The Affordable Care Act

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

How could you have foreseen that this one, simple observation would spawn 92 pages of responses?

^ The above is a likely ill fated attempt to bring this thread back on topic.

What do you know, back on topic from Post 912 through 950. Thanks Whell.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

That's the problem. I'm not sure it will. That's why I've never really been a big fan of ACA. It's a half measure, mainly because our president is either too corrupt, or lacks the balls, to drive insurance companies to their knees and strip employers of their influence over the American citizens healthcare. Instead, he guarantees them an even more compliant audience. He's an asshole of nearly Republican magnitude.

Dave

I totally agree with you. When ACA was first proposed my thought was that Obama lost a golden opportunity to address and impact the cost, eliminate the health insurance companies. They have been regulating the health industry and as long as they are in the picture, the ACA will get lobbied to it's death. And it has. This is why I would always think of Obama as wimp who could not stand up to the Insurance industry and in fact ACA is a short term windfall to the insurance companies. Secondly, he should have taken employers from the business of providing health care. As it stands now, large corporations have the clout with the insurance companies and they can negotiate better rates and leaving the rest of the insured population subsidizing up the tab.

[4-2-7]

I don't know what some of you are reading, lots of comments stating thing that others are saying.

What the CBO report & news I have see is referenced to.

2.5 milion FULL TIME job loss by 2024.

Thats true as far as the report states.

The other point In the report is that 6-7 million that have healthcare at work as part of their benefits will be canceled. It's cheaper for the employer to not provide the health benefits and get a fine for worker that exceed a 30 hour week.

Read the CBO report and not your spin news.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...utlook2014.pdf

Effects of the Employer Penalty on Labor Supply
Under the ACA, employers with 50 or more full-time- equivalent employees will face a penalty if they do not offer insurance (or if the insurance they offer does
not meet certain criteria) and if at least one of their full- time workers receives a subsidy through an exchange. Originally scheduled to take effect in 2014, that penalty is now scheduled to be enforced beginning in 2015.

In CBO’s judgment, the costs of the penalty eventually will be borne primarily by workers in the form of reductions in wages or other compensation—just as the costs of a payroll tax levied on employers will generally be passed along to employees.

12 Because the supply of labor is responsive to changes in compensation, the employer penalty will ultimately induce some workers to supply less labor.
In the next few years, however, when wages probably will not adjust fully, those penalties will tend to reduce the demand for labor more than the supply. In the longer run, some businesses also may decide to reduce their hiring or shift their demand toward part-time hiring— either to stay below the threshold of 50 full-time- equivalent workers or to limit the number of full-time workers that generate penalty payments. But such shifts might not reduce the overall use of labor, as discussed below.

Effects of the Employer Penalty on the
Demand for Labor
Beginning in 2015, employers of 50 or more full-time- equivalent workers that do not offer health insurance
(or that offer health insurance that does not meet certain criteria) will generally pay a penalty. That penalty will initially reduce employers’ demand for labor and thereby tend to lower employment. Over time, CBO expects, the penalty will be borne primarily by workers in the form of reduced wages or other compensation, at which point the penalty will have little effect on labor demand but will reduce labor supply and will lower employment slightly through that channel.
Businesses face two constraints, however, in seeking to shift the costs of the penalty to workers. First, there is considerable evidence that employers refrain from cutting their employees’ wages, even when unemployment is high (a phenomenon sometimes referred to as sticky wages).

19 For that reason, some employers might leave wages unchanged and instead employ a smaller workforce. That effect will probably dissipate entirely over several years for most workers because companies that face the penalty can restrain wage growth until workers have absorbed the cost of the penalty—thus gradually eliminating the negative effect on labor demand that comes from sticky wages.

A second and more durable constraint is that businesses generally cannot reduce workers’ wages below the statu- tory minimum wage.20 As a result, some employers will respond to the penalty by hiring fewer people at or just above the minimum wage—an effect that would be simi- lar to the impact of raising the minimum wage for those companies’ employees. Over time, as worker productivity rises and inflation erodes the value of the minimum wage, that effect is projected to decline because wages for fewer jobs will be constrained by the minimum wage.
The effect will not disappear completely over the next 10 years, however, because some wages are still projected to be constrained (that is, wages for some jobs will be at or just above the minimum wage).

Businesses also may respond to the employer penalty by seeking to reduce or limit their full-time staffing and to hire more part-time employees. Those responses might occur because the employer penalty will apply only to businesses with 50 or more full-time-equivalent employ- ees, and employers will be charged only for each full-time employee (not counting the first 30 employees). People are generally considered full time under the ACA if
they work 30 hours or more per week, on average, so offset the effects of changes in federal spending and taxes. Over time, however, those effects are expected to dissipate as overall economic output moves back toward its maximum sustainable level.

ME
Basically a part time work force will be imposed by employers giving no health care as benefits. Shorter hours means less income or two part time jobs.

The workers that are working 40 weeks will be dropped from work provided health care. The employer will pass the added cost in fines to the worker and workers will make less income as a result.

Net result is all workers/individuals will be providing their own healthcare and thats not "Free". Yes at first there will be some subsidy based on the workers income. So if they earn too much they will lose it. So this effect will stop people from working to much.

So now you have a workforce that will be earning less income do to the shorter work weeks. But yet have more bills to pay with the added expense of providing their own healthcare.

This will push more people onto more entitlement programs.

Did I mention the the government does not do anything to earn income, ie: sell goods and services. They only generate funds by taxing, as they spend more workers pay more taxes. So the next thing to happen to the socalled freebies is we all get taxed more to pay for it.

This kind of bull shit will even get me to stop working. Give me my freebies Im entitled too.

All this less income will have a negative effect on local, nation and global economies.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

I totally agree with you. When ACA was first proposed my thought was that Obama lost a golden opportunity to address and impact the cost, eliminate the health insurance companies. They have been regulating the health industry and as long as they are in the picture, the ACA will get lobbied to it's death. And it has. This is why I would always think of Obama as wimp who could not stand up to the Insurance industry and in fact ACA is a short term windfall to the insurance companies. Secondly, he should have taken employers from the business of providing health care. As it stands now, large corporations have the clout with the insurance companies and they can negotiate better rates and leaving the rest of the insured population subsidizing up the tab.

Though I'm not exactly a fan of Obamacare for many of the same reasons as you, Obama was only able to sign a bill passed by both houses of Congress. The entire healthcare industry has such a stranglehold on Congress that the only possible reform was one that tweaked the existing phucked-up system.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

I totally agree with you. When ACA was first proposed my thought was that Obama lost a golden opportunity to address and impact the cost, eliminate the health insurance companies. They have been regulating the health industry and as long as they are in the picture, the ACA will get lobbied to it's death. And it has. This is why I would always think of Obama as wimp who could not stand up to the Insurance industry and in fact ACA is a short term windfall to the insurance companies. Secondly, he should have taken employers from the business of providing health care. As it stands now, large corporations have the clout with the insurance companies and they can negotiate better rates and leaving the rest of the insured population subsidizing up the tab.

Originally Posted by finnbow

As I'm not exactly a fan of Obamacare for many of the same reasons as you, Obama was only able to sign a bill passed by both houses of Congress. The entire healthcare industry has such a stranglehold on Congress that the only possible reform was one that tweaked the existing phucked-up system.

Yep, that's about the size of it.

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

I totally agree with you. When ACA was first proposed my thought was that Obama lost a golden opportunity to address and impact the cost, eliminate the health insurance companies. They have been regulating the health industry and as long as they are in the picture, the ACA will get lobbied to it's death. And it has. This is why I would always think of Obama as wimp who could not stand up to the Insurance industry and in fact ACA is a short term windfall to the insurance companies. Secondly, he should have taken employers from the business of providing health care. As it stands now, large corporations have the clout with the insurance companies and they can negotiate better rates and leaving the rest of the insured population subsidizing up the tab.

So, you think eliminating health insurance companies will lower health insurance costs, huh? Care to explain exactly how that would work? Also, Obama made partners out of the health insurance companies....at least at first. The a number of them started to back away when they started looking at the costs.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

So, you think eliminating health insurance companies will lower health insurance costs, huh? Care to explain exactly how that would work? Also, Obama made partners out of the health insurance companies....at least at first. The a number of them started to back away when they started looking at the costs.

It would work just like it works in Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Sweden, and most of the other EU nations where their government sponsored single payer health care systems cost half as much of GDP as ours...and for better outcomes. The systems and their results are right there and have been for 40 years. That's exactly how.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

So, you think eliminating health insurance companies will lower health insurance costs, huh? Care to explain exactly how that would work? Also, Obama made partners out of the health insurance companies....at least at first. The a number of them started to back away when they started looking at the costs.

It seems to work everywhere else in the world. Why shouldn't it work here? We're exceptional, remember?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

It would work just like it works in Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Sweden, and most of the other EU nations where their government sponsored single payer health care systems cost half as much of GDP as ours...and for better outcomes. The systems and their results are right there and have been for 40 years. That's exactly how.

BINGO!!! There you have it! Thanks, Alan.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

It would work just like it works in Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Sweden, and most of the other EU nations where their government sponsored single payer health care systems cost half as much of GDP as ours...and for better outcomes. The systems and their results are right there and have been for 40 years. That's exactly how.

Originally Posted by finnbow

It seems to work everywhere else in the world. Why shouldn't it work here? We're exceptional, remember?

I keep wondering;

With international travel becoming more and more prevalent, interaction between citizens, businesses and governments of different nations increasing by the day...........

How long can the "exceptionalism" crowd expect to maintain their silly, isolationist façade?

Actually, I'd say it's part of the xenophobic hysteria we're experiencing today.
Millions of Americans spend time abroad and see that it's really not all that bad. And this has the ones who are comfortable with the "American Way" a bit more than nervous.

What say you?

Dave