Even More Obamacare Follies

#2,251
#2,251
Since you know about the 5% of studies that are not intended to be jokes maybe you can explain why I am having to find them for you in the first place?
 
#2,256
#2,256
Thrasher865 said:
You never pointed out why it couldn't be a win/win, either.

Employer saves money on their portion of coverage, passes savings onto employees. Employees use this raise to subsidize their plan premiums on the exchange. If this works as planned, win/win. Especially if the exchange rates are similar or less than the group rates.

But then you reply with "but Obamacare premiums are up to 10x higher than previous numbers, as per this person in Idaho who says so on the Internet."
Click to expand...

It's obviously not a win-win if the the employer must go look for another job as was suggested.

How many people do you know that have (voluntarily) given up their employee sponsored plan to move to Obamacare?

If it were such a win for the employee, people would be flocking there in droves.

The fact is, it's not. Premiums are generally higher, and deductibles are MUCH higher.



Gramps said:
I said it COULD be a win -win and it very well could be .

Do you know the coverage the company is providing?

Does the company pay all of the premium or what percent do they pay?

Do you know the salary the employees are making?

Do you know how many of the employees would qualify for subsidies? You are aware a family of 4 qualifies for subsidies up to an imcome of $94,000.00

There are several factors to consider before you jump to a conclusion that it would not be a good move for the employer or the employees.
Click to expand...


Keep living in that fantasy world, Gramps. I'm sure those who will subsidize the policies will see this as a big win. The fact that you even point out the subsidies required....well nevermind.

I guess it could be a good move for those who will have their insurance paid by someone else.
 
#2,257
#2,257
Goldie said:
So a majority of the country doesn't approve of this and yet all of these stories and data are just make believe? If it's so great why aren't the numbers higher?

HUFFPOLLSTER: Obamacare Approval Remains Low
Click to expand...

I can't tell you all the reasons for poor public perception. I would say a lot of it has to do with the terrible website management.

Goldie said:
Because these things are terrible
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with all the ideals that they stand for. But it doesn't change the fact that they are biased.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,258
#2,258
DC_Vol said:
It's obviously not a win-win if the the employer must go look for another job as was suggested.

How many people do you know that have (voluntarily) given up their employee sponsored plan to move to Obamacare?

If it were such a win for the employee, people would be flocking there in droves.

The fact is, it's not. Premiums are generally higher, and deductibles are MUCH higher.
Click to expand...

I never saw where it was suggested that they would be laying people off.

I don't agree that there's evidence that premiums are "generally higher" for comparable deductibles/coverage. That is certainly the perception around here, though.

I do agree that subsidies aren't defensible for "cheaper" coverage. The pre-subsidized prices are what should be compared.
 
#2,260
#2,260
Thrash, one of the biggest problems buisness has had with Obamacare is the uncertainty and constant change.

Buisness can adapt to almost anything, it may hurt and people/buisness may go by the wayside but they will and can adapt when they have clear direction. The delays and changes have bred uncertainty and rightful caution. Expansion, hiring and equipment plans put on hold because know one knows what's coming next.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,261
#2,261
hog88 said:
Thrash, one of the biggest problems buisness has had with Obamacare is the uncertainty and constant change.

Buisness can adapt to almost anything, it may hurt and people/buisness may go by the wayside but they will and can adapt when they have clear direction. The delays and changes have bred uncertainty and rightful caution. Expansion, hiring and equipment plans put on hold because know one knows what's coming next.
Click to expand...

I can definitely agree with this.
 
#2,262
#2,262
Thrasher865 said:
I never saw where it was suggested that they would be laying people off.

I don't agree that there's evidence that premiums are "generally higher" for comparable deductibles/coverage. That is certainly the perception around here, though.

I do agree that subsidies aren't defensible for "cheaper" coverage. The pre-subsidized prices are what should be compared.
Click to expand...

It's all relevant to what's coming out of your pocket. You may technically be buying a better plan that provides more coverage such as birth control or wellness check ups. However for a 25 yo guy none of that may matter and all he realized is an increase in out of pocket expense.
 
#2,263
#2,263
Thrasher865 said:
I can't tell you all the reasons for poor public perception. I would say a lot of it has to do with the terrible website management.



I don't disagree with all the ideals that they stand for. But it doesn't change the fact that they are biased.
Click to expand...

Which just goes back to letting the government run health care. There is no accountability. Of course MI is biased. They like helping people who like to make their own money.

I just don't think it's fair for you to be throwing around those claims of 95% of studies are false or aren't "hard" when you can't find any to begin with it. If you say there are 5% then please show me where this legislature has been MORE of a benefit than not.
 
#2,264
#2,264
hog88 said:
It's all relevant to what's coming out of your pocket. You may technically be buying a better plan that provides more coverage such as birth control or wellness check ups. However for a 25 yo guy none of that may matter and all he realized is an increase in out of pocket expense.
Click to expand...

I think I addressed that here:

Thrasher865 said:
Now you can make the argument that those plans should still be available, and that would be a valid point, but it does not detract from the fact that the Manhattan Institute study is a joke.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't change the fact that it's an unfair and misleading comparison. For the vast majority of people, we already had higher coverage. So they are alleging that "average" rates are rising by a certain percentage in each state, when what they really are saying is that a small percentage of the population will no longer have catastrophic plans available to them.

It's restating something we already know that is a big and unfortunate part of the bill, but saying it in a way that is trying to mislead people into thinking that premiums as a whole are going up 40% or whatever they alleged.

I bet if you looked into it, the states that are "benefiting" according to their maps, probably already had legislation in place to limit these catastrophic plans. But I haven't looked into that.
 
#2,265
#2,265
Goldie said:
I just don't think it's fair for you to be throwing around those claims of 95% of studies are false or aren't "hard" when you can't find any to begin with it. If you say there are 5% then please show me where this legislature has been MORE of a benefit than not.
Click to expand...

Thrasher865 said:
I don't feel that there's any actual hard factual data to support either side yet. Just a bunch of propaganda from both sides.
Click to expand...

I gotta get back to work so I don't lose my health coverage.

:wink:
 
#2,266
#2,266
Thrasher865 said:
Also, I have to object to saying that I think it's "so great." That's not true. But I think it's being misrepresented.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was too general with that statement but it comes across like you are trying to give this whole thing the benefit of the doubt which in my book translates to "hey this could work." Unfortunately nothing about this looks like it could work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,268
#2,268
DC_Vol said:
It's obviously not a win-win if the the employer must go look for another job as was suggested.

Who suggested the employer must look for another job, I missed that post

How many people do you know that have (voluntarily) given up their employee sponsored plan to move to Obamacare?

If it were such a win for the employee, people would be flocking there in droves.

It is obvious you do not understand who is eligible to purchase Marketplace insurance.

The fact is, it's not. Premiums are generally higher, and deductibles are MUCH higher.

Keep living in that fantasy world, Gramps. I'm sure those who will subsidize the policies will see this as a big win. The fact that you even point out the subsidies required....well nevermind.

I guess it could be a good move for those who will have their insurance paid by someone else.
Click to expand...


Yes I mentioned subsidies . Like it or not they are a big part of the law, not to mention them is being ridiculous. There are more families of 4 earning $94,000 per year or less than there is that earn more in 2014 American.
 
#2,269
#2,269
Gramps said:
Who suggested the employer must look for another job, I missed that post
Click to expand...

The original post I responded to....

tennvols77 said:
If they do not like it, they are free to go find somewhere else and get what they feel they need or want.
Click to expand...

I wasn't even talking to you, but your responded to it as if I were addressing you. :crazy:


Gramps said:
It is obvious you do not understand who is eligible to purchase Marketplace insurance.
Click to expand...

After you said this, I thought perhaps I was wrong that everyone was eligible. So I went to healthcare.gov:

To be eligible for health coverage through the Marketplace, you:

  • must live in the United States
  • must be a U.S. citizen or national (or be lawfully present). Learn about eligible immigration statuses.
  • can't be currently incarcerated

If you have Medicare coverage, you’re not eligible to use the Marketplace to buy a health or dental plan. Learn more about your options if you have Medicare.
Click to expand...

I was wrong. I was/am pretty certain that illegal aliens will be covered.

Gramps said:
Yes I mentioned subsidies . Like it or not they are a big part of the law, not to mention them is being ridiculous. There are more families of 4 earning $94,000 per year or less than there is that earn more in 2014 American.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but it's safe to assume if you are one of those who gets to pay for another's insurance (that's how it works when there are subsidies), that it's not going to be a win-win for that person.

I fall into the category of unsubsidized coverage (when my employer drops our private plan). I'm not very excited at the prospect of paying part of the premium for Trudy in pay roll.
 
#2,270
#2,270
Anyway...I'm with Thrasher on this one. I've got to get some stuff done so I don't lose my current coverage!
 
#2,271
#2,271
DC_Vol said:
How many people do you know that have (voluntarily) given up their employee sponsored plan to move to Obamacare?

If it were such a win for the employee, people would be flocking there in droves.
Click to expand...

Hmm, let's think about it.

(a) Have the employer pay for a benefit, or

(b) Pay for it yourself

That's a real mystery.
 
#2,272
#2,272
If we're gonna subsidize one thing lets just go ahead & do it all. Everybody can get a job making minimum wage & still drive a $75k vehicle, live in a $400k home, etc etc. At least I'll reap the benefit of my tax dollars while paying less.
 
#2,274
#2,274
DC_Vol said:
After you said this, I thought perhaps I was wrong that everyone was eligible. So I went to healthcare.gov:

I was wrong. I was/am pretty certain that illegal aliens will be covered.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but it's safe to assume if you are one of those who gets to pay for another's insurance (that's how it works when there are subsidies), that it's not going to be a win-win for that person.

I fall into the category of unsubsidized coverage (when my employer drops our private plan). I'm not very excited at the prospect of paying part of the premium for Trudy in pay roll.
Click to expand...

You should go back to Healthcare.gov and read a little more. It is not as easy for an employee to voluntarily drop out of employer offered insurance and buy subsidized insurance.

As I understand the law illegal s are eligible for Marketplace insurance, which is ridiculous imo. Then again we have been paying their entire medical bills in many cases

I personally don't mind to help subsidize health insurance. IMO, it will be cheaper than what we have been doing, paying more for insurane, higher doctor and hospital cost due to people being uninsured and then paying hospitals to treat the millions of uninsured. We have been providing subsidies for health treatment for years. . I rather be subsidizing premiums vs paying their entire hospital bill.
 
Last edited:
#2,275
#2,275
Gramps said:
I personally don't mind to help subsidize health insurance. IMO, it will be cheaper than what we have been doing, paying more for insurane, higher doctor and hospital cost due to people being uninsured and then paying hospitals to treat the millions of uninsured. We have been providing subsidies for health treatment for years. . I rather be subsidizing premiums vs paying their entire hospital bill.
Click to expand...

Obamacare doesn't change any of this. There will still be 30mil uninsured. Those who didn't take care of themselves before will not change their lifestyle to now make regular visits since those costs will be out of pocket. The out of pocket and deductibles are simply not affordable for those eligible for subsidies
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top