ADVERTISEMENT

Can we finally put the Obamacare fight to rest?

I am saying medicare recipients should pay more not working people.
Medicare recipients are retired, and mostly can't afford to pay more. They paid in during their working lives.

I agree that we need to get Medicare costs under control, but on the backs of retirees doesn't seem to me like the way to go about it. Don't hold me to this number, since I saw it some time ago, but IIRC about half of all Medicare costs are incurred w/r/t patients who are desperately ill and clearly in their last few months of life. We need to take a hard look at what we pay for, and the chances it'll prolong a life by a reasonable amount with decent quality.
 
Facts? Basis? Links? Once again, all you've got is The World According to CO. Hoosier.

How about this?

"As a result, our analysis suggests that much of the decline in health spending growth in recent years was fully expected given what was happening more broadly in the economy. For example, in the three years 2001-2003, annual health spending growth rates averaged 8.8%, the recent peak in the curve. Annual growth rates have been steadily declining since then and have averaged 4.2% from 2008 to 2012, a decline of 4.6 percentage points from the peak. But, based on patterns of real GDP changes and inflation, our model predicts that the growth rate in health spending would have been expected to decline by 3.6 percentage points over that same period. In other words, about three-quarters (77%) of the recent decline in health spending growth can be explained by changes in the broader economy."

http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-b...-on-the-recent-slowdown-in-health-spending-2/

"The Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was enacted in March 2010, had a minimal impact on overall national health spending growth through 2012. However, several provisions implemented in 2010 and 2011 continued to affect the payers and programs that financed health care spending in 2012, including increased Medicaid rebates for prescription drugs, the Medicare drug coverage gap (“doughnut hole”) discount program, coverage for dependents under age twenty-six, and the minimum medical loss ratio provision. (The latter establishes the minimum amount of premium revenue that insurers must spend on medical claims and health care quality improvements.)3 In 2012 a provision of the ACA reduced Medicare payment updates for most providers, thereby contributing to slower growth in Medicare spending in 2012."

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/1/67.full
 
Soooooo, what you're saying is you're not a constitutionalist, a constitutional scholar of any kind, and don't have any idea what fights have anything to do with the constitution. Thanks for clearing that up. Yes, Chief Justice Roberts decided the ACA was constitutional because, well, it is. It's essentially a tax. Article 1, section 8, clause 1. Congress has the power to tax and spend. They tax you if you don't have health insurance and they spend your tax dollars on subsidies for poorer people to have affordable insurance. You don't have to like why you're being taxed and you don't have to like what they spend your tax dollars on. There are exactly two things you can do about it. 1) nothing 2) deal with it. I don't like the fact that we spend a trillion dollars per year on a global military empire. You know what? That's just tough shit for me.

Untrue Super,

Congress can only levy taxes as authorized by the constution. The constution doesn't give the feds unfettered power to tax. See 16th amendment.
 
Any evidence connecting those dots? Here's some of mine:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007BP3GXA?redirect=true&ref_=kinw_myk_ro_title

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003LSTK8G?redirect=true&ref_=kinw_myk_ro_title

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003LSTK8G?redirect=true&ref_=kinw_myk_ro_title

Far as I can tell, the only dots that really matter are the real-estate bubble and the global financial services meltdown, both brought to us courtesy of the GOP playbook and free-market capitalism. As you can see, I have some support for my POV.

That was then, this is now

After TARP, stimulus, significant financial reform, massive issuance of new debt, and years of qualitative easing, GDP growth rates are miserable. We've tried old Keynesian schemes, new Keynesian schemes, and that best policy of all: cash for clunkers. We are in a new paradigm and you are still fighting the last war with 70 year-old new deal weapons. Those meager growth rates would be more miserable if we didn't have the benefit of the fracking revolution (A direct result of Cheney's super-secret energy meetings early in the Bush administration) with the accompanying jobs and positive balance of payments that the Obama administration has steadfastly opposed whenever possible.

I read books too. Here are some more dots for you. The crisis had more to do with the unholy alliance of the government legislative and regulatory apparatus with the money grubbers on Wall Street led by Tim "turbo tax" Geithner than free markets. Manipulation of public policy and regulation makes big money for some, but that isn't free market capitalism in my book nor in any other important book. Oh yeah, Obama brought Timmy into government and he helped write financial reform. The only economic sector Obama helped was the government/consultant/lobbyist business. All he did was speed up the revolving door, the revolving door he promised to close. There is a reason why the zip codes around Washington D.C. are among the richest and fastest growing in the US and those reasons don't include free market capitalism. There is nothing produced in those zip codes except government and policy influence. But I really can't blame Obama for all of this, he isn't that smart, he is led around by the big money on the street. Goldman Sachs, and the other big Wall Street houses own the financial policy apparatus, Obama takes their money and butts out.

fh4eca65e4.png


obama-goldman-sachs.jpg
 
Last edited:
How about this?

"As a result, our analysis suggests that much of the decline in health spending growth in recent years was fully expected given what was happening more broadly in the economy. For example, in the three years 2001-2003, annual health spending growth rates averaged 8.8%, the recent peak in the curve. Annual growth rates have been steadily declining since then and have averaged 4.2% from 2008 to 2012, a decline of 4.6 percentage points from the peak. But, based on patterns of real GDP changes and inflation, our model predicts that the growth rate in health spending would have been expected to decline by 3.6 percentage points over that same period. In other words, about three-quarters (77%) of the recent decline in health spending growth can be explained by changes in the broader economy."

http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-b...-on-the-recent-slowdown-in-health-spending-2/

"The Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was enacted in March 2010, had a minimal impact on overall national health spending growth through 2012. However, several provisions implemented in 2010 and 2011 continued to affect the payers and programs that financed health care spending in 2012, including increased Medicaid rebates for prescription drugs, the Medicare drug coverage gap (“doughnut hole”) discount program, coverage for dependents under age twenty-six, and the minimum medical loss ratio provision. (The latter establishes the minimum amount of premium revenue that insurers must spend on medical claims and health care quality improvements.)3 In 2012 a provision of the ACA reduced Medicare payment updates for most providers, thereby contributing to slower growth in Medicare spending in 2012."

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/1/67.full
What does any of that have to do with CO. Hoosier's claim that Obamacare is a drag on the economy?
 
"GDP growth rates are miserable"...CO. Hoosier

CoH, what do you think the growth rate should be?

Heck, back in 2009 I was predicting a double dip recession which never occurred. If this had happened, we would just be recovering from the second dip.

Finally, fracking isn't the only positive factor coming from the private sector.
 
"GDP growth rates are miserable"...CO. Hoosier

CoH, what do you think the growth rate should be?

Heck, back in 2009 I was predicting a double dip recession which never occurred. If this had happened, we would just be recovering from the second dip.

Finally, fracking isn't the only positive factor coming from the private sector.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't listen to your economic predictions? ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
Untrue Super,

Congress can only levy taxes as authorized by the constution. The constution doesn't give the feds unfettered power to tax. See 16th amendment.

Huh? The 16th amendment is one sentence long and it relieves previous constraints on income taxes. I'm not sure what your point is.
 
Once again, your idea of a Patriot is the person that believes as you. 6-3 isn't really close, and some of the reliable conservatives voted against it. Scalia is probably the most political of the entire group, sadly.
How is Scalia any more political than Kagan, Sotomayor or Ginsberg? Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't remember a single significant case where those three didn't vote exactly how you would expect them to. Those three are automatic votes for the left wing. Heck, throw Breyer in there too. Thomas and Scalia get all the heat for voting in lockstep all the time, but no vote is more predictable than those of the 4 liberal judges. Heck, they shouldn't even bother showing up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mike41703
I already linked several sources that indicate dramatic premium increases are impending for those on public exchanges living in states like NY, IL and NE.
No, your links related to a CMS report that laid out only the (1) highest (2) proposed increases. You can't legitimately conclude anything based on only the highest proposed increases. That's like basing average temperatures on only daytime highs. You could get a much better sense of the likely outcomes by reading this Kaiser Family Foundation study. It concludes that, while premiums will vary widely by state, the average increase will be 4.5 percent.
 
How is Scalia any more political than Kagan, Sotomayor or Ginsberg?
You'd have to read the opinions they produce. For example, everything needed to uphold Obamacare could be found in Scalia's Gonzales v. Raich concurrence, which is why Obamacare's defenders quoted it extensively. But while Scalia had an expansive view of the commerce clause when he wished to uphold controlled substance laws (which he likes), he had a much narrower view (in Sebelius) when it came to Obamacare (which he detests).

Similarly, everything necessary to uphold the administration's interpretation of Obamacare's subsidies could be found in the many cases in which he's addressed statutory construction. That's why those cases are extensively referenced in the recent Burwell decision. But Scalia detests Obamacare, so he abandoned his own principles of statutory construction.

Scalia has become a clown. No one else on the Court comes close.
 
How is Scalia any more political than Kagan, Sotomayor or Ginsberg? Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't remember a single significant case where those three didn't vote exactly how you would expect them to. Those three are automatic votes for the left wing. Heck, throw Breyer in there too. Thomas and Scalia get all the heat for voting in lockstep all the time, but no vote is more predictable than those of the 4 liberal judges. Heck, they shouldn't even bother showing up.

The issue is why the voted that way, d, and why you expected them to. As I note elsewhere they share a judicial philosophy, which involves the belief that individual rights should be interpreted broadlly, and that the provisions of the Constitution should be interpreted over time to reflect changes in social values and shared mores. That's not political.

Scalia, by contrast, expounds a conservative philosophy, originilism, which he abandons with no reluctance at all as necessary to reach his policy preferences and political goals, as he did in Bush v. Gore, one among many examples. The difference between the 3 women and Nino is that they're honest philosophically, whereas he's clearly not: he's a decent though not outstanding lawyer in the abstract, but when the issue is one as to which he has a policy preference he's not even an honest lawyer.
 
Medicare recipients are retired, and mostly can't afford to pay more. They paid in during their working lives.

I agree that we need to get Medicare costs under control, but on the backs of retirees doesn't seem to me like the way to go about it. Don't hold me to this number, since I saw it some time ago, but IIRC about half of all Medicare costs are incurred w/r/t patients who are desperately ill and clearly in their last few months of life. We need to take a hard look at what we pay for, and the chances it'll prolong a life by a reasonable amount with decent quality.
Agree, many could not pay more but even a modest increase would really make a difference. You are right about end of life care. So often just a waste and takes away from what little quality of life is left. I believe the AFCA is suppose to allow more family choices in that regard. In other words, better inform people as to their options rather than pressuring them to take more useless tests when there is little or no hope.
 
Are you suggesting we shouldn't listen to your economic predictions? ;)
There is no way to answer the question

But it is safe to say that government policy, particularly in the form of new regulations, is like a ball and chain for many sectors. Did you read the article I linked in the thread about economic opportunity? That explains a lot of the dynamics I'm thinking of.
 
You're still not connecting the dots, C, and you're now completely incoherent.

Yeah I am

Thinking that the whole problem starts with "GOP playbook and free-market capitalism" is intellectually lazy if not intellectually void. There is no free market capitalism in the finance industry. It is all K-street capitalism. It is all permeated with regulations and requirements. Those who know how to make the money, and cause the bubbles, are the ones who know how to manipulate the bureaucracy and buy the legislators.
 
There is no way to answer the question

But it is safe to say that government policy, particularly in the form of new regulations, is like a ball and chain for many sectors. Did you read the article I linked in the thread about economic opportunity? That explains a lot of the dynamics I'm thinking of.

I was poking fun at hoot for admitting his double dip prediction never came about.
 
The issue is why the voted that way, d, and why you expected them to. As I note elsewhere they share a judicial philosophy, which involves the belief that individual rights should be interpreted broadlly, and that the provisions of the Constitution should be interpreted over time to reflect changes in social values and shared mores. That's not political.

