• 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

Obamacare will be seen as the greatest domestic screw up and wrong turn the nation has ever made.

also, no, that would probably be slavery. honorable mention to prohibition.
 
You know equating slavery with a comment on Obamacare is rather outre....we left making sense a long time ago

We are definitely done here.......

well, slavery was a domestic policy worse than the ACA, but cool, have a good weekend.
 
No. The insurance will be the same after the mandate is required. Insurance requirements have already been established a few years ago - nothing is changing there.

Interestingly enough, your company is in a fantastic minority if it is finding insurance is prohiibitively more expensive post ACA. But then again, since you've demonstrated you cant even get the basic facts about your username right, I tend to doubt your story about your employer.

So the bottom line is that no companies are hoarding cash to prepare for the employer mandate.

You don't have a clue. You obviously have no experience in the business world.
 
well, slavery was a domestic policy worse than the ACA, but cool, have a good weekend.




Now that makes sense....since slavery was never a domestic policy, but policy forced on the colonies by Britain.

History is not your strong suit....weirdest post today
 
other first world countries are achieving the same or better outcomes for a lot less money.

View attachment 67182414

The better healthcare outcomes in other first world countries is a myth. It is not based on actual results of provided healthcare. It is mostly based on life expectancy and infant mortality rates in the US compared to elsewhere. It does not make allowances for bad health habits, obesity, poor diets, drug abuse, alcoholism, ethnic diversity, etc, that have much impact on overall outcomes. It also does not take into account the differences in how the US and most other nations calculate infant mortality. If you allow for all of those differences, the US compares quite favorably in healthcare outcomes.
 
also, no, that would probably be slavery. honorable mention to prohibition.

To be fair, slavery is something this nation started out with and it took us less time (less then one hundred years) to shake it off then any and all European nations.
 
For those who believe Barack Obama is mostly responsible for budget deficiets....

Do you believe he's responsible for...

A. The aging population who's increasingly living longer while collecting medicare and social security?

B. The veteran's benefits from the wars in Iraq?

C. The unfunded medicare part D prescription drug plan?

If you do believe Obama is responsible for these spending areas would you support Obama issuing massive cuts in these three areas?
 
You're report is from 2012. I have not heard of this concern since the ACA was implemented after that.

I'm curious why you couldn't find a more recent report than this.

Again, the mandate is pretty much a minor issue. But it's the last piece to fall into place, so the anti-ACA folks are really banking on THIS little bit to fulfill their ever present predictions of disaster and woe.

20 million losing their employer funded coverage doesn't seem like a minor issue to me. If there's an updated CBO report, I'd be happy to see it. Usually, if the CBO revises a finding, they report on it. If there isn't one, what does that tell you.

You complaining about other people's predictions of disaster and woe is pretty rich considering your positions on global warming and climate change.
 
If you want to see what the ACTUAL effect of the mandate is, rather than an imagined effect, read this:

Survey: Little impact of employer mandate on companies

Sorry - I haven't visited a Politico story or the site since they changed their comment section to Facebook required and I have no intention of going back - a matter of principle. As I said above, if the CBO has issued a revised report, by all means present it and I'll review it - otherwise, the 20 million figure they presented in 2012 still stands.
 
Now that makes sense....since slavery was never a domestic policy, but policy forced on the colonies by Britain.

History is not your strong suit....weirdest post today

pretty funny. that's why the country fought a war to decide if we should keep it of get rid of it eighty five years later.

should i list a couple more? ok.

not letting women vote
Jim Crow
ruining a kid's life because they get caught with a bag of weed
treating homosexuals like second class citizens

all of those things are worse than the ACA. the ACA is a poor solution to the health care disaster in America, but it isn't worse than those things.
 
The better healthcare outcomes in other first world countries is a myth. It is not based on actual results of provided healthcare. It is mostly based on life expectancy and infant mortality rates in the US compared to elsewhere. It does not make allowances for bad health habits, obesity, poor diets, drug abuse, alcoholism, ethnic diversity, etc, that have much impact on overall outcomes. It also does not take into account the differences in how the US and most other nations calculate infant mortality. If you allow for all of those differences, the US compares quite favorably in healthcare outcomes.

you and i get on pretty well, and we're never going to agree about this. we've hashed it out in many threads. my next move is to point out that we're one of the few first world countries in which getting a terminal illness can bankrupt you. i think that's stupid, and that no market solution is going to fix it. you disagree. maybe we should just agree to disagree on this issue. either way, i hope that you are having a good weekend.
 
For those who believe Barack Obama is mostly responsible for budget deficiets....

Do you believe he's responsible for...

A. The aging population who's increasingly living longer while collecting medicare and social security?

B. The veteran's benefits from the wars in Iraq?

C. The unfunded medicare part D prescription drug plan?

If you do believe Obama is responsible for these spending areas would you support Obama issuing massive cuts in these three areas?

Not even a nice try. Those expenses amount to pennies compared to the massive entitlement system that Barack "Hussein" Obama has greatly added to.
 
you and i get on pretty well, and we're never going to agree about this. we've hashed it out in many threads. my next move is to point out that we're one of the few first world countries in which getting a terminal illness can bankrupt you. i think that's stupid, and that no market solution is going to fix it. you disagree. maybe we should just agree to disagree on this issue. either way, i hope that you are having a good weekend.

Getting a terminal disease can bankrupt you in any country...single payer or not. Single payer is not going to take care of lost income or long term hospice care or take care of your family after you are gone. And even in the US, a terminal illness does not necessarily have to bankrupt you if you plan ahead. One of my late uncles was a painter who early in life was exposed to asbestos. Much later in life, he developed mesothelioma. He was not a wealthy man, however he managed to cover his medical bills and provide for his family because he planned ahead. He passed away not owing any debts. My point is that market based reform has a much better chance at solving all of the issues then a government run system that without a doubt is going to gradually cut funding and services. It happens with all government programs. Look at what has happened to single payer in Canada. But you are right....I think we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. And I hope you are having a terrific weekend as well.
 
Sorry - I haven't visited a Politico story or the site since they changed their comment section to Facebook required and I have no intention of going back - a matter of principle.

Then let's summarize it for you: Mercer just did a survey of businesses to get a sense of whether the employer mandate has led to any erosion of employer-based coverage. Turns out it hasn't.

The exact same findings as every other study or survey of that question.
 
Then let's summarize it for you: Mercer just did a survey of businesses to get a sense of whether the employer mandate has led to any erosion of employer-based coverage. Turns out it hasn't.

The exact same findings as every other study or survey of that question.

And again, except for the CBO.

And since the employer mandate has not been fully enforced if it even is at this time, it's hard to be so definitive from a distance.

I do appreciate, however, that liberals are always 100% certain of every policy initiative they espouse, be it the ACA, climate change, green energy, etc. Whatever they choose to support, it's always the absolute best thing ever with nary a problem in sight.
 
you and i get on pretty well, and we're never going to agree about this. we've hashed it out in many threads. my next move is to point out that we're one of the few first world countries in which getting a terminal illness can bankrupt you. i think that's stupid, and that no market solution is going to fix it. you disagree. maybe we should just agree to disagree on this issue. either way, i hope that you are having a good weekend.

Canada is a first world country - Canada has universal, single payer healthcare - in Canada, depending on your illness, you can go bankrupt in the process of purchasing drugs or treatments necessary to prolong life if you're unfortunate enough to need a drug or treatment the government finds too expensive and not cost effective.
 
LOL. I've got both experience in the business world AND in healthcare.

Try again.

You either don't have any real business experience or you are intellectually dishonest. I'll let you decide. Helping your dad at the office does not count.
 
Canada is a first world country - Canada has universal, single payer healthcare - in Canada, depending on your illness, you can go bankrupt in the process of purchasing drugs or treatments necessary to prolong life if you're unfortunate enough to need a drug or treatment the government finds too expensive and not cost effective.

the last time you had stitches, what did that cost? colonoscopy? how much was that? what was the price tag for your most recent doctor visit? one more : can you honestly say that you'd trade systems with the US?
 
Sorry - I haven't visited a Politico story or the site since they changed their comment section to Facebook required and I have no intention of going back - a matter of principle. As I said above, if the CBO has issued a revised report, by all means present it and I'll review it - otherwise, the 20 million figure they presented in 2012 still stands.

LOL. You boycott some site that destroys your argument and somehow thats MY problem.

Heres a similar comparison, showing that the employer mandate is basically no big deal either way.

Hopefully you dont have some principled stance against the WaPo.

Obamacare’s employer mandate keeps getting delayed. What happens if it gets killed? - The Washington Post
 
Ah.....

No. You stifle demand with over production.

You create demand with a higher perceived "bang for buck" price/quality ratio. In hard times, economy cars sell, the SUV's decline no matter how many you make

My bad. I should have followed that first sentence with a little more detail.

Keynesians believe that they can influence demand directly via stimulus instead of creating demand by removing the unnecessary barriers that choke off production.

" Stimulus to increase aggregate demand ", etc . The problem with their direct approach is that it creates debt while it papers over the structural economic issues instead of addressing them.

Eventually you wind up with a economy like Japan's. Japan's out of bullets so to speak with a contracting economy, a debased currency, tax increases and over 40 percent of their total revenue having to go to paying their debt service.

Given Japan's predicament its hard to believe Keynesian economics is still considered a legitimate school of thought.

I believe, as do other Supply siders that the correct way to influece demamand Is by removing these unnecessary barriers to production ( Taxes, Regulations, Government intervention )
 
And again, except for the CBO.

In the coverage estimates they released this month, the CBO expects enrollment in employer-sponsored insurance this year to be 153 million and a decade from now, in 2025, they expect it will be...155 million. No vast erosion, no upending of the status quo. Just slower enrollment growth than in the absence of affordable, decent alternatives to employer-based plans.

I do appreciate, however, that liberals are always 100% certain of every policy initiative they espouse, be it the ACA, climate change, green energy, etc. Whatever they choose to support, it's always the absolute best thing ever with nary a problem in sight.

You're free to identify actual problems. If you have to wave your hands and make some up, that's an indication of a pretty serious weakness in your case.

All evidence so far has found little change, in action or intention, in employer-based coverage (very much in line with the CBO's projections that employer-based coverage numbers will be largely static).

Health Law Brings No Drop In Insurance Enrollment At Work, Study Finds
A new study found that so far there’s little cause for concern: Average enrollment in company plans was essentially unchanged between 2014 and 2015 at 74 percent of all workers.

The survey of nearly 600 employers by benefits consultant Mercer found that in 2015 the average percentage of employees who were eligible for coverage increased 1 point to 88 percent, but it was offset by a drop in the enrollment of eligible workers of 1 point on average, to 83 percent.

Part of the explanation for the stable results stems from the fact that most employers were already in compliance, says Beth Umland, Mercer’s director of research for health and benefits.

Obamacare Refutes Warning of Corporate America Cost Surge
One critical prediction came from Tom Donohue, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce president, who said in January 2011 that many companies were thinking about ending their employer-based plans to cope with the law’s new mandates.

That hasn’t happened. None of the more than 600,000 employers who are clients of Automatic Data Processing Inc., the largest U.S. payroll firm, is planning to eliminate health benefits for full-time workers in response to the law known as Obamacare. While there are costs imposed on employers by the law, the amounts are nominal for most companies, according to benefits consultants.

New Findings About The ACA’s Impact On Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance
A new study, released today as a Web First by Health Affairs, examines data from the Health Reform Monitoring Survey for June 2013 through September 2014, assessing any early changes of employer-sponsored insurance under the ACA. Authors Fredric Blavin, Adele Shartzer, Sharon Long, and John Holahan report that the percentage of workers with employer offers for health insurance was basically unchanged between June 2013 and September 2014: 82.7 percent versus 82.2 percent. The authors are all affiliated with the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, in Washington, D.C.

Worker take-up of employer coverage and overall coverage rates also remained constant. There were no changes in offer, take-up, and coverage rates among low- and high-income adults working at small (fewer than fifty workers) or large firms. This is the first peer-reviewed study to analyze changes in employer-sponsored insurance after the launching of the ACA health insurance Marketplaces.

Mid-tier employers aren’t dropping coverage
A study from TAG Employer Services reveals that most companies with fewer than 50 employees will continue to offer health insurance of some kind. These smaller employers aren’t bound by most of the act’s requirements, which fall most heavily on companies with 50 or more workers.

Of those surveyed, just 4 percent said they probably wouldn’t continue to offer health insurance. More than two-thirds (68 percent) strongly agreed that they’ll keep offering health coverage, and another 28 percent indicated they most likely would.

Concerns had been raised about whether employees at smaller companies would have employer-sponsored coverage, since the act didn’t require it. The theory was that small businesses might drop coverage to save money. But that’s not happening, at least based upon TAG’s research.
 
In the coverage estimates they released this month, the CBO expects enrollment in employer-sponsored insurance this year to be 153 million and a decade from now, in 2025, they expect it will be...155 million. No vast erosion, no upending of the status quo. Just slower enrollment growth than in the absence of affordable, decent alternatives to employer-based plans.



You're free to identify actual problems. If you have to wave your hands and make some up, that's an indication of a pretty serious weakness in your case.

All evidence so far has found little change, in action or intention, in employer-based coverage (very much in line with the CBO's projections that employer-based coverage numbers will be largely static).

Health Law Brings No Drop In Insurance Enrollment At Work, Study Finds


Obamacare Refutes Warning of Corporate America Cost Surge


New Findings About The ACA’s Impact On Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance


Mid-tier employers aren’t dropping coverage

That's a pretty comprehensive dismantling of CJs argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom