• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. companies hoard record amount of cash

No disrespect CJ, but the more I hear, the more I wouldn't trade MY plan for yours. The more I hear there is no "Canadian system" but very different provincial systems. The last I looked BC's health care costs were about 42% of overall budget, and even the raving nut bars in the NDP aren't yelling beyond the usual bellyaching. In my time here I have never needed nor known anyone with private insurance other than pharmacy coverage. There is zero wait list for any form of cancer treatment, no wait for a diabetic to see a specialist etc., all issues my Ontario cousins say they face.

Ontario has and continues to accept the vast majority of all refugee claimants entering Canada. The federal government, several years back, passed legislation defunding all but the very basic in healthcare coverage for this group of people until such time as their claims have been adjudicated and accepted. Ontario, losing the federal funding, decided to slap the Ontario taxpayers with those hundreds of $millions, if not $billions in costs. We have people here claiming refugee status and immediately getting their teeth fixed and other medical procedures taken care of before they get kicked out of the country. I'm sure the system is highlighted in travel brochures around the world.

We also have extremely generous healthcare coverage for those on welfare and the working poor, far in excess of what coverage the average Ontarian gets - I wouldn't be surprised if that's a major factor in your Province's costs being lower. But hey, we've had liberals in power in Ontario for 12 years, doubling our Provincial debt with no end in sight, so it wouldn't be hard for another Province to out preform us.
 
These are not the same thing.

Saying 10 million people currently in employer-sponsored insurance are going to lose it is not the same as saying ESI coverage in a decade would have grown more in an ACA-less alternate universe than it will in this one.

The CBO predicts year-over-year ESI will increase under the ACA. They just think it would increase more in the ACA-less universe (understandable since such a universe doesn't have a viable alternative to ESI). That doesn't imply the loss of what people now have.



By and large companies are not dropping coverage, they aren't planning to, nor is the CBO predicting they will. So no, your point doesn't stand. It's mildly mind-boggling to me that you persist in this nonsense in the face of the overwhelming actual evidence of what's happening.

It's not mind boggling.

It's standard Conservative thinking, or what passes for it these days. Refusal to look at evidence that is right before them (ACA, global warming, military action in the Middle East, etc etc) and sticking to the myth no matter what has become a point of pride.
 
If you think the subsidies aren't generous enough, get involved in a Families USA letter-writing campaign to Congress or something. You'll fine no shortage of left-leaning groups that share your view.



I'm not the one complaining about deductibles...

That was you.

Anyway, that was my point in posing the question. You'll argue from the left, you'll argue from the right--you just flip a switch between posts. Or even within the same post at times.

I'm not complaining, I'm just exposing some of the fallacies of one if the if not the worst pieces of legislation ever passed.

Give the Democrats a chance to do something without Political opposition from a opposing view point and they give us the Affordable Care Act. ( its in the title and everything )

Lol....how would they know whether it was going to be affordable ? I mean they think we're currently in the middle of a recovery !

They shouldn't meddle in things that they do not understand, namely the free market.

They couldn't have known the present and futurure individual financial situations of hundreds of Millions of Americans and constructed a product that would have catered to the individual consumers needs, but the Free market could.

And yes I'm sure there are plenty on the left who would love to have single payer but not me.

How could anyone advocate single payer after what happened at the VA ?

If the Aemrican Governments treats our Vets that bad can you imagine how they'll treat the common citizen ?

And how could we afford single payer whith a wide open southern border and a Administration thats trying it best to turn Millions of Illegal immigrants into Voters ?

Why on earth would anyone give that kind of power to a Government who refuses to honor FOIA and Oversight Committee document request and ignores substantial over reaches like ths IRSs targeting of American citizens ?

Central planning and massive Government intervention leads to fraud, waste and corruption that makes ENRON look like shoplifting at a local convenience store.

Its just another short sighted Left wing initiave and we should know by now NOT to give these people that kind of influence.
 
These are not the same thing.

Saying 10 million people currently in employer-sponsored insurance are going to lose it is not the same as saying ESI coverage in a decade would have grown more in an ACA-less alternate universe than it will in this one.

The CBO predicts year-over-year ESI will increase under the ACA. They just think it would increase more in the ACA-less universe (understandable since such a universe doesn't have a viable alternative to ESI). That doesn't imply the loss of what people now have.



By and large companies are not dropping coverage, they aren't planning to, nor is the CBO predicting they will. So no, your point doesn't stand. It's mildly mind-boggling to me that you persist in this nonsense in the face of the overwhelming actual evidence of what's happening.

