Obama Care Mess

[Bomboozle]

Whatever you think about corporations, employer-sponsored healthcare provides subsidized healthcare to approximately 171 million individuals and families who will be faced with financial hardship if employers decide to discontinue offering it. It is a healthcare delivery system that WORKS. Yes, companies get a tax break, but employees also enjoy affordable healthcare. Healthcare reform needed to tackle the real problems with healthcare -- namely, the individual market, low-income employees and baby-boomers aging into Medicare. Obamacare needed to complement, not destabilize employer-sponsored healthcare.

It only 'WORKS' for those who are in on it. It screws everyone else.

Not so. It's a benefit that's been a part of the American work culture since the 1920s and it helped build a stable middle class. Employer-sponsored healthcare did not "screw" anybody and is not the problem -- the Obama administration needed to draft legislation that provided the same level of healthcare coverage for those left to fend for themselves on the individual market or those who have no access to affordable healthcare coverage. Check the Bureau of Labor Statistics website -- there's lot of numbers that show the area that needed reform was the service sector where low-wage employees are shut out of healthcare. Destroying the employer-sponsored healthcare system doesn't solve anything unless you subscribe to the notion that everyone should be "screwed."

 

[dblack]

Whatever you think about corporations, employer-sponsored healthcare provides subsidized healthcare to approximately 171 million individuals and families who will be faced with financial hardship if employers decide to discontinue offering it. It is a healthcare delivery system that WORKS. Yes, companies get a tax break, but employees also enjoy affordable healthcare. Healthcare reform needed to tackle the real problems with healthcare -- namely, the individual market, low-income employees and baby-boomers aging into Medicare. Obamacare needed to complement, not destabilize employer-sponsored healthcare.

It only 'WORKS' for those who are in on it. It screws everyone else.

Not so. It's a benefit that's been a part of the American work culture since the 1920s and it helped build a stable middle class. Employer-sponsored healthcare did not "screw" anybody and is not the problem ...

I'm saying it is the problem. It drives healthcare inflation by creating consumers who don't care how much they spend on health care (because it's not their money). The artificially inflated prices screw everyone who isn't on the insurance bandwagon. The solution offered by PPACA - forcing everyone to get on the insurance bandwagon - is obviously what the insurance companies want, but it will only drive health care prices higher and higher, creating a corporatist nightmare in the process.

 

[Flopper]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up, but there is a huge benefit to everyone if providing healthcare doesn't have to be a part of business and individual decisions. Businesses would no longer be burden with providing healthcare coverage. You could go to work for a small start up company with no benefits even though you have a family member with a serious health problem. Employees wouldn't have to stay in dead end job just because they have good insurance. You could retire when want rather when you're eligible for Medicare. In America, this is just a fantasy. However, in many countries it's reality. They not only have less expensive healthcare but they have better care.

I'd certainly agree with the wisdom of breaking the status quo of employer-provided health insurance. Policy encouraging that has been a large part of the problem. But when it comes to the "benefit" of being relieved of the responsibility for our own health care, I can't see that as a good thing. Would it also be 'huge benefit to everyone' if providing for our own food and shelter were also no longer part of business and individual decisions?

This is really just the the socialism vs capitalism debate again. But as I've said, that's a moot argument when it comes to PPACA - it's neither.

Most people can earn enough money to pay for food and shelter. It is reasonably constant from month to month, however the cost of healthcare can suddenly go from nothing one month to half million the next month. Very few people can manage these costs. There is only two alternative for paying for healthcare, government subsidized health care or insurance, either private or government which means the purchasing decisions will not be made by customer.

My guess is we have a combination of private insurance, government insurance, and government subsidies for some years. Eventually we will end up with Medicare type coverage for everyone.

 

[Bomboozle]

It only 'WORKS' for those who are in on it. It screws everyone else.

Not so. It's a benefit that's been a part of the American work culture since the 1920s and it helped build a stable middle class. Employer-sponsored healthcare did not "screw" anybody and is not the problem ...

I'm saying it is the problem. It drives healthcare inflation by creating consumers who don't care how much they spend on health care (because it's not their money). The artificially inflated prices screw everyone who isn't on the insurance bandwagon. The solution offered by PPACA - forcing everyone to get on the insurance bandwagon - is obviously what the insurance companies want, but it will only drive health care prices higher and higher, creating a corporatist nightmare in the process.

Fair enough -- we can agree to disagree. But I have never come across any statistic that remotely suggests employees run to the doctor for any ache and pain just because they have employer-sponsored healthcare and are prone to "overconsume." As for pre-existing conditions? Less than 1% of employees were declined employer-sponsored healthcare because of pre-existing conditions. That's a myth too. And don't forget that employees contribute to their healthcare premiums, deductibles and co-pays, so none of this is free. Finally, consider this: for every employer that discontinues healthcare coverage and forgoes the tax break, the federal government gets added revenue to their coffers. The topic of "tax broadening" is well known -- the feds would love nothing more than to take back tax breaks and put the money in their back pocket to spend. In the end, the middle class has the most to lose if Obamacare is fully implemented.

 

[Flopper]

Whatever you think about corporations, employer-sponsored healthcare provides subsidized healthcare to approximately 171 million individuals and families who will be faced with financial hardship if employers decide to discontinue offering it. It is a healthcare delivery system that WORKS. Yes, companies get a tax break, but employees also enjoy affordable healthcare. Healthcare reform needed to tackle the real problems with healthcare -- namely, the individual market, low-income employees and baby-boomers aging into Medicare. Obamacare needed to complement, not destabilize employer-sponsored healthcare.

How does Obamacare destabilize group health insurance?

I think in general, group health insurance or Medicare with a supplement is the best option for quality healthcare at an affordable price to the customer. Individual health insurance plans suck big time. I'm helping my son find a plan now. My wife and I have been on such plans. The plan I'm looking at for my son is $515/mo for an individual and over $1000/mo for the family. He pays the first $1500 in healthcare cost for himself and for each dependent up to $3,000. Then he pays, 20% of costs after the deductible. There is no drug coverage, dental, or vision. I estimated his healthcare cost including the premium for himself and the family will be in excess of $18,000 a year which is about 1/3 of this take home pay.

 

[Underhill]

Whatever you think about corporations, employer-sponsored healthcare provides subsidized healthcare to approximately 171 million individuals and families who will be faced with financial hardship if employers decide to discontinue offering it. It is a healthcare delivery system that WORKS. Yes, companies get a tax break, but employees also enjoy affordable healthcare. Healthcare reform needed to tackle the real problems with healthcare -- namely, the individual market, low-income employees and baby-boomers aging into Medicare. Obamacare needed to complement, not destabilize employer-sponsored healthcare.

But the problem isn't any of those things. Sure baby boomers are a short term problem but aside from that the problem is several things.

First, the system is incredibly inefficient. Now this has been the case for decades, but the problem is amplified in light of the second, and largest, problem.

Second, people are simply using health care a hell of a lot more. Around half are on maintenance medications. The average person goes to the doctor 2-3 times as much as they used to. The number of procedures the average person endures in their lifetime has gone up dramatically too. This isn't an entirely bad thing, as people are living longer as a result, but it is the number one reason cost have increased so dramatically over the last few decades.

The third, and easiest to deal with, is the uninsured.

The first problem is hard to fix without single payer. Without control of the system, we cannot manage it properly. There are things we can do, but it's a losing proposition.

The second, and largest, is damned near impossible to 'fix' because it isn't a problem, so much as a evolution in the industry that is generally positive. There is room to improve with better record keeping (less testing etc) but the vast majority of the cost increase is not going away.

This third problem will largely go away under Obamacare. And most of these people won't cost us much. In fact, they will probably save us money. Of course these savings under Obamacare will be offset by the additional coverage many Americans will receive. The bigger problem with bringing these people into the fold is the shortages of doctors and physicians assistance out there. But that is no excuse for not caring for people... If anything, it means we need to invest more in our medical schools and future doctors.

The sooner we recognize these facts the sooner we can deal with them. But here is the bit people need to pay attention to.

The cost will never be even close to what they were in the 70's or 80's even when adjusted for inflation. That is reality.

 

[Flopper]

Whatever you think about corporations, employer-sponsored healthcare provides subsidized healthcare to approximately 171 million individuals and families who will be faced with financial hardship if employers decide to discontinue offering it. It is a healthcare delivery system that WORKS. Yes, companies get a tax break, but employees also enjoy affordable healthcare. Healthcare reform needed to tackle the real problems with healthcare -- namely, the individual market, low-income employees and baby-boomers aging into Medicare. Obamacare needed to complement, not destabilize employer-sponsored healthcare.

But the problem isn't any of those things. Sure baby boomers are a short term problem but aside from that the problem is several things.

First, the system is incredibly inefficient. Now this has been the case for decades, but the problem is amplified in light of the second, and largest, problem.

Second, people are simply using health care a hell of a lot more. Around half are on maintenance medications. The average person goes to the doctor 2-3 times as much as they used to. The number of procedures the average person endures in their lifetime has gone up dramatically too. This isn't an entirely bad thing, as people are living longer as a result, but it is the number one reason cost have increased so dramatically over the last few decades.

The third, and easiest to deal with, is the uninsured.

The first problem is hard to fix without single payer. Without control of the system, we cannot manage it properly. There are things we can do, but it's a losing proposition.

The second, and largest, is damned near impossible to 'fix' because it isn't a problem, so much as a evolution in the industry that is generally positive. There is room to improve with better record keeping (less testing etc) but the vast majority of the cost increase is not going away.

This third problem will largely go away under Obamacare. And most of these people won't cost us much. In fact, they will probably save us money. Of course these savings under Obamacare will be offset by the additional coverage many Americans will receive. The bigger problem with bringing these people into the fold is the shortages of doctors and physicians assistance out there. But that is no excuse for not caring for people... If anything, it means we need to invest more in our medical schools and future doctors.

The sooner we recognize these facts the sooner we can deal with them. But here is the bit people need to pay attention to.

The cost will never be even close to what they were in the 70's or 80's even when adjusted for inflation. That is reality.

I agree with you.

If we are to have any hope of containing rising healthcare costs, we are going to have to take a pragmatic view and put aside the ideological capitalism vs socialism discussions and focus on the real problems.

 

[dblack]

Whatever you think about corporations, employer-sponsored healthcare provides subsidized healthcare to approximately 171 million individuals and families who will be faced with financial hardship if employers decide to discontinue offering it. It is a healthcare delivery system that WORKS. Yes, companies get a tax break, but employees also enjoy affordable healthcare. Healthcare reform needed to tackle the real problems with healthcare -- namely, the individual market, low-income employees and baby-boomers aging into Medicare. Obamacare needed to complement, not destabilize employer-sponsored healthcare.

But the problem isn't any of those things. Sure baby boomers are a short term problem but aside from that the problem is several things.

First, the system is incredibly inefficient. Now this has been the case for decades, but the problem is amplified in light of the second, and largest, problem.

Second, people are simply using health care a hell of a lot more. Around half are on maintenance medications. The average person goes to the doctor 2-3 times as much as they used to. The number of procedures the average person endures in their lifetime has gone up dramatically too. This isn't an entirely bad thing, as people are living longer as a result, but it is the number one reason cost have increased so dramatically over the last few decades.

The third, and easiest to deal with, is the uninsured.

The first problem is hard to fix without single payer. Without control of the system, we cannot manage it properly. There are things we can do, but it's a losing proposition.

The second, and largest, is damned near impossible to 'fix' because it isn't a problem, so much as a evolution in the industry that is generally positive. There is room to improve with better record keeping (less testing etc) but the vast majority of the cost increase is not going away.

This third problem will largely go away under Obamacare. And most of these people won't cost us much. In fact, they will probably save us money. Of course these savings under Obamacare will be offset by the additional coverage many Americans will receive. The bigger problem with bringing these people into the fold is the shortages of doctors and physicians assistance out there. But that is no excuse for not caring for people... If anything, it means we need to invest more in our medical schools and future doctors.

The sooner we recognize these facts the sooner we can deal with them. But here is the bit people need to pay attention to.

The cost will never be even close to what they were in the 70's or 80's even when adjusted for inflation. That is reality.

I agree with you.

Obviously, I don't. Insurance is the problem, not the solution.

 

[dblack]

Not so. It's a benefit that's been a part of the American work culture since the 1920s and it helped build a stable middle class. Employer-sponsored healthcare did not "screw" anybody and is not the problem ...

I'm saying it is the problem. It drives healthcare inflation by creating consumers who don't care how much they spend on health care (because it's not their money). The artificially inflated prices screw everyone who isn't on the insurance bandwagon. The solution offered by PPACA - forcing everyone to get on the insurance bandwagon - is obviously what the insurance companies want, but it will only drive health care prices higher and higher, creating a corporatist nightmare in the process.

Fair enough -- we can agree to disagree. But I have never come across any statistic that remotely suggests employees run to the doctor for any ache and pain just because they have employer-sponsored healthcare and are prone to "overconsume." ...

No, that's not the point I'm making at all. It's not overconsumption that's the problem. The problem is that once a patient is 'covered', they lose all incentive to prefer more cost-effective treatments or providers. That leaves the bulk of health care consumers exerting virtually no downward price pressure on providers. That can't not produce inflation.

As for pre-existing conditions? Less than 1% of employees were declined employer-sponsored healthcare because of pre-existing conditions. That's a myth too. And don't forget that employees contribute to their healthcare premiums, deductibles and co-pays, so none of this is free. Finally, consider this: for every employer that discontinues healthcare coverage and forgoes the tax break, the federal government gets added revenue to their coffers. The topic of "tax broadening" is well known -- the feds would love nothing more than to take back tax breaks and put the money in their back pocket to spend. In the end, the middle class has the most to lose if Obamacare is fully implemented.

People who value their freedom have the most to lose.

 

[Bomboozle]

Whatever you think about corporations, employer-sponsored healthcare provides subsidized healthcare to approximately 171 million individuals and families who will be faced with financial hardship if employers decide to discontinue offering it. It is a healthcare delivery system that WORKS. Yes, companies get a tax break, but employees also enjoy affordable healthcare. Healthcare reform needed to tackle the real problems with healthcare -- namely, the individual market, low-income employees and baby-boomers aging into Medicare. Obamacare needed to complement, not destabilize employer-sponsored healthcare.

How does Obamacare destabilize group health insurance?

I think in general, group health insurance or Medicare with a supplement is the best option for quality healthcare at an affordable price to the customer. Individual health insurance plans suck big time. I'm helping my son find a plan now. My wife and I have been on such plans. The plan I'm looking at for my son is $515/mo for an individual and over $1000/mo for the family. He pays the first $1500 in healthcare cost for himself and for each dependent up to $3,000. Then he pays, 20% of costs after the deductible. There is no drug coverage, dental, or vision. I estimated his healthcare cost including the premium for himself and the family will be in excess of $18,000 a year which is about 1/3 of this take home pay.

Thank you for sharing your son's example because it makes my point. Obamacare threatens to destabilize (employer-sponsored) group health insurance because if employers walk away from providing subsidized healthcare that mutually benefits both them and the employee, the employee will be faced with your son's situation -- they will be forced to purchase healthcare insurance through an Exchange. Employees that don't qualify for the subsidies will be forced to pay 100% of the cost out-of-pocket. Instead of going for the "grand bargain," Obamacare needed to address the high cost of healthcare in incremental steps -- they could have easily started by tackling the individual market first, which is where the major problems are, and leave employer sponsored healthcare out of it. But if you follow the money, the federal government stands to gain if employers walk away from offering healthcare coverage. Employer-sponsored healthcare is the #1 tax expenditure for the federal government, coming in at a whopping $162 billion each year. So for every dollar in tax breaks the employer gives up, the federal piggy bank will gain. With politicians looking for revenue sources anywhere they can, that's alot of money to ignore.

 

[Bomboozle]

I'm saying it is the problem. It drives healthcare inflation by creating consumers who don't care how much they spend on health care (because it's not their money). The artificially inflated prices screw everyone who isn't on the insurance bandwagon. The solution offered by PPACA - forcing everyone to get on the insurance bandwagon - is obviously what the insurance companies want, but it will only drive health care prices higher and higher, creating a corporatist nightmare in the process.

Fair enough -- we can agree to disagree. But I have never come across any statistic that remotely suggests employees run to the doctor for any ache and pain just because they have employer-sponsored healthcare and are prone to "overconsume." ...

No, that's not the point I'm making at all. It's not overconsumption that's the problem. The problem is that once a patient is 'covered', they lose all incentive to prefer more cost-effective treatments or providers. That leaves the bulk of health care consumers exerting virtually no downward price pressure on providers. That can't not produce inflation.

Again, I respectfully disagree. People don't lose incentive to consider other cost-effective treatments just because they have health insurance. I suspect people tend to generally trust their doctor and listen to their doctor's advice about treatment options. And doctors have preferences about how they choose to treat their patients -- there is no standardization of procedures or materials (e.g. hip replacement parts) to show efficacy, so it's up to the doctor to decide what's best for each patient's circumstance. Patients should always have the choice to seek a second opinion if they desire. In the end, people choose which course of treatment to take because of their doctor's recommendations and they've considered all of the options, not because it's more or less cost-effective.

 

[BillyV]

Whatever you think about corporations, employer-sponsored healthcare provides subsidized healthcare to approximately 171 million individuals and families who will be faced with financial hardship if employers decide to discontinue offering it. It is a healthcare delivery system that WORKS. Yes, companies get a tax break, but employees also enjoy affordable healthcare. Healthcare reform needed to tackle the real problems with healthcare -- namely, the individual market, low-income employees and baby-boomers aging into Medicare. Obamacare needed to complement, not destabilize employer-sponsored healthcare.

How does Obamacare destabilize group health insurance?

I think in general, group health insurance or Medicare with a supplement is the best option for quality healthcare at an affordable price to the customer. Individual health insurance plans suck big time. I'm helping my son find a plan now. My wife and I have been on such plans. The plan I'm looking at for my son is $515/mo for an individual and over $1000/mo for the family. He pays the first $1500 in healthcare cost for himself and for each dependent up to $3,000. Then he pays, 20% of costs after the deductible. There is no drug coverage, dental, or vision. I estimated his healthcare cost including the premium for himself and the family will be in excess of $18,000 a year which is about 1/3 of this take home pay.

Thank you for sharing your son's example because it makes my point. Obamacare threatens to destabilize (employer-sponsored) group health insurance because if employers walk away from providing subsidized healthcare that mutually benefits both them and the employee, the employee will be faced with your son's situation -- they will be forced to purchase healthcare insurance through an Exchange. Employees that don't qualify for the subsidies will be forced to pay 100% of the cost out-of-pocket. Instead of going for the "grand bargain," Obamacare needed to address the high cost of healthcare in incremental steps -- they could have easily started by tackling the individual market first, which is where the major problems are, and leave employer sponsored healthcare out of it. But if you follow the money, the federal government stands to gain if employers walk away from offering healthcare coverage. Employer-sponsored healthcare is the #1 tax expenditure for the federal government, coming in at a whopping $162 billion each year. So for every dollar in tax breaks the employer gives up, the federal piggy bank will gain. With politicians looking for revenue sources anywhere they can, that's alot of money to ignore.

I doubt whether the federal government is hoping that employers "walk away"; in any case, the tax break for employer-sponsored health insurance is not a break for the employer, but for the employee. The employer pays wages and benefits and is entitled to a tax deduction for both as a business expense; the employer could just as easily add the cost of that premium to wages and get the same deduction, and let the employee pay the premium. A much simpler way for the federal government to tax those benefits is simply to consider them compensation to the employee. Obamacare has already taken a step in that direction by requiring employers to include on the year end wage statement provided to employees (Form W-2) the total cost of health benefits provided under the employer plan, both the employer contribution and the employee contribution. The reason given for this is to let the employee know the "true cost" of the coverage, but in reality it will simply facilitate the taxation of those benefits which are now required to be reported. Before the end of this presidential term I think it is a virtual certainty that they will begin taxing, at least partially (you know, for the evil rich and well-to-do to start) the value of those benefits.

 

[Bomboozle]

But the problem isn't any of those things. Sure baby boomers are a short term problem but aside from that the problem is several things.

