Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » How much will ObamaCare cost? (Page 10)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 20 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  18  19  20   
Author Topic: How much will ObamaCare cost?
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red herring. Mmmmm, tasty.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do you believe that is a red herring? The current insurance scenario for Congressional staffers is a direct result of Republican grandstanding, and the recent changes that you are mocking right now are specifically intended to make it possible for those staffers to continue to get subsidized insurance from their employer -- which is in this case the government.

[ August 06, 2013, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You really have no idea. Congress and staffers were required to adhere to the same legal requirements and subsidies - they had to live with it like the rest of us. Now they get a extra special, extra legal subsidy that applies only to them.

You can carry on about those wascally wepublicans as though its meaningful all you like but it's entirely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the latest diktat from the Obama regime. You've presented a classic example of the red herring fallacy.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Congress and staffers were required to adhere to the same legal requirements and subsidies - they had to live with it like the rest of us.
In this very thread, someone has explained why this particular policy does not and cannot -- under current law -- work for employees of the federal government, which cannot have a presence on its own exchange. Seriously. Read what other people write.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
d now the White House is suspending the law to create a double standard. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that runs federal benefits will release regulatory details this week, but leaks to the press suggest that Congress will receive extra payments based on the FEHBP defined-contribution formula, which covers about 75% of the cost of the average insurance plan. For 2013, that's about $4,900 for individuals and $10,000 for families.
So, put simply, the OPM is going to take the money that's already been allocated to pay the employer contribution for employee healthcare, and continue giving it to those same employees as the switch to the new enrollment system.

Crazy, that.

(And enrollment system that was, no less, modeled on their current system, and probably carries over roughly the same set of plans, with the only difference being larger potential customer pools)

[ August 06, 2013, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The trouble started in 2009 with a cheap stunt orchestrated by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). While lawmakers already get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, just like other federal employees, the Iowa Republican pushed a proposal to force members of Congress out of the federal system and into exchanges.

The point wasn't to shape policy, but to create a talking point for Republicans. Grassley desperately wanted to say, "Those darn Democrats think the exchanges are good enough for millions of Americans, but not good enough for themselves," and he assumed Dems would balk at his "plan" because they'd be unwilling to give up the generous Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.

But Democrats called Grassley's bluff, embraced his idea, and added it to the Affordable Care Act.

And that's where the story gets a little tricky -- Grassley's partisan-stunt-gone-wrong sent members and their aides to get coverage through exchange marketplaces, but never created a mechanism to make that happen.


As Jonathan Cohn explained yesterday:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The federal government, like most large employers, not only provides the opportunity for its workers to get insurance. It also pays a large portion of the premium. Now that lawmakers and their advisers were going into the exchanges, what would happen to that contribution? Would they just lose the money?

The answer, the administration decided last week, is no. Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their employer contributions, and apply that money towards the cost of whatever insurance they buy in the exchanges.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The policy has nothing to do with "exempting" Congress from the health care law, and everything to do with creating a mechanism through which lawmakers will kick themselves off their own insurance plan and into exchanges without a major premium hike.

For Republicans and their allies to whine incessantly about this is ridiculous, even by contemporary conservative standards. We are, after all, talking about an idea pushed by a Republican senator and quietly celebrated away from the cameras by Republican offices.

Jon Chait added that the manufactured outrage over an "exemption" for Congress represents "the toxic combination of ignorance and bad faith that has characterized the right's approach to Obamacare."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Grassley's amendment created a situation for government workers that Republicans claimed, falsely, the law would create for everybody else: forcing them off their employer insurance and on to the exchanges. Grassley's amendment didn't even attempt to design a coherent way of changing health-care worker benefits, because, again, it wasn't an attempt to reform health care for Congress and its staff -- it was an attempt to furnish a talking point for Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It yanked away the subsidized health insurance Congress and its staff get, essentially imposing a massive pay cut on those workers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was up to the Obama administration to figure out a resolution to this, and last week, to the relief of lawmakers and their staffers, it did -- offering the patch to a problem a Republican senator inadvertently imposed on lawmakers.

Bottom line: has Congress exempted itself from Obamacare? No. Members of the House and Senate, as well as their aides, will be kicked out of the federal system -- all because Grassley played a stupid game -- and will get coverage through exchanges.

The exchanges were, of course, designed for Americans who can't get coverage through their employer, but this pool of consumers will have a very notable exception: Congress.

Anyone who tells you there's a congressional "exemption" from the law either doesn't know what they're talking about, or assumes you're easily fooled into believing nonsense.


Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lol. Might want to go back and re read what the law is, what the OMB has been ordered to do and what the net effect is. This isn't a Fox News talking point. Reality OMB is doing something that circumvents the law and has created a case where Congress and its direct employees are exempted and are getting what amounts to a cash bonus.

Wherever you pulled your source from is correct only in so far as employees of the Executive Branch is concerned. I would be interested to see if special rules have been made for the judicial branch as well.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Congress and staffers were required to adhere to the same legal requirements and subsidies - they had to live with it like the rest of us.
In this very thread, someone has explained why this particular policy does not and cannot -- under current law -- work for employees of the federal government, which cannot have a presence on its own exchange. Seriously. Read what other people write.
Fascinating, absolutely fascinating. It's like reading a Ayn Rand novel. I swear I thought here characters were more caricature, an amalgam to present a idealized archetype but you could have lifted this comment verbatim out of a Jim Taggart conversation. Incredible.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In what way, precisely? Do you believe Congress intended to force its members and employees off employer-funded healthcare when they adopted the amendment that had that effect? It seems to me that it was an ill-thought amendment by a particularly stupid legislator that, as with many poor amendments, is being legally worked around. Is this a problem for you?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Reality OMB is doing something that circumvents the law and has created a case where Congress and its direct employees are exempted and are getting what amounts to a cash bonus.
Not from what I understand. AFAIK (and which is reflected in the commentary above), the situation is:

1. Congress & their aides previously had government-subsidized health insurance.

2. Grassley's amendment changed the subsidizd health insurance to the health exchange, but without any subsidy.

3. The latest action adds a subsidy for health insurance, covering what used to be paid for by the government (AKA "the employer.")

How is this in any way a "cash bonus?" [Confused]

quote:
Wherever you pulled your source from is correct only in so far as employees of the Executive Branch is concerned.
I thought this was about employees of the Legislative Branch? [Confused]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For roughly the fourth year in a row, the rate of growth in health care costs (4%) is lower than any other year in the preceeding 3 decades

link

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Grassley's amendment changed the subsidized health insurance to the health exchange, but without any subsidy.
One correction to my statement. While the amendment did cut off the health insurance subsidy, that did not originate with Senator Grassley.

According to PolitiFact, Grassley's original amendment included the subsidy.

quote:
Back in 2009, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley argued that "members of Congress should get the same coverage that we are coming up with for everyone else." He offered an amendment that required lawmakers to get their health care through the marketplaces created by the bill. It was accepted by the Senate Finance Committee without objection.

Members of Congress and their staff would have to use the hefty employer contribution they used for federal plans to buy marketplace plans, instead, his amendment said...

A version of the amendment made it into the law passed by Democrats, but it lacked the clarity of Grassley’s language, raising a question: Would the government’s contribution to lawmakers’ health insurance premiums follow them?

Exactly how the wording was omitted is not mentioned, but it apparently was not Grassley's fault.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
For roughly the fourth year in a row, the rate of growth in health care costs (4%) is lower than any other year in the preceeding 3 decades

link

quote:
In Florida, for instance, officials constructed a hypothetical silver-level plan based on the offerings available today. Then they looked at how the cost of that plan compares to the average silver plan that will be available on the exchange. Florida found premiums will rise between 7.6% and 58.8%, depending on the insurer. The average increase would be 35%.

...

Ohio, meanwhile, said there would be an average increase of 41% by comparing a trade association's report of premiums for all plans available today with the average premium expected on the exchange.
Indiana officials said prices would rise an average of 72%. But they were looking at the cost of providing care, not actual premiums.

Health care costs going up only 4% one year, so what. When your premiums for insurance take every last dime you got, who can afford any health care?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good point. If health care premium rates were going up at the same rate they were before Obamacare started to have an impact, clearly more people would be going broke faster.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So we have added features like a prohbition of pre-existing conditions being used as an ex poste rationale for denying coverage, as well as enabling children up to age 26 to be on their parent's insurance. And this has been accomplished at the same time as the increase in medical costs have been slowed.

What was the Republican plan for this again?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More on the true cost of ObamaCare:
quote:
An avalanche of “anecdotes” continues to pile up as workers across the country are having their hours cut and their health benefits slashed across a broad range of industries.

Loren Goodridge, the owner of 21 Subway franchises, says he has no choice but to cut the hours of his employees to 29 a week to avoid the law’s penalties.

