What Item Will Congress Tax Next For Failing to Purchase?

#101
#101
I get this bill has its share of problems, but still, doing things like opening up state borders and increasing competition does little because those that could afford before but weren't paying, still won't buy it. They will still be able walk into a hospital and know they will get care. Same goes for those with pre-existing conditions, if it is totally free market.

The only way that works is if people are turned away at the hospital door, or are put into debt that they will never payback anyway. While it makes sense in the free market mantra, it will realistically never happen.
 
#102
#102
the biggest obstacle in this debate is that people talk about healthcare and health insurance within the same conversation.

Im unclear how single payer or a mandate addresses the cost of healthcare. If the goal is to lower the cost of insurance, then I understand the basic premise: a bigger pool > lower premiums. Lower premiums don't reverse the current market distortions in the health insurance industry. They also don't lower the cost of healthcare, except by extortion via, e.g., PPO contracts.

It would be helpful if the legislators who think they can "bend the cost curve" we're able to articulate what the problem is. Guaranteeing that everyone has insurance doesn't address the cost of healthcare; all it does is shift the responsibility for reimbursement to a third party.
 
#103
#103
dreVol said:
the biggest obstacle in this debate is that people talk about healthcare and health insurance within the same conversation.

Im unclear how single payer or a mandate addresses the cost of healthcare. If the goal is to lower the cost of insurance, then I understand the basic premise: a bigger pool > lower premiums. Lower premiums don't reverse the current market distortions in the health insurance industry. They also don't lower the cost of healthcare, except by extortion via, e.g., PPO contracts.

It would be helpful if the legislators who think they can "bend the cost curve" we're able to articulate what the problem is. Guaranteeing that everyone has insurance doesn't address the cost of healthcare; all it does is shift the responsibility for reimbursement to a third party.
Click to expand...


I agree with the premise of your point, and most of your conclusion.

"Health care" is not the same as "health insurance." Obamacare did not change people's health care. It did not actually change health insurance for those who have it (other than to expand those who can be on it).

What it did do was say that those not buying it will still have to pay into the system. Other than the weak slippery slope argument about government involvement in health care, I've yet to see a decent argument against that.

This is one of the reasons I find the constant GOP insinuation that this will somehow cause you to not be able to buy the same insurance you have now so alarmingly stupid. It doesn't change that at all. It just makes people who don't buy a policy pay something to help defray the costs of the uninsured, including themselves.

Where the REAL debate ought to be had, imo, is on two levels. First, short term, is there a problem with mandated benefits. That is a very complex debate. Both political parties have pandered to various causes and mandated benefits to curry political favor. Might be better to let medical professionals tell us what is doable and costs efficient than celebrity spokespersons.

Second, in the long term, we have to start talking about single payor, i.e. Medicare. Or at least that all people have to buy insurance and the government
can bid it out. That has some promise, in my mind.
 
#105
#105
I'll admit that I'm not smart enough to keep up with all of these arguments, but for the life of me I can't understand how we built a system that guaranteed there would be a monopoly on health insurance in each state. I also can't understand how we are trading that garbage in for a new and even bigger monopoly at the federal level (which is where it seems we are heading).

We stacked the deck against ourselves on this one.
 
#107
#107
lawgator1 said:
How did it change the healthcare you will receive?
Click to expand...

more patients coming in for their free services but the same amount of doctors to see them. How does that not affect anything? More demand + static supply = ?
 
#108
#108
lawgator1 said:
This is one of the reasons I find the constant GOP insinuation that this will somehow cause you to not be able to buy the same insurance you have now so alarmingly stupid. It doesn't change that at all. It just makes people who don't buy a policy pay something to help defray the costs of the uninsured, including themselves.
Click to expand...

I can somewhat understand if one does not share the opinion that Obamacare will result in people losing their current plans, but for one to not recognize that this is a realistic possibility is "alarmingly stupid."
 
Last edited:
#109
#109
utvolpj said:
more patients coming in for their free services but the same amount of doctors to see them. How does that not affect anything? More demand + static supply = ?
Click to expand...


No, because they come in now. They just don't pay for it now.

And let's say for sake of argument you are right -- that's some more high paying jobs right there. :)
 
#110
#110
vols4sure said:
I can somewhat understand if one does not share the opinion that Obamacare will result in people losing their current plans, but for one to not recognize that this is a realistic possibility is "alarmingly stupid."
Click to expand...


How is it realistic that under the ACA you, or any other person who currently buys insurance, will not be able to do so because of Obamacare?
 
#111
#111
How is it going to work exactly? Let's say your company drops health insurance as a benefit and you opt not to purchase your own. Instead you intend to pay the tax on April 15th. But, before then, you go and break your leg and need to see a doctor. Will they automatically put you on the government plan in the ER? Will there be a bunch of insurance salesmen sitting in the ER waiting for you? Or will they treat you and sort that out later? Just wondering...
 
#112
#112
lawgator1 said:
How is it realistic that under the ACA you, or any other person who currently buys insurance, will not be able to do so because of Obamacare?
Click to expand...

The argument is not whether I will be able to buy insurance, it is whether my employer and/or insurance provider will continue to offer the same benefits.

The fact that this is a distinct possibility has been answered many times for you particularly by BPV and there is no need to rehash the argument as you will simply continue to dismiss it.
 
#113
#113
YorkVol said:
How is it going to work exactly? Let's say your company drops health insurance as a benefit and you opt not to purchase your own. Instead you intend to pay the tax on April 15th. But, before then, you go and break your leg and need to see a doctor. Will they automatically put you on the government plan in the ER? Will there be a bunch of insurance salesmen sitting in the ER waiting for you? Or will they treat you and sort that out later? Just wondering...
Click to expand...


Your employer is no more likely to stop offering health insurance to you now than before. The ACA does not cause your employer to pay more than it was paying before the ACA. If your employer was going to drop it because of cost, that was going to happen anyway, regardless of the ACA.






vols4sure said:
The argument is not whether I will be able to buy insurance, it is whether my employer and/or insurance provider will continue to offer the same benefits.

The fact that this is a distinct possibility has been answered many times for you particularly by BPV and there is no need to rehash the argument as you will simply continue to dismiss it.
Click to expand...


There is zero argument that they will offer less benefits.

Zero.
 
#114
#114
lawgator1 said:
There is zero argument that they will offer less benefits.

Zero.
Click to expand...

Like I said, if someone can't even recognize that this is a distinct possibility, they are amazingly stupid.

"The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the number of workers getting employer-based coverage could drop by several million, as some workers choose new plans in the marketplace or as employers drop coverage altogether. Companies with more than 50 workers would have to pay a fine for terminating insurance, but in some cases that would be cost-effective for them."

"Researchers thought it most likely that employer coverage would decline by 3 to 5 million, but the range of possibilities was broad: It could go up by as much as 3 million or down by as much as 20 million."
 
#115
#115
So my employer can drop my coverage now if they want. Why would a fine change that? The reason I get coverage now is because it is a perk that at tracks talent.
 
#116
#116
vols4sure said:
Like I said, if someone can't even recognize that this is a distinct possibility, they are amazingly stupid.

"The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the number of workers getting employer-based coverage could drop by several million, as some workers choose new plans in the marketplace or as employers drop coverage altogether. Companies with more than 50 workers would have to pay a fine for terminating insurance, but in some cases that would be cost-effective for them."

"Researchers thought it most likely that employer coverage would decline by 3 to 5 million, but the range of possibilities was broad: It could go up by as much as 3 million or down by as much as 20 million."
Click to expand...


Nice quote.

Based on blatantly out of context info from the CBO.

Where did you get that from? Seriously, let's examine how that is being twisted. Its pretty bad.
 
#117
#117
And here is a fact check and where that came from.

FACT CHECK: On keeping your current health plan

As I suspected, it is a total lie to represent that is what will happen because of the ACA. Rather, it could happen anyway under the current system and the ACA would not stop it, just create other avenues should an employer drop someone.

What you wrote is a complete and utter misrepresentation of the facts.
 
#118
#118
lawgator1 said:
And here is a fact check and where that came from.

FACT CHECK: On keeping your current health plan

As I suspected, it is a total lie to represent that is what will happen because of the ACA. Rather, it could happen anyway under the current system and the ACA would not stop it, just create other avenues should an employer drop someone.

What you wrote is a complete and utter misrepresentation of the facts.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. Why do so many polls, projections, etc. predict that many employers will all of a sudden drop coverage once Obamacare is implemented? Just Coincidence? While it is true that they could drop coverage now, in the past or in the future if they wanted to, if they would not have but for the ACA, then it is because of Obamacare.
 
#119
#119
vols4sure said:
Blah blah blah. Why do so many polls, projections, etc. predict that many employers will all of a sudden drop coverage once Obamacare is implemented? Just Coincidence? While it is true that they could drop coverage now, in the past or in the future if they wanted to, if they would not have but for the ACA, then it is because of Obamacare.
Click to expand...


Your factual statement is, again, wrong. No one other than Republicans are saying that. And when they are asked why, they don't have an answer. They literally just look at the camera and repeat it, hoping someone will believe it.

It isn't true. Read the article.

An employer can change the coverage they offer now. The ACA does not change that. The ACA offers no reason or incentive and does not require an employer to drop or change health plans.

Your claim that it does is a complete fiction. And at every turn, every comment you cite, I prove to you that its wrong. Why not just admit that the ACA will not cause any employer to drop or change insurance? Its so easy to advocate the truth.
 
#120
#120
rjd970 said:
So my employer can drop my coverage now if they want. Why would a fine change that? The reason I get coverage now is because it is a perk that at tracks talent.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about highly recruited, high level jobs (assuming you have one) where they have to provide acceptable benefits in order to entice the employee. For lower and mid-tier jobs, there is a good chance they will dump their employees to the government subsidized exchanges. Many employers already state that they expect to do this as they hope employees will deem it acceptable and it will save them money.

I am not saying it will definitely happen (I believe strongly it will), but there is absolutely no way to say definitively (like Obama and a particular partisan hack herein) that people will not be pushed to a government healthcare option due to Obamacare.
 
#121
#121
Does anybody else here think a move away from employer-provided healthcare and towards a market of individual consumers wouldn't be such a bad thing?
 
#122
#122
lawgator1 said:
No, because they come in now. They just don't pay for it now.

And let's say for sake of argument you are right -- that's some more high paying jobs right there. :)
Click to expand...

So people are already coming in for their free "wellness" visits and bailing on the bills? Pretty sure that's opposite of what the admin is the claiming.

As for your more jobs ridiculousness, they sound about as shovel ready as all the other jobs this WH has created with the stimulus
 
#123
#123
milohimself said:
Does anybody else here think a move away from employer-provided healthcare and towards a market of individual consumers wouldn't be such a bad thing?
Click to expand...

this plus ending federal subsidies for "private" health insurance companies.
 
#125
#125
lawgator1 said:
Your factual statement is, again, wrong. No one other than Republicans are saying that. And when they are asked why, they don't have an answer. They literally just look at the camera and repeat it, hoping someone will believe it.

It isn't true. Read the article.

An employer can change the coverage they offer now. The ACA does not change that. The ACA offers no reason or incentive and does not require an employer to drop or change health plans.

Your claim that it does is a complete fiction. And at every turn, every comment you cite, I prove to you that its wrong. Why not just admit that the ACA will not cause any employer to drop or change insurance? Its so easy to advocate the truth.
Click to expand...

McKinsey Quarterly: "Our survey found, however, that 45 to 50 percent of employers say they will definitely or probably pursue alternatives to ESI in the years after 2014. Those alternatives include dropping coverage, offering it through a defined-contribution model, or in effect offering it only to certain employees. More than 30 percent of employers overall, and 28 percent of large ones, say they will definitely or probably drop coverage after 2014."

Dean told Morning Joe, "The fact is it is very good for small business. There was a McKinsey study, which the Democrats don't like, but I do, and I think its true. Most small businesses are not going to be in the health insurance business anymore after this thing goes into effect."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top