Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Lawmakers/Aides try to get out of Obamacare


  • Please log in to reply
265 replies to this topic

#46    Startraveler

Startraveler

    Fleet Captain

  • Member
  • 4,491 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:03 AM

View PostMerc14, on 04 May 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

Of course you don't because you haven't done any more research than the average brain dead American that voted Obama in.

Is this meant to be a joke?


#47    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,017 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:10 AM

View PostStartraveler, on 05 May 2013 - 01:03 AM, said:

Is this meant to be a joke?

Make a statement that is relevant not  ask a question that isn't. Explain yourself, your side and why you disagree.   Your feelings mean nothing here, you need to present facts that can be argued with, otherwise just say you like it and move on.

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#48    Startraveler

Startraveler

    Fleet Captain

  • Member
  • 4,491 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:14 AM

View PostMerc14, on 05 May 2013 - 01:10 AM, said:

Make a statement that is relevant not  ask a question that isn't. Explain yourself, your side and why you disagree.   Your feelings mean nothing here, you need to present facts that can be argued with, otherwise just say you like it and move on.

I did that in post #40. You skillfully deflected the thread into nothingness instead of responding. Well done!

P.S. New England is in the United States.


#49    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,017 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:26 AM

View PostStartraveler, on 05 May 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

I did that in post #40. You skillfully deflected the thread into nothingness instead of responding. Well done!

P.S. New England is in the United States.
i forgot you posted the post I responded to and I read England.  Too many threads that are far more fun.  Sorry.  Regardless, my post was not a deflection, it was a response and it still stands, you need to do some research.  It is quite easy to find the data I am referring to as buyer's remorse is setting in all over the place.  There is an easy logical conclusion to Obamacare and it is single payer.

Fact:  If the government makes it impossible to sell insurance at a reasonable price yet requires businesses to offer insurance or pay a fine that is less than the insurance then businesses will pay the fine and the insurance companies will leave.  Who is left?

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#50    Startraveler

Startraveler

    Fleet Captain

  • Member
  • 4,491 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 05 May 2013 - 02:22 AM

View PostMerc14, on 05 May 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

Fact:  If the government makes it impossible to sell insurance at a reasonable price yet requires businesses to offer insurance or pay a fine that is less than the insurance then businesses will pay the fine and the insurance companies will leave.  Who is left?

Businesses have always had a choice as to whether they offer compensation in the form of health benefits. They do it because their employees want them and because health benefits are more valuable than the equivalent wages thanks to the tax code. None of that is changing. Any analysis based on comparing the value of the ACA's employer mandate fine to the actual value of the insurance package offered ignores the actual economic incentives at work.

That said, most people with employer-sponsored insurance plans aren't actually buying insurance products from health insurance companies, even indirectly. Instead, they're in self-insured plans in which their employer is effectively their insurance company (with actual health insurers likely used purely as administrative entities). So the idea of insurers "leaving" those people makes little sense in that context.


#51    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,017 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 05 May 2013 - 03:17 AM

View PostStartraveler, on 05 May 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

Businesses have always had a choice as to whether they offer compensation in the form of health benefits. They do it because their employees want them and because health benefits are more valuable than the equivalent wages thanks to the tax code. None of that is changing. Any analysis based on comparing the value of the ACA's employer mandate fine to the actual value of the insurance package offered ignores the actual economic incentives at work.

That said, most people with employer-sponsored insurance plans aren't actually buying insurance products from health insurance companies, even indirectly. Instead, they're in self-insured plans in which their employer is effectively their insurance company (with actual health insurers likely used purely as administrative entities). So the idea of insurers "leaving" those people makes little sense in that context.

You have said exactly nothing and still haven't done a bit of study on Obamacare.

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#52    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:35 PM

View PostStartraveler, on 05 May 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

Businesses have always had a choice as to whether they offer compensation in the form of health benefits. They do it because their employees want them and because health benefits are more valuable than the equivalent wages thanks to the tax code. None of that is changing. Any analysis based on comparing the value of the ACA's employer mandate fine to the actual value of the insurance package offered ignores the actual economic incentives at work.

That said, most people with employer-sponsored insurance plans aren't actually buying insurance products from health insurance companies, even indirectly. Instead, they're in self-insured plans in which their employer is effectively their insurance company (with actual health insurers likely used purely as administrative entities). So the idea of insurers "leaving" those people makes little sense in that context.

What world do you live in? Not trying to be mean, but I know TONS of people who DON'T have insurance through their employers and work 80+ hours a week! Most of these businesses are family owned or just starting out, and they CAN'T afford health insurance for their employees. It's just TOO expensive. And with Obamacare about to kick in, the insurance companies rates are skyrocketing because they know people will have to pay it or face a fine. (Don't you just love capitalism?)
Obamacare is really going to hurt small businesses. Esp. in this economy, which is in the dumps.
Not to mention some companies (the big ones like Wal-Mart for example) are going to be cutting back on employees or employee hours so they don't have to provide health insurance to everyone. I know someone who had her hours cut back to part-time, because of Obamacare. This way they don't have to pay for her insurance.
Honestly, you need to talk to some people about how Obamacare is affecting them, instead of listening to the liars in Washington. They have NO idea what the average Joe in America has to go through.

Edited by Kowalski, 05 May 2013 - 01:41 PM.


#53    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 05 May 2013 - 02:11 PM

View PostMerc14, on 25 April 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

Like something straight out of Atlas Shrugged, the Senate and Congress and OBama administration are trying to carve out an exemption that shields them from the ravages of the disastrous Obamacare regulations that are just starting to hit with a vengeance.   The Politico, of all places, reports that the llegislators are afraid the massive increases in costs would cause many staffers to abandon Washingtoon for greener pastures.  The talks are very secretive because they are all aware of the probable backlash, regardless of the MSM's attempty top cover for them, whne voters find out.

http://politi.co/ZJDfkg

Yes, isn´t that just rich. After foisting this law on the entire country and claiming it is so wonderful, they excempt themselves from it... just brilliant.

Once again, reality beats fiction.

In a sane world, the politicians who voted for this thing should OF COURSE be mandatory recipients of it (and payers for it).

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#54    Startraveler

Startraveler

    Fleet Captain

  • Member
  • 4,491 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 05 May 2013 - 02:55 PM

View PostKowalski, on 05 May 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

What world do you live in? Not trying to be mean, but I know TONS of people who DON'T have insurance through their employers and work 80+ hours a week!

Those are exactly the people the ACA is designed to help. People who get coverage through work are in the group market, which generally has more consumer protections and more generous health plans.

The people you're talking about have to rely on the individual market if they want to shop for insurance. They go in without the strength-in-numbers that people in group plans enjoy, they lack many of the consumer protections those people have (e.g. a pre-existing condition is much less of a problem if you're in the group market than if you're shopping on your own), the plans are skimpier, the premiums are more volatile, the marketplace and its products are opaque. It doesn't act much like a market and the field is tilted in the insurance companies' favor.

The ACA is about to change that. Those people are about to gain access to a transparent marketplace, where they enjoy consumer protections and financial assistance to shop for the plan they like.

Kowalski said:

Most of these businesses are family owned or just starting out, and they CAN'T afford health insurance for their employees. It's just TOO expensive.

What matters with regard to the employer mandate is businesses with more than 50 full time employees. In reality, those firms are nearly unanimous in offering health insurance coverage: 96 percent of businesses large enough to be affected by the ACA's mandate already offer insurance to their employees. The point of that mandate isn't really to get companies that don't offer insurance to start, it's overwhelmingly to preserve what already exists.

Kowalski said:

And with Obamacare about to kick in, the insurance companies rates are skyrocketing because they know people will have to pay it or face a fine. (Don't you just love capitalism?)

If you're talking about the group market, that's not quite right: Health insurance premiums see smallest increase in 15 years

Rates in the individual markets in various states have bounced around because that's what they do--they're notoriously unstable, which is part of the reason for the reforms that are about to be phased in.


Kowalski said:

Not to mention some companies (the big ones like Wal-Mart for example) are going to be cutting back on employees or employee hours so they don't have to provide health insurance to everyone. I know someone who had her hours cut back to part-time, because of Obamacare. This way they don't have to pay for her insurance.
Honestly, you need to talk to some people about how Obamacare is affecting them, instead of listening to the liars in Washington. They have NO idea what the average Joe in America has to go through.

Anecdotes are interesting and they can even be useful, but that's all they are. Patching together every negative story put out by the Washington Times or Reason or the Daily Caller or Politico or whatever "news" source you self-select to hear how awful Obamacare is won't give you a very complete picture of what's happening and why.  When deficiencies in the policy are found, the questions should be: 1) why do they arise, 2) what is their scope (i.e. how many people are affected), and 3) how can they be remedied.


#55    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,017 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 05 May 2013 - 11:08 PM

View PostStartraveler, on 05 May 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

Those are exactly the people the ACA is designed to help. People who get coverage through work are in the group market, which generally has more consumer protections and more generous health plans.

The people you're talking about have to rely on the individual market if they want to shop for insurance. They go in without the strength-in-numbers that people in group plans enjoy, they lack many of the consumer protections those people have (e.g. a pre-existing condition is much less of a problem if you're in the group market than if you're shopping on your own), the plans are skimpier, the premiums are more volatile, the marketplace and its products are opaque. It doesn't act much like a market and the field is tilted in the insurance companies' favor.

The ACA is about to change that. Those people are about to gain access to a transparent marketplace, where they enjoy consumer protections and financial assistance to shop for the plan they like.



What matters with regard to the employer mandate is businesses with more than 50 full time employees. In reality, those firms are nearly unanimous in offering health insurance coverage: 96 percent of businesses large enough to be affected by the ACA's mandate already offer insurance to their employees. The point of that mandate isn't really to get companies that don't offer insurance to start, it's overwhelmingly to preserve what already exists.



If you're talking about the group market, that's not quite right: Health insurance premiums see smallest increase in 15 years

Rates in the individual markets in various states have bounced around because that's what they do--they're notoriously unstable, which is part of the reason for the reforms that are about to be phased in.




Anecdotes are interesting and they can even be useful, but that's all they are. Patching together every negative story put out by the Washington Times or Reason or the Daily Caller or Politico or whatever "news" source you self-select to hear how awful Obamacare is won't give you a very complete picture of what's happening and why.  When deficiencies in the policy are found, the questions should be: 1) why do they arise, 2) what is their scope (i.e. how many people are affected), and 3) how can they be remedied.

Good lord you sound like you work for the b*******.  Obamacare is a disaster in the making and all your BS will not change that.  The costs are already completely out of control with the Senate Budget Committee estimating Obamacare will add $6.2T to the deficit over the next 75 years all by itself! Explain how that is saving up money and growing the economy?  Before you throw Ungar's article at me read this http://www.forbes.co...critic-to-date/

I'll bet you were a big proponent of Obama's stimulus 4 years ago weren't you?  How'd that work out?

Edited by Merc14, 05 May 2013 - 11:12 PM.

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#56    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,905 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 05 May 2013 - 11:27 PM

View PostMerc14, on 05 May 2013 - 03:17 AM, said:

You have said exactly nothing and still haven't done a bit of study on Obamacare.

of all the idiotic things to say. I realize, again, that you were not here when the law was being debated. But Startraveler is the forums resident expert on the ACA. Based on your outlandish BS and his facts, it's clear who has actually done research.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#57    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,905 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 05 May 2013 - 11:34 PM

View PostMerc14, on 05 May 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

Good lord you sound like you work for the b*******.  Obamacare is a disaster in the making and all your BS will not change that.

what's clear is that you cannot deal with facts.

Quote

The costs are already completely out of control

Star already posted how this was BS with facts.

Quote

  over the next 75 years

seriously?! you want the government to plan a century in advance. That's really BS.

Quote

t you were a big proponent of Obama's stimulus 4 years ago weren't you?  How'd that work out?

worked great. GDP rose. Net employment was greater. There were all sorts of "green energy" projects popping up all over the country. It's been proven conclusively that the stimulus was a great success but it was not big enough.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#58    Startraveler

Startraveler

    Fleet Captain

  • Member
  • 4,491 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 05 May 2013 - 11:46 PM

View PostMerc14, on 05 May 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

Good lord you sound like you work for the b*******.  Obamacare is a disaster in the making and all your BS will not change that.

All that bluster about how others are braindead and need to do their research and can't rely on feelings and this is what you've got? Sputtering rage?

Quote

The costs are already completely out of control with the Senate Budget Committee estimating Obamacare will add $6.2T to the deficit over the next 75 years all by itself! Explain how that is saving up money and growing the economy?  Before you throw Ungar's article at me read this http://www.forbes.co...critic-to-date/

The GAO didn't actually say that; in fact, the most interesting point they were making in that report is that assuming the ACA's cost controls are repealed or phased out makes the budget picture worse. No kidding! Anyway, even if they had actually thrown out that six trillion number, that would be relative to a cumulative GDP over the time period of well over a quadrillion dollars even if you assume zero growth (obviously the cumulative GDP will be higher than that). You're talking about fractions of a percent of GDP. The question is what we're getting for that money. Coverage, yes, but also movement toward a more efficient, more accountable health care system, which is what we'll need if we want to slow cost growth.

Last year, for the third year in a row, health care spending growth in the U.S. stayed at an all time low (yes, brightening the deficit picture). Standard and Poor's confirmed that the growth in their health care indices last year was the smallest it's been in the eight years their indices have existed. Health care price inflation in 2012 was the lowest since 1998. Increases in group health insurance premiums last year were also the smallest in 15 years. Medicare's per-beneficiary spending growth last year was almost zero--unprecedented in the program's history. Indeed, the CBO has had to admit that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid over this decade are turning out to be hundreds of billions of dollars less than they expected back when Obamacare passed in 2010 due to the slowdown in health care cost growth.

The goal must be to continue on this path and sustain this.


#59    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,017 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:55 AM

View PostStartraveler, on 05 May 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

All that bluster about how others are braindead and need to do their research and can't rely on feelings and this is what you've got? Sputtering rage?



The GAO didn't actually say that; in fact, the most interesting point they were making in that report is that assuming the ACA's cost controls are repealed or phased out makes the budget picture worse. No kidding! Anyway, even if they had actually thrown out that six trillion number, that would be relative to a cumulative GDP over the time period of well over a quadrillion dollars even if you assume zero growth (obviously the cumulative GDP will be higher than that). You're talking about fractions of a percent of GDP. The question is what we're getting for that money. Coverage, yes, but also movement toward a more efficient, more accountable health care system, which is what we'll need if we want to slow cost growth.

Last year, for the third year in a row, health care spending growth in the U.S. stayed at an all time low (yes, brightening the deficit picture). Standard and Poor's confirmed that the growth in their health care indices last year was the smallest it's been in the eight years their indices have existed. Health care price inflation in 2012 was the lowest since 1998. Increases in group health insurance premiums last year were also the smallest in 15 years. Medicare's per-beneficiary spending growth last year was almost zero--unprecedented in the program's history. Indeed, the CBO has had to admit that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid over this decade are turning out to be hundreds of billions of dollars less than they expected back when Obamacare passed in 2010 due to the slowdown in health care cost growth.

The goal must be to continue on this path and sustain this.

I stated very clearly in my post that the Senate Finance Committee came up with that number.  It is a startling admission, to say the least, when it was clearly stated that Obamacare wouldn't add a penny to the deficit because of saving elsewhere. The democrat senate i willing to admit o and additional $90B worth of debt, on top of what is already being expended for healthcare and you crow like they just did something wonderful.  Knowing how government works you should at least triple their estimate and hope you are being conservative.

As far as the rosy picture you are painting of the last year I have to ask, who cares?  Obamacare doesn't truly start up until next year, as I'm sure you know  and anyone listening to what businesses are saying about their healthcare plans and telling their employees to expect knows this year has little or nothing to do with what 2014 will look like.  I am not going to debate all the numbers you put out because, frankly, they are irrelevant but the one thing that is noticeable is that much of the good news is because of cuts to medicare.  As a far as I know, those billions were transferred to Obamacare yet they aren't being accounted for by the CBO.  Why?  The articles themselves that you cherry pick from even state that no one knows why they are saying what they are.  It is called cooking the books and we will all pay frr the subterfuge.

You're a BS artist Star, pure and simple and the fact that you have to cherry pick from the NYT's, of all places, the head cheerleader for Obamacare, speaks volumes.  It doesn't matter what you post here because the crash is coming.

NJ, you haven't answered my question yet.  Why?

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#60    Startraveler

Startraveler

    Fleet Captain

  • Member
  • 4,491 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 01:23 AM

View PostMerc14, on 06 May 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

I stated very clearly in my post that the Senate Finance Committee came up with that number.

By which you mean the office of Jeff Sessions.

Merc14 said:

As far as the rosy picture you are painting of the last year I have to ask, who cares?  Obamacare doesn't truly start up until next year, as I'm sure you know  and anyone listening to what businesses are saying about their healthcare plans and telling their employees to expect knows this year has little or nothing to do with what 2014 will look like.

The primary coverage expansions begin next year, but many pieces of the ACA--including those that aim at reforming the way health care is delivered, not just how health insurance markets work--have already begun.

Quote

I am not going to debate all the numbers you put out because, frankly, they are irrelevant but the one thing that is noticeable is that much of the good news is because of cuts to medicare.  As a far as I know, those billions were transferred to Obamacare yet they aren't being accounted for by the CBO.  

The good news has been health sector-wide, with health care cost and price growth slowing across the board. The fact that Medicare is turning out to be cheaper than expected is part of that slowdown; this is on top of the slowing growth in Medicare costs required by the ACA. In fact, every time the CBO comes out with a new budget picture (twice a year), they have to keep revising downwards their estimates of how much Medicare will cost over the next few years.

If you compare different budget outlooks they've released at different times, you'll see how that's changed. For instance, if you compare the January 2010 numbers (pre-Obamacare) to the August 2010 numbers you can see them incorporate the ACA's Medicare changes. Medicare got just over $500 billion cheaper over the 2010-2020 interval in the period between those estimates being released. But if you compare those January 2010 estimates to this year's February 2013 estimates (which now obviously include the actual Medicare spending numbers for 2010-2012), you'll see that Medicare is now $999 billion cheaper over the interval.

That is to say, Medicare got about a trillion dollars cheaper this decade over the past three years and only about half of that is directly attributable to legislative directives made by the ACA. Now, the component that's indirectly attributable to the ACA due to its health care delivery reforms is open to debate; I'm optimistic.

Quote

You're a BS artist Star, pure and simple and the fact that you have to cherry pick from the NYT's, of all places, the head cheerleader for Obamacare, speaks volumes.

Says the guy who had to go to a GOP senator's press release to find imaginary 75-year numbers? Please.

The NYTimes articles aren't from their editorial page, it's from their reporting on what the National Health Expenditures Accounts data are showing. Actual numbers tracking what our health sector has been spending.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users