Obamacare

[Another]

Congress has exempted itself from it (not that they haven't done this a hundred times before). IRS agents don't want anything to do with it. Dozens of politically well-connected companies and other organizations have gained exemptions from it. It's common knowledge that companies without all the political connections are either laying off employees, reducing hours to part time, or simply not hiring, to get under the 50-full-time-employees limit where Obamacare provisions kick in. Low wage workers who are now the majority of the American work force will not be able to afford health insurance and won't be able to afford the penalties that will come with noncompliance. So, can anybody tell me why this train wreck in the making shouldn't be repealed before it's too late?

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2 ... xemptions/

[Another]

Why don't you first tell us why you swallow whole the views of a blogger unable to cite any professional credentials and whose only sources are himself and other rightwingers?

Ugh!! I spoke a bit too soon. I should have checked around a bit more before posting. Maybe this will help clarify (well, either it will or it won't):

http://news.msn.com/rumors/rumor-congre ... -obamacare

Maybe you'll like this source better.

The other site says of its author: Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.

FWIW. Just curious, what "professional credentials" are you looking for?

[Ombudsman]

Congress has exempted itself from it (not that they haven't done this a hundred times before). IRS agents don't want anything to do with it. Dozens of politically well-connected companies and other organizations have gained exemptions from it. It's common knowledge that companies without all the political connections are either laying off employees, reducing hours to part time, or simply not hiring, to get under the 50-full-time-employees limit where Obamacare provisions kick in. Low wage workers who are now the majority of the American work force will not be able to afford health insurance and won't be able to afford the penalties that will come with noncompliance. So, can anybody tell me why this train wreck in the making shouldn't be repealed before it's too late?

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2 ... xemptions/

This was clarified later:

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/reid-say ... -resolved/

As you can see they are not getting an exemption as you claim, that's any different than anyone else's exemption.

(Even the link in your blog has been updated to reflect that.)

[Bungalow Bill]

Maybe it would be a good idea to see what happens before labeling it a
train wreck in the making.

[O Really]

Not that the idea of "Congress exempting itself" hasn't been debunked, but because the haters don't ever bother to understand what "Obamacare" does and doesn't do, their rantings are especially stupid. Congress wouldn't be subject to any requirements regarding exchanges, etc. because the members are already part of an employer health plan. And that federal employee health plan is indeed subject to any of the coverage requirements, no pre-ex requirements, etc. I've looked at the requirements in depth, and participate in a hotline for employers with questions, and I really don't understand all the angst. Apparently the problem seems to be with the requirement for some employers to offer a health plan and the related requirement that those who don't have an employer-sponsored plan buy an individual plan. Somebody want to explain why those requirements make the sky fall in?

[Another]

Ok, I'm just gonna come clean and say I regret not doing more homework before starting this thread. It was late, what can I say? Nah, that's an excuse; Vrede gave me a tongue-lashing and I deserved it. Okay, with that out of the way, I think I can respond to O Really by saying that yes, that's exactly the problem perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- by both employers who aren't hiring to stay under the Obamacare limit or those who are only hiring part-timers or even reducing hours from full-time to part time -- I personally know such people, some who can't find work and some who won't hire and cite Obamacare as the reason. And the bottom line is, I don't think the federal government should be forcing people to buy private health insurance many of them won't be able to afford without additional government assistance, especially as premiums are already going up in a lot of places because insurance companies will not be able to refuse to insure due to preexisting conditions. Please don't compare this to mandatory auto insurance, it's not the same thing; because if you're driving you're putting others at potential risk, quite unlike not having health insurance. If people don't want to buy health insurance and they're willing to accept the possible consequences, that's their business not the government's. (Just to note; I have health insurance, so this isn't about me. In case anyone gets any ideas.)

Okay, that also said, let me try out another idea on you guys (gals too?). Obamacare isn't really about health care at all, is it? It's about how health care gets paid for. I think we'll all agree, health care is too expensive for what you get. Why not take a different tack. Why don't we talk about prevention instead of just dealing with sick people? This means education about nutrition and avoiding bad foods, getting plenty of exercise, avoiding unnecessary risks, and so on. I think such education ought to be in public schools. First graders aren't too young to learn about nutrition and exercise, especially if it can be made fun, like a game. I don't know of anybody who is talking about these things, though. Obama isn't -- if he was, I'd be right in there pulling for him! But there's nothing like this in Obamacare or any other national legislation currently on the table that I know of. Universities don't teach it -- I took a long look at USC's Arnold School of Public Health a few years ago thinking I might make a career change, but all they have there is sex ed, nothing about nutrition. (They do have exercise science, but nothing aimed at kids where it has to start.)

The only problem I see with prevention is that it makes too much sense -- and it would cut the profit margins of drug companies and all others who will benefit from Obamacare on the government end. This is why I don't expect to live to see it.

Okay, maybe I've won back a little credibility by admitting that I screwed up with my first post (and on my first thread -- yikes!), what say you about this shift in the conversation, to do something constructive instead of just institute more government controls?

[homerfobe]

But, don't fret, there may be a real goat-lashing in store for you at some point in the future.

You can count on it. He/she's already pissed off one of his/her staunch (former) supporters and left-wingnutter.

[homerfobe]

We agree on some issues but I'm fairly certain that Ombudsman and I clashed at times way back on BRN when he was posting under a different handle.

That was too easy.

[Ombudsman]

If people don't want to buy health insurance and they're willing to accept the possible consequences, that's their business not the government's. (Just to note; I have health insurance, so this isn't about me. In case anyone gets any ideas.)

How does that work in the real world though? Are hospitals supposed to start turning people away if they don't have insurance? What about the children of adults who have't purchased insurance?

Why don't we talk about prevention instead of just dealing with sick people? This means education about nutrition and avoiding bad foods, getting plenty of exercise, avoiding unnecessary risks, and so on.

We do talk about it. There's more information about nutrition than at any time in history. People still get sick.

I think such education ought to be in public schools. First graders aren't too young to learn about nutrition and exercise, especially if it can be made fun, like a game.

It is. And funded by the taxpayer. Are you suggesting we spend more money on additional education? Where should that come from?

Okay, maybe I've won back a little credibility by admitting that I screwed up with my first post (and on my first thread -- yikes!), what say you about this shift in the conversation, to do something constructive instead of just institute more government controls?

Why are you opposed to gov't controls of the private health care industry but in support of gov't control in the public schools?

[O Really]

Ok, I'm just gonna come clean and say ...(good comments)

I don't particularly like the current plan, either, and it wasn't the first choice plan of the guy whose name is on it. If I were in charge, I'd have a single payer plan. Failing that, I'd have a public option, essentially extending Medicare, for those not covered by a group plan. Failing that, as I would as long as Republicans were opposing anything I did including walking the dog on the White House lawn, I'd probably end up with something like "Obamacare." But I would not stop looking for a way to assure universal coverage.

And of course "Obamacare" is simply about how to pay for it. Now we all pay for everybody's medical expenses through our own premiums, Medicare tax, and ...extra costs for our own to cover those who are uninsured. It would be good to eliminate that last category without just turning sick/injured people out to the street to die.

Employers have whined and fought against worthy initiatives every time they've come up - from the first minimum wage in 1938 to CRA64, to OSHA, ERISA, FMLA ADA, yada. They'll get over this and most will still wake up in business tomorrow.

[Wneglia]

2.9% of Federal Employees say they should become part of the new health insurance exchanges.

[RonJ]

Group Leading 'Defund Obamacare' Tour Was Urged by Funders to Downplay Tobacco Risks to Children

80 House members: Shutdown better than 'Obamacare'

They're real fear is not that the ACA will harm America, it's that it will be a success. That's how unpatriotic an important part of the GOP is these days.

Both Sides in GOP's Civil War Over Obamacare Want to Put Insurance Companies Back in Charge

...Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) said forcing an entire government to shut down over Obamacare is a "bridge too far." Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls the idea "silly." Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) called it the "dumbest idea" he's ever heard. Burr even conceded that when the fight ends and the government re-opens, "Barack Obama is [still] going to be president." But upstart GOP senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas are slinging insults at these senators and accusing them of being political lightweights and cowards for accepting the world as it is...

I don't like Obamacare but I have to agree..shutting down over one issue is just stupid. The pendulum might swing hard if it happens.

[Mr.B]

Fortunately, I'm at a point in life I don't have to worry about Obamacare, Bidencare, or Idon'tcare!
I pay $105 a month for Medicare and my supplemental is free. If anything major comes up, I take off to the VA hospital.

RonJ.....the pizzers ain't come on the scene yet; expect to catch hell over your avatar!

[RonJ]

Fortunately, I'm at a point in life I don't have to worry about Obamacare, Bidencare, or Idon'tcare!
I pay $105 a month for Medicare and my supplemental is free. If anything major comes up, I take off to the VA hospital.

RonJ.....the pizzers ain't come on the scene yet; expect to catch hell over your avatar!

Hehe...look forward to it.

[RonJ]

Fortunately, I'm at a point in life I don't have to worry about Obamacare, Bidencare, or Idon'tcare!
I pay $105 a month for Medicare and my supplemental is free. If anything major comes up, I take off to the VA hospital...

It's funny how many con opponents of the ACA, whether you are one or not, are getting the single-payer Medicare and/or the socialized VA care, both of which are much farther left programs than the ACA.

Oh don't worry...if you thought Affordable Care Act was contentious...stick around a while because the elephant in the room (Medicaid/Medicare) is about to pass gas. Obamacare is a fairly decent idea gone stupid in its design...its like prostitute dressing like a nun. Democrats only see the nun and don't realize they're about to get screwed. Unions and the youth voters are probably wishing they had listened now.

Medicare/Medicaid reform is unavoidable. We're now paying more for those programs than we do on national defense and soon it will be equal to 100% of the entire annual federal budget. A trillion here, a trillion there....read Greece's recent history for the future playbook.

[RonJ]

Well, if we're going to cite other nations then we have to recognize that every other industrialized democracy provides comparable healthcare in a single-payer structure - some socialized, most not - for 1/2 to 2/3 the per capita cost. The biggest problem with the ACA is that it did not go far enough. We're just too beholden to Big Insurance and Pharma.

You can't compare the US to other nations. Many individual states are larger than their countries. We fund the bulk of research and the hard to get treatments are still only found in the US. Not only that, we subsidize much of their own health care. When a drug company creates a drug, US manufactures have to sell it below cost through government price controls in those countries, otherwise they don't recognize US patents and clone it then sell it themselves.

Guess what? Big pharma is the future. The only reason you'll go to the hospital in the future is for a surgery or for trauma ER....everything else will be a pill in a bottle. Big insurance was never really the problem. The biggest reason for explosive costs....unions, big corporations, and generous tax breaks from Uncle Sam. That's not to say our former system was perfect but its flawed both in the private sector and government run programs.

[rstrong]

You can't compare the US to other nations. Many individual states are larger than their countries. We fund the bulk of research and the hard to get treatments are still only found in the US. Not only that, we subsidize much of their own health care. When a drug company creates a drug, US manufactures have to sell it below cost through government price controls in those countries, otherwise they don't recognize US patents and clone it then sell it themselves.

If that bit of lobbyist mythology works for you, enjoy it. The rest of us will live in the real world.

Here in Canada for example we fully recognize US patents. We don't have "government price controls" forcing anyone to sell below cost. What our government DOES do, is negotiate bulk pricing on drugs. (You know, what Big Pharma's owned and operated Congressmen passed a law banning Medicare and Medicaid from doing.) And we do a hell of a lot of drug and medical research here, just like other countries do.

[rstrong]

Gosh. Funny how in two elections - and a majority of Americans agreed with this both times - the Republican Party wasn't able to find a single candidate in their own party who was better!

[Mr.B]

"Gosh. Funny how in two elections - and a majority of Americans agreed with this both times - the Republican Party wasn't able to find a single candidate in their own party who was better!"

Strike two RonJ!

The Dems couldn't find anyone "better" either.....in fact, they couldn't have found anyone any worse.....

[RonJ]

You can't compare the US to other nations. Many individual states are larger than their countries. We fund the bulk of research and the hard to get treatments are still only found in the US. Not only that, we subsidize much of their own health care. When a drug company creates a drug, US manufactures have to sell it below cost through government price controls in those countries, otherwise they don't recognize US patents and clone it then sell it themselves.

If that bit of lobbyist mythology works for you, enjoy it. The rest of us will live in the real world.

Here in Canada for example we fully recognize US patents. We don't have "government price controls" forcing anyone to sell below cost. What our government DOES do, is negotiate bulk pricing on drugs. (You know, what Big Pharma's owned and operated Congressmen passed a law banning Medicare and Medicaid from doing.) And we do a hell of a lot of drug and medical research here, just like other countries do.

The "negotiated bulk pricing" does exist in the US but its not government controlled. Walgreens has more customers in a week walk into their stores than the entire population of Canada. Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, and RiteAid each have more pharmacy customers than the entire population of Canada. So your premise that Canada gets "good deals" is only half-true.

The "bulk pricing" is only partially correct. Pharmacies make most of their profit from everything else they sell in the store, and here's why.... Medicare/Medicaid only re-reimburse pharmacies at what is called the "average manufacture price" or AMP...which is average price paid by wholesalers for drugs. Those customers are the driving force behind the large chain store growth and stand alone pharmacies are nearly non-existent. Medicare Part D has also been a huge driving force...wasn't that a Republican made thing?? The large chains are driving the cost down not only because of bulk pricing but they're willing to make only just enough to cover costs because volume sales are where its at. The competition between the large chains is huge. Get people in the door and if they buy a pack of chewing gum or soda they increase their profits substantially. Canada does do a lot of drug and medical research....but its still a small fraction compared to the US--remember we have more gifted kids than you have kids.

Oh yeah...about that "we don't have government price controls"....you mean like the Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board?

Yes, the US does sell drugs overseas below cost and inflates the cost in the US in order to re-coop the loss. The more countries that ignore US patients, the more the US has to foot the bill for foreign sales. However, US prices will drop not only because of the big chains are taking over but because many drugs' patents are expiring over the next couple of years. At that point, market forces and economy of scale will take over and drug costs overseas will inflate relative to the US.