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

[Ellis]

Nearly one in 10 employers to drop health coverage. One in three respondents said they could stop offering coverage if the law requires them to provide more generous benefits than they do now, if a tax on high-cost plans takes effect in 2018 as scheduled or if they decide it would be cheaper for them to pay the penalty for not providing insurance.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jul/24/nearly-one-10-employers-drop-health-coverage/

I want to chime in on this... and it may not necessarily apply to the article...

When Obama was running for election 4 years ago, he spoke quite often about Universal Healthcare. Counting myself and my boss, there are 5 people where I work. For a number of years, he offered Health insurance--free of charge--to only two of us b/c we were full time employees. If we desired Dental insurance, we had to pay for it out of pocket. The other part time employees were ineligible. My boss paid for his own insurance with his wife, outside of the company. Each of us cost him about $3,000 a yr at the time. Since the election, premiums for the two of us have risen to $4,300 each a year. So his cost went from $6K to $8,600 a year quite quickly. He said on numerous occasions that if Obamacare passed, he would drop the insurance and give half of what he was paying for insurance to us as a raise. The other half would likely be reasonably equivalent to the "penalty or fee" he'd have to pay for not insuring us.

In Sept 2011, I opted out of his insurance coverage b/c I joined my wife's policy at the Board of Education (or teachers union, not totally sure about that.) He immediately gave me the raise he told us about. As far as I know, he hasn't been penalized with a fee for anything yet b/c I'm not sure it goes in to effect yet. My other coworker has had a very difficult time with insurance since then. Illness is random and can often times not be seen until you're sick. She has had some outrageous medical costs in the last year to the point that she can't cover the cost. My boss has been covering it out of pocket b/c he's a good guy like that. THOUSANDS. No questions asked.

There's just too much confusion and chaos right now with insurance and it seems like any chance they get to **** you, they will. Insurance was always the most stressful part of his business. He hated dealing with it. It was always impossible to get a hold of anyone for Q's and A's. I could see it was a nightmare for him and I know he's glad to be done with it. It seems to me that paying a few grand to avoid being toyed with by a shady industry is worth it to him. Now he can concentrate on actually running a business.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Ellis

[Tulane Skins Fan]

No, although the Republicans wrote a principles document when they became the majority of the house in 2010 which said they would match any spending increases with offsetting cuts; they also wrote an exemption into the principle which allowed them to cut Obamacare and apply that expense to the deficit.

Seriously? They actually wrote an exception to that rule for Obamacare?

[JMS]

Seriously? They actually wrote an exception to that rule for Obamacare?

Yes they did, I'll try to find the link.

[ABQCOWBOY]

If memory servers, that was the result of the complete disregard for the Law that was previously passed by both houses that said any new legislation for spending would be offset by cuts elsewhere. That law was passed and then completely ignored. I believe that is what pushed this.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

If memory servers, that was the result of the complete disregard for the Law that was previously passed by both houses that said any new legislation for spending would be offset by cuts elsewhere. That law was passed and then completely ignored. I believe that is what pushed this.

I'm sorry, I didn't follow that. The GOP rule was in response to a law passed that any new spending had to be offset by cuts? But now the GOP is ignoring both the law and its own rule in regards to Obamacare?

[Larry]

Apologies if this already made it in here:

Health care repeal would widen deficit by $109 billion, says CBO

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/health-care-repeal-widen-deficit-109-billion-says-194408630.html

I'm not quoting any of the article at the link because it's brief enough.

I think this is very interesting. Don't the republicans have to come up with a way to account for 109 billion in savings now if they try to repeal Obamacare again?

Not in the House.

First thing the new, Republican, Tea Party ("The most important thing in the world is the deficit") Congress did when they took office, was to change the pay as you go rules of the House.

Now, all proposals that increase the deficit have to be paid for except:

1) Repealing Obamacare.

2) Tax cuts.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Larry

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Not in the House.

First thing the new, Republican, Tea Party ("The most important thing in the world is the deficit") Congress did when they took office, was to change the pay as you go rules of the House.

Now, all proposals that increase the deficit have to be paid for except:

1) Repealing Obamacare.

2) Tax cuts.

Makes sense... when you realize that the GOP is full of crap and has no desire to decrease the deficit in any meaningful way.

[JMS]

Seriously? They actually wrote an exception to that rule for Obamacare?

One of the first actions taken by the new, Republican-led House was to pass a new package of House rules. And one of the most controversial measures in the package replaced the current "pay-as-you-go" requirements with the "cut-as-you-go" requirement proposed several months ago by now Speaker John Boehner.

Under the old "pay-as-you-go" rule passed by Democrats in 2007, the House was required to offset any proposal to cut taxes or increase spending by raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. In practice, there were numerous notable exceptions, including an extension of the Bush tax cuts, estate tax relief and the economic stimulus -- but that was the general guideline.

Under the "cut-as-you-go" rule, mandatory spending increases have to be offset by mandatory spending decreases.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/695/develop-a-cut-as-you-go-rule/

CUT-PAYGO-Lite and Other House Rules Changes

the cost of repealing the Health Care reform law (which would have mandatory spending implications) is waived. ( under the 112th Congress Rules)...

http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=4239&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS

House Republicans to Weaken Anti-Deficit Rules to Ease Tax Cut Approvals

House Republicans, in one of their first acts in the majority, weakened the chamber’s anti-deficit budgeting rules to make it easier to approve tax cuts even if they add to the government’s financial shortfall.

The rules approved today, on a 240-191 party-line vote, will let lawmakers cut taxes without having to offset the cost with savings elsewhere in the budget. Proposed spending increases must be paid for with cuts in other areas, though, and tax increases to pay for new spending are prohibited.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-05/house-republicans-to-weaken-anti-deficit-rules-to-ease-tax-cut-approvals.html

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 11:17 AM ----------

If memory servers, that was the result of the complete disregard for the Law that was previously passed by both houses that said any new legislation for spending would be offset by cuts elsewhere. That law was passed and then completely ignored. I believe that is what pushed this.

I'm sorry, I didn't follow that. The GOP rule was in response to a law passed that any new spending had to be offset by cuts? But now the GOP is ignoring both the law and its own rule in regards to Obamacare?

Not exactly... The House had "pay as you go" rules under Pelosi. Guideline not a real hard rule. It required the house to basically pay for any new spending. They had the choice of finding new revenue ( taxes) or cutting. Exceptions to this rule were Obama's agreeing to continue the bush Tax cuts for a few years, and Obama's stimulus package.

The GOP house replaces spend as you go with "cut as you go" rule. Any new spending had to be paid for by cutting somewhere else. But As Larry Said, they exempted (t) tax cuts (2) the cost of repealing Obamacare.

Edited July 25, 2012 by JMS

[JimboDaMan]

If memory servers, that was the result of the complete disregard for the Law that was previously passed by both houses that said any new legislation for spending would be offset by cuts elsewhere. That law was passed and then completely ignored. I believe that is what pushed this.

That might well be true, or at least might well be the excuse they gave at the time. But why would they feel the need to explicitly grant themselves an exemption to a rule that nobody else was adhering to? Especially if said exemption would open them to claims that they are liars (about cost of AFA) and hypocrites (about budget reduction)?

[ABQCOWBOY]

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 11:17 AM ----------

Not exactly... The House had "pay as you go" rules under Pelosi. Guideline not a real hard rule. It required the house to basically pay for any new spending. They had the choice of finding new revenue ( taxes) or cutting. Exceptions to this rule were Obama's agreeing to continue the bush Tax cuts for a few years, and Obama's stimulus package.

The GOP house replaces spend as you go with "cut as you go" rule. Any new spending had to be paid for by cutting somewhere else. But As Larry Said, they exempted (t) tax cuts (2) the cost of repealing Obamacare.

Come on, the pay as you go was completely ignored. The measures that were adopted were based on the fact that this administration had no intention of abiding by those laws. Laws, let me just say, that were passed by both sides. One of the few bipartisan things we've seen in the past several years.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Come on, the pay as you go was completely ignored. The measures that were adopted were based on the fact that this administration had no intention of abiding by those laws. Laws, let me just say, that were passed by both sides. One of the few bipartisan things we've seen in the past several years.

You don't find it to be a little bit of bull**** that you write a law saying, you have to "cut as you go" except for the stuff that we don't want cut. C'mon.

[Thiebear]

I find the Paygo to be the only thing both sides agree with constantly behind the scenes without anyone knowing and minus all the big press conferences and finger pointing.

Its always been a ruse and they obviously work together to make Fed Gov't bigger.

[JMS]

Come on, the pay as you go was completely ignored.

Yeah I don't think you can make that case... Obamacare his signature accomplishiment in office was designed to be revenue neutral to adhere to the "spend as you go" approach. Likewise Obama has had the smallest growth in government spending since Eisenhower after

inheriting one of the worst economies since Roosevelt.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

I find the Paygo to be the only thing both sides agree with constantly behind the scenes without anyone knowing and minus all the big press conferences and finger pointing.

Its always been a ruse and they obviously work together to make Fed Gov't bigger.

Laws, let me just say, that were passed by both sides. One of the few bipartisan things we've seen in the past several years.

The 112th congress's spending rules including "Cut as you Go" were passed on a strict party vote. The Democrats considered it a free license to grow the deficit because of the exemptions built into the policy.

The extension of Bush's tax cuts was done in concert with the whitehouse after he failed to get the house to only pass the extention for the middle class.

Edited July 25, 2012 by JMS

[ABQCOWBOY]

You don't find it to be a little bit of bull**** that you write a law saying, you have to "cut as you go" except for the stuff that we don't want cut. C'mon.

In fact, I do find it very BS to behave in this manner but lets face facts here. The Democratic lead Congress was doing this well before anything was changed. You have to call it both ways and not just try and throw one party under the bus and let the other skate. Had this law been upheld rather then ignored, there would never have been a need to change it and I suspect the Dems would never have lost control of the House to begin with.

[JMS]

In fact, I do find it very BS to behave in this manner but lets face facts here. The Democratic lead Congress was doing this well before anything was changed. You have to call it both ways and not just try and throw one party under the bus and let the other skate. Had this law been upheld rather then ignored, there would never have been a need to change it and I suspect the Dems would never have lost control of the House to begin with.

The NEED to change the policy passed under the Democrats to the policy passed under the Republicans is evident in the differences of the two policies.

(1) The 111 congress lead by the Dems (had Pay as you Go) which had no blanket exceptions and allowed increases in spending to be paid for by either cuts or revenue increases ( taxes ).

(2) The 112th congress lead by the GOP (had Cut as you go) which had two blanket exceptions amounting to hundreds of billions incorporated, and only allowed increases in spending to be paid for by cuts.

Edited July 25, 2012 by JMS

[twa]

Why your boss is dumping your wife

Companies are dropping health coverage for spouses to cut costs

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/why-your-boss-is-dumping-your-wife-2013-02-22

By denying coverage to spouses, employers not only save the annual premiums, but also the new fees that went into effect as part of the Affordable Care Act.

[LadySkinsFan]

Why your boss is dumping your wife

Companies are dropping health coverage for spouses to cut costs

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/why-your-boss-is-dumping-your-wife-2013-02-22

By denying coverage to spouses, employers not only save the annual premiums, but also the new fees that went into effect as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Another reason to get employers out of the health insurance business for their employees. Let's have single payer, non-profit, sliding scale premiums, regardless of employer, and it wouldn't be dependent upon employers choosing policies for their employees.

[HeluCopter29]

The free market does everything better.

Except inelastic goods. They do inelastic goods far worse.

[JMS]

The free market does everything better.

Except inelastic goods. They do inelastic goods far worse.

I don't know we seem to have done pretty well with oil gold, and silver goods which are all inelastic.

We don't have a free market healthcare system since the turn of the 20th century when specialization made healthcare too expensive for indivisuals to afford. Since that time we have had a collective healthcare system where healthy people pay into the system to care for those who get sick... The big difference between our collective system and that of the rest of the industrial world is our system is designed not to deliver good but to deliver profits, which it does exceedingly well. The rest of the world uses systms of universal coverage designed to deliver services, which they do much better and more efficiently than we do.

So those are really the two choices before you, a collective system designed to deliver profits, or a collective system designed to deliver services. The Obama care attmpts to reform the for profit system to ensure more services are delivered... It still leaves in tact a fatally flawed system which today wastes about half of the money it absorbs, based on the experiences of the rest of the industrialized world and is the greatest long term financial threat our nation faces.

Edited February 23, 2013 by JMS

[Larry]

Deleted post

Edited February 23, 2013 by Larry

[mikered30]

The Government Accountability Office stated today that Obamacare will add $6.2 trillion to the debt.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341589/gao-report-obamacare-adds-62-trillion-long-term-deficit-andrew-stiles

[greenspandan]

oh goodie a link to the national review.

[btfoom]

oh goodie a link to the national review.

Here is the pdf, straight from the GAO: http://global.nationalreview.com/pdf/gao_022613.pdf

You may not like the national review, but this story backs up its claim with an actual document.

---------- Post added February-26th-2013 at 12:40 PM ----------

Another reason to get employers out of the health insurance business for their employees. Let's have single payer, non-profit, sliding scale premiums, regardless of employer, and it wouldn't be dependent upon employers choosing policies for their employees.

A better idea would be for the Federal Government to get out of the regulation of where health insurance companies can and can't compete for business. Let any company offer insurance in any state and see the difference when folks have actual choice.

[nonniey]

oh goodie a link to the national review.

Well it does link to an actual PDF copy of the GAO report so are you saying the GAO is not a reliable source?

By the Way here is are a couple of quotes from that report.

"... the fenderal budget remains on an unsustainable path. .......... Under these assumptions, the long term outlook worsened slightly compared the pre PPACA January 2010 simulation"

What they're saying is we have unsustainable spending problems and as bad as medical spending was prior to Obamacare, Obamacare has made it worse.

Edited February 26, 2013 by nonniey

[mikered30]

oh goodie a link to the national review.

Sorry I should have linked the report it but it is harder to do on my phone.

Obama said it would not add to the debt and the GAO and CBO says otherwise. So who is not telling the truth?

Edited February 26, 2013 by mikered30