Scalia, by contrast, expounds a conservative philosophy, originilism, which he abandons with no reluctance at all as necessary to reach his policy preferences and political goals, as he did in Bush v. Gore, one among many examples. The difference between the 3 women and Nino is that they're honest philosophically, whereas he's clearly not: he's a decent though not outstanding lawyer in the abstract, but when the issue is one as to which he has a policy preference he's not even an honest lawyer.

Didn't you say long long ago that

you would blacklist the next person who mentioned Bush v. Gore? ;)
 
Agree, many could not pay more but even a modest increase would really make a difference. You are right about end of life care. So often just a waste and takes away from what little quality of life is left. I believe the AFCA is suppose to allow more family choices in that regard. In other words, better inform people as to their options rather than pressuring them to take more useless tests when there is little or no hope.

The research I've done suggests the families of the desperately ill are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Doctors tend to order tests and procedures they don't think warranted because families are desperate to keep loved ones alive, even if in a very attenuated sense. I think we're more likely to solve this one with death panels.
 
Yeah I am

Thinking that the whole problem starts with "GOP playbook and free-market capitalism" is intellectually lazy if not intellectually void. There is no free market capitalism in the finance industry. It is all K-street capitalism. It is all permeated with regulations and requirements. Those who know how to make the money, and cause the bubbles, are the ones who know how to manipulate the bureaucracy and buy the legislators.

No, you're not, C, and I don't think you're actually capable of it. Look at this post, and ask yourself again if its even coherent, let alone logical.

I agree that you'd know something about intellectual laziness.
 
I've been dealing with actual arguments and real arguers

for 45 years, not just reading and writing about them. I can easily figure out those who have nothing to say. They always use words like "incoherence" and "illogical" and believe they've said something important.
 
I support the subsidies and mandatory coverage requirement. I believe the employer mandate is TERRIBLE policy. The biggest problems in our system could almost entirely be tied back to a system built upon employer provided insurance. This was caused by the Federal Govt back in WW2, and now instead of working to correct their error of their ways, they have doubled down on this horrible idea.
 
I support the subsidies and mandatory coverage requirement. I believe the employer mandate is TERRIBLE policy. The biggest problems in our system could almost entirely be tied back to a system built upon employer provided insurance. This was caused by the Federal Govt back in WW2, and now instead of working to correct their error of their ways, they have doubled down on this horrible idea.
I agree that the employer mandate is the worst part of the ACA. It's not even close for me. Employer-provided insurance is not only bad health policy, it's bad labor policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mike41703
I support the subsidies and mandatory coverage requirement. I believe the employer mandate is TERRIBLE policy. The biggest problems in our system could almost entirely be tied back to a system built upon employer provided insurance. This was caused by the Federal Govt back in WW2, and now instead of working to correct their error of their ways, they have doubled down on this horrible idea.

It is ruining private insurance and forcing everyone on the public exchanges... moving toward socialized, single-payer healthcare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mike41703
It is ruining private insurance and forcing everyone on the public exchanges... moving toward socialized, single-payer healthcare.

Yeah, that's a nice talking point and all, and if it wasn't just total BS you might be onto something.

Private insurers are the biggest winner of the entire program. It's why they strongly supported its passage, and why health insurance stocks have done so well after the SCOTUS decision.

Do you even understand the difference between the exchanges and single payer? And how ignorant your entire sentence is? Clearly not.
 
Now that the ruling has come down? And then, hopefully next week we can put the gay marriage thing aside also. It's time to move on.

Let me give you true life experience of this great law. I have client with 135 employees. They go out and get a qualified group policy and offer it to the employees. Only 15 of 135 sign up. Insurance company comes back and says no deal. They're not providing insurance because of lack of participation and client's insurance agent tells them there's no one who will. So now client not offering coverage and will owe $2,000 per employee or a $270,000 penalty. My client asks if he can purchase individual policies for the employees who want coverage. I have to tell him he can't do that either. The penalty is $100 per day per employee or $36,500 per employee per year. So if client provides coverage for the employees who want it the annual penalty is $4,927,500. Guess this is the result of passing a law and then finding out what's in it?
Now that the ruling has come down? And then, hopefully next week we can put the gay marriage thing aside also. It's time to move on.
 
Now that the ruling has come down? And then, hopefully next week we can put the gay marriage thing aside also. It's time to move on.

I have multiple employers with under 50 employees who were reimbursing employees for health insurance. Many employers thought if they had less than 50 employees that Obamacare didn't affect them. It does. I had to tell my employers that were reimbursing their employees for their health insurance premiums they would be penalized $100 per day per employee if they continued reimbursing their employees. These employers have been doing this for years which both the employees and employer were happy with. No question health care and health insurance issues needed worked on. This law isn't the answer.
 
@stollcpa - Can you explain why you are telling your clients these things? Your description of how the penalty affects them does not even remotely match the research I did about the penalty when preparing for this at the restaurant. For example, my understanding was that any penalty was figured based on the number of employees over 50 that are employed, so that it would be mathematically impossible for any penalty against a small employer.

Thanks.
 
@stollcpa - Can you explain why you are telling your clients these things? Your description of how the penalty affects them does not even remotely match the research I did about the penalty when preparing for this at the restaurant. For example, my understanding was that any penalty was figured based on the number of employees over 50 that are employed, so that it would be mathematically impossible for any penalty against a small employer.

Thanks.

I attended multiple seminars seminars last fall with CPAs/Attorneys with much more expertise than me. If an employer with under fifty employees provides insurance that doesn't comply with coverage as set out by the ACA the penalty is $100 per day per employee period. Reimbursing employees is consider a health plan and in violation of the ACA. If an employer with more than 50 employees don't provide an qualified plan the penalty is $2000 per employee per year. If the employer provides coverage but it's not affordable the penalty is $3000 per employee. If you have questions private message me and I will send you information and also the number of employee benefit expert with Ice Miller.
 
@stollcpa - Can you explain why you are telling your clients these things? Your description of how the penalty affects them does not even remotely match the research I did about the penalty when preparing for this at the restaurant. For example, my understanding was that any penalty was figured based on the number of employees over 50 that are employed, so that it would be mathematically impossible for any penalty against a small employer.

Thanks.

I did misspeak on the $2000 penalty example. You can exclude the first 30 employees.
 
I did misspeak on the $2000 penalty example. You can exclude the first 30 employees.
Okay, I thought it was 50. I also thought the non compliance daily penalty excluded the first 50, as well. From some more brief research, looks like I was wrong.

I did most of my research on this 2-3 years ago, when people were still figuring it out.

I've been opposed to the employer provisions of the ACA since day 1, even when I thought our restaurant wouldn't be affected. I simply think health care should be divorced from employment altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mike41703
Okay, I thought it was 50. I also thought the non compliance daily penalty excluded the first 50, as well. From some more brief research, looks like I was wrong.

I did most of my research on this 2-3 years ago, when people were still figuring it out.

I've been opposed to the employer provisions of the ACA since day 1, even when I thought our restaurant wouldn't be affected. I simply think health care should be divorced from employment altogether.
I think divorcing healthcare from employment would solve all kinds of problems. I know so many people that would retire if they could get reaSo able healthcare. Same with young mothers that are just working for benefits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
I think divorcing healthcare from employment would solve all kinds of problems. I know so many people that would retire if they could get reaSo able healthcare. Same with young mothers that are just working for benefits.

How is that economically productive? So more reasonable healthcare subsidized by the few taxpaying citizens will result in less people working and less output... this is the basis for separating healthcare from employment?
 
How is that economically productive? So more reasonable healthcare subsidized by the few taxpaying citizens will result in less people working and less output... this is the basis for separating healthcare from employment?
I would argue that the reasons for divorcing health care from employment are:

1. More lateral mobility for workers results in better competition, which leads to both more productive workers and higher wages.
2. The high cost of health care can be a disincentive for growth for some firms. Removing this burden can encourage businesses to grow and hire more workers.
3. The growth burden can be especially onerous for smaller operations. Under the current setup, the 50-employee limit sets a wall, the benefits for crossing which must be extremely high to justify the added expense. This stifles innovation.
 
ADVERTISEMENT