as added by Obamacare, requires that “a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for the any participant or beneficiary.” Annual limits on cost-sharing are specified by Section 1302(c) of the Affordable Care Act; in addition, starting in 2014, deductibles are limited to $2,000 per year for individual plans, and $4,000 per year for family plans.
Out-of-pocket caps drive premiums upward
There’s no such thing as a free lunch. If you ban lifetime limits, and mandate lower deductibles, and cap out-of-pocket costs, premiums have to go up to reflect these changes. And unlike a lot of the “rate shock” problems we’ve been discussing, these limits apply not only to individually-purchased health insurance, but also to employer-sponsored coverage. (Self-insured employers are exempted.)
These mandates have already had drastic effects on a number of colleges and universities, which offer inexpensive, defined-cap plans to their healthy, youthful students. Premiums at Lenoir-Rhyne University in Hickory, N.C., for example, rose from $245 per student in 2011-2012 to between $2,507 in 2012-2013. The University of Puget Sound paid $165 per student in 2011-2012; their rates rose to between $1,500 and $2,000 for 2012-2013. Other schools have been forced to drop coverage because they could no longer afford it.
According to the law, the limits on out-of-pocket costs for 2014 were $6,350 for individual policies and $12,700 for family ones. But in February, the Department of Labor published a little-noticed rule delaying the cap until 2015. The delay was described yesterday by Robert Pear in the New York Times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Pz3OoKrRnGI Delay needed to align ‘separate computer systems’
Notes Pear, “Under the [one-year delay], many group health plans will be able to maintain separate out-of-pocket limits for benefits in 2014. As a result, a consumer may be required to pay $6,350 for doctors’ services and hospital care, and an additional $6,350 for prescription drugs under a plan administered by a pharmacy benefit manager.”
The reason for the delay? “Federal officials said that many insurers and employers needed more time to comply because they used separate companies to help administer major medical coverage and drug benefits, with separate limits on out-of-pocket costs. In many cases, the companies have separate computer systems that cannot communicate with one another.”
The best part in Pear’s story is when a “senior administration official” said that “we had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers…They asked for more time to comply.” Exactly how is it in consumers’ interests to pay far more for health insurance than they do already?
It’s not. Unless you have a serious, chronic condition, in which case you may benefit from the fact that law forces healthy people to subsidize your care. To progressives, this is the holy grail. But for economically rational individuals, it’s yet another reason to drop out of the insurance market altogether. For economically rational businesses, it’s a reason to self-insure, in order to get out from under these costly mandates.
Patient groups upset
While insurers and premium-payers will be happy with the delay—whose legal justification is dubious once again—there are groups that grumbled. Specifically, groups representing those with chronic diseases, and the pharmaceutical companies whose costly drugs they will use. “The American Cancer Society shares the concern” about the delay, says Pear, “and noted that some new cancer drugs cost $100,000 a year or more.” But a big part of the reason those drugs cost so much is because manufacturers know that government-run insurers will pay up.
“The promise of out-of-pocket limits was one of the main reasons we supported health reform,” says Theodore M. Thompson of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society . “We have wonderful new drugs, the biologics, to treat rheumatoid arthritis,” said Patience H. White of the Arthritis Foundation. “But they are extremely expensive.”
The progressive solution to expensive problems? More subsidies. But subsidies don’t reduce the underlying cost of care. They only excuse the high prices that manufacturers and service providers already charge.
It’s one of the many aspects of Obamacare that should be repealed, if we are to combat the rate shock that the health law imposes on tens of millions of Americans. But that will require Republicans to come up with a smarter strategy than shutting down the government.
So why is the administration bailing out employers and insurers with delays on mandates, but not consumers?
did ya have to throw that down now?
In all seriousness I am 100% convinced that we can get our military running efficiently on significantly less money than it was being paid previously (although I've talked to some people who pretty much say they have no clue how they're going to continue operating with the massive funding cut they received lately). It kind of pisses me off that defence, really the core reason a government exists, is "discretionary" spending while wellfare is "non-discretionary".
