• 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

The employer mandate is fully enforced at this moment? I know it was delayed until after the 2014 election, but did it actually kick in?

Actually Hussein(Obama) delayed the employer mandate until 2016 in hopes of the democrats not catching the wrath in the 2014 midterm elections. He was not savvy enough to work out that employers do not just sit around and wait for such policies to come into effect. They start to prepare a year or two in advance and change their hiring practices and adjust their capital investments accordingly. And the delay did not help the democrats. They were devastated in the 2014 midterms.
 
I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that most of the companies that are holding tons of money already offered insurance before the ACA, so they don't really have a need to hold money due to concerns about the ACA.

The difference is that when the employer mandate hit's it will be prohibitively more expensive to provide that insurance due to the amount of coverage mandates and taxes that will come with it. That is why they are not only holding onto cash flow, they are simply hiring massively fewer full time employees.
 
The difference is that when the employer mandate hit's it will be prohibitively more expensive to provide that insurance due to the amount of coverage mandates and taxes that will come with it. That is why they are not only holding onto cash flow, they are simply hiring massively fewer full time employees.

I still think it's funny that your username highlights the thing you seem to know nothing about.

The employer mandate will affect very few businesses- those that have between 50-100 employees that do not currently offer insurance. 90% of those businesses already do, and virtually 100% do with 100+ employees.

So the cash reserves of corporations have absolutely nothing to do with the ACA, and the employer mandate is a pretty small piece of the ACA anyway.
 
Here in Ontario, Canada, almost 50% of every government revenue dollar is spent on healthcare services of some kind. However, even with that large outlay, the single payer system funds only about 40% of all pharmaceuticals, primarily for the very poor and through hospital care - the other 60% is paid for by the patient. As well, each year, more and more services are delisted from the program and become patient paid. Our single payer system doesn't cover dentistry, optometry, chiropractic, orthopedics, etc. This is why most working people have supplementary health insurance plans with their employer and many self employed and retired people purchase additional coverage themselves at significant individual cost.

But as you say, we here in Canada have known nothing else - the system has been in place for over half a century and very few Canadians would ever agree to give it up. But we are moving more and more towards a private supply system because the public system can't keep up with demand and cost pressures.

Yep. That is the problem with government run healthcare systems. Once they work out the reality that going to a government system does not lower the cost of actually providing healthcare, they can only attempt to control the costs by rationing the healthcare they do provide or offering less and less of it as time goes on. It's the same with Social Security and Medicare in the USA. As the programs become less solvent, they start adding things such as means tests, more taxes, extending the age before eligibility, as well as cutting the amount of re-imbursement to doctors who treat medicare patients. Hopefully our good friends to the north will successfully wean themselves completely off of single payer at some point.
 
and as i said, the ACA is not the solution i support. however, i still have yet to see a poster in a single payer country who would trade systems with us. and if there is one, let the stories begin, because i bet you that i can talk him or her out of it pretty quickly. episode one will be the case of the two thousand dollar cut thumb. episode two will be the COBRA mistake colonoscopy saga. that one had a happier ending, and only cost me eight hundred bucks.

Well...I think we both agree that healthcare in the USA at this point in time is prohibitively expensive. We may never agree on how to resolve it. Reform is needed, however that reform must actually address the cost of actually providing healthcare. No government mandates are going to accomplish that. All government mandates do is shift the costs around and cause more administrative costs.....for instance the 10,000 new IRS agents to enforce obamacare. Workable reform must make providing healthcare cost competitive. That is how the free market is supposed to work. It's why you can go to a department store and purchase a decent 40 inch high definition television set for $400.00 or less rather then $1200.00 or more.
 
It just seems like if it was a good as you people say, Democrats like Mary Landrieu would still have a job.

But that wasn't the case.

And as for 2012, idiots who are drawn in by talking points and who equate Presidential qualifications to empty platitudes and bumper sticker slogans dont. really possess the ability to be objective and vote based on the issue's.

Apparently those people vote in Presidential elections and stay home for the Midterms

Its why Obama floated the mandatory voting ballon.

Yep. Obama wants to make sure the entitlement crowd shows up to vote and keeps voting for the politicians who give them the handouts.
 
Well...I think we both agree that healthcare in the USA at this point in time is prohibitively expensive. We may never agree on how to resolve it. Reform is needed, however that reform must actually address the cost of actually providing healthcare. No government mandates are going to accomplish that. All government mandates do is shift the costs around and cause more administrative costs.....for instance the 10,000 new IRS agents to enforce obamacare. Workable reform must make providing healthcare cost competitive. That is how the free market is supposed to work. It's why you can go to a department store and purchase a decent 40 inch high definition television set for $400.00 or less rather then $1200.00 or more.

Can't have a free market when the consumer does not directly pay for the product.
 
Sign ups are well under predictions. Oregon's website was a complete failure. Parts of it have been overturned in the courts with more decisions to come. Yeah, I know that giving you truth and facts will confuse you, but that's OK.

Yes....very much below predictions.....which is why the Obama admin is doing robo-calls to notify Americans that the deadline for the ACA open enrollment period has been extended. I hung up on two of those calls yesterday at work.
 
Well...I think we both agree that healthcare in the USA at this point in time is prohibitively expensive. We may never agree on how to resolve it. Reform is needed, however that reform must actually address the cost of actually providing healthcare. No government mandates are going to accomplish that. All government mandates do is shift the costs around and cause more administrative costs.....for instance the 10,000 new IRS agents to enforce obamacare. Workable reform must make providing healthcare cost competitive. That is how the free market is supposed to work. It's why you can go to a department store and purchase a decent 40 inch high definition television set for $400.00 or less rather then $1200.00 or more.

yeah, we agree on part of it. however, i have trouble believing that the free market will ever provide an essential service with inelastic demand efficiently. i'm for addressing it the way that most other first world countries have. the fact that anyone ever goes broke due to illness or injury drives me nuts. we can do better than that.
 
I still think it's funny that your username highlights the thing you seem to know nothing about.

The employer mandate will affect very few businesses- those that have between 50-100 employees that do not currently offer insurance. 90% of those businesses already do, and virtually 100% do with 100+ employees.

So the cash reserves of corporations have absolutely nothing to do with the ACA, and the employer mandate is a pretty small piece of the ACA anyway.

Your lack of intellectual honesty is amazing. My own employer has over 600 employees on the payroll. The company is very much affected financially by obamacare. Yes.....they offered health insurance prior to obamacare, however under obamacare, providing that insurance is prohibitively more expensive. They are responding by limiting all low skilled new hires to part time status with 30 hours or less. And much of their capital spending is suddenly invested in technology that will allow one low skilled employee to do the work of four. It is you that is putting on an ignorance act in regards to obamacare and expecting everyone to buy into it. For instance the insurance that employers will be forced to offer under obamacare is not the same as the insurance they provided before obamacare. The mandates that come with what they have to provide under obamacare are considerably more costly. You seem to be trying so hard to put lipstick on the "pig" known as obamacare, that I sometimes wonder what you are gaining from those efforts.
 
Last edited:
yeah, we agree on part of it. however, i have trouble believing that the free market will ever provide an essential service with inelastic demand efficiently. i'm for addressing it the way that most other first world countries have. the fact that anyone ever goes broke due to illness or injury drives me nuts. we can do better than that.

When has any nation's government provided an essential service with inelastic demand efficiently without massive cuts in what is actually provided? I share your sympathy for those in any nation who go broke due to illness or injury, however removing the profit motive simply reduces available services. If we go to a single payer system, government bean counters will be making the decisions on how much high tech medical equipment is purchased. One example is MRI units. There are five of them within a 20 minute drive of my house. And I live in a rural area. If your doctor prescribes an MRI, chances are you get get one on the same day or within a few days. Under a single payer system, you would likely go on a waiting list as government bean counters would only fund a limited number of the machines. Look at how poorly the VA Healthcare system is running. I am sure you have heard of the recent scandals. Single payer would drop us down to that level of care.
 
Your lack of intellectual honesty is amazing. My own employer has over 600 employees on the payroll. The company is very much affected financially by obamacare. Yes.....they offered health insurance prior to obamacare, however under obamacare, providing that insurance is prohibitively more expensive. They are responding by limiting all low skilled new hires to part time status with 30 hours or less. And much of their capital spending is suddenly invested in technology that will allow one low skilled employee to do the work of four. It is you that is putting on an ignorance act in regards to obamacare and expecting everyone to buy into it. For instance the insurance that employers will be forced to offer under obamacare is not the same as the insurance they provided before obamacare. The mandates that come with what they have to provide under obamacare are considerably more costly. You seem to be trying so hard to put lipstick on the "pig" known as obamacare, that I sometimes wonder what you are gaining from those efforts.

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.
 
When has any nation's government provided an essential service with inelastic demand efficiently without massive cuts in what is actually provided? I share your sympathy for those in any nation who go broke due to illness or injury, however removing the profit motive simply reduces available services. If we go to a single payer system, government bean counters will be making the decisions on how much high tech medical equipment is purchased. One example is MRI units. There are five of them within a 20 minute drive of my house. And I live in a rural area. If your doctor prescribes an MRI, chances are you get get one on the same day or within a few days. Under a single payer system, you would likely go on a waiting list as government bean counters would only fund a limited number of the machines. Look at how poorly the VA Healthcare system is running. I am sure you have heard of the recent scandals. Single payer would drop us down to that level of care.

other first world countries are achieving the same or better outcomes for a lot less money.

cost-of-long-life.jpg
 
Yup. They are already satisfying demand. No point in expanding when demand is already being satisfied. That would just be wasting money.

And with productivity (units of production per man hour) increasing, I wouldn't expect demand to exceed production any time soon, maybe never again. We are entering the age where scarcity isn't the issue, the issue is having an economic system that allows everyone to purchase good and services in an ample quantity for businesses to be able to expand. It's a paradigm shift in our economy.

You increase demand by increasing production.

Production is being stifled by poorly thought out destructive policies that were implemented under the pretense of fairness and affordablity.

Tax Increases on Capital and mandates that increase cost with Regulations that stifle investment and innovation have thrown a massive wet blanket on the economy.

Prior to 2008 banks would never leave stagnant captital sit around earning nothing. But over 80 percent of the liquidity created by QE sits idle on the books of the FED.

What some people call. " Corporate Greed " is actually the consequence of destructive policies and Government action meant to address that so called greed.

You make light of this but whats happening now is unprecedented. Wealth stagnant and not working to create jobs and opportunities as Liberals continue to push for Higher taxes and imposing regulations.

Its hilarious.

Conservatives warn Progressive policies will stifle investment and lead to stagnation then provide examples.

Progressives implement those policies and the economy suffers and then Progressives DEMAND Businesses and the Rich invest their money as a solution which makes things even worse.
 
I still think it's funny that your username highlights the thing you seem to know nothing about.

The employer mandate will affect very few businesses- those that have between 50-100 employees that do not currently offer insurance. 90% of those businesses already do, and virtually 100% do with 100+ employees.

So the cash reserves of corporations have absolutely nothing to do with the ACA, and the employer mandate is a pretty small piece of the ACA anyway.

I'm curious - if you're correct, why is it then that several companies have indicated they will drop employer funded health insurance when the mandate comes in and why does the CBO suggest 20 million will lose their employer funded health insurance when the ACA mandate kicks in?

CBO report says healthcare law could cause as many as 20M to lose coverage | TheHill
 
I'm curious - if you're correct, why is it then that several companies have indicated they will drop employer funded health insurance when the mandate comes in and why does the CBO suggest 20 million will lose their employer funded health insurance when the ACA mandate kicks in?

CBO report says healthcare law could cause as many as 20M to lose coverage | TheHill

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.
 
You increase demand by increasing production.

Production is being stifled by poorly thought out destructive policies that were implemented under the pretense of fairness and affordablity.

Tax Increases on Capital and mandates that increase cost with Regulations that stifle investment and innovation have thrown a massive wet blanket on the economy.

Prior to 2008 banks would never leave stagnant captital sit around earning nothing. But over 80 percent of the liquidity created by QE sits idle on the books of the FED.

What some people call. " Corporate Greed " is actually the consequence of destructive policies and Government action meant to address that so called greed.

You make light of this but whats happening now is unprecedented. Wealth stagnant and not working to create jobs and opportunities as Liberals continue to push for Higher taxes and imposing regulations.

Its hilarious.

Conservatives warn Progressive policies will stifle investment and lead to stagnation then provide examples.

Progressives implement those policies and the economy suffers and then Progressives DEMAND Businesses and the Rich invest their money as a solution which makes things even worse.



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
 
other first world countries are achieving the same or better outcomes for a lot less money.

View attachment 67182414



Outright dishonesty!

You are comparing universal systems to the US and Obama death care, the worst health care plan in the known universe.

We accomplish this by doing it three right way, instead of creating new classes of people in an income redistribution scheme and tax posing as health care. You don't have a health care plan, you have the most confusing and complicated tax plan known to mankind that, in the end, changes nothing in terms of who gets what coverage.

It is a bigger **** pile than before and has set 'progress' back at least three decades; before this there was growing support for UHC based on the economics, how it is an advantage to business...now, never.

Obamacare will be seen as the greatest domestic screw up and wrong turn the nation has ever made.
 
I'm curious - if you're correct, why is it then that several companies have indicated they will drop employer funded health insurance when the mandate comes in and why does the CBO suggest 20 million will lose their employer funded health insurance when the ACA mandate kicks in?

CBO report says healthcare law could cause as many as 20M to lose coverage | TheHill

If you want to see what the ACTUAL effect of the mandate is, rather than an imagined effect, read this:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/survey-obamacare-employment-mandate-116159.html
 
Outright dishonesty!

You are comparing universal systems to the US and Obama death care, the worst health care plan in the known universe.

We accomplish this by doing it three right way, instead of creating new classes of people in an income redistribution scheme and tax posing as health care. You don't have a health care plan, you have the most confusing and complicated tax plan known to mankind that, in the end, changes nothing in terms of who gets what coverage.

It is a bigger **** pile than before and has set 'progress' back at least three decades; before this there was growing support for UHC based on the economics, how it is an advantage to business...now, never.

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

i don't support the ACA, as it is a half measure. i support single payer.
 
Back
Top Bottom