MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Can we PLEASE make the assumption that Obamacare isn't "going away" for the purposes of this thread?
Here's what I'd like to see changed right away:
Enact a meaningful penalty for those who don't sign up for healthcare insurance. The penalty in place right now is meaningLESS.
Lower the definition of full-time (for the purpose of Obamacare coverage) from its current 30 hours to 20 hours a week. It is virtually impossible for companies to staff positions at 19 hours a week. This would avoid what's happening now -- employers cutting hours to 29. (That's doable from a staffing standpoint. Nineteen hours a week is not.)
What would you like to see changed? For God's sake!!!! Don't say "Scrap the whole thing," as that is NEVER going to happen.
Can we PLEASE make the assumption that Obamacare isn't "going away" for the purposes of this thread?
Here's what I'd like to see changed right away:
Enact a meaningful penalty for those who don't sign up for healthcare insurance. The penalty in place right now is meaningLESS.
Lower the definition of full-time (for the purpose of Obamacare coverage) from its current 30 hours to 20 hours a week. It is virtually impossible for companies to staff positions at 19 hours a week. This would avoid what's happening now -- employers cutting hours to 29. (That's doable from a staffing standpoint. Nineteen hours a week is not.)
What would you like to see changed? For God's sake!!!! Don't say "Scrap the whole thing," as that is NEVER going to happen.
It might be cheaper from some standpoints to hire 2 people at 19 hours each....no health insurance, and you're getting 38 hours.
I'd like to see fewer waivers. It was easy to shrug off a few at first, but at this rate there's hardly anybody that actually has to abide by the law.
Employer Mandate taken out.
Individual Mandate taken out.
Can we PLEASE make the assumption that Obamacare isn't "going away" for the purposes of this thread?
Here's what I'd like to see changed right away:
Enact a meaningful penalty for those who don't sign up for healthcare insurance. The penalty in place right now is meaningLESS.
Lower the definition of full-time (for the purpose of Obamacare coverage) from its current 30 hours to 20 hours a week. It is virtually impossible for companies to staff positions at 19 hours a week. This would avoid what's happening now -- employers cutting hours to 29. (That's doable from a staffing standpoint. Nineteen hours a week is not.)
What would you like to see changed? For God's sake!!!! Don't say "Scrap the whole thing," as that is NEVER going to happen.
I'd like to see it changed completely to universal healthcare. *hides*
Can I still say that even though it's NEVER going to happen?
Can we PLEASE make the assumption that Obamacare isn't "going away" for the purposes of this thread?
(Thanks for a sane answer. Ha!)
Re the 30 v 20. It would certainly be more difficult to staff positions at 19 hours or less. The number of employees has a very definite impact on bottom line. I don't think anyone would deny that. Double the cost of training, double the attrition rates, the exposure to Worker's Comp claims, loyalty factors, scheduling difficulties, etc. But, assuming you're right, that it could be done significantly cheaper, then perhaps legislation that looks at a company's deliberate attempt to circumvent the Obamacare regs as evasion rather than avoidance. ??
Re the waivers? I completely agree with you. I don't think ANY company should get waivers. That's playing favorites, rife with the potential for abuse.
Another thing I thought of is the idea that companies who have religious motives for not wanting to include birth control and abortion in their coverage should be allowed to exempt that portion of the healthcare act -- across the board. And, perhaps because it would be difficult to confirm true religious motives, just make that particular coverage optional and avoid the whole mess.
That, of course, guts the whole program.
I'd like to see it changed completely to universal healthcare. *hides*
Can I still say that even though it's NEVER going to happen?
Considering the exorbitant prices that are being seen, when one can actually get any data, the only option is to make it go away. People didn't buy insurance because they couldn't afford it before, now it's costing 2 or 3 times more on average. To punish people for not buying what they can't afford is a bit too tyrannical.
But if one MUST play the game of not making it go away: ALL citizens must use it, including those in DC, ZERO wavers, undo the delays of the rest of the system and force the whole thing on everyone. That will, far more quickly, bring upon the uprising to get rid of it.
The 'same rates for everybody' was hogwash from the getgo, so let's be realistic about it if we are going to continue calling it insurance.
Still cover PE, but pay a higher premium.
Engage in dangerous lifestyles (skydiving, motorcycle racing, etc) pay a higher premium.
Require even the lowest income group to make some sort of contribution to the premium pool.
Remove the IRS from any connection with the program. Make penalties payable to the State High Risk Insurance pool.
Remove penalty for smoking, unless they are going to address ALL high risk behaviors (tobacco, alcohol, weight, recreational drug use)
I'd be up for higher premiums for Pre-existing Conditions if the subsidies were still in place. That seems logical. As to the high-risk behaviors? I completely agree with you. And yes. The penalties ought to go towards subsidizing those who DO buy the coverage -- and be more meaningful (as in higher).
Mandated coverage levels are ridiculous. Get rid of them. (I did NOT say "scrap", even though it can be substituted for "rid" and I'd be just as happy). Let individual insurers craft coverages to meet the needs of the people and allow them unfettered competition across state lines. IOW, reduce the ACA to a shell program guaranteeing a minimum level of coverage, and let individuals shop for the rest. Get employers completely out of the mix. They never should have been a source for health care coverage. It makes a whole lot more sense for employers to provide work and compensation for that work - not some endless stream of benefits which have impacts well beyond employment. Wiser government would have ended that practice with the end of WWII.
Well, I think there IS a mandated minimal amount of coverage. I think what the different levels do is make comparison shopping easier. If everyone could name "their own" coverage, it would end up being impossible to comparison shop; so I have no problem with that. Like, example, if the 100s of different insurance companies, instead of calling their coverages Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinium, could name them themselves, they'd all be different.
I don't have any problem with companies providing health insurance for their employees -- but I think they ought to be able to keep those policies when/if they leave. If they could do that? I'd have no problem. But I see your point the way it is now.
Well, I'm not so sure it's never going to happen. Medicare is a model, certainly. That's Universal Healthcare for age 65 and older...
I'd like to see it changed completely to universal healthcare. *hides*
Can I still say that even though it's NEVER going to happen?
No, you can still keep measures that companies shouldn't deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. You can keep that people under 26 can be on parents insurance coverage plans. It doesn't gut everything. Just the insanely BAD parts.
Yes, it is, and it works just fine. I've been on it for several years now (yes, I'm a geezer).
Simply lower the age gradually until it covers everyone. No 2,000 page bills needed.
as for the "employer mandate" and employers cutting back hours, wasn't that mandate postponed, or is that a false memory planted in my brain by some age induced dementia? If it really isn't the law as yet, how could the employer mandate be inspiring employers to cut back hours?
Update: Aha! I thought so.
Health-Law Employer Mandate Delayed by U.S. Until 2015
Can we PLEASE make the assumption that Obamacare isn't "going away" for the purposes of this thread?
Here's what I'd like to see changed right away:
Enact a meaningful penalty for those who don't sign up for healthcare insurance. The penalty in place right now is meaningLESS.
Lower the definition of full-time (for the purpose of Obamacare coverage) from its current 30 hours to 20 hours a week. It is virtually impossible for companies to staff positions at 19 hours a week. This would avoid what's happening now -- employers cutting hours to 29. (That's doable from a staffing standpoint. Nineteen hours a week is not.)
What would you like to see changed? For God's sake!!!! Don't say "Scrap the whole thing," as that is NEVER going to happen.
If you think we, as a nation, are "hell-bent to go with socialism," then you need ObamaCare to pay for a psychiatric examination.I think scrapping it in it's entirety is the only solution. Sorry. I think we're going to end up with a single-payer system of socialized medicine like Canada and Europe and I think it will end up saving us a lot of money and aggravation if we just go ahead and do it. It should be lean and mean, but now we're back to the real problem with our government. Nothing is lean and mean.
I don't think such a system would be fair for everyone. It's certainly socialist in nature, but since we're hell bent to go with socialism and no attempt to stave it off is working, we might as well go with the most reasonable solution. And it's going to happen eventually, anyway. It's just that we're taking the most expensive and most painful route to get there.
Tehchnological advances are responsible for around 50% of the increase in healthcare costs since the 80's from a study I read and that makes sense. If you want to stop the costs from spiraling upward, quit rewarding the private sector for disovering new radically expensive treatments and drugs that insurance and government programs will pay for. As long as we're willing to throw unlimited resources toward healthcare, costs will continue to go up. Maybe if the government had to pay for everything, there would be a line drawn in the sand somewhere. Rationed healthcare is the only affordable healthcare.
If you think we, as a nation, are "hell-bent to go with socialism," then you need ObamaCare to pay for a psychiatric examination.
You know what a Socialist, an actual Socialist, would call Barack Obama? "A conservative."
Why not direct care?
That should be the socialized solution we're heading for. It would be the best long-term solution but I see people clamoring for some shift toward "medicaid for all".
I wouldn't even call it a socialized solution, it cuts out the red tape.
True, but if the government is funding those direct care facilities, it's still a socialized solution. Government clinics and rationed care seems like the only solution if we want "health care for all".
Every other industrialized nation has national health care. We don't. If you think that makes us better, then there's no hope for you.I don't give a rats ass what an actual socialist would call Barack Obama. The fact of the matter is that we, as a nation, are DEMANDING more socialist safety-net nanny state programs and I assure you that the vast majority of people in this country, whether you believe it or not (or want to admit it or not), would vote in favor of a proposition to implement socialized medicine. It's gonna happen. If you don't believe anything I've ever said, you can believe that. We're headed that way and there aren't nearly enough conservatives to stop it from happening.
Why would the government be funding them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?