ObamaCare cost expectation drops 7%
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:35:42 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  ObamaCare cost expectation drops 7%
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: ObamaCare cost expectation drops 7%  (Read 5757 times)
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 27, 2015, 05:44:40 PM »

http://huff.to/15OLHpq

Just another add-on to the long list of reasons why full repeal of ObamaCare is the wrong thing to do. Smiley
Logged
RR1997
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,997
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2015, 08:04:57 PM »

Great news!
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2015, 08:56:53 AM »

1. Get rid of the individual mandate
2. Pass tort reform
3. Repeal medical device tax
4. Get rid of employer mandate
5. Bring work week back to 40 hours because of #4
6. There we go.

The exchange is a good idea. It's the things surrounding it that suck.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2015, 09:00:22 AM »

1. Get rid of the individual mandate
2. Pass tort reform
3. Repeal medical device tax
4. Get rid of employer mandate
5. Bring work week back to 40 hours because of #4
6. There we go. Sit back and watch the system tumble into a death spiral.

FTFY. No one really likes the individual mandate, but it's there for a really, really good reason.

Every idea you mentioned above, except for 3 (which is trivial) and 2 (which isn't that important to the goal of universal coverage), would cripple any approach to widening coverage.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2015, 09:01:39 AM »

1. Get rid of the individual mandate
2. Pass tort reform
3. Repeal medical device tax
4. Get rid of employer mandate
5. Bring work week back to 40 hours because of #4
6. There we go. Sit back and watch the system tumble into a death spiral.

FTFY. No one really likes the individual mandate, but it's there for a really, really good reason.

You can't force anyone to buy something. Keep the damn site up! If people want health insurance, it's still there.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2015, 09:14:46 AM »

1. Get rid of the individual mandate
2. Pass tort reform
3. Repeal medical device tax
4. Get rid of employer mandate
5. Bring work week back to 40 hours because of #4
6. There we go. Sit back and watch the system tumble into a death spiral.

FTFY. No one really likes the individual mandate, but it's there for a really, really good reason.

You can't force anyone to buy something. Keep the damn site up! If people want health insurance, it's still there.

No offense, but the reason the individual mandate is required (even if people don't like it, "you shouldn't make people buy broccoli!!", etc.) is because without it, the individual system collapses. There are literally thousands of explanations of why this is on the Internet. I encourage you to do some research on "Adverse selection," "death spiral," and "individual mandate."

Obama attacked Hillary Clinton for proposing an individual mandate because he got that people instinctively don't like the idea. He came around to imposing it because it's required.

If you raise the working week from 30 hours to 40 hours, suddenly millions of workers will be reclassified as 39 hours, denying them health care without impacting the employer's ability to operate at all. This is a terrible public policy. This is why 30 hours was chosen - very few workers are at that line so there is no way to game the system.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2015, 09:18:05 AM »

I know people that would rather pay the fine than go through the crap that is filing through the site. We can't force people to buy anything. Why should it be required if people don't want it?
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2015, 09:30:49 AM »

I know people that would rather pay the fine than go through the crap that is filing through the site. We can't force people to buy anything. Why should it be required if people don't want it?

Essentially the Supreme Court ruled that you can force someone to buy something.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2015, 09:32:40 AM »

I know people that would rather pay the fine than go through the crap that is filing through the site. We can't force people to buy anything. Why should it be required if people don't want it?
Because hospitals are required to treat them when they come in with cardiac arrest. Not carrying insurance is for deadbeats, and carrying those moochers makes care much more expensive for everybody else.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2015, 09:36:08 AM »
« Edited: January 28, 2015, 09:45:06 AM by muon2 »

I know people that would rather pay the fine than go through the crap that is filing through the site. We can't force people to buy anything. Why should it be required if people don't want it?

Essentially the Supreme Court ruled that you can force someone to buy something.

More accurately they ruled that if you buy certain things you can have your taxes reduced, and they found that the penalty system for the ACA was structured as a tax.

