Government Shutting Down

[Wells]

Some of the provisions encourage companies to provide insurance to fewer employees

So long as employees have alternatives this is a very good thing. The employment-as-gateway healthcare model needs to die.

[frumper]

I'll leave this here for now, though I'll see if I can find better info.

Thanks for the link, though the page really is just filled with speculation and faulty reasoning.

One it assumes people would setup their payroll deductions to precisely deduct the exact tax they will owe without the penalty. That is highly unlikely for most people. Two, they'll still owe the IRS the money, the IRS just can't take action other than try to withhold it.

Also,
"But now we know that premiums will increase substantially for many Americans."

Yes, and they were on pace to go up without the ACA as well. They say that right after referencing the CBO, while ignoring that the very same CBO says it would have gone up more without ACA.

The only major point I see with some accuracy is this:

"However, as the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and Case Western Reserve University's Jonathan Adler have explained, the law clearly says the federal subsidies are only available in the state-created exchanges."

That may develop into a big problem because of the many states that didn't set up exchanges. I recall reading that they wrote that section of the law before they wrote the section allowing the federal government setup exchanges in place of state run ones.

Overall, the article doesn't say how it will increase the number of uninsured, only that it could if circumstances all play out in particular ways.

I do think they are correct about the point about the ACA being built on wobbly legs. If the formula: premiums - subsidy > income * 9.5% ever becomes true the system will start to break down and allow people to opt out with no penalty. There is some wiggle room in the current numbers, but if premiums rise about 40% over the rate poverty increases then the house of cards may start to collapse. 40% increases are not likely to be short term premium jumps though, so there is time to see how stable the system is before anything would need to be done.

[Felya]

What changes is who is insured. People who really needed it before but didn't have it, now will. People who had it but didn't really need it (young, healthy) now won't. That's good at face value, but bad when you consider the ramifications of the change in the insured pool, namely that people that paid in put didn't get pay outs are gone, while people who will need lots of pay outs but will pay in little are in in large numbers. This necessitates a large hike in the cost of insurance.

Why would young and healthy who had insurance lose insurance, when the age a child can be on parent's insurance is increased to 26? As your articles point out, the only way you can project Obamacare failing, is if people don't use it. Obamacare works, if people use it.

[KingHorse]

Thanks for the link, though the page really is just filled with speculation and faulty reasoning.

It was one of the first links discussing the subject on a google search. I barely read it myself. That's why I said I'd look for more. I've linked another one that provides better sources to base it's estimates off of, or at least I hope so.

The main thing is that young healthy people will drop insurance by choice, while older, sicker people will be insured now, which will drastically drive up the cost of insurance overall, thereby encouraging more young healthy people to drop out, and so on.

So long as employees have alternatives this is a very good thing. The employment-as-gateway healthcare model needs to die.

Me and you have always agreed on the single payer option.

Too many people see my opposition to the ACA as "RAWR RACIST HATE OBAMA TEA PARTY TINFOIL HAT BIRF CERTIFICATE!" when I simply despise the ACA because it's a fucking horrible bill that doesn't solve the problem that it was intended to solve.

Why would young and healthy who had insurance lose insurance, when the age a child can be on parent's insurance is increased to 26? As your articles point out, the only way you can project Obamacare failing, is if people don't use it. Obamacare works, if people use it.

Easy one, as it has already happened: employers are given an incentive to reduce hours to get under the part time/full time line, also by the cost of the fine for not providing coverage (because it's cheaper to pay the fine than pay the insurance bill) for full time workers.

[Felya]

Too many people see my opposition to the ACA as "RAWR RACIST HATE OBAMA TEA PARTY TINFOIL HAT BIRF CERTIFICATE!" when I simply despise the ACA because it's a fucking horrible bill that doesn't solve the problem that it was intended to solve.

I don't see you as that. I see you as someone who has an irrational hate of the bill. To the point that you would link something without reading, just because the title agreed with you.

[frumper]

Also, no one is paying the $95/year penalty. It's $95/year or 1% whichever is greater. That would mean that you'd only be making $9500/year to have to only pay $95. At $9500/yr, your on medicaid. And in California, double that wage to $19k a year and your health care is still 100% paid for. I think the people the might consider the penalty are in the $28k-$38k range where the subsidy isn't much and you don't feel the need for coverage, or maybe student loans and housing has you a bit tight in the wallet. I know that is quite a bit of people still, but the penalty in that range is $280-380 and will double next year, then another 25% the year after that.

[Felya]

Easy one, as it has already happened: employers are given an incentive to reduce hours to get under the part time/full time line, also by the cost of the fine for not providing coverage (because it's cheaper to pay the fine than pay the insurance bill) for full time workers.

What is happening to the hours cut? It's cheaper to not cover anyone at all now, what changes?

[frumper]

It was one of the first links discussing the subject on a google search. I barely read it myself. That's why I said I'd look for more. I've linked another one that provides better sources to base it's estimates off of, or at least I hope so.

The main thing is that young healthy people will drop insurance by choice, while older, sicker people will be insured now, which will drastically drive up the cost of insurance overall, thereby encouraging more young healthy people to drop out, and so on.

I don't get why they'd drop it by choice. They could drop it before if they wanted to drop it. I get the spiraling effect it could have if that happens though. That will be the kicker in its long term success. The saving grace are the subsidies that have the government provide many of the younger workers with cheap prices as younger workers tend to make less. That isn't to say its a good thing the government is paying, but it may check the premium rises, just watch out for tax increases on the back side. In the end, health care costs are rising, we'll all need it eventually and it'll have to be paid for. The final question at the end of the day will be something along the lines is the ACA a sustainable way to divide how our health care is paid for. It's all speculation at this point.

[KingHorse]

I don't see you as that. I see you as someone who has an irrational hate of the bill.

Explain how the information I detailed (not the links, but my explanations of what I don't like about it) is irrational.

To the point that you would link something without reading, just because the title agreed with you.

I read some of it, though, as I said even in that post, I was looking for better information. Providing a quick answer with the promise of better info to come isn't really indicative of irrational behavior. On the other hand, ignoring the fact that I said the info was not up to par and that I would get more, and pretending that low quality link I initially listed is all I've said about it...not terribly rational.

[frumper]

Easy one, as it has already happened: employers are given an incentive to reduce hours to get under the part time/full time line, also by the cost of the fine for not providing coverage (because it's cheaper to pay the fine than pay the insurance bill) for full time workers.

If they're shifting from full-time to part-time, they aren't likely making much money. Most part time jobs young people have aren't of the best paying variety. That means they'll be fully subsidized. You'd have to make somewhere around $12/hr for 30 hours per week, 52 weeks a year to even begin paying a $1 a month in premiums. Employees are always better off making more money, but I don't see why they'd lose coverage, they may find it better. Part time jobs tend to offer crap insurance.

[KingHorse]

What is happening to the hours cut? It's cheaper to not cover anyone at all now, what changes?

The hours cut are being given to new employees who are being hired part time as well.

And as to your question, it answers itself in a way. It was cheaper to not offer coverage before, but that paradigm is changing now, as many employers are dropping coverage, either directly or by lowering hours to part time.

[bowchikabow]

What a classic example of liberal state-ists: Overhaul an entire industry because 10 to 15% of people don't have it, while destroying the other 85-90% peoples current situation.

While I am not happy with the government shutting down, the fact remains that Congress DID pass spending bills... 4 times.. and even made concessions (including allowing Obamacare, but stripping the government exemption... which the senate quickly said "fuck that, we aren't going to subject ourselves to the same pains, agony, and financial stress that we plan to impose on ALL OF AMERICA.) If ACA was sooooo great, why did congress/senate (mostly senate), labor unions and such BEG to be exempt from it?

This is a serious question, that deserves a serious answer.

In my opinion: The senate/president caused the shutdown more so than congress.

[KingHorse]

If they're shifting from full-time to part-time, they aren't likely making much money. Most part time jobs young people have aren't of the best paying variety. That means they'll be fully subsidized. You'd have to make somewhere around $12/hr for 30 hours per week, 52 weeks a year to even begin paying a $1 a month in premiums. Employees are always better off making more money, but I don't see why they'd lose coverage, they may find it better. Part time jobs tend to offer crap insurance.

But when their hours are cut, any money at all for insurance for a person who is young and healthy seems like a luxury. Again, speculation rules at this point, all we can do is guess what rational people will do when some things happen, and we're pretty shaky as to whether some of those things will happen the way we expect to begin with. Some of them are (reduced hours, dropped coverage altogether) but others are speculation based on human nature, which is notoriously unreliable.

[Felya]

Explain how the information I detailed (not the links, but my explanations of what I don't like about it) is irrational.

As your articles point out, the only way you can project Obamacare failing, is if people don't use it. Obamacare works, if people use it.

What is happening to the hours cut? It's cheaper to not cover anyone at all now, what changes?

I read some of it, though, as I said even in that post, I was looking for better information. Providing a quick answer with the promise of better info to come isn't really indicative of irrational behavior. On the other hand, ignoring the fact that I said the info was not up to par and that I would get more, and pretending that low quality link I initially listed is all I've said about it...not terribly rational.

You think it's rational to defend something that you think isn't satisfactory information? I do not think a stance of, it fails if people don't use it, is rational. I do not find a belief that cutting hours and replacing them with new employees or thinking people will work 25% harder, as rational opposition to the bill.

[Elegiac]

What a classic example of liberal state-ists: Overhaul an entire industry because 10 to 15% of people don't have it, while destroying the other 85-90% peoples current situation.

While I am not happy with the government shutting down, the fact remains that Congress DID pass spending bills... 4 times.. and even made concessions (including allowing Obamacare, but stripping the government exemption... which the senate quickly said "fuck that, we aren't going to subject ourselves to the same pains, agony, and financial stress that we plan to impose on ALL OF AMERICA.) If ACA was sooooo great, why did congress/senate (mostly senate), labor unions and such BEG to be exempt from it?

This is a serious question, that deserves a serious answer.

In my opinion: The senate/president caused the shutdown more so than congress.

Fun Fact: The Senate is part of Congress. Funner Fact: The blame lies solely on the House for holding the national budget hostage rather than debating the ACA proper.

Truth be told, the entire health insurance industry DOES need reform. The ACA doesn't nearly go far enough in that regard.

[KingHorse]

including allowing Obamacare, but stripping the government exemption... which the senate quickly said "fuck that, we aren't going to subject ourselves to the same pains, agony, and financial stress that we plan to impose on ALL OF AMERICA

I keep reading/hearing this, but I'm short on factual information for it. I'd love to read some if you have it.

[Felya]

The hours cut are being given to new employees who are being hired part time as well.

They will accrue the cost and risk of hiring new employees, because their current healthcare is so out of compliance with Obamacare mandate in 2015, they can no longer afford it in 2013?

Edit: are they going to hire more management and more HR to cover these new workers?

And as to your question, it answers itself in a way. It was cheaper to not offer coverage before, but that paradigm is changing now, as many employers are dropping coverage, either directly or by lowering hours to part time.

Why did those who are dropping coverage, have coverage at all when the fine was 0? Why are they dropping insurance now that there will be a fine?

[ishootblanks]

What a classic example of liberal state-ists: Overhaul an entire industry because 10 to 15% of people don't have it, while destroying the other 85-90% peoples current situation.

While I am not happy with the government shutting down, the fact remains that Congress DID pass spending bills... 4 times.. and even made concessions (including allowing Obamacare, but stripping the government exemption... which the senate quickly said "fuck that, we aren't going to subject ourselves to the same pains, agony, and financial stress that we plan to impose on ALL OF AMERICA.) If ACA was sooooo great, why did congress/senate (mostly senate), labor unions and such BEG to be exempt from it?

This is a serious question, that deserves a serious answer.

In my opinion: The senate/president caused the shutdown more so than congress.

and to top it all off.. Reid/Obama (interchangeable for all intents and purposes) even opposed a bill presented by the house that funded everything INCLUDING Obamcare under the condition that all exemptions were eliminated..

[KingHorse]

You think it's rational to defend something that you think isn't satisfactory information?

No. That's probably why I haven't fucking done it. At all. But at this point, you aren't really reading what I'm saying, you're just responding to opposition.

I do not think a stance of, it fails if people don't use it, is rational. I do not find a belief that cutting hours and replacing them with new employees or thinking people will work 25% harder, as rational opposition to the bill.

Nobody has to work harder, just the number of hours you cut from the other guy. You aren't really paying attention at all here are you?

And what are you using as your criteria for "don't use it"? People who don't buy insurance but pay the fine? People who don't accept the subsidy? Explain.

Funner Fact: The blame lies solely on the House for holding the national budget hostage rather than debating the ACA proper.

They keep trying (fourtysomething?) but Harry Reid keeps shitting all over it. Have any of those bills even come up for vote in the Senate? I don't think so, but I may be wrong.

Truth be told, the entire health insurance industry DOES need reform. The ACA doesn't nearly go far enough in that regard.

The health insurance industry needs to go away completely, and we need a government (taxpayer) paid "free" healthcare system.

[Spectral]

and to top it all off.. Reid/Obama (interchangeable for all intents and purposes) even opposed a bill presented by the house that funded everything INCLUDING Obamcare under the condition that all exemptions were eliminated..

Can anyone source this. It seems to be rapidly becoming part of the right mythos, but I haven't actually seen it sourced.

- - - Updated - - -

The health insurance industry needs to go away completely, and we need a government (taxpayer) paid "free" healthcare system.

Cheers, KingHorse. I feel like this is really the only coherent end answer that's available.