Pages:
Author

Topic: Wait.... what's wrong with "Obamacare"? - page 4. (Read 10197 times)

legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
November 25, 2014, 10:38:09 PM





Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/









legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
November 24, 2014, 08:50:45 PM




Jonathan Gruber warned of Obamacare premium spike as president promised savings


Predicted massive health insurance cost increases for Wisconsin residents in 2010 report



While President Obama campaigned on a promise that his universal health care plan would lower premiums, his controversial adviser and plan architect was privately warning the state of Wisconsin that Obamacare was poised to massively increase insurance costs for average residents, internal documents show.

Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist currently under fire for suggesting the Obama administration tried to deceive the public about the Affordable Care Act, was hired by former Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle in 2010 to conduct an analysis on how the federal health-care reform would impact the state.

Mr. Gruber’s study predicted about 90 percent of individuals without employer-sponsored or public insurance would see their premiums spike by an average of 41 percent. Once tax subsidies were factored in, about 60 percent of those in the individual market were projected to see their premiums go up 31 percent, according to his analysis.


In addition, 53 percent of those insured by companies with fewer than 50 employees, would see their premiums rise by an average of 15 percent even after subsidies, Mr. Gruber forecasted. The report warned such increases could impact small companies’ decision whether to provide health insurance to their workers.

“There remains some uncertainty about employer reactions given the many forces which might impact their decision to offer insurance,” the report said.

The contrast between the Obama administration’s optimistic rhetoric on Obamacare and Mr. Gruber’s private warnings to Wisconsin is certain to attract new attention from the Republican-led Congress, which wants to know whether there was an effort by the administration to deceive the public about the true consequences of the law as Mr. Gruber suggested in a videotape that surfaced recently.


Mr. Gruber and the White House declined comment when contacted by The Washington Times this week.

The Gruber study, which was released publicly in August 2011 with little fanfare in the state of Wisconsin, was largely ignored by Mr. Obama, who campaigned in 2012 that insurance premiums would actually decrease under his healthcare legislation.

“So when you hear about the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — and I don’t mind the name because I really do care. That’s why we passed it,” the president declared in a campaign speech in Cincinnati, Ohio back in July 2012, “you should know that once we have fully implemented, you’re going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you’re an employee at a big company you can get right now — which means your premiums will go down.”

In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker, considered by many to be a potential 2016 presidential candidate, distrusted the campaign promises, largely because of the work Mr. Gruber had done for the state's previous administration, and has long advocated for repealing the law.

In addition to premium rate increases, Mr. Gruber’s work estimated that 100,000 Wisconsinites would be involuntarily dropped from their employer sponsored health insurance also running counter to the President’s claim at the time that if a you liked their health-care policy, you could keep it.

The study did project the implementation of Obamacare would decrease the state’s number of uninsured by 65 percent by 2016, but doing so would come at the expense of other groups.

Wisconsin’s working-class families would be forced to pay a hidden tax to pay for the purchase of health insurance for a family of four earning up to $89,400, the study said. It also showed Obamacare would shrink the numbers of people in the private insurance marketplace from 180,000 individuals to 30,000.

Mr. Walker has said he would like to see the Affordable Care Act repealed and after entering office in January 2011, he opted not to create a state-run marketplace and to instead rely on the federal one. Mr. Walker also has refused Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, refusing to accept federal aid offered under the Affordable Care Act, arguing he doesn’t trust the federal government’s pledge to cover the cost.

After entering office, Mr. Walker replaced Mr. Doyle’s Office of Health Care Reform which had been created to carry out the federal Affordable Care Act with Wisconsin’s Office of Free Market Health Care. It was that office that inherited Mr. Gruber’s study.

[...]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/24/jonathan-gruber-warned-of-obamacare-premium-spike-/



legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
November 24, 2014, 08:40:19 PM
Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?
I really don't know? Among a few people I talked to at work, they all saved some. But lucky me, I saved the most. However I don't know how shitty my old plan was. At least at the exchange you can see all the options at once and compare them. It was certainly the first time in many years that I paid less than the previous year. 

Did you pay less for the same coverage or less for a worse coverage?

In a few years the coverage is going to go down and the prices are going to go up

If these exchanges really lead to more competition then both hospitals and insurance companies will have to work hard to get their business model more efficient in order to compete. That will result in lower costs and lower prices.
No, they won't result in "more competition", because the companies still only operate within states.  Regardless, the back door subsidies to the insurance companies will prevent any realistic sort of competition.

But please do Gruber on, it's entertaining.

legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
November 24, 2014, 06:56:05 PM
Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?
I really don't know? Among a few people I talked to at work, they all saved some. But lucky me, I saved the most. However I don't know how shitty my old plan was. At least at the exchange you can see all the options at once and compare them. It was certainly the first time in many years that I paid less than the previous year. 

