Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[chipwhich]

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.)

 

They pay the same rate I pay.

 

As far as what they would pay on the individual market, I have NO CLUE.  I guess it would depend on the employee and what pre existing conditions they have and how old they are.

 

Keep in mind they are getting the same coverage they had under me as an employee.  However good or bad it is.

Edited February 10, 2014 by chipwhich

[Larry]

But Larry, Why are WE paying for it, when they are perfectly able to? How is that our responsibility?

Joe FryCook is working 40 hours a week at McDonald's.

He can't afford to pay for health insurance.

Maybe he could pay for it, if he worked 100 hours a week. Maybe.

Should we

1) Help him pay for health insurance, by subsidizing the cost.

2) Have him continue, uninsured.

3) Eff him. If he's not working 100 hours a week, then that's his fault.

Some people believe that society is better off, if we chose Option 1.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The CBO report didn't say Obamacare would reduce jobs or even that fewer Americans would be employed in 2017 because of Obamacare. The CBO report rather said that because Obamacare is going to ensure many Americans can get insurance at a reasonable rate, some Americans will choose to work fewer hours...

So that father of 4 working two jobs to make ends meet may choose to work only a 60 hour work week rather than a 70-80 hour work week. The CBO report specifically said more americans would be employed and that Obamacare is a net positive for both consumers and the federal government. Nothing in this CBO report contradicts previous CBO reports on Obamacare...

According to the CBO's report these hours will amount to the equivelent of 2 million full time workers.... Or about 2% of the hours worked by the entire US workforce...... So in my example... that guy working an 80 hour work week to make ends meet may choose to work only 78.4 hours by 2017.... 2% fewer hours...

So in that context do you still believe the Government shouldn't have programs to ensure costs of benifits such as healthcare are provided to the consumer at a reasonable rate... Or do you just believe that the government programs for healthcare should be to styfle competition Like our anti trust exemption for the health insurance industry which allows them to collude on price and eliminate competition.( McCarran–Ferguson Act in place since 1944)?

You don't see the government having a role to play in Health insurance market on the side of consumer... Just act as a giant syphone and pass along to the health industry hundreds of billions of dollars with no hard requiremnts such as the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003; cost $400 Billion...

Hell even Ronald Reagan disagrees with you... He's the one who signed COBRA, which allowed individuals to continue to recieve healthcare even after they stopped working for their company.

And as for the General topic that the Government shouldn't be ensuring people don't have to work themselves to death in order to put food on the table... Anybody who makes a statement like that is just beyond the relms of reality... The US has had a 40 hour work week for nearly 100 years.. Most of our economy is still governed by this legislature. The fact that there is a large and growing number of people in our economy which have to go out and get a second or third job is a new thing... That our government actually implements a little legislation which takes some of the heat off these folks is an excellent thing... and then that these people would use such a program to actually reward themselves with 2 hours off a week extra is by any measure a very conservative positive accomplishemnt.... Complaining about this is really defying logic.

 

 

Do you agree that the actual work force is shrinking?

[Larry]

Yes that is exactly what the CBO is predictiong...

Really?

The CBO is projecting that 100% of US workers will all work exactly 2% fewer hours, each?

And here I assumed that they were projecting that some (in fact, the vast majority) of workers will keep doing what they're doing, now. And some workers (a small percentage) will cut back by much more than 2%. And that these numbers will work out to an average reduction of 2%.

 

Thank you for letting me know this. 

They pay the same rate I pay.

 

As far as what they would pay on the individual market, I have NO CLUE.  I guess it would depend on the employee and what pre existing conditions they have and how old they are.

Sounds fair. Individual prices will vary, from individual to individual.

How many of these separated employees, in your opinion, chose to go with COBRA coverage, if said coverage costs more than simply going out and getting their own?

(Me, personally? I suspect that this number is pretty small. That few people intentionally chose to pay more for things than they have to. But then, that's just me.)

[JMS]

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.

Yes you are absolutely correct.. most COMPANIES do use that as a standard for when employees get benifits... The problem with using "most companies" perspective is it's not representative of the workers perspective... The average work week from the company's perspective in the US has been on the decline in the United States as companies cut workers hours to avoid paying benifits. From the perspective of the workers, hours worked have been going up steadily since the 1970's...

The typical American middle-income family put in an average of 11 hours, or more than 20% more hours a week, in 2006 than it did in 1979... even while the Dept of Labor shows from an employers perspective the average work week declined.

Edited February 10, 2014 by JMS

[Kilmer17]

Joe FryCook is working 40 hours a week at McDonald's.

He can't afford to pay for health insurance.

Maybe he could pay for it, if he worked 100 hours a week. Maybe.

Should we

1) Help him pay for health insurance, by subsidizing the cost.

2) Have him continue, uninsured.

3) Eff him. If he's not working 100 hours a week, then that's his fault.

Some people believe that society is better off, if we chose Option 1.

Is it right for BillBusinessowner to have to work more or make less in order for JoeFrycook to have health insurance?

[chipwhich]

 

Sounds fair. Individual prices will vary, from individual to individual.

How many of these separated employees, in your opinion, chose to go with COBRA coverage, if said coverage costs more than simply going out and getting their own?

(Me, personally? I suspect that this number is pretty small. That few people intentionally chose to pay more for things than they have to. But then, that's just me.)

 

 

Very few people take it because it is very expensive, as I have great health care.  Usually the people find other jobs and don't need it.  I have had only one occasion where an employee had lots of children and took a while to find a job.  He might not have thought about finding his own insurance assuming he would find work quicker.  He stayed on COBRA for 3 months.

[Larry]

Do you agree that the actual work force is shrinking?

Don't really see your point, but I'll pay.

The labor participation rate (the work force, as a percentage of the population) is shrinking. And has been, for decades.

Now, has the percentage been going down, faster than the population has been going up? I confess, I got no clue.

[JMS]

But Larry, Why are WE paying for it, when they are perfectly able to? How is that our responsibility?

Because we as a country have a vested interest in folks having insurance... even folks who are between jobs... because if they don't have insurance, and they get sick, they will still recieve treatment and all the rest of us will collect the bill anyway.....

Because what good is COBRA if only 5-10% of people eligible for it can afford it.

[Larry]

Is it right for BillBusinessowner to have to work more or make less in order for JoeFrycook to have health insurance?

I think it CAN be.

No, I do not believe that some level of taxing some people to subsidize others is always wrong.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue over how much there should be.

But yeah, I think that the nation is better, as a whole, because we have some social safety nets.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Joe FryCook is working 40 hours a week at McDonald's.

He can't afford to pay for health insurance.

Maybe he could pay for it, if he worked 100 hours a week. Maybe.

Should we

1) Help him pay for health insurance, by subsidizing the cost.

2) Have him continue, uninsured.

3) Eff him. If he's not working 100 hours a week, then that's his fault.

Some people believe that society is better off, if we chose Option 1.

 

 

But, if I'm not mistaken, the CBO projects that approximately 30 million will remain uninsured.   If we adopt this idea that people do not have to work to get coverage, where then do the 30 million uninsured come from?  I don't understand the math on those two concepts.  Not saying that you will either Larry but you might.  I would love to understand how those two things coincide. 

 

Also, that number of 30 million is very large, considering the cost associated with implementatin of this. 

[Kilmer17]

Because we as a country have a vested interest in folks having insurance... even folks who are between jobs... because if they don't have insurance, and they get sick, they will still recieve treatment and all the rest of us will collect the bill anyway.....

Because what good is COBRA if only 5-10% of people eligible for it can afford it.

That's not complete accurate.

 

Hospitals build into their complex billing systems some of amount they end up writing off at the end.  So really, we're paying for it UP FRONT.  And I dont think we'll see them reduce prices when everyone is insured.

I think it CAN be.

No, I do not believe that some level of taxing some people to subsidize others is always wrong.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue over how much there should be.

But yeah, I think that the nation is better, as a whole, because we have some social safety nets.

We agree.  I oppose ENDLESS safety nets.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Don't really see your point, but I'll pay.

The labor participation rate (the work force, as a percentage of the population) is shrinking. And has been, for decades.

Now, has the percentage been going down, faster than the population has been going up? I confess, I got no clue.

 

 

Basically, for me Larry, and I think you know this, it's all about paying for it.  I mean, I understand the Lefts spin on this and I call it spin because that's what both sides do.  If the idea is that you no longer have to work the mystical 80 hours and instead, only have to work 40, that's great but the labor force is still shrinking and that's not going to change.  The way I see it, this only exa\cerbates the problem going forward.  How do we get right with the cost?

 

Never mind the promise that all Americans would get healthcare, which the CBO says is not the case, or the lower costs promised etc.

 

I don't see the math. 

[JMS]

Really?

The CBO is projecting that 100% of US workers will all work exactly 2% fewer hours, each?

And here I assumed that they were projecting that some (in fact, the vast majority) of workers will keep doing what they're doing, now. And some workers (a small percentage) will cut back by much more than 2%. And that these numbers will work out to an average reduction of 2%.

 

Thank you for letting me know this.

I don't think the CBO report was as granual as your question...    remember this report was not about Obamacare..  only about 15% of the 175 pages discussed Obamacare... and did this broadly.

 

[JMS]

That's not complete accurate.

 

Hospitals build into their complex billing systems some of amount they end up writing off at the end.  So really, we're paying for it UP FRONT.  And I dont think we'll see them reduce prices when everyone is insured.

 

Pay for it up front,  or pay for it out the back...   We pay for it...   Your argument is the costs the hospitals incure have no basis on the consumer costs?   So saving money has no purpose?   I don't think that's a valid argument from a policy position,  even though I don't entirely disagree with you.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Pay for it up front,  or pay for it out the back...   We pay for it...   Your argument is the costs the hospitals incure have no basis on the consumer costs?   So saving money has no purpose?   I don't think that's a valid argument from a policy position,  even though I don't entirely disagree with you.

 

No.  If the cost structures associated were the same, then I think you might be able to make this argument but they are not.  Cost associated are different because employers are no longer paying as big a part of the cost associated.  We are not paying the majority of that costs and when I say we, I mean those who are not going to qualify for government aid or assistance with healthcare. 

 

A smaller pool is taking on a larger burden and I don't see how it is sustainable.   Never mind that it's pretty much going to ruin the quality of life for those who are forced to pay for it. 

[JMS]

Do you agree that the actual work force is shrinking?

 

No,  our workforce is growing and will continue to grow between the period in question.... 2014-2024...

Our job base is growing and will continue to grow between the priod in question.

 

The CBO report says after 2017 our growth will slow... GDP will not shrink,  but our growth will slow and the biggest reason for this slower growth because of the aging of the population.   Which is true of the entire industrialized world to a greater extent then the US.

 

 

CBO Report

(see summary second column third paragraph)

 

Beyond 2017, CBO expects that economic growth will

diminish to a pace that is well below the average seen over

the past several decades. That projected slowdown mainly

reflects long-term trends—particularly, slower growth

in the labor force because of the aging of the population.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf

 

 

 

As for the CBO report and new info on Obamacare,  what is shrinking is not the # of jobs our economy will produce,  or the number of workers,  but the projected hours worked by our workforce starting in 2017..... people will choose to work about 1.5-2 % fewer hours per week...  for a person working 40 hours per week this amounts to about 15 minutes per week.

Edited February 10, 2014 by JMS

[Kilmer17]

Pay for it up front,  or pay for it out the back...   We pay for it...   Your argument is the costs the hospitals incure have no basis on the consumer costs?   So saving money has no purpose?   I don't think that's a valid argument from a policy position,  even though I don't entirely disagree with you.

Im saying that we pay up front (in part) now.  EX- an aspirin costs 5 dollars.  When Obamacare is in full affect, and the people who used to go to the ER for sniffles and didnt pay, will still go to the ER with sniffles.  This time though they will have insurance.  But the aspirin will still cost 5 dollars.  So even though the Hospital doesnt need to charge more to cover losses, they still will.

[ABQCOWBOY]

No,  our workforce is growing and will continue to grow between the period in question.... 2014-2024...

Our job base is growing and will continue to grow between the priod in question.

 

The CBO report says after 2017 our growth will slow... GDP will not shrink,  but our growth will slow and the biggest reason for this slower growth because of the aging of the population.   Which is true of the entire industrialized world to a greater extent then the US.

 

 

 

 

 

As for the CBO report and new info on Obamacare,  what is shrinking is not the # of jobs our economy will produce,  or the number of workers,  but the projected hours worked by our workforce starting in 2017..... people will choose to work about 1.5-2 % fewer hours per week...  for a person working 40 hours per week this amounts to about 15 minutes per week.

May I see the statistics that support the growth in the American Work pool?

[JMS]

No.  If the cost structures associated were the same, then I think you might be able to make this argument but they are not.  Cost associated are different because employers are no longer paying as big a part of the cost associated.  We are not paying the majority of that costs and when I say we, I mean those who are not going to qualify for government aid or assistance with healthcare. 

 

A smaller pool is taking on a larger burden and I don't see how it is sustainable.   Never mind that it's pretty much going to ruin the quality of life for those who are forced to pay for it. 

 

 

If someone goes to the hospital and recieves care without insurance...  we all pay....   If someone goes to the hospital and recieves data prior to Obamcare we still might all pay....

 

One of the objectives of Obamacare was to get more folks covered, and to have that coverage be more meaninful for picking up the costs of their care.

[sacase]

I think it CAN be.

No, I do not believe that some level of taxing some people to subsidize others is always wrong.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue over how much there should be.

But yeah, I think that the nation is better, as a whole, because we have some social safety nets.

I am not against a safety net. Which implies something to catch you when you are down. But you have to get out of the net.  you can just lay around there all day.  Now if Joe fry cook decides that he is perfectly content being joe fry cook because he is content with his life, that I am subsidizing, why should we continue to do so.

 

I have no problems helping people through a rough patch. Temporary assistance. But far to often temporary becomes permanent. If someone has to work 80 hour weeks to afford their lifestyle then so be it, it is something they chose. But we should not be making society pay for things. I am tired of my money being taken from me to support some other person who is being lazy or is living an irresponsible lifestyle. There are jobs out there, but people just don't want to do them. They are either to hard, don't pay enough, or the people don't have enough training or education. You don't know how many times I heard, why should I work that low paying job when I can make more on welfare? hell I know several people that can work but chose to stay on unemployment for as long as possible collecting that. I knew one guy I reported that was even working under the table while collecting unemployment.

 

I hate that we talk about giving people an incentive to work. That is so backwards. What we should be doing is giving them a disincentive to receive public assistance.

If someone goes to the hospital and recieves care without insurance...  we all pay....   If someone goes to the hospital and recieves data prior to Obamcare we still might all pay....

 

One of the objectives of Obamacare was to get more folks covered, and to have that coverage be more meaninful for picking up the costs of their care.

No before if someone had no insurance we all may have paid some. Hospitals wrote a lot of that off and received tax breaks for it.

 

Now we ALL pay no matter what and the hospital gets even more money. Thanks to Obamacare.

[Larry]

But, if I'm not mistaken, the CBO projects that approximately 30 million will remain uninsured.   If we adopt this idea that people do not have to work to get coverage,  . . .

 

If we keep throwing out this phrase that nobody is proposing . . .

Basically, for me Larry, and I think you know this, it's all about paying for it.  I mean, I understand the Lefts spin on this and I call it spin because that's what both sides do.  If the idea is that you no longer have to work the mystical 80 hours and instead, only have to work 40, that's great but the labor force is still shrinking and that's not going to change.  The way I see it, this only exa\cerbates the problem going forward.  How do we get right with the cost?

 

 

The labor rate is shrinking, because people are living longer. 

 

You want to "solve" that "problem"? 

[JMS]

Im saying that we pay up front (in part) now.  EX- an aspirin costs 5 dollars.  When Obamacare is in full affect, and the people who used to go to the ER for sniffles and didnt pay, will still go to the ER with sniffles.  This time though they will have insurance.  But the aspirin will still cost 5 dollars.  So even though the Hospital doesnt need to charge more to cover losses, they still will.

 

 

Well that's true.... I don't think we care about Asprin,  but let's look at say heart surgery....   One model the uninsured guy soaks the hostpital and the hospital turns around and soaks everybody including the federal government.....    In the second model the guy now with insurance,  has that insurance cover his heart surgury and nobody get's soaked...   But you are right we subsidized that insurance for many folks in Obamacare....   The benifit to the consumer isn't that we don't have to pay nothing for that guy to get insurance.   The benifit is we are only subsidizing his plan and not paying for all the care after the fact....

 

Again their is little debate about the fiscal savings associated wiht Obamcare's position of extending insurance to 30 million more Amricans.   The fact is today,  with Obamacare fully in place,  even adding the costs of covering 30 million more americans, as of March 2013;   Healthcare costs are growing at half the rate they were averaging over Bush's 8 years in office.    Our growth in healthcare costs  is at a 30 year low and analysis of those numbers is suggesting it's a perminent decline in growth....

Edited February 10, 2014 by JMS

[ABQCOWBOY]

If someone goes to the hospital and recieves care without insurance...  we all pay....   If someone goes to the hospital and recieves data prior to Obamcare we still might all pay....

 

One of the objectives of Obamacare was to get more folks covered, and to have that coverage be more meaninful for picking up the costs of their care.

 

 

Correct.  However, now, if someone goes to the hospital and receives care, insured or not (and it is estimated that by 2022, we will still have 30 Million uninsured) now, only those who do not qualify for subsidies pay.   That's a much bigger pie to be shouldered by a much smaller group. 

 

I don't believe the objectives of Obamacare are what many beleived them to be but that's beside the point.   What is at hand here are not objectives of what it was intended to be, right or wrong.   What is at hand is what the consequences actually are and those seem to be falling very far from the "Objectives" most on the left believed them to be, prior to it's implementation.

[chipwhich]

Again JMS you drop nonsense and ignore the facts provided you.