• 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!

Senators Propose Giving States Option to Keep Affordable Care Act

ludin said:
the biggest driver of that was the 30 hour full time status. that is why a lot of employers cut back on hours their people worked.
it was stupid. it cut peoples pay checks by 5 or 6 hours a week easily.
Click to expand...

Won't get an argument from me about it cutting part time workers hours, because it did. But it didn't kill full time jobs, it simply created more part time jobs. The full time jobs were already gone, else, we wouldn't have needed ACA in the first place.


Bottom line? Employers were, and continue to, do everything they can to keep from offering insurance for their staff.

This is neither right nor wrong. It doesn't make employers evil. It doesnt vilify them. Well, at least, not in my book.

What IS wrong is seeing the way the wind is blowing, and doing nothing about it. And the wind is blowing towards a more labor less society.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This actually seems like a pretty good idea to me. Unfortunately, since its pragmatic and moderate in its approach, it probably stands little chance of getting anywhere. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

The ACA already gives states the right to implement their own healthcare plans so long as they do an equivalent job of providing coverage for their residents. Nobody has done it because realistically there aren't many good ways.

The whole reason why this needs to be a federal law in the first place is because one state guaranteeing health care to all it's residents could potentially put them at an economic disadvantage if their neighboring states don't. It could potentially cause sicker people to move to that state while healthier residents move away. This is one of the things that hurt Romneycare in Massachusetts. By making it a federal law you make relocation much more burdensome, and not realistically worth it.

This is of course root problem with all health insurance. In order to make money on health insurance you need to have as many healthy people as possible sign up, with as few sick people as possible signing up. The better job you do of doing that the more profit you make. Unfortunately this causes insurance companies to try and dump people with pre-existing conditions and elderly people even though they are the people who usually need insurance the most. They have to do this in order to keep rates low enough to attract relatively young and healthy people.

Any policy that doesn't attract enough young healthy people and too many older sicker people is going have to raise premiums. This is the only issue with the current system. The mandate didn't do enough to force young healthy people to sign up initially. This issue requires small changes not massive ones.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think the whole system will have to collapse before there is the political will to do what really needs to be done.
Click to expand...

That might actually be a reality.

Possibility 1: The GOP destroys the US health care system:
Unless the GOP can pull enough Democrats on board to force cloture, the only thing the GOP can do is not pay subsidies and possibly enforce fewer mandates.

Otherwise, all of the legal requirements stay. The GOP will essentially allow healthy people to opt out while still mandating that insurance companies cover sick people.... which they won't do. Insurance companies aren't going to provide health care to anyone. And crash goes the system.
​

Possibility 2: Health care costs destroy the US health care system:
Health care costs have been steadily rising, slightly lower under the ACA, but still rising significantly. Note this is health care costs, not insurance premiums. Once average health care costs exceed the average ability to pay for them, then average people won't be able to afford health care.​
 
jimbo said:
Why is the federal government involved in the people's right to purchase or not purchase a commercial product?

Health care is not a vested power.
Click to expand...

If you folks think the Patient Freedom Act, 2015/17 is far and away different from the good or bad components of ObamaCare (PPACA), then you haven't read the bill.

The individual mandate is still there; it just goes by another name, i.e., "default insurance coverage".

The tax penalty is still there; it's just delegated to the private insurance company who the state decides will cover you under a "default insurance plan" and passes that "tax penalty" on to the U.S. Treasury (IRS) as a "late fee" for up to 18-months at 10% your annual insurance rate or 1% of your monthly premium rate if you don't have insurance after 2-years.

Young adults under 26 can stay on their parent's insurance. That's good.

Those with pre-existing conditions will now have to go back to their respective state's high-risk pool and get insurance there. Premiums and deductibles for state high-risk pools were high before ObamaCare. They're sure to return to such high levels once the states get them back.

People who can't afford insurance or a state-sponsored health savings account (HSA) will still receive federal subsidies.

Medicaid will be expanded this time and federal block-grant funds will go towards the program...again. Only this time since the language of the bill isn't structured as "take it or else" the Supreme Court won't have a problem with the federal government "compelling" states to take the money this time.

There's more, but bottom line: If you thought the individual mandate and the tax penalty were going away, you were wrong! Or in the words of Malcomb X, "You've been had, banbuzzled, led astray, run amok..." This is ObamaCare by another name with far less words.

Oh...did I mention there are no pay-for's in this bill since all the taxes under ObamaCare are eliminated under this bill...that is, unless you include the penalties doctors, hospitals and other medical entities would be subjected to if they don't comply with this new law as outlined. (And you thought doctors were scared under ObamaCare...wait 'til they read this bill and see what the penalty is!)
 
Casper said:
Ok, you can option out.

Who is paying for this?
Click to expand...

Oh, if you opt-out there's a penalty if you don't get coverage OR you can still have a state-sponsored HSA forced upon you "by default".

So, you opt-out, but the scaled down version of coverage you get would likely be far worse and more costly than the one you leave behind.
 
Objective Voice said:
Oh, if you opt-out there's a penalty if you don't get coverage OR you can still have a state-sponsored HSA forced upon you "by default".

So, you opt-out, but the scaled down version of coverage you get would likely be far worse and more costly than the one you leave behind.
Click to expand...

Unless you have nothing to start with because good coverage is out of reach and the coverage that us available is basically useless for normal medical needs.
We shall see what the geniuses are going to come up with, after six years of whining it should be darn near perfect by this point, any minute now we will get it, right?
 
KevinKohler said:
Won't get an argument from me about it cutting part time workers hours, because it did. But it didn't kill full time jobs, it simply created more part time jobs. The full time jobs were already gone, else, we wouldn't have needed ACA in the first place.
Click to expand...

or they were jobs that could have been full time jobs but weren't due to cost.
obamacare made it unaffordable for smaller businesses to hire full time people when full time people would have been better.


Bottom line? Employers were, and continue to, do everything they can to keep from offering insurance for their staff.
Click to expand...

Simply not true. Employers have to weigh the cost of items against other measures. Many companies that had HSA plans for their
employee's had to drop them. if I offer and has and I am only paying 2000 per employee vs 5000+ per employee that is a huge difference.

This is neither right nor wrong. It doesn't make employers evil. It doesnt vilify them. Well, at least, not in my book.
What IS wrong is seeing the way the wind is blowing, and doing nothing about it. And the wind is blowing towards a more labor less society.
Click to expand...

that is what trump can turn around hopefully and get people working again. we had 8 years of a guy that despised American enterprise and hated American
companies. that is why he bound them all up in the sea of red tape and anti hiring bills.

he forced more automation onto people as businesses looked to cut costs.
 
Zyphlin said:
If a state wants to keep something like the ACA, then they should establish their own and run it as such. The Federal Government shouldn't have Federal Law dictating it, that applies to some states but not to others, and which all 50 states are bearing the burden of running said program.

I have no issue if a state decides it wants to do something like the ACA, or even if they want to find some form of single payer even; but it should be a state program, not a federal program utilized by a handful of states but likely subsidized by the entire 50.
Click to expand...

Well, having healthcare cover over between mutiple states increases the risk pool. And if you are going across mutiple states that is commerce crossing state lines would put it in federal jurisdiction I'd think.
 
ludin said:
or they were jobs that could have been full time jobs but weren't due to cost.
obamacare made it unaffordable for smaller businesses to hire full time people when full time people would have been better.




Simply not true. Employers have to weigh the cost of items against other measures. Many companies that had HSA plans for their
employee's had to drop them. if I offer and has and I am only paying 2000 per employee vs 5000+ per employee that is a huge difference.



that is what trump can turn around hopefully and get people working again. we had 8 years of a guy that despised American enterprise and hated American
companies. that is why he bound them all up in the sea of red tape and anti hiring bills.

he forced more automation onto people as businesses looked to cut costs.
Click to expand...
I think we agree on goal, however, I have to say to you, that almost none of your post is entirely accurate. Full time jobs were on the wane well before obamacare. But frankly, arguing that is pointless. The crux of the matter is...why. Why is full time employment on the way out? Benefits? Sure, requiring benefits for employees that work over a certain number of hours is expensive. ACA didn't create this problem, though. It's in response to it. There's another reason, though. Reduce the work week. Why do this? To get back to "full employment" in an economy with fewer labor hours needed, but an ever increasing pool of labor.
 
KevinKohler said:
Some of it was political, in that it was enacted by people who are paid too well not to enact it. But ultimately, politics isn't relevant, as automation will eventually kill more jobs than outsourcing. And Trump ain't gonna change that.
Click to expand...

If robots take over all the labor which is far from a certainty I want those robots to be made and operated in the US

And all that is years or a generation down the road
 
KevinKohler said:
I think we agree on goal, however, I have to say to you, that almost none of your post is entirely accurate. Full time jobs were on the wane well before obamacare. But frankly, arguing that is pointless. The crux of the matter is...why. Why is full time employment on the way out? Benefits? Sure, requiring benefits for employees that work over a certain number of hours is expensive. ACA didn't create this problem, though. It's in response to it. There's another reason, though. Reduce the work week. Why do this? To get back to "full employment" in an economy with fewer labor hours needed, but an ever increasing pool of labor.
Click to expand...

Companies are citing a demand for workers but a lot of applications are not meeting the strict requirements.
after 2008 a lot of companies got really really tight on their hiring requirements.

where before if you met 75% of the requirements then you were good. now if you don't meet 98-99 or 100% of the requirements
then you are just SOL.

the biggest hit to lower hours is low level income jobs where needing hours is almost a requirement.
higher operating costs on those people have pushed back the scale of full time jobs.

professional fields do not have that issue. you don't see network admins working part time.
we have to make it more advantageous for businesses who hire lower skill workers to work them more
hours.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/...ct-bill-cassidy-susan-collins-trump.html?_r=0

This actually seems like a pretty good idea to me. Unfortunately, since its pragmatic and moderate in its approach, it probably stands little chance of getting anywhere. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

All the bluster about the deregulatory "across-state-lines" nonsense being a key part of whatever they come up with and now yet another throw-it-at-the-wall proposal that's the complete opposite of that.

The GOP seems very confused at present.
 
Objective Voice said:
If you folks think the Patient Freedom Act, 2015/17 is far and away different from the good or bad components of ObamaCare (PPACA), then you haven't read the bill.

The individual mandate is still there; it just goes by another name, i.e., "default insurance coverage".

The tax penalty is still there; it's just delegated to the private insurance company who the state decides will cover you under a "default insurance plan" and passes that "tax penalty" on to the U.S. Treasury (IRS) as a "late fee" for up to 18-months at 10% your annual insurance rate or 1% of your monthly premium rate if you don't have insurance after 2-years.

Young adults under 26 can stay on their parent's insurance. That's good.

Those with pre-existing conditions will now have to go back to their respective state's high-risk pool and get insurance there. Premiums and deductibles for state high-risk pools were high before ObamaCare. They're sure to return to such high levels once the states get them back.

People who can't afford insurance or a state-sponsored health savings account (HSA) will still receive federal subsidies.

Medicaid will be expanded this time and federal block-grant funds will go towards the program...again. Only this time since the language of the bill isn't structured as "take it or else" the Supreme Court won't have a problem with the federal government "compelling" states to take the money this time.

There's more, but bottom line: If you thought the individual mandate and the tax penalty were going away, you were wrong! Or in the words of Malcomb X, "You've been had, banbuzzled, led astray, run amok..." This is ObamaCare by another name with far less words.

Oh...did I mention there are no pay-for's in this bill since all the taxes under ObamaCare are eliminated under this bill...that is, unless you include the penalties doctors, hospitals and other medical entities would be subjected to if they don't comply with this new law as outlined. (And you thought doctors were scared under ObamaCare...wait 'til they read this bill and see what the penalty is!)
Click to expand...

I believe you missed my point, or chose to ignore it.
 
jimbo said:
Which has nothing to do with the here and now.
Click to expand...

And yet totally relevant to debating a person who's response is to quote specific passages of the constitution as a debate tactic concerning government regulation.
 
KevinKohler said:
And yet totally relevant to debating a person who's response is to quote specific passages of the constitution as a debate tactic concerning government regulation.
Click to expand...

Today, however, the Constitution is very much valid.

References to slavery, aren't.
 
jimbo said:
Today, however, the Constitution is very much valid.

References to slavery, aren't.
Click to expand...

Slavery existed after the constitution was put into effect. It took national government intervention to stop slavery.

It's simply a way to trash the arguments of those who want little to no federal government.
 
KevinKohler said:
Slavery existed after the constitution was put into effect. It took national government intervention to stop slavery.

It's simply a way to trash the arguments of those who want little to no federal government.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with the topic of the day.
 
jimbo said:
Which has nothing to do with the topic of the day.
Click to expand...

I didn't bring it up, someone else did. Make a claim, I make a counter. That's how this works.
 
jimbo said:
I believe you missed my point, or chose to ignore it.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss your point nor did I ignore it. But you're correct in that I didn't answer your question. If anything I further made your point...

jimbo said:
Why is the federal government involved in the people's right to purchase or not purchase a commercial product?

Health care is not a vested power.
Click to expand...

...illustrating that it's not just the Democrats who would have citizens pay for a product they don't want. The Republican healthcare reform bill, the Patient Freedom Act of 2015/2017, would force a health insurance plan on you, too.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "healthcare isn't a vested power" unless you mean it's not one of Congress' enumerated powers under the Constitution. If that's what you're implying, there are some who would disagree with you since the Supreme Court ruled long ago that (life) insurance, when financial transactions cross state lines, makes the matter national in scope. I forget the exact case, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom