Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Affordable Care Act


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#16 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,124 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:27 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


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.

#17 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,124 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 10:31 PM

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

#18 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,199 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 11:58 PM

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.



#19 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,501 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 04 October 2013 - 01:22 AM

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.



#20 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,199 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 01:47 AM

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.



#21 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,995 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 04 October 2013 - 07:17 AM

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"? 



#22 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,995 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 04 October 2013 - 07:19 AM

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. 



#23 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,995 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 04 October 2013 - 07:21 AM

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.



#24 CanadianCat

CanadianCat

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 708 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 07:43 AM

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......

 

 



#25 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,670 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 04 October 2013 - 11:25 AM

http://www.paulcraig...acare-a-primer/

 

Read.

 

When Republicans for ideological reasons blocked a single-payer health system like the rest of the developed world has and, indeed, even some developing countries have, the Obama regime, needing a victory, went to the insurance companies and told them to come up with a health care plan that the insurance lobby could get passed by Congress. Obamacare was written by the private insurance industry with the goal of raising its profits with 50 million mandated new customers. 
 
Obamacare works for the insurance companies, but not for the uninsured. The cost of using Obamacare is prohibitive for those who most need the health coverage. The cost of the premiums net of the government subsidy is large. It amounts to a substantial pay cut for people struggling to pay their bills. In addition to the premium cost, it is prohibitive for hard pressed Americans to use the policies because of the deductibles and co-pays. For the very poor, who are thrown into Medicaid systems, any assets they might have, such as a home, are subject to confiscation to cover their Medicaid bills. The only people other than the insurance companies who benefit from Obamacare are the down and out who are devoid of all assets. 
 
The whole point here, that everyone wants to miss because they are to busy playing party cheerleader, isn't whether the government can afford this program or not, it's that the American citizenry is getting fuged by capitalistic greed. The government can afford the costs of the program and all these bullshit scripted budget hostage crap is nothing but political posturing over votes and other extraneous nonsense. No one in government cares about what this plan is really about - squeezing every last bit of money from a populace who's median income hasn't risen in 25 fuging years. The entire argument is "Ohhh nooooo, we can't increase the deficit!!!!" rather than "Ohh no, this is bad for the average citizen!!!" or "This is nothing but a corporate Healthcare and Insurance sellout!!!!"


#26 Zaximus

Zaximus

    I'm Brett Jensen

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,948 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 04 October 2013 - 11:42 AM

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.

 

I would say if you reach 50+ employees you really aren't a small business.  Like others, I'm curious how much the extra expenses are?  If you need more employees, aren't you growing anyway, and isn't' that more money?  Are the expenses from this and a new employee more than the added business you're taking?  I'm not really sure, that's why I ask, but congratulations for being successful and contributing with a great post.    Not saying this is you, but sometimes when I hear things like this I wonder if it's more of a case of "I'm going to make a bit less money now with these expenses" more so than a "crippled, can't grow" thing.

 

I'm mostly for this act but I can't deny it's confusing as a mofo, they really dropped the ball on explaining this.



#27 SmokinwithWilly

SmokinwithWilly

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 593 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 11:48 AM

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. 

 

Not at all. I am saying the exact opposite. For me, since I can't speak for other small business owners, this is a very bad thing.

 

When I decided to go into business 10 years ago, I sat down and had to consider all the things that I would be getting involved with. Taxes, insurance, employees, contracts, law suits, garnishments, child support, overhead, sleepless nights, worry, stress and all the other things that come with owning your own business. When I started my business I made a list of my goals and have been working since to achieve them. One of my goals was to become the biggest and best in my area. There is a specific company that I want to surpass to reach that goal. That goal is now gone. In order to move past that company, I have to cross the 50 employee limit. I'm not going there. At some point I'm sure that limit will drop to 40, then probably 25 or 30. 

 

The dream I had when I started is now attainable but only if I pay a penalty (as I see it) for success. If I feel that way, I'm sure there are others who are looking at going into business for themselves and asking themselves if they want to have to deal with this. There's enough stress running a company. To me, this discourages people from going into business because honestly, it's so much easier to work for someone else and not have to deal with all the BS.

 

My goals may be different than other small business owners. My goal is not to stay small, but turn this into something bigger and better. To me, this is like trying to compete with someone who works under the table. They can underbid me on everything because they simply don't have the overhead. Again, this is just how I see it. 

 

To answer the earlier question on where I got my figures, I got them when I spoke to my accountant. 



#28 SmokinwithWilly

SmokinwithWilly

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 593 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 12:04 PM

I would say if you reach 50+ employees you really aren't a small business.  Like others, I'm curious how much the extra expenses are?  If you need more employees, aren't you growing anyway, and isn't' that more money?  Are the expenses from this and a new employee more than the added business you're taking?  I'm not really sure, that's why I ask, but congratulations for being successful and contributing with a great post.    Not saying this is you, but sometimes when I hear things like this I wonder if it's more of a case of "I'm going to make a bit less money now with these expenses" more so than a "crippled, can't grow" thing.

 

I'm mostly for this act but I can't deny it's confusing as a mofo, they really dropped the ball on explaining this.

 

I don't have the exact numbers right in front of me but I'll break it down as best I can generally. 

 

Business makes 5 million a year gross. After taxes and expenses, there is 1 million profit. From this 1 million profit, 70% is reinvested into the business, and the remaining 300k is the owners "salary." 

 

In order to remain competitive, business needs to hire 1 more employee bringing the total to 50. ACA now kicks in. For each employee an employer contribution of $500 is required per employee (again, I'm putting a number out there for example). The employers overhead has now climbed $25k per month. Is that employee bringing in an extra $25k in pure profit per month? Probably not.

 

We will keep the number at 5 million gross because this move was made to remain competitive. Instead of 1 mil profit, there is 700k. The reinvestment  into the company is now 490k, 210k less than before and the owners salary has dropped 90k a year. Again, no new significant income, but 300k has now been pulled out. 

 

So what this example breaks down to is, to go from 49 to 50 employees is going to cost 300k. At that point, my earlier post comes into play. And when you're in a business where you can lose a contract because of being $500 more than someone else, that cost is much larger than it looks. Crossing that threshold is huge.



#29 OneBadCat

OneBadCat

    HUDDLER

  • ALL-PRO
  • 1,506 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 12:15 PM

 

http://www.paulcraig...acare-a-primer/

 

Read.

 

When Republicans for ideological reasons blocked a single-payer health system like the rest of the developed world has and, indeed, even some developing countries have, the Obama regime, needing a victory, went to the insurance companies and told them to come up with a health care plan that the insurance lobby could get passed by Congress. Obamacare was written by the private insurance industry with the goal of raising its profits with 50 million mandated new customers. 
 
Obamacare works for the insurance companies, but not for the uninsured. The cost of using Obamacare is prohibitive for those who most need the health coverage. The cost of the premiums net of the government subsidy is large. It amounts to a substantial pay cut for people struggling to pay their bills. In addition to the premium cost, it is prohibitive for hard pressed Americans to use the policies because of the deductibles and co-pays. For the very poor, who are thrown into Medicaid systems, any assets they might have, such as a home, are subject to confiscation to cover their Medicaid bills. The only people other than the insurance companies who benefit from Obamacare are the down and out who are devoid of all assets. 
 
The whole point here, that everyone wants to miss because they are to busy playing party cheerleader, isn't whether the government can afford this program or not, it's that the American citizenry is getting fuged by capitalistic greed. The government can afford the costs of the program and all these bullshit scripted budget hostage crap is nothing but political posturing over votes and other extraneous nonsense. No one in government cares about what this plan is really about - squeezing every last bit of money from a populace who's median income hasn't risen in 25 fuging years. The entire argument is "Ohhh nooooo, we can't increase the deficit!!!!" rather than "Ohh no, this is bad for the average citizen!!!" or "This is nothing but a corporate Healthcare and Insurance sellout!!!!"

 

I agree but for now at least the ACA is expanding access. But if things keep going where they are going I don't see the middle class(or the former middle class) taking much more of it. The rich get richer and poor get poorer. Minimum wage has become garbage. We just physically can't keep at it forever. If you have ever read the Communist Manifesto it eerily and hauntingly foreshadows this. Not saying that we will overthrow the bourgeoisie and become pure communist but there will be a breaking point. We should be more of a social capitol gov't then what we are now with what is overrun with greed. We should have free health care. We have the right to life and to pursue happiness means to have a healthy life. Health is more than a product. It is something more innately moral than auto insurance or the alike. Some will gladly preach that the life of a fetus is special and human, yet the uninsured are SOL.
 

 



#30 Zaximus

Zaximus

    I'm Brett Jensen

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,948 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 04 October 2013 - 01:12 PM

I don't have the exact numbers right in front of me but I'll break it down as best I can generally. 

 

Business makes 5 million a year gross. After taxes and expenses, there is 1 million profit. From this 1 million profit, 70% is reinvested into the business, and the remaining 300k is the owners "salary." 

 

In order to remain competitive, business needs to hire 1 more employee bringing the total to 50. ACA now kicks in. For each employee an employer contribution of $500 is required per employee (again, I'm putting a number out there for example). The employers overhead has now climbed $25k per month. Is that employee bringing in an extra $25k in pure profit per month? Probably not.

 

We will keep the number at 5 million gross because this move was made to remain competitive. Instead of 1 mil profit, there is 700k. The reinvestment  into the company is now 490k, 210k less than before and the owners salary has dropped 90k a year. Again, no new significant income, but 300k has now been pulled out. 

 

So what this example breaks down to is, to go from 49 to 50 employees is going to cost 300k. At that point, my earlier post comes into play. And when you're in a business where you can lose a contract because of being $500 more than someone else, that cost is much larger than it looks. Crossing that threshold is huge.

 

 

Ok that's informative.  First though, I wouldn't call that a small business, honestly.  97% of all businesses in the country have less than 50 employees.    If it pans out like that, I guess it's a decision of maybe reinvesting a bit less for more of a salary.  Could it be possible that it's cheaper to offer some kind of insurance plans though?  I'm not sure how much that would cost but some are less than others and as long as they meet the requirements you'd be ok.  Plus it could give you a competitive advantage versus those companies with less workers that aren't offering plans.  

 

Or maybe talk with your employees about how they feel, maybe pay cuts to get a plan in there, etc.  Most companies wouldn't do that but sometimes if you just throw the truth out there, and say you'd like to reinvest in the company (which is better for everyone) and this is where it all stands, people are usually more receptive with the truth.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com