Government Shutdown

[TheWinterSnow]

Like many politically/ideologically biased subjects, knee jerk reactions and first impressions based upon uninformed half truths spread to other uninformed like minded individuals tends to be the basis for automatically disliking something you have obviously not fully investigated.

Very true, a lot of people including politicians get caught up in their emotional reaction to certain topics and don't make the best judgement and decisions. The fact of the matter is most politicians didn't even read of fully understand the bill. Like mentioned earlier we will have to see how this all pans out and see if the ACA works or not.

Have I covered most of the objections to the ACA put forth in this thread?

Anecdotal and possible self defeating in the greater scheme of things. I got a quote on my households insurance, in order to have the same coverage under Obamacare as my household currently has, our premium is going to go up $6,000 and the copays will at least double, some tripping and even quadrupling in price, for the same coverage. I though the ACA was supposed to be affordable and cheaper to what we were already paying. Now I know, my current system isn't single payer and is offered by the job, single payer is more expensive it is the single payer price that the ACA is making more affordable. But when you have companies that are dropping healthcare and taking the fine and forcing their employees to get their own insurance from the ACA which is more expensive, is it really helping those people.

Is it also helping out the people who live in the gap where states didn't expand their Medicaid? Those people who should be given assistance but still have to pay in full. Of course this is where the Obama administration has been scolding the states that didn't "cooperate" in expanding their medicaid, but that isn't the federal government's place to force states to cooperate with their mandates and adjust their state laws. I just don't get it, while it is helping some people it is hurting others including the downright poor.

 

[egan.]

Hey WS, did you get your quote on the exchange or just one of the online calculators? Are you comparing employer subsidized to self-pay? Are you including federal subsidies in the calculation?
I'm not questioning your numbers, I'm just curious.
I'm in NC right now and have self-paid for 10 years and can keep my current plan (not an assumption, BCBS says I'm grandfathered in) however I'm moving to CA in a few months. The BCBS-NC Grandfathered to ACA comparison has my rate going down 20% for a comparable plan. Keep in mind that isn't an estimate but my real rates. Obviously things will vary wildly state to state. On a tangentially related note, my rate has gone up 400% since I started a decade ago.

One thing to consider in all of this is that the Insurance companies are using this as an excuse to rate gouge out of the gate however the 80/20 rule should stabilize and being down rates after a year or two. Also, employers are using this as an excuse to pass those rate hikes on to employees rather than swallowing them.
Right now it's certainly a huge mess.

Edit:
When you do these calculators it's important to use your modified adjusted gross income (line 38 on your 1040) and not your total income to calculate your rate and subsidy correctly.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

The US government spends more money than it receives but refuses a cut spending.

Yeah but Pelosi says there isn't anything else to cut so how can this be?



We should just keep passing the pork.

At the end of the day BOTH parties are acting like a bunch of spoiled 3 year olds.

Totally agree. Both sides are being cunts.

 

[AntonioPetrole]

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

I always love those thanks obama memes.

I want to start saying it when I botch in the studio. "sorry the track wasn't armed, thanks Obama!"

 

[Jind]

I don't think the average associate understands the overall burden put on employers to offer health insurance. They only see deductibles and co-pays. They don't understand the actual cost of their healthcare. The same holds true for the legions of lazy-ass Americans that refuse to work and we grant free health insurance with no co-pays and/or deductibles that run to the ER for a hangnail.

I fully support offering "affordable" healthcare to every American but we must tackle the root causes before putting the wagon before the horse. My perspective is enlightened every first of the month while standing in the line at the grocery store watching the people in front of me using their food stamp cards to purchase most of their non-generic groceries and texting on their $600 iPhone. These fuckers have ZERO skin in the game and I'm fucking sick of it.

So many stereotypes in one post... I think I've seen this talking points memo a time or two in the past - you just forgot the that the person on the phone with food stamps was wearing $300 sneakers and getting in their Lexus as they pulled out from the store.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

So many stereotypes in one post... I think I've seen this talking points memo a time or two in the past - you just forgot the that the person on the phone with food stamps was wearing $300 sneakers and getting in their Lexus as they pulled out from the store.

It's not a stereotype (or maybe it is) if you have actually witnessed such a thing.

I have, it doesn't really bother me honestly. I probably wouldn't want them working for me anyway.

 

[JeffTD]

It's not a stereotype (or maybe it is) if you have actually witnessed such a thing.

I've seen white people play golf, eat mayonnaise, and talk shit about the poor; me witnessing it doesn't make it not a stereotype.

The only reason those people stick out is because you don't notice the hardworking guy who's trying to hide the fact that he's on welfare. It's not a cool thing to take handouts - most people don't parade it around. Only the shittiest of the shitty do that, and the same can be said for any subgroup of people with a vocal minority.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

That's why it doesn't bother me. For every stupid fuck leasing a lexus using an FS card, there are 50 disabled individuals that actually need that system.

So for me the trade off of having a few leech off the system is worth it when so many more use it that actually need it.

 

[Jind]

I would start these folks on an easy work assignment and they worked long enough for me to sign their welfare papers and then they would quit the next day. They know they won't get shutoff for at least 2 to 3 months. This wasn't a rare case. This happened 5 to 10 times a week.

Now keep in mind; Ohio seems a little worse than other places I've lived. You guys probably think I'm exaggerating but I assure you; I'm not.

I believe in welfare. Everyone needs a helping hand but too many are abusing the system to remain on the government tit.

It's still stereotyping whether you care to admit it or not. One persons eye witness account and assumptions made about the majority of some classification of people clearly falls under the definition of stereotyping.

You say you saw this 5-10 times per week - so lets say it's 7.5 and call it your average week. I'm assuming that some of these had to be repeat clients so lets get rid of 2.5 of those and go with your lower number of separate individuals. All toll, being generous, your claiming the 200+ individuals in a years time that you may have seen do this (assuming you worked there a year.)

I highly doubt your story that started in line at the grocery store and somehow ended with the proof being your experiences at a temp service really resulted in 200+ examples of iPhone toting poor people on SNAP assistance buying Green Giant vegetables instead of the store brands because I'm unsure how the examples of proof really relate - but none the less we continue... Back to the numbers.

OK, so we'll use the 200 number (dubious one at that) for the simple math with the numbers I could quickly find which were that in 2010, approximately 13.9% of Ohio's population (census data puts Ohio's population at 11.5 million for 2010) received SNAP benefits (approx. 1.6 million people in Ohio received SNAP assistance in 2010), of which you encountered 200 or so - so by doing the math, you encountered .0125 percent of all SNAP recipients - clearly a representative number that should be applied to all 1.6 million people

No for clarity - lets look up the term stereotype:

stereotype
n.
1. : an often unfair and untrue belief that many people have about all people or things with a particular characteristic

I'll admit - I'm being a snarky just to be.... well snarky , but as a general rule I really abhor stereotyping (which this clearly is) so it's really not about you as it more the way these individual experiences, when insubstantially applied to all, somehow become the beef for talking points memos. We all know a lie repeated enough becomes the truth for some, thus the welfare queens with their iPhones (perhaps their Obama phone ), sneakers, and high prices cars becomes the mantra of the uninformed who have failed to do the actual research themselves.

But why look at the reality when the rumor fits a particular narrative quite nicely.

I suspect such simple thinking is really why we find ourselves in the political cesspool we do, but for many it's much simpler that way.

 

[MKS]

Then I guess you're smarter than me. It is what it is.

 

[Jind]

Speaking of the shutdown... While SNL is just not that funny at times, I think they were in this case:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/we-did-stop/n41624

 

[JeffTD]

Now keep in mind; Ohio seems a little worse than other places I've lived.

I believe it; you guys did elect Boehner, after all. In a way we could blame this entire thing on you.

 

[MKS]

I believe it; you guys did elect Boehner, after all. In a way we could blame this entire thing on you.

Don't expect me to defend Ohio. I'm outta here once my daughters graduate.

 

[Matt-Steele]

Can anyone honestly tell me what's bad about allowing children to stay on their parents insurance until 26, preventing insurers from denying people based on pre-existing conditions, or requiring that insurers spend at least 80% of the money they take in on actual health care?

Well said Jeff.

 

[Jind]

Because it puts the burden on employers and doesn't spread the burden to everyone. Most employers are taking a major hit because of this. We're talking millions of dollars for a companies that employ 500 to 700 associates. Our company's medical expenses increased 3.9 million dollars since this went into effect.

It would be better to have them obtain coverage through the exchange.

It maybe, it maybe not - if they want to retain the talent they have. It's simply not that black and white.

It would be useful to know what portion of a law not fully enacted yet caused a jump of 3.9 million dollars in medical expenses to your company? Do you have specifics? I work for one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world with well more than 500 - 700 employees and while my premiums have steadily grown over the years, it's not because of the ACA.

Prior to the ACA employers were not required to offer insurance to their employees right? So if this is indeed true, why did most large employers do it?

Because it attracts talented employees - it's called a benefit package for a reason. These large employers could have simply never offered benefits and just payed more to get talent, but they don't - why? Because health insurance actually has a benefit to both the employee and the employer.

Providing health insurance is a means of both recruitment and retention and has been since the end of WWII. The company benefits since decent insurance is an incentive to attract good recruits, as well as an incentive for that employee to stay with a current employer. Not to mention a healthy employee is a more productive one.

Providing health insurance is cheaper for a company than increasing each employee the equivalent in wages that it cost them to provide.

There are significant tax advantages to both parties because:

It is tax deductible to the business and employees get the benefit 100% tax-free. Whatever a company contributes to an employees health plan is a 100% tax-free (deductible item) for them (and the employee) which can amount to significant savings to the company for having some skin in the game on their part - this is simply one of the multitude of reasons it may be beneficial to employers, but hardly the only one.

A good read on some of the reasons why employers offer health insurance:

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~lsghent/obrien.pdf

Yes, I'm sure a portion of smaller employers and specifically low wage employers are doing their damnedest to skirt the +50 employee requirement in the ACA, but it's another false equivalent to apply it to the vast majority of employers looking to recruit and retain quality workers - another talking point that when repeated enough becomes a mantra of those against the ACA.

I'll be the first person in line to state that the ACA is far from perfect (I'm very much in the single payer mindset), but it's better than what we had - at least for a large portion of the American population

 

[Matt-Steele]

Because it puts the burden on employers and doesn't spread the burden to everyone. Most employers are taking a major hit because of this. We're talking millions of dollars for a companies that employ 500 to 700 associates. Our company's medical expenses increased 3.9 million dollars since this went into effect.

It would be better to have them obtain coverage through the exchange.

The things I agreed with Jeff about are things that have gone wrong with our insurance system, especially pre-existing conditions. It was wrong of insurance companies to ever attempt to implement and I am thankful the government have done something about it. This never should have been allowed in the first place.

 

[Matt-Steele]

My company always allowed pre-existing conditions. I commend them for that.

You're lucky you were part of the ones that had a conscience. If you weren't, you might not even be alive right now to have this discussion. Trust me, I know.

 

[JeffTD]

Jeff,

You must have deleted your post but I'm ok with single-payer health care combined with a flat-tax system. That way everyone has skin in the game and forced to participate equally.

I deleted my comment because it's just not worth it. You've been cherry picking posts and responses and I flat-out don't believe your 3.9million figure. Claiming that employers are taking a major hit is just empirically false.

http://cbo.gov/publication/21670

 

[JeffTD]

You also start to see the world differently when you don't have health insurance or you have to spend hours sitting in an ER with no idea how the hell you're going to pay for a bill that's going to cost 500% of what it should in any kind of fair system. Telling us that we're wrong because we don't see things from your perspective is incredibly shortsighted.

It also sounds like your company increased it's own costs by no fault of ACA whatsoever, which makes your "Our company's medical expenses increased 3.9 million dollars since this went into effect" statement EXTREMELY misleading.