Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[carlfense]

Your sarcasm is so refreshing

 

[NUinID]

I know this, I just got my renewal notice for my family health insurance. The premium is going up 147.00 dollars a month for the upcoming fiscal year. So I talked to an insurance agent this morning. He believes it will be going up significantly the next year. Because I don't qualify for government subsidies my policy next year for a family of five they are estimating could be as high as 18,000 per year. Just thought I would let everyone know this.

 

[carlfense]

I received a rebate check from my insurer a couple weeks ago thanks to Obamacare. :thumbs

 

[StPaulHusker]

I received a rebate check from my insurer a couple weeks ago thanks to Obamacare. :thumbs

And Al Franken/State of Minnesota

http://www.kare11.com/news/article/1034456/396/Frankens-part-of-Affordable-Care-Act-paying-dividends

 

[HSKR]

I know this, I just got my renewal notice for my family health insurance. The premium is going up 147.00 dollars a month for the upcoming fiscal year. So I talked to an insurance agent this morning. He believes it will be going up significantly the next year. Because I don't qualify for government subsidies my policy next year for a family of five they are estimating could be as high as 18,000 per year. Just thought I would let everyone know this.

OUCH

 

[JJ Husker]

You can't. If you increase someone's pay $1.00 it actually costs the employer a greater amount. Let's say $1.15. So, if the employer wants to break even on the deal (which they do) that approx. 13% has to come out of the employees end. So, to offset a $1.00 reduction in benefits and not lose money, the employer can only replace about $0.87 directly to the employee. These are only approximate figures. I have a feeling it is even worse when you consider that spending that money on health insurance is a deductible business expense and increasing a persons pay costs you additionally in all sorts of areas- work comp, unemployment insurance, possibly matching 401K or IRA funds, matching Social Security, etc. It is worse than 13%.

How fine are you going to split that hair? :lol:

Just a friendly bit of advice, if you aren't going to watch every penny and are willing to throw away 13% here and 13% there, don't ever try to operate a small business. That is unless you don't mind losing money or going out of business.

 

[JJ Husker]

Hey, when the government run and funded research comes up with something that actually saves us more money than it costs us, let me know would ya? I won't be holding my breathe.

I find it interesting that you claim that the ACA didn't attempt to fix runaway care costs and within the same post you complain about "BS funded programs like PCORA . . ." that are attempting to fix runaway care costs.

How do you reconcile those?

I believe I answered that sufficiently. Attempting and accomplishing are two completely different things when our government is involved.

 

[JJ Husker]

No. It's about healthcare . . . and it's going to work.

uh, ya, well ok then

We'll see. The GOP is starting to realize this too . . . and they're panicking. If Obamacare was going to "collapse under it's own weight" and doomed to fail they wouldn't be trying so desperately to sabotage the law, threatening government shutdown, etc.

They know. And it scares the hell out of them.

Why are you so intent on keeping/making this a partisan issue? I (and most people with a heartbeat) agree, something needed/needs to be done with healthcare. Many parts of the ACA are components of what repubs wanted to do. Yes, the jagoffs on Capital Hill are playing political football with this issue to their death. But, that does not mean it is all sunshine and roses and there are no problems whatsoever with their intended fix. I've said this a thousand times so I guess one more time won't hurt; They did not fix the single biggest problem but rather sped it up and made it worse. If you really think they've got this issue on lock down, well good for you. I'm going to have to see the improvement before I believe.

 

[KJ.]

Why are you so intent on keeping/making this a partisan issue? I (and most people with a heartbeat) agree, something needed/needs to be done with healthcare. Many parts of the ACA are components of what repubs wanted to do. Yes, the jagoffs on Capital Hill are playing political football with this issue to their death. But, that does not mean it is all sunshine and roses and there are no problems whatsoever with their intended fix. I've said this a thousand times so I guess one more time won't hurt; They did not fix the single biggest problem but rather sped it up and made it worse. If you really think they've got this issue on lock down, well good for you. I'm going to have to see the improvement before I believe.

Well said, Bob. Just because someone identifies themselves as a Republican or Liberal doesn't bind them to agreeing with everything in the platform. And furthermore, it doesn't mean that you need to agree with everyone else in "your" party. Lumping people into two buckets doesn't make a whole lot of sense in discussions like this.

Anyway. Regarding the bold, the best/easiest/quickest way for that to happen is for the country to become healthier. I would gladly accept just about any insurance law you can imagine if you'd also replace all the smoking fatasses eating KFC 17 times a week with relatively healthy individuals.

 

[JJ Husker]

KJ- That is exactly why I would prefer a primarily private market solution with a little heavy handed government oversight/regulation. 1- I don't want to pick up the tab for others poor choices but, 2- I will support to my death mine and those peoples right to eat, drink, or smoke whatever and however they want. If somebody wants to shorten their life or spend it in poor health, then they should have that freedom and their healthcare should cost them more and not be subsidized by the US taxpayer.

 

[BigRedBuster]

KJ- That is exactly why I would prefer a primarily private market solution with a little heavy handed government oversight/regulation. 1- I don't want to pick up the tab for others poor choices but, 2- I will support to my death mine and those peoples right to eat, drink, or smoke whatever and however they want. If somebody wants to shorten their life or spend it in poor health, then they should have that freedom and their healthcare should cost them more and not be subsidized by the US taxpayer.

Agree.

 

[krill]

Anyway. Regarding the bold, the best/easiest/quickest way for that to happen is for the country to become healthier. I would gladly accept just about any insurance law you can imagine if you'd also replace all the smoking fatasses eating KFC 17 times a week with relatively healthy individuals.

I hate to be so cynical about it, but the "smoking KFC fatasses" eating at KFC 17 times a week probably have a net positive effect on health care spending because their lifespans are going to be significantly shorter.

 

[carlfense]

You can't. If you increase someone's pay $1.00 it actually costs the employer a greater amount. Let's say $1.15. So, if the employer wants to break even on the deal (which they do) that approx. 13% has to come out of the employees end. So, to offset a $1.00 reduction in benefits and not lose money, the employer can only replace about $0.87 directly to the employee. These are only approximate figures. I have a feeling it is even worse when you consider that spending that money on health insurance is a deductible business expense and increasing a persons pay costs you additionally in all sorts of areas- work comp, unemployment insurance, possibly matching 401K or IRA funds, matching Social Security, etc. It is worse than 13%.

How fine are you going to split that hair? :lol:

Just a friendly bit of advice, if you aren't going to watch every penny and are willing to throw away 13% here and 13% there, don't ever try to operate a small business. That is unless you don't mind losing money or going out of business.

No . . . that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about you distinguishing this offsetting raise of 87 cents on the dollar (or whatever you've worked out) from the dollar of health insurance.

FWIW, I, too, am still involved in the management of a small business. Somehow I haven't driven it into the ground yet.

 

[carlfense]

Hey, when the government run and funded research comes up with something that actually saves us more money than it costs us, let me know would ya? I won't be holding my breathe.

I find it interesting that you claim that the ACA didn't attempt to fix runaway care costs and within the same post you complain about "BS funded programs like PCORA . . ." that are attempting to fix runaway care costs.

How do you reconcile those?

I believe I answered that sufficiently. Attempting and accomplishing are two completely different things when our government is involved.

Obamacare is bad . . . even when Obamacare is doing what I want. It's bad.

 

[carlfense]

No. It's about healthcare . . . and it's going to work.

uh, ya, well ok then

We'll see. The GOP is starting to realize this too . . . and they're panicking. If Obamacare was going to "collapse under it's own weight" and doomed to fail they wouldn't be trying so desperately to sabotage the law, threatening government shutdown, etc.

They know. And it scares the hell out of them.

Why are you so intent on keeping/making this a partisan issue? I (and most people with a heartbeat) agree, something needed/needs to be done with healthcare. Many parts of the ACA are components of what repubs wanted to do. Yes, the jagoffs on Capital Hill are playing political football with this issue to their death. But, that does not mean it is all sunshine and roses and there are no problems whatsoever with their intended fix. I've said this a thousand times so I guess one more time won't hurt; They did not fix the single biggest problem but rather sped it up and made it worse. If you really think they've got this issue on lock down, well good for you. I'm going to have to see the improvement before I believe.

^^^again . . . the bold. heh.

I've never said that it's all sunshine and roses. I have said that it's far better than the status quo. Despite the "repeal and replace" slogan the GOP has not proposed a workable alternative. They've voted what? 40+ times? to repeal Obamacare. How many alternatives have they voted on? How many times have they voted to improve the law? Then again . . . I forget . . . I'm making this a partisan issue.