• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

Wrangor said:
Oh we think about it all the time. Trust me. We think about how we can elect people to change it because in its current state it is a huge hindrance.

I agree with detaching HC from small business. I have been single payer base coverage for a while. Then let people supplement with additional insurance if they choose.
Click to expand...

The basic would have to be broadly based. It would have to include things like chemo and other treatments.

The good news is without infrastructure and cutting the massive middlemen charges the prices could be much lower. It could also mean great savings on prescription drugs could be dramatically cheaper if the feds negotiate prices here.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Your failure to recognize that "political climate changes" are a hindrance to small business owners is baffling.
Click to expand...
Whats the difference between "cost of doing business" and "hindrance to small business"? I'd also like to 2nd the notion that persons who are dealing with this dilemma should support socialized health care.
 
and no one has addressed the point that in the states who have adopted the ACA and provided the correct infrastructure it has worked nicely.

(Im still for a single-payer plan but just pointing out)
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Whats the difference between "cost of doing business" and "hindrance to small business"? I'd also like to 2nd the notion that persons who are dealing with this dilemma should support socialized health care.
Click to expand...

I also think it's weird for Karma to contend that small business owners didn't know they'd be dealing with major health care reforms after the 2008 elections.
 
PhDeac said:
I also think it's weird for Karma to contend that small business owners didn't know they'd be dealing with major health care reforms after the 2008 elections.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone think that if they liked their health care plans prior to 2008, they could keep them afterwards? Where would anyone get that idea?
 
jhmd2000 said:
Why would anyone think that if they liked their health care plans prior to 2008, they could keep them afterwards? Where would anyone get that idea?
Click to expand...

#PHdefeated

Wow - by a tar heel. That has to sting.
 
Deacon923 said:
Apparently McKinsey has put out a study indicating that, on average, premium increases will be very low for 2015.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/10/31/key-study-on-obamacare-2015-premium-rates-is-out-and-you-wont-believe-whats-going-to-happen/
Click to expand...

As Wrangor and I mentioned earlier when describing our #anecdotes, yeah the premium under the ACA-compliant plan drops as compared the non-compliant plan, but that decrease is paid for by shifting the cost to the employees through higher out of pockets. So as the employer if you want to be a douche then okay you could take all the savings and pass the higher OOPs onto the employees. But for most people it is tough to tell your employees with a straight face "yeah my side of the premium is dropping, but you all each have to pay $4k more out of pocket per year before the coverage kicks in at any reasonable amount". So you end up wanting to gross up their pay to at least cover the difference that you saved (though from your article it looks like most premiums are still going up up anyway so there would be no savings to shift over). Maybe you guys have just pounded on my heart of stone too much over the years and I'm getting too soft.
 
Deacon923 said:
I'm on 2&2's side here. This is dumb. Think it through to the logical conclusion, and what you get is Italy or France - places with such stifling workforce and business regulation that nobody wants to start a business or hire anybody, and if they do, they don't dare grow their business above some arbitrary number (in Italy, I think its 49 employees) to avoid having to comply. What you get is a stagnant economy that can't adapt to change and isn't capable of producing world-class firms.

Far better, IMO, for the government to simply tax at a level necessary to provide certain public goods (like healthcare) directly or through a single-payer social insurance scheme, and reduce the amount of red tape that businesses have to deal with. Using something easy to comply with like a VAT to finance the government rather than an incredibly complex income tax system also falls into this category.
Click to expand...

Anything is better than this shitshow. And that was probably part of Obama's plan all along - enact something so utterly horrendous that nobody cares what is done to fix it so long as something is done. As I've said repeatedly, the comparisons to [Redacted] are mindboggling.
 
Wrangor said:
#PHdefeated

Wow - by a tar heel. That has to sting.
Click to expand...

Classic Wrangor and jhmd #doyouwanttobuildastrawman

building_olaf_by_trollinlikeabitchtit-d74zalf.jpg
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
As Wrangor and I mentioned earlier when describing our #anecdotes, yeah the premium under the ACA-compliant plan drops as compared the non-compliant plan, but that decrease is paid for by shifting the cost to the employees through higher out of pockets. So as the employer if you want to be a douche then okay you could take all the savings and pass the higher OOPs onto the employees. But for most people it is tough to tell your employees with a straight face "yeah my side of the premium is dropping, but you all each have to pay $4k more out of pocket per year before the coverage kicks in at any reasonable amount". So you end up wanting to gross up their pay to at least cover the difference that you saved (though from your article it looks like most premiums are still going up up anyway so there would be no savings to shift over). Maybe you guys have just pounded on my heart of stone too much over the years and I'm getting too soft.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that what you say is true. Obviously the report is talking about averages and somebody has to be "above average". I guess that's you. It does say that 81% of plans McKinsey looked at did not change deductibles, so unfortunately you may be in the 19% there.
 
Literally the perfect example here of #anecdotes not working/not being wholly representative.

This can be a critical life lesson for everyone regarding statistics in general.
 
As I stated I would come back when I received my office quote for health insurance for 2015. The naysayers have told us a along that wait until next year that is when the rates will go through the roof(2015). My office cost went down again this year, not as much but still 600.00 a quarter less. Deductible went up by 250.00 and out of pocket went up from 4000.00 to 5000.00. All changes are acceptable and minimal. Have at it.
 
Deacon923 said:
I don't doubt that what you say is true. Obviously the report is talking about averages and somebody has to be "above average". I guess that's you. It does say that 81% of plans McKinsey looked at did not change deductibles, so unfortunately you may be in the 19% there.
Click to expand...

Deductibles and OOPs are not the same thing in this context. Under the Obamacare plans that used to be HDHPs, what would have been a deductible at 100% to employee and then 100% coverage is now a deductible at 100% to employee and OOP of 30% up to a second tier with an OOP max, and then 100% coverage. From the employee's perspective they don't care whether it is called a deductible or an OOP, they just know they have to pay it. So not sure if McKinsey is comparing the practical effect of the nomenclature.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Literally the perfect example here of #anecdotes not working/not being wholly representative.

This can be a critical life lesson for everyone regarding statistics in general.
Click to expand...

Haha, okay. I think this is a critical life lesson for someone with no life experience to look at the real-world effects of something without relying on stats that somebody throws out there when the stats may be calculated incorrectly.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
As I stated I would come back when I received my office quote for health insurance for 2015. The naysayers have told us a along that wait until next year that is when the rates will go through the roof(2015). My office cost went down again this year, not as much but still 600.00 a quarter less. Deductible went up by 250.00 and out of pocket went up from 4000.00 to 5000.00. All changes are acceptable and minimal. Have at it.
Click to expand...

Seems in line in theory with the other #anecdotes. Premium goes down but it shifts a burden higher than the saved costs onto the employee. So a net increase to the enterprise as a whole, but put on the employees. Glad to hear your numbers are bearable in your situtaion. Out of curiousity, do you plan to gross up their salary to cover the difference, or just let them pay it?
 
Here's a link to the actual McKinsey study, the previous link was to a left-leaning commentator.

One thing that may impact this conversation is that apparently McKinsey doesn't have full information on NC yet. So it may be that 2&2's experience is more representative of NC, if not necessarily representative of the nation as a whole.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Haha, okay. I think this is a critical life lesson for someone with no life experience to look at the real-world effects of something without relying on stats that somebody throws out there when the stats may be calculated incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Ah yes #anecdotes. Continue to live your life confining your knowledge to only things that you personally experience. The war against statistics from 40+ year olds continues. #undefeatedonanecdotes #statisticsaremeaningless

God you're stupid sometimes.
 
Deacon923 said:
Here's a link to the actual McKinsey study, the previous link was to a left-leaning commentator.

One thing that may impact this conversation is that apparently McKinsey doesn't have full information on NC yet. So it may be that 2&2's experience is more representative of NC, if not necessarily representative of the nation as a whole.
Click to expand...

Sure this is what happens when states intentionally undermine a federal program they don't agree with so they can turn around and tell voters in that state "look the ACA didn't work!!" when it wasn't fully funded, no infrastructure was provided by the state, and the state refused to give it a shot to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top