Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2013/08/08 06:57:01
Subject: American labor unions don't like Obamacare
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
thehod wrote: For profit healthcare is absurd to think about.
How is it any more absurd than for profit food production, or home construction, or clothing?
You can't think medical care for profit is absurd if you don't think food, shelter, and clothing should also be paid for by society.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/08 19:40:42
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2013/08/08 19:43:09
Subject: American labor unions don't like Obamacare
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.
Why do you have a problem with this?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/09 03:32:12
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/08/09 04:14:01
Subject: American labor unions don't like Obamacare
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.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/08/09 05:01:18
Subject: American labor unions don't like Obamacare
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/09 05:07:46
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/08/09 14:51:25
Subject: American labor unions don't like Obamacare
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.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/08/09 15:31:35
Subject: American labor unions don't like Obamacare
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.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2013/08/09 15:57:14
Subject: American labor unions don't like Obamacare
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!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/08/09 20:56:36
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/08/13 13:54:54
Subject: Re:American labor unions don't like Obamacare
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?
