That's a pretty comprehensive dismantling of CJs argument.
That being said small businesses have already reported significant cost increases due to Obama Care.
My bad. I should have followed that first sentence with a little more detail.
Keynesians believe that they can influence demand directly via stimulus instead of creating demand by removing the unnecessary barriers that choke off production.
" Stimulus to increase aggregate demand ", etc . The problem with their direct approach is that it creates debt while it papers over the structural economic issues instead of addressing them.
Eventually you wind up with a economy like Japan's. Japan's out of bullets so to speak with a contracting economy, a debased currency, tax increases and over 40 percent of their total revenue having to go to paying their debt service.
Given Japan's predicament its hard to believe Keynesian economics is still considered a legitimate school of thought.
I believe, as do other Supply siders that the correct way to influece demamand Is by removing these unnecessary barriers to production ( Taxes, Regulations, Government intervention )
That's kind of the point. ACA-compliant plans are all that's been sold in the fully insured markets for over a year now. Any company that's bought a (non-grandfathered) plan since late 2013 or so bought an ACA-compliant plan.
Obamacare squeezes small businesses: Column
" The federal government — specifically the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency charged with implementing the vast majority of Obamacare's rules and regulations — has quietly changed its tune. Late last week, and to little fanfare, they released a report estimating that two-thirds of the country's small businesses will see their health care costs increase thanks to Obamacare. This will translate into higher health insurance premiums for 11 million employees."
As I just said, those rules have been in effect for all plans that went into effect on or after January 1, 2014. They're not some looming threat, they've been in effect for 15 months. Any financial impact has already been felt, through two successive open enrollment periods.
And yet, "employer offers for health insurance was basically unchanged between June 2013 and September 2014." Employers have been buying ACA-compliant plans, yet employer-sponsored coverage isn't going away.
The "just wait for it!" shtick doesn't work when you acknowledge that all this stuff has already happened and didn't impact coverage rates.
Did you know rates are going to SKYROCKET next year?
I know because I've been hearing that phrase from anti-ACA people for the last five years. Wait till NEXT year.
I've been hearing that about the Cubs my whole life, too.
the last time you had stitches, what did that cost? colonoscopy? how much was that? what was the price tag for your most recent doctor visit? one more : can you honestly say that you'd trade systems with the US?
LOL. You boycott some site that destroys your argument and somehow thats MY problem.
Heres a similar comparison, showing that the employer mandate is basically no big deal either way.
Hopefully you dont have some principled stance against the WaPo.
Obamacare’s employer mandate keeps getting delayed. What happens if it gets killed? - The Washington Post
In the coverage estimates they released this month, the CBO expects enrollment in employer-sponsored insurance this year to be 153 million and a decade from now, in 2025, they expect it will be...155 million. No vast erosion, no upending of the status quo. Just slower enrollment growth than in the absence of affordable, decent alternatives to employer-based plans.
You're free to identify actual problems. If you have to wave your hands and make some up, that's an indication of a pretty serious weakness in your case.
All evidence so far has found little change, in action or intention, in employer-based coverage (very much in line with the CBO's projections that employer-based coverage numbers will be largely static).
Health Law Brings No Drop In Insurance Enrollment At Work, Study Finds
Obamacare Refutes Warning of Corporate America Cost Surge
New Findings About The ACA’s Impact On Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance
Mid-tier employers aren’t dropping coverage
I can't find the recent CBO report, but this January 2015 article notes that the CBO is now predicting that 10 million employees will lose their employer healthcare plans by 2021. Not a minor issue to the 10 million who will feel the impact.
Year | 2010 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
Enrollment (in millions) | 150 | 156 | 156 | 153 | 155 | 155 | 156 | 156 | 155 | 157 | 157 | 157 | 157 |
Year | 2010 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
Enrollment (in millions) | 150 | 156 | 158 | 160 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 165 | 165 | 166 | 166 | 166 | 166 |
Secondly, the CBO estimates that the equivalent of 2.3 million Americans will lose a significant percentage of their hours of work as a result of the employer mandates under the ACA.
Because the longer-term reduction in work is expected to come almost entirely from a decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply in response to the changes in their incentives, we do not think it is accurate to say that the reduction stems from people “losing” their jobs.
Finally, add to this the 2 million you note above increase in the overall numbers of employees who will have employer funded health insurance plans in the coming decade, when there will be several multiples of that number joining the American workforce over the coming decade, unless you expect the weak economy to continue, and you see a continued erosion.
As I just said, those rules have been in effect for all plans that went into effect on or after January 1, 2014. They're not some looming threat, they've been in effect for 15 months. Any financial impact has already been felt, through two successive open enrollment periods.
And yet, "employer offers for health insurance was basically unchanged between June 2013 and September 2014." Employers have been buying ACA-compliant plans, yet employer-sponsored coverage isn't going away.
The "just wait for it!" shtick doesn't work when you acknowledge that all this stuff has already happened and didn't impact coverage rates.
"Just wait til next year!" is about as strong an admission as you're likely to get that none of the anti-ACA doomsday predictions have come to pass.
Nice job with the bait and switch. I didn't realize getting stitches was a terminal illness - nor did I think that a colonoscopy was deadly either or that either one could bankrupt you. I had no idea the American medical system was so ****ed up. You've got serious problems in the US if people are dying and suffering bankruptcy getting stitches and colonoscopies.
As for the Canadian system, the government funds less than 50% of all healthcare services and products consumed by Canadians annually. It's why virtually all medium and large businesses fund supplemental health insurance and why many who aren't lucky enough to have such support purchase additional healthcare insurance themselves.
Would I trade systems - no, I wouldn't - partly because it's the only system I've ever known and partly because if the percentage of taxes (here in Ontario, 50% of all government revenue is spent on healthcare) I pay to support healthcare were eliminated and I had to buy insurance myself, my initial costs would go down significantly but the government would soon eat up that vacated tax room with other mindless taxation and spending.
And finally, there are indeed many people losing homes and savings funding healthcare services and drugs that are not covered by the single payer plan.
Now affordability means a mandated rising cost increase on the Middle Class and small Businesses and it's being defended.... unbelievable.
Nice job with the bait and switch. I didn't realize getting stitches was a terminal illness - nor did I think that a colonoscopy was deadly either or that either one could bankrupt you. I had no idea the American medical system was so ****ed up. You've got serious problems in the US if people are dying and suffering bankruptcy getting stitches and colonoscopies.
As for the Canadian system, the government funds less than 50% of all healthcare services and products consumed by Canadians annually. It's why virtually all medium and large businesses fund supplemental health insurance and why many who aren't lucky enough to have such support purchase additional healthcare insurance themselves.
Would I trade systems - no, I wouldn't - partly because it's the only system I've ever known and partly because if the percentage of taxes (here in Ontario, 50% of all government revenue is spent on healthcare) I pay to support healthcare were eliminated and I had to buy insurance myself, my initial costs would go down significantly but the government would soon eat up that vacated tax room with other mindless taxation and spending.
And finally, there are indeed many people losing homes and savings funding healthcare services and drugs that are not covered by the single payer plan.
"Affordability" here means a threshold--an on-ramp to financial assistance for those in need or an off-ramp from the individual mandate. Consumers still shop around and choose the plan that's best for them. If they don't have an employer who makes that choice for them, that is.
And we've reached the point where the right becomes the left and attacks high-deductible plans. Half your arguments come from the Chamber of Commerce, the other half come from Families USA.
Let me ask you this: when the GOP repealed the ACA's $2,000 limit on deductibles for small employer plans (opening them up to higher deductibles than that), were you for or against that move and why?
and no, your costs wouldn't go down. my premium approaches three hundred a month for one person
How would the Democrats know whether or not the inclusion of Subsidies makes their product affordable to the average American ?
And I'm GLAD the GOP repealed the Democrats attempt at instituting price controls on a National scale.
The Democrats were just trying to cover their asses KNOWING that the inevitable premium hikes of ObamaCare would make them look bad Politically.
You want Prive Control's move to Venezuela. They're doing wonders their.
I really do marvel at people in the US who bemoan what they have and wish they had what Canada has, as an example. I highlighted the above from your statement because it's laughable to me. When I retired, almost 5 years ago, I had the option to continue my employer provided supplemental health insurance coverage at my own cost. Guess what? My supplemental insurance, for me, one person, was $380 monthly. That's to cover, with deductibles, limits and exclusions, the basics that our single payer system doesn't cover - dental, drugs, chiropractic, orthopedics, etc. etc. And that's on top of the $thousands I pay in taxes to support the basic system. And you're moaning because you pay $300 a month for the basics. Americans really need a reality check when it comes to healthcare and what others have.
I really do marvel at people in the US who bemoan what they have and wish they had what Canada has, as an example. I highlighted the above from your statement because it's laughable to me. When I retired, almost 5 years ago, I had the option to continue my employer provided supplemental health insurance coverage at my own cost. Guess what? My supplemental insurance, for me, one person, was $380 monthly. That's to cover, with deductibles, limits and exclusions, the basics that our single payer system doesn't cover - dental, drugs, chiropractic, orthopedics, etc. etc. And that's on top of the $thousands I pay in taxes to support the basic system. And you're moaning because you pay $300 a month for the basics. Americans really need a reality check when it comes to healthcare and what others have.
No, that's not what the CBO said in January. What they did was compare their projections of enrollment in ESI under the ACA vs. what they think it would be in the absence of the ACA. They came up with these projections:
Employer-based coverage under the ACA
Year2010 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Enrollment (in millions)150 156 156 153 155 155 156 156 155 157 157 157 157
Employer-based coverage, no ACA
Year 2010 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Enrollment (in millions)150 156 158 160 163 164 165 165 165 166 166 166 166
You'll note that neither scenario involves long-term losses.
The number of people with employer-based coverage continues to grow in either scenario, the difference is that it grows faster in the no-ACA world. In the world we live in, more people will shop for their own plans independent of their employer as we go forward. The number of people with employer-based insurance doesn't fall.
What those tables do not show is "10 million employees will lose their employer healthcare plans" (the ones they have now).
(CBO's March 2015 update to these projections narrow the gap between these projections anyway).
Again, you're mischaracterizing what they've said. From the CBO's blog Frequently Asked Questions About CBO’s Estimates of the Labor Market Effects of the Affordable Care Act
Voluntary reductions in the amount of labor offered are not the same as "losing a significant percentage of their hours of work."
That's the difference between the CBO's with-ACA/without-ACA estimates. There are now realistic alternatives to the employer-based coverage, which means in the future people will drift toward those alternatives. That's a natural, organic change over time, not the disruption or people being stripped of what they have that you've been implying.
Yea they DO like to refer to the Canadian Health Care system as a shining star of single payer health care.
Nice job with the bait and switch. I didn't realize getting stitches was a terminal illness - nor did I think that a colonoscopy was deadly either or that either one could bankrupt you. I had no idea the American medical system was so ****ed up. You've got serious problems in the US if people are dying and suffering bankruptcy getting stitches and colonoscopies.
As for the Canadian system, the government funds less than 50% of all healthcare services and products consumed by Canadians annually. It's why virtually all medium and large businesses fund supplemental health insurance and why many who aren't lucky enough to have such support purchase additional healthcare insurance themselves.
Would I trade systems - no, I wouldn't - partly because it's the only system I've ever known and partly because if the percentage of taxes (here in Ontario, 50% of all government revenue is spent on healthcare) I pay to support healthcare were eliminated and I had to buy insurance myself, my initial costs would go down significantly but the government would soon eat up that vacated tax room with other mindless taxation and spending.
And finally, there are indeed many people losing homes and savings funding healthcare services and drugs that are not covered by the single payer plan.
10 million people will go from employer funded health insurance plans to insurance exchanges or Medicaid.
10 million people who would have been covered by employer plans will not be so covered under the ACA.
I appreciate that everything is roses from your perspective. I'm happy for you. My point as it relates to the actual OP in this thread stands.
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?