- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 31,926
- Reaction score
- 29,390
- Location
- Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And don't forget, American Democrats like to claim "it's free".
No disrespect CJ, but the more I hear, the more I wouldn't trade MY plan for yours. The more I hear there is no "Canadian system" but very different provincial systems. The last I looked BC's health care costs were about 42% of overall budget, and even the raving nut bars in the NDP aren't yelling beyond the usual bellyaching. In my time here I have never needed nor known anyone with private insurance other than pharmacy coverage. There is zero wait list for any form of cancer treatment, no wait for a diabetic to see a specialist etc., all issues my Ontario cousins say they face.
These are not the same thing.
Saying 10 million people currently in employer-sponsored insurance are going to lose it is not the same as saying ESI coverage in a decade would have grown more in an ACA-less alternate universe than it will in this one.
The CBO predicts year-over-year ESI will increase under the ACA. They just think it would increase more in the ACA-less universe (understandable since such a universe doesn't have a viable alternative to ESI). That doesn't imply the loss of what people now have.
By and large companies are not dropping coverage, they aren't planning to, nor is the CBO predicting they will. So no, your point doesn't stand. It's mildly mind-boggling to me that you persist in this nonsense in the face of the overwhelming actual evidence of what's happening.
If you think the subsidies aren't generous enough, get involved in a Families USA letter-writing campaign to Congress or something. You'll fine no shortage of left-leaning groups that share your view.
I'm not the one complaining about deductibles...
That was you.
Anyway, that was my point in posing the question. You'll argue from the left, you'll argue from the right--you just flip a switch between posts. Or even within the same post at times.
These are not the same thing.
Saying 10 million people currently in employer-sponsored insurance are going to lose it is not the same as saying ESI coverage in a decade would have grown more in an ACA-less alternate universe than it will in this one.
The CBO predicts year-over-year ESI will increase under the ACA. They just think it would increase more in the ACA-less universe (understandable since such a universe doesn't have a viable alternative to ESI). That doesn't imply the loss of what people now have.
By and large companies are not dropping coverage, they aren't planning to, nor is the CBO predicting they will. So no, your point doesn't stand. It's mildly mind-boggling to me that you persist in this nonsense in the face of the overwhelming actual evidence of what's happening.
And your comment "by and large, companies are not dropping coverage" has a best before date. According to surveys done, many are planning on doing so in the future or taking other measures to ensure their employee benefit costs don't rise. Here's one example:
Forty percent of U.S. companies to alter health care plans, drop coverage, due to Obamacare - NaturalNews.com
I'm not complaining, I'm just exposing some of the fallacies of one if the if not the worst pieces of legislation ever passed.
You're supporting your discredited case with a source that literally contains the line: "Also, 98 percent of the employers said they don't have definite plans to discontinue company health insurance plans next year or in 2015 and dump their workers into state exchanges."
Good lord.
All that was ever going to happen to employers under the ACA has already happened. And as one would predict (based on the design of the law), it didn't change much of anything about employer-based coverage, other than a few extra benefits and consumer protections for employees.
You can't possible be that dense, so the only alternative is you're purposely being obtuse.
I'll play along and cherry pick this comment from the link: Also, according to Towers Watson, the firm conducting the survey, 60 percent of companies look at private health insurance exchanges as one way of controlling their healthcare and administrative costs by dumping their employees into the state-run health insurance pools called for under the law.
I realize you're not from the United States so you don't understand our markets. And thus are obviously confused by poorly worded articles.
Private insurance exchanges are not the ACA. They're a defined contribution option for large employers. They're an alternative benefit structure option for employers who want to offer health benefits to employees--that's the opposite of dumping.
As an aside, this is probably my biggest pet peeve here: you've got strong, immovable opinions on these issues, yet zero knowledge of the issues, health system, or facts at hand. At least you've got an excuse, though, you're Canadian. I'm not sure what some of the other guys' excuses are.
Do you ever actually read an entire sentence or post or just cherry pick? Did you actually read the sentence I quoted that you responded to?
It said, in conclusion "one way of controlling their healthcare and administrative costs by dumping their employees into the state-run health insurance pools called for under the law." Do you understand what those words mean? One way of reducing costs is to dump their employees into the ACA state run exchanges and pay the penalties, if necessary.
Nearly eight in 10 (77%) employers lack confidence in public insurance exchanges as a viable alternative to employer-sponsored coverage, and almost all employers surveyed (99.5%) have no plans to exit active medical plans and direct employees to this arrangement
Towers Watson does their survey every summer. You know what they found last summer?
99.5% of employers have no intention whatsoever of re-directing their employees to a public exchange. Which conforms with every other survey of employer intentions, not to mention their actual actions now that the employer mandate is in effect.
Get a grip. I don't really know what you get out of persisting in this fantasy but it's pretty clear that your hopes of ESI collapsing (or experiencing even a minor dent) aren't happening.
Firstly, I have no agenda - I'm simply commenting on the OP and the issues. You're the one with the agenda.
Secondly, again, did you comprehend what you quoted? 99.5% have "no plans to exit ACTIVE medical plans". What do they plan to do when their active contracts end? What would it cost them to exit their ACTIVE plans? When renewal time comes, will it be cheaper for them to renew their current plan or dump their employees into the state run ACA exchanges?
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.
ok. i'll happily trade you our ****ed up system for yours. if we could, would you?
full disclosure : i paid almost two grand because i cut my thumb a couple years ago. they superglued it shut, and gave me a tetanus shot. forty five minutes. the best part is that two companies sent me bills for the same service. i had to pay both. i have insurance.
please say that you would trade health care systems. i have many more examples, and i am willing to hash them out with you.
That isn't a fallacy. Restoring market-based dynamics to the health care markets (on both the insurance and care sides) is one of the goals of the law. That's part of what deductibles do.
I think you've been hoodwinked by those on the right who told you for years that the ACA was some kind of surrogate for single-payer. It isn't. Quite the opposite.
Yes, individuals still have to be cost-conscious under it and make financially responsible decisions for themselves. That's kind of a cornerstone of any market-based strategy.
Like I said, if you want to argue the Families USA perspective, be my guest--but take a long look in the mirror at some point and figure out whatever it is you actually believe.
ok. i'll happily trade you our ****ed up system for yours. if we could, would you?
full disclosure : i paid almost two grand because i cut my thumb a couple years ago. they superglued it shut, and gave me a tetanus shot. forty five minutes. the best part is that two companies sent me bills for the same service. i had to pay both. i have insurance.
please say that you would trade health care systems. i have many more examples, and i am willing to hash them out with you.
Again, you people shouldnt meddle or attempt to comment on things you do not understand.
Market based dynamics were utterly corrupted and undermined when the Government mandated the purchase of a Government created product under false pretenses.
If it were Market based then I could chose not to purchase the product and find a suittable alternative without the threat of fines.
I have lived in both Canada and America.
Imo, if you are lower class, the Canadian system is FAR better.
if you are middle class, each has benefits.
if you are well off or have 'Cadillac' insurance, America is far, FAR better.
The Canadian system is designed for emergencies/'simple' life-and-death ailments and GP visits. If you are a genuine emergency case OR just need to see a GP for antibiotics for a simple infection; the Canadian system is great.
But anything more complicated and the system can get very SLOW and is usually under-staffed.
And remember, just because you don't have to buy medical insurance in Canada (though it helps), doesn't mean the average person is not paying many thousands of dollars in taxes for 'free' healthcare.
like three hundred a month and maybe ten grand for a serious injury thousands?
i never argued that Canadian health care was free. i argued that most of them wouldn't trade health care systems with us.
An overwhelming 94-percent of Canadians support public - not private, for-profit - solutions to making the country's healthcare system stronger - with an equal number of Conservatives flying the banner for public health care.
All markets are regulated, all effective markets have underlying structure that allows buyers to send (and sellers to receive) signals based on price and quality. Such is life in the real world.
The tax penalty is there in this case because insurance markets have a well-known problem called adverse selection which requires some sort of intervention to correct.
ok. i'll happily trade you our ****ed up system for yours. if we could, would you?
full disclosure : i paid almost two grand because i cut my thumb a couple years ago. they superglued it shut, and gave me a tetanus shot. forty five minutes. the best part is that two companies sent me bills for the same service. i had to pay both. i have insurance.
please say that you would trade health care systems. i have many more examples, and i am willing to hash them out with you.
Sure we do. Most eloquently stated in the movie Cool Hand Luke. "Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining." That about sums up the trickle down theory.Your problem is that you don't understand the concept of trickle down.
Asked and answered - I previously indicated that I wouldn't give up our basic single payer system for the reasons I stated above - if you didn't get it then, perhaps you could reread my post.
You could ask the same question in America - how many people wanted to give up their health insurance coverage for the ACA before it was enacted? after it's been enacted?
You seem to have this idea that I hate my own insurance or that I hate the ACA. I'm simply participating in the discussion here. Just because I point out what I see as problems with the ACA doesn't mean that I'm going to give up my system - that's a false choice/strawman argument that doesn't take away from my comments at all.
I've been on record, in several threads here, that Americans would be better off with a single payer system but you haven't the culture, history, legal or tax chops to do it.
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?