JMS Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) You do understand that government paid over $1 trillion a year in health care before the ACA, right? It's not like this inefficient system is an example of private sector capabilities. It's layered with massive regulations, cost shifting and avoidance of exposure to the real cost of care. The flaw in your logic is the government has always paid for poor folks healthcare... That didn't change under OBamacare.... The folks who got insurance under OBamacare were teh working poor... The folks working, often more than one job to make ends meet. The 50 million Americans who didn't have insurance under Obamacare weren't the systemically unemployed.. Those people are already covered by medicare. The folks who are working their asses off are the folks who Obamcare extended coverage too. Edited February 10, 2014 by JMS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 COBRA isn't a free system the government pays for either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) Pointing out that there is a huge difference between 1) Total hours worked by the entire work force will go down by 2%. And 2) The one person in a thousand who's working 80 hours, right now, will have his hours go down by 2%. Again the facts of the world we live in inform us that Americans on average work more than 40 hours a week... This has been true for decades. This will be true in 2017 when our workforce on average chooses to work 2% fewer hours per week too. Thus this is absolutely a question of consumer choice in choosing to work overtime, or choosing not too. I would thus argue that my example of the guy working 80 hours a week was infinitely more representative as scewed as it were than what the other side is suggesting, That our economy is going to be down 2 million jobs; or that 2 million folks will choose not to work by 2017 because of Obamacare as the CBO report directly refutes that. COBRA isn't a free system the government pays for either. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (aka Cobra ) absolutely is someething the US Government pays for... The federal government subsidizes folks insurance when they leave their jobs ( volentarily or involentarily ).. as they transition from one job to another.. Edited February 10, 2014 by JMS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Again the facts of the world we live in inform us that most americans work more than 40 hours a week... That's because most americans struggle to make ends meet. This has been true for decades. This will be true in 2017 when our workforce on average chooses to work 2% fewer hours per week too. I would thus argue that my example of the guy working 80 hours a week was more representative as scewed as it were than what the other side is suggesting, That our economy is going to be down 2 million jobs; or that 2 million folks will choose not to work by 2017 because of Obamacare as the CBO report directly refutes that. 1) In order for the total number of hours worked, to go down by 2%, what percentage of workers have to work 2% less hours? 2) Do you think the CBO is predicting that (whatever percentage of workers you picked, in question 1) of workers will cut their hours worked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (aka Cobra ) absolutely is someething the US Government pays for... The federal government subsidizes folks insurance when they leave their jobs ( volentarily or involentarily ).. You are implying if you leave your job the Federal Government pays your COBRA? Is that what you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 You are implying if you leave your job the Federal Government pays your COBRA? Is that what you think? Sure looks to me like he's flat-out stating that they pay for part of your insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Sure looks to me like he's flat-out stating that they pay for part of your insurance. Sure would like to be on his plan. The Government doesn't subsidize your COBRA, at least for nobody I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'll gladly address the quote. He's absolutely right. We shouldnt have govt programs that encourage people not to contribute, but rather live off the hard work of others. Choosing not to work and to BUY your own healthcare does not equal living off the hard work of others. I guess you think every retired person is draining your wallet? Part 1: You are articulating my fundamental problem with liberalism. In my utopia, people who can take care of themselves should, and collectively we should help those who cannot take care of themselves. Specifically, that means we help the elderly, disabled and children in bad homes. Unfortunately, liberalism doesn't have the same limitations. This is why they want longer unemployment benefits, food stamps and fought against welfare reform (please don't even try revisionist history on that one). This is such an outrageous, disingenuous insulting piece of crap post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 1) In order for the total number of hours worked, to go down by 2%, what percentage of workers have to work 2% less hours? 100% of american would need to work 2% fewer hours to have the overall work hours go down by 2%... but The average US work week is more than 40.8 hours per week. The fact is Americans work longer hours than workers in most other developed countries... Including Japan, where they've actually coined a word for "death by overwork".. Typical American middle income family work week grew by 11 hours over the last 30 years, and it's still going up. You are implying if you leave your job the Federal Government pays your COBRA? Is that what you think? No, I am stating facts... If you leave your job, any job... you have an option of continuing to recieve insurance by paying what your company pays for you to get insurance.... but your insurance company doesn't charge the same amount of money for an indivudual they do for a company... The Federal Government who passed the COBRA legislation pays the difference.... The federal government subsidizes your COBRA insurance if you leave your job... Regardless of that minutia... the facts are in 1985, when the government passed COBRA, the government was passing legislation to enable and help pay for insurance for folks were leaving their jobs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Choosing not to work and to BUY your own healthcare does not equal living off the hard work of others. I guess you think every retired person is draining your wallet? This is such an outrageous, disingenuous insulting piece of crap post. Choosing not to work and buying an insurance policy that working people subsidize is absolutely living off the hard work of others. And the SS comparison has already been exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Sure would like to be on his plan. The Government doesn't subsidize your COBRA, at least for nobody I know. It does now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Choosing not to work and to BUY your own healthcare does not equal living off the hard work of others. I guess you think every retired person is draining your wallet? Assume he's capable of defending himself, but I assume that what he's talking about is people choosing to work less, because now their health insurance is subsidized. That is what the CBO is talking about: The effect that subsidized health insurance will have on people's choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Choosing not to work and buying an insurance policy that working people subsidize is absolutely living off the hard work of others. And the SS comparison has already been exposed. The all insurance is choosing to live off the work of others. I'm done with this thread. You guys on the right have won. You have succeeded in avoiding all logic and fact and having any kind of a reasonable debate. You are now at the point where you are arguing the government's role is to make it harder for people to retire early. Its insane. There is a big trophy for all the winners in this thread with the inscription of a man holding his fingers in his ears saying "LALALALALA." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 No, I am stating facts... If you leave your job, any job... you have an option of continuing to recieve insurance by paying what your company pays for you to get insurance.... but your insurance company doesn't charge the same amount of money for an indivudual they do for a company... The Federal Government who passed the COBRA legislation pays the difference.... The federal government subsidizes your COBRA insurance if you leave your job... Regardless of that minutia... the facts are in 1985, when the government passed COBRA, the government was passing legislation to enable and help pay for insurance for folks were leaving their jobs.. You would be WRONG. But if you have evidence proving otherwise. You are correct you get to pay your premium to continue COBRA/Health Coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Assume he's capable of defending himself, but I assume that what he's talking about is people choosing to work less, because now their health insurance is subsidized. That is what the CBO is talking about: The effect that subsidized health insurance will have on people's choices. No, that's not what the CBO is talking about all together. That is probably true for some, but for others they will be able to retire or work less simply because the can get affordable coverage from somewhere other than their employers. I am out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) 100% of american would need to work 2% fewer hours to have the overall work hours go down by 2%... Excellent. I expected you to just ignore that question. . . . but The average US work week is more than 40.8 hours per week. The fact is Americans work longer hours than workers in most other developed countries... Including Japan, where they've actually coined a word for "death by overwork".. Typical American middle income family work week grew by 11 hours over the last 30 years, and it's still going up. So, how about answering the second question, instead of providing a bunch of irrelevant stuff? ---------- The all insurance is choosing to live off the work of others. No, I don't believe that's what he's saying. As I stated in the post, right before yours, which you were probably typing when I posted it. I'm done with this thread. You guys on the right have won. You have succeeded in avoiding all logic and fact and having any kind of a reasonable debate. You are now at the point where you are arguing the government's role is to make it harder for people to retire early. Its insane. Haven't seen anybody make that claim, either. And I certainly assume that you aren't including me in with "You guys on the right". ---------- You would be WRONG. But if you have evidence proving otherwise. Actually, his reasoning looks pretty sound, to me. Edited February 10, 2014 by Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) Actually, his reasoning looks pretty sound, to me. It may look sound, but their isn't a subsidy. COBRA allows the employee to extend their benefits if they pay their premium. Trust me I issue COBRA letters to employees I let go. There WAS a subsidy as part of the stimulus package for a few years but a subsidy isn't part of COBRA. So I am not sure how you reason with yourself. Edited February 10, 2014 by chipwhich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 Choosing not to work and buying an insurance policy that working people subsidize is absolutely living off the hard work of others. And the SS comparison has already been exposed. Well since all insurance is collectivism, and subsidized by all who contribute, can't that argument be used against anybody who leaves work after an 8, 10, 12, 18 hour workday? Where would you make the break? Where would you say a worker has done his bit, and can go home sleep, eat, pet his dog and not be violating his burden to not recline on the back of his fellow insurane recipiants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The all insurance is choosing to live off the work of others. I'm done with this thread. You guys on the right have won. You have succeeded in avoiding all logic and fact and having any kind of a reasonable debate. You are now at the point where you are arguing the government's role is to make it harder for people to retire early. Its insane. There is a big trophy for all the winners in this thread with the inscription of a man holding his fingers in his ears saying "LALALALALA." Im assuming you see this argument Im making right next to my claims that people are "lazy" and that "something bad for the economy cannot be good for the country". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Pointing out that this isn't a "quit your job and live off of welfare" bill. It's a "if you used to work one job to pay your rent, and a second job to pay your health insurance, then you don't need the second job, any more" bill. But Larry, Why are WE paying for it, when they are perfectly able to? How is that our responsibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Well since all insurance is collectivism, and subsidized by all who contribute, can't that argument be used against anybody who leaves work after an 8, 10, 12, 18 hour workday? Where would you make the break? Where would you say a worker has done his bit, and can go home sleep, eat, pet his dog and not be violating his burden to not recline on the back of his fellow insurane recipiants. I think the 40 hour work week is the appropriate number, but I could see arguments for some more or some less. And I think most companies use that as the standard for when employees get benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 2) Do you think the CBO is predicting that (whatever percentage of workers you picked, in question 1) of workers will cut their hours worked? Yes that is exactly what the CBO is predictiong... Net employment is going to go up.. The economy is going to create more jobs under OBamacare.. not fewer.. Net hours worked will go down by 2% because across the labor pool workers will choose to work about 2% fewer hours per week, not because a handful of folks will choose not to work at all... Again Obamacare doesn't give insurance to folks who don't work... Those folk already had insurance through medicare and medicaid... Obamacare helps the working poor get insurance.... in our country even middle class folks have traditionally gone without insurance, folks wiht full time jobs or more than full time.. .... with the net effect of the American work week to remain among the highest in the industrial world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 It may look sound, but their isn't a subsidy. COBRA allows the employee to extend their benefits if they pay their premium. Trust me I issue COBRA letters to employees I let go. 1) Do they pay the same rate which their employer used to pay, for them? 2) Is that rate higher/lower/the same as the rate they would have had to pay, on the individual market? 3) If the rates for individuals are higher, then how do they accomplish this? (Selling people insurance for less than the market price.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 So, how about answering the second question, instead of providing a bunch of irrelevant stuff? Do I really rate such a response larry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Show me your examples and why you feel they are unsustainable. Most Efficient Health Care: Countries - Bloomberg Best (and Worst) Out of 48 countries guess where Bloomberg ranks us.... 46 With the highest cost. OK, i would be happy to try and provide example but I'm a bit confused on what exactly you want me to provide examples of. I looked at your link but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. We have a poor Healthcare System for the money that's spent on it? Well, I think many would agree with that but is that because of Obama Care or is this an argument to say that it's not because of Obamacare? Aside from that, what does this have to do with working and benfits tied to working? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now