Baby boomers are a long term problem. If you consider 1960 as the end of the baby boomers, you can expect this "short term" problem to last until 2025, unless the age to enroll in Medicare is extended. Then the "short term" problem becomes even longer.

First, the system is incredibly inefficient. Now this has been the case for decades, but the problem is amplified in light of the second, and largest, problem.

Yes that is true, however the inefficiencies of the healthcare system are being addressed in private industry and Obama certainly could have focussed on helping with that aspect of the healthcare problem in the short-term without also radically altering the accessibility and affordability of healthcare.

Second, people are simply using health care a hell of a lot more. Around half are on maintenance medications. The average person goes to the doctor 2-3 times as much as they used to. The number of procedures the average person endures in their lifetime has gone up dramatically too. This isn't an entirely bad thing, as people are living longer as a result, but it is the number one reason cost have increased so dramatically over the last few decades.

Yes that is true, however the question is why? Obesity, and specifically diabetes, are at epidemic levels in this country, with troubling increases seen among children at increasingly younger ages. Diabetes currently accounts for a significant chunk of healthcare costs and is fixable. How about some good public health policies to address weight control and good eating habits, and take millions off medication to control their diabetes.

The third, and easiest to deal with, is the uninsured.

This third problem will largely go away under Obamacare. And most of these people won't cost us much. In fact, they will probably save us money. Of course these savings under Obamacare will be offset by the additional coverage many Americans will receive.

I doubt the uninsured problem will go away, and I respectfully disagree that "these people won't cost us much." The unintended consequences of the premium assistance tax credit and cost sharing subsidy are many, and arguably will be a severe economic drain on the middle class, who will be the ones that pick up the tab.

The bigger problem with bringing these people into the fold is the shortages of doctors and physicians assistance out there. But that is no excuse for not caring for people... If anything, it means we need to invest more in our medical schools and future doctors.

I agree. What is so interesting about the medical shortage is how competitive it is to gain acceptance to medical schools.

The sooner we recognize these facts the sooner we can deal with them. But here is the bit people need to pay attention to.

The cost will never be even close to what they were in the 70's or 80's even when adjusted for inflation. That is reality.[/QUOTE]

I doubt anyone expects healthcare costs to dial back 20 or 30 years. But politically, this issue has been ignored until it has reached this point. Obamacare is not the solution.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up, but there is a huge benefit to everyone if providing healthcare doesn't have to be a part of business and individual decisions. Businesses would no longer be burden with providing healthcare coverage. You could go to work for a small start up company with no benefits even though you have a family member with a serious health problem. Employees wouldn't have to stay in dead end job just because they have good insurance. You could retire when want rather when you're eligible for Medicare. In America, this is just a fantasy. However, in many countries it's reality. They not only have less expensive healthcare but they have better care.

I'd certainly agree with the wisdom of breaking the status quo of employer-provided health insurance. Policy encouraging that has been a large part of the problem. But when it comes to the "benefit" of being relieved of the responsibility for our own health care, I can't see that as a good thing. Would it also be 'huge benefit to everyone' if providing for our own food and shelter were also no longer part of business and individual decisions?

This is really just the the socialism vs capitalism debate again. But as I've said, that's a moot argument when it comes to PPACA - it's neither.

What Flopper and all the others who support this piece of crap legislation fail to mention is that if your employer decides not to cover your health insurance then you will have to do it. Health insurance for a family runs in the neighborhood of $1200-$1300 per month now. Who knows where it will end up after Uncle Sam enters the picture but I bet it won't be going down or even the annual growth slowing. So, when your employer decides not to cover your health insurance, are you going to be able absorb the additional costs? Maybe your employer will be generous enough to increase your salary to help? Maybe! Don't count on it.

Everyone who is pro Obamacare is talking about how great this is going to be, but what they fail to mention is that your employer is now better off paying $2000/year/employee as opposed to paying for even a single employee's annual health insurance. Who is to blame the employer for making the smart financial decision and telling employees they can now buy their own insurance on the "exchanges" so the employer will no longer provide health insurance to employees? And that is only for employers with more than 50 employees. Employers with less than 50 can drop your coverage and not be fined at all... but, then YOU have no choice but to buy your own insurance.

Just wait until we all have to start dealing with another government entity (this one responsible for selling you health insurance) that is run about as efficiently as the California DMV's! "Take a number please." You are number 243 and they are now serving number 84. Might want to come back the day after tomorrow.

Immie

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

People may dislike “the health reform law” when asked about it that way, but their negative views are rooted largely in ignorance. Strong majorities favor most of the law’s key provisions. Two-thirds favor the so-called guaranteed issue, which bars discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. More than 70% support expanding Medicaid to cover people living below 138% of the poverty level. Some 76% like the rule that allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans through age 25, and even higher proportions favor health insurance exchanges, better drug coverage for Medicare participants, and tax credits to help small businesses sponsor health plans for their employees (chart). All told, the public favors 10 of Obamacare’s 11 key provisions, and Republicans favor seven of the 11.

Happy Birthday, Obamacare ? MSNBC

Exactly.

And it’s interesting how some perceive the ACA as a ‘mess’ even thought its major provisions aren’t yet in effect.

Opposition to the ACA has more to do with opposition to Obama than the merits of the Act.

 

[Amelia]

People may dislike “the health reform law” when asked about it that way, but their negative views are rooted largely in ignorance. Strong majorities favor most of the law’s key provisions. Two-thirds favor the so-called guaranteed issue, which bars discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. More than 70% support expanding Medicaid to cover people living below 138% of the poverty level. Some 76% like the rule that allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans through age 25, and even higher proportions favor health insurance exchanges, better drug coverage for Medicare participants, and tax credits to help small businesses sponsor health plans for their employees (chart). All told, the public favors 10 of Obamacare’s 11 key provisions, and Republicans favor seven of the 11.

Happy Birthday, Obamacare ? MSNBC

Naturally people like all that great sounding stuff. Until the bill comes due.

 

[koshergrl]

"Starting in tax year 2014:
Obamacare Individual Mandate Non-Compliance Tax: Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services -- must pay an income surtax to the IRS. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that six million American families will be liable for the tax, and as pointed out by the Associated Press: “Most would be in the middle class.”
In addition, 100 percent of Americans filing a tax return (140 million filers) will be forced to submit paperwork to the IRS showing they either had “qualifying” health insurance for every month of the tax year or they obtained an exemption to the mandate."

For 2-adult hh it will cost about 1400 in 2016.

And that's just part of the expenses we'll be swallowing.


Read more: http://atr.org/obamacares-tax-hike-train-wreck-a7587#ixzz2S5EOjfiX

 

[SFC Ollie]

I don't know if anyone has brought this up, but there is a huge benefit to everyone if providing healthcare doesn't have to be a part of business and individual decisions. Businesses would no longer be burden with providing healthcare coverage. You could go to work for a small start up company with no benefits even though you have a family member with a serious health problem. Employees wouldn't have to stay in dead end job just because they have good insurance. You could retire when want rather when you're eligible for Medicare. In America, this is just a fantasy. However, in many countries it's reality. They not only have less expensive healthcare but they have better care.

I'd certainly agree with the wisdom of breaking the status quo of employer-provided health insurance. Policy encouraging that has been a large part of the problem. But when it comes to the "benefit" of being relieved of the responsibility for our own health care, I can't see that as a good thing. Would it also be 'huge benefit to everyone' if providing for our own food and shelter were also no longer part of business and individual decisions?

This is really just the the socialism vs capitalism debate again. But as I've said, that's a moot argument when it comes to PPACA - it's neither.

What Flopper and all the others who support this piece of crap legislation fail to mention is that if your employer decides not to cover your health insurance then you will have to do it. Health insurance for a family runs in the neighborhood of $1200-$1300 per month now. Who knows where it will end up after Uncle Sam enters the picture but I bet it won't be going down or even the annual growth slowing. So, when your employer decides not to cover your health insurance, are you going to be able absorb the additional costs? Maybe your employer will be generous enough to increase your salary to help? Maybe! Don't count on it.

Everyone who is pro Obamacare is talking about how great this is going to be, but what they fail to mention is that your employer is now better off paying $2000/year/employee as opposed to paying for even a single employee's annual health insurance. Who is to blame the employer for making the smart financial decision and telling employees they can now buy their own insurance on the "exchanges" so the employer will no longer provide health insurance to employees? And that is only for employers with more than 50 employees. Employers with less than 50 can drop your coverage and not be fined at all... but, then YOU have no choice but to buy your own insurance.

Just wait until we all have to start dealing with another government entity (this one responsible for selling you health insurance) that is run about as efficiently as the California DMV's! "Take a number please." You are number 243 and they are now serving number 84. Might want to come back the day after tomorrow.

Immie

Article in todays local paper showed where they streamlined the paperwork for applying for government insurance. It's down to 5 pages for a single person, 12 for a couple and goes up with the number of children.... I see a disaster in the making.....

 

[hortysir]

People may dislike “the health reform law” when asked about it that way, but their negative views are rooted largely in ignorance. Strong majorities favor most of the law’s key provisions. Two-thirds favor the so-called guaranteed issue, which bars discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. More than 70% support expanding Medicaid to cover people living below 138% of the poverty level. Some 76% like the rule that allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans through age 25, and even higher proportions favor health insurance exchanges, better drug coverage for Medicare participants, and tax credits to help small businesses sponsor health plans for their employees (chart). All told, the public favors 10 of Obamacare’s 11 key provisions, and Republicans favor seven of the 11.

Happy Birthday, Obamacare ? MSNBC

Exactly.

And it’s interesting how some perceive the ACA as a ‘mess’ even thought its major provisions aren’t yet in effect.

Opposition to the ACA has more to do with opposition to Obama than the merits of the Act.

The per-exsisting clause is pretty good. I'll admit that.

What the OP and others aren't realizing is that it's not just employers that are required to PROVIDE coverage, we are all required to have coverage.
If our company is too small to provide it, we have to BUY it.

What's worse is we don;t get to choose what coverage.
A government bureaucracy will tell us what coverage we have to carry,
Never mind that a 27 year old male doesn't need geriatric coverage or pap-smear coverage.....

 

[Bomboozle]

I doubt whether the federal government is hoping that employers "walk away"; in any case, the tax break for employer-sponsored health insurance is not a break for the employer, but for the employee. The employer pays wages and benefits and is entitled to a tax deduction for both as a business expense; the employer could just as easily add the cost of that premium to wages and get the same deduction, and let the employee pay the premium. A much simpler way for the federal government to tax those benefits is simply to consider them compensation to the employee. Obamacare has already taken a step in that direction by requiring employers to include on the year end wage statement provided to employees (Form W-2) the total cost of health benefits provided under the employer plan, both the employer contribution and the employee contribution. The reason given for this is to let the employee know the "true cost" of the coverage, but in reality it will simply facilitate the taxation of those benefits which are now required to be reported. Before the end of this presidential term I think it is a virtual certainty that they will begin taxing, at least partially (you know, for the evil rich and well-to-do to start) the value of those benefits.[/QUOTE]

You are correct that the federal government could swoop in and change the tax code to remove the tax break enjoyed by both the employer and employee, however that would be highly unpopular with the public to say the least, given that currently 150 million individuals and families have employer sponsored healthcare. And you are correct that the "DD" number reported on people's W-2 (for those who worked for a large employer) will be used for more than reporting purposes in the future. In fact, starting next year, all individuals will receive a statement from their health insurance company and from their employers. If someone changes jobs or is laid off, and then starts a new job and/or enrolls for healthcare coverage elsewhere, that person will get multiple statements, one from each insurance company and employer. Similar to the W-2, by January 31, both entities will be required to provide information mandated by HHS that is related to healthcare coverage for the prior calendar year; the information provided is extensive, and includes which months a taxpayer was and was not covered, how much the cost of the premium was, etc. This information will be reported not only to the taxpayer, but also to the IRS. Individuals will be required to decipher the information provided to account for any lapse in coverge from the prior year and report it on their federal income tax return. I suspect the information employers provide will also set up the Obamacare Cadillac 40% excise tax scheduled to kick in in 2018. What I want to know is what does any of this have to do expanding affordable healthcare?