Page 3 of 401 FirstFirst 123456781353103 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 8004

Thread: ACA Running Thread

  1. #41
    Boomer Boy Shorty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    GA's Gilded 6th
    Posts
    7,935
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    It's amazing that employers in every advanced nation on the planet are easily to afford participating in HC but US companies can't figure it out.

    My bad, they can but don't want to.
    The only participation on the part of employers in other countries is withholding the government mandated cost of HC from their employees' paychecks.

  2. #42
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Which is included in the pay deals they make with their hires. The money comes from the person's pay.

    In countries like Germany, the employers actually pay half of the premiums outright -http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health-care-abroad-germany/

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    In countries like Germany, they put people to death based upon their religion in the lifetimes of people in their 80's
    FIFY

  4. #44
    Boomer Boy Shorty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    GA's Gilded 6th
    Posts
    7,935
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Which is included in the pay deals they make with their hires. The money comes from the person's pay.

    In countries like Germany, the employers actually pay half of the premiums outright -http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health-care-abroad-germany/
    I've lived in Germany. They have one of the better systems in the world, in part because people there still have the private option. You do understand, though, that when German employers set salaries, they do the exact same thing employers here do. They reduce the amount actually paid to the employee to cover the cost of "their half" of the premiums.

  5. #45
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    But EVERY employer MUST for EVERY employee. Why are our companies so incompetent that they can't do the same?

    If you had paid attention to my posts on this subject over the years , you would have seen my position has basically been to put together something like the German system in the US. I've called it Single Payer+ and other things.

  6. #46
    Boomer Boy Shorty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    GA's Gilded 6th
    Posts
    7,935
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    But EVERY employer MUST for EVERY employee. Why are our companies so incompetent that they can't do the same?

    If you had paid attention to my posts on this subject over the years , you would have seen my position has basically been to put together something like the German system in the US. I've called it Single Payer+ and other things.
    I have no idea what the first sentence means.

    And do you seriously expect other posters to remember each of your positions? I don't remember all of what I've posted "over the years" much less the positions stated in your 29,000 posts.

  7. #47
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Must PAY...The word PAY was dropped.....

  8. #48
    Im not sure I see the link between an employers competency and their decision not to offer insurance as part of their employment offer. But, as we all know, employers with 50+ employees are required to offer minimum affordable coverage or be subject to a $2,000 fine (first 30 employees free). Of course if they offer coverage less than the MV floor, they need to pay a $3000 fine. And if they offer coverage thats too expensive, it too gets taxed (the infamous cadillac tax, which BTW discriminates against the sick, but thats for another day). So they have to offer and iof they offer too lean a plan or too rich a plan, they pay. Makes perfect sense right?

    Given that wage inflation grows less than medical inflation over the past 30 years, most competent employers will quickly do the math to see of making their employees "whole" and indexed to normal wage growth is better than keeping coverage. With GI on the horizon, the hurdles to buy coverage are now gone. How many employers will do this? We will soon see (actually, we may need to wait another year to see). I speak to employers every day who want out and are looking closely at this.

    Obama has actually argued that more employers will actually offer coverage b/c of the group tax credits and the wonderful SHOP. THis hasn't happened. Lets remember, if employers drop, subsidies go up and the "budget neutral" ACA implodes....
    Last edited by CHDeac; 07-04-2013 at 06:21 PM.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by CHDeac View Post
    Im not sure I see the link between an employers competency and their decision not to offer insurance as part of their employment offer. But, as we all know, employers with 50+ employees are required to offer minimum affordable coverage or be subject to a $2,000 fine (first 30 employees free). Of course if they offer coverage less than the MV floor, they need to pay a $3000 fine. And if they offer coverage thats too expensive, it too gets taxed (the infamous cadillac tax, which BTW discriminates against the sick, but thats for another day). So they have to offer and iof they offer too lean a plan or too rich a plan, they pay. Makes perfect sense right?

    Given that wage inflation grows less than medical inflation over the past 30 years, most competent employers will quickly do the math to see of making their employees "whole" and indexed to normal wage growth is better than keeping coverage. With GI on the horizon, the hurdles to buy coverage are now gone. How many employers will do this? We will soon see (actually, we may need to wait another year to see). I speak to employers every day who want out and are looking closely at this.

    Obama has actually argued that more employers will actually offer coverage b/c of the group tax credits and the wonderful SHOP. THis hasn't happened. Lets remember, if employers drop, subsidies go up and the "budget neutral" ACA implodes....
    This is what I expect to happen. I don't know what our company will do - we have good benefits and treat our employees well, but if the competition starts dropping we will have to follow suit. If I owned a company I would be happy to pay the fixed cost penalty per employee and save money by trimming several positions that are devoted to dealing with HC benefits, and just generally get rid of the whole headache of managing HC benefits, renegotiating every couple years, etc.

    The result will be exploding subsidies. The "cure" that will be put forward at that point is single-payer so the government can have better negotiating power and control. It will probably take the form of a big Medicaid expansion as opposed to a NHS-style proposal.

  10. #50
    Historically Competitive
    Wrangor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mississippi Delta
    Posts
    12,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon923 View Post
    This is what I expect to happen. I don't know what our company will do - we have good benefits and treat our employees well, but if the competition starts dropping we will have to follow suit. If I owned a company I would be happy to pay the fixed cost penalty per employee and save money by trimming several positions that are devoted to dealing with HC benefits, and just generally get rid of the whole headache of managing HC benefits, renegotiating every couple years, etc.

    The result will be exploding subsidies. The "cure" that will be put forward at that point is single-payer so the government can have better negotiating power and control. It will probably take the form of a big Medicaid expansion as opposed to a NHS-style proposal.
    That is really our only hope at this point. ACA will prove to be such a fiscal failure that we will be forced to come up with something different.

  11. #51
    I believe Obama is finally having a Nixon moment: Remember, a law doesn't have to be enforced if the president doesn't want to do it.

  12. #52

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt Hulka View Post
    Unfuckingbelievable. Just when you think this debacle couldn't be any more laughable, they trump themselves.

  14. #54
    Wow. That's incredible.

  15. #55
    Historically Competitive
    Wrangor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mississippi Delta
    Posts
    12,429
    Sounds pretty bad. Would love to hear some counterpoints as to why it isn't nearly as bad as it seems. Self Verification of eligibility for subsidies? Me thinks we might be inviting a small amount of fraud into the system.

  16. #56
    Glad someone posted this.
    Last edited by CHDeac; 11-04-2013 at 07:16 PM.

  17. #57
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    120,423
    No system that attempts to work within the confines of the current system is going to work effectively especially if there is no real motivation to implement it.

  18. #58
    Historically Competitive
    Wrangor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mississippi Delta
    Posts
    12,429
    ? There is plenty of motivation to implement it.

    1. Costs explode in the current scenario
    2. To prove you were right. If Obama is right then the best thing we can so is implement the ACA. Instead it was Obama that pulled the plug. The house isn't neutering this. Obama is. He has plenty of motivation ... the reality is that the program is a disaster and he knows it so he is trying to delay implementation in order to get his stuff together.

    Unfortunately these delays might not be legal (can the president unilaterally decide not to implement a law that is on the books?) and the delays reveal just how far the ACA has to go before it is even a feasible attempt much less the silver bullet for our healthcare woes.
    Motivation is not the issue. Obama is the one delaying this. For all the blustering of the house they haven't done anything to prevent the implementation of ACA.

  19. #59

  20. #60
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    120,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrangor View Post
    ? There is plenty of motivation to implement it.

    1. Costs explode in the current scenario
    2. To prove you were right. If Obama is right then the best thing we can so is implement the ACA. Instead it was Obama that pulled the plug. The house isn't neutering this. Obama is. He has plenty of motivation ... the reality is that the program is a disaster and he knows it so he is trying to delay implementation in order to get his stuff together.

    Unfortunately these delays might not be legal (can the president unilaterally decide not to implement a law that is on the books?) and the delays reveal just how far the ACA has to go before it is even a feasible attempt much less the silver bullet for our healthcare woes.
    Motivation is not the issue. Obama is the one delaying this. For all the blustering of the house they haven't done anything to prevent the implementation of ACA.
    Why do you think I'm talking about the House?

    This is a massive program with a lot moving parts. States, businesses, etc. there's got to be motivation. Enough people want it to fail that they'll kill it regardless.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •