Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Affordable Care Act

52 posts in this topic

Posted

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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

This is true in the individual market but not in the exchanges where they are using community rates.

With community rates the younger people absolutely subsidize the older people.

Early in the process the original bill stipulated that you had to buy insurance through the exchanges, but it was later changed to give an option of using the exchanges.

Probably was a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There were three things I would have liked to have seen stay in or be added that aren't that would have made this bill so much better.

1- mandatory to buy insurance through exchanges

2- offering the public option

3- tort reform

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

it's a massive subsidy for useless middlemen, private insurers. the s&p health insurance index has gained 43% in 2013, double that of the s&p. it doesn't include a public option. it was literally written by health industry lobbyists and execs and based upon a heritage foundation proposal. it was written in a way that will likely prevent any sort of evolution into single payer (otherwise known as the mature policy presided over by actual adults in functional, developed countries).

 

understand that if anyone refers to this as socialism, you can safely ignore them. if anyone refers to this as a government takeover, you can safely ignore them. actually, if anyone refers to the ACA as anything but pure capitalism, you can safely ignore them. this is what capitalism is about: power and leverage over a majority that's too weak and ineffective to do anything about it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

it's a massive subsidy for useless middlemen, private insurers. the s&p health insurance index has gained 43% in 2013, double that of the s&p. it doesn't include a public option. it was literally written by health industry lobbyists and execs and based upon a heritage foundation proposal. it was written in a way that will likely prevent any sort of evolution into single payer (otherwise known as the mature policy presided over by actual adults in functional, developed countries).

 

understand that if anyone refers to this as socialism, you can safely ignore them. if anyone refers to this as a government takeover, you can safely ignore them. actually, if anyone refers to the ACA as anything but pure capitalism, you can safely ignore them. this is what capitalism is about: power and leverage over a majority that's too weak and ineffective to do anything about it.

 

Agree completely with the first paragraph. 

 

In the second paragraph, crony capitalism or fascism would have been terms worthy of mention, since that is what we have when it comes to health care in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i called it capitalism in large part due to the "rational self interest" stuff. when your entire economy is built on exploiting the majority and concentrating wealth, it's only logical that capitalists would invest in government officials. this is just semantics with me though; call it what you will, it all means the same. there's no such thing as a free market. capitalists use that to their advantage.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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. 

 

Do you really think him not being able to afford to provide his employees coverage is a "help"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There were three things I would have liked to have seen stay in or be added that aren't that would have made this bill so much better.

1- mandatory to buy insurance through exchanges

2- offering the public option

3- tort reform

 

I 100% agree with you on #1 and #3.  #2 is a more philosophical issue.

 

#1....insurance industry will implode if they have to cover pre-existing conditions, while healthy/young people do not pay into the system.

 

#3....been needed for a LONG time.  The number of people getting rich from frivalous lawsuits has gotten out of control. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is true in the individual market but not in the exchanges where they are using community rates.

With community rates the younger people absolutely subsidize the older people.

Early in the process the original bill stipulated that you had to buy insurance through the exchanges, but it was later changed to give an option of using the exchanges.

Probably was a mistake.

 

They would IF they bought into the system.  Projections show that many will not buy insurance and wait until they get sick....then purchasing at that time which requires the insurance companies to cover them.

 

Kind of like not having car insurance....having an accident today...buying insurance tomorrow...insurance company has to pay off on the claim.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My thoughts - as a Canadian..

 

- Being north of the border and having grown up in a country where healthcare is free, I would never want to see it any other way - even if it would reduce the taxes I pay.

 

- Knowing that anyone can walk in off the street and get care at a hospital is a good thing. In the ER waiting room I am no more special then a minimum wage McDonald's worker and they no more important then a homeless person. Priority is dealt with my severity of the situation. 

 

- Cancer treatment is free (to my best understanding)

 

- Yes there are flaws in the system. But people have the right to life.

 

I know one of you guys said they this new tax would cripple your business but if everyone in the US has to pay the same tax then your all on the same playing field. Canada has a high tax rate, significantly higher than the US, but Im not seeing our businesses leave for the US and even with higher taxes or economy (albeit much smaller then the USA) is much STRONGER and secure.

 

Basically where Im going with this is that change is hard and can often seem like its the end of the world but in the end, social programs like this are better for your country as a whole..

 

IMO......

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites