• 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!

Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

Boo Radley said:
Bet it doesn't happen. I think you're being hyperbolic.
Click to expand...
It's not going to happen; I agree. Why the article in the OP even had a paragraph that stated:
Ernie Canadeo, president of EGC Group, a Melville-based advertising and marketing agency with 45 employees, planned to add 10 next year but now says he may add fewer so he's not subject to the mandate. Still, he says, he'll eventually have to hire more workers to grow. "If business demands that I hire, then I have to hire," he says.
Click to expand...

Business has always been business; those folks see money to be made, they are going to get that money; they just are not going to make a killing like they used to do. Just watch that profit margin quit being totally ridiculous. ;)
 
j-mac said:
Wouldn't a UHC program explicitly take the providing of Health care insurance away from business provided private sources, and shift it to a government provided entitlement?
Click to expand...

Yes, but businesses would not bear the weight of paying for those health care costs. Instead, various kinds of taxes would provide for them so the costs gets mutualized.

And I think a major part of the tax revenue for a UHC system should come from a national sales tax.
 
samsmart said:
Yes, but businesses would not bear the weight of paying for those health care costs. Instead, various kinds of taxes would provide for them so the costs gets mutualized.

And I think a major part of the tax revenue for a UHC system should come from a national sales tax.
Click to expand...

Ok, it was a little confusing as to what you were saying as far as subsidies toward business if a UHC plan were forwarded. So, if I have this right, you are talking about a typical UHC system, and would raise taxes on everyone to cover that.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, it was a little confusing as to what you were saying as far as subsidies toward business if a UHC plan were forwarded. So, if I have this right, you are talking about a typical UHC system, and would raise taxes on everyone to cover that.
Click to expand...

That's right.
 
RLN said:
It's not going to happen; I agree. Why the article in the OP even had a paragraph that stated:

Business has always been business; those folks see money to be made, they are going to get that money; they just are not going to make a killing like they used to do. Just watch that profit margin quit being totally ridiculous. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, so far I see purely from my own standpoint that things are getting worse in respect of health care, for instance, my own health insurance prescription program just changed as of the Jan. 1 to instead of being under CVS/caremark, is now pushed back into BC/BS's system where certain drugs that were covered before under caremark, are now no longer covered, or have to go through a board within BC/BS to approve them by using other drugs first. This is a problem, for some prescriptions my wife has been on for years. Also, the coverage's of these drugs now is now not at the rates they were before, I have to pay more, but my premiums stayed the same. And that is just one area of coverage.

So, although I do not as a conservative agree with the whole government take over of any industry in the US, I fear that the plan put into place is now moving forward, and was always intended to push circumstance like this with an end goal of getting that take over anyway.
 
j-mac said:
We are well aware that you want the government to fully take over and run the Health Care system in the United States. But, as we see more and more of the ACA expose itself this year, can you lay out what would change from Obama's plan as it is now, to what you envision as a better system?
Click to expand...

You do realized that isn't what I said. The system I support is not the government taking over or running.

Like I said, the public option is a better plan. Maybe go there. Our how about republicans actually come to the table intent to improve and not obstruct. Who knows, maybe they can come up with something new.
 
Boo Radley said:
You do realized that isn't what I said. The system I support is not the government taking over or running.

Like I said, the public option is a better plan. Maybe go there. Our how about republicans actually come to the table intent to improve and not obstruct. Who knows, maybe they can come up with something new.
Click to expand...


Oh for Christ sake, just explain it Joe....We don't need the semantic argument...
 
j-mac said:
Oh for Christ sake, just explain it Joe....We don't need the semantic argument...
Click to expand...

J, there is no semantic argument there.

1. You stated something accurate. Government does not run healthcare in a two tiered single payer system.

2. I proposed a move back to the public option, but am open to other ideas.

Neither has anything to do with semantics.
 
Boo Radley said:
J, there is no semantic argument there.

1. You stated something accurate. Government does not run healthcare in a two tiered single payer system.

2. I proposed a move back to the public option, but am open to other ideas.

Neither has anything to do with semantics.
Click to expand...

Ok, well all I am asking is that you expand your thoughts on that more than the soundbites you offer all the time....For instance, what do you exactly mean by a "two tiered UHC system"? or what do you mean by a "public option"? Lay it out in clear language....Then we can proceed.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, well all I am asking is that you expand your thoughts on that more than the soundbites you offer all the time....For instance, what do you exactly mean by a "two tiered UHC system"? or what do you mean by a "public option"? Lay it out in clear language....Then we can proceed.
Click to expand...

There would what would amount to government insurance, removing it from employment. It would operate like any insurance. Doctors don't work for the government. However, those who can pay more can buy more, both in terms of care and insurance. So not running anything, but making sure everyone has coverage.

The public option merely allows people to that that option, paying a premium. It too is an insurance and in av running, but isn't mandated.
 
Boo Radley said:
There would what would amount to government insurance, removing it from employment. It would operate like any insurance. Doctors don't work for the government. However, those who can pay more can buy more, both in terms of care and insurance. So not running anything, but making sure everyone has coverage.
Click to expand...

Ok, this is what is confusing me about what you are laying out here, and I apologize if I am asking that you get just a little more remedial in order for me to understand what you are saying here. But, if you have "Government Insurance", operating in a standard 80/20 fashion, as insurance does today, and they are responsible for paying Doc's, and taking that out of the equation for businesses to offer in terms of compensation benefits, then how in the world can you say that Doc's don't in essence work for the government, or that things would be more efficient than they are now?

Or that people could even afford to purchase more coverage than what is offered? I think it would be pretty standard for business to just do away with the benefit, and not pass along that contribution they make on behalf of the employee that is not seen, and in many cases not known now?

The public option merely allows people to that that option, paying a premium. It too is an insurance and in av running, but isn't mandated.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what we have now in Obamacare? Especially in my state of SC, where the Governor is not going to set up the exchange and force the federal government to bear the cost of that?
 
j-mac said:
Ok, this is what is confusing me about what you are laying out here, and I apologize if I am asking that you get just a little more remedial in order for me to understand what you are saying here. But, if you have "Government Insurance", operating in a standard 80/20 fashion, as insurance does today, and they are responsible for paying Doc's, and taking that out of the equation for businesses to offer in terms of compensation benefits, then how in the world can you say that Doc's don't in essence work for the government, or that things would be more efficient than they are now?

Or that people could even afford to purchase more coverage than what is offered? I think it would be pretty standard for business to just do away with the benefit, and not pass along that contribution they make on behalf of the employee that is not s
een, and in many cases not known now?



Isn't that what we have now in Obamacare? Especially in my state of SC, where the Governor is not going to set up the exchange and force the federal government to bear the cost of that?
Click to expand...


Nearly all doctors work for insurance companies now if we use your logic. But, they really don't. Insurance companies limit payments to valid treatments, don't pay for treatments that have no history if success, and limit what they will pay. Most people today have insurance. So, 20% will be the burden of the patient. However, even with those restrictions, no one tells the doctor which treatments to use. As long as he's not a quack, he will follow rather traditional treatments any way. Like today, where he negotiates with your insurance company, and they do this, he will continue to do just that. Only now he insurance won't be linked to business, burdening them, and everyone will have insurance.


No. Today, with current reform, you have to go through a middleman, another insurance company, adding more paper work and steps.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nearly all doctors work for insurance companies now if we use your logic. But, they really don't. Insurance companies limit payments to valid treatments, don't pay for treatments that have no history if success, and limit what they will pay. Most people today have insurance. So, 20% will be the burden of the patient. However, even with those restrictions, no one tells the doctor which treatments to use. As long as he's not a quack, he will follow rather traditional treatments any way. Like today, where he negotiates with your insurance company, and they do this, he will continue to do just that. Only now he insurance won't be linked to business, burdening them, and everyone will have insurance.
Click to expand...


Ok, we now have nearly half the population not paying into the federal system due to credits, loopholes, and income levels that allow things like the earned income credit to afford those who didn't pay anything to get a rebate from filing....Who's going to pay for that? Me? Because I gotta tell ya, I am getting awfully tired of paying for my neighbors mortgage, foodstamps, and everything else. I work damned hard for my money, and have done the right things in order to achieve my standard of living, why should I pay for others that won't do the right thing? And even more so, why should I continue to bust my ass, if I can just get it for free off of your dime?

No. Today, with current reform, you have to go through a middleman, another insurance company, adding more paper work and steps.
Click to expand...

That was only the mechanism put in to break the current system while fleecing middle America with hidden tax. It was designed to fail.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, we now have nearly half the population not paying into the federal system due to credits, loopholes, and income levels that allow things like the earned income credit to afford those who didn't pay anything to get a rebate from filing....Who's going to pay for that? Me? Because I gotta tell ya, I am getting awfully tired of paying for my neighbors mortgage, foodstamps, and everything else. I work damned hard for my money, and have done the right things in order to achieve my standard of living, why should I pay for others that won't do the right thing? And even more so, why should I continue to bust my ass, if I can just get it for free off of your dime?



That was only the mechanism put in to break the current system while fleecing middle America with hidden tax. It was designed to fail.
Click to expand...

First, you overstate a bit what you're paying for. But even if it were completely true, your still paying more now than you would be in your insurance premium, at he hospital and doctors office, and in what your employer has to pay. Much of your cost is hidden now. Not easily seen. Doctors and hospitals pass along their costs. Insurance companies pass it along. Your employer picks up a huge chunk. It s really next to impossible o pay more than you are now.

And no, we could have had a public option.
 
Boo Radley said:
First, you overstate a bit what you're paying for. But even if it were completely true, your still paying more now than you would be in your insurance premium, at he hospital and doctors office, and in what your employer has to pay. Much of your cost is hidden now. Not easily seen. Doctors and hospitals pass along their costs. Insurance companies pass it along. Your employer picks up a huge chunk. It s really next to impossible o pay more than you are now.

And no, we could have had a public option.
Click to expand...

Ok, and what of that case where for example I pay about $40 per week now, and the employer picks up the rest of that premium which if I am not mistaken is about another $400 per month. Now, what happens in your UHC utopia when the employer drops the coverage I get through them, and doesn't adjust my pay to cover the $400 I lose that they contribute, and the government still wants $440 per month for their crappy plan?

As for the public option, makes no difference, it is all a cynical sham to move toward government control of health insurance anyway....
 
j-mac said:
Ok, and what of that case where for example I pay about $40 per week now, and the employer picks up the rest of that premium which if I am not mistaken is about another $400 per month. Now, what happens in your UHC utopia when the employer drops the coverage I get through them, and doesn't adjust my pay to cover the $400 I lose that they
contribute, and the government still wants $440 per month for their crappy plan?

As for the public option, makes no difference, it is all a cynical sham to move toward government control of health insurance anyway....
Click to expand...

No. Numbers keep premiums down. Your company is less for you and the company than if you bought it on your own. Sharing he risk reduces the premium. No matter how large the company, the country s larger. Btw, this argument has been made by insurance companies who know under the present system they are encouraged not to have ill people. Money comes from collecting from well people and not paying for I'll people. But if everyone is in the system, that problem is moot.

And anyone can call anything a sham. The fact remains as written it was just another insurance company.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. Numbers keep premiums down. Your company is less for you and the company than if you bought it on your own. Sharing he risk reduces the premium. No matter how large the company, the country s larger. Btw, this argument has been made by insurance companies who know under the present system they are encouraged not to have ill people. Money comes from collecting from well people and not paying for I'll people. But if everyone is in the system, that problem is moot.

And anyone can call anything a sham. The fact remains as written it was just another insurance company.
Click to expand...


More people in means more people to cover. We have half of America right now not contributing to federal tax revenue. To me then more people in means more people I have to cover.
 
j-mac said:
More people in means more people to cover. We have half of America right now not contributing to federal tax revenue. To me then more people in means more people I have to cover.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you already are covering them, in the most expensive way possible. Through in insurance premiums, price of co-pays which are elevated to pay for those who don't pay, let's pick a number, say two hundred a month. You'd rather pay that then forty more a month in taxes. And let's not mention that since insurance would be removed from business, they should be able to at least add half that four hundred dollar premium they were paying to you salary. The point is, you could well be paying less.
 
Boo Radley said:
Like I said, you already are covering them, in the most expensive way possible. Through in insurance premiums, price of co-pays which are elevated to pay for those who don't pay, let's pick a number, say two hundred a month. You'd rather pay that then forty more a month in taxes.
Click to expand...

IF you could ensure that would be the case, then sure I'd take that...But you can't and nothing concerning UHC that we can look at would suggest anything of the sort....

And let's not mention that since insurance would be removed from business, they should be able to at least add half that four hundred dollar premium they were paying to you salary. The point is, you could well be paying less.
Click to expand...


Pfft, oh yeah....What world do you live in? Most employers would suck that extra money saved from not having to contribute to your insurance and put it somewhere else in the business....I wouldn't see a dime of it....And until you can empirically prove that I'd be paying less for the same or better coverage, then all you are doing is guessing on hope.
 
j-mac said:
IF you could ensure that would be the case, then sure I'd take that...But you can't and nothing concerning UHC that we can look at would suggest anything of the sort....




Pfft, oh yeah....What world do you live in? Most employers would suck that extra money saved from not having to contribute to your insurance and put it somewhere else in the business....I wouldn't see a dime of it....And until you can empirically prove that I'd be paying less for the same or better coverage, then all you are doing is guessing on hope.
Click to expand...

So now you're demonizing business? :lamo

As for a assurances, here's what we know: we spent more for less access than anyone in the world. While I would take a good number of those systems, they still pay less and cover more people. And w have the ability to improve on or invent once we commit to an idea.
 
Boo Radley said:
Just show me how something that started happening long before reform is now reforms fault. That's all you have to do for this kettle mr. Pot.
Click to expand...

The housing crisis started happening before Bush, yet that was Bush's fault.

The hunt for Bin Laden started years before Bush, but Bush was blamed for not caring enough about that particular manhunt.

The transfer of wealth to other countries started happening years before Bush, but it's Bush's fault that corporations are moving business over seas.

What was that about pots and kettles?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
The housing crisis started happening before Bush, yet that was Bush's fault.

The hunt for Bin Laden started years before Bush, but Bush was blamed for not caring enough about that particular manhunt.

The transfer of wealth to other countries started happening years before Bush, but it's Bush's fault that corporations are moving business over seas.

What was that about pots and kettles?
Click to expand...

1. I don't blame either Bush or Obama for the housing crisis. There is, however, more than one place to lay some blame.

2. Regardless of when the hunt started, it is a fact Bush did drop the ball and inexcusably moved the focus to Iraq.

3. Not Bush's fault, but not anything he helped tackle. However, he's not alone on that.

So, the pot to kettle stands. You're arguing some strawman somewhere and not me.
 
NYT reporting that Obamacare causing some premiums to DOUBLE already.

Lemme guess. It's the boogeyman/monster in the closet Bush's fault or something
 
Bronson said:
NYT reporting that Obamacare causing some premiums to DOUBLE already.

Lemme guess. It's the boogeyman/monster in the closet Bush's fault or something
Click to expand...

Mind doubled before Obama was even elected. Damned Obamacare!!!
 
Hc premiums are rising faster under Obama than they ever did under the scapegoat Bush. Obama promised they'd go down 2500 if his garbage hc bill was passed. He lied.

You are reduced to buffoonery because you can't refute facts. Have fun with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom