Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Affordable Care Act


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,732 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 06:26 PM

http://www.gpo.gov/f...-111publ148.pdf

 

 

there already is a post entitled Health Care but I want to know what specifically is bad about this piece of legislation, not philosophically what is good or bad about health care. I will reserve my opinion so as not to influence debate. And I am curious about finding out who has actually read the damn thing.



#2 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,879 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 06:58 PM

http://www.gpo.gov/f...-111publ148.pdf

 

 

there already is a post entitled Health Care but I want to know what specifically is bad about this piece of legislation, not philosophically what is good or bad about health care. I will reserve my opinion so as not to influence debate. And I am curious about finding out who has actually read the damn thing.

 

The ACA is VERY comprehensive about expanding healthcare at the cost of money, free markets and various other limitations. Which if your main goal is to reform healthcare you love it. From a social standpoint we are saving lives and that is great.

 

Unfortunately it is very unclear on whether we will be able to pay for it all. One of the ways we will pay for it at first is passive taxes (which aren't any better than direct income tax) and charging young people way too much for their insurance. And when these funding sources aren't sufficient we will simply increase our debt which we already are accomplishing very well as it is.

 

The ACA's main goal is to get the legislation in place with a credit card and figure out how to pay that credit card off later. Kicking the can down the road as it were. The burden of this legislation from an economical standpoint could be devastating depending on trends and actual results over the next few years.



#3 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,732 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:01 PM

The ACA is VERY comprehensive about expanding healthcare at the cost of money, free markets and various other limitations. Which if your main goal is to reform healthcare you love it. From a social standpoint we are saving lives and that is great.

 

Unfortunately it is very unclear on whether we will be able to pay for it all. One of the ways we will pay for it at first is passive taxes (which aren't any better than direct income tax) and charging young people way too much for their insurance. And when these funding sources aren't sufficient we will simply increase our debt which we already are accomplishing very well as it is.

 

The ACA's main goal is to get the legislation in place with a credit card and figure out how to pay that credit card off later. Kicking the can down the road as it were. The burden of this legislation from an economical standpoint could be devastating depending on trends and actual results over the next few years.

How does that differ from the current/previous system



#4 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:12 PM

Additional rules for employers in a time of unemployment.  Gives employers yet anothe excuse to cut help and hours.



#5 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,879 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:23 PM

How does that differ from the current/previous system

 

It depends on the line of business but basically an insurance company wants to charge you a rate that will cover the average loss you will incur plus expenses plus a decent profit margin. That is a very efficient way to do things.

 

The difference in the example above is that nobody is subsidized and all costs are provided by insurance companies. The government has very little input into the process. Your taxes don't go up to help anyone in the direct market get insurance and your rates don't get inflated to help someone else.

 

The downside of this free-market approach is that some people are too poor to afford insurance and some people are to unhealthy to get insurance. Nobody wants this.

 

What is happening today is that we are getting blessed with a wonderful new healthcare system and most have no idea if we can pay for it. And our government has a very bad track record of being honest about the true cost of things or acting frugal in general



#6 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,732 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:31 PM

It depends on the line of business but basically an insurance company wants to charge you a rate that will cover the average loss you will incur plus expenses plus a decent profit margin. That is a very efficient way to do things.

 

The difference in the example above is that nobody is subsidized and all costs are provided by insurance companies. The government has very little input into the process. Your taxes don't go up to help anyone in the direct market get insurance and your rates don't get inflated to help someone else.

 

The downside of this free-market approach is that some people are too poor to afford insurance and some people are to unhealthy to get insurance. Nobody wants this.

 

What is happening today is that we are getting blessed with a wonderful new healthcare system and most have no idea if we can pay for it. And our government has a very bad track record of being honest about the true cost of things or acting frugal in general

In keeping with the theme of my OP I will refrain from the philosophical/moral aspect of health care reform. (I don't want to step on the other topic)

 

My question is this, What specifically is going to incur these added cost. I have proposed this same question to dozens of people over the past few years and I have yet to hear one actual citation that leads to government financial problems.

 

Please cite a specific section or paragraph so that I may fully grasp your argument.



#7 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,879 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:36 PM

In keeping with the theme of my OP I will refrain from the philosophical/moral aspect of health care reform. (I don't want to step on the other topic)

 

My question is this, What specifically is going to incur these added cost. I have proposed this same question to dozens of people over the past few years and I have yet to hear one actual citation that leads to government financial problems.

 

Please cite a specific section or paragraph so that I may fully grasp your argument.

Just google it. Here are specific parts of the act that you can confirm on your own. All of these increase costs:

 

The new act
1) Removes preexisting condition restrictions
2) Removes lifetime maximums
3) Subsidizes low income buyers
4) Caps out of pocket maximum at $6350
5) Restricts rating variables to age, location, and smoker
6) Expands Medicare 
7) Sets a maximum premium on unhealthy people
8) restricts rate increases


#8 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,732 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:46 PM

 

Just google it. Here are specific parts of the act that you can confirm on your own. All of these increase costs:

 

The new act
1) Removes preexisting condition restrictions
2) Removes lifetime maximums
3) Subsidizes low income buyers
4) Caps out of pocket maximum at $6350
5) Restricts rating variables to age, location, and smoker
6) Expands Medicare 
7) Sets a maximum premium on unhealthy people
8) restricts rate increases

 

 

 

I guess that is my point. I am not trying to argue with you.  I just want to hear from someone that has read it. I thought you had. I am reading it now, but it is really long.  But "just google it" is the reason why this debate is so heated but basically going nowhere.



#9 SmokinwithWilly

SmokinwithWilly

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 611 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:52 PM

I own a small business. I have employees. I pay my employees above average wages because I want them to stay with me and it actually costs me less to not have to retrain someone every 12 months. I am not at the limit yet, but were I to reach the employee limit that requires me to begin paying the extra premium I am now left with 4 options because I now have a huge expense added into my operating budget. 

 

1. I raise my prices to compensate. I now charge $150 for a service I provided last year for $120. Customer A looks at my price and at my competition who is under the employee limit and didn't have to raise his prices. My customer goes with my competitor because they are tight on funds and can't afford to pay more. I lose money. Since I can't lose money and stay in business I am now forced to.

 

2. Reduce my work force to below the required number of full time employees or

3. Reduce my full time employees to part time hours only or 

4. Realize that there is no way I can operate and close the doors for good laying off all my employees. 

 

These are my options as I see them. 

 

What I now can't do is grow my business because I am in effect penalized for being successful. I now have a very real ceiling where before I could grow as big as I could dream.

 

Now let's say I close the doors. The cost to insure my former employees now falls to someone else. ALSO any revenue the government would have received from income taxes is now gone.

 

50 people who were working and contributing are now unemployed and  are facing the task of trying to find another full time job, while draining resources via unemployment. 

 

To sum up how it's bad for me, it seriously affects my ability to grow my business and employ a work force.



#10 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,573 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:55 PM

A particularly stupid pseudo in law of mine (long story) posted on FB a most likely invented quote from some lady complaining about the unaffordability of the silver plan (apparently bronze was beneath her station) for her.

 

She's in her 50s and has preexisting conditions, which means that prior to yesterday, she most likely could not even get health insurance, but instead of thinking hey, at least I can get insurance, it's OBAMA SUCKS

 

This is the reality of the perception out there, this in law was saying HEY EVERYONE ITS NOT FREE YOU STUPID PEOPLE! There are people who believe that but its not us stupid libs.

 

man.



#11 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,879 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 08:00 PM

I guess that is my point. I am not trying to argue with you.  I just want to hear from someone that has read it. I thought you had. I am reading it now, but it is really long.  But "just google it" is the reason why this debate is so heated but basically going nowhere.

 

I laid out 9 items which you can confirm or deny. They are real. I'm not sifting through 974 pages trying to cite specific examples...you tell me where I am wrong. 

 

I have not read the act verbatim it but I have lots of it as well as received information from my associates in the healthcare industry with whom I work and trust. We have been following this for a long while. I have spent way too many hours on this.

 

PS if this is for a college paper please footnote accordingly and do your own homework.



#12 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,732 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 08:00 PM

I own a small business. I have employees. I pay my employees above average wages because I want them to stay with me and it actually costs me less to not have to retrain someone every 12 months. I am not at the limit yet, but were I to reach the employee limit that requires me to begin paying the extra premium I am now left with 4 options because I now have a huge expense added into my operating budget. 

 

1. I raise my prices to compensate. I now charge $150 for a service I provided last year for $120. Customer A looks at my price and at my competition who is under the employee limit and didn't have to raise his prices. My customer goes with my competitor because they are tight on funds and can't afford to pay more. I lose money. Since I can't lose money and stay in business I am now forced to.

 

2. Reduce my work force to below the required number of full time employees or

3. Reduce my full time employees to part time hours only or 

4. Realize that there is no way I can operate and close the doors for good laying off all my employees. 

 

These are my options as I see them. 

 

What I now can't do is grow my business because I am in effect penalized for being successful. I now have a very real ceiling where before I could grow as big as I could dream.

 

Now let's say I close the doors. The cost to insure my former employees now falls to someone else. ALSO any revenue the government would have received from income taxes is now gone.

 

50 people who were working and contributing are now unemployed and  are facing the task of trying to find another full time job, while draining resources via unemployment. 

 

To sum up how it's bad for me, it seriously affects my ability to grow my business and employ a work force.

 

Out of curiosity, where are you getting your figures for what you must pay in premiums?



#13 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,732 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 08:03 PM

I laid out 9 items which you can confirm or deny. They are real. I'm not sifting through 974 pages trying to cite specific examples...you tell me where I am wrong. 

 

I have not read the act verbatim it but I have lots of it as well as received information from my associates in the healthcare industry with whom I work and trust. We have been following this for a long while. I have spent way too many hours on this.

 

PS if this is for a college paper please footnote accordingly and do your own homework.

lol, no my degree is in Information Technology.

 

I have made no claims either way so I believe by the rules of debate I have no burden of proof.  Not trying to get anybody worked up, I just thought you had read it and were pulling your argument from the bill itself.



#14 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,879 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 08:07 PM

lol, no my degree is in Information Technology.

 

I have made no claims either way so I believe by the rules of debate I have no burden of proof.  Not trying to get anybody worked up, I just thought you had read it and were pulling your argument from the bill itself.

 

I have actually. What you are asking for is for me to go back and cite specific references for your benefit.

 

I'll get right back to you on that one. ;)



#15 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Drink a beer and relax

  • ALL-PRO
  • 12,818 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 08:17 PM

I own a small business. I have employees. I pay my employees above average wages because I want them to stay with me and it actually costs me less to not have to retrain someone every 12 months. I am not at the limit yet, but were I to reach the employee limit that requires me to begin paying the extra premium I am now left with 4 options because I now have a huge expense added into my operating budget. 

 

1. I raise my prices to compensate. I now charge $150 for a service I provided last year for $120. Customer A looks at my price and at my competition who is under the employee limit and didn't have to raise his prices. My customer goes with my competitor because they are tight on funds and can't afford to pay more. I lose money. Since I can't lose money and stay in business I am now forced to.

 

2. Reduce my work force to below the required number of full time employees or

3. Reduce my full time employees to part time hours only or 

4. Realize that there is no way I can operate and close the doors for good laying off all my employees. 

 

These are my options as I see them. 

 

What I now can't do is grow my business because I am in effect penalized for being successful. I now have a very real ceiling where before I could grow as big as I could dream.

 

Now let's say I close the doors. The cost to insure my former employees now falls to someone else. ALSO any revenue the government would have received from income taxes is now gone.

 

50 people who were working and contributing are now unemployed and  are facing the task of trying to find another full time job, while draining resources via unemployment. 

 

To sum up how it's bad for me, it seriously affects my ability to grow my business and employ a work force.

 

 

So what you are saying is that it actually helps small business owners! Because the law only requires businesses with 50 or more employs to provide coverage. 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com