You probably haven't a clue what my original point was as it relates to the OP, since you came in late and tried to divert the conversation into what you wanted to discuss, and so you feel confident in dismissing what you don't even know.

And your comment "by and large, companies are not dropping coverage" has a best before date. According to surveys done, many are planning on doing so in the future or taking other measures to ensure their employee benefit costs don't rise. Here's one example:

Forty percent of U.S. companies to alter health care plans, drop coverage, due to Obamacare - NaturalNews.com

So again, my original point, which I stand by, is that some companies will be holding onto cash, not investing in employment or capital, is related to the uncertainty of what will happen with the ACA as we move forward and what will happen after the 2016 election when Obama is gone.
 
And your comment "by and large, companies are not dropping coverage" has a best before date. According to surveys done, many are planning on doing so in the future or taking other measures to ensure their employee benefit costs don't rise. Here's one example:

Forty percent of U.S. companies to alter health care plans, drop coverage, due to Obamacare - NaturalNews.com

You're supporting your discredited case with a source that literally contains the line: "Also, 98 percent of the employers said they don't have definite plans to discontinue company health insurance plans next year or in 2015 and dump their workers into state exchanges."

Good lord.

All that was ever going to happen to employers under the ACA has already happened. And as one would predict (based on the design of the law), it didn't change much of anything about employer-based coverage, other than a few extra benefits and consumer protections for employees.
 
Last edited:
I'm not complaining, I'm just exposing some of the fallacies of one if the if not the worst pieces of legislation ever passed.

That isn't a fallacy. Restoring market-based dynamics to the health care markets (on both the insurance and care sides) is one of the goals of the law. That's part of what deductibles do.

I think you've been hoodwinked by those on the right who told you for years that the ACA was some kind of surrogate for single-payer. It isn't. Quite the opposite.

Yes, individuals still have to be cost-conscious under it and make financially responsible decisions for themselves. That's kind of a cornerstone of any market-based strategy.

Like I said, if you want to argue the Families USA perspective, be my guest--but take a long look in the mirror at some point and figure out whatever it is you actually believe.
 
You're supporting your discredited case with a source that literally contains the line: "Also, 98 percent of the employers said they don't have definite plans to discontinue company health insurance plans next year or in 2015 and dump their workers into state exchanges."

Good lord.

All that was ever going to happen to employers under the ACA has already happened. And as one would predict (based on the design of the law), it didn't change much of anything about employer-based coverage, other than a few extra benefits and consumer protections for employees.

You can't possible be that dense, so the only alternative is you're purposely being obtuse.

I'll play along and cherry pick this comment from the link: Also, according to Towers Watson, the firm conducting the survey, 60 percent of companies look at private health insurance exchanges as one way of controlling their healthcare and administrative costs by dumping their employees into the state-run health insurance pools called for under the law.
 
You can't possible be that dense, so the only alternative is you're purposely being obtuse.

I'll play along and cherry pick this comment from the link: Also, according to Towers Watson, the firm conducting the survey, 60 percent of companies look at private health insurance exchanges as one way of controlling their healthcare and administrative costs by dumping their employees into the state-run health insurance pools called for under the law.

I realize you're not from the United States so you don't understand our markets. And thus are obviously confused by poorly worded articles.

Private insurance exchanges are not the ACA. They're a defined contribution option for large employers. They're an alternative benefit structure option for employers who want to offer health benefits to employees--that's the opposite of dumping.

As an aside, this is probably my biggest pet peeve here: you've got strong, immovable opinions on these issues, yet zero knowledge of the issues, health system, or facts at hand. At least you've got an excuse, though, you're Canadian. I'm not sure what some of the other guys' excuses are.
 
I realize you're not from the United States so you don't understand our markets. And thus are obviously confused by poorly worded articles.

Private insurance exchanges are not the ACA. They're a defined contribution option for large employers. They're an alternative benefit structure option for employers who want to offer health benefits to employees--that's the opposite of dumping.

As an aside, this is probably my biggest pet peeve here: you've got strong, immovable opinions on these issues, yet zero knowledge of the issues, health system, or facts at hand. At least you've got an excuse, though, you're Canadian. I'm not sure what some of the other guys' excuses are.

Do you ever actually read an entire sentence or post or just cherry pick? Did you actually read the sentence I quoted that you responded to?

It said, in conclusion "one way of controlling their healthcare and administrative costs by dumping their employees into the state-run health insurance pools called for under the law." Do you understand what those words mean? One way of reducing costs is to dump their employees into the ACA state run exchanges and pay the penalties, if necessary.
 
Do you ever actually read an entire sentence or post or just cherry pick? Did you actually read the sentence I quoted that you responded to?

It said, in conclusion "one way of controlling their healthcare and administrative costs by dumping their employees into the state-run health insurance pools called for under the law." Do you understand what those words mean? One way of reducing costs is to dump their employees into the ACA state run exchanges and pay the penalties, if necessary.

Towers Watson does their survey every summer. You know what they found last summer?

Nearly eight in 10 (77%) employers lack confidence in public insurance exchanges as a viable alternative to employer-sponsored coverage, and almost all employers surveyed (99.5%) have no plans to exit active medical plans and direct employees to this arrangement

99.5% of employers have no intention whatsoever of re-directing their employees to a public exchange. Which conforms with every other survey of employer intentions, not to mention their actual actions now that the employer mandate is in effect.

Get a grip. I don't really know what you get out of persisting in this fantasy but it's pretty clear that your hopes of ESI collapsing (or experiencing even a minor dent) aren't happening.
 
Towers Watson does their survey every summer. You know what they found last summer?



99.5% of employers have no intention whatsoever of re-directing their employees to a public exchange. Which conforms with every other survey of employer intentions, not to mention their actual actions now that the employer mandate is in effect.

Get a grip. I don't really know what you get out of persisting in this fantasy but it's pretty clear that your hopes of ESI collapsing (or experiencing even a minor dent) aren't happening.

Firstly, I have no agenda - I'm simply commenting on the OP and the issues. You're the one with the agenda.

Secondly, again, did you comprehend what you quoted? 99.5% have "no plans to exit ACTIVE medical plans". What do they plan to do when their active contracts end? What would it cost them to exit their ACTIVE plans? When renewal time comes, will it be cheaper for them to renew their current plan or dump their employees into the state run ACA exchanges?

I appreciate your view - we'll see in coming years how it works out. I'm done with this discussion - have a good night.
 
Firstly, I have no agenda - I'm simply commenting on the OP and the issues. You're the one with the agenda.

Secondly, again, did you comprehend what you quoted? 99.5% have "no plans to exit ACTIVE medical plans". What do they plan to do when their active contracts end? What would it cost them to exit their ACTIVE plans? When renewal time comes, will it be cheaper for them to renew their current plan or dump their employees into the state run ACA exchanges?

Most employees in the United States are in self-insured plans (their employer is their health insurer), their employers are not buying risk-bearing financial products from health insurers. Anyway, the survey covers that as well. Employers view the provision of health insurance as part of the benefit package as a key element of the employee value proposition--not just this year but in 2016 and beyond as well.

Again, just to be clear, there is nothing to support the position you've been advancing. Those expecting ESI to erode in the next decade are in for a disappointment.

Which may well be a negative--there are legitimate arguments that it should.
 
I really do marvel at people in the US who bemoan what they have and wish they had what Canada has, as an example. I highlighted the above from your statement because it's laughable to me. When I retired, almost 5 years ago, I had the option to continue my employer provided supplemental health insurance coverage at my own cost. Guess what? My supplemental insurance, for me, one person, was $380 monthly. That's to cover, with deductibles, limits and exclusions, the basics that our single payer system doesn't cover - dental, drugs, chiropractic, orthopedics, etc. etc. And that's on top of the $thousands I pay in taxes to support the basic system. And you're moaning because you pay $300 a month for the basics. Americans really need a reality check when it comes to healthcare and what others have.

The thing is, because the cost of his premium is shared with his employer, the total cost of his plan is actually at least twice the $300/month he pays while your $380 covers it all.

It's basically an apples and oranges comparison - your supplemental coverage to his comprehensive coverage.
 
I really do marvel at people in the US who bemoan what they have and wish they had what Canada has, as an example. I highlighted the above from your statement because it's laughable to me. When I retired, almost 5 years ago, I had the option to continue my employer provided supplemental health insurance coverage at my own cost. Guess what? My supplemental insurance, for me, one person, was $380 monthly. That's to cover, with deductibles, limits and exclusions, the basics that our single payer system doesn't cover - dental, drugs, chiropractic, orthopedics, etc. etc. And that's on top of the $thousands I pay in taxes to support the basic system. And you're moaning because you pay $300 a month for the basics. Americans really need a reality check when it comes to healthcare and what others have.

ok. i'll happily trade you our ****ed up system for yours. if we could, would you?

full disclosure : i paid almost two grand because i cut my thumb a couple years ago. they superglued it shut, and gave me a tetanus shot. forty five minutes. the best part is that two companies sent me bills for the same service. i had to pay both. i have insurance.

please say that you would trade health care systems. i have many more examples, and i am willing to hash them out with you.
 
ok. i'll happily trade you our ****ed up system for yours. if we could, would you?

full disclosure : i paid almost two grand because i cut my thumb a couple years ago. they superglued it shut, and gave me a tetanus shot. forty five minutes. the best part is that two companies sent me bills for the same service. i had to pay both. i have insurance.

please say that you would trade health care systems. i have many more examples, and i am willing to hash them out with you.

Sure as ****, this Canadian certainly would not.

BTW, my 85 year-old dad -- who's had cancer 3 times -- just got a new hip last week. He had to wait about 4 months.

No death panels for him.
 
That isn't a fallacy. Restoring market-based dynamics to the health care markets (on both the insurance and care sides) is one of the goals of the law. That's part of what deductibles do.

I think you've been hoodwinked by those on the right who told you for years that the ACA was some kind of surrogate for single-payer. It isn't. Quite the opposite.

Yes, individuals still have to be cost-conscious under it and make financially responsible decisions for themselves. That's kind of a cornerstone of any market-based strategy.

Like I said, if you want to argue the Families USA perspective, be my guest--but take a long look in the mirror at some point and figure out whatever it is you actually believe.

Again, you people shouldnt meddle or attempt to comment on things you do not understand.

Market based dynamics were utterly corrupted and undermined when the Government mandated the purchase of a Government created product under false pretenses.

If it were Market based then I could chose not to purchase the product and find a suittable alternative without the threat of fines.

If I HAD purchased it I could then appeal to the Federal Trade Commission for deceptive advertising.

There would be RECOURSE and some level of accountability

With ObamaCare there is NO recourse. No matter how bad the product was from the beginning , or how much more expensive it becomes I am mandated to purchase it.

The Agency that I would need to appeal to is part of the same Government that misrepresented the product that I'm now stuck with

Also, no matter how bad it is or expensive it becomes the Democrat party and their minions will do everything possible to discredit anyone who criticizes it. Its value isn't based on a thorough and objective analysis of its pros and cons. Its value is always going to be based on how good ot bad it makes the Democrats look.

Some Free market fundamentals you got there.

The Political party that came up with some BS story about a You tube video to cover for the deaths of 4 Americans under their watch because it was Politically convenient is the party thats telling me what a awesome product I'm being forced to pay for.

Lol !
 
ok. i'll happily trade you our ****ed up system for yours. if we could, would you?

full disclosure : i paid almost two grand because i cut my thumb a couple years ago. they superglued it shut, and gave me a tetanus shot. forty five minutes. the best part is that two companies sent me bills for the same service. i had to pay both. i have insurance.

please say that you would trade health care systems. i have many more examples, and i am willing to hash them out with you.

I have lived in both Canada and America.

Imo, if you are lower class, the Canadian system is FAR better.

if you are middle class, each has benefits.

if you are well off or have 'Cadillac' insurance, America is far, FAR better.


The Canadian system is designed for emergencies/'simple' life-and-death ailments and GP visits. If you are a genuine emergency case OR just need to see a GP for antibiotics for a simple infection; the Canadian system is great.

But anything more complicated and the system can get very SLOW and is usually under-staffed.


And remember, just because you don't have to buy medical insurance in Canada (though it helps), doesn't mean the average person is not paying many thousands of dollars in taxes for 'free' healthcare.
 
Last edited:
Again, you people shouldnt meddle or attempt to comment on things you do not understand.

Market based dynamics were utterly corrupted and undermined when the Government mandated the purchase of a Government created product under false pretenses.

If it were Market based then I could chose not to purchase the product and find a suittable alternative without the threat of fines.

All markets are regulated, all effective markets have underlying structure that allows buyers to send (and sellers to receive) signals based on price and quality. Such is life in the real world.

The tax penalty is there in this case because insurance markets have a well-known problem called adverse selection which requires some sort of intervention to correct.
 
I have lived in both Canada and America.

Imo, if you are lower class, the Canadian system is FAR better.

if you are middle class, each has benefits.

if you are well off or have 'Cadillac' insurance, America is far, FAR better.


The Canadian system is designed for emergencies/'simple' life-and-death ailments and GP visits. If you are a genuine emergency case OR just need to see a GP for antibiotics for a simple infection; the Canadian system is great.

But anything more complicated and the system can get very SLOW and is usually under-staffed.


And remember, just because you don't have to buy medical insurance in Canada (though it helps), doesn't mean the average person is not paying many thousands of dollars in taxes for 'free' healthcare.

like three hundred a month and maybe ten grand for a serious injury thousands?

i never argued that Canadian health care was free. i argued that most of them wouldn't trade health care systems with us.
 
like three hundred a month and maybe ten grand for a serious injury thousands?

i never argued that Canadian health care was free. i argued that most of them wouldn't trade health care systems with us.

You are quite correct. In fact, overwhelmingly so. It's not ofter you see that much of a majority.

An overwhelming 94-percent of Canadians support public - not private, for-profit - solutions to making the country's healthcare system stronger - with an equal number of Conservatives flying the banner for public health care.

CANADIAN HEALTH COALITION | Support for public health care soars: 94% of Canadians - including Conservatives - choose public over for-profit solutions
 
All markets are regulated, all effective markets have underlying structure that allows buyers to send (and sellers to receive) signals based on price and quality. Such is life in the real world.

The tax penalty is there in this case because insurance markets have a well-known problem called adverse selection which requires some sort of intervention to correct.

You're not making any sense.

Free markets cannot function without the voluntary aspect.

Two parties coming to a mutual agreement based on price have to have the freedom to not participate and walk away from the transaction.

ObamaCare is me the buyer via threats and duress being told to purchase a product that was never vetted through a voluntary process that is fundamental in the efficient allocation of goods and services based on price.

Mandates and price controls corrupt free market principles because value is based off of a bunch of arbitrary beuaracratic standards.

And you and or the Democrats have no leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing the ethics of Insurance companies or anyone else for that matter.

At the core of ObamaCare is a unprecedented ethical lapse involving the misrepresentation of a product for purely Political purposes by the President of the United States and the Democrat party.

A misrepresentation thats still happening to some degree thanks to Left wing websites and political forums and message boards.

Everyone who purchases a ObamaCare Policy is not purchasing what was advertised by our Government. Even after years of misrepresentation and outright lies the consumer is left with one option. Purchase or else

There is no recourse for the consumer what so ever. So you guys should step down off your High horse.
 
ok. i'll happily trade you our ****ed up system for yours. if we could, would you?

full disclosure : i paid almost two grand because i cut my thumb a couple years ago. they superglued it shut, and gave me a tetanus shot. forty five minutes. the best part is that two companies sent me bills for the same service. i had to pay both. i have insurance.

please say that you would trade health care systems. i have many more examples, and i am willing to hash them out with you.

Asked and answered - I previously indicated that I wouldn't give up our basic single payer system for the reasons I stated above - if you didn't get it then, perhaps you could reread my post.

You could ask the same question in America - how many people wanted to give up their health insurance coverage for the ACA before it was enacted? after it's been enacted?

You seem to have this idea that I hate my own insurance or that I hate the ACA. I'm simply participating in the discussion here. Just because I point out what I see as problems with the ACA doesn't mean that I'm going to give up my system - that's a false choice/strawman argument that doesn't take away from my comments at all.

I've been on record, in several threads here, that Americans would be better off with a single payer system but you haven't the culture, history, legal or tax chops to do it.
 
Your problem is that you don't understand the concept of trickle down.
Sure we do. Most eloquently stated in the movie Cool Hand Luke. "Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining." That about sums up the trickle down theory.
 
Asked and answered - I previously indicated that I wouldn't give up our basic single payer system for the reasons I stated above - if you didn't get it then, perhaps you could reread my post.

You could ask the same question in America - how many people wanted to give up their health insurance coverage for the ACA before it was enacted? after it's been enacted?

You seem to have this idea that I hate my own insurance or that I hate the ACA. I'm simply participating in the discussion here. Just because I point out what I see as problems with the ACA doesn't mean that I'm going to give up my system - that's a false choice/strawman argument that doesn't take away from my comments at all.

I've been on record, in several threads here, that Americans would be better off with a single payer system but you haven't the culture, history, legal or tax chops to do it.

trust me, man, the health care distribution model was ****ed up long before the ACA. you wouldn't have traded for it then, either.
 
Back
Top Bottom