Another Bamacare Rant

Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Another Bamacare Rant

 

Sapient wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

It becomes America's buisness when America has to flip the bill via our tax dollars for her lifestyle of being a slut. 

Hey retard your tax dollars have nothing to do with it and wouldn't be contributed in any way to her receiving funds for contraception.

THAT WAS A LIE TOLD BY LIMBAUGH

AND THEN RETOLD BY CONSERVATIVE MEDIA

 Now I doubt Jeans taxes have anything to do with it because I would be shocked if he had a job that required him to pay taxes but there are a number of taxes imposed by Bamacare and the requirement to include birth control coverage directly raises the price of insurance policies. It is very simple, the more a policy covers, the more it costs and when you start adding in expected and known regular costs like birth control you are creating a very inefficient way to pay for it.

 

It is a truism that the more people involved in a financial transaction the more expensive the end product is because everyone along the way is getting paid. I have no idea what birth control goes for now but lets say it is $50/month if I go to Walgreens and pay for it directly. Now I get my insurance and insist they pay for it. Well, there is a person who sits down and receives the claim, writes the check and mails it to Walgreens to reimburse them for my $50 purchase. That person is being paid, all the paper and stamps etc. is an added cost so now the true amount spent to get that $50 bottle of pills is $51. Who pays the extra $1? Walgreens probably isn't willing to eat the cost, and insurance companies are hardly known for their generosity. They calculate the expected costs and pass it on to the consumer in the form of higher premiums. Insurance that covers unexpected and rare situations is always much cheaper than insurance that covers expected costs or common situations. One is insurance, the other is more correctly called prepaying and prepaying is almost always a bad financial decision.   

 

Employers with more than 50 employees are required to cover their employees and can face fines as high as $2000 per employee if they don't, as individuals you and I are required to purchase a health insurance policy those who fall within certain income guidelines get subsidies (and where the fuck does the money for subsidies come from? Yep taxes.), people like me who refuse to purchase health insurance on principle will be fined which the governments lawyers are expected to argue in front of the Supreme Court is constitutional because it is a tax not a fine. The ruling requires both employer sponsored plans and subsidized plans in the health exchange cover contraception (among other things). Granted, forcing those insurance policies to cover birth control is a relatively small cost but it does add extra cost.  

 

 http://www.academyhealth.org/files/nhpc/2011/AH_2011AffordableCareReportFINAL3.pdf

 

 

A short list of tax increases in Bamacare

*Excise tax on high cost employer sponsored health insurance (40% of the excess benefit)

*Inclusion of cost of employer sponsored health insurance on W2 (that means everyone who has been receiving health insurance as a tax free benefit will have to pay taxes on it as if it were income)

*Increased taxes on health savings account distributions

*Charity hospitals my face fees up to $50,000 if they do not meet new requirements in the law

*Fees on pharmaceuticals, health insurance providers and medical device manufacturers- you think those costs aren't going to be passed to the end consumer?

*Elimination of the deduction for Medicare part D

*A 0.5% "hospital insurance" tax on anyone making over $200,000 and joint returns of $250,000 (That is a minimum of $1000 with no cap)

*A 5% tax an any elective cosmetic surgery, so at least hollywood will be paying their fair share hell Joan Rivers will fund the whole government on her own.

 

 

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/authorities/patient-protection.pdf

 

Read the law. The tax increases are in section 9000 and up pages 1941-2006. So yeah, people who pay taxes are going to be paying for it and in cases where businesses/schools or whatever pick up the costs, people who are customers of them will be paying in the form of higher costs on the products or the owners or staff pay for them in the form of lower profits or salaries, which might not technically be a tax in the strictest sense, but we are still forced to pay for her contraception while she gets it for doing nothing except existing and having sex. 

 

Which makes me wonder, WTF is wrong with college guys these days? When I went to school if a hot chick (well alright any but the most fugly chick) said she would fuck me but couldn't afford birth control I would have asked her how much in a second and found that money if I had to panhandle. Somehow I suspect that these claims that coeds can't afford birth control aren't consistent with reality.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Sapient wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

It becomes America's buisness when America has to flip the bill via our tax dollars for her lifestyle of being a slut. 

Hey retard your tax dollars have nothing to do with it and wouldn't be contributed in any way to her receiving funds for contraception.

THAT WAS A LIE TOLD BY LIMBAUGH

AND THEN RETOLD BY CONSERVATIVE MEDIA

 Now I doubt Jeans taxes have anything to do with it because I would be shocked if he had a job that required him to pay taxes but there are a number of taxes imposed by Bamacare and the requirement to include birth control coverage directly raises the price of insurance policies. It is very simple, the more a policy covers, the more it costs and when you start adding in expected and known regular costs like birth control you are creating a very inefficient way to pay for it.

 

It is a truism that the more people involved in a financial transaction the more expensive the end product is because everyone along the way is getting paid. I have no idea what birth control goes for now but lets say it is $50/month if I go to Walgreens and pay for it directly. Now I get my insurance and insist they pay for it. Well, there is a person who sits down and receives the claim, writes the check and mails it to Walgreens to reimburse them for my $50 purchase. That person is being paid, all the paper and stamps etc. is an added cost so now the true amount spent to get that $50 bottle of pills is $51. Who pays the extra $1? Walgreens probably isn't willing to eat the cost, and insurance companies are hardly known for their generosity. They calculate the expected costs and pass it on to the consumer in the form of higher premiums. Insurance that covers unexpected and rare situations is always much cheaper than insurance that covers expected costs or common situations. One is insurance, the other is more correctly called prepaying and prepaying is almost always a bad financial decision.   

 

Employers with more than 50 employees are required to cover their employees and can face fines as high as $2000 per employee if they don't, as individuals you and I are required to purchase a health insurance policy those who fall within certain income guidelines get subsidies (and where the fuck does the money for subsidies come from? Yep taxes.), people like me who refuse to purchase health insurance on principle will be fined which the governments lawyers are expected to argue in front of the Supreme Court is constitutional because it is a tax not a fine. The ruling requires both employer sponsored plans and subsidized plans in the health exchange cover contraception (among other things). Granted, forcing those insurance policies to cover birth control is a relatively small cost but it does add extra cost.  

 

 http://www.academyhealth.org/files/nhpc/2011/AH_2011AffordableCareReportFINAL3.pdf

 

 

A short list of tax increases in Bamacare

*Excise tax on high cost employer sponsored health insurance (40% of the excess benefit)

*Inclusion of cost of employer sponsored health insurance on W2 (that means everyone who has been receiving health insurance as a tax free benefit will have to pay taxes on it as if it were income)

*Increased taxes on health savings account distributions

*Charity hospitals my face fees up to $50,000 if they do not meet new requirements in the law

*Fees on pharmaceuticals, health insurance providers and medical device manufacturers- you think those costs aren't going to be passed to the end consumer?

*Elimination of the deduction for Medicare part D

*A 0.5% "hospital insurance" tax on anyone making over $200,000 and joint returns of $250,000 (That is a minimum of $1000 with no cap)

*A 5% tax an any elective cosmetic surgery, so at least hollywood will be paying their fair share hell Joan Rivers will fund the whole government on her own.

 

 

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/authorities/patient-protection.pdf

 

Read the law. The tax increases are in section 9000 and up pages 1941-2006. So yeah, people who pay taxes are going to be paying for it and in cases where businesses/schools or whatever pick up the costs, people who are customers of them will be paying in the form of higher costs on the products or the owners or staff pay for them in the form of lower profits or salaries, which might not technically be a tax in the strictest sense, but we are still forced to pay for her contraception while she gets it for doing nothing except existing and having sex. 

 

Which makes me wonder, WTF is wrong with college guys these days? When I went to school if a hot chick (well alright any but the most fugly chick) said she would fuck me but couldn't afford birth control I would have asked her how much in a second and found that money if I had to panhandle. Somehow I suspect that these claims that coeds can't afford birth control aren't consistent with reality.

 

DO YOU READ WHAT YOU POST. Taxes went up on who?

OH GOD NO IT WOULD SUCK TO TAKE CARE OF EMPLOYEES WHO MAKE YOU RICH

BOO AND FUCKING HOO.

OF COURSE THE TAXES WILL BE PASSED TO US, DUH AND NO SHIT SHIRELOCK because thats what assholes do, they don't do the right thing and pay more, they simply dump the cost on those who can afford it the least.

Basically it is BLACKMAIL, if you raise my taxes I'll simply dump the cost on the rest of society. Feels good to be a leach doesn't it?

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I love you Beyond, I really

I love you Beyond, I really don't think you are a bad guy, but when you hand us stuff like this it makes it way too easy.

You really need to ditch your scripted attitude. The tax rates after WW2 that built the middle class where much higher, built  our nations highway system and the GI bill which was called welfare, made things better.

Your dick wont fall off if you pay more taxes. Your dick wont fall off if your workers can make ends meet and don't have to chose between mortgage or rent and food and health care. A stable society is what it will create and it will make people LESS dependent not more dependent. But until you want to help and all you care about is yourself, the rest of us ARE going to turn to the only government WE live under.

ONCE AGAIN, our government is not "Of the rich for the rich and by the rich" it is not there to protect profits only, it is there to protect the rights of all of us.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Beyond Saving wrote: A

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

A short list of tax increases in Bamacare

*Excise tax on high cost employer sponsored health insurance (40% of the excess benefit)

*Inclusion of cost of employer sponsored health insurance on W2 (that means everyone who has been receiving health insurance as a tax free benefit will have to pay taxes on it as if it were income)

*Increased taxes on health savings account distributions

*Charity hospitals my face fees up to $50,000 if they do not meet new requirements in the law

*Fees on pharmaceuticals, health insurance providers and medical device manufacturers- you think those costs aren't going to be passed to the end consumer?

*Elimination of the deduction for Medicare part D

*A 0.5% "hospital insurance" tax on anyone making over $200,000 and joint returns of $250,000 (That is a minimum of $1000 with no cap)

*A 5% tax an any elective cosmetic surgery, so at least hollywood will be paying their fair share hell Joan Rivers will fund the whole government on her own.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

DO YOU READ WHAT YOU POST. Taxes went up on who?

I listed exactly who they go up for. People who make over $200,000- anyone who receives a W2 and health insurance from their employer- anyone who purchases pharmaceuticals, health insurance or medical devices- anyone on Medicare part D, and strippers.

 

I was responding to the ignorance in the other thread where everyone said that taxes were not going to be used to purchase contraceptives and went so far as calling anyone who pointed out that fact a liar. That statement is flat out false. Taxes will be used and this is how they are getting them. Maybe you think it is a good idea to tax one citizen to give medical care to another, but don't call me a liar for pointing out that that is what you are doing. Whether or not we should take from one citizen and give to another is a matter of opinion- whether or not this law does that is a matter of fact and the fact is that it does, denying that fact is denying reality. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:It is

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is very simple, the more a policy covers, the more it costs and when you start adding in expected and known regular costs like birth control you are creating a very inefficient way to pay for it.

I'll stop reading here and address this before moving on.

It's not that "simple."  What if a policy covers preventative care?  And the cost of prevention is less expensive than the cost of getting the ailment and treating it?

There are so many scenarios that one can conceive in which this isn't true.  Ironically, we were already talking about one... birth control.  I had made that point already.

This will delve deeper into it:

Quote:

 

Here Ben Smith quotes a study (PDF) from the Business Group on Health which argues that "Unintended pregnancies result in substantial excess direct medical claims costs and indirect costs such as disability, employee replacement costs, lost productivity, and presenteeism."

The point here is simple. While birth control costs more than nothing, it costs less than an abortion and much less than having a baby. From a social point of view, unless we're not going to subsidize consumption of health care services at all (which would be a really drastic change from the status quo) then it makes a ton of sense to heavily subsidize contraceptives. Now of course sometimes the economically rational course of action (kill everyone in Alberta and steal their oil) is immoral (killing is wrong) and therefore we don't do it. But just on the dollars and cents subsidizing birth control is a no-brainer. The unfortunate thing is that under the American setup the subsidies tend to be passed through the employer, which has set the stage for this controversy.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3348
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is onlineOnline
@Beyond Saving

Please provide a total cost comparison between the old system and the new system (with the revised care, which is currently not functioning 100% because there are still court cases holding up implementation of it).

Please post the savings overall which will be made for the entire country.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You really

Brian37 wrote:
You really need to ditch your scripted attitude.

Scripted attitude? "Dude... look in the mirror"

Quote:
I love you Beyond, I really don't think you are a bad guy, but when you hand us stuff like this it makes it way too easy.

It helps his most vocal, pro-Obama opponent is rather easy to verbally strike down and eviscerate himself.

And as Gauche says... it's questionable either of you focus on issues concerning both genuine poverty in the states (where "shelter" is a question of having a vehicle without broken windows, and finding one's next meal is an issue of food that is caloric enough to put off hunger pains; this is called the "lower-lower class" in Sociology, at least when I was in high school) and what is called the "working poor" of America. Beyond lived a spartan existence while acquiring an education and other, undetermined career-related logistics. Admirable in terms of "building a future", but dubious in the sense of "life (literally!) on the streets". Besides... where did Beyond Saving go to get a nice shower? Did he use some sort of Veteran's Benefits to prop himself up in life? He didn't go to an employment-interview with his greasier than a 50s diner, did he?

Believe me, Gauche is largely amusing to me when he becomes passive-aggressive and verbally abusive because someone dared challenge him on his humanitarian morality, but this is something I consider him salient and dead-on about. What energy, emotion and concern do you all invest in genuine poverty in America? When was the last time any of you held a soup ladle?

In my mind, any charity (as in the classical "good will towards men" definition) either you pretend to express is mostly a case of ideologue vs. ideologue, with Beyond being 'pro-Employer's Rights' and yourself being 'pro-Worker's Rights'.

Quote:
The tax rates after WW2 that built the middle class where much higher, built  our nations highway system and the GI bill which was called welfare, made things better.

Prove it. (Robinhood complexes amongst social democrats are always funny to me in that they are always short on proof or supporting arguments and their arguments rely almost exclusively on knee-jerk emotionalisms)

Quote:
Your dick wont fall off if you pay more taxes. Your dick wont fall off if your workers can make ends meet and don't have to chose between mortgage or rent and food and health care.

Employee's rights are always nice for employees, provided that the employer can pay for them. Kinda screws restaurants and Mom and Pop. Establishments already paying their employees under-the-table out of necessity are going to struggle with Obama's new pro-corporate laws. Fortunate, those gawd-fucking-awful inhumane Red States™ have already begun thumbing their nose at the constitutionality of Obama's laws. We don't care for them, another words.

Neither do most of the people living right-of-center in red states. Obama passed what essentially amounts to a Big Pharma hand-out with maybe some labor protections sprinkled on top to keep palatable amongst voters.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Brian37

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
You really need to ditch your scripted attitude.

Scripted attitude? "Dude... look in the mirror"

Quote:
I love you Beyond, I really don't think you are a bad guy, but when you hand us stuff like this it makes it way too easy.

It helps his most vocal, pro-Obama opponent is rather easy to verbally strike down and eviscerate himself.

And as Gauche says... it's questionable either of you focus on issues concerning both genuine poverty in the states (where "shelter" is a question of having a vehicle without broken windows, and finding one's next meal is an issue of food that is caloric enough to put off hunger pains; this is called the "lower-lower class" in Sociology, at least when I was in high school) and what is called the "working poor" of America. Beyond lived a spartan existence while acquiring an education and other, undetermined career-related logistics. Admirable in terms of "building a future", but dubious in the sense of "life (literally!) on the streets". Besides... where did Beyond Saving go to get a nice shower? Did he use some sort of Veteran's Benefits to prop himself up in life? He didn't go to an employment-interview with his greasier than a 50s diner, did he?

Believe me, Gauche is largely amusing to me when he becomes passive-aggressive and verbally abusive because someone dared challenge him on his humanitarian morality, but this is something I consider him salient and dead-on about. What energy, emotion and concern do you all invest in genuine poverty in America? When was the last time any of you held a soup ladle?

In my mind, any charity (as in the classical "good will towards men" definition) either you pretend to express is mostly a case of ideologue vs. ideologue, with Beyond being 'pro-Employer's Rights' and yourself being 'pro-Worker's Rights'.

Quote:
The tax rates after WW2 that built the middle class where much higher, built  our nations highway system and the GI bill which was called welfare, made things better.

Prove it. (Robinhood complexes amongst social democrats are always funny to me in that they are always short on proof or supporting arguments and their arguments rely almost exclusively on knee-jerk emotionalisms)

Quote:
Your dick wont fall off if you pay more taxes. Your dick wont fall off if your workers can make ends meet and don't have to chose between mortgage or rent and food and health care.

Employee's rights are always nice for employees, provided that the employer can pay for them. Kinda screws restaurants and Mom and Pop. Establishments already paying their employees under-the-table out of necessity are going to struggle with Obama's new pro-corporate laws. Fortunate, those gawd-fucking-awful inhumane Red States™ have already begun thumbing their nose at the constitutionality of Obama's laws. We don't care for them, another words.

Neither do most of the people living right-of-center in red states. Obama passed what essentially amounts to a Big Pharma hand-out with maybe some labor protections sprinkled on top to keep palatable amongst voters.

Read his list, that is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Big Business cares about profits and blackmails congress to maximize profits. And no shit mom and pop shops cant afford it, because big business cares more about it's CEOs and paying its marketers and exploding it's profits the cost goes up for everyone.

I am damned sure if my old boss, who wasn't a prick, could have afforded a group rate, he would have bought it for us. But health care is profit driven and as long as that is the case it will continue to price more and more people out of it.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Beyond Saving

Sapient wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is very simple, the more a policy covers, the more it costs and when you start adding in expected and known regular costs like birth control you are creating a very inefficient way to pay for it.

I'll stop reading here and address this before moving on.

