Obamacare: lower than expected premium rates.

DGM said:
No. They are not replacing older full time jobs. They are being phased out. A job that was once full time is now replaced by two part time.

Don't assume retail supplies full time workers with health care. Most only offer a group plan that allows reduced cost but, does not contribute monetarily.
Click to expand...

Plus if immigration reform passes there will be 11 million + more workers available who would probably love the part time jobs. Employers will not have any trouble filling them.
 
DDWW said:
Plus if immigration reform passes there will be 11 million + more workers available who would probably love the part time jobs. Employers will not have any trouble filling them.
Click to expand...
[citation missing]
 
Brainster said:
I find it completely believable that we could cover lots of pre-existing conditions, cover lots more people, cover lots of things that weren't covered before, and bring down costs.

However, this other Forbes guy is just a bit skeptical:
Click to expand...

Yeah, about that. Avik Roy is full of ****, and is using teaser rates from an online health insurance site (which has terrible reviews, incidentally) to make his point. It has no basis in reality.
 
Brainster said:
I find it completely believable that we could cover lots of pre-existing conditions, cover lots more people, cover lots of things that weren't covered before, and bring down costs.

However, this other Forbes guy is just a bit skeptical:
Click to expand...

Guess it can be ignored as it is not from an approved liberal source.
 
Last edited:
DDWW said:
Guess it can be ignored as it is not from an approved liberal source.
Click to expand...
Never mind that it is an empirical fact that we pay more per capita and have far worse health outcomes than nations with UHC (see link above).
 
DDWW said:
Guess it can be ignored as it is not from an approved liberal source.
Click to expand...

It wasn't ignored. Did you miss the reply right above yours where I provided an article (from the same site as Brainster's in fact) which explains in detail why Avik Roy's analysis is misleading?
 
maxpower1227 said:
It wasn't ignored. Did you miss the reply right above yours where I provided an article (from the same site as Brainster's in fact) which explains in detail why Avik Roy's analysis is misleading?
Click to expand...

Discounted would have been a better word than ignored.
 
RandFan said:
I'm sorry, how does that demonstrate your claim?

Help me out here?
Click to expand...

Yes,, I understand you need help.

The bill denies health insurance coverage to the 11 million undocumented workers, who will become "registered provisional immigrants" (RPIs), ...

It creates an incentive for employers to hire the new immigrants over citizens or green-card holders and to provide neither with health insurance.

Big pool of workers to fill part time jobs, with and added incentive to the employers. Which supports my statement.

Ego is really a bitch.
 
DDWW said:
Yes,, I understand you need help.

The bill denies health insurance coverage to the 11 million undocumented workers, who will become "registered provisional immigrants" (RPIs), ...

It creates an incentive for employers to hire the new immigrants over citizens or green-card holders and to provide neither with health insurance.

Big pool of workers to fill part time jobs, with and added incentive to the employers. Which supports my statement.

Ego is really a bitch.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that these individuals would not be otherwise employed? I'm sorry you chose to insult me rather than thinking through your claim.
 
Politico
Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare that they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting.

The fear: Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive.
Click to expand...

Lawmakers and aides on both sides of the aisle are acutely aware of the problems with the provision. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have discussed fixes to the provision. Boehner, according to House GOP sources, believes that Reid must take the lead on crafting a solution. Since Republicans opposed the bill, Boehner does not feel responsible to lead the effort to make changes.

The Affordable Care Act — signed into law in 2010 — contained a provision known as the Grassley Amendment, which said the government can only offer members of Congress and their staff plans that are “created” in the bill or “offered through an exchange” — unless the bill is amended.
Click to expand...

The politicians wrote themselves into the exchange in order to help in passing Obamacare. Now that it is going to cost them more to keep their gold plated coverage, expect them to quietly write themselves out of the exchange before the end of the year.

Bunch of hypocrites. All of them.
 
Last edited:
A 40-year-old in San Francisco who wants a top-of-the-line plan would receive a bill between $451 and $525. Downgrade to a less robust option, and premiums fall as low as $221.

...On average, the most affordable “silver plan” – which covers 70 percent of the average subscriber’s medical costs – comes with a $276 monthly premium.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...fornia-obamacare-premiums-no-rate-shock-here/

That's hardly what I'd call shockingly low, low prices. And 70% coverage is a joke, still means you go bankrupt for anything more serious than the flu.

Do any countries with actual UHC stick patients with 30% of the cost?
 
WildCat said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...fornia-obamacare-premiums-no-rate-shock-here/

That's hardly what I'd call shockingly low, low prices. And 70% coverage is a joke, still means you go bankrupt for anything more serious than the flu.

Do any countries with actual UHC stick patients with 30% of the cost?
Click to expand...
It's amazing how people can make this argument. My son for the first time will be able to afford health insurance. But since it is not perfect in your eyes it's a bad thing. I'm sorry but that's an absurd argument. I wish we had UHC but the damn Republicans fought every idea tooth and nail. Even ideas they thought of.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
By definition, if they can't afford coverage, they won't be subject to the tax penalty.
Click to expand...
Actually, by definition, they won't be subject to the tax penalty if they meet whatever criteria the government decides to use as a stand-in for ability to afford it. The problem is that these means-testing programs have never been realistic.

RandFan said:
Why? America pays more per patient than any nation with UCP moving in that direction will bring down costs.
Click to expand...
Getting from one valley to another requires going over the ridge between them.
 
RandFan said:
It's amazing how people can make this argument. My son for the first time will be able to afford health insurance.
Click to expand...

A worthy objective, I have no doubt. But the part that gets me is that you somehow think all this can be accomplished and yet still end up cheaper. We're going to make sure that pre-existing conditions are covered and birth control and we're going to make sure that older folks don't have to pay much higher premiums. And it's going to cost everybody less, and reduce the deficit as well! Heck, Obamacare will even wash and wax your car on alternate Sundays.

This isn't skepticism, it's rank boosterism. Everything in life involves tradeoffs. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
 
Brainster said:
A worthy objective, I have no doubt. But the part that gets me is that you somehow think all this can be accomplished and yet still end up cheaper. We're going to make sure that pre-existing conditions are covered and birth control and we're going to make sure that older folks don't have to pay much higher premiums. And it's going to cost everybody less, and reduce the deficit as well! Heck, Obamacare will even wash and wax your car on alternate Sundays.

This isn't skepticism, it's rank boosterism. Everything in life involves tradeoffs. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...

Given that we are coming from a starting point of paying substantially more per capita for health care than citizens of modern civilized nations, why is it so hard to believe that we can reform the system to make it cheaper?
 
Brainster said:
A worthy objective, I have no doubt. But the part that gets me is that you somehow think all this can be accomplished and yet still end up cheaper. We're going to make sure that pre-existing conditions are covered and birth control and we're going to make sure that older folks don't have to pay much higher premiums. And it's going to cost everybody less, and reduce the deficit as well! Heck, Obamacare will even wash and wax your car on alternate Sundays.

This isn't skepticism, it's rank boosterism. Everything in life involves tradeoffs. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...
You ignored my argument. If your logic is bullet proof why is it that nations that offer health care to everyone spend less than America? So, you can accuse me of boosterism until the cows come home but until you address that fact you are just engaging in ad hominem.

By your logic, before the ACA was passed, America should have had the lowest rates. We didn't. We had the highest. That's not a philosophical argument. That's a fact. So, can we dispense with the sophistry? Can you address the argument?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom