It's the Affordable Care Act. Is it actually just more regulations?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatordowneast, Aug 12, 2013.

  1. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
  2. PSGator66
    Online

    PSGator66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    6,303
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +675
    And it's a tax.
  3. dirigo
    Offline

    dirigo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +23
    PS, I read DE's post and the piece from the New York Times that was attached (yes, I was surprised to see that he reads anything found in that paper). Where's the tax?

    DE, as the blog points out, this is a glitch. We all know that there will be many more. The 3 safe harbors described are ham-fisted at best, but seemingly workable. More often than not it seems that the employer will have a better result. IMHO we will see a slow (as in decades) shift away from employer provided to individual coverage. If this ends up being one of the biggest problems in the implementation of the ACA, President Obama will have hit it out of the park.
  4. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Businesses already face burdensome regulations, vague filing deadlines and government red tape, so any additional burden is unwelcome. And I would say that if any of this healthcare act is truly helpful to consumers (other than those getting it for free, paid for by the rest of us), it is likely unintentional by Obama and his regime.

    I agree with others who claim this was passed with little hope that it would succeed and would be a gigantic step toward single payer. If people want single payer, go to Canada or go to England. Get all the mediocre, uninspiring health care you wish. But be prepared to stand in line and wait for anything other than a physical exam and a prescription.
  5. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,770
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,346
    "It's a tax." That special exempt peoples wont ever have to pay.
  6. ThePlayer
    Online

    ThePlayer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,547
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,999
    Yet another reason for CEO's to take their company and employees elsewhere.

    Or just lower wages to the point where our government has to make up the difference.
  7. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Good points. Are they (the regime) stupid or could this be part of the grand scheme? I vote stupid. Unintended consequences of stupid legislation.
  8. dirigo
    Offline

    dirigo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +23
    Player, just where is your hypothetical CEO to go? I assume that you realize that ours is the last advanced industrialized nation in the world to adopt a comprehensive health care program for its citizens? Downeast, business will be burdened and some will actually pay higher premiums. That's unfortunate but as we've seen it has been a minor bump in the road in Massachusetts which is now in its 5th year under Romneycare, a comprehensive health care program that enjoys a favorability rating of 85%. The other half-dozen or so states (e.g., Washington state) that implemented other types of comprehensive health care each crashed and burned after about 2-3 years. Our current system of healthcare is a disaster on many fronts. We have to do something and as flawed as the ACA is, its far better than what's in place.

    Perhaps you two are in that very small minority that believes our current system is just fine. If so, tell us that. If not then describe the non-ACA program you believe would be better for your fellow citizens. There are any number to select from that are currently operating successfully by our trading partners.
  9. gator7_5
    Offline

    gator7_5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    12,593
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +714
    Yes. It absolutely does. I have 2 very good friends who own multiple restaurants. One owned 3 Mcdonalds. She sold 2. Mostly because of Obamacare. The other owns 3 Zaxby's and is just planning on bending over.
  10. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Dirigo, using Romneycare as a example. Really? Not sure you want to do that.

    Mass has a much younger (healthier) population than Maine with far higher per capita income yet their costs are 15% higher than US average and Health Care premiums per person are the highest in the country. So for a family of 5, you are talking $2200 month for premiums. And then there are deductables. So at what cost do we want Romneycare (which does not go as far as Obamacare) and how many people in your home state can afford those premiums? And Massachusetts still has almost 7% of it's residents without insurance. Translated to the US, that would be 23 M uninsured if Obamacare enrolls the same %. Extremely unlikely.
    http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/massachusetts-health-care-reform-six-years-later/

    From the article

    Cost Containment

    Massachusetts made the decision in 2006 to focus health reform on expanding insurance coverage not on controlling health costs. As a result, rising costs remain a serious problem. Per capita health spending is 15% higher than the national average and the state has the highest individual market premiums in the country at an average of $437 per person per month. Over the past year however, premium growth in the individual and small group market has slowed markedly, possibly the result of decreased consumer utilization following the recession and increased pressure by state regulators on the industry. Fee-for-service payment methods dominate throughout the state and make it difficult for providers to coordinate care or deliver more cost-effective services.12 Given the size of the health care sector and the concentration of highly specialized medical personnel and academic medical centers in the state, it has been difficult for Massachusetts to control health care costs. Nearly one in five households in the state has earnings from a health-care related job.13

Share This Page