If the structure remains as a tax, I'd rather just see the employer mandate go away and with it classification rules that will be worked around whether it is 30 or 40 hours. Removing any direct employer requirement would likely aid global competitiveness. Employers could still choose to offer to pay premiums as a benefit of employment. A payroll deduction can be used to collect the premiums for those with a paycheck, much as Medicare is already collected. The exchanges can still be used to select plans and options and determine what subsidies are available.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2015, 09:51:43 AM »

I know people that would rather pay the fine than go through the crap that is filing through the site. We can't force people to buy anything. Why should it be required if people don't want it?

Essentially the Supreme Court ruled that you can force someone to buy something.

More accurately they ruled that if you buy certain things you can have your taxes reduced, and they found that the penalty system for the ACA was structured as a tax.

If the structure remains as a tax, I'd rather just see the employer mandate go away and with it classification rules that will be worked around whether it is 30 or 40 hours. Removing any direct employer requirement would likely aid global competitiveness. Employers could still choose to offer to pay premiums as a benefit of employment. A payroll deduction can be used to collect the premiums for those with a paycheck, much as Medicare is already collected. The exchanges can still be used to select plans and options and determine what subsidies are available.
That would cost the government way too much money. Millions of people would see their employers drop their coverage and they would all come over to the marketplace, where most would qualify for a subsidy.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2015, 01:38:02 PM »

I know people that would rather pay the fine than go through the crap that is filing through the site. We can't force people to buy anything. Why should it be required if people don't want it?

It's as though you don't actually know anything about health care at all.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2015, 03:55:05 PM »
« Edited: January 28, 2015, 03:56:44 PM by muon2 »

I know people that would rather pay the fine than go through the crap that is filing through the site. We can't force people to buy anything. Why should it be required if people don't want it?

Essentially the Supreme Court ruled that you can force someone to buy something.

More accurately they ruled that if you buy certain things you can have your taxes reduced, and they found that the penalty system for the ACA was structured as a tax.

If the structure remains as a tax, I'd rather just see the employer mandate go away and with it classification rules that will be worked around whether it is 30 or 40 hours. Removing any direct employer requirement would likely aid global competitiveness. Employers could still choose to offer to pay premiums as a benefit of employment. A payroll deduction can be used to collect the premiums for those with a paycheck, much as Medicare is already collected. The exchanges can still be used to select plans and options and determine what subsidies are available.
That would cost the government way too much money. Millions of people would see their employers drop their coverage and they would all come over to the marketplace, where most would qualify for a subsidy.

Not necessarily too much money. What I described is similar Sen Wyden's plan for universal coverage from 2007-08. The analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that the financial challenges could be addressed. The point is that there is little rationale for tying health care to an employer, and doing so is inconsistent with most of the industrialized world.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2015, 03:28:06 PM »

FTFY. No one really likes the individual mandate, but it's there for a really, really good reason.

Every idea you mentioned above, except for 3 (which is trivial) and 2 (which isn't that important to the goal of universal coverage), would cripple any approach to widening coverage.

It's there so health insurance companies can force people to buy their products. And now that everyone knows the Democratic Party is the true party of corporate handouts, let's move on.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2015, 03:29:04 PM »

Essentially the Supreme Court ruled that you can force someone to buy something.

No. They ruled that they have the right to tax you, if you refuse to buy something.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2015, 06:56:27 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/us/politics/white-house-seeks-to-limit-health-laws-tax-troubles.html?_r=0

An interesting article about how ObamaCare is playing out, tax credit wise.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2015, 10:08:48 PM »
« Edited: January 31, 2015, 10:14:43 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

I know people that would rather pay the fine than go through the crap that is filing through the site. We can't force people to buy anything. Why should it be required if people don't want it?

The individual mandate does not "require" people to buy health insurance. It penalizes people who don't purchase health insurance, which is entirely fair. The uninsured create externalities for taxpayers and health care providers. There is an ethical argument for penalizing people who refuse to buy health insurance when they have access to substantial subsidies and a functional market that offers health insurance that is very cheap.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2015, 10:11:55 PM »

1. Get rid of the individual mandate
2. Pass tort reform
3. Repeal medical device tax
4. Get rid of employer mandate
5. Bring work week back to 40 hours because of #4
6. There we go. Sit back and watch the system tumble into a death spiral.

FTFY. No one really likes the individual mandate, but it's there for a really, really good reason.

Every idea you mentioned above, except for 3 (which is trivial) and 2 (which isn't that important to the goal of universal coverage), would cripple any approach to widening coverage.

Here's the thing: Number six in your correction is the deliberate goal of the Republicans.

Sometimes I think the entire GOP is just political theater to facilitate the upper class's looting of America.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2015, 12:53:41 AM »

I know people that would rather pay the fine than go through the crap that is filing through the site. We can't force people to buy anything. Why should it be required if people don't want it?

Essentially the Supreme Court ruled that you can force someone to buy something.

More accurately they ruled that if you buy certain things you can have your taxes reduced, and they found that the penalty system for the ACA was structured as a tax.

If the structure remains as a tax, I'd rather just see the employer mandate go away and with it classification rules that will be worked around whether it is 30 or 40 hours. Removing any direct employer requirement would likely aid global competitiveness. Employers could still choose to offer to pay premiums as a benefit of employment. A payroll deduction can be used to collect the premiums for those with a paycheck, much as Medicare is already collected. The exchanges can still be used to select plans and options and determine what subsidies are available.

Eh, I think a better system would be for the percentage of the healthcare the employer pays for to be equal to the percentage of full time the employee is.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2015, 09:20:12 AM »

Here's the thing: Number six in your correction is the deliberate goal of the Republicans.

Sometimes I think the entire GOP is just political theater to facilitate the upper class's looting of America.

If you have a machine that doesn't work properly, and it routinely harms innocent people, only an old fool would cling to it, rather than throwing it on the scrap heap.

Democrats tell themselves that Republicans have no plans to replace the machine because it allows Democrats to continue living their comfortable LBJ dream world, without any adverse reactions from their own conscience.

Congratulations, you are less horrible than you imagine Republicans to be. You can hang your hat on that accomplishment.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2015, 09:39:23 AM »

1. Get rid of the individual mandate
2. Pass tort reform
3. Repeal medical device tax
4. Get rid of employer mandate
5. Bring work week back to 40 hours because of #4
6. There we go.

The exchange is a good idea. It's the things surrounding it that suck.

You can't get rid of the individual mandate without getting rid of coverage for those with pre existing conditions. And that is probably the most popular part of the ACA.

Getting rid of the employer mandate is fine, but then let's get rid of the preferential tax treatment for health insurance as well. Passing tort reform would be an excellent idea, but getting rid of the device tax is not that necessary. It is not going to effect things that much either ways.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2015, 10:40:40 AM »

If you have a machine that doesn't work properly, and it routinely harms innocent people, only an old fool would cling to it, rather than throwing it on the scrap heap.

Analogies aren't actually arguments, and bad analogies (ACA has been very successful) are doubly useless.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2015, 03:42:43 PM »

Analogies aren't actually arguments, and bad analogies (ACA has been very successful) are doubly useless.

ACA has been very successful by what measure? An overwhelming majority of the increase in coverage was caused by employment rebound, which is not closely related to any Obama policy.

In fact, ACA performance has been so lukewarm, Democrats are trying to weasel out of enforcing the law (again), now that they know the tax consequences for the average lower-middle class family.

ACA has done virtually nothing, but bury us in bureaucratic forms. Just wait until the 1095s and 8962s and so on start arriving this year and next. People are going to love it!!
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2015, 03:49:15 PM »

Tort reform is one of the worst ideas floating around in politics.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2015, 11:06:39 PM »

ACA has been very successful by what measure? An overwhelming majority of the increase in coverage was caused by employment rebound, which is not closely related to any Obama policy.

By the measure that having an individual and employee mandate for healthcare was predicted by Very Serious Economists to destroy full time work but, instead, an employment rebound happened.

The very fact that we can have a law that mandates insurance, that prevents denial of insurance, that expands risk pools and still have a growing economy proves it to be worthwhile.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 13 queries.