Obamanuts: Are you happy about the Obamacare delay?

[thereisnospoon]

Individuals are require to have health insurance either through their employer, government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid or through individual policies. People who do not have a health insurance plan available through their employer are eligible to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Although, I have not seen any thing published, people that work for employers that have been given the 1 year delay may be exempted from the individual mandate.

Yeah. Everybody gets a different deal. That's the way these things work. It depends on how much influence your particular constituency has; whether they have enough clout to bargain for time, or outright exemptions. Or whatever perk will give them advantage.

We had the option of going with single universal payer which would have simplified healthcare delivery and created a level playing field. We could have had standardized premiums and benefits. Employers would been relieved of the burden of providing health insurance. Employees would have guaranteed coverage that they could carry with them from job to job. Patients would have free choice of providers. Health insurance administration costs of 15% could be reduced to 2%. Healthcare providers would have been dealing one payer instead of thousands insurance companies, and individuals.

ACA is better than nothing because it will provide insurance coverage for millions with limited or no coverage at all and it requires a minimum set of core benefits that every policy must contain.

ACA is WORSE than nothing. ACA will result in increased costs for medical health coverage.

 

[thereisnospoon]

OK. It's a solution to problem but that's not our world and it's not likely to be in the near future.

As long as we're dreaming, though, let's dream of universal, single-payer. The government provides health insurance to everyone. Call it Medicare Part E because Everyone is covered whether employed or not, rich or poor or anything else. It never lapses, never is cancelled and covers everything. That would be the best possible solution.

One man's dream is another man's nightmare, eh? On this July 4th, I'm going to suggest we remain free to decide for ourselves how to manage our healthcare costs.

And how well has that worked? In the last 30 years, we have seen the healthcare cost triple.

Because the federal government decided to stick its nose into the industry which was functioning correctly for most Americans.
Now the same federal government has done something else to fix the problem it created in the first place.

 

[thereisnospoon]

OK. It's a solution to problem but that's not our world and it's not likely to be in the near future.

As long as we're dreaming, though, let's dream of universal, single-payer. The government provides health insurance to everyone. Call it Medicare Part E because Everyone is covered whether employed or not, rich or poor or anything else. It never lapses, never is cancelled and covers everything. That would be the best possible solution.

One man's dream is another man's nightmare, eh? On this July 4th, I'm going to suggest we remain free to decide for ourselves how to manage our healthcare costs.

Relying on free markets to implement public policy is foolish. Most often the reason we need public policy to solve a problem is because free markets didn't work. That's the case with health care. Some of us just cannot afford it and the rest of us have to make sure they get it.

That's a load of nonsense.
Health insurance is not "public policy" and the government should have stayed out of the industry altogether...
35 years ago I had to get a physical exam in order to obtain a teen work permit.
I went to my family physician. The cost was $35 for the exam.
Now with all the silly government regulations, administrative costs, reimbursements and the rest of the government mandated pile of paperwork that exam costs 10 times that.
We are paying for medical insurance premiums not to insure our health, we are paying to fund government regulations.

 

[squeeze berry]

the delay is an admission that it's a bad law and the fallout would be lost seats in the senate

 

[Joe Steel]

One man's dream is another man's nightmare, eh? On this July 4th, I'm going to suggest we remain free to decide for ourselves how to manage our healthcare costs.

And how well has that worked? In the last 30 years, we have seen the healthcare cost triple.

In the last 30 years (closer to fifty actually) we've seen a steady increase in government intrusion on health care. It's been a disaster.

Can you give us some examples of government making health care worse?

 

[Joe Steel]

Yeah. Everybody gets a different deal. That's the way these things work. It depends on how much influence your particular constituency has; whether they have enough clout to bargain for time, or outright exemptions. Or whatever perk will give them advantage.

ACA is better than nothing because it will provide insurance coverage for millions with limited or no coverage at all and it requires a minimum set of core benefits that every policy must contain.

I vehemently disagree. ACA is worse than 'nothing' because it doubles down on all the bad polices that have created the problem in the first place - essentially forcing all of us aboard a sinking ship.

Please illustrate your ideas. How does ACA magnify the problem and force aboard the sinking ship?

 

[Joe Steel]

OK. It's a solution to problem but that's not our world and it's not likely to be in the near future.

As long as we're dreaming, though, let's dream of universal, single-payer. The government provides health insurance to everyone. Call it Medicare Part E because Everyone is covered whether employed or not, rich or poor or anything else. It never lapses, never is cancelled and covers everything. That would be the best possible solution.

In a perfect world all would receive free from out of pocket expense on demand medical care. ...

You're oversimplifying the issue. No one is saying universal, single-payer would be cost-free to the user. We certainly would pay taxes for it and it could be designed with financial disincentives to overuse.

 

[Joe Steel]

Relying on free markets to implement public policy is foolish. Most often the reason we need public policy to solve a problem is because free markets didn't work. That's the case with health care. Some of us just cannot afford it and the rest of us have to make sure they get it.

That's a load of nonsense.
Health insurance is not "public policy" and the government should have stayed out of the industry altogether...

Health care is public policy. Health insurance is the free market approach to it. It has failed to provide enough health care. Millions don't have access to health care because health insurance is too expensive and, to a large extend, has been responsible for the upward pressure on health care prices.

 

[squeeze berry]

And how well has that worked? In the last 30 years, we have seen the healthcare cost triple.

In the last 30 years (closer to fifty actually) we've seen a steady increase in government intrusion on health care. It's been a disaster.

Can you give us some examples of government making health care worse?

ask your dr.

 

[Joe Steel]

In the last 30 years (closer to fifty actually) we've seen a steady increase in government intrusion on health care. It's been a disaster.

Can you give us some examples of government making health care worse?

ask your dr.

You must be a low-effort thinker. You accept the talking points without understanding the issue.

 

[Stephanie]

what a mess Obama and his comrades in arms put on us people..you Obama supporters should be real proud
links in article at site

SNIP:

ObamaCare delay undermines entire White House agenda


posted at 1:01 pm on July 5, 2013 by Ed Morrissey






The White House wants to spin the delay in enforcing the employer mandate of ObamaCare as evidence that they’re listening to Americans and the business sector and attempting to be flexible on implementation. Rich Lowry isn’t buying it. In an essay yesterday for Politico, Lowry explains that the delay comes from the incompetence of the White House more than three years after pushing an unworkable bill through Congress, combined with its clear intention to manipulate the law for its own political benefit:


The administration can call it whatever it wants, but there is no hiding the embarrassment of a climbdown on a high-profile feature of President Barack Obama’s signature initiative — although the administration seemed determined to do all it could to hide it. If Bloomberg hadn’t broken the news on Tuesday, the administration was apparently planning to announce it on July 3 — only because the day before Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve were too far off.

The reason for the delay, we’re told, is incompetence. The administration’s story is that it simply couldn’t find a way to implement the insurance reporting requirements on employers within the time frame set out in the law. In this telling, the mandate was merely collateral damage — it had to be put off, along with the accompanying $2,000-per-employee fine on firms with more than 50 employees who don’t offer health coverage.

This just happens to be the mandate that is causing howls of pain from businesses and creating perverse incentives for them to limit their hiring or to hire part- rather than full-time employees. And it just happens that 2015 — the new target year for implementation — is after a midterm election year rather during one. It must all be a lucky break. …

Obamacare was sold on two flagrantly false promises: that you could keep the insurance you have and that prices for insurance would drop. But employers will dump significant numbers of employees onto the exchanges to save on their own health-care costs. And the latest indication of the law’s price shock came via The Wall Street Journal this week, which reported, “healthy consumers could see insurance rates double or even triple when they look for individual coverage.”

That demonstrates the underlying incompetence of the ObamaCare project, from start to finish. It promises something that it not only couldn’t deliver, but made all but impossible from its very existence. On top of that, it created a huge top-down bureaucracy that makes everything more costly for all participants in the system — government, providers, insurers, employers, and consumers. That also increased the likelihood of incompetence, capriciousness, and failure, which is a large part of the reason that the employer mandate had to be delayed … the other part being the approaching 2014 midterm election cycle, of course.

This creates a bigger headache for Obama and his administration than merely the Affordable Care Act rollout, though. They face two big policy debates in the coming months — immigration reform in the House, and the budget and debt ceiling in both chambers of Congress. By declaring the right to arbitrarily ignore statutory law and defy Congress in this matter, just how is Congress supposed to negotiate with the administration on anything else?

Allahpundit blogged about the impact on border-security statutes earlier this week, but Conn Carroll and Mickey Kaus point out another component in the comprehensive bill that might be even more vulnerable to Obama administration capriciousness:


Here is the sound bite I would deliver today if anybody wanted a sound bite from me, which they don’t:

Obama has unilaterally decided to suspend Obamacare’s mandate for employers after receiving business complaints;

Don’t you think he’ll also decide to suspend the Senate Gang of 8′s mandate that employers use “E-Verify” (to screen new employees for legal status) when he receives similar business complaints?

That’s especially true since, while some Democrats defend the employer mandate, neither liberals nor libertarians nor Latino groups like E-Verify. And the E-Verify “mandate” in the Gang of 8 bill is worded suspiciously loosely. Obama might not have to break the law to simply declare the mandate satisfied (and allow legalized illegals to go ahead and get their green cards).

What does that say for administration promises to sustain reductions in spending? To work on paying down the national debt? Neither of those get put into statutory law, and if the Obama administration thinks it can ignore statute, then budgetary promises are worth less than nothing at all.

In my column for The Fiscal Times, I recall the hysterics on the Left that decried the supposedly “imperial Presidency” of George W. Bush, and argue that the real thing has arrived:

all of it here
ObamaCare delay undermines entire White House agenda « Hot Air

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OK. It's a solution to problem but that's not our world and it's not likely to be in the near future.

As long as we're dreaming, though, let's dream of universal, single-payer. The government provides health insurance to everyone. Call it Medicare Part E because Everyone is covered whether employed or not, rich or poor or anything else. It never lapses, never is cancelled and covers everything. That would be the best possible solution.

One man's dream is another man's nightmare, eh? On this July 4th, I'm going to suggest we remain free to decide for ourselves how to manage our healthcare costs.

And how well has that worked? In the last 30 years, we have seen the healthcare cost triple.

You mean since the Federal government decided to subsidize healthcare costs?

 

[dblack]

ACA is better than nothing because it will provide insurance coverage for millions with limited or no coverage at all and it requires a minimum set of core benefits that every policy must contain.

I vehemently disagree. ACA is worse than 'nothing' because it doubles down on all the bad polices that have created the problem in the first place - essentially forcing all of us aboard a sinking ship.

Please illustrate your ideas. How does ACA magnify the problem and force aboard the sinking ship?

Insurance makes sense as a hedge against risk. But as a means of financing the regular expenses of life it's not rational and not sustainable. It distorts consumer demand and fuels inflation in the markets where it operates, and adds unnecessary overhead to every transaction it touches. Yet we have propped up and subsidized this practice in the health care market with misguided public policy for many decades.

Even with such support, the group health insurance business model is ultimately dysfunctional and doomed. But rather than let it die a 'healthy' death, and letting consumers and providers sort out better alternatives, our government is bailing out the insurance industry by committing all of us to their failed scheme.

 

[dblack]

Health care is public policy.

It is? I thought it was a service provided by doctors.

This entire debate is over the attempt to make it public policy, to bring it under government control. We're asking ourselves, as a nation, if we want to make government responsible for providing us with health care.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And how well has that worked? In the last 30 years, we have seen the healthcare cost triple.

In the last 30 years (closer to fifty actually) we've seen a steady increase in government intrusion on health care. It's been a disaster.

Can you give us some examples of government making health care worse?

For starters, the overbearing regualtions the federal government placed on health insurance companies and medical professionals.
The rapidly grwoing industry of plaintiff's attorneys whos sole function is to file lawsuits against medical preofesssionals for even the slightest notion of error.
Federal mandates on coverage.
The insurance industry lobby in Washington which works along side Congress to write legislation to further complicate the system.
The systematic creation of laws that permit doctors and hospitals to form groups which eschew the use of health insurance for minor medical needs. For example a provision in Obama care which places heavy restrictions on so called 'doctors hospitals'.
The creation of HMO's, PPO's and other alphabet medical plans.
The fedreral government has done more to the health care industry to make it more expensive than any other entity.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Can you give us some examples of government making health care worse?

ask your dr.

You must be a low-effort thinker. You accept the talking points without understanding the issue.

No...You just have a pro single payer agenda.
My family doctor is leaving medicine entirely. He is only 57. The reason he gave me was it's due to Obamacare.

 

[thereisnospoon]

OK. It's a solution to problem but that's not our world and it's not likely to be in the near future.

As long as we're dreaming, though, let's dream of universal, single-payer. The government provides health insurance to everyone. Call it Medicare Part E because Everyone is covered whether employed or not, rich or poor or anything else. It never lapses, never is cancelled and covers everything. That would be the best possible solution.

In a perfect world all would receive free from out of pocket expense on demand medical care. ...

You're oversimplifying the issue. No one is saying universal, single-payer would be cost-free to the user. We certainly would pay taxes for it and it could be designed with financial disincentives to overuse.

Oh please. Do you really think that a democrat run system is going to ever have within it a dis incentive that would mostly affect the very people who vote for those democrats?...Get out of town!
And youy know damned well Obama has championed the idea of universal health care.
So please, sell your bullshit story to someone who is interested.

 

[Synthaholic]

Are you happy about the Obamacare delay?

No, but from what I've read re. the politics of it, it's understandable.

Yup. Better to let the popular parts of it go into effect first.

 

[Synthaholic]

I bet the ObamaCare delay for employers also covers Congress and government employees...who were all hyperventilating about being forced onto the exchanges.

Congress is exempt from all the laws they foist upon us.

And all of your posts and all the other wingnuts posts in this thread show just how much you care!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...s-has-immunity-from-spying-but-you-don-t.html

 

[Joe Steel]

Please illustrate your ideas. How does ACA magnify the problem and force aboard the sinking ship?

Insurance makes sense as a hedge against risk. But as a means of financing the regular expenses of life it's not rational and not sustainable. It distorts consumer demand and fuels inflation in the markets where it operates, and adds unnecessary overhead to every transaction it touches. Yet we have propped up and subsidized this practice in the health care market with misguided public policy for many decades.

Even with such support, the group health insurance business model is ultimately dysfunctional and doomed. But rather than let it die a 'healthy' death, and letting consumers and providers sort out better alternatives, our government is bailing out the insurance industry by committing all of us to their failed scheme.

Health care is a necessary service. Everyone gets sick and needs health care from time to time. However, not everyone can be assured of receiving it because of its high cost. To ensure everyone can afford it, the government has chosen support a variety of methods of making health care available. Group coverage, tax deductions and government provided care are some of the ways government makes access to health care available. Government does this without regard to economic efficiency because, as a People, we value human life so highly we cannot let anyone suffer because they can't afford health care. That's what happens when we trust the market to deliver it. It's just too expensive.