- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 24,908
- Reaction score
- 9,273
The employer mandate is clearly being delayed because of the next election cycle. That much became evident yesterday, and it's a fucking joke.
ACA Running Thread
- Thread starter Wrangor
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
The employer mandate is clearly being delayed because of the next election cycle. That much became evident yesterday, and it's a fucking joke.
Wrangor
Go Deacs
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 12,414
- Reaction score
- 1,373
I agree 100%. Mandatory Service. Three tracts:
1. Military
2. Human Aid
3. Education
Person can post pone service for up to 5 years for post high school education. Education tract must be preceded by college diploma, and must be applied for (only the best would be accepted). Would transform our Educational system, would give us unlimited numbers of young workers to give aid to the needy, and would change our view of the military and war if our sons and daughters could be sent overseas for a unnecessary war.
My dislike (and it is not a strong dislike, more of a disapproval) of the insurance extension is that it counteracts this mentality. It tells our youth 'you don't have to grow up...someone else will take care of your bills....you don't need to take responsibility yet). That is the message we continue to tell our children and then we wonder why they grow up to be self absorbed greedy pricks. Teach responsibility by requiring it.
DeacHawk
Punishingly Intricate
reasoning for the 3 tracts as opposed to broader civil service areas? why limit it?
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
Every other advanced nation isn't a nation of lardasses.
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
Interesting take from Cato:
http://www.cato.org/blog/delaying-employer-mandate-requires-delaying-all-obamacare
http://www.cato.org/blog/delaying-employer-mandate-requires-delaying-all-obamacare
totally irrelevant....they have been doing it for decades. It shows total incompetence and gross/immoral greed that our businesses don't do it and fight doing the right thing.
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
And we've been fat for decades. The right thing would be for the lardasses to stop being lardasses and expecting that someone else cover the costs of their lardiness. Get rid of the diabetis, high blood pressure, cholesterol, and obesity problems (joint issues, arthritis, etc) and you'll see healthcare costs come down to much more manageable numbers for everyone involved.
Wrangor
Go Deacs
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 12,414
- Reaction score
- 1,373
That is not a kind review.
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
It is not. The amount of power we allow the executive branch to exercise, with little question or oversight from Congress, is breathtaking. Why isn't Darrell Issa taking up the serious issues identified in the Cato article instead of chasing ghosts at the IRS? Why aren't any Democrats in Congress taking issue with the NSA scandal exposed by Snowden? Our elected representatives are fiddling while Rome burns.
Wrangor
Go Deacs
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 12,414
- Reaction score
- 1,373
Wrangor agrees
bym051d
I AM VERY IMPORTANT
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 42,180
- Reaction score
- 9,179
That's a surprise coming from the Cato institute.
There are certainly some "good things" from the ACA from an access side but virtually none from the cost side to date. But none of these are game changers.
I have some personal issues with the kids to 26 issue (we need to force employers to cover their employees employed kids?) but my personal feelings aside, it did cover more kids. However, the jury is out on its full impact on cost. Employers actually changed their contribution strategies which shifted costs back to employees and possibly resulted in others dropping (there has been a drop in participation during this same time). Every actuarial study I looked at showed it actually had no impact to the pool or a negative one (sicker kids buying in). So all it did was cost shift. Thats progress? And to suggest this makes the employer offer stronger is a stretch. Tread on this one carefully. Just like on the part time issue. See how many employees move people to PT as a result of the new rules.
The Part D doughnut hole is yet another misnomer. Low income seniors already received help with this prior to this change and all this did was to increase costs to other segments as well as shifting more even more benefits to Srs many of whom don't need it. Medicare is broken so what do we do? Give 'em more benefits! I actually love the doughnut hole from an actuarial view. Creates some interesting cost incentives & outcomes (i.e. many carriers covered generics in the hole....but now brands are covered so why switch?).
Removing lifetime caps is certainly a good thing but just added a little cost. Prior to this mandate, insurers would be selected against if they didn't have limits so most I know supported this change. No issues on this one but certainly not a game changer. Virtually no one hits their lifetime maxes on regular insurance to which this applied.
Im pretty sure Medicare was "offered" everywhere. There was some fixes to rural reimbursement but to make it sound like its now covering more people is mis-leading. Im not sure Id post this was a big win...Fixing the program that you manage already?
Note that most of the above things were carrier mandates and required very little gov't action other than saying go do this. The issues we see now are where the feds have to do something (build an exchange, track employer offerings). Thats not an encouraging sign, especially to people who support single payer.
One other side note...The feds are notorious for releasing stuff before big holidays/late on Fridays. They did it last Thanksgiving, XMas, Easter and Memorial Day. Add July 4th to the list!
I have some personal issues with the kids to 26 issue (we need to force employers to cover their employees employed kids?) but my personal feelings aside, it did cover more kids. However, the jury is out on its full impact on cost. Employers actually changed their contribution strategies which shifted costs back to employees and possibly resulted in others dropping (there has been a drop in participation during this same time). Every actuarial study I looked at showed it actually had no impact to the pool or a negative one (sicker kids buying in). So all it did was cost shift. Thats progress? And to suggest this makes the employer offer stronger is a stretch. Tread on this one carefully. Just like on the part time issue. See how many employees move people to PT as a result of the new rules.
The Part D doughnut hole is yet another misnomer. Low income seniors already received help with this prior to this change and all this did was to increase costs to other segments as well as shifting more even more benefits to Srs many of whom don't need it. Medicare is broken so what do we do? Give 'em more benefits! I actually love the doughnut hole from an actuarial view. Creates some interesting cost incentives & outcomes (i.e. many carriers covered generics in the hole....but now brands are covered so why switch?).
Removing lifetime caps is certainly a good thing but just added a little cost. Prior to this mandate, insurers would be selected against if they didn't have limits so most I know supported this change. No issues on this one but certainly not a game changer. Virtually no one hits their lifetime maxes on regular insurance to which this applied.
Im pretty sure Medicare was "offered" everywhere. There was some fixes to rural reimbursement but to make it sound like its now covering more people is mis-leading. Im not sure Id post this was a big win...Fixing the program that you manage already?
Note that most of the above things were carrier mandates and required very little gov't action other than saying go do this. The issues we see now are where the feds have to do something (build an exchange, track employer offerings). Thats not an encouraging sign, especially to people who support single payer.
One other side note...The feds are notorious for releasing stuff before big holidays/late on Fridays. They did it last Thanksgiving, XMas, Easter and Memorial Day. Add July 4th to the list!
Saw this in that other thread. Eviscerating.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323899704578583493972896364.html
"These columns fought the Affordable Care Act from start to passage, and we'd now like to apologize to our readers. It turns out we weren't nearly critical enough. The law's implementation is turning into a fiasco for the ages, and this week's version is the lawless White House decision to delay the law's insurance mandate for businesses, though not for individuals.
***
White House fixer Valerie Jarrett tried to contain the fallout with a separate blog post promising that ObamaCare is otherwise "staying the course." That's true only if she's referring to the carelessness and improvisation that have defined the law so far.
***
This selective enforcement of laws has become an Administration habit. From immigration (the Dream Act by fiat) to easing welfare reform's work requirements to selective waivers for No Child Left Behind, the Obama Administration routinely suspends enforcement of or unilaterally rewrites via regulation the laws it dislikes. Now it is doing it again on health care, without any consultation from, much less the approval of, Congress. President Obama probably figures business and Republicans won't object because they don't like the law anyway.
***
ObamaCare has become a rolling "train wreck," in Senator Max Baucus's memorable phrase, and it gets worse the more of it the public sees. The employer mandate is terrible policy, as the law's critics said before it passed. Now the Administration is all but admitting it can't implement it properly, and the task for opponents is to press the concession and begin to delay the rest of the law and dismantle it piece by piece."
Ouch.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323899704578583493972896364.html
"These columns fought the Affordable Care Act from start to passage, and we'd now like to apologize to our readers. It turns out we weren't nearly critical enough. The law's implementation is turning into a fiasco for the ages, and this week's version is the lawless White House decision to delay the law's insurance mandate for businesses, though not for individuals.
***
White House fixer Valerie Jarrett tried to contain the fallout with a separate blog post promising that ObamaCare is otherwise "staying the course." That's true only if she's referring to the carelessness and improvisation that have defined the law so far.
***
This selective enforcement of laws has become an Administration habit. From immigration (the Dream Act by fiat) to easing welfare reform's work requirements to selective waivers for No Child Left Behind, the Obama Administration routinely suspends enforcement of or unilaterally rewrites via regulation the laws it dislikes. Now it is doing it again on health care, without any consultation from, much less the approval of, Congress. President Obama probably figures business and Republicans won't object because they don't like the law anyway.
***
ObamaCare has become a rolling "train wreck," in Senator Max Baucus's memorable phrase, and it gets worse the more of it the public sees. The employer mandate is terrible policy, as the law's critics said before it passed. Now the Administration is all but admitting it can't implement it properly, and the task for opponents is to press the concession and begin to delay the rest of the law and dismantle it piece by piece."
Ouch.
Last edited: