• 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

That's a pretty comprehensive dismantling of CJs argument.


Lol !!

There's nothing comprehensive about studies done prior to the implementation of the employer mandate.

By definition, those studies are NOT comprehensive.

That being said small businesses have already reported significant cost increases due to Obama Care.
 
That being said small businesses have already reported significant cost increases due to Obama Care.

That's kind of the point. ACA-compliant plans are all that's been sold in the fully insured markets for over a year now. Any company that's bought a (non-grandfathered) plan since late 2013 or so bought an ACA-compliant plan.

The start of the employer mandate a few months ago didn't actually change the products available for employers to purchase--that change had already occurred. There aren't any shoes left to drop at this point.
 
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 )


First bold - In the US you call that "Keynesian" we call it socialism in polite circles, "stupid" everywhere else.

While I disagree that government can actually influence demand without repercussions, demand is the result of perceived need and will happen when the consumer thinks he can afford it.


Second, "supply side" is Reaganspeak for "free enterprise" and the way the world has worked for centuries. I guy decides he can get water at the well for four people and charge them. Soon, he has eight people, so he hires his brother. Now two people have disposable income in that village and they travel to the next town and buy some hardware, and open a small hardware store in the village, they can't take the time to deliver water, so they sell that business and re-invests it in a construction business.

Socialists would simply borrow money to pay people to deliver water free and pay back the loan by taxing the hardware store owners, who say "**** it" and move to the next village. The people, fed up with a dead economy and rising taxes, rebel, kill the unionized water carriers and create a collective.

Note that the demand for water is always there. Demand actually had nothing to do with the problem, but the problems arose as a result of envy, sloth and greed; screwing with the natural order of things.

We have had our Keynesian phase here, a guy called Pierre Trudeau in the 60's and 70's, and we paid the price in the late 90's when we had to cut social services to the bone and de-fund health care putting the burden on the provinces, forcing them to raise taxes. Am not an economist as displayed above, but all Canadians over 40 have had to pay for it when the bills come in.
 
That's kind of the point. ACA-compliant plans are all that's been sold in the fully insured markets for over a year now. Any company that's bought a (non-grandfathered) plan since late 2013 or so bought an ACA-compliant plan.


ObamaCare Hits Small Business Hard In Gloomy '15; Costs To Rise - Investors.com

" With businesses' one-year reprieve from financial penalties under ObamaCare ending, the horror stories of complying with the costly health care law already are trickling in. The worst is yet to come.

" Starting Jan. 1, employers with 100 or more full-time workers face hefty increases in their health insurance costs as they comply for the first time with the mandate.
They must now offer the government's comprehensive coverage — including "free" preventive care — for all employees working 30 or more hours a week, or risk being fined $2,000 per employee per year.
But many of these small businesses are retailers that don't have the kind of margins where they can cover workers and still stay in business.
Many grocers and restaurants have opted to pay the fine rather than swallow the larger cost of buying coverage for all workers. Others are cutting back worker hours to duck the law altogether."

Obamacare squeezes small businesses: Column

" The federal government — specifically the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency charged with implementing the vast majority of Obamacare's rules and regulations — has quietly changed its tune. Late last week, and to little fanfare, they released a report estimating that two-thirds of the country's small businesses will see their health care costs increase thanks to Obamacare. This will translate into higher health insurance premiums for 11 million employees."

ObamaCare Is a Jobs Killer, Studies Find

The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found, in a survey of businesses in its region, that 18.2 percent of employers had cut their number of workers because of ObamaCare, while only three percent had hired more. It found that 18.2 percent of the businesses reported the proportion of their workforce that is part-time was higher, compared to only 1.5 percent who said it was lower. More outsourcing to other firms was reported by 13.7 percent of the respondents, while only three percent reported a reduction of outsourcing.

The New York Fed conducted two surveys on the effects of ObamaCare, with one finding that 21 percent of manufacturers were reducing employment, and three percent were adding jobs. A survey of business leaders in the region showed 16.9 percent reducing employment and 1.6 percent adding to their workforces. "


The unprecedented economic indicators completely ignored by the left expose just how destructive Obama-Care has been on the American economy.

Lets start with the fact that Trillions of dollars in liquidity sit idle on the books of the FED marked as excess reserves as a result of Monetary stimulus that was supposed to grow the economy. The fact is prior to 2008 Banks rarely if ever let excess capital sit around earning absolutely nothing. That money would have been pushed out into the economy in the form of credit earning interest for the lender where it would grow the economy and provide new jobs for the chronically unemployed. . But 6 years into a Obama economy Trillions sit idle because the demand for consumer credit has never recovered.

After 6 years of near record low interest rates Home-ownership rates are at a 20 year record low. Something is seriously wrong.

ObamaCare did what ALL Progressive initiatives do when they're finally implemented. They produce a long list of unintended consequences economically because the people that pushed the initiative have no concept of how our free market economy works. Progressives cannot influence positively what they do not understand and they cannot understand what they oppose on principle alone.
 
Obamacare squeezes small businesses: Column

" The federal government — specifically the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency charged with implementing the vast majority of Obamacare's rules and regulations — has quietly changed its tune. Late last week, and to little fanfare, they released a report estimating that two-thirds of the country's small businesses will see their health care costs increase thanks to Obamacare. This will translate into higher health insurance premiums for 11 million employees."

As I just said, those rules have been in effect for all plans that went into effect on or after January 1, 2014. They're not some looming threat, they've been in effect for 15 months. Any financial impact has already been felt, through two successive open enrollment periods.

And yet, "employer offers for health insurance was basically unchanged between June 2013 and September 2014." Employers have been buying ACA-compliant plans, yet employer-sponsored coverage isn't going away.

The "just wait for it!" shtick doesn't work when you acknowledge that all this stuff has already happened and didn't impact coverage rates.
 
Last edited:
As I just said, those rules have been in effect for all plans that went into effect on or after January 1, 2014. They're not some looming threat, they've been in effect for 15 months. Any financial impact has already been felt, through two successive open enrollment periods.

And yet, "employer offers for health insurance was basically unchanged between June 2013 and September 2014." Employers have been buying ACA-compliant plans, yet employer-sponsored coverage isn't going away.

The "just wait for it!" shtick doesn't work when you acknowledge that all this stuff has already happened and didn't impact coverage rates.


Did you know rates are going to SKYROCKET next year?

I know because I've been hearing that phrase from anti-ACA people for the last five years. Wait till NEXT year.

I've been hearing that about the Cubs my whole life, too.
 
Did you know rates are going to SKYROCKET next year?

I know because I've been hearing that phrase from anti-ACA people for the last five years. Wait till NEXT year.

I've been hearing that about the Cubs my whole life, too.

"Just wait til next year!" is about as strong an admission as you're likely to get that none of the anti-ACA doomsday predictions have come to pass.
 
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?

Nice job with the bait and switch. I didn't realize getting stitches was a terminal illness - nor did I think that a colonoscopy was deadly either or that either one could bankrupt you. I had no idea the American medical system was so ****ed up. You've got serious problems in the US if people are dying and suffering bankruptcy getting stitches and colonoscopies.

As for the Canadian system, the government funds less than 50% of all healthcare services and products consumed by Canadians annually. It's why virtually all medium and large businesses fund supplemental health insurance and why many who aren't lucky enough to have such support purchase additional healthcare insurance themselves.

Would I trade systems - no, I wouldn't - partly because it's the only system I've ever known and partly because if the percentage of taxes (here in Ontario, 50% of all government revenue is spent on healthcare) I pay to support healthcare were eliminated and I had to buy insurance myself, my initial costs would go down significantly but the government would soon eat up that vacated tax room with other mindless taxation and spending.

And finally, there are indeed many people losing homes and savings funding healthcare services and drugs that are not covered by the single payer plan.
 
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

Just so you know, the arrogance of you starting virtually every post with a juvenile LOL says a lot about the relevance one should place on the content of your posts.

You can toss up a bizzillion other sites and op-ed pieces if you want - all irrelevant. You claimed that the CBO numbers of 20 million losing employer funded healthcare were wrong and/or dated and yet you haven't been able to point out a single CBO reference or report that counters their 2012 finding. I'd simply say put up the CBO revised estimates or admit you don't know what you're talking about.
 
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

All very fine - none of it, however, disputes the original claim I made that the CBO projects that there will be significant losses to employer healthcare plans.

I can't find the recent CBO report, but this January 2015 article notes that the CBO is now predicting that 10 million employees will lose their employer healthcare plans by 2021. Not a minor issue to the 10 million who will feel the impact.

CBO Now Says 10 Mil Will Lose Employer Health Plans Under ObamaCare - Investors.com

Secondly, the CBO estimates that the equivalent of 2.3 million Americans will lose a significant percentage of their hours of work as a result of the employer mandates under the ACA.

Stock Markets, Business News, Financials, Earnings - CNBC

Finally, add to this the 2 million you note above increase in the overall numbers of employees who will have employer funded health insurance plans in the coming decade, when there will be several multiples of that number joining the American workforce over the coming decade, unless you expect the weak economy to continue, and you see a continued erosion.

But who knows. My only point at the start of this thread was to indicate that some businesses, as they've noted themselves, are resisting investments in labour at this time. Some of that will be attributed to the employer mandate under the ACA and the short term uncertainty leading into the 2016 elections.
 
I can't find the recent CBO report, but this January 2015 article notes that the CBO is now predicting that 10 million employees will lose their employer healthcare plans by 2021. Not a minor issue to the 10 million who will feel the impact.

No, that's not what the CBO said in January. What they did was compare their projections of enrollment in ESI under the ACA vs. what they think it would be in the absence of the ACA. They came up with these projections:

Employer-based coverage under the ACA
Year​
2010201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025
Enrollment (in millions)​
150156156153155155156156155157157157157


Employer-based coverage, no ACA
Year2010201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025
Enrollment (in millions)​
150156158160163164165165165166166166166

You'll note that neither scenario involves long-term losses.

The number of people with employer-based coverage continues to grow in either scenario, the difference is that it grows faster in the no-ACA world. In the world we live in, more people will shop for their own plans independent of their employer as we go forward. The number of people with employer-based insurance doesn't fall.

What those tables do not show is "10 million employees will lose their employer healthcare plans" (the ones they have now).

(CBO's March 2015 update to these projections narrow the gap between these projections anyway).

Secondly, the CBO estimates that the equivalent of 2.3 million Americans will lose a significant percentage of their hours of work as a result of the employer mandates under the ACA.

Again, you're mischaracterizing what they've said. From the CBO's blog Frequently Asked Questions About CBO’s Estimates of the Labor Market Effects of the Affordable Care Act
Because the longer-term reduction in work is expected to come almost entirely from a decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply in response to the changes in their incentives, we do not think it is accurate to say that the reduction stems from people “losing” their jobs.

Voluntary reductions in the amount of labor offered are not the same as "losing a significant percentage of their hours of work."

Finally, add to this the 2 million you note above increase in the overall numbers of employees who will have employer funded health insurance plans in the coming decade, when there will be several multiples of that number joining the American workforce over the coming decade, unless you expect the weak economy to continue, and you see a continued erosion.

That's the difference between the CBO's with-ACA/without-ACA estimates. There are now realistic alternatives to the employer-based coverage, which means in the future people will drift toward those alternatives. That's a natural, organic change over time, not the disruption or people being stripped of what they have that you've been implying.
 
As I just said, those rules have been in effect for all plans that went into effect on or after January 1, 2014. They're not some looming threat, they've been in effect for 15 months. Any financial impact has already been felt, through two successive open enrollment periods.

And yet, "employer offers for health insurance was basically unchanged between June 2013 and September 2014." Employers have been buying ACA-compliant plans, yet employer-sponsored coverage isn't going away.

The "just wait for it!" shtick doesn't work when you acknowledge that all this stuff has already happened and didn't impact coverage rates.

" Just Wait for it " ??

I posted links that gave pretty explicit examples of the Laws CURRENT impact on Businesses and the Economy. Being sold under false pretenses and outright lies that promised " affordability " is the least of that Laws problems.

Here's a HUGE issue with the law that I'm sure the typical Democrat hasn't taken into account. The American people have now been given the very subjective definition of what's " affordable " and what's not by the same Political party that justified the selling this law based on out right lies ( ability to keep your Dr and Insurance ) and the same party that continues to ignore the ongoing substantial economic impact that this laws had since it was passed.

The Democrats and the Obama administration has by mandate offered up a Universal definition of what's affordable for the average Middle class American and whats not and they'll continue to repeat their false narratives and talking points no matter how much that expenditure continues to climb. The Democrats and the Obama administration continue to put party politics and ideology before the needs and concerns of the average American Middle Class family and will never acknowledge that Obama's signature legislation created a scenario that led to financial distress for millions of Americans.

What affordable and whats not SHOULD be left up to the individual consumer and giving some Governmental entity that answers to NO ONE ( Most transparent administration...:roll: ) the power to be the final arbiter of everything from " fairness " to " affordability " is the height of foolishness. Now affordability means a mandated rising cost increase on the Middle Class and small Businesses and it's being defended.... unbelievable.
 
Nice job with the bait and switch. I didn't realize getting stitches was a terminal illness - nor did I think that a colonoscopy was deadly either or that either one could bankrupt you. I had no idea the American medical system was so ****ed up. You've got serious problems in the US if people are dying and suffering bankruptcy getting stitches and colonoscopies.

As for the Canadian system, the government funds less than 50% of all healthcare services and products consumed by Canadians annually. It's why virtually all medium and large businesses fund supplemental health insurance and why many who aren't lucky enough to have such support purchase additional healthcare insurance themselves.

Would I trade systems - no, I wouldn't - partly because it's the only system I've ever known and partly because if the percentage of taxes (here in Ontario, 50% of all government revenue is spent on healthcare) I pay to support healthcare were eliminated and I had to buy insurance myself, my initial costs would go down significantly but the government would soon eat up that vacated tax room with other mindless taxation and spending.

And finally, there are indeed many people losing homes and savings funding healthcare services and drugs that are not covered by the single payer plan.

oh, i already knew that you wouldn't trade systems. neither would anyone else who has single payer. your system might have its flaws, but you're not paying thousands for a cut thumb and horrifyingly higher amounts for more serious illnesses.

and no, your costs wouldn't go down. my premium approaches three hundred a month for one person, and that's on top of what i pay for actual treatment. there's a deductible, too. luckily, there's an employee clinic at my job. i can get most of the routine stuff taken care of there for free. and that three hundred a month buys me a maximum of like seven grand a year out of pocket, so that's good. well, i mean, seven grand would be extremely hard to float, but it's a lot better than some people have it. if you want to go on with this, we can start swapping stories about the medical bills of people we know. believe me, you're better off with single payer.
 
Now affordability means a mandated rising cost increase on the Middle Class and small Businesses and it's being defended.... unbelievable.

"Affordability" here means a threshold--an on-ramp to financial assistance for those in need or an off-ramp from the individual mandate. Consumers still shop around and choose the plan that's best for them. If they don't have an employer who makes that choice for them, that is.


And we've reached the point where the right becomes the left and attacks high-deductible plans. Half your arguments come from the Chamber of Commerce, the other half come from Families USA.

Let me ask you this: when the GOP repealed the ACA's $2,000 limit on deductibles for small employer plans (opening them up to higher deductibles than that), were you for or against that move and why?
 
Nice job with the bait and switch. I didn't realize getting stitches was a terminal illness - nor did I think that a colonoscopy was deadly either or that either one could bankrupt you. I had no idea the American medical system was so ****ed up. You've got serious problems in the US if people are dying and suffering bankruptcy getting stitches and colonoscopies.

As for the Canadian system, the government funds less than 50% of all healthcare services and products consumed by Canadians annually. It's why virtually all medium and large businesses fund supplemental health insurance and why many who aren't lucky enough to have such support purchase additional healthcare insurance themselves.

Would I trade systems - no, I wouldn't - partly because it's the only system I've ever known and partly because if the percentage of taxes (here in Ontario, 50% of all government revenue is spent on healthcare) I pay to support healthcare were eliminated and I had to buy insurance myself, my initial costs would go down significantly but the government would soon eat up that vacated tax room with other mindless taxation and spending.

And finally, there are indeed many people losing homes and savings funding healthcare services and drugs that are not covered by the single payer plan.

Good point on why you would not trade. Those of us in the USA who express that Social Security and Medicare are poorly run government Ponzi schemes are criticized by many on the left who call us hypocrites when we do not turn down the benefits when retirement age comes.....those benefits that we were forced to pay into our entire working lives. Personally, I would be delighted to opt out if the government would give me a check for every dollar I was forced to put into those systems plus interest.
 
"Affordability" here means a threshold--an on-ramp to financial assistance for those in need or an off-ramp from the individual mandate. Consumers still shop around and choose the plan that's best for them. If they don't have an employer who makes that choice for them, that is.



And we've reached the point where the right becomes the left and attacks high-deductible plans. Half your arguments come from the Chamber of Commerce, the other half come from Families USA.

Let me ask you this: when the GOP repealed the ACA's $2,000 limit on deductibles for small employer plans (opening them up to higher deductibles than that), were you for or against that move and why?

Yes and its still a subjective definition.

How would the Democrats know whether or not the inclusion of Subsidies makes their product affordable to the average American ?

They wouldn't.

How would the Democrats know whether or not premiums and out of pocket cost would spike a year after the laws implementation ? How would they know whether or not Household median income would recover to its 2007 levels ?

They wouldn't

Actually, the Democrats DID know. Anyone with a brain knew this would drive up cost and that the tax increases were going to be passed down to the Consumers.

Conservatives sure knew. No the Democrats and their supporters would have to know the specific financial situation of every American and would have had to know that Median income levels were going to rise with rising out of pocket and premium cost

And consumers have " choices " ? Cosumers are mandated to buy a Government created product or pay a fine that increases every year.

And I'm GLAD the GOP repealed the Democrats attempt at instituting price controls on a National scale.

The Democrats were just trying to cover their asses KNOWING that the inevitable premium hikes of ObamaCare would make them look bad Politically.

You want Prive Control's move to Venezuela. They're doing wonders their.
 
and no, your costs wouldn't go down. my premium approaches three hundred a month for one person

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.
 
How would the Democrats know whether or not the inclusion of Subsidies makes their product affordable to the average American ?

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.

And I'm GLAD the GOP repealed the Democrats attempt at instituting price controls on a National scale.

The Democrats were just trying to cover their asses KNOWING that the inevitable premium hikes of ObamaCare would make them look bad Politically.

You want Prive Control's move to Venezuela. They're doing wonders their.

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 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.

I have one simple guideline. When health insurance premiums surpass my monthly home mortgage bills, it is far too expensive. Prior to obamacare, I had a monthly premium of $250 a month with a $1200.00 deductible. Obamacare canceled that and the premium went up to nearly $700.00 with a deductible of $6000.00. I was not about to accept that. I signed up for VA (veterans)healthcare. If not for that, I would just be going without primary coverage and paying the fine every year until until Medicare kicks in. I do still carry supplemental insurance for vision and dental, however the cost is minimal....about a $7.00 deduction from each pay check.
 
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.

Yea they DO like to refer to the Canadian Health Care system as a shining star of single payer health care.
 
No, that's not what the CBO said in January. What they did was compare their projections of enrollment in ESI under the ACA vs. what they think it would be in the absence of the ACA. They came up with these projections:

Employer-based coverage under the ACA
Year​
2010201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025
Enrollment (in millions)​
150156156153155155156156155157157157157


Employer-based coverage, no ACA
Year2010201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025
Enrollment (in millions)​
150156158160163164165165165166166166166

You'll note that neither scenario involves long-term losses.

The number of people with employer-based coverage continues to grow in either scenario, the difference is that it grows faster in the no-ACA world. In the world we live in, more people will shop for their own plans independent of their employer as we go forward. The number of people with employer-based insurance doesn't fall.

What those tables do not show is "10 million employees will lose their employer healthcare plans" (the ones they have now).

(CBO's March 2015 update to these projections narrow the gap between these projections anyway).



Again, you're mischaracterizing what they've said. From the CBO's blog Frequently Asked Questions About CBO’s Estimates of the Labor Market Effects of the Affordable Care Act


Voluntary reductions in the amount of labor offered are not the same as "losing a significant percentage of their hours of work."



That's the difference between the CBO's with-ACA/without-ACA estimates. There are now realistic alternatives to the employer-based coverage, which means in the future people will drift toward those alternatives. That's a natural, organic change over time, not the disruption or people being stripped of what they have that you've been implying.

Sorry - take up the language usage problems you object to with the CBO. They clearly state, in the links provided within the links I provided above, that as a result of the ACA, 10 million people will go from employer funded health insurance plans to insurance exchanges or Medicaid. I can't decipher what percentage goes to insurance exchanges and what goes to Medicaid, but it's clear they are predicting 10 million people who would have been covered by employer plans will not be so covered under the ACA.

You don't know and I don't know how many of that number will result from businesses dropping coverage entirely or reducing hours of work to drop an employee below the eligibility thresholds. Clearly, if the equivalent of 2.3 million full time jobs are going to be lost simply by the reduction in hours, that could represent 10 million employees losing upwards of 10 hours a week, a quarter of what they work currently.

I appreciate that everything is roses from your perspective. I'm happy for you. My point as it relates to the actual OP in this thread stands.
 
Nice job with the bait and switch. I didn't realize getting stitches was a terminal illness - nor did I think that a colonoscopy was deadly either or that either one could bankrupt you. I had no idea the American medical system was so ****ed up. You've got serious problems in the US if people are dying and suffering bankruptcy getting stitches and colonoscopies.

As for the Canadian system, the government funds less than 50% of all healthcare services and products consumed by Canadians annually. It's why virtually all medium and large businesses fund supplemental health insurance and why many who aren't lucky enough to have such support purchase additional healthcare insurance themselves.

Would I trade systems - no, I wouldn't - partly because it's the only system I've ever known and partly because if the percentage of taxes (here in Ontario, 50% of all government revenue is spent on healthcare) I pay to support healthcare were eliminated and I had to buy insurance myself, my initial costs would go down significantly but the government would soon eat up that vacated tax room with other mindless taxation and spending.

And finally, there are indeed many people losing homes and savings funding healthcare services and drugs that are not covered by the single payer plan.


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.
 
10 million people will go from employer funded health insurance plans to insurance exchanges or Medicaid.
10 million people who would have been covered by employer plans will not be so covered under the ACA.

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.

I appreciate that everything is roses from your perspective. I'm happy for you. My point as it relates to the actual OP in this thread stands.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom