Last edited by a moderator:
Obama Care Could Be Deadly
- Thread starter gmsisko1
- Start date
I'm sure no one will really want to answer this, because no one gets to yell "racist!" as a result of this question - but I'm curious.
Can anyone really give a justifiable reason why a business that employees 50 people should be required to provide employees with health insurance but a business that employees 49 people should be exempt?
Can anyone really give a justifiable reason why a business that employees 50 people should be required to provide employees with health insurance but a business that employees 49 people should be exempt?
Soc27cer
CAGiversary!
Soc27cer
CAGiversary!
obaba was all over the news for raising minimum wage, which idont think really helps anyone given the price of gas from the 90s to now, but any who. i guess we have to start paying 2 bucks for the dollar menu.
...make a wish, if that not an idea for a political cartoon, i don't know what is.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Labour is only a small fraction of the cost of most services, fast food included.
Last edited by a moderator:
It represents the statistical cutoff point where one would see the most the most benefit from ACA's implementation (although probably 50 is just a round number that sounds good). Ultimately, we would be having this same discussion whether the number was 5000, 500, 50 or 5. It's just a number, if you find yourself on the wrong side of it juke the stats and everything will be right with the world.
Last edited by a moderator:
As worthless as your posts invariably are, this provides a segue in to an actual point.
Your problem isnt with the relatively few "abusers". it is about punishing anyone who cant afford medical care and/or insurance.
You would support denying sick children life saving assistance if their parents couldnt pay.
It is "just a number" - which is my question. If providing health insurance coverage is something that an employer should be required to do, why should some employers get out of that requirement?
It's not "just a number". We both know that you can't pick too low a number as the cutoff point because the cost of health insurance would cripple most traditional small business (1-25 employees) but by the same token they were never going to pass a bill which would fully socialize healthcare and eliminate employer subsidized healthcare. I've written ad nauseam on this thread that we need to scrap the entire insurance system and switch to single payer.
Thanks for telling me what I support. It is a good thing that the world has open minded, tolerant people like you who can enlighten the rest of us as to what we are actually thinking......Thanks for also replying on the actual issues that I brought up. It is good to know that you would never dodge out of answering direct questions.
HAahahahhaahahahhaahhhehehehehehehehhehehheeeee.......
mrsilkunderwear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 151 (100%)
Que?
But why is it okay to put this burden on a business with 50, 500, or 5,000 employees? Just because a business has X amount of employees, it doesn't mean they have the profit margins to afford to provide health insurance for their workforce.
I just don't see why there's a need to further tie health insurance to employers. Seems like this is a step in the complete opposite direction than what we need to go.
Agreed - although I think we need to right the ship before we put more of a load on it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Colloquially speaking "it's just a number" but there is some modicum of rationality behind picking said number. The thinking behind it is that a business of 500 or 5000 employees is better equipped to negotiate a more competitive rate with an insurance company than say a company of 5 or 25 people. The government also felt that they had to get business involved for two reasons 1)our current healthcare system even under ACA could not cover 250-300 million people and 2) a fully socialized healthcare system is not something this country of ours is ready for nor willing to do. Furthermore, you can argue that these businesses directly benefit from having healthy and fit employees who show up to work everyday. Having said all that, the truth of the matter is that in order for the bill to have any chance of passing it needed to be written in such a manner to appease all parties involved.
The reason why I am a proponent of a single payer system is because IMO our current health/insurance system is the equivalent of a car that has 200K miles on it. Instead of buying a new car we are replacing a few of the engine components. No amount of new spark plugs, cylinders or transmission will fix it. Placing everyone in equal footing where we focus more on preventative care and wellness is the way to go.
Does anyone have any research, CBO or otherwise, as to what the cost of having a single payer system is? I have anecdotal stories of 52% tax rates and doctors making less due to gov't controls than autoworkers, but I would like to see some cold, hard numbers. As I've said before, I'm open to single payer reform, but I think we need a major overhaul of our entire tax, welfare, and spending systems before we jump into another possible unfunded entitlement. Its like expanding Medicaid, it sounds great until you ask how we are going to pay for it.
Here you go Single Payer System Cost. Keep in mind that ~1/3 of all health care cost is administrative costs. A single payer system would eliminate/reduce most of these administrative costs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks. I will examine it in more detail when I have the chance. The girl I just started dating moved here from Spain and is pretty happy with a single payer system.
A vast majority of people that live in countries that have them, are.
Congrats. Although, you can't compare the US to Europe. Totally different mindset and style of government. My uncle is in orthopedic surgeon in Germany (has lived over there for 25+ years now) and absolutely loves his lifestyle and job. His best friend is a surgeon in DC and hates his life/job. If I had to guess I would say his friend makes way more money (has a mansion outside of DC) but my uncle certainly is not hurting by any stretch of the imagination.
Last edited by a moderator:
RPGNinja
CAGiversary!
Which is funny because the wealthiest from those countries kept going to America for their healthcare before Obama ruined it with Obamacare. Seems to me like they hated it and would rather get the best healthcare in the world with the United States. They were just hoping the peasants wouldn't notice and would keep putting up with the long lines and delayed appointments.
But how do you explain Kobe Bryant going to Germany for his knee treatment?
Look, there is no denying that we have some of the best and brightest doctors in the world but to presume that everyone has access to the same type of care or these doctors is simply not true. At the end of the day for all our medical prowess we still have people who can't get treatment because of lack of insurance. This is the problem ACA tried to remedy.
There are lines in EVERY healthcare system. Also, there's this crazy concept called "triage." Perhaps you've heard of it? If you call your doctor and say that you need to see him/her that day because you're feeling super shitty, you don't think you'll have to wait? Or maybe someone with a gunshot would might get seen faster than someone with a broken leg? Have you been to an ER lately?
The wealthy have been skipping the line since forever. News at
ing 11. Like kill3r7 asked, does everyone in this country have access to that?“Under a single payer system with co-payments …on average, people would have an additional $54 to spend…more specifically, the increase in taxes… would be about $856 per capita…private-sector costs would decrease by $910 per capita."
How much are the copayments?
“Under a single payer system without co-payments people would have $144 a year less to spend than they have now, on average…consumer payments for health would fall by $1,118 per capita, but taxes would have to increase by $1,261 per capita to finance this plan.”
So $1261 added to your current tax bill, but deduct your current health insurance premium cost. My concern, wasn't the CBO waayyyy off on ACA cost estimates? This is also in 1993 dollars. Anybody have a conversion to 2014 dollars?
"Universal coverage could be financed with a 7 percent payroll tax, a 2 percent income tax, and current federal payments for Medicare, Medicaid, and other state and federal government insurance programs. A 2 percent income tax would offset all other out-of-pocket health spending for individuals. “For the typical, middle income household, taxes would rise by $731 annually. For fully 60% of households, the increase would average about $1,600…costs would be redistributed from the sick to the healthy, from the low and middle-income house-holds to those with higher incomes, and from businesses currently providing health benefits to those that do not."
1998 dollars.
"This fiscal analysis of the impact of four scenarios for health care reform found that the single payer model would reduce costs by over $1.1 trillion over the next decade while providing comprehensive benefits to all Americans."
This requires the gov't to tell doctors what they can charge, right? Maybe a necessary evil, but definitely not part of a free society. It is similar to the problem I have with the ACA, other than its piss poor implementation, planning, and route for being passed, the gov't should not be able to force you to purchase anything from a private company.
How much are the copayments?
“Under a single payer system without co-payments people would have $144 a year less to spend than they have now, on average…consumer payments for health would fall by $1,118 per capita, but taxes would have to increase by $1,261 per capita to finance this plan.”
So $1261 added to your current tax bill, but deduct your current health insurance premium cost. My concern, wasn't the CBO waayyyy off on ACA cost estimates? This is also in 1993 dollars. Anybody have a conversion to 2014 dollars?
"Universal coverage could be financed with a 7 percent payroll tax, a 2 percent income tax, and current federal payments for Medicare, Medicaid, and other state and federal government insurance programs. A 2 percent income tax would offset all other out-of-pocket health spending for individuals. “For the typical, middle income household, taxes would rise by $731 annually. For fully 60% of households, the increase would average about $1,600…costs would be redistributed from the sick to the healthy, from the low and middle-income house-holds to those with higher incomes, and from businesses currently providing health benefits to those that do not."
1998 dollars.
"This fiscal analysis of the impact of four scenarios for health care reform found that the single payer model would reduce costs by over $1.1 trillion over the next decade while providing comprehensive benefits to all Americans."
This requires the gov't to tell doctors what they can charge, right? Maybe a necessary evil, but definitely not part of a free society. It is similar to the problem I have with the ACA, other than its piss poor implementation, planning, and route for being passed, the gov't should not be able to force you to purchase anything from a private company.
That's a pretty wide assumption and still doesn't negate the fact that a company with five employees could have more cash flow to actually pay for the benefits than a company with 50 employees might.
If the government is going to try and say it's an employer's responsibility, then that responsibility should be shared amongst all employers - not something that puts a burden on some while allowing others to save on their bills and lower their costs.
There will always be outliers. So, if you don't want employers to have to bear the cost of health care then what do you suggest? I already proposed single payer.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've heard that we can't go to a flat tax because it will crush the tax industry and raise unemployment, what will single payer do to the insurance industry?
On a side note, more hypocrisy....
“I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” Candidate Obama
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/02/13/pure-gold-obama-slams-bush-for-expanding-executive-power-ignoring-congress-n1794535
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamas-amnesty-by-fiat--naked-lawlessness/2012/06/21/gJQAa5PltV_story.html
Kind of like his debt ceiling change of heart, huh? Liars and hypocrites, just like the rest of us, but we are not running for office......
On a side note, more hypocrisy....
“I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” Candidate Obama
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/02/13/pure-gold-obama-slams-bush-for-expanding-executive-power-ignoring-congress-n1794535
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamas-amnesty-by-fiat--naked-lawlessness/2012/06/21/gJQAa5PltV_story.html
Kind of like his debt ceiling change of heart, huh? Liars and hypocrites, just like the rest of us, but we are not running for office......
"The Government" sets pay rates for police, firemen (I swear, this isn't a jab, I just see health care in a similar light as I do fire and police protection) and several other individuals who serve the public now.
Serious question. Would you be willing to have the government ie taxpayers foot the bill for the cost of medical school (they would still have to pay for college out of pocket)? I only ask because I view doctors much the same you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Define failure, also:
Only here? Why have other countries that have had it for lifetimes appear to be doing better and spend less?
I hear you, Bob, and it is not a bad point...but most professional firefighters and police are paid by state municipalities. If I don't like what is offered here I can move. Federal firefighters can move to municipal departments. Doctors, who have invested tons of time and cash, would be stuck making what Medicare deems they are worth. I'll see if I can find the article that states that in a single payer country, the doctors were making less than that country's auto workers. Maybe a doctor shortage like what was discussed earlier might occur, or at least a brain drain as future would be doctors move into more financially lucrative fields.
You shouldn't be. Just as I want tax reform and couldn't care less about the unemployed tax advisors, accountants, IRS workers, etc. But it would cause unemployment to rise, right? Where does a 50 something insurance worker go when his job is suddenly gone? I figure quite a large amount of people would be put out. Acceptable growing pains? Maybe, but I have had people defend our current tax system with this same argument.
I answered your question, Msutt, now can you please tell me at what percent you think the gov't would be over reaching if it took of a citizen's income?
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
I hate triage but understand its necessity. It sucks to have to make the call as to whether someone has a chance of living or dying. I am of course talking mass casualty triage versus standard health care triage. Quick question about it, if 2 critical patients arrive at a single payer healthcare hospital with identical life threatening wounds, vital signs, ages, and chances of living, no kids, no wives.....one pays taxes and therefore supports the system and the other is on entitlements paying zero income tax. The hospital has the resources to save only one of these patients. What do you do, hotshot, what do you do?There are lines in EVERY healthcare system. Also, there's this crazy concept called "triage." Perhaps you've heard of it? If you call your doctor and say that you need to see him/her that day because you're feeling super shitty, you don't think you'll have to wait? Or maybe someone with a gunshot would might get seen faster than someone with a broken leg? Have you been to an ER lately?
The wealthy have been skipping the line since forever. News at
I'm sure they are, but did they pay a ton of cash for college? Work a decade in residency and other programs to master their craft? You miss my point, Doh. Why become a doctor and put up with all the BS including malpractice insurance, if you can become an auto worker and make more money?I
I'm betting that those auto workers are paid reasonably well.
Save the moocher to spite you.
Unless it's an extremely rural area that just had a massive natural disaster with absolutely no form or transportation from other facilities, your scenario is at 24-levels of insanity and a twist on the ticking nuclear bomb. Considering your line of work, you should know far better than to throw out such ridiculous scenarios.
No, I completely got the point of you having no idea what you're talking about. This might sound strange to you, but not everyone does what they do for the money. Not to mention that higher education is Very heavily subsidized by the state in those types of systems, so the costs are far below what you'd see in the US...you know, kinda like that article you said you were looking for would state(edit) or not depending on whether it's intentionally being intellectually dishonest.
Last edited by a moderator:
So I'll put you down as a "refuse to answer"? As far as doing it for the money, that is at least a part of why most people work their chosen profession. I think you know you are being dishonest if you refute that statement. I wonder if the CBO numbers contain all the costs of subsidizing college for doctors and reforming malpractice claims.Save the moocher to spite you.
Unless it's an extremely rural area that just had a massive natural disaster with absolutely no form or transportation from other facilities, your scenario is at 24-levels of insanity and a twist on the ticking nuclear bomb. Considering your line of work, you should know far better than to throw out such ridiculous scenarios.
No, I completely got the point of you having no idea what you're talking about. This might sound strange to you, but not everyone does what they do for the money. Not to mention that higher education is Very heavily subsidized by the state in those types of systems, so the costs are far below what you'd see in the US...you know, kinda like that article you said you were looking for would state.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/13/what-liberals-get-wrong-about-single-payer/
"Insurers are the bogeymen of American health care. That’s in part because they do a lot of the unpopular stuff: They’re the ones who charge you money for health care, who say you can’t get something you want, who your bosses blame when they deduct more money from your paycheck to cover health costs. And it’s hard to see what value they add to the system.
Yet the problem with the Affordable Care Act isn’t the insurance industry. In fact, the main benefits of nationalized health care can be achieved in systems with hundreds, even thousands, of for-profit insurers.
"By 2017," Moore writes, "we will be funneling over $100 billion annually to private insurance companies." The insurers will use the bulk of that money, however, to pay hospitals and pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers for medical care.
A clearer way to think about this is profits -- and insurers aren’t where the big profits in the health-care system go. In 2009, Forbes ranked health insurance as the 35th most profitable industry, with an anemic 2.2 percent return on revenue. To understand why the U.S. health-care system is so expensive, you need to travel higher up the Forbes list. The pharmaceutical industry was in third place, with a 19.9 percent return, and the medical products and equipment industry was right behind it, with a 16.3 percent return. Meanwhile, doctors are more likely than members of any other profession to have incomes in the top 1 percent."
So is this guy an insurance company shill claiming that the drug and medical device companies, along with doctors, are the true healthcare cost culprits?
"Why? Because in every case the government sets prices for health-care services and products. Insurers in Switzerland don’t negotiate drug prizes with Pfizer. The Swiss government simply sets its drug prices and lets Pfizer decide whether to sell in Switzerland -- or not."
So if Pfizer says screw your paltry payment then you just go without....
“Single payer isn’t a panacea,” said Uwe Reinhardt, a health economist at Princeton University. “The magic they have is setting rates. But neither Medicare nor Canada has done anything innovative on the delivery side. Taiwan is trying a little bit but not a whole lot. By and large they just pay bills.” The limitations of single-payer systems became clear during the health-care debate, when the Congressional Budget Office projected that premiums for a public option would be higher than premiums for private insurance -- unless a public option could avail itself of Medicare’s pricing power."
So let the gov't tell companies how much they can charge for goods and services. Heck, make em work for free! Crisis adverted!
"Insurers are the bogeymen of American health care. That’s in part because they do a lot of the unpopular stuff: They’re the ones who charge you money for health care, who say you can’t get something you want, who your bosses blame when they deduct more money from your paycheck to cover health costs. And it’s hard to see what value they add to the system.
Yet the problem with the Affordable Care Act isn’t the insurance industry. In fact, the main benefits of nationalized health care can be achieved in systems with hundreds, even thousands, of for-profit insurers.
"By 2017," Moore writes, "we will be funneling over $100 billion annually to private insurance companies." The insurers will use the bulk of that money, however, to pay hospitals and pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers for medical care.
A clearer way to think about this is profits -- and insurers aren’t where the big profits in the health-care system go. In 2009, Forbes ranked health insurance as the 35th most profitable industry, with an anemic 2.2 percent return on revenue. To understand why the U.S. health-care system is so expensive, you need to travel higher up the Forbes list. The pharmaceutical industry was in third place, with a 19.9 percent return, and the medical products and equipment industry was right behind it, with a 16.3 percent return. Meanwhile, doctors are more likely than members of any other profession to have incomes in the top 1 percent."
So is this guy an insurance company shill claiming that the drug and medical device companies, along with doctors, are the true healthcare cost culprits?
"Why? Because in every case the government sets prices for health-care services and products. Insurers in Switzerland don’t negotiate drug prizes with Pfizer. The Swiss government simply sets its drug prices and lets Pfizer decide whether to sell in Switzerland -- or not."
So if Pfizer says screw your paltry payment then you just go without....
“Single payer isn’t a panacea,” said Uwe Reinhardt, a health economist at Princeton University. “The magic they have is setting rates. But neither Medicare nor Canada has done anything innovative on the delivery side. Taiwan is trying a little bit but not a whole lot. By and large they just pay bills.” The limitations of single-payer systems became clear during the health-care debate, when the Congressional Budget Office projected that premiums for a public option would be higher than premiums for private insurance -- unless a public option could avail itself of Medicare’s pricing power."
So let the gov't tell companies how much they can charge for goods and services. Heck, make em work for free! Crisis adverted!
Last edited by a moderator:
Quick question, hot shot: You're going to have an arm broken. You write/type/whatever with your right and jerk it with your left. The catch is that you will never be able to do either with the other hand and no one can ever do either for you. Oh and forget about video games. WHAT DO YOU CHOOSE
You were originally comparing doctors and auto workers in a system with universal healthcare. I'm waiting for you to find that article. Hell, you might as well explain why you're not a doctor or at least a nurse. You'd be making a shit load more than whatever you're making now as a nurse. PROFIT MOTIVE AMIRTIE
Explain why it would. And yes, it's a trick question.
edit: Oh and that article doesn't address your previous assertion that doctors make the same as auto workers in a country with single payer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Easy, big fella, I think I'm on your side this time. Just wrapping my head around some of the outlying details. I haven't found the article yet either. If I do, then you will be the first to know. As far as being a doctor or nurse, their schedules (that I've seen ) suck. Plus you have to deal with sick people all day. I have em for 10 minutes then drop em off. I am the epitome of compassion though....hmmm maybe I should be a doctor....
A) Just so we are clear, this is you admitting (finally) that we more spend on healthcare in this country than in others and that this largely goes to overhead and not to legit healthcare.
B) You are for a system that denies poor people healthcare as long as a separate group of people have busy work to do?
C) Do you mean taxation?
mrsilkunderwear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 151 (100%)
b) Oh you must be talking about Obamacare:
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/02/18/mans-back-surgery-on-hold-as-doctors-deny-covered-california-coverage/
bread's done