It's not that "simple."  What if a policy covers preventative care?  And the cost of prevention is less expensive than the cost of getting the ailment and treating it?

In reality most of the time preventative care is more expensive because humans have the decency to die and thus cost no further money. But that is what health insurance companies pay people 6 figure incomes for to determine which types of care are cost effective. Things like cancer screening and such don't actually save money. You discover you have cancer and it still costs a shitload to deal with whether you catch it early or late. For your life, it is better to catch early, from a purely economic standpoint, it is best to never know it is there until you tip over dead. I think the decision of where to draw the line on how many preventative measures to take and how much money it is worth is best left to you rather than some government bureaucrat. The one thing you can count on about insurance companies is they are tight fisted SOBs if some preventative measure is going to save them 50 cents in the long run, they will push it. For your life and immediate health I believe sometimes it is best not to go the most cost effective route, which is why I suggest people get a high deductible policy where you pay for your own healthcare for most things and make educated decisions about which tests to pay for and which not. Unfortunately, those kinds of health insurance policies are not approved by Caesar Obama and will be illegal in 2014. 

 

Sapient wrote:

Here Ben Smith quotes a study (PDF) from the Business Group on Health which argues that "Unintended pregnancies result in substantial excess direct medical claims costs and indirect costs such as disability, employee replacement costs, lost productivity, and presenteeism."

The point here is simple. While birth control costs more than nothing, it costs less than an abortion and much less than having a baby. From a social point of view, unless we're not going to subsidize consumption of health care services at all (which would be a really drastic change from the status quo) then it makes a ton of sense to heavily subsidize contraceptives. Now of course sometimes the economically rational course of action (kill everyone in Alberta and steal their oil) is immoral (killing is wrong) and therefore we don't do it. But just on the dollars and cents subsidizing birth control is a no-brainer. The unfortunate thing is that under the American setup the subsidies tend to be passed through the employer, which has set the stage for this controversy.

 

Unless the baby grows up to be a more productive member of society than his/her (presumably) deadbeat mother. Some people actual grow up to be the people paying the taxes for the rest to mooch off of. Your argument also assumes that without the government intervening the mother would not be able to get contraception. I find this hard to believe. Contraception is inexpensive and widely available. Virtually every major city has a planned parenthood or free clinic that will provide it for virtually nothing. It isn't like contraception is $1000 a month. It is cheaper than most things that sexually active females buy. If they are going to use it, I find it hard to believe that they can't get it because of money. Therefore, all you are doing is replacing the money of the taxpayer with money that woman would have spent themselves anyway. And since the left was crowing about how some 90%+ women use contraception, that indicates to me that they could afford contraception if they wanted it. And someone paying 20k+ a year to go to college can certainly find a few bucks to pay for contraception or get whatever low life they are fucking to pay for it. Condoms are damn near free, I've never had a problem getting one in a hurry when I need it, hell you can get one in the gas station for 75 cents. And with the prospect of being laid in the near future, I can find 75 cents. If the guy can't come up with 75 cents she really needs to reconsider her decision to fuck him. 

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Please

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Please provide a total cost comparison between the old system and the new system (with the revised care, which is currently not functioning 100% because there are still court cases holding up implementation of it).

Please post the savings overall which will be made for the entire country.

 

 

Undetermined as of yet because we don't know how much this monstrosity is going to cost us. So far the CLASS act has fallen by the wayside because the actual costs significantly exceeded the prediction. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703507804576130602971810900.html Since that section of the law required it to be revenue neutral it was canceled. The preexisting condition coverage similarly has far exceeded costs. The government set aside 5 billion dollars yet after only 8,000 people signed up declared it was not enough. http://voices.yahoo.com/medical-care-highrisk-pools-underused-7708264.html Which naturally "surprised" the experts, but not people like me. When it is all said and done I won't be surprised if the true cost is closer to 1 trillion a year. Medicare is currently $523 billion and that only covers about 50% of the medical costs for a small portion of our population while royally screwing doctors. So I don't think $1 trillion + predictions are unrealistic. 

 

The health insurance I pay for as an employer has gone up almost 25% and the policies I pay for do not meet the approval of Caesar Obama. I am prepared for my out of pocket costs per employee to increase another 100%, I hope it is enough. Otherwise I will simply have to cancel health insurance benefits. Fortunately for me, I fall under the magic 50 employee number so I avoid the fines. One thing I can promise you is I will never expand past 50 employees, it isn't worth the headache. 

 

For individuals we have some estimates available. The CBO estimates that a single person who paid $3800 in 2009 for health insurance will pay $5500 in 2016, you can look and see estimates for group plans and married couples yourself http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/average_premiums_in_2009.pdf all go up significantly. 

 

Estimates for Medicaid predict costs will be an additional $251.3 billion over 10 years compared with doing nothing and substantially more afterward. And that is assuming that the large cuts in medicare are actually followed- it relies on $575 billion in medicare cuts. https://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/downloads/PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf

 

 In the real world, congress is almost certainly going to pass a law canceling those medicare cuts because cutting medical care for old people is a losing proposition at the polls. This wouldn't be the first time they said they were going to cut medicare and changed their minds. I'm sure you have heard the occasional debates over the "doc fix" the doc fix is when congress has cut medicare payments to doctors by then propose a separate law to increase those payments and make them consistent with the actual costs of doctors. Many hospitals currently lose money treating medicare patients and the "doc fix" is the only thing that keeps them from simply refusing to treat medicare patients like the Mayo Clinic did http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/06/medicare_and_the_mayo_clinic/ (which was a very profitable move for them)

 

At the end of the day, this law is going to cost government and the taxpayers a shitload more money than they were paying before. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/testimony_02092011PH.pdf Now doing an apples to apples comparison is difficult, because in the current system most people pay for their own care and under Bamacare, most people get their care paid for by their employer or subsidies. You are dramatically shifting who carries the burden, so calculating overall costs is difficult since the behavior of employers will vary. Some employers will opt to pay the fee, some will pay the higher premiums, some will lay off workers. Say I lay off one worker to pay for everyone else's healthcare. How do you calculate that? For the worker I laid off they lost their whole salary. For the others, they all gained a more expensive health insurance plan than they had, so they all gained. So is it worth it to say "screw you schmuck" to the guy who loses his job because everyone else is better off? I don't think so, but I reject utilitarian morality. I can see how a utilitarian would say that some have to suffer for the betterment of society as a whole. I disagree.

 

My priority is not what is best for the most people. My priority is freedom for the individual to make decisions for better or worse. Obamacare takes away your freedom to decide whether or not to buy insurance, and your freedom to decide whether or not to get a high deductible policy and whether or not to buy insurance that covers contraception. The government has decided you will buy health insurance, it will be low deductible and it will cover contraception. All of those may be good ideas for you, but perhaps not. I believe YOU are in the best position to make those decisions, not Caesar Obama or Kathleen Sebelius. 

 

And yes, even if you are getting it for "free" through your employer, you are still paying for it. I don't give a flying fuck if the money I am paying towards an employee is going towards health insurance or food or hookers and blow. It is all the same to me. When you go to the grocery store and shop the ice cream section do you think about how much is going to the store and how much to the dairy farmer? Of course not. You make your decision solely based on the end price and how much you want the ice cream. If the price is too high, you go without, if you think it is a great deal maybe you buy extra. Same with employers. There are costs to employing people that aren't seen on the paycheck like health insurance benefits, unemployment insurance and the FICA tax. To the employer it is simply part of the costs for your labor and whether we give it to the government or an insurance company or you makes absolutely no difference to us. $X comes out of our pockets and we get Y amount of labor from you, either it is worth the cost or it isn't.

 

This law raises the health insurance aspect of that cost. Whether or not the employer decides to pay that cost to keep you depends on how good of an ice cream you are. If they really like your labor they will pay it, but then you probably should have asked for a raise earlier because your employer has been willing to pay more all along. Maybe they will hold back on giving you a raise or give you a smaller raise than they would have. Or maybe they will simply decide your labor is no longer worth the cost and show you the door. How it works out depends on the employer and the employee but whatever happens any extra costs that the employer is paying is a cost they would have been willing to pay the employee anyway.

 

When all these mandates take full force a lot of people are going to find out how much they are worth to their employers. Some will be happy, some not so much. And that money that could have gone into your paycheck and you spend it however you want is now mandated by the government to be given to some fucker at some fucking insurance company (I have EXTREME personal dislike of health insurance companies) to pad their fucking pockets to buy the policy they require regardless of whether or not you believe you need it.  

 

When the program is fully implemented in 2014 assuming SCOTUS doesn't strike it down (which if they have any legal integrity they should) I will be able to provide you exact numbers of how much you are being screwed by Bamacare in terms of percentage of GDP. I guarantee those numbers will be substantially higher than the amount you are being screwed at the gas pump.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
For those interested in reality

 The CBO released some new numbers yesterday on the estimated costs of Bamacare.  http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

 

When all the provisions go into full effect the CBO estimates the costs will be $200+ billion a year, the last year in the estimate 2022 projects gross costs to be $265 billion. $136 billion in additional medicaid/CHIP spending compared to pre-Bamacare law and $127 billion in subsidies for the health exchanges. That doesn't include the extra burden to the states- a good portion of medicaid (roughly 1/3) is paid for through states and if you look at your states budget there is a good chance that your state is already struggling to meet current medicaid mandates. Bamacare will add billions of dollars that states will have to come up with by cutting elsewhere or raising taxes. http://energycommerce.house.gov/media/file/PDFs/030111MedicaidReport.pdf

 

Medicaid spending is projected to go up to $840 billion in 2019, up from just shy of $400 billion last year.  https://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/downloads/MedicaidReport2010.pdf 

 

To put that in context, our total health expenditures including private money, medicare, medicaid- everything in 2010 was estimated at $2.6 trillion. https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/NHE_Extended_Projections.pdf

 

 So in 2019 we have $840 billion for medicaid, $894 billion for medicare https://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2010.pdf and $109 billion for subsidies on the exchange (absurdly low projection in my opinion but lets roll with it). That means our government will be spending an estimated $1.843 trillion per year on healthcare in 2019.

 

But the private sector will be spending a lot less right? Well not really. These projections are assuming that employers will continue to insure 161 million people and 30 million people will continue to pay for individual policies. Again, I think this is absurd because with growing costs and the takeaway of the tax benefits I suspect that many employers will stop offering health insurance. But, for the sake of discussion we can assume the governments numbers are accurate. In 2019 I'll say "see I told you so". The numbers are bad enough as they are. The NHE (National Health Expenditures) estimate is that in 2019 we will be spending a grand total of $4.7 trillion per year as a country. Almost twice what they were in 2010.  https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/NHE_Extended_Projections.pdf  

 

Well at least everyone will be insured right? Well.... no. The CBO estimates that in 2019, 26 million people will remain uninsured. Roughly 9% of our population will be uninsured compared to an estimated 20% are uninsured now. All this extra money is only going to insure an additional 27 million people. 

 

I think the CBO's projections of expenses are likely quite low as insurance costs are going to rise much more quickly. Their projections of revenues are downright laughable. For example, the largest single source of revenue the CBO accounts for is $32 billion a year from the excise tax on high premium health plans. This is absurd because the tax is 40% of the plans value above the threshold- higher than the income tax.

 

Now why do companies buy expensive insurance for employees? Because currently, health insurance benefits are tax free. If an employer gives someone with a $100,000 income a $35,000 health insurance policy the employee only pays taxes on the $100,000. So the $35,000 benefit is more valuable than if the employer simply gave the employee $135,000 salary and may help keep the employee in a lower tax bracket. One of the main reasons for the super nice plans is to take advantage of this tax loophole.

 

Under the new law that policy is going to be reported on a W2 at regular income tax levels PLUS an extra 40% excise tax on the premiums of the plan beyond the magic threshold. Suddenly that $35,000 is not only taxed, but is taxed at a higher rate than the $100,000. Therefore, the employee is getting more value in taking the money as income and purchasing their own health insurance. The idea that these policies are going to continue to exist when this tax goes into effect in 2018 is absurd. There might be a few retired people with these plans that will keep them, but currently working employees will certainly have their contracts renegotiated to reflect this change in taxation policy. 

 

So yeah, this "free" health insurance is taxpayers picking up a significant tab for everyone who doesn't pay (significant) taxes. These extra costs also don't factor in the higher health insurance costs due to requirements to cover birth control etc.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:So yeah,

Beyond Saving wrote:


So yeah, this "free" health insurance is taxpayers picking up a significant tab for everyone who doesn't pay (significant) taxes. These extra costs also don't factor in the higher health insurance costs due to requirements to cover birth control etc.

I love that last paragraph which proves my point "if you cant pay, die quickly. I can afford it so I am allowed to bitch about the cost".

No jackass, the reason costs go up is because of the monopoly of those businesses who pass the cost onto you and me WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO. You are an idiot. Of course you pay more taxes BECAUSE YOU MAKE MORE. DUH!

Otherwise your solution is to dump the cost on the people who can afford it the least, which is what corporate Americas mindset likes, not as a conspiracy, but as a climate. AND LONG TERM that has been destroying us.

You are doing nothing but advocating might makes right and money equals power.

Why don't you get off your ass and TALK to REAL people who don't have the money to pay for their health care. People who have family members WHO DIE because they only have the emergency room and cant go to a doctor otherwise. Go talk to REAL people who have to chose between rent or medicine.

But poor you cant afford it. MOMMY MOMMY THE EVIL LIBERALS want me to pay more. If they take my money it might save a life, but paying off lawmakers so I can pay a lower tax rate is far more important".

Boo hoo.

If we lived in a fair market based on a healthy free market, the costs would not be so high, but as long as people like you keep supporting their rigged market mentality, which is whatever they can get away with, they will always be too crooked to fail and the cost WILL continue to go up.

AND AGAIN, you think falsely that the private sector can never do anything wrong. I'd say it is wrong to make the middle class and poor chose between having a home, or having food vs paying their medical bills. OUR PAY GAP and over price system is because of simple fucking greed.

You want less taxes and less oversight then clean your own mindset's house, but do not bitch at the rest of us for wanting a voice ourselves.

BTW Rush is having his ass handed to him by the public and I am not shedding a fucking tear.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

So yeah, this "free" health insurance is taxpayers picking up a significant tab for everyone who doesn't pay (significant) taxes. These extra costs also don't factor in the higher health insurance costs due to requirements to cover birth control etc.

I love that last paragraph which proves my point "if you cant pay, die quickly. I can afford it so I am allowed to bitch about the cost".

No, I don't want you to die. I don't want any say in the matter whatsoever. I want you to pay for your healthcare like you pay for your rent. IF you go completely bankrupt, then I would be willing to help out. If I'm covering the costs for your medical care while you are paying $120 a month for cable tv there is a problem. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

No jackass, the reason costs go up is because of the monopoly of those businesses who pass the cost onto you and me WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO. You are an idiot. Of course you pay more taxes BECAUSE YOU MAKE MORE. DUH!

So insurance companies should provide insurance without making any profits? Would you go to work if you were not paid?

 

Brian37 wrote:

If we lived in a fair market based on a healthy free market, the costs would not be so high, but as long as people like you keep supporting their rigged market mentality, which is whatever they can get away with, they will always be too crooked to fail and the cost WILL continue to go up.

What the fuck do you think I have been arguing for? I have consistently argued that instead of using the government to make the market more rigged we should repeal the government intervention we already have. Remove the stupid laws that prevent buying insurance across state lines and limit the insurance companies to those that can bribe the state insurance boards. Health insurance is very affordable in states that have fewer regulations, very expensive in states that are heavily regulated. You don't get to the health free market by increasing and centralizing government control of the industry making it more vulnerable to corruption and the "rigging" that you love to harp about. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

AND AGAIN, you think falsely that the private sector can never do anything wrong. I'd say it is wrong to make the middle class and poor chose between having a home, or having food vs paying their medical bills. 

Simple decision- pay the rent and food. The worst that happens to you with your medical bills is they will call your phone a lot. They might sue you if you have assets but if you have assets you should be paying your bill anyway. Medical bills can lead to personal financial devastation, they don't lead to you dying- hospitals will continue to provide life saving care. Your life might become very uncomfortable, you might have to give up a lot of luxuries and such situations are very sad- but doctors will generally do their best to keep you alive.

 

If you are concerned about protecting your luxuries and lifestyle you really should fit health insurance into your budget. You should also have disability insurance and if you are concerned about providing a comfortable life for your spouse or children purchase life insurance. If you are concerned about maintaining a comfortable lifestyle when you are in a nursing home purchase long term care insurance. The bottom line is that insurance is SOLELY a financial transaction. Whether or not you have insurance does not determine whether or not a doctor saves your life, it determines your financial situation afterwards. I believe you are adult enough to determine what events are important enough for you to protect yourself from.

 

Many people will make bad decisions, I support their freedom to do so. Just like I support your right to make what I believe is a bad decision to stay working at your job. I think it is a very bad financial decision for you to stay there and can think of several things you could do that would be better. But it is your life, so I'm not going to stop you. After all, your decision does not affect me except in the most indirect of ways and I really don't care how comfortable or uncomfortable your life is beyond how sad I find it that people around the world would risk their lives to have half the opportunity you allow to slip away and then have the audacity to get angry like it is someone else's fault.

 

The amount of wealth and opportunity that Americans take for granted is a slap in the face to all those who do not share those opportunities. You bitch about poverty and not getting enough freebies when you have no concept of what true poverty is and direct all your anger towards the people who have made it possible for you to live on the bottom of a ladder you have no intention to even try climbing without having to experience real poverty. Quite frankly, it sickens me, but I will support your freedom to squander your opportunities, even as you perversely demand that those of us who seized our opportunities pay for your lifestyle and accuse us of somehow taking advantage of you. It is kind of like blaming the highest scoring player on a basketball team for the teams loss while you stand in one place and refuse to help.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X