Personally, I think that if pigs were born with wings, their areodynamic qualities wouldn’t be nearly as poor as they currently are.
The Website is the sort of mess that doesn’t just happen by chance. It can only come about from a culture of incompetence, one that values political loyalty above ability to execute.
You can’t solve a problem with the thinking that created the problem. That’s why they can’t fix it.
[quote=“BrentGolf”]You can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think anybody has said they think Obama Care is perfect. It’s clearly flawed and a far cry from it’s original intention. However as with nearly everything, analysis means nothing without comparing it to something else. So what we’ve got is the richest nation in the world with the 37th ranked healthcare system.
Now assuming the website worked perfectly, and I know that’s a huge assumption because in reality it has to be among the worst sites ever launched, but work with me here. If the website was flawless, can you make a strong argument that Obama Care is WORSE then the current #37 ranked healthcare system? I know full well you can make many arguments for why Obama Care is inadequate and not what you were hoping for, but again, compare it to what’s already there.
Do you honestly think it’s worse then what the US currently has? If so, why?[/quote]
Yes it is worse.
Nearly everyones insurance goes up.
Companies in 2015 will be forced to make hard decisions. People will loose jobs and insurance.
Its a legal mess, theres a long list, but the current declaration by the president that individual plans can be extended, is ONE example. There are many, Congress may turn a blind eye when they agree with the President, but he doesnt have the power to be a dictator. This creates problems for the insurance industry if they are indeed working inside the law or face prosecution from a less tolerant President.
You cant keep your policy that was a lie.
The polices are not generally cheaper, people wont be saving 2500 dollars, that was a lie.
I’m sure there are many more, but have you seem Obama, winging it. This is not a well thought out plan, As an engineer, last minute changes are the worst, but hes decided to do that to the insurance companies. 3 years planing for this event, working out all the numbers and a few weeks before its all in place he TOTALLY changes the game.
Why Didn’t the website work? Well, some say because it was the log in to see the price, which was changed just prior to the launch, idiocy!.
Ill give more reasons, if you dont see a balance here.
Yes a balanced argument would need more than a consumer price point argument. First off, it’s far too early to tell whether it will be more expensive for nearly everybody as you put it, but even if that turned out to be the case, I hope we can go a little deeper. Of the people who do experience cheaper rates, are they the low income people? Of the people that experience equal or higher rates, does it at least come with better coverage? Has there been an improvement in the old problem of pre-existing conditions? Are there less low income Americans that have no insurance? Even if the overall consumer cost is more, will the new system save the government more money in the long run?
Mick, I see your points and I’m right with you on a lot of things about the Presidents lying and the incompetence of the implementation of the website etc. There’s no denying this Obama Care roll out has been so horrendous it’s down right comical, but I don’t think you have even addressed any of the points above which is going to be the real test of whether Obama Care is better than the current system in the long run.
I’m positive Obama lied and screwed up in more ways than one. I’m positive this went just about as bad as one could imagine. However, I’m not at all convinced Obama Care won’t be better than the current system in the long run and as of yet I have not heard any good arguments to the contrary.
Yes a balanced argument would need more than a consumer price point argument. First off, it’s far too early to tell whether it will be more expensive for nearly everybody as you put it, but even if that turned out to be the case, I hope we can go a little deeper. [/quote]
Yes please Mr. BrentGolf, the devil is in the details. yesterday you might have thought the problems were just to do with the website, today you entertain the idea there will be a large hike for the majority.
Perhaps tomorrow, you might think about two corporations like Walmart and Costco. Good guy Costco has always bought insurance for its employees (although Im not sure its Obamacare compliant), and Walmart who has always tried to maximize profits by passing healthcare to the state. THEN go and look at the new laws and how they effect businesses, and you should be able to make some conclusions on what these companies might do, and why, and the consequence of making a particular choice. 
I’ve said many times on this forum that I believe in redistribution of income and improving social programs at the expense of those who can afford it. Yes it would be nice if Obama Care was no more expensive overall and improved coverage at the same time ( and maybe it still will be, you don’t know anymore than anyone else does at this point ) but in the end reducing the price is NOT the primary goal.
If you think price is the most important aspect of healthcare then yes what we’ve seen thus far would certainly raise a few eye brows. However for people who care about all the more important things I mentioned above, then the jury is still out on whether Obama Care will improve the overall quality of healthcare in the US. So on the price issue you’ve made your point very clear, you think it’s going to be more expensive overall. We’ll wait for some actual numbers on that. Feel free to address the rest of the more important issues I stated in my other post above and why you think Obama Care won’t accomplish any of them any better than the current system.
Until actual statistics are available to back up your claims on price and business practices with respect to employment, I’m not sure why you talk about them with such determination. Seems to be jumping the gun a bit doesn’t it? As of now, employment has not been affected. We will all have to patiently wait and see whether that changes in the long run. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t, but as of now, it hasn’t is all we can really say. Keep watching charts, keep checking actual statistics, that’s what will determine the result. Not who complains the most about things we don’t yet know…
Ah, too early to draw any conclusions hmmm? I mean 2015 is a way off but given one new law will be for companies to cover the insurance of their employees, if they have more than 50 full time employees, else pay a fine of something like 2000 dollars per person. I think you can draw some conclusions, of course it is indeed wonderful that 10’s of millions now can be covered. But I’m not only looking at the cost to the individual, but economy as well. 1 trillion will be raised in taxes over ten years, and if your all for transfer of wealth, great. But to think that doesn’t come with some serious economic consequences, I think you’d be kidding yourself.
Obama does claim ACA won’t be a net negative on the economy, and while I understand both sides lie, the level of dishonesty from Democrats recently has been absolutely breathtaking. You don’t need me to post clips of Democrat senators doing interviews on tv claiming all those millions of people were not in fact loosing their plan because of the new laws. It was because they were better plans, the others were junk. Perhaps they had a point, but their refusal to accept a blatantly obvious fact, shows how hard they are trying to spin this.
Then they did the same thing when people asked for the numbers of people signing up. First pretending they didn’t have them, then incredibly changing the definition of who signed up to include the numbers of people who had a plan in the basket, but not yet purchased it. That made the numbers disclosed meaningless, and an obvious attempt at spin.
So perhaps you might believe Obama, this time. You might want to entertain the idea, the overall impact of ACA, despite its good intentions to bring extended coverage, might be a net negative. Will Obamacare destroy jobs?
Yes, I have been very curious about this oft-repeated statement from you, especially given your stated profession. How do you balance this sentiment with your professional mandate which should be to maximize return? Does this affect your job performance OR alternatively lead to dissatisfaction between the disconnect with what you do and what you would like to see done?
Err…why do I feel I have to keep repeating myself here…This is really only an issue for very small companies or labor intensive companies that want to keep employee costs at McJob level…like Dominos
I already have compliant insurance for my company…it didn’t cost anymore than normal. But, then again we buy proper insurance for our employees because they are skilled workers. Oh, this is across both Union and Non-Union plants.
I feel like I live in an alternate universe as compared to you folks.
Someone help me here…Please tell me about your US facilities and how you are handling this?
Err…why do I feel I have to keep repeating myself here…This is really only an issue for very small companies or labor intensive companies that want to keep employee costs at McJob level…like Dominos [/quote]
Or walmart, the single biggest employer in the US. I think its fair to say, this is a significant number of people to be effected, Im not sure why you would downplay its relevance.
You didn’t read? Rule lets unions avoid ObamaCare tax and you wont need to pay this $63 tax for each of your employees you have covered?
[quote=“Elegua”]I feel like I live in an alternate universe as compared to you folks.
Someone help me here…Please tell me about your US facilities and how you are handling this?[/quote]
Well, I live in Taiwan, thats where my business and insurance are. I do work closely with some US companies, they too have comprehensive insurance policies and will be subject to the 40% Excise Tax “Cadillac” on high-end Premium Health Insurance Plans 2018. Your employees won’t have to deal with that?
The employer mandate has been delayed to 2015, so, when that expires, I hope you do find there is no impact to your business or your employees.
I though the excise tax is on annual plans over $10,200 for individual coverage or $27,500 for family coverage. The tax applies to money that exceeds 10,200. So if your plan is 10,300, then you pay $40 in tax?
[quote=“hansioux”]
I though the excise tax is on annual plans over $10,200 for individual coverage or $27,500 for family coverage. The tax applies to money that exceeds 10,200. So if your plan is 10,300, then you pay $40 in tax?[/quote]
That, appears to be accurate. I thought it was 40% on the entire plan. Big difference, and as I said before, I will be happy if people can convince me the overall impact will be a net positive.
As I said, McJobs. I don’t think it is extreme to require firms to provide a minimum level of coverage. In my mind it’s like minimum wage.
Didn’t you read, we have non-union employees too.
So basically it’s hearsay… In our case, only a small number will be impacted in a very modest way. Let’s say more will be spent on the Christmas party.
There may be. But so far, we see increases in-line with the recent past (which for us have been lower than usual). Certainly not the gloom and doom predicted here. Even if the cost of healthcare tripled, it wouldn’t make a huge difference in our cost structure. With the exception of functions like Sales & Marketing, labor efficiency is to the point where it really makes up a small part of the total business costs.
[quote=“Mick”][quote=“hansioux”]
I though the excise tax is on annual plans over $10,200 for individual coverage or $27,500 for family coverage. The tax applies to money that exceeds 10,200. So if your plan is 10,300, then you pay $40 in tax?[/quote]
That, appears to be accurate. I thought it was 40% on the entire plan. Big difference, and as I said before, I will be happy if people can convince me the overall impact will be a net positive.[/quote]
I worked for a fairly large tech company back in the states, and my plan was no where near $10,200. If I buy that plan myself today with blue shield, I think I will have to pay an annual fee of about $3,000. I initially had a hard time imagining a health plan that would cost $10,200, as I thought my $3000 plan (which my company probably pays less for it) is already pretty good… then I read about those so called Cadillac plans where there’s almost no fee out of pocket (no co-pay, deductibles).
Well, not paying at all wasn’t my experience. So I’m just curious exactly what kind of company could afford such a plan…
What I’ve read is that people whose condition makes frequently checking in to the hospital necessary are the ones that benefit from this kind of plan. That is if they go to the hospital so much, their out of pocket fees would exceed 7,200 annually even with premium insurance. That is like going to the doctors everyday (a.k.a necessary to be in the hospital often).
So this tax would only affect them, however, if people who actually need to rely on this type of insurance have other avenues to make the load lighter now that the new system is put into effect. If one has such serious and chronicle condition, he/she is probably eligible for Medicaid or other well managed government plans.
In another words, the intension is for those who don’t have to be choose to use such a plan to share a bit of the health care cost, while discourage waste of medical resources.
[quote=“Elegua”]Err…why do I feel I have to keep repeating myself here…This is really only an issue for very small companies or labor intensive companies that want to keep employee costs at McJob level…like Dominos
I already have compliant insurance for my company…it didn’t cost anymore than normal. But, then again we buy proper insurance for our employees because they are skilled workers. Oh, this is across both Union and Non-Union plants.
I feel like I live in an alternate universe as compared to you folks.
Someone help me here…Please tell me about your US facilities and how you are handling this?[/quote]
Well, I don’t have any facilities in the US or elsewhere.
I dunno. But, that’s the Obama Justice Department asserting that the Obama Administration estimates that a majority of group health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end of 2013.
I know the Obama Admin has been lying a lot, lately. But, shouldn’t I believe them this time? 
Are you saying minimum wage is a good thing?
Are you saying it isn’t? 
Are you saying it isn’t? [/quote]
Well, it does tend to price low skilled, poor people out of jobs. But it’s great news for the ones who don’t get laid off. And it means more jobs in the Third World sweatshops - jobs that would otherwise be in the US. So that’s good for the poor countries of the world. And they sure could use the work. Especially the children.
To put it another way, minimum wage in the US is a godsend for workers in countries where they don’t have minimum wage. So, it’s not all bad.
Impose a reasonable minimum wage and abolish tipping.
How many Ghanian or Cambodian residents can actually serve coffee in the USA from home? NOne.
Your minimum wage argument is a furphy, especially in the service industry. Manufacturing, perhaps, but then manufacturing staff are generally paid much above minimum wage (or should be) and there’s no issue.
Urodacus:
Perhaps, but then couple a minimum wage with health care provisions, and is there not a great incentive for companies to automate to the greatest degree possible? Hence in the US, you now have credit card readers at gas station pumps and we pump our own gas, you have self-serve check-out counters at supermarkets and grocery stores, you have ATMs rather than bank tellers and electronic payments rather than letters mailed out or bills mailed in and all of this removes many of those entry-level jobs for the uneducated or less skilled, including the hundreds of thousands of jobs that the Post Office is shedding. Couple that with the massive automation in manufacturing and, perhaps, you will find that this really is about salaries and health care provisions and how they add to the final bill. Many companies would react sharply to correct a 3% rise in costs. So, I think that you may be mistaken about how minimum wage and other cost increases affect corporate behavior. Just a thought? There are already experimental measures in place to self order at fast-food restaurants; this, too, would require a completely cashless (although no doubt vending type machines could be installed) payment and then… take away the fast-food workers and where does the lower level of labor work?
[quote=“rowland”][quote=“Elegua”]
As I said, McJobs. I don’t think it is extreme to require firms to provide a minimum level of coverage. In my mind it’s like minimum wage.
[/quote]
Are you saying minimum wage is a good thing?[/quote]
Yes, in general it is.
[quote]Well, it does tend to price low skilled, poor people out of jobs. But it’s great news for the ones who don’t get laid off. And it means more jobs in the Third World sweatshops - jobs that would otherwise be in the US. So that’s good for the poor countries of the world. And they sure could use the work. Especially the children.
To put it another way, minimum wage in the US is a godsend for workers in countries where they don’t have minimum wage. So, it’s not all bad.[/quote]
This a partially complete, over simplistic view of international trade, wages, comparative advantage and about 10 other Economic theories. I’m not sure where to begin first… 
This might be true if we ignore: differences in labor productivity, total factor productivity, regulatory and tax environment, exchange and interest rates, environmental regulation, industrial policy…etc…So really what you are saying is, “just hold these things constant”? Huh, maybe you are an economist after all.
Or perhaps the most damming and direct: The fact that an increasing body of evidence show that there is no change in working hours or employment when minimum wages are implemented. It seems the price floor effect isn’t what we thought it was.
In any case, US minimum wages are lower than most of our OECD cousins.