Paul Krugman "hits the nail on the head" in re: Obamacare

[Amelia]

You say that like you have preordained knowledge of the future. How would one forget what hasn't occured yet? Really? "certainly"? Would that be to a 95% confidence?

I said "almost certainly mean..."
1) You are a board member working for a large corporation where you are under constant pressure to maintain/raise stock levels for investors...you can save the company $millions of dollars a year if you vote to pay the penalties instead of keeping employees insured. We all know who will win that one.
2) You are an owner of a mid size company that has been struggling like so many small-mid sized company. You can save $1000's a month by dropping company insurance. We all know what the owner will do.
It isn't hard to predict. And it is precisely why this administration put off the employer mandate until after next years election. Or was that just a convenient coincidence?

Employers began offering health insurance benefits to either satisfy union contracts or as a benefit to compete in labor market. Both reasons are valid today just as they have been in the past. For larger employers the penalty for not offering health insurance is $2,000/ full time employee. This and other considerations are the reason why over 98% of the employers offer health insurance will continue to do so.

Will Your Employer Drop Coverage Under Obamacare? | PBS NewsHour

"This and other considerations are the reason why over 98% of the employers offer health insurance will continue to do so."

Your link says that this is the case for two years. And also that "47 percent [said] they 'anticipated significant or transformative change.'" And your link includes this: "So what's Buchmueller's prediction? When it comes to large firms, very little will change, he said. For smaller firms, all bets are off. To find out why, the NewsHour spoke with Buchmueller late last week."

$2000 per employee vs. $15,745 (a googled figure)? ... You think that won't force reconsideration of whether to keep offering insurance?

 

[Dot Com]

Its based directly off of Heritagecare & has only just started enrolling people. Krugman is right yet again. The people of Massachusetts seem happy enough & Heritagecare was the blueprint for that as well. STOP BEING INSURANCE CO FLUFFERS!!!

 

[dblack]

Its based directly off of Heritagecare & has only just started enrolling people. Krugman is right yet again. The people of Massachusetts seem happy enough & Heritagecare was the blueprint for that as well. STOP BEING INSURANCE CO FLUFFERS!!!

Seriously? You support a law that gives the insurance industry a virtual fiefdom, complete with involuntary 'customers', and have the gall to suggest those who oppose it are insurance industry 'fluffers'??

 

[Listening]

Its based directly off of Heritagecare & has only just started enrolling people. Krugman is right yet again. The people of Massachusetts seem happy enough & Heritagecare was the blueprint for that as well. STOP BEING INSURANCE CO FLUFFERS!!!

It's based off of Heritage.

I guess that is your way of admitting that you can't come up with something on your own.

Or that you have no problems picking up on the ideas of others, even when they are stupid.

Big Insurance is laughing all the way to the bank at our expense. Do you have a functioning brain cell ?

 

[Oldstyle]

The conservative complaints about Obamacare reminds me of the complaints about the weather we're having in my area, lots of complains about it, but no one is going to do anything. Repeal of the law is out of the question. The law will be fully implemented before there will be any real chance of repealing it. What would be required is not just a repeal of the law but a law that transitions from Obamacare to something yet undefined. It took Democrats nearly two years to pass the law and they had full control of government.

Now THAT is an idiotic post, Flopper! People complain about the weather but nobody does anything about it? Did you REALLY just use that as an analogy for ObamaCare? Obamacare is a lousy piece of legislation that won't work...the weather is controlled by nature...not one of your brighter posts...

 

[Dot Com]

it proves that Repubs were for it BEFORE they were against it (A Democrat puts it forward) Obamacare = Romneycare = Heritagecare. If anything, you insurance co apologists should be angry at Heritage.

 

[dblack]

it proves that Repubs were for it BEFORE they were against it (A Democrat puts it forward) Obamacare = Romneycare = Heritagecare. If anything, you insurance co apologists should be angry at Heritage.

Again with the "I know you are but what am I?" tack? Google Liz Fowler.

 

[oreo]

Obamacare is nothing more than wealth redistribution via health care. Those who have had no insurance are getting it paid for by those that had insurance. Those that have insurance are getting the plan they liked cancelled after being promised over 40 times that they could keep their insurance if they liked it. And when they go onto the Obamacare exchanges to buy it--they are surprised to learn that their premiums are through the roof, and that in fact--are or will be paying these higher premiums to off-set those that don't have to pay for it.

The problem this time: It's not the filty rich that will be paying it out. This one hits middle class Americans right between the eyes, or should I say their wallets.

And you made fun of Joe the Plumber--LOL

Welcome to your hope and change

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Yes...and there are plenty of people NOT getting a subsidy.
40% copay and $7000 - $10,000 deductible is not insurance. It is pretend insurance.
And let's not forget, that on January 1 - there will be less people insured than before...then let's also not forget that the employer mandate will kick in late next year - which will almost certainly mean that, again, January 1, 2015 - less people will be insured than before ACA as there will absolutely be mass exits out of the system by employers.

Higher deductible insurance with yearly maximums at or near the deductible is certainly not pretend insurance. It does what insurance should do, pay medical expenses that would be financial disastrous for the family while providing free preventive care and placing the responsibility of paying for routine medicare on the policy holder.

All other things being equal, you're better off financially buying high deductible insurance. If you compare the premiums of a high deductible plan with a low deductible plan with the same benefits, you will probably find that you will save a good bit of money by buying the high deductible plan and saving the difference in premiums to apply toward your deductible.

BTW Don't you mean co-insurance, not copy?

Before when you had this high of deductible, you could get lower premiums. Now they have high premiums and high deductibles at the same time.

Treatments which were covered before now have prohibitive deductibles associated with them so people will opt not to get the healthcare they would have chosen before. What kind of quality of life will people have who can no longer afford pain management therapy thanks to the ACA?



The kicker is that when people choose not to get healthcare because it's so expensive, Obama will probably get credit for lowering healthcare spending in the nation. Another example of spinning a failure as a win. Happens a lot these days.

Bingo!
My current (for now) insurance also has free preventative care like mammograms, colonoscopy, prostate cancer screening etc. etc.
Free preventative care is nothing new grasshopper. (Flopper)
We have much, much, much lower deductible, 20% copay, tax free HSA and the company provides a $1000 health account (bridge gap) every January.
This kind of coverage under Obamacare would be twice what I pay now.

 

[Listening]

it proves that Repubs were for it BEFORE they were against it (A Democrat puts it forward) Obamacare = Romneycare = Heritagecare. If anything, you insurance co apologists should be angry at Heritage.

No, dumbass...

It proves that Heritage wrote a white paper and got their asses reamed for it.

Let me clue you in on something......Heritage<>Republican.

Got it.

If we wanted Obamacare, we had six years to pass it. I am sure the demodorks would not have gotten in the way.

 

[Listening]

it proves that Repubs were for it BEFORE they were against it (A Democrat puts it forward) Obamacare = Romneycare = Heritagecare. If anything, you insurance co apologists should be angry at Heritage.

Again with the "I know you are but what am I?" tack? Google Liz Fowler.

Thanks.....

Here is the latest......

Meet Liz Fowler: Architect of ObamaCare Jumps Ship to Johnson & Johnson | A Lightning War for Liberty

Fowler then returned to Senate Finance in 2008 to work for Sen. Max Baucus, who chaired the committee, which was becoming Action Central for health reform. Fowler and Baucus pretty much wrote the bill that became Obamacare&#8212;and which, we should note, did not include a proposed &#8220;public option,&#8221; which was popular with ordinary people but not the insurance companies that lobbied hard to make sure it was out of the mix.

then..........

In recent days it has emerged that Liz Fowler, who is said to have been one of the key architects of ObamaCare, is doing what any good revolving door crony capitalist would do. She is moving to the private sector to receive her payoff.

Apparently joining Johnston and Johnston...if the article is accurate.

Wow......

How the government can make some people rich.

Here is HuffPo (and Bill Moyers no less) pointing out how this worked....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/watch-washingtons-revolvi_b_2316245.html

Friends of Liz Fowler will say this is harsh -- that she was the talented, intelligent protégée of two liberal Democrats -- outgoing California Congressman Pete Stark and the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York -- who believed in public service as a calling. That she was seriously devoted to crafting a health care reform proposal that would pass. No doubt, but it's not the point. She's emblematic of the revolving door culture that inevitably means, when push comes to shove, corporate interests will have the upper hand in the close calls that determine public policy. It's how insiders fix the rules of the market, no matter which party is in power.

 

[editec]

Krugman is Wrong

I've always enjoyed this site.

Interesting site.

I often disagree with Krugman, too.

But why has the author of this site failed to identify himself? About | Krugman is Wrong

What is he (or she) ashamed of?

I might give this author more of my time were he willing to tell us who he is.

 

[Sallow]

Krugman is a puffed up ass hat who sits in his ivory tower pontificating what should be, yet has never produced a working model of anything he has advanced over the years, hence he is a hero of the political left. His head is what's been hit, several times I'm guessing.

Sorry?

What are you talking about?

Europe is filled with "working models" of what Krugman advocates for..

And to some extent, the US has "working models" as well. Medicare and SSI both work well.

 

[dblack]

Krugman is a puffed up ass hat who sits in his ivory tower pontificating what should be, yet has never produced a working model of anything he has advanced over the years, hence he is a hero of the political left. His head is what's been hit, several times I'm guessing.

Sorry?

What are you talking about?

Europe is filled with "working models" of what Krugman advocates for..

And to some extent, the US has "working models" as well. Medicare and SSI both work well.

Good point. Working examples of bad government are a dime a dozen.

 

[Sallow]

Yes...and there are plenty of people NOT getting a subsidy.
40% copay and $7000 - $10,000 deductible is not insurance. It is pretend insurance.
And let's not forget, that on January 1 - there will be less people insured than before...then let's also not forget that the employer mandate will kick in late next year - which will almost certainly mean that, again, January 1, 2015 - less people will be insured than before ACA as there will absolutely be mass exits out of the system by employers.

Higher deductible insurance with yearly maximums at or near the deductible is certainly not pretend insurance. It does what insurance should do, pay medical expenses that would be financial disastrous for the family while providing free preventive care and placing the responsibility of paying for routine medicare on the policy holder.

All other things being equal, you're better off financially buying high deductible insurance. If you compare the premiums of a high deductible plan with a low deductible plan with the same benefits, you will probably find that you will save a good bit of money by buying the high deductible plan and saving the difference in premiums to apply toward your deductible.

BTW Don't you mean co-insurance, not copy?

Before when you had this high of deductible, you could get lower premiums. Now they have high premiums and high deductibles at the same time.

Treatments which were covered before now have prohibitive deductibles associated with them so people will opt not to get the healthcare they would have chosen before. What kind of quality of life will people have who can no longer afford pain management therapy thanks to the ACA?



The kicker is that when people choose not to get healthcare because it's so expensive, Obama will probably get credit for lowering healthcare spending in the nation. Another example of spinning a failure as a win. Happens a lot these days.

This was not the case at all.

At least not in New York. Insurance has been trending toward higher Premiums and Deductibles for quite some time. The issue started when HMOs went public in the 90s. Since then we've seen a degradation in services at a higher cost. And with worse outcomes.

President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.

 

[Sallow]

Krugman is a puffed up ass hat who sits in his ivory tower pontificating what should be, yet has never produced a working model of anything he has advanced over the years, hence he is a hero of the political left. His head is what's been hit, several times I'm guessing.

Sorry?

What are you talking about?

Europe is filled with "working models" of what Krugman advocates for..

And to some extent, the US has "working models" as well. Medicare and SSI both work well.

Good point. Working examples of bad government are a dime a dozen.

Except that Europe (the NATO countries) seems to be populated with healthy people that are pretty happy.

My nieces just came back from Ireland (which I've generally considered just a cut above the third world). She said the Irish were happy and proud of their country.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Paul Krugman couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat.

 

[dblack]

Sorry?

What are you talking about?

Europe is filled with "working models" of what Krugman advocates for..

And to some extent, the US has "working models" as well. Medicare and SSI both work well.

Good point. Working examples of bad government are a dime a dozen.

Except that Europe (the NATO countries) seems to be populated with healthy people that are pretty happy.

My nieces just came back from Ireland (which I've generally considered just a cut above the third world). She said the Irish were happy and proud of their country.

We'll see. The corporatism taking hold of Europe, and to a lesser extent the US, is pointing in a really dangerous direction in my view.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A typical disconnect between reality and perception there, of course.

"I saw two happy people sitting in an Irish Pub, four pints deep singing songs of their heritage. The NATO countries are full of happy, healthy people!"

It's the worst kind of pretzel logic one can possibly display. Krugman, of course, did the same thing as Shallow. He pontificates based on his own experience as if the entire world is viewing everything through his ignorant and short perception. Which, of course, makes him look like a fucking idiot. Not that this is a new revelation.

 

[Listening]

Sorry?

What are you talking about?

Europe is filled with "working models" of what Krugman advocates for..

And to some extent, the US has "working models" as well. Medicare and SSI both work well.

Good point. Working examples of bad government are a dime a dozen.

Except that Europe (the NATO countries) seems to be populated with healthy people that are pretty happy.

My nieces just came back from Ireland (which I've generally considered just a cut above the third world). She said the Irish were happy and proud of their country.

That proves it.

I know people from Ireland who think it is a s**thole and they live there.

They seem to really have a real drinking problem that goes beyond the image that they managed to acquire over decades.