Did you pay less for the same coverage or less for a worse coverage?

In a few years the coverage is going to go down and the prices are going to go up

If these exchanges really lead to more competition then both hospitals and insurance companies will have to work hard to get their business model more efficient in order to compete. That will result in lower costs and lower prices.
hero member
Activity: 1022
Merit: 500
November 24, 2014, 06:13:05 PM
Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?
I really don't know? Among a few people I talked to at work, they all saved some. But lucky me, I saved the most. However I don't know how shitty my old plan was. At least at the exchange you can see all the options at once and compare them. It was certainly the first time in many years that I paid less than the previous year. 

Did you pay less for the same coverage or less for a worse coverage?

In a few years the coverage is going to go down and the prices are going to go up
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
November 24, 2014, 06:04:17 PM
#99

America, You’ve Been Grubered!


The most important effect of the revelations of the Administration’s flunkies’ history of cheesy lies about Obamacare is that liberals must now answer one threshold question before discussing the substance of any new socialist scheme:

Why should we trust anything liberals say about anything?
......
Because they say we will get free stuff, and free stuff is pretty cool?

Yeah, it's better to trust those guys who sent you to war to find Saddams nukes.


So liberals lie better? I could agree with that...
By the way... http://news.yahoo.com/600-us-troops-exposed-chemical-agents-053000684.html





legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
November 24, 2014, 05:37:55 PM
#98

America, You’ve Been Grubered!


The most important effect of the revelations of the Administration’s flunkies’ history of cheesy lies about Obamacare is that liberals must now answer one threshold question before discussing the substance of any new socialist scheme:

Why should we trust anything liberals say about anything?
......
Because they say we will get free stuff, and free stuff is pretty cool?

Yeah, it's better to trust those guys who sent you to war to find Saddams nukes.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
November 24, 2014, 04:54:57 PM
#97
Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?
I really don't know? Among a few people I talked to at work, they all saved some. But lucky me, I saved the most. However I don't know how shitty my old plan was. At least at the exchange you can see all the options at once and compare them. It was certainly the first time in many years that I paid less than the previous year. 
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
November 24, 2014, 04:48:02 PM
#96

America, You’ve Been Grubered!


The most important effect of the revelations of the Administration’s flunkies’ history of cheesy lies about Obamacare is that liberals must now answer one threshold question before discussing the substance of any new socialist scheme:

Why should we trust anything liberals say about anything?
......
Because they say we will get free stuff, and free stuff is pretty cool?
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
November 24, 2014, 02:57:08 PM
#95
Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
November 24, 2014, 02:50:15 PM
#94
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
November 24, 2014, 01:39:37 PM
#93
Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
November 24, 2014, 01:33:06 PM
#92



America, You’ve Been Grubered!




The most important effect of the revelations of the Administration’s flunkies’ history of cheesy lies about Obamacare is that liberals must now answer one threshold question before discussing the substance of any new socialist scheme:

Why should we trust anything liberals say about anything?

Grubergate is just one of the score of scandals, frauds, and failures that have destroyed any trust in this collection of creeps by anyone except the most leftist and the most stupid, two sets which, if graphed in a Venn diagram, would be represented by a single circle.

IRS oppression. Executive amnesty. VA death lists. The Benghazi filmmaker frenzy. You’d think that statistically this Administration would have to act honestly and/or competently sometime. Instead, Obama’s managed to create the political equivalent of a broken clock that’s never right.

The liberals are fuming, infuriated that Jonathan Gruber let the cat out of the bag. Then let out another. And another. In fact, he dumped out a whole bag of cats as new media detectives released fresh clips daily depicting his smarmy confessions that he thinks the people who fell for Obamacare are drooling idiots. No, don’t look at us conservatives – we saw through this crypto-fascist scheme from Day One. Your boy Gruber is just telling it like it is – when liberals aren’t liars, they’re morons.

Like the hip kids say, hate the game, not the single payer.

What to do? With apologies to Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, the liberals in the media, which is to say “the media,” ran through the first four of the five stages of grief in record time.

Stage One – Denial: “Gruber who? Never heard of the guy I said was key to the whole Obamacare idea. And I never heard of Obamacare either. Look, a squirrel!”

Stage Two – Anger: “This is an outrage, citing the statements of a guy we spent years touting as an expert on Obamacare who says it was all a giant scam! You are the worst human being since that inhuman monster who wore a whimsical shirt to a comet landing!”

Stage Three – Bargaining: “Well, uh, Mitt Romney hired him too so it’s not so bad. Wait, what? You say that for conservatives, defending Mitt Romney over Romneycare is not a thing?”

Stage Four – Depression: “How can we ever hope to trick – I mean ‘convince’ – the American people to trust us enough about made-up crises to ever again transfer massive amounts of money and power to us liberals and the institutions we control?”


http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2014/11/24/america-youve-been-grubered-n1921636?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall


legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1115
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
November 24, 2014, 12:42:47 PM
#91
I am not going to nitpick too much, but I would like to suggest regarding [1]: You falsely assume that everyone is behaving rationally when anyone who has lived a little knows that people are a bit more complex than that.
And regarding [2]: I hate to break it to you but that is kind of the point of a state. The state is the monopoly of violence within a given geographical area.  Its role is to force through its decisions, that is why it is so important that the people take part in the democratic processes of the state so that the state doesn´t morph into a tyrannical entity. But the idea that simply forcing the unwilling is in itself tyrannical is inconsistent with the idea of a state. That does not mean that everything the democratic compact agrees to can´t be tyrannical. But if you look at the consequences of not being covered by health insurance, the fine for not buying health insurance, and the benefits of having sufficient coverage, you would be hard pressed to find this particular policy tyrannical.

Thanks for your intelligent response. Usually when people disagree, it goes straight to name calling and hyperbole. Then someone invokes Godwin.  Wink

I'm not necessarily assuming everyone is not behaving rationally, but I am assuming that people have the right to decide things for themselves. If your sole basis for a conclusion of "irrationality" is that someone elects not to have health insurance, I dispute that. You don't have enough information about specific people to make a general conclusion with that being the sole factor. But irrationality is not relevant to my point. If we take as given that someone not buying health insurance is irrational, they should be free to be irrational. The list of who gets to decide what is best for an individual should read like this: 1) The individual; 2) anybody else. Obviously, #2 is a distant, distant entry.

As for the purpose of the state, I don't disagree that that's how the state operates. The state is a monopoly on force, and the adjudicator of when force used by others is inappropriate. But how the state operates now doesn't mean it's optimal. And I agree that forcing the unwilling is inconsistent with the concept of a state, but that doesn't mean that forcing the unwilling isn't tyranny. Using force on the unwilling is literally the definition of tyranny, because what is deemed "oppressive" is subjective. No government thinks it's tyrannical! Tyranny is always defined by the people subject to the state's rule, and in every case of tyranny ever charged, the people supplying the charge of tyranny had only one thing in common: they objected to the state's use of force and they were unwilling.

That's not to say I am an anarchist. I believe the state is necessary. But the state's role is not to make individual decisions for people, as is being done with requiring everyone to have health insurance. It's to protect everyone's natural rights: life, liberty, and property they justly derive. Anything more than this is when the power of the state corrupts the individuals wielding it to believe they have the moral authority to force their will upon the unwilling. I do not accept this conclusion.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
November 24, 2014, 11:38:07 AM
#90
Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

There is a deeper problem here. One of the reasons just about every other country other than the US has come to the conclusion that the state ....
....can force the collection of a vast treasure under the name of providing medical care and and then split it up between friends and cronys and wind up giving just enough to the people so that they don't complain too loudly.

Yeez man! Chillax a bit! Go watch a movie. I would suggest Garden State or Little Miss Sunshine, that should mellow you out.
Triple someone's insurance costs while providing less (yes, that's me) then suggest they chill out and watch a movie.

Well, that's certainly an interesting perspective.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 123
"PLEASE SCULPT YOUR SHIT BEFORE THROWING. Thank U"
November 23, 2014, 11:47:50 PM
#89
administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. ...(even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations).... Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. ...
Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

Digitalization less and less admin fees, never believe rating (mercyless), The free Market created America, what can't it do? Is there an example of a market freed by it's handlers (central banks)?.
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
November 23, 2014, 08:56:43 PM
#88
Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

There is a deeper problem here. One of the reasons just about every other country other than the US has come to the conclusion that the state ....
....can force the collection of a vast treasure under the name of providing medical care and and then split it up between friends and cronys and wind up giving just enough to the people so that they don't complain too loudly.

Yeez man! Chillax a bit! Go watch a movie. I would suggest Garden State or Little Miss Sunshine, that should mellow you out.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
November 23, 2014, 08:35:09 PM
#87
Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

There is a deeper problem here. One of the reasons just about every other country other than the US has come to the conclusion that the state ....
....can force the collection of a vast treasure under the name of providing medical care and and then split it up between friends and cronys and wind up giving just enough to the people so that they don't complain too loudly.
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
November 23, 2014, 07:08:05 PM
#86
Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

There is a deeper problem here. One of the reasons just about every other country other than the US has come to the conclusion that the state must take responsibility to make sure everybody has access to affordable health care is that the demand is not price sensitive. Therefore the idea of a free market within this sector is not very realistic. If you need an operation or some medicine to keep an arm, a leg, or even your life, you will pay whatever it takes. If your child is seriously injured or ill you are not going to take it to the vet and put it to sleep because you can't afford to treat the child. In that sense these american drug dealers really are like drug dealers, and it's not a pretty sight.
Pages:
Jump to: