Union pulls support for Obamacare, a sign of things to come?

[.blank cd]

Total provincial health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 7.5%
over the last ten years, compared to only 5.7% for total available provincial
revenue (including federal transfers) and only 5.2% for GDP.

• Across Canada, government spending on health has grown faster (8.1%
annually) on average than GDP (6.7% annually) since 1975. Government
health expenditures accounted for 8.4% of GDP in 2009 compared to only
5.4% of GDP in 1975.

• As of 2011, provincial health spending in Ontario and Quebec currently
consumes more than 50% of total revenues.

• Projections of the most recent ten-year trend show that in Saskatchewan,
Alberta, British Columbia, and New Brunswick government health spending
is on pace to consume 50% of revenues by 2017. In Manitoba and Prince
Edward Island, health spending will reach 50% of total available revenues
by 2028.

• Excluding federal transfers, health spending currently consumes 87.7%
of total available provincial own-source revenue in Nova Scotia, 74.2% in
New Brunswick, 71.9% in Quebec, 65.5% in Prince Edward Island, 63.1% in
Ontario, 62.8% in Manitoba, 60.3% in Newfoundland & Labrador, 55.2% in
Saskatchewan, 54.6% in British Columbia, and 48.0% in Alberta.

• Provincial governments have increased taxes to fund health care. In 2004,
Ontario introduced an income surtax, which the province mislabeled
a “health premium.” In 2010, the province of Quebec introduced a new
health tax called the “health contribution.” Like Ontario’s “health premium,”
Quebec’s “health contribution” is not linked to individual consumption of
medical goods and services; it is in fact an income surtax and will therefore
have no impact on costs because there is no incentive effect on the consumption
choices of health care users.

• Federal transfers have been generous over the period. Between 1997/98 and
2006/07, the federal government provided the provinces with an estimated
$115.7 billion in cash transfers for health care—$36.0 billion more than needed
to keep up with population growth and inflation over the same period.Why? What's the cause?


How's that for facts? Try to deny them, and try to claim that you are "educated and intellectual".You can quit the ad hominems now. It's become REALLY tired. There's a clear difference between the dismission of facts and the criticism of them. You're smarter than that, Id hope.

[.blank cd]

Everything is conservative in regards to your very liberal position - that's the problem. You think that your extreme left-wing liberals are the middle.My very liberal position? You think universal healthcare is a liberal position? Do you know what "extreme left wing" means? Do you know the definition of "liberal" and conservative?

Yes. With respect to the Limbaugh/Hannity/Brietbart/Fox News "Obamas a socialist Marxist communist Muslim gun grabber" conspiracy BS brand of conservatism, I'm very left of that. I don't want anything to do with that. But that's not conservatism, nor is that rooted fiscal responsibility or even reality. That's the reason why you hear so little from actual conservatives because that shit gives conservatives a bad name


Like I said previously, name another think tank that is higher ranked or more relevant to assessing the Canadian government managed healthcare system.I don't care where you get the facts from. Don't misrepresent them and try to pretend they say something they don't say. Period.

[David88vert]

Why? What's the cause?

You can quit the ad hominems now. It's become REALLY tired. There's a clear difference between the dismission of facts and the criticism of them. You're smarter than that, Id hope.


You asked for a fact, I gave you several of them. If you had bothered to actually open the report that you are critical of, you would already know the answers to your questions. Obviously, you did not, and are dismissing the report without any knowledge of the data, methodology, authors, references, etc. - all very open and public.

I am simply asking you questions, which is your own method for answering questions. Perhaps you should consider learning to actually look for your own answers, and how to use comprehension when you read.

So, answer the question, are you more educated that the authors or the editorial advisory board? Are you wiser than their Nobel laureates?

The end result is that you are unable to refute these facts, or the Fraser Institutes findings, and you choose to simply dismiss them as they do not fit with your own beliefs. Your own beliefs rely only on the talking points that you see on TV and the internet, and are not based upon a specific dataset and published methodology, as the Fraser Institute's report was.

What's funny is how you criticize Sinfix for believing right-wing media like Fox, when you do the same thing with the left-wing media.

[David88vert]

My very liberal position? You think universal healthcare is a liberal position? Do you know what "extreme left wing" means? Do you know the definition of "liberal" and conservative?

Yes. With respect to the Limbaugh/Hannity/Brietbart/Fox News "Obamas a socialist Marxist communist Muslim gun grabber" conspiracy BS brand of conservatism, I'm very left of that. I don't want anything to do with that. But that's not conservatism, nor is that rooted fiscal responsibility or even reality. That's the reason why you hear so little from actual conservatives because that shit gives conservatives a bad name

I don't care where you get the facts from. Don't misrepresent them and try to pretend they say something they don't say. Period.

You're a liberal in your political positioning on the issues. We've seen that. You can deny it, but it's clear to everyone else. That's your prerogative though, and fine with me, just as its fine with me that Sinfix is conservative.

Like I said, name a think tank that is better qualified and that you would listen to the results from. Don't try to get out if it by saying "I don't care", as you clearly do care when you won't trust the top think tank in Canada, who actually publishes the data and the methodology utilized.

[.blank cd]

You asked for a fact, I gave you several of them. If you had bothered to actually open the report that you are critical of, you would already know the answers to your questions. Obviously, you did not, and are dismissing the report without any knowledge of the data, methodology, authors, references, etc. - all very open and public.I see what you quoted. Once again, I haven't even attempted to dismiss the report yet. Next.


So, answer the question, are you more educated that the authors or the editorial advisory board? Are you wiser than their Nobel laureates?What does me being more or less wise have to do with anything? Another ad hominem and an appeal to authority. Fallacy after fallacy.


The end result is that you are unable to refute these facts, or the Fraser Institutes findings, and you choose to simply dismiss them as they do not fit with your own beliefs. Your own beliefs rely only on the talking points that you see on TV and the internet, and are not based upon a specific dataset and published methodology, as the Fraser Institute's report was.Haven't tried to refute them at all. You don't know what refuting means. Haven't interjected my beliefs at all either. Dont even watch TV. Next.


What's funny is how you criticize Sinfix for believing right-wing media like Fox, when you do the same thing with the left-wing media.
I call out "left wing media" when it missteps. Trust me. Doesn't seem to be a big factor here in this echo chamber though.

[.blank cd]

You're a liberal in your political positioning on the issues. We've seen that. You can deny it, but it's clear to everyone else. That's your prerogative though, and fine with me, just as its fine with me that Sinfix is conservative.Some. Conservative on others. Haven't made voiced many positions of mine, and you havent really demonstrated your knowledge of what "conservative" and what "liberal" is, so its tough for you to accurately make that call. Sinfix is not a conservative, he only echo's the opinion of the things he sees in the media that fit his preconceived notions. He rarely reports an opinion of his own, and when he does, its often very libertarian. Your idea of a left-right paradigm does not exist in reality.


Like I said, name a think tank that is better qualified and that you would listen to the results from. Don't try to get out if it by saying "I don't care", as you clearly do care when you won't trust the top think tank in Canada, who actually publishes the data and the methodology utilized.Not trying to get out of anything. I don't care where the truth comes from as long as its the truth and not someone's version of it. I don't care if the Koch brothers donated a dollar or a billion. If their numbers are accurate, then somewhere else there are another set of accurate numbers.

[Vteckidd]

I don't care where you get the facts from. Don't misrepresent them and try to pretend they say something they don't say. Period.

LOL i about fell off my chair when I read this. If it isnt what you think is true, you dont believe it. Thats why i said its futile to even argue anymore because no matter what anyone says, you have some snarky comeback and you try to change the subject or deflect. its a good tactic honestly.

I mean you tried to sit here and argue against sound pure economic theory, thats taught in colleges all around America and say I was wrong and you were right, despite every economist and entity saying youre wrong. So then David posts a reputable study and you say "LOL"

Im also willing to submit that almost any think tank/study group has some sort of money tied to some political group. It just happens. Funding comes from places, and those places probably have political connections, doesnt mean the data collected is wrong.

Come on, use your "critical thinking" skills

[Vteckidd]

Some. Conservative on others. Haven't made voiced many positions of mine, and you havent really demonstrated your knowledge of what "conservative" and what "liberal" is, so its tough for you to accurately make that call. Sinfix is not a conservative, he only echo's the opinion of the things he sees in the media that fit his preconceived notions. He rarely reports an opinion of his own, and when he does, its often very libertarian. Your idea of a left-right paradigm does not exist in reality.

Not trying to get out of anything. I don't care where the truth comes from as long as its the truth and not someone's version of it. I don't care if the Koch brothers donated a dollar or a billion. If their numbers are accurate, then somewhere else there are another set of accurate numbers.

Someone as deep into the Obama regime and their thinking, you are also equally not qualified to distinguish right from left.

I am probably the most middle in this forum(as evidence by my stance on gay marriage and gun control where i differ from the GOP), then David, you and Sinfix are polar opposites. Hes very very rightwing/Libertarian (libertarian has roots in extreme right wing ) and you are very progressive and left.

[David88vert]

I see what you quoted. Once again, I haven't even attempted to dismiss the report yet. Next.

When I mentioned Koch Industries, you didn't say that was all that you needed to see?


What does me being more or less wise have to do with anything? Another ad hominem and an appeal to authority. Fallacy after fallacy.

You have referred to education and intellect many times. Now, when I show you a group of people who all have a lot more education and have been recognized globally for their intellect, suddenly that no longer matters, as they do not come to the same conclusions as you do, even though they have all of the data, and you do not.


Haven't tried to refute them at all. You don't know what refuting means. Haven't interjected my beliefs at all either. Dont even watch TV. Next.

No, you don't refute, you just dismiss based on two words - Koch Industries.
You certainly couldn't dismiss it on facts, so what else is there that you could base your dismissal on besides your own personal opinion/belief?



I call out "left wing media" when it missteps. Trust me. Doesn't seem to be a big factor here in this echo chamber though.

Where was this "calling out the left wing media"? I must have missed that one.
Trust you? Why?


Some. Conservative on others. Haven't made voiced many positions of mine, and you havent really demonstrated your knowledge of what "conservative" and what "liberal" is, so its tough for you to accurately make that call. Sinfix is not a conservative, he only echo's the opinion of the things he sees in the media that fit his preconceived notions. He rarely reports an opinion of his own, and when he does, its often very libertarian. Your idea of a left-right paradigm does not exist in reality.

So, you are determining what is difficult for me now? Let me make this clear to you. We have seen your positions on political discussions, the point that you attempt to argue, your pseudo-intellect, and your attempts to be arrogant. In reality, you do not know what I believe, nor anyone else. You can "trust me" on that.


Not trying to get out of anything. I don't care where the truth comes from as long as its the truth and not someone's version of it. I don't care if the Koch brothers donated a dollar or a billion. If their numbers are accurate, then somewhere else there are another set of accurate numbers.

Are you really this dumb? And you think that you are educated and intelligent? The data came from outside the Fraser Institute - directly from the Canadian government. The methodology was clearly defined and followed to reach a logical and rational conclusion by educated authors. It was reviewed by highly regarded professors, and published globally. Where is this other "set of accurate numbers" that you speak of supposed to come from?
And - where is the answer to the question that I asked you - what think tank will you recognize? Quit ducking the original question - if you don't have an answer, just concede that this time, you have no choice but to accept that the Fraser Institute's assessment is the best current published conclusion.

[David88vert]

Someone as deep into the Obama regime and their thinking, you are also equally not qualified to distinguish right from left.

I am probably the most middle in this forum(as evidence by my stance on gay marriage and gun control where i differ from the GOP), then David, you and Sinfix are polar opposites. Hes very very rightwing/Libertarian (libertarian has roots in extreme right wing ) and you are very progressive and left.

But where do you stand on "shotgun weddings" of gay couples?

[Vteckidd]

But where do you stand on "shotgun weddings" of gay couples?

You love who you love.............................................. .......git him dun

[.blank cd]

Someone as deep into the Obama regime and their thinking, you are also equally not qualified to distinguish right from left.Hmmmm.....dunno bout all that.


I am probably the most middle in this forum(as evidence by my stance on gay marriage and gun control where i differ from the GOP)Also evidenced by your stance on the absolute free market...and your stance on benghazi.


then David, you and Sinfix are polar opposites. Hes very very rightwing/Libertarian (libertarian has roots in extreme right wing ) and you are very progressive and left.I would hardly consider Sinfix a polar opposite, and I would hardly consider myself very left with as many conservative opinions I hold.

[.blank cd]

When I mentioned Koch Industries, you didn't say that was all that you needed to see?I did say that


You have referred to education and intellect many times. Now, when I show you a group of people who all have a lot more education and have been recognized globally for their intellect, suddenly that no longer matters, as they do not come to the same conclusions as you do, even though they have all of the data, and you do not.Except that I haven't come to a conclusion, except the conclusion that I'd like more info to make a conclusion. My qualifications wouldn't make me or them any less wrong or right. Period.


No, you don't refute, you just dismiss based on two words - Koch Industries.
You certainly couldn't dismiss it on facts, so what else is there that you could base your dismissal on besides your own personal opinion/belief?I dismissed your claim that Koch was liberal. It is in fact not at all. That was all Ive dismissed so far.





Where was this "calling out the left wing media"? I must have missed that one.
Trust you? Why?Because no one posts any "left wing media" for me to call out for being wrong/misleading


So, you are determining what is difficult for me now? Let me make this clear to you. We have seen your positions on political discussions, the point that you attempt to argue, your pseudo-intellect, and your attempts to be arrogant. In reality, you do not know what I believe, nor anyone else. You can "trust me" on that.Yes. I am saying based on the little amount of opinions I've given, you can't accurately make a hasty generalization.




Are you really this dumb? And you think that you are educated and intelligent? The data came from outside the Fraser Institute - directly from the Canadian government. The methodology was clearly defined and followed to reach a logical and rational conclusion by educated authors. It was reviewed by highly regarded professors, and published globally.Still havent said otherwise. Strawman and another ad hominem. Tough for you to make your case without a logical fallacy huh?


Where is this other "set of accurate numbers" that you speak of supposed to come from?
And - where is the answer to the question that I asked you - what think tank will you recognize? Quit ducking the original question - if you don't have an answer, just concede that this time, you have no choice but to accept that the Fraser Institute's assessment is the best current published conclusion.I've given an answer a million times, I recognize this ones facts. Do I need to say it again? I recognize this ones facts. Ask me again which one I recognize.

[Vteckidd]

Hmmmm.....dunno bout all that.

Also evidenced by your stance on the absolute free market...and your stance on benghazi.

I would hardly consider Sinfix a polar opposite, and I would hardly consider myself very left with as many conservative opinions I hold.

What are you conservative on. Lets see if you know what conservative really means

[David88vert]

I did say that

Except that I haven't come to a conclusion, except the conclusion that I'd like more info to make a conclusion. My qualifications wouldn't make me or them any less wrong or right. Period.

I dismissed your claim that Koch was liberal. It is in fact not at all. That was all Ive dismissed so far.

You dismissed the report as soon as I mentioned Koch Industries. Re-read your post.
"And I'm gonna need more than a conservative think tank report on universal healthcare in Canada."
"Thats pretty much all I needed to know right there. This isn't a biased study at all. LMAO"
Pretty clear.


Because no one posts any "left wing media" for me to call out for being wrong/misleading

Sinfix does all the time. You just happen to agree with it, because you BELIEVE that it is right and not wrong/misleading.
Thanks for confirming your liberal position.


Yes. I am saying based on the little amount of opinions I've given, you can't accurately make a hasty generalization.

You can't be so dumb to think that you haven't shown your positions on issues.
And you believe that you know what others can/cannot do, and what is easy and difficult for them through reading posts on an internet forum? This from a person who has shown that he has reading comprehension problems? It's laughable if it wasn't so tragic that you believe it.




Still havent said otherwise. Strawman and another ad hominem. Tough for you to make your case without a logical fallacy huh?

You don't seem to understand what a strawman argument is. I made statements of fact that you ignored. Your belief that you are an intellectual is the only fallacy here - and that is contained solely in your own mind.


I've given an answer a million times, I recognize this ones facts. Do I need to say it again? I recognize this ones facts. Ask me again which one I recognize.

You never gave the answer to the question that I posed - because you had not answer to give.

[.blank cd]

What are you conservative on. Lets see if you know what conservative really means

This should be fun. We get to see what you guys think conservative actually means.

I'll start with socioeconomic safety nets

Free markets

Public option healthcare

Universal healthcare

Balanced budgets

Limited government

And a strong military.

[.blank cd]

You dismissed the report as soon as I mentioned Koch Industries. Re-read your post.
"And I'm gonna need more than a conservative think tank report on universal healthcare in Canada."
"Thats pretty much all I needed to know right there. This isn't a biased study at all. LMAO"
Pretty clear.Pretty clear that it reiterates my position that I wanted more info to make a conclusion that universal healthcare isn't working for Canada. Thanks for quoting me so I can clarify that for you.


Sinfix does all the time. You just happen to agree with it, because you BELIEVE that it is right and not wrong/misleading.
Thanks for confirming your liberal position.When was the last time Sinfix posted anything "liberal" that was wrong or misleading that I didn't clarify for him?


You don't seem to understand what a strawman argument is. I made statements of fact that you ignored. Your belief that you are an intellectual is the only fallacy here - and that is contained solely in your own mind.Yes. Arguing a position that doesn't exist. You're fluent at it.


You never gave the answer to the question that I posed - because you had not answer to give.Sorry. Take your blinders off.

[BanginJimmy]

This should be fun. We get to see what you guys think conservative actually means.

I'll start with socioeconomic safety nets

Free markets

Public option healthcare

Universal healthcare

Balanced budgets

Limited government

And a strong military.

So you just posted a bunch of terms. You didnt actually post your opinion on them.

I am going to completely refute EVERYTHING you have said about the Frazier study.

If you are saying universal healthcare and public option healthcare are conservative ideas, you got that from a conservative think tank. How are you going to stand by the findings of that think tank, then completely ignore the findings of another? BTW, Koch has also spent a large sum at the Heritage Foundation. Obviously that means the data is slanted and cannot be trusted, just like you say about the Frazier study.

Lets be real though, they are not conservative ideas at all. A true conservative wants as little govt intrusion in everyday lives as possible.

One more thing. If you believe in free markets, you cannot possibly believe in govt option or universal healthcare. Both of those are designed to artificially manipulate the markets.

[David88vert]

Pretty clear that it reiterates my position that I wanted more info to make a conclusion that universal healthcare isn't working for Canada. Thanks for quoting me so I can clarify that for you.

So, you effectively dismissed the conclusion of the foremost think tank in studying Canadian healthcare as their conclusion does not fit with your beliefs. You certainly have clarified that.


When was the last time Sinfix posted anything "liberal" that was wrong or misleading that I didn't clarify for him?

You support every politically liberal position. Everyone has seen that.


Yes. Arguing a position that doesn't exist. You're fluent at it.

You are so far off base here, it's almost as laughable as you have become.
I gave you a clear report that passed peer reviews of some of the top Canadian minds, in the top Canadian think tank, on the subject of Canadian healthcare. You somehow state that there is another accurate set of data out there, with no reference to where it is - and you think that I am arguing about something that doesn't exist? Let me explain to you what doesn't exist - that would be facts that support your claims and beliefs. You just never seem to have any of them, and you make claims and tell us to "trust you". Just take a minute and think about it.


Sorry. Take your blinders off.

Perhaps you need to take your blindfold off.
Show me where you named another think tank.

[.blank cd]

So you just posted a bunch of terms. You didnt actually post your opinion on them.No one asked for opinions. Those are conservative principles I support. Which is what I was asked for.


I am going to completely refute EVERYTHING you have said about the Frazier study.

If you are saying universal healthcare and public option healthcare are conservative ideas, you got that from a conservative think tank.False. Good job on that refuting. Lol


How are you going to stand by the findings of that think tank, then completely ignore the findings of another?For the 57th time, I haven't ignored anyone's findings.

Anyone ELSE want to ask me if I ignored anyone's findings? lets go ahead and get it out of the way.


Lets be real though, they are not conservative ideas at all. A true conservative wants as little govt intrusion in everyday lives as possible.They all are conservative ideas actually. And yes, I want as little government intrusion as necessary.


One more thing. If you believe in free markets, you cannot possibly believe in govt option or universal healthcare. Both of those are designed to artificially manipulate the markets.Like fire departments manipulated free fire department market right? LOL

Healthcare as you know it is completely divorced from all free market principles. Universal Healthcare is a completely fiscally responsible solution.

[.blank cd]

So, you effectively dismissed the conclusion of the foremost think tank in studying Canadian healthcare as their conclusion does not fit with your beliefs. You certainly have clarified that.For the 58th time.....

Let me help you out here. Their conclusion was not that universal healthcare doesn't work for Canada. Their conclusion was that costs are rising.


You are so far off base here, it's almost as laughable as you have become.
I gave you a clear report that passed peer reviews of some of the top Canadian minds, in the top Canadian think tank, on the subject of Canadian healthcare. You somehow state that there is another accurate set of data out there, with no reference to where it is - and you think that I am arguing about something that doesn't exist? Let me explain to you what doesn't exist - that would be facts that support your claims and beliefs. You just never seem to have any of them, and you make claims and tell us to "trust you". Just take a minute and think about it.Havent made a claim or belief yet. Done


Perhaps you need to take your blindfold off.
Show me where you named another think tank.I didn't. Didnt say I was going to either.

[David88vert]

For the 58th time.....

Let me help you out here. Their conclusion was not that universal healthcare doesn't work for Canada. Their conclusion was that costs are rising.

The conclusion was that Canada's system was unsustainable with its current model, which started in 1984. That means that it is starting to run into issues in less than 30 years. Does that sound like a system that the US should tout as a shining example of what the US government should do for its citizens? What happens when Canada no longer has the financial capability to sustain its current health system?


Havent made a claim or belief yet. Done

"I just would like to see someone else back up an opinion that goes against mainstream research." - YOU, today.
Where is this mainstream research? Fraser Institute actually is the mainstream and is ranked in the top 30 think tanks in the world. You can't get much more mainstream than them.

"...an opinion financed by lobbyists" - YOU, today.
This is certainly your opinion, but only your opinion. No other learned organization or individual have the same opinion though - just you.
Fraser's financials are pretty open, and I showed them earlier. Their positions on donations is clear also, and well known. The donations they receive are unrestricted and come only from private foundations, organizations, or individuals. This just isn't working out for you, is it?

"If their numbers are accurate, then somewhere else there are another set of accurate numbers." - YOU, today.
I don't even have to say anything here. You claimed it. ^^ See Above. "Havent made a claim or belief yet. Done" - YOU, now

First you had reading comprehension issues, now you have memory problems as well. You should see a doctor.


I didn't. Didnt say I was going to either.

That's because you have none that you can name that have addressed the issue. You have no basis for your statements other than your own personal opinion, which is fine, but it does not match to the facts and data.
You have not presented any facts or data to refute anything posted today. Nothing.

[.blank cd]

"I just would like to see someone else back up an opinion that goes against mainstream research." - YOU, today.Not an opinion. A request for more supportive information.


"...an opinion financed by lobbyists" - YOU, today
This is certainly your opinion, but only your opinion. No other learned organization or individual have the same opinion though - just you.Except its not an opinion. It's a fact, referenced by the facts I posted earlier. Lobbyists donate to think tanks. That's what they do. This isn't an opinion and it isn't debatable.



"If their numbers are accurate, then somewhere else there are another set of accurate numbers." - YOU, today.
I don't even have to say anything here. You claimed it. ^^ See Above. "Havent made a claim or belief yet. Done" - YOU, nowAnother non opinion.

Do you know what opinion means?




That's because you have none that you can name that have addressed the issue. You have no basis for your statements other than your own personal opinion, which is fine, but it does not match to the facts and data.
You have not presented any facts or data to refute anything posted today. Nothing.havent looked for any. Presented facts, which you continually vehemently confirm, and then deny at the same time. You're pretty bad at this game.

[David88vert]

Not an opinion. A request for more supportive information.

Except its not an opinion. It's a fact, referenced by the facts I posted earlier. Lobbyists donate to think tanks. That's what they do. This isn't an opinion and it isn't debatable.


Another non opinion.

Do you know what opinion means?



havent looked for any. Presented facts, which you continually vehemently confirm, and then deny at the same time. You're pretty bad at this game.




You have no facts to back up any of your statements, your statements are nothing but opinions.

You clearly cannot comprehend your own statements and what they are.

Fraser accepts donations from many sources, as do all think tanks, and universities that have the means to study and publish opinions. They don't print their own money, and don't do it for free. Good luck finding an organization that does studies without outside contributions.
Fraser is known for not linking donations to studies, and are known to be open about their finances. Most top think tanks are that way. Of course, this is something that you don't know or realize.

There is no game here. I present facts and studies from intelligent people, you fail to present anything of value.

[.blank cd]

You have no facts to back up any of your statements, your statements are nothing but opinions.

You clearly cannot comprehend your own statements and what they are.

Fact. I asked for more information. I don't understand how you're disputing that because I asked it. "I want more info" is not anywhere close to an opinion by any stretch of the English language, and to continue to claim it is an opinion is either a poor troll or English isn't your first or second language. I wouldn't argue that any further because you're just trolling yourself at this point. Case closed on that.

Fact. Koch brothers are conservative lobbyists, and they donated to the Fraser Institute. I don't know why you're disputing this either, because you said it yourself, and there's plenty of evidence Ive already quoted that supports this. This isnt up for debate at all, because no one disputes this at all. You lost that one too. I wouldn't argue this any further because you'll just be arguing with and against yourself, unless you're prefacing any subsequent arguments with "I indeed don't understand English...". Case closed on that one too.

[David88vert]

Fact. I asked for more information. I don't understand how you're disputing that because I asked it. "I want more info" is not anywhere close to an opinion by any stretch of the English language, and to continue to claim it is an opinion is either a poor troll or English isn't your first or second language. I wouldn't argue that any further because you're just trolling yourself at this point. Case closed on that.

Fact. Koch brothers are conservative lobbyists, and they donated to the Fraser Institute. I don't know why you're disputing this either, because you said it yourself, and there's plenty of evidence Ive already quoted that supports this. This isnt up for debate at all, because no one disputes this at all. You lost that one too. I wouldn't argue this any further because you'll just be arguing with and against yourself, unless you're prefacing any subsequent arguments with "I indeed don't understand English...". Case closed on that one too.

I need more information is not a "fact", there is no actual existence of anything such as quantifiable data there. It's a statement that you are using to not accept the facts in front of you. (Oh, and that is an opinion.)

I never disputed that Koch Industries donated - I was the one that specifically stated that from the start, so that you wouldn't try to claim it later as being a hidden agenda (we have seen that behavior before).
You initially rejected this report based upon the donation of money from Koch Industries to Fraser Institute, and you immediately assumed that it was related to this study. You keep saying that they are conservative, and that is the only reason that you give for this item, but then in another thread, you claim that Obama is right of center (which is conservative), and that you are conservative on issues as well. Why would Koch Industries founders be an issue for you then, since I have shown that there is no correlation between the donations and the results of the study?

[bu villain]

It won't happen in reality. In the real world, companies don't tell you how much they pay towards your insurance premiums, and all you see is what you pay out of your check towards it. Companies are not going to magically add it into your paycheck. With Obamacare, they will just claim that they are paying it in taxes to the government for your healthcare. I guarantee that no large company is going to give any of the premiums that they pay out to their employees. It won't happen, as it is an elective, not mandatory benefit.

First of all, I get a total compensation package every year from my employer. I know exactly how much they pay for my health care, disability, etc. That's actually irrelevant though. Salaries are not dictated by individual employers, they are determined by market forces and negotiation. Unless every company colludes to pay all their employees less (by reducing their benefits), those companies who reduce health benefits without replacing compensation, will lose their employees to other companies that will pay them full market value.


Single payer IS government managed. You cannot have a single payer private solution that is not - that would be a monopoly, and as you should be already aware, those never work in favor of the consumer/citizens if they are not government managed.

I didn't say private single payer, I said private OR single payer.



Companies offer health benefits for two main reasons - to attract employees and to keep employees. It's that simple. It is in the employers best interest to attract the best employees and to retain them. It's the same as paid vacation/sick days, life/dental/medical insurance, pension, 401K's, etc - these are benefits offered by the employer as part of a compensation package. Traditionally, they have not been required to offer benefits like health insurance.

Why get rid of them? That should be up to the private employers who are giving them as compensation packages to attract employees that they deem valuable to their business. Regulation of compensation provided by employers is a start down a dangerous path. What's next, government controlled and mandated salary caps? How is it the government's role to determine what a private company can choose to pay an employee?

I'm not suggesting they should be legislated away directly. I am suggesting we have a system that will not incentivize business to provide them in the first place. For example, if you can't set rates by using pre-existing conditions, the negotiating advantage of businesses with insurance companies is greatly diminished.


There is no way for a private individual to negotiate rates based on diversified risk. When your employer negotiates with an insurer, they can get a lower overall rate because individual risk is spread over a large pool of participants.

Exactly my point above. If you can't set rates based on pre-existing conditions, they can't determine risk at an individual level and thus large businesses lose their negotiating advantage. This will lead to more flat rates for everyone regardless of whether they work for a megacorp or if they are a business of one. This will encourage entrepreneurship and a more mobile workforce since people won't be so afraid to lose their company health benefits.


Of course it COULD be, and in all honesty, it should be. The issue is that in real life it wont be. Our govt has proven that it can do absolutely nothing in a smart or efficient way. Under govt control, health care will go from 17% of GDP to 25% in 5 years and top 30% in 10 years. You can bank on that.

I really do understand your POV. We both recognize it COULD be better. Our main disagreement is that you have given up on government to EVER get better at efficiency, whereas I have not. Unfortunately, I fear your 17% to 25% GDP numbers will be true whether we have a single payer system or not.

[David88vert]

First of all, I get a total compensation package every year from my employer. I know exactly how much they pay for my health care, disability, etc. That's actually irrelevant though. Salaries are not dictated by individual employers, they are determined by market forces and negotiation. Unless every company colludes to pay all their employees less (by reducing their benefits), those companies who reduce health benefits without replacing compensation, will lose their employees to other companies that will pay them full market value.

I've worked for two Fortune 50 companies that do not give out that information to their employees. It's certainly not available system-wide, and unless you legislated that into healthcare, it is unlikely to happen system-wide. Obamacare has not included that legislation.

While employers do look at the market, and tend to follow it in a general sense, the offer comes from an individual employer, and is an agreement between the individual and the company. Supply and demand works here, and in an economy like we have today, the employer has the ability to dictate the pay in many fields. If the employer did not, then we would not have minimum wage laws. The mere fact that we do shows that employers do have the ability to dictate wages in many (not all) instances.

It would not need collusion to have employers remove benefits without adding compensation. It only takes a few big players to do it, and then many more follow suit. Case in point, up until a few years ago, most large companies offered full pensions to employees, but look now, big Fortune 100 companies have managed to remove pension plans and replaced them with 401K plans that do not cost the employer as much, and have not raised salaries to address the compensation issue. A record high of 70 companies in the Fortune 100 provided only a 401K or similar type of retirement account to new hires in 2012, compared with 67 employers in 2011, and 63 employers in 2010. In 1998, 90 companies in the Fortune 100 sponsored a traditional or hybrid pension plan. This was done without collusion.

AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar and Deere have already looked into dropping all healthcare plans - and without collusion between them. (AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping health plans - May. 5, 2010 (http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/news/companies/dropping_benefits.fortune/)).
I can tell you for a fact that one of those 4 has greatly reduced what they pay towards healthcare benefit already - without increasing compensation in any of their other benefits. I have first-hand knowledge of it.



I didn't say private single payer, I said private OR single payer.

Government single-payer - According to Canada's top think tank, and quite a few independent analysts, Canada's provinces are spending too much to keep the same benefits much longer. But we have nothing to be concerned about, because the US government is so efficient, right?



I'm not suggesting they should be legislated away directly. I am suggesting we have a system that will not incentivize business to provide them in the first place. For example, if you can't set rates by using pre-existing conditions, the negotiating advantage of businesses with insurance companies is greatly diminished.


I am not against unhitching individual medical plans from employment. It's a good idea, and would empower individuals to change jobs with more ease.
What I don't see is how you can take away a method of compensation that employers value highly. The reason that they offer health plans is to get the employee to want to stay and work. Unless you legislate that they cannot offer a health plan, businesses will find loopholes to get around it, and the insurance companies will help them - it is cheaper for an insurance company to write a policy for 200,000 people than to write 200,000 individual plans.

[bu villain]

I've worked for two Fortune 50 companies that do not give out that information to their employees. It's certainly not available system-wide, and unless you legislated that into healthcare, it is unlikely to happen system-wide. Obamacare has not included that legislation.

As I said before. It's actually irrelevant. Employees recognize that company health care benefits have a lot of value even if they don't know the exact dollar amount. People definitely take benefits into account when looking at jobs, not just salaries. Yes the opacity of health care costs can make it more difficult to judge but it is very much a factor.


While employers do look at the market, and tend to follow it in a general sense, the offer comes from an individual employer, and is an agreement between the individual and the company. Supply and demand works here, and in an economy like we have today, the employer has the ability to dictate the pay in many fields. If the employer did not, then we would not have minimum wage laws. The mere fact that we do shows that employers do have the ability to dictate wages in many (not all) instances.

If salary negotiations are actually just dictates from employers, why would they pay anyone more than minimum wage? I think your argument makes sense for minimum wage jobs but I don't see how it applies to better paying jobs.


It would not need collusion to have employers remove benefits without adding compensation. It only takes a few big players to do it, and then many more follow suit. Case in point, up until a few years ago, most large companies offered full pensions to employees, but look now, big Fortune 100 companies have managed to remove pension plans and replaced them with 401K plans that do not cost the employer as much, and have not raised salaries to address the compensation issue. A record high of 70 companies in the Fortune 100 provided only a 401K or similar type of retirement account to new hires in 2012, compared with 67 employers in 2011, and 63 employers in 2010. In 1998, 90 companies in the Fortune 100 sponsored a traditional or hybrid pension plan. This was done without collusion.

But companies didn't just get rid of pensions, they replaced them with 401(k)s. Now you can argue that the value of 401k contributions did not match up with pension benefits but that is a hard case to prove and is rather subjective. For example, if your company went bust, you may lose your entire pension. A 401(k) is yours even if your company goes under. Also, as you mentioned, some companies still have pensions. Why didn't they just get rid of them and thus lower their costs as you suggest would happen with health care benefits? It's because they know it will attract employees who consider a pension a valuable addition to their salary.


AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar and Deere have already looked into dropping all healthcare plans - and without collusion between them. (AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping health plans - May. 5, 2010 (http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/news/companies/dropping_benefits.fortune/)).
I can tell you for a fact that one of those 4 has greatly reduced what they pay towards healthcare benefit already - without increasing compensation in any of their other benefits. I have first-hand knowledge of it.

Sure, in the short term it may work like that on an individual company basis, but over time, their employees will switch to other jobs that provide them more total compensation. My main argument is that company health benefits are not totally different from salary. They are both forms of compensation that employees care about and take into their decision making.


Government single-payer - According to Canada's top think tank, and quite a few independent analysts, Canada's provinces are spending too much to keep the same benefits much longer. But we have nothing to be concerned about, because the US government is so efficient, right?

We are having the same problem here in our quasi-free market system. Health care costs are becoming overbearing. So while you are right that a single payer system won't solve that problem, our free market system isn't solving it either.




I am not against unhitching individual medical plans from employment. It's a good idea, and would empower individuals to change jobs with more ease.
What I don't see is how you can take away a method of compensation that employers value highly. The reason that they offer health plans is to get the employee to want to stay and work. Unless you legislate that they cannot offer a health plan, businesses will find loopholes to get around it, and the insurance companies will help them - it is cheaper for an insurance company to write a policy for 200,000 people than to write 200,000 individual plans.

Individual plans are only difficult to do because you have to look into those individuals medical history. If pre-existing conditions can not be used as a basis for policies, there is no longer a need to do that laborious work.

[BanginJimmy]

If salary negotiations are actually just dictates from employers, why would they pay anyone more than minimum wage? I think your argument makes sense for minimum wage jobs but I don't see how it applies to better paying jobs.

Because people that employ higher wage earners know what the market dictates for someone with a particular resume. In fields that still negotiate salary, competition for the best and brightest go a long way to decide salary and benefit packages.




But companies didn't just get rid of pensions, they replaced them with 401(k)s. Now you can argue that the value of 401k contributions did not match up with pension benefits but that is a hard case to prove and is rather subjective. For example, if your company went bust, you may lose your entire pension. A 401(k) is yours even if your company goes under. Also, as you mentioned, some companies still have pensions. Why didn't they just get rid of them and thus lower their costs as you suggest would happen with health care benefits? It's because they know it will attract employees who consider a pension a valuable addition to their salary.

Surprisingly, you are correct. You are forgetting one aspect though. Without doing any research, I am willing to bet that most, if not all, of the companies still offering a defined benefit pension are union shops. You can also add mobility in the workforce has really lessened the usefulness of a traditional pension. People just arent staying in a job for 30 or 40 years and retiring like they used to. I used to work with a guy that started there in the late 60's. It was his first job after he got out of the military, and the military was his first job period. People simply dont do that anymore, so you will see that fewer and fewer hourly employees actually see it as the benefit they used to see it as.




Sure, in the short term it may work like that on an individual company basis, but over time, their employees will switch to other jobs that provide them more total compensation. My main argument is that company health benefits are not totally different from salary. They are both forms of compensation that employees care about and take into their decision making.

This may happen, but probably not in the numbers it would take to force companies to change their practices.




We are having the same problem here in our quasi-free market system. Health care costs are becoming overbearing. So while you are right that a single payer system won't solve that problem, our free market system isn't solving it either.

Most of the reasons for the rise in healthcare costs are caused by the govt. You can look at tort laws, you can look at medicare/medicaid, or you can look at state directed mandated coverage. Can you think of a single govt program that brings the cost of health care down? I know I cant.






Individual plans are only difficult to do because you have to look into those individuals medical history. If pre-existing conditions can not be used as a basis for policies, there is no longer a need to do that laborious work.

And if you cant look at their history, how are you going to accurately quote a price for the coverage? Just like when you apply for car insurance, they look at your history to assess the risk, then charge in accordance with that risk.

[BanginJimmy]

Exactly my point above. If you can't set rates based on pre-existing conditions, they can't determine risk at an individual level and thus large businesses lose their negotiating advantage. This will lead to more flat rates for everyone regardless of whether they work for a megacorp or if they are a business of one. This will encourage entrepreneurship and a more mobile workforce since people won't be so afraid to lose their company health benefits.

No, it will lead to FAR higher rates for most people that either wouldnt qualify, or wouldnt be able to afford health care without the unbrella of their employer. Part of most employer coverage plans is a waiver from pre-existing conditions limitations.




I really do understand your POV. We both recognize it COULD be better. Our main disagreement is that you have given up on government to EVER get better at efficiency, whereas I have not. Unfortunately, I fear your 17% to 25% GDP numbers will be true whether we have a single payer system or not.

It will only go so high under the current system. At some point the costs will become too restrictive and as a result, constrict the market. When the govt is printing money as fast as the presses will go, you dont have that restriction and as a result, you wont limit the market.

[David88vert]

As I said before. It's actually irrelevant. Employees recognize that company health care benefits have a lot of value even if they don't know the exact dollar amount. People definitely take benefits into account when looking at jobs, not just salaries. Yes the opacity of health care costs can make it more difficult to judge but it is very much a factor.

At my current level, health care benefits are still a major part of employee compensation. I know that lower paid employees have less emphasis on them, as I used to be one, but my point is that what the company pays out is relevant if you are looking to see if the employee is still getting the same compensation for their job as before. If you cut $2K out from what the employer pays out, but only give the employee $500 more, then the employee is then receiving less compensation for the same work. Right now, they don't know what the employer is paying out.




If salary negotiations are actually just dictates from employers, why would they pay anyone more than minimum wage? I think your argument makes sense for minimum wage jobs but I don't see how it applies to better paying jobs.

Lower wage earners don't tend to be good negotiators of compensation. If they were, they would not be lower wage earners. Aren't these the people that Obama wants to help?




But companies didn't just get rid of pensions, they replaced them with 401(k)s. Now you can argue that the value of 401k contributions did not match up with pension benefits but that is a hard case to prove and is rather subjective. For example, if your company went bust, you may lose your entire pension. A 401(k) is yours even if your company goes under. Also, as you mentioned, some companies still have pensions. Why didn't they just get rid of them and thus lower their costs as you suggest would happen with health care benefits? It's because they know it will attract employees who consider a pension a valuable addition to their salary.

Funded Pensions are usually used by private employers and were paid into plans. Unfunded ones are usually state governments. If the company went belly up, the pension plan still was in place, and you still get your benefits as the pension was funded.
Do you realize that most of the pension plans have been killed off since 2008? They are being replaced or eliminated very quickly now at an accelerated pace. The only reason that the last 30 companies haven't replaced them is that they haven't had HR do it yet.




Sure, in the short term it may work like that on an individual company basis, but over time, their employees will switch to other jobs that provide them more total compensation. My main argument is that company health benefits are not totally different from salary. They are both forms of compensation that employees care about and take into their decision making.

I agree that they are both compensation - that's what I have said this whole time.
Employees won't switch jobs much when the economy is down - fear keeps them in place. Companies take advantage and reduce benefits when the economy is down. When the economy is booming, and its hard to find employees, then they will add in more benefits to attract more employees.
You can see it with raises right now - many employees have not been getting raises for several years, yet they stay in place.



We are having the same problem here in our quasi-free market system. Health care costs are becoming overbearing. So while you are right that a single payer system won't solve that problem, our free market system isn't solving it either.

Correct. Costs will rise until the demand for healthcare services starts to decline. Supply and demand.




Individual plans are only difficult to do because you have to look into those individuals medical history. If pre-existing conditions can not be used as a basis for policies, there is no longer a need to do that laborious work.

If you can't access medical history, then you have no way to assign risk, other than a vague, generic amount. We see this with car insurance. Right now, they can look at your DMV record - what happens if they no longer can look and see how many points that you have? The answer is that they will raise the rates across the board. They will still cover their bases - they won't operate at a loss. Someone has to pay for it all - all you are doing is shifting the cost to someone who should have had a lower rate.

[Sinfix_15]

Insurers predict 100%-400% Obamacare rate explosion | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/insurers-predict-100-400-obamacare-rate-explosion/article/2529523)

[.blank cd]

Just had an insurance meeting. Our premiums went down again!

Whatever Obamacare is, I need more of it!

[Sinfix_15]

I'm a moron, i eat whatever father government puts on my plate

edit

[David88vert]

Huff Post is reporting that young men will pay more under Obamacare. No surprise.
Young Men Will Pay More Under Obamacare (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/young-men-will-pay-more-u_n_3271689.html?utm_hp_ref=business)

Obamacare is so good that Congress is talking about exempting themselves from it:
Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption - John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obamacare-exemption-lawmakers-aides-90610.html)

[.blank cd]

edit

Cheaper insurance. I'll eat it.

[.blank cd]

Huff Post is reporting that young men will pay more under Obamacare. No surprise.
Young Men Will Pay More Under Obamacare (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/young-men-will-pay-more-u_n_3271689.html?utm_hp_ref=business)

"Particularly those who aren't covered by their employers"

That's gotta be about 1% of everybody. Lol

[Sinfix_15]

Cheaper insurance. I'll eat it.

Are you gonna support the next democrat elected president as much as you do Obama????

you know...... sometime around 2040 when it happens....

There will be no denying who perfumed up this pig..... its all you, democrats.

[.blank cd]

Are you gonna support the next democrat elected president as much as you do Obama????

you know...... sometime around 2040 when it happens....

There will be no denying who perfumed up this pig..... its all you, democrats.Why do you think I support Obama so much?

You mean in 2016? Doubt you see a republican president this time around. Unless they changed up their act. But they could surprise me

[Sinfix_15]

Why do you think I support Obama so much?



Because i'm not blind and can read.

[.blank cd]

Because i'm not blind and can read.

Overstatement of the day.

[Sinfix_15]

Overstatement of the day.

Just be yourself kid, it's easier that way.

[bu villain]

Because people that employ higher wage earners know what the market dictates for someone with a particular resume. In fields that still negotiate salary, competition for the best and brightest go a long way to decide salary and benefit packages.

Exactly, David was saying that no other form of compensation would take the place of health care benefits if a company got rid of them. I agree with you, competition for employees would force them to compensate in another way to make up for it. The labor force still generally behaves according to market principles with or without health insurance being one particular form of compensation in the mix.


Surprisingly, you are correct. You are forgetting one aspect though. Without doing any research, I am willing to bet that most, if not all, of the companies still offering a defined benefit pension are union shops. You can also add mobility in the workforce has really lessened the usefulness of a traditional pension. People just arent staying in a job for 30 or 40 years and retiring like they used to. I used to work with a guy that started there in the late 60's. It was his first job after he got out of the military, and the military was his first job period. People simply dont do that anymore, so you will see that fewer and fewer hourly employees actually see it as the benefit they used to see it as.

I'm not forgetting it, I just don't see it as that relevant. Compensation was not cut across the board when companies started shifting to 401(k)s. That is my argument. Your statement about mobility is one of the reasons I think single payer is an option to be considered. Company health benefits are a barrier to mobility. We shouldn't dictate what benefits companies can give, but we can have an alternative that makes it less of an issue.


This may happen, but probably not in the numbers it would take to force companies to change their practices.

Then those companies will not be able to attract the best talent. That's fine. The labor market won't collapse.


Most of the reasons for the rise in healthcare costs are caused by the govt. You can look at tort laws, you can look at medicare/medicaid, or you can look at state directed mandated coverage. Can you think of a single govt program that brings the cost of health care down? I know I cant.

If you go back and read what I wrote again, I specifically stated that single payer would not solve our health care cost problem. I also stated that our free market system isn't solving it either though.


And if you cant look at their history, how are you going to accurately quote a price for the coverage? Just like when you apply for car insurance, they look at your history to assess the risk, then charge in accordance with that risk.

You do it exactly the same way they do now for large companies. You base it on averages.

[David88vert]

"Particularly those who aren't covered by their employers"

That's gotta be about 1% of everybody. Lol

It's a lot more than 1% - come into the real world. You are looking at minimum 25% of the work force. Go out on Cobb Parkway and see how many business and people will be affected.

And it's funny how you ignored my second link - Congress working to exempt themselves from Obamacare, and you have nothing to say about it?

[Vteckidd]

Just had an insurance meeting. Our premiums went down again!

Whatever Obamacare is, I need more of it!

What kind of plan do you have, and why did it go down. What company do you have?

Im sorry, but you are not representative of the entire country. The Raw data shows how costly it is.

Health Insurance Premiums Rise Sharply in 2011 - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/09/health-insurance-premiums-rise-sharply-in-2011/)

Smallest increase of 4%, 5% expected next year.
Health insurance premiums see smallest increase in 15 years - Nov. 14, 2012 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/pf/health-insurance-premiums/index.html)

I mean using your critical thinking skills, covering MORE PEOPLE without charging for it will cause prices to rise. Im betting theres something more to your situation or you are in the extreme extreme minority of people seeing a decrease.

Health Insurance Premium Increases Vowed By Companies For 2014 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/health-insurance-premium-increases_n_2932704.html)

"The Congressional Budget Office projects that health insurance premiums will increase by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent as a result of the health care law, not including the effect of the subsidies. "

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1051469/original.jpg

Facts are Facts, premiums are up, despite Obamacare being law and all signs point to more cost as the law gets more an more implemented

[bu villain]

I responded to most of this within my response to Jimmy but just to add a few more details


At my current level, health care benefits are still a major part of employee compensation. I know that lower paid employees have less emphasis on them, as I used to be one, but my point is that what the company pays out is relevant if you are looking to see if the employee is still getting the same compensation for their job as before. If you cut $2K out from what the employer pays out, but only give the employee $500 more, then the employee is then receiving less compensation for the same work. Right now, they don't know what the employer is paying out.

If the employees won't know the difference, why don't they just cut their $2k health benefits and give those employees $500 more right now?


Lower wage earners don't tend to be good negotiators of compensation. If they were, they would not be lower wage earners. Aren't these the people that Obama wants to help?

Same response as above. Why are they currently giving these benefits if their employees don't know the difference.


Funded Pensions are usually used by private employers and were paid into plans. Unfunded ones are usually state governments. If the company went belly up, the pension plan still was in place, and you still get your benefits as the pension was funded.
Do you realize that most of the pension plans have been killed off since 2008? They are being replaced or eliminated very quickly now at an accelerated pace. The only reason that the last 30 companies haven't replaced them is that they haven't had HR do it yet.

But how does that support your argument that the replacement of pensions with 401(k) resulted in lower overall compensation for employees?


I agree that they are both compensation - that's what I have said this whole time.
Employees won't switch jobs much when the economy is down - fear keeps them in place. Companies take advantage and reduce benefits when the economy is down. When the economy is booming, and its hard to find employees, then they will add in more benefits to attract more employees.
You can see it with raises right now - many employees have not been getting raises for several years, yet they stay in place.

Yes companies can often reduce benefits in compensation and salary in a bad economy. But that is true whether you have health care benefits or not so I fail to see how health care benefits deserve any special consideration here.


Correct. Costs will rise until the demand for healthcare services starts to decline. Supply and demand.

Good then we can agree this is a separate topic for the time being.


If you can't access medical history, then you have no way to assign risk, other than a vague, generic amount. We see this with car insurance. Right now, they can look at your DMV record - what happens if they no longer can look and see how many points that you have? The answer is that they will raise the rates across the board. They will still cover their bases - they won't operate at a loss. Someone has to pay for it all - all you are doing is shifting the cost to someone who should have had a lower rate.

Yes, that is exactly what I expect to happen. Many people will receive higher rates to cover those with preexisting conditions. The whole point of insurance is to shift costs. Coming from a young, healthy person, I fully understand my premiums will undoubtedly go up but I still believe it is a better option for society as a whole.

[Vteckidd]

"Particularly those who aren't covered by their employers"

That's gotta be about 1% of everybody. Lol
you should step into reality more.


The percentage of people covered through employer-sponsored health care plans fell to a record low 55.3% in 2010. That's a drop from 56.1% in 2009 and continues a trend of annual decreases that began in 2001.

Correspondingly, the number of people enrolled in employment-based plans dropped to 169.3 million in 2010, down from 170.8 million in 2009.

Employment-based coverage peaked in 2000, when 181.9 million people were covered by employer-sponsored plans, according to the Census Bureau.

Source of coverage Percent

Employment based
55.3

Direct purchase
9.8

Medicare
14.5

Medicaid
15.9

Military health care
4.2

Uninsured
16.3

[Sinfix_15]

The IRS Is Accessing Your Health Records. You Trust Them? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2013/05/14/the-irs-is-accessing-to-your-health-records-but-you-can-trust-them/)

[David88vert]

I responded to most of this within my response to Jimmy but just to add a few more details

If the employees won't know the difference, why don't they just cut their $2k health benefits and give those employees $500 more right now?

Same response as above. Why are they currently giving these benefits if their employees don't know the difference.

But how does that support your argument that the replacement of pensions with 401(k) resulted in lower overall compensation for employees?

Yes companies can often reduce benefits in compensation and salary in a bad economy. But that is true whether you have health care benefits or not so I fail to see how health care benefits deserve any special consideration here.

Good then we can agree this is a separate topic for the time being.

Yes, that is exactly what I expect to happen. Many people will receive higher rates to cover those with preexisting conditions. The whole point of insurance is to shift costs. Coming from a young, healthy person, I fully understand my premiums will undoubtedly go up but I still believe it is a better option for society as a whole.

It's really very simple.

Employers currently know that if they give health benefits, they are more likely to retain their employees for a longer period of time. They don't hire the best employees - they hire the ones that are the most profitable for the company. If they simply wanted the best, there would be no such thing as outsourcing. They want those that can make them profit, and if they can use health benefits to keep the employee there longer, they will. If you take that away nationwide, then they simply won't offer that benefit anymore. They aren't going to give out $500 more in salary and cut the health benefits, as that does not succeed in tying the employee to the company as tightly as health insurance does.
The employee doesn't know the cost, but he does know that if he leaves, he loses his health insurance - and many are afraid to lose it with the high cost of emergency care.

Healthcare benefits have a psychological impact on the employee more so than just salary, as people get attached to a doctor/physician, and many do not want to change to a company that may not have that same doctor/physician listed on their health care provider plans. For this reason, it is different than straight salary or vacation days.

Two things that you do not seem to have contemplated is that, while you are willing to pay more to help cover others insurance costs, not everyone feels the same way as you. Many think that there is no problem to pay extra to help cover others, but others think that each should cover their own family and costs. Why should one group force their will on the other group?
The other thing is that many of those that will end up suddenly insured, are not currently insured - by choice. They currently choose to spend their money on other luxury items - TVs, cars, better housing, etc (non-necessities). I used to see it all the time when I had a retail business. I sold car audio systems back then, and I saw many people that chose to spend their money on amps and subs, rather than get health insurance. These are a lot of the people that you will be insuring under Obamacare.

[BanginJimmy]

You do it exactly the same way they do now for large companies. You base it on averages.


How do you average 1 person or 1 family?

[.blank cd]

What kind of plan do you have, and why did it go down. What company do you have?

Im sorry, but you are not representative of the entire country. The Raw data shows how costly it is.We're with Aetna. Im not a representative sample, but you cant really ignore the fact that at the very least, 200 people have lower premiums this year.


I mean using your critical thinking skills, covering MORE PEOPLE without charging for it will cause prices to rise. Im betting theres something more to your situation or you are in the extreme extreme minority of people seeing a decrease.If more people are contributing, how do prices rise? I think you're forgetting the end result of getting more people on healthcare. This isn't just a bunch of people getting healthcare for nothing through the insurance system.


Facts are Facts, premiums are up, despite Obamacare being law and all signs point to more cost as the law gets more an more implementedExcept for me and pretty much the rest of the company, who's premiums went down last year, and are down this year. And I severely doubt we're the ONLY company who's premiums went down.

So either A: this premiums rising for everyone rhetoric is BS, or B: Premiums went up and the company....gasp....absorbed the costs! How non business-like of them. Lol.

[Vteckidd]

We're with Aetna. Im not a representative sample, but you cant really ignore the fact that at the very least, 200 people have lower premiums this year.

If more people are contributing, how do prices rise? I think you're forgetting the end result of getting more people on healthcare. This isn't just a bunch of people getting healthcare for nothing through the insurance system.

Except for me and pretty much the rest of the company, who's premiums went down last year, and are down this year. And I severely doubt we're the ONLY company who's premiums went down.

So either A: this premiums rising for everyone rhetoric is BS, or B: Premiums went up and the company....gasp....absorbed the costs! How non business-like of them. Lol.
Its not rhetoric, i just gave you charts and examples of how everyone from liberals and conservatives and the Govt itself knows premiums are rising. Its not even debatable.

You dont know what you are talking about, you should go read the law.

The first thing Obamacare did was cover Contraception for women, and extend Health Insurance to kids till 26. That is covering MORE people without charging for it.

We have not seen the effects of the Mandatory Insurance Clause yet as it is not in effect. I cant give you those numbers because they dont exist. But, I hypothesize that most businesses will do what they do now, pay the fine and not cover people, and then people will be forced to go buy their own insurance or pay a fine/tax.

Again, its not even an argument, premiums are at record heights , despite 3 years of Obamacare being implemented.

[bu villain]

It's really very simple.

Employers currently know that if they give health benefits, they are more likely to retain their employees for a longer period of time. They don't hire the best employees - they hire the ones that are the most profitable for the company. If they simply wanted the best, there would be no such thing as outsourcing. They want those that can make them profit, and if they can use health benefits to keep the employee there longer, they will. If you take that away nationwide, then they simply won't offer that benefit anymore. They aren't going to give out $500 more in salary and cut the health benefits, as that does not succeed in tying the employee to the company as tightly as health insurance does.
The employee doesn't know the cost, but he does know that if he leaves, he loses his health insurance - and many are afraid to lose it with the high cost of emergency care.

Healthcare benefits have a psychological impact on the employee more so than just salary, as people get attached to a doctor/physician, and many do not want to change to a company that may not have that same doctor/physician listed on their health care provider plans. For this reason, it is different than straight salary or vacation days.

This doesn't refute any of my points which to reiterate are:

(1) Total compensation would not significantly decrease if health care is not an offered benefit - you actually give evidence that bolsters my stance by saying that health benefits are worth more than the monetary face value to employers because they tie the employer more closely to the company.

(2) We should have a health care policy that removes barriers for the labor force to be more mobile/entrepreneurial


Two things that you do not seem to have contemplated is that, while you are willing to pay more to help cover others insurance costs, not everyone feels the same way as you. Many think that there is no problem to pay extra to help cover others, but others think that each should cover their own family and costs. Why should one group force their will on the other group?

It's not forcing my will because it must be implemented through a democratic process. If we only had to follow the laws we agree with on an individual level, that would be rather chaotic.


The other thing is that many of those that will end up suddenly insured, are not currently insured - by choice. They currently choose to spend their money on other luxury items - TVs, cars, better housing, etc (non-necessities). I used to see it all the time when I had a retail business. I sold car audio systems back then, and I saw many people that chose to spend their money on amps and subs, rather than get health insurance. These are a lot of the people that you will be insuring under Obamacare.

As I stated above, there will always be people who wish a certain law did not apply to them. If we can carve out reasonable exceptions, then that makes sense to do but in the case of health insurance, you really need everyone in from the beginning. It is the only way to avoid people from jumping on the wagon only after they get sick. Having everyone in the pool is an unfortunate necessity.

[bu villain]

How do you average 1 person or 1 family?

How do they do it now when they write a policy for a large company? Think of it this way, the whole country is now a large company. The insurance company's actuarial team looks up medical statistics including their own data from over the years and determines the average cost of payments. The next year they analyze again and raise or lower premiums accordingly. This is basically how they determine premiums now in a large company policy.

[David88vert]

We're with Aetna. Im not a representative sample, but you cant really ignore the fact that at the very least, 200 people have lower premiums this year.

If more people are contributing, how do prices rise? I think you're forgetting the end result of getting more people on healthcare. This isn't just a bunch of people getting healthcare for nothing through the insurance system.

Except for me and pretty much the rest of the company, who's premiums went down last year, and are down this year. And I severely doubt we're the ONLY company who's premiums went down.

So either A: this premiums rising for everyone rhetoric is BS, or B: Premiums went up and the company....gasp....absorbed the costs! How non business-like of them. Lol.

Perhaps its because Aetna is avoiding Obamacare.
Aetna Seeks To Avoid Obamacare Rules Next Year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/aetna-obamacare_n_3009589.html)

[eraser4g63]

Blank you premiums may have gone down, what about you actual coverage and co-pays?

[BanginJimmy]

How do they do it now when they write a policy for a large company? Think of it this way, the whole country is now a large company. The insurance company's actuarial team looks up medical statistics including their own data from over the years and determines the average cost of payments. The next year they analyze again and raise or lower premiums accordingly. This is basically how they determine premiums now in a large company policy.

They use company wide averaging like you said. They also look at the industry you work in and the type of work you do. An engineering firm that does most of its work on a computer is going to have a cheaper plan for the exact same coverages than an industrial firm whose employees work on heavy objects and in tight spaces.

Why cant you do the same for the entire country? Differences in the cost of health care in different regions is one. individual under writing would be too expensive is another.

[David88vert]

This doesn't refute any of my points which to reiterate are:

(1) Total compensation would not significantly decrease if health care is not an offered benefit - you actually give evidence that bolsters my stance by saying that health benefits are worth more than the monetary face value to employers because they tie the employer more closely to the company.

(2) We should have a health care policy that removes barriers for the labor force to be more mobile/entrepreneurial

It's not forcing my will because it must be implemented through a democratic process. If we only had to follow the laws we agree with on an individual level, that would be rather chaotic.

As I stated above, there will always be people who wish a certain law did not apply to them. If we can carve out reasonable exceptions, then that makes sense to do but in the case of health insurance, you really need everyone in from the beginning. It is the only way to avoid people from jumping on the wagon only after they get sick. Having everyone in the pool is an unfortunate necessity.

I think that you think that I am trying to refute all of your argument - I am not. I am pointing out some realities that have to be addressed.

Total compensation would decrease, there is no question of that; however, if the employee is receiving health benefits from another source, they may or may not perceive these changes/decreases. The employers might find other benefits to attract employees to stay for long periods, that is certainly possible, and in some fields, I would say even likely. Regardless, the employee would see a decrease in compensation if the employer is no longer paying out part of the healthcare plan, and does not add in some other type of compensation.

I do not have a problem with the concept of healthcare being decoupled from employment - it is empowering to the employee. It's something to be very careful on though.

As to the democratic process, you can claim that if you want, but it is hardly bi-partisan when a particular party completely overrides the other. Obamacare was pure Democratic Party platform.

If Obamacare is so good, why was it only Democrats that voted for it, and now those same Democrats are talking about exempting THEMSELVES from the plan that they passed?
Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption - John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obamacare-exemption-lawmakers-aides-90610.html)

[BanginJimmy]

Perhaps its because Aetna is avoiding Obamacare.
Aetna Seeks To Avoid Obamacare Rules Next Year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/aetna-obamacare_n_3009589.html)


The new ACA requirements also will mean some health benefit plans that customers have selected previously will not be available to them in 2014."

But I thought we could keep our current plan if we like it?

Let me double check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LRcLMScEqo


Yep. We can keep out plan if we like it. Obama says so.

[Vteckidd]

Blank you premiums may have gone down, what about you actual coverage and co-pays?

damnit, that was my other point. His premiums could go down and his plan could be worth less than it was last year. That is totally possible as well.

[.blank cd]

Its not rhetoric, i just gave you charts and examples of how everyone from liberals and conservatives and the Govt itself knows premiums are rising. Its not even debatable.The piece of paper that shows what they're withholding from my check and 200 others this year would like to debate with you. Lol.

[.blank cd]

Blank you premiums may have gone down, what about you actual coverage and co-pays?

Nothing decreased this year or last year except my premium. Exact same coverage.

[.blank cd]

And as a matter of fact, they had to add my wife in the middle of her pregnancy since maternity isn't a pre existing condition. But I have to give Clinton credit for that one, not Obama (sorry brah)

[Sinfix_15]

Perhaps its because Aetna is avoiding Obamacare.
Aetna Seeks To Avoid Obamacare Rules Next Year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/aetna-obamacare_n_3009589.html)

I guess blank is going to pretend this post didnt happen.

Reality welcomes you blank, whenever you decide to become a part of it.

[Vteckidd]

The piece of paper that shows what they're withholding from my check and 200 others this year would like to debate with you. Lol.

So , are you really attempting to say that you dont believe Premiums are rising because you, and a select other few have not seen an increase? Thats like saying the economy is great because your Uncle got hired at Burger King.

I thought you ran your own business?

[.blank cd]

I guess blank is going to pretend this post didnt happen.

Reality welcomes you blank, whenever you decide to become a part of it.

All I get out of this post was noise. What was your point? I read the post.

[Vteckidd]

Nothing decreased this year or last year except my premium. Exact same coverage.

I still dont believe it, there is something that has changed. Post a copy of this years statement vs last. I also have Aetna and my premium (single male 30+) rose this year.

Even AETNA, sees your premiums rising
Aetna CEO Warns of Approaching Health Insurance (http://www.darkdaily.com/aetna-ceo-warns-of-approaching-health-insurance-premium-rate-shock-in-2014-for-consumers-and-others-under-accountable-care-act-30413#axzz2TJlRcqSE)

I actually know the reason why your premium decreased after doing some minor research. Wonder if you know what it is.

[Sinfix_15]

All I get out of this post was noise. What was your point? I read the post.

Ignorance is bliss. Keep your blinders on if it makes you happy.

[.blank cd]

So , are you really attempting to say that you dont believe Premiums are rising because you, and a select other few have not seen an increase? Thats like saying the economy is great because your Uncle got hired at Burger King.

I thought you ran your own business?

I'm saying that before I make a hasty generalization, I like to know all the details. That's how I run a business.

[Vteckidd]

I'm saying that before I make a hasty generalization, I like to know all the details. That's how I run a business.

nothing i said was a generalization. What i said was fact. Health Insurance premiums, are RISING, not falling. That statement is said as a matter of averages. I didnt say "ALL HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR EVERYONE ARE RISING". Are you trolling or just being really dense?

Use some critical thinking.

Your premium is not indicative of the entire spectrum, and the chart i posted from the Census Bureau proves that.

[bu villain]

I think that you think that I am trying to refute all of your argument - I am not. I am pointing out some realities that have to be addressed.

Total compensation would decrease, there is no question of that; however, if the employee is receiving health benefits from another source, they may or may not perceive these changes/decreases. The employers might find other benefits to attract employees to stay for long periods, that is certainly possible, and in some fields, I would say even likely. Regardless, the employee would see a decrease in compensation if the employer is no longer paying out part of the healthcare plan, and does not add in some other type of compensation.

We both agree that decoupling is a good idea. I understand we are on the same page there. You are refuting my other point though when you say "Total compensation would decrease, there is no question of that". I am questioning that. Generally speaking, I do not think the type of benefits provided change the overall total compensation companies offer. Of course we can argue about the subjective value of benefits (e.g., the value of a benefit that promotes company loyalty) but I don't think this distinction is important enough to warrant much discussion. Indeed we should be careful with major overhauls of such pervasive and important policies such as health care but you can't calculate every possible consequence so at some point you have to make your best estimates and move forward.


As to the democratic process, you can claim that if you want, but it is hardly bi-partisan when a particular party completely overrides the other. Obamacare was pure Democratic Party platform.

It doesn't have to be bi-partisan to be democratic. A majority of the bills passed for at least the last decade have been mostly along party lines. That doesn't make them undemocratic.


If Obamacare is so good, why was it only Democrats that voted for it, and now those same Democrats are talking about exempting THEMSELVES from the plan that they passed?
Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption - John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obamacare-exemption-lawmakers-aides-90610.html)

There are a lot of problems with Obamacare no doubt. I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks its anywhere near perfect. When you have such a diversity of opinions from libertarian laissez-faire to single payer, any bill you draft is probably going to piss off a lot of people. When it comes to politicians exempting themselves, that's par for the course. Look at how they allow themselves to make tons of money in the stock market off insider information that would be totally illegal for a normal citizen. Only in the last couple years have they even been giving lip service to that but that doesn't mean we should have laws against insider trading.

[Browning151]

Well well well, what do we have here?

Some unions now angry about health care overhaul - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/unions-now-angry-health-care-overhaul-074904729.html)

But this thing is gonna be great, right guys?

[BanginJimmy]

Well well well, what do we have here?

Some unions now angry about health care overhaul - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/unions-now-angry-health-care-overhaul-074904729.html)

But this thing is gonna be great, right guys?

This does not come as a surprise to anyone that actually thought about the effects of Obamacare.

[Browning151]

This does not come as a surprise to anyone that actually thought about the effects of Obamacare.

Not at all.

[.blank cd]

The CBO projected it will end up saving money, so I think those few unions need to pump the brakes a little.

[Sinfix_15]

Just ignore all of the companies who are cutting back and laying off because of this......

this is good for business!!! says democrats.

[BanginJimmy]

The CBO projected it will end up saving money, so I think those few unions need to pump the brakes a little.

Please explain the difference between static and dynamic predictions please.

The CBO predictions are almost useless because of the difference between dynamic and static.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[David88vert]

The CBO projected it will end up saving money, so I think those few unions need to pump the brakes a little.

Your CBO Update in simple form: CBO: Obamacare estimated cost nearly double to $1.7 trillion | WPMT FOX43 (http://fox43.com/2013/05/16/cbo-obamacare-estimated-cost-nearly-double-to-1-7-trillion/#axzz2UKth5rJ1)

[Sinfix_15]

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/4/1/1/0/4/7/ObamaSheep-41325934309.jpeg

[Vteckidd]

The CBO did a shitty estimate BEFORE it was passed that came up with some imaginary numbers that counted the donut hole savings twice. But since prob 2010, its all been growing exponentially, it is not debatable that Obamacare is going to COST money, not save. Not even close.

[.blank cd]

Obamacare is going to COST money, not save.[/b] Not even close.

CBO just recently said the opposite. They would like to debate you. Lol

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471

[.blank cd]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/23/news/economy/california-obamacare-premiums/index.html?section=money_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_topstories+%28Top +Stories%29

[BanginJimmy]

CBO just recently said the opposite. They would like to debate you. Lol

CBO | Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471)


CBO estimates are useless because of the way they are required by law to estimate.



Obamacare premiums in California lower than predicted - May. 23, 2013 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/23/news/economy/california-obamacare-premiums/index.html?section=money_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_topstories+%28Top +Stories%29)

This is a good counter argument but I still dont believe it. The rules still arent even written to cover much of Obamacare so there is still a lot of changes that will have to be made.

Your article does point out a significant fact though. Some estimates see costs rising dramaticly because the younger, healthier people dont jump into the markets in as large of numbers as expected. The article also doesnt say if they account for businesses that will reduce or eliminate coverage.

In the end, year 2 is the year I expect to see what rates really do. Insurers are dealing this a brand new dynamic in year one and there is no way to know exactly how it will turn out.

[David88vert]

The first large exchange just came online - for California ( Affordable Health Insurance | Covered California? (http://www.coveredca.com/) ). Washington, Oregon, etc, are also opened up.

So far, it looks like people will be really limited in what plans and providers they can choose from - only 13 providers so far, and what doctors they can go to. Obama's claim that "you can keep your same doctor", does not appear to be panning out. However, the rates appear to be much better than initially expected, but are still subject to approval, and may still go up before implementation in 219 days.
Covered California insurance marketplace to have limited choice - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/05/25/Covered-California-to-offer-limited-choice-of-providers/UPI-99881369512281/)
13 insurers offer policies on Covered California exchange, including Anthem, BCBS, Kaiser | MedCity News (http://medcitynews.com/2013/05/13-insurers-offer-policies-on-covered-california-exchange-including-anthem-bcbs-kaiser/)

[Sinfix_15]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BLt-L_DCYAAinNC.jpg:large

[Sinfix_15]

IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family)

[.blank cd]

IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family)

Cheapest Obamacare plan will be $20k per family....

Lets show an example for a couple making a combined income of $120k per year.

[bu villain]

Well this year my high deductible plan costs 16433/yr. That is for me, my wife, and my son. So at that rate, the cost for 5 people would be 16422/3*5=$27388. This is the cheapest plan my company offers by the way.

Also from the IRS report but the article neglected to mention is that individuals will be exempt if the contributions are more than 8% of their income (MAGI) (Page 8, 23)

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5VBzWHTMHvs

[Browning151]

Add IBEW to the list...

Electrical workers union jumps aboard anti-Obamacare bus - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/12/electrical-workers-union-jumps-aboard-anti-obamaca/#.UeBJaa_xcHw.twitter)

[BanginJimmy]

This should be no surprise to anyone. In 2010 there were a half dozen people on this site that were saying you werent keeping your doctor or plan. If us laymen could see it, why couldnt everyone else?

[Browning151]

This should be no surprise to anyone. In 2010 there were a half dozen people on this site that were saying you werent keeping your doctor or plan. If us laymen could see it, why couldnt everyone else?

Chris "Tingles" Matthews syndrome?

[BanginJimmy]

Chris "Tingles" Matthews syndrome?

People see what they want to see.

Using the exact same rules as Obamacare I could put forth a plan that actually would bring the prices down. I can also do it in a way that would be FAR less burdensome on the economy, and it does carry with it a mandate to carry health insurance. The difference is, people would be required to carry only a major medical plan, not a catch all plan. My plan also covers what causes a medical bankruptcy, a major medical emergency. People arent going bankrupt because they had to pay $5 for their birth control pills or to cover $1200 for xrays on a hurt ankle. They are going broke because of a 500k heart attack or a 1mil cancer fight

[.blank cd]

Guess Im not the only one who's premiums went down...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/health/health-plan-cost-for-new-yorkers-set-to-fall-50.html?_r=0

[David88vert]

Add the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, UNITE-HERE to the list now upset about Obamacare.

Labor Unions: Obamacare Will 'Shatter' Our Health Benefits, Cause 'Nightmare Scenarios' - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/07/15/labor-leaders-obamacare-will-shatter-their-health-benefits-cause-nightmare-scenarios/)

“When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act, you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat…We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision. Now this vision has come back to haunt us.”

[Sinfix_15]

a section of obamacare, read it and form your own opinion.

https://grants3.hrsa.gov/2010/Web2External/Interface/FundingCycle/ExternalView.aspx?&fCycleID=9E7EA909-4562-4FBE-86DA-D5F383C3ACFB&ViewMode=EU&GoBack=&PrintMode=&OnlineAvailabilityFlag=True&pageNumber=1

[David88vert]

More insurers pull out:
Big insurers ditching Obamacare exchanges - Sep. 10, 2013 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/10/news/economy/obamacare-insurers/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

[David88vert]

Obamacare in GA (more relevant to us):

"Kyle Wingfield, a columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, outlined them this way:

• A 25-year-old, non-smoking male can currently buy the cheapest, no frills plan with high out-of-pocket costs for about $66 a month. If the premium hikes go through, that plan would cost from $150-197 a month, depending on the insurer.

• A 45-year-old male non-smoker can find a low-cost plan for $119 a month. A similar plan offered under the exchange would cost from $217 to $234 per month.

• A 64-year-old male non-smoker can find a low-cost plan for $293 a month. Similar plans offered through Obamacare would cost from $450 to $501 per month.

At the 11th hour, two private health insurers that do business in Georgia, Aetna and its subsidiary, Coventry Health Care, announced that neither would participate in Georgia’s exchange, expected to be operating Oct. 1. Officials for the companies doubted that the plans they would offer would be “financially viable” — meaning that they don’t make sense because they would be net losers for the company. That’s the not-so-hidden flaw in Obamacare — it’s going to require a massive subsidy to keep afloat."

[Browning151]

The hits just keep on comin', but it's ok because we already know the end-game of Obamacare; single payer. It won't take long for this thing to become a massive failure once it's fully rolled out and you'll start hearing the calls of "we tried and it failed, the only solution now is a single payer system."

[BanginJimmy]

None of this is news and many of us said it was going to happen 3 years ago.

As I said before, Obamacare was purposefully designed to put insurers out of business. This is not among the unintended consequences, it was intended from the start.

[.blank cd]

Obamacare in GA (more relevant to us):

"Kyle Wingfield, a columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, outlined them this way:

• A 25-year-old, non-smoking male can currently buy the cheapest, no frills plan with high out-of-pocket costs for about $66 a month. If the premium hikes go through, that plan would cost from $150-197 a month, depending on the insurer.

• A 45-year-old male non-smoker can find a low-cost plan for $119 a month. A similar plan offered under the exchange would cost from $217 to $234 per month.

• A 64-year-old male non-smoker can find a low-cost plan for $293 a month. Similar plans offered through Obamacare would cost from $450 to $501 per month.

At the 11th hour, two private health insurers that do business in Georgia, Aetna and its subsidiary, Coventry Health Care, announced that neither would participate in Georgia’s exchange, expected to be operating Oct. 1. Officials for the companies doubted that the plans they would offer would be “financially viable” — meaning that they don’t make sense because they would be net losers for the company. That’s the not-so-hidden flaw in Obamacare — it’s going to require a massive subsidy to keep afloat."

And as I read this, my premiums continue to fall, on Aetna. This tells me there's a difference between the rhetoric, and what's actually happening.

[.blank cd]

None of this is news and many of us said it was going to happen 3 years ago.

As I said before, Obamacare was purposefully designed to put insurers out of business. This is not among the unintended consequences, it was intended from the start.

The healthcare lobby is probably the biggest lobby in existence. If they didnt want Obamacare, we wouldn't have Obamacare. Simple as that.

[BanginJimmy]

The healthcare lobby is probably the biggest lobby in existence. If they didnt want Obamacare, we wouldn't have Obamacare. Simple as that.


Hospitals stand to make a lot of money off this. Insurers will lose their ass on it.

On the other hand, I cold see doctors and insurers making huge money on this. Doctors increase their rates by 10% across the board. Insurers dont fight it, they just pass the costs on to consumers. Because their payouts will be so much higher, the profit side of the 20% that doesnt go directly to heathcare will also be higher. Then again, why stop at 10%, why not 50%?

[BanginJimmy]

And as I read this, my premiums continue to fall, on Aetna. This tells me there's a difference between the rhetoric, and what's actually happening.

I'm just going to come right out and call you a liar.

[.blank cd]

I'm just going to come right out and call you a liar.

Call what you want. My premiums, with Aetna, are lower this year than they were last year.

[BanginJimmy]

Call what you want. My premiums, with Aetna, are lower this year than they were last year.

you might want to look over your declarations page and see how your coverages changed. It is also possible your employer is picking up a larger percentage.

[David88vert]

And as I read this, my premiums continue to fall, on Aetna. This tells me there's a difference between the rhetoric, and what's actually happening.

I just compared the quotes from BCBS and Kaiser to what I am paying now. They want over $1800/month now to cover a healthy family of four with less coverage than I currently have. That's triple what it costs, and they say that these rates that I just had quoted are expected to go up on 10/1, when they have to comply with the ACA.
How does Obama expect a family of four to pay out $1800/month of health insurance?

Looking at the cheapest option that was available ($5000 ded. per individ.), the cost comes down to just over $600/month.

Good thing that I have private insurance through my employer.

[Vteckidd]

Call what you want. My premiums, with Aetna, are lower this year than they were last year.

then youre not telling us something.

Same coverage, same members, same EVERYTHING.

Tell you what, blank out the Account Number , leave your last name, and post a copy of last years statements and this years. Should be EASY.

[Vteckidd]

you might want to look over your declarations page and see how your coverages changed. It is also possible your employer is picking up a larger percentage.

hes not telling us something, or hes not accurate as the plan has changed.

Even my Doctor has told me that come 10/1 expect my private insurance to go up. I pay $234 a month, I paid $134 3 years ago

[WhiteAccord]

Call what you want. My premiums, with Aetna, are lower this year than they were last year.

I really think your a lying sack of shit... I can see why your a full blown Obama suporter.

Big insurers ditching Obamacare exchanges - Sep. 10, 2013 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/10/news/economy/obamacare-insurers/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

[.blank cd]

I really think your a lying sack of shit... I can see why your a full blown Obama suporter.

Big insurers ditching Obamacare exchanges - Sep. 10, 2013 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/10/news/economy/obamacare-insurers/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

Good for you. Would you like a cookie? My premiums went down, and I didnt vote for Obama. So what does that tell us? You've most likely lost the last brain cell you possessed, and your opinion is still irrelevant when it comes to facts.

Thank you for your contribution to the server bandwidth clutter.

Question. Have you ever had a coherent thought of your own? Or do you just get by mimicking what you've been told by your friends and the Internet.

[.blank cd]

Tell you what, blank out the Account Number , leave your last name, and post a copy of last years statements and this years. Should be EASY.

Would that shut everyone up? Just a document that I'm paying less than I paid last year? Is that all it takes?

Or are we gonna go back to posting all the same menial rhetoric that's been posted time and time again? That Obamacare makes premiums go up across the board? Even after I post this documented evidence to the contrary?

[Vteckidd]

Would that shut everyone up? Just a document that I'm paying less than I paid last year? Is that all it takes?

Or are we gonna go back to posting all the same menial rhetoric that's been posted time and time again? That Obamacare makes premiums go up across the board? Even after I post this documented evidence to the contrary?

It would back your argument. Again, if your premiums went DOWN, then your coverage CHANGED (less coverage, dropped spouse) or I think you are mistaken (not calling you a liar). Something isnt the same.

You made the claim, you should back it up. You are using your claim as a basis that everyone else is a liar, that somehow this is all propaganda that you refuse to believe, and that your 1 specific case is indicative of everyone else. Your statement is like someone saying "i got a raise last year, so therefore, everyone in the economy is ok, and everything is fine" when clearly all the data says its NOT ok.

You made a big claim, you should back it up, because facts are what matter, and until i see proof, i do not believe you

[.blank cd]

I really think your a lying sack of shit... I can see why your a full blown Obama suporter.

http://i.imgur.com/TMNI8s9.jpg

[Vteckidd]

So either the law is doing exactly what all of us said it would do:
Lead to the rationing of care
drive costs up
not solve the problems of the uninsured
Lead to the end of the 40 hour work week (unions are admitting this too)


OR

Everyone is a liar, and you are right.

Put up or shut up.

[.blank cd]

MY FAULT, I MEANT TO HIT "QUOTE" AND I HIT EDIT AND CHANGED HIS ORIGINAL POST. MY FAULT- VTECKIDD


Quote Originally Posted by .blank cd View Post
Im not saying that my one specific case is indicative of everyone.

Some pundits have made the claim that premiums will rise across the board. Mine have gone down. So obviously its not across the board. And I'm sure that I'm not the only person in the United States who's insurance premiums went down. So that claim is false, and at minimum, people who's insurance has gone down is something that should be considered.

[BanginJimmy]

Im not saying that my one specific case is indicative of everyone. .


And as I read this, my premiums continue to fall, on Aetna. This tells me there's a difference between the rhetoric, and what's actually happening.



Sounds to me like you are making that claim.

[.blank cd]

Sounds to me like you are making that claim.

I don't know how unless you're misinterpreting what Im saying.

[Vteckidd]

Im not saying that my one specific case is indicative of everyone.

Some pundits have made the claim that premiums will rise across the board. Mine have gone down. So obviously its not across the board. And I'm sure that I'm not the only person in the United States who's insurance premiums went down. So that claim is false, and at minimum, people who's insurance has gone down is something that should be considered.

again, prove it or i dont believe it. you are using your 1 claim to combat all the media and information out there that is contrary.

You realize what a broad claim is right. Did any of us say "ALL PREMIUMS WILL RISE , REGARDLESS, NO MATTER WHAT, EVERY SINGLE PERSONS PREMIUMS WILL RISE"?

No, we didnt, so stop acting like we did. here you go again changing the argument to try to escape.


pundits have made the claim that premiums will rise across the board.

That is you changing the argument, i dont really care what Pundits said, WE are having this discussion. WE are the ones posting info. We arent debating what die hard partisan people are talking about, we are debating all the articles and information being SUPPORTED that premiums are rising.

Youre ONLY argument against all of this is "well, personally MY rates didnt rise, and CONTINUE to go down, therefore , you are all wrong".

So all im asking is for you to prove it. Id love to see the 1 case that someone is having their rates go down. Because no one, not even the LEFT LEANING mainstream media is agreeing with you anymore. Its like your holding the winning lottery ticket but you wont show it because .................you dont really have it.

This is kinda the way you argue though, you get backed into a corner and you like to make wild claims with no proof, or bring up other non important things to blather about, shifting the topic. I mean you realize the mountain you are trying to climb, you are equating "my cousin got a job, so therefore, the economy is GREAT!". Are you really that naive?

The problem is you think anyone who doesnt share your opinion is a "pundit" and youll make any excuse you want to support your side, even if you know its wrong. this isnt the first time you have made claims like this. Im just asking you to prove it now. your response will tell how serious you are, if you post it, ill give you credibility, if you dont, then I suspect you are hiding something or dont understand how to read your own healthcare bill.

[David88vert]

Interactive Map: In 13 States Plus D.C., Obamacare Will Increase Health Premiums By 24%, On Average - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/04/interactive-map-in-13-states-plus-d-c-individual-health-premiums-will-increase-by-an-average-of-24/)

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/index.html

http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/06/obamacare-lower-health-insurance-premium

[Vteckidd]

Some pundits have made the claim that premiums will rise across the board. Mine have gone down. So obviously its not across the board.

Thats great, go start a thread where people are talking about that, because that is not what is going on here. Go start a thread where someone said that all premiums regardless of race , creed, age, sex, will rise. Then you can have at it ( i suspect you will be the only one in that thread anyway).

This thread, is talking about how the costs of premiums have risen despite Obamacare promising they will go down. If you dont understand, that is what is called a GENERAL claim, meaning, generally speaking, majority of costs have risen.
Big Business claims it
Unions who supported it are now claiming it
Democratic Senators who supported it are claiming it
Individual people are claiming it
Doctors are claiming it

Its not even debatable. It is happening. Its being reported everywhere. The numbers back it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/21/business/survey-finds-modest-rise-in-health-insurance-premiums.html?_r=0

LA TIMES

The Kaiser survey is the latest indication that that is not happening yet. In addition to rising premiums, workers also are getting hit with more cost-sharing , the survey found. For example, the average deductible for a health plan that covers only the employee reached $1,135, up from $1,097 in 2012.

Particularly hard hit are workers at small businesses, who already pay more for their health coverage than employee of large firms. Nearly a third of workers at employers with fewer than 200 employees have deductibles of at least $2,000.

Employers with more lower-wage workers also force their employees to pay more for their health benefits. Workers at firms where at least 35% of the workforce earns less than $23,000 pay $1,363 more for an average family plan than workers at firms with fewer low-wage employees, the survey found.

WSJ
Employer Health Coverage Premiums Rise Slowly Again This Year - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323423804579024583989010644.html)

We can debate WHY its happening, but no one is making the claim that you are insinuating. Furthermore, prove your claim, because I dont think you are correct.

Are you swearing that nothing has changed on your plan
Deductible the same
Coverage the same
Company the same
People covered the same

NOTHING HAS CHANGED and your premiums went DOWN. If so, POST PROOF, its