Obamacare Study: Employer Mandate May Not Matter Much...

[ChezC3]

A new study published by the Urban Institute this week finds that removing the employer mandate from the Affordable Care Act will have little impact on either insurance coverage or government spending--but that removing the individual-mandate provision would significantly increase the number of uninsured individuals and affect government spending.

Obamacare Study: Employer Mandate May Not Matter Much, but the Individual Mandate Does - NationalJournal.com


Is there any question whose interests Obama is looking out for?

 

[imagep]

Obamacare Study: Employer Mandate May Not Matter Much, but the Individual Mandate Does - NationalJournal.com


Is there any question whose interests Obama is looking out for?

It's not surprising to me that putting off the business mandate changes little. Fewer than 2% of companies with 50+ employees don't offer insurance.

What is surprising that anyone thinks that requiring the irresponsible to pay more in taxes as a penality for their lack of responsibility is a bad thing.

I'm I missing something here?

 

[274ina]

Its a better deal anyway.

1: we need to eliminate the employer from HC. No mandate will do that.

2: Mandate HC costs 9.5% of pay. Market HC costs 2% -4% of pay. (8% for rich types)
Once we all have market coverage, why would anybody want to pay MORE for the "mandated" coverage?????
(and yes those % are part of the law)

 

[274ina]

It's not surprising to me that putting off the business mandate changes little. Fewer than 2% of companies with 50+ employees don't offer insurance.

What is surprising that anyone thinks that requiring the irresponsible to pay more in taxes as a penality for their lack of responsibility is a bad thing.

I'm I missing something here?

more than 50 people and no REAL insurance

Target
mcdonalds
sears
lots of Mfg employers
every Fast food out there

So the 2% is just another Corp lie.

 

[cpwill]

It's not surprising to me that putting off the business mandate changes little. Fewer than 2% of companies with 50+ employees don't offer insurance.

What is surprising that anyone thinks that requiring the irresponsible to pay more in taxes as a penality for their lack of responsibility is a bad thing.

I'm I missing something here?

The fact that an employer not buying you health insurance no more makes them irresponsible than if they don't buy you auto, flood, or renters insurance?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Obamacare Study: Employer Mandate May Not Matter Much, but the Individual Mandate Does - NationalJournal.com


Is there any question whose interests Obama is looking out for?

Fortunately for me, I qualify for V.A. Medical benefits.

 

[imagep]

I didn't say or suggest that. I am totally against insurance being provided by employers. what I said was that individuals who don't have insurance are irresponsible.

The fact that an employer not buying you health insurance no more makes them irresponsible than if they don't buy you auto, flood, or renters insurance?

 

[code1211]

Its a better deal anyway.

1: we need to eliminate the employer from HC. No mandate will do that.

2: Mandate HC costs 9.5% of pay. Market HC costs 2% -4% of pay. (8% for rich types)
Once we all have market coverage, why would anybody want to pay MORE for the "mandated" coverage?????
(and yes those % are part of the law)

Those percentages are all fine and dandy.

What if the insurance companies stop selling insurance?

UnitedHealthcare Leaves California's Individual Market | KPBS.org

 

[274ina]

Those percentages are all fine and dandy.

What if the insurance companies stop selling insurance?

UnitedHealthcare Leaves California's Individual Market | KPBS.org

Some one will step in for and easy 15% profit on billions.

 

[code1211]

Some one will step in for and easy 15% profit on billions.

Right...

United Healthcare is leaving because there is too much profit to be had there.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Those percentages are all fine and dandy.

What if the insurance companies stop selling insurance?

UnitedHealthcare Leaves California's Individual Market | KPBS.org

Then we can have the single payer system - run by govt - that we should have gone for in the first place. Medicare for all. We can join the civilized western countries in providing health care to our citizens, leaving the profit-makers out of it.

 

[274ina]

Right...

United Healthcare is leaving because there is too much profit to be had there.

If they dont like it, and no one steps in, all the better. The whole point of HC reform is to ban health insurance anyway...........

But since we got only part reform, someone will form a new corp, and take that 15% for now.

 

[code1211]

If they dont like it, and no one steps in, all the better. The whole point of HC reform is to ban health insurance anyway...........

But since we got only part reform, someone will form a new corp, and take that 15% for now.

I will agree that the ultimate conclusion will be a single payer system. This is just more evidence that the entire Obamacare debacle was a lie based on deception wrapped in a swindle presented by thieves.

 

[274ina]

I will agree that the ultimate conclusion will be a single payer system. This is just more evidence that the entire Obamacare debacle was a lie based on deception wrapped in a swindle presented by thieves.

The only theives are these guys........

Sick for Profit - Insurance CEOs

 

[code1211]

The only theives are these guys........

Sick for Profit - Insurance CEOs

I have been confused throughout this long and tortured mess why the people who arrange to pay the overinflated bills of the healthcare industry are cast as the villains in this little melodrama.

The people who set the rates and gather fortunes for the care rendered are not singled out as anything but heroic. The people who pay for those exorbitant rates and support the system are the villains. Why is this?

 

[274ina]

I have been confused throughout this long and tortured mess why the people who arrange to pay the overinflated bills of the healthcare industry are cast as the villains in this little melodrama.

The people who set the rates and gather fortunes for the care rendered are not singled out as anything but heroic. The people who pay for those exorbitant rates and support the system are the villains. Why is this?

Because they take money and provide no HC.
Because they distort medical decisions to screw the people.
They need to be banned.
Leave USA for say New Zealand, go to a few dentists and Dr's. then you will understand the criminality of the USA system.

 

[code1211]

Because they take money and provide no HC.
Because they distort medical decisions to screw the people.
They need to be banned.
Leave USA for say New Zealand, go to a few dentists and Dr's. then you will understand the criminality of the USA system.

So the people who set the rates and gather fortunes, the healthcare facilities and doctors, have no role in the cost of healthcare? These are the folks I was talking about.

 

[Henrin]

It's not surprising to me that putting off the business mandate changes little. Fewer than 2% of companies with 50+ employees don't offer insurance.

What is surprising that anyone thinks that requiring the irresponsible to pay more in taxes as a penality for their lack of responsibility is a bad thing.

Maybe the idea that it basically forces people to take part in commerce? That the consequence of this is that as long as the government calls something a tax they can force the people to do whatever they want. There is also the little fact that the government is not in the business of making sure I live up to their standards of responsible behavior. If I wanted a mommy I would have never left home.

 

[Henrin]

Then we can have the single payer system - run by govt - that we should have gone for in the first place. Medicare for all. We can join the civilized western countries in providing health care to our citizens, leaving the profit-makers out of it.

How is a single payer system civilized again?

 

[imagep]

Maybe the idea that it basically forces people to take part in commerce? That the consequence of this is that as long as the government calls something a tax they can force the people to do whatever they want. There is also the little fact that the government is not in the business of making sure I live up to their standards of responsible behavior. If I wanted a mommy I would have never left home.

So are you suggesting that government shouldn't make murder or theft illegal? Or to make speeders or drunks pay a fine?

The government enforces whatever set of standards that "we the people" chose. We ARE the government, and at any time we can vote people out of office who don't create good laws, and vote new ones in. If you don't like our standards, then you are welcome to work within the system to change them, or to leave the country.

 

[imagep]

How is a single payer system civilized again?

I'm not a big supporter of single payer, but the theory is that in a country as rich and productive as ours, no one should have to go without reasonable healthcare, regardless of their ability to pay. It's not really that complicated.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I didn't say or suggest that. I am totally against insurance being provided by employers. what I said was that individuals who don't have insurance are irresponsible.

How much do you make a year Imagep? Because I would bet that its more than minimum wage. And probably more than $9/hr. Also..do you have a spouse and kids?

 

[Henrin]

So are you suggesting that government shouldn't make murder or theft illegal? Or to make speeders or drunks pay a fine?

You see, that is just a weird argument. I make the case that government shouldn't force people into commerce and you equate that to murder, theft, speeding tickets, and drunks. What in the world does any of those things have to do with forced commerce?

The government enforces whatever set of standards that "we the people" chose. We ARE the government, and at any time we can vote people out of office who don't create good laws, and vote new ones in. If you don't like our standards, then you are welcome to work within the system to change them, or to leave the country.

I'm not even going to humor the idea the government is the people or any sort of arguments that deals with this false premise. The fact of the matter is that forcing people to buy insurance is about lowering the rates of everyone else and making decisions they freely decided to take part in cheaper. You're basically robbing peoples liberty and their right to use their money as they see fit all because some people decided to buy a service. There is no justification for that. Just because you make a choice and it's expensive means nothing to me and I reason to consider any moves made towards me to relieve your situation as valid.

If I desire to be entirely irresponsible with my life, be that not going to the doctor, not buying insurance, not buying healthy food, not keeping my air condition in working order, or whatever, that is my choice to make and you have no justification at all to step in and tell me to do otherwise.

 

[imagep]

How much do you make a year Imagep? Because I would bet that its more than minimum wage. And probably more than $9/hr. Also..do you have a spouse and kids?

Sometimes it feels like I don't make that much.

My insurance costs $150 a month. I have a high deductable major medical plan coupled with a healthcare savings account. Honestly, some months I don't have any money to deposit into my HSA, but I can always come up with $150.

Anyhow, if low wages are what's keeping people from being able to afford major medical insurance, then maybe the lack of employer provided insurance isn't the issue, seems to me that it is low wages. Maybe we should concentrate more on increasing wages, rather than forcing people to take whatever insurance plan our employer picks out for us.

Or maybe we should just take the $1.2 trillion dollars that all levels of government in the US already spend on healthcare, and use that money to purchase a high deductible major medical plan from a private insurance company for every single citizen. We could do this, and still have enough money left over to rebate ever single citizen around $2,000 (possibly into a HSA), which they could then put towards their deductibles. Thats the plan that I proposed to congress as an alternative to Obamacare. I was told that it was a "bold" plan but that "the voters wouldn't like it".

 

[imagep]

You see, that is just a weird argument. I make the case that government shouldn't force people into commerce and you equate that to murder, theft, speeding tickets, and drunks. What in the world does any of those things have to do with forced commerce?

Do you not agree that people who don't have insurance, and then show up at the emergency room for treatment that they can't pay for is irresponsible? Do you not agree that people who do that are running up the cost of your health care tab?

Why is it that it is OK to have laws to protect some of your rights from the misdeeds of others, but not other rights from the misdeeds of others? I fail to see a difference. If your argument is that everyone should self govern, and that with the lack of government the private sector will always naturally correct all misdeeds, then why do you accept ANY laws?

I'm not even going to humor the idea the government is the people or any sort of arguments that deals with this false premise. The fact of the matter is that forcing people to buy insurance is about lowering the rates of everyone else and making decisions they freely decided to take part in cheaper. You're basically robbing peoples liberty and their right to use their money as they see fit all because some people decided to buy a service. There is no justification for that. Just because you make a choice and it's expensive means nothing to me and I reason to consider any moves made towards me to relieve your situation as valid.

If others not having insurance force my health care costs up, then they are still robbing me of my money. There's no difference. Forcing everyone to have insurance lowers the health care costs of those who already responsible. This is actually an idea originally proposed by conservatives, and the only reason that they fight against it now is because it was implimented by liberals. If Bush would have signed the bill into law, most conservatives would be singing it's praises.

As for me, I think it's not such a good thing, I didn't support it and I personally proposed a more "free market" alternative to congress, but it's not nearly as intrusive, nor is it going to cause economic disaster on the scale that conservatives keep claiming it will. Let's face it, it's all about politics.

If I desire to be entirely irresponsible with my life, be that not going to the doctor, not buying insurance, not buying healthy food, not keeping my air condition in working order, or whatever, that is my choice to make and you have no justification at all to step in and tell me to do otherwise.

When you being irresponsible harms others, then it's time for society to protect the rights of others. the mandate does nothing to harm those who are already responsible, it only requires that the irresponsible pay for the consequences of their irresponsiblity. Thats why I say that it is actually a conservative plan, not a liberal one. It's based upon personal responsibility, and not living off the wealth of others.