The negative effects of the law reach the education industry as well. St. Petersburg College, a public university in Florida, is reducing the hours of 250 faculty members because the college says it cannot afford to provide them with health insurance.

Joseph Hansen, the president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union that originally supported the law, says the health law will have a “tremendous impact as workers have their hours reduced and their incomes reduced.”

Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that the ratio of part-time to full-time jobs has completely flipped this year from historical trends. Last year, six full-time jobs were created for every one part time job. This year, only one full-time job is being created for every four new part-time jobs.

The shift to part-time has accelerated over the past several months because of the “look back” provision in ObamaCare that sets the baseline this year for the number of full-time workers a company employs to determine their compliance with the employer pay-or-play mandate.

Not only that, but:
quote:
According to a survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 71% of small businesses say the health care law makes it harder to grow. One-half of small businesses that must comply with the employer mandate say they will either cut hours of full-time employees or replace them with part-time workers. Twenty four percent say they will reduce hiring to stay under 50 employees.
And:
quote:
Not only is the law taking a toll on part-time workers, but it also is increasing costs for families. ObamaCare’s new health insurance tax alone will raise premiums by $8 billion next year, increasing an average family’s premium by more than $350.
So what we get, in the end, is a big increase in insurance premiums, a massive shift to part time work (cutting incomes) and decreasing the hours of those part time positions (further cutting incomes). Man, this is great, just great.

That's the small companies, how's it going with big business? Eh, not so well:
quote:
A recently-leaked letter from Delta Air Lines to the Obama administration states that the “cost of providing health care to our employees will increase by nearly $100,000,000 next year,” much of it due to Obamacare.
Yep, that 9 figures.

quote:
The delivery giant, UPS, is cutting eligibility for spouses of employees who have access to health coverage elsewhere. It says that the costs the law imposes are forcing changes, citing the law’s research fee and a tax of $63 per member to help shore up the health exchanges. Other factors are the act’s ban on annual and lifetime coverage limits and its requirement to cover dependent children up to age 26, UPS said. The University of Virginia also is limiting spouse health benefits.
You know why a UPS employee would cover a spouse despite their having coverage available elsewhere? Because it's cheaper at UPS.

Everyone loses in ObamaCare! Yay!

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One of the first things they taught me in grad school was that the plural of anecdote is not data. With any policy (Obamacare or the previous status quo) there are some relative disadvantages - the question is about net benefits, not the presence of anecdotes.

Additionally, we have a political climate where many people such as G3 believe that they are not morally responsible for the accuracy of what they say. Obama's opposition is - in part - made of such people, so it is expected that some people would attribute blame to Obama whether his policy deserved it or not. The US Chamber of Commerce that is cited is not a neutral body, it is an activist conservative organization.

Ever since Obamacare passed, the predictions of conservatives that medical costs would sky-rocket have been profoundly disproved by the lowest rate of growth in medical costs in 50 years.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
According to a survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 71% of small businesses say the health care law makes it harder to grow. One-half of small businesses that must comply with the employer mandate say they will either cut hours of full-time employees or replace them with part-time workers. Twenty four percent say they will reduce hiring to stay under 50 employees.
Ok... how many of those businesses provided healthcare to their employees in the first place? If a business can't make enough money to provide its employees with basic health insurance then why should the government care whether it survives or not?
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Ever since Obamacare passed, the predictions of conservatives that medical costs would sky-rocket have been profoundly disproved by the lowest rate of growth in medical costs in 50 years.

Are you under the impression that ObamaCare has taken effect?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
52 parts of obamacare have taken effect, including the requirement that 80 to 85 cents of every dollar that insurance companies collect has to be spent on health care, more preventative care without a deductible, children covered under their parent's insurance until 26, etc.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tirunedeth
Member
Member # 6787

 - posted      Profile for Tirunedeth   Email Tirunedeth       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
One of the first things they taught me in grad school was that the plural of anecdote is not data. With any policy (Obamacare or the previous status quo) there are some relative disadvantages - the question is about net benefits, not the presence of anecdotes.

Additionally, we have a political climate where many people such as G3 believe that they are not morally responsible for the accuracy of what they say. Obama's opposition is - in part - made of such people, so it is expected that some people would attribute blame to Obama whether his policy deserved it or not. The US Chamber of Commerce that is cited is not a neutral body, it is an activist conservative organization.

Ever since Obamacare passed, the predictions of conservatives that medical costs would sky-rocket have been profoundly disproved by the lowest rate of growth in medical costs in 50 years.

I agree with this and found it extremely well expressed; thank you for taking the time to share it.

To weave in another thread from earlier in this discussion, I wonder what the actual criteria for success and failure of the program might be.

Is there anyone who would be willing to express, hopefully without fear of ridicule for the effort, what meaningful dimensions might be, how they could be measured and what the thresholds should be? Since I’ve found things don’t normally break upon black and white lines, I’d be more interested in at least one shade of gray (e.g., neither mostly succeeding nor failing; and yes, 50 might be pushing it a bit).

Posts: 7 | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The two biggest criteria should be costs and outcomes. These need to be measured against trends. For much of 50 years health care costs rose by almost double digits on an annual basis. A lower rate of growth has been seen for three years, and that's an excellent measure, particularly if it continues. Medical outcomes in the US, while below average for a comparison group of the most advanced 40 to 50 countries, have still been improving over time, and so we should also measure whether that improvement trend accelerates or slows. And finally, we have to calibrate results to account for the overall aging of the US population - as the population bulge from the baby boom gets older, the expectation is that the average level of medical care needed in the population should increase, so appropriate consideration of aging factors also has to be folded into the criteria.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
52 parts of obamacare have taken effect, including the requirement that 80 to 85 cents of every dollar that insurance companies collect has to be spent on health care, more preventative care without a deductible, children covered under their parent's insurance until 26, etc.

Yeah? So the answer is it hasn't taken effect yet. Lets look at it again after it has been in plac a year or so before you celebrate the success of it. The employment situation alone it's create had turned disasterous for American workers already.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah G3, you are such a good advocate for every cause that you oppose, simply by illustrating how your assessments are based on dodging contrary evidence.

Your counter-argument is an excellent example of twisted logic - your argument appears to be that the thing you don't like that you assert has not yet been implemented has already had disasterous effects.

[ September 01, 2013, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah Greg, you are such a good advocate for every government program, simply by illustrating how your assessments are based on contrary evidence.

Your argument is an excellent example of twisted logic - it appears that the thing you like that has not Ben implemented has already become a massive success.

Boom.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, is this the dreaded "I know you are but what am I?" Defense?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
One of the first things they taught me in grad school was that the plural of anecdote is not data. With any policy (Obamacare or the previous status quo) there are some relative disadvantages - the question is about net benefits, not the presence of anecdotes.

It's difficult for there to be rationale studies of the impact of a policy that has barely been put into effect. For example, all you have at this point on the work hour reductions are anecdotes of reactions and planning to account for the anticipatory impact of the law. So while it's fun to lecture about anecdotes and data, at this point, there is no comprehensive data, so everything is either an anecdote or a cherry picked set.
quote:
Additionally, we have a political climate where many people such as G3 believe that they are not morally responsible for the accuracy of what they say. Obama's opposition is - in part - made of such people, so it is expected that some people would attribute blame to Obama whether his policy deserved it or not. The US Chamber of Commerce that is cited is not a neutral body, it is an activist conservative organization.
Greg, the support is also made up of such people. You made a lot of claims that appear inconsistent with the evalautions of the business community, small business in particular has being almost universally opposed to the overall policies that are being implemented and labelled them anti-business growth.

Not to mention, costs have gone up (in the form of taxes and government payments, even if not yet fully reflecting in premiums) and to date benefits have not materially increased. There are no free lunches, bringing in a swelling of benefits is only going to increase that trend.

I've not seen anyone really show that we can rationally afford this program (and if you cite to cost savings on this plan, you're just buying into fake government accounting and price controls (not actual cost control, just refusing to pay the price) and ignoring the factors they exclude (wrongly) from their analysis.
quote:
Ever since Obamacare passed, the predictions of conservatives that medical costs would sky-rocket have been profoundly disproved by the lowest rate of growth in medical costs in 50 years.
Cherry picked data at its best. Where have you seen a medical efficiency created by Obamacare?

[ September 03, 2013, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Ah, is this the dreaded "I know you are but what am I?" Defense?

No, it's the dreaded using your own words to show how flawed your argument is demonstration.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's difficult for there to be rationale studies of the impact of a policy that has barely been put into effect. For example, all you have at this point on the work hour reductions are anecdotes of reactions and planning to account for the anticipatory impact of the law. So while it's fun to lecture about anecdotes and data, at this point, there is no comprehensive data, so everything is either an anecdote or a cherry picked set.
Of course, this rationale means that no one can make any sweeping conclusions about Obamacare at this point. Anyone who calls it a fantastic success or a dismal failure is cherry picking his data to fit his conclusions.

Which I believe was one of Greg's points. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Of course, this rationale means that no one can make any sweeping conclusions about Obamacare at this point. Anyone who calls it a fantastic success or a dismal failure is cherry picking his data to fit his conclusions.

Which I believe was one of Greg's points. [Smile]

Exept Greg was claiming good results himself [Wink]

I'm not sure I'd call it a fantastic success or failure. I'd call it an unconstitutional expansion of federal power (notwithstanding the SC's bizarre interpretation of it as a tax). This progam (and particularly the individual mandate) should have required a Constitutional amendment to implement.

It's my personal view, that there is no logical way that you can expand services, add more people and save costs without degrading overall quality or somehow limiting access in other ways, so I've probably got a selection bias on news reports that's going to cause me to hear and believe more negative than positive reports. Many on here clearly have the other bias in operation.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Isn't the general welfare clause broad enough to give the federal government authority over health care? It's not like the founders were unfamiliar with the idea of goverment funded medicine; it had been done in England for centuries by then.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It had been done for centuries? Earliest charter I could find was 1837.
Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When the Catholic hospitals in London (such as St Bart's) were taken over by the Crown following the Reformation, they continued to provide health care while being more or less funded by the crown. Workhouses (created in the 17th or 18th century) quickly became centers for healthcare as people generally needed to be both sick and poor to be desperate enough to use them. Even the general welfare system formed around the parishes (which has a proper name that I don't remember) were frequently used to gain access to healthcare.

By the late 18th century, the English government had been involved in health care for at least 200 years, at least in London. Technically making "centuries" accurate.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Isn't the general welfare clause broad enough to give the federal government authority over health care? It's not like the founders were unfamiliar with the idea of goverment funded medicine; it had been done in England for centuries by then.

The general welfare clause is not historically enough to create this kind of law, otherwise the discretion of the Federal government would have been deemed unlimited rather than limited. Not sure that they used if for such, but it could covered something like a federal vaccination program, or the afore mentioned licensing restrictions or safety regulations.

Remember, the founder's didn't even empower the federal government with the power to tax individuals, do you really think they would have accepted a federal rule requiring an individual to buy a specific comercial product?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati,

quote:
do you really think they would have accepted a federal rule requiring an individual to buy a specific comercial product?
You mean, like requiring individuals to purchase health insurance and government ran hospitals?

quote:
In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

His quote is a bit misleading, in that it was actually a payroll tax, that employers were required to deduct, and the specific insurance was purchased for them, instead of getting to decide which insurance the employee got.

It is clear that congress has always believed that was a part of its mandate, and something it both could, and should do.

[ September 03, 2013, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
quote:
do you really think they would have accepted a federal rule requiring an individual to buy a specific comercial product?
You mean, like requiring individuals to purchase health insurance and government ran hospitals?
What part of the act you are about to cite, authorizes a comercial product?
quote:
quote:
In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

His quote is a bit misleading, in that it was actually a payroll tax, that employers were required to deduct, and the specific insurance was purchased for them, instead of getting to decide which insurance the employee got.

Well that's actually really really misleading, as it wasn't viewed as a tax when passed (specific language referring to it as a tax was removed when objections to its constitutionality was questioned). The resulting act ties the payment of the fee to renewal of the license of the ship to operate out of US ports.

Given that there was an issue with sick and injured sailors being abandoned in ports, and Congress has always being specifically empowered to regulate commercial activity at the ports, this seemed more reasonable to them as a regulation of commerce.
quote:
It is clear that congress has always believed that was a part of its mandate, and something it both could, and should do.
No what's clear is that this example has been completely over-cited across the blogosphere because it appears to support the Constitutionality and allows you to "contest" that the Founders didn't intend for this kind of law to be passed. Congress's "belief" that it had this power should have been rebuked harshly by the SC.

This is sort of like the canard that Obamacare is a Republican plan because it shares some common element with a proposal by the Heritage Foundation.

[ September 03, 2013, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No what's clear is that this example has been completely over-cited across the blogosphere because it appears to support the Constitutionality and allows you to "contest" that the Founders didn't intend for this kind of law to be passed.
Considering one of the Founders actually signed the bill, it's a pretty good bet that at least one considered it legal. [Smile]

quote:
This is sort of like the canard that Obamacare is a Republican plan because it shares some common element with a proposal by the Heritage Foundation.
Actually, it shares about 11 common elements by my reading of this chart with a bill proposed by Republicans back in 1993. What are the major elements that are different between Obamacare and the Republican proposal? [Confused]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati,

quote:
Well that's actually really really misleading, as it wasn't viewed as a tax when passed (specific language referring to it as a tax was removed when objections to its constitutionality was questioned).
Source? They probably didn't call it a tax, for the same reason that modern politicians don't like to call taxes a tax; because people don't like the word tax - so using other language to mean the exact same thing is more palatable.

quote:
The resulting act ties the payment of the fee to renewal of the license of the ship to operate out of US ports.
That is completely irrelevant. The tax could be collected when the captain changed his underwear. It doesn't change the fact that it was a payroll tax for the specific purpose of individually mandated health insurance.

quote:
No what's clear is that this example has been completely over-cited across the blogosphere because it appears to support the Constitutionality and allows you to "contest" that the Founders didn't intend for this kind of law to be passed. Congress's "belief" that it had this power should have been rebuked harshly by the SC.
Or the SC fully agreed with the founders that it was constitutional. They wrote the document, perhaps they meant the general welfare clause to have exactly the power to authorize such; or perhaps they meant the commerce clause exactly the power to authorize such.

There is no reason to believe that they didn't think they had a constitutional ability to enact such a law. So it is far more likely that you and other commentators misunderstand the constitution than that the founders did.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
No what's clear is that this example has been completely over-cited across the blogosphere because it appears to support the Constitutionality and allows you to "contest" that the Founders didn't intend for this kind of law to be passed.
Considering one of the Founders actually signed the bill, it's a pretty good bet that at least one considered it legal. [Smile]
Didn't say it wasn't legal, implied it isn't particularly relevant. No one has questioned Congresses ability to levy tariffs, regulate commerce or set licensing restrictions.
quote:
quote:
This is sort of like the canard that Obamacare is a Republican plan because it shares some common element with a proposal by the Heritage Foundation.
Actually, it shares about 11 common elements by my reading of this chart with a bill proposed by Republicans back in 1993. What are the major elements that are different between Obamacare and the Republican proposal? [Confused]
And do Republican's still endorse the plan? The plan actually lost momentum real time and most "blamed" Republicans for killing not only this plan, but the President's and about a dozen others at the same time as well. The fact is, no matter how similar a historical idea may be, once you remove it from time, circumstances and endorsement it's no longer the same. Do you think it would be okay to propose a bill to reverse intergration of schools and claim that it was originally a Democratic plan? What if we could find some extremist Dems who'd still endorse the plan (there are several Blue/racist states out there so this wouldn't be that hard)? Or should the fact that Democratic party moved away from that represent their real stance?

I also maintain that even the 1993 plan had passed if it had a true individual mandate (which I'm not to going to read through these statutes to verify) that should have not been Constitutional.

The chart is so ridiculously summarized that real comparison is not possible from it. Yet, there is a very major distinction evident on the chart. The "Chafee Plan" allowed the full cost burden to be placed on the employee. This is kind of how COBRA works today. And it shifted the full tax benefit to the employee - which would have benefitted the self employed as much as the company employed.

But even better, claiming that over 1000 pages of statute and thousands more of regulation is the same thing as the 1993 proposal is really beyond reasonable. It's only done to try and shut down debate - ie you can't argue that position, because 20 years ago someone else argued a different position. lol.

[ September 03, 2013, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's my personal view, that there is no logical way that you can expand services, add more people and save costs without degrading overall quality or somehow limiting access in other ways
You must be an optimist, because your position assumes that the prior status quo was at a level of optimum overall effectiveness, and that any change at best redistributes existing resources. But what if additional funding for preventative care actual results in lower net expenditures because adverse conditions are caught at a time when it is less costly to treat them? Or what if the requirement to provide rebates to customers when less than 80-85 cents of every dollar is spent on actual health care services has resulted in insurance companies looking more carefully at their expenses in areas that do not provide health care services?

The fact I cited as undeniable was that the rate of growth in health care costs did not increase since Obamacare was approved (and the initial elements implemented), despite the predictions of Republicans that the ACA would increase health care costs. The evidence strongly contradicts the hypothesis that at least the initial efforts of Obamacare will increase costs.

They are consistent with the hypothesis that Obamacare might "bend the cost curve" in a favorable way, but not conclusive, and we wil have to see the effects of full implementation to evaluate the net effect of full implementation.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 20 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  18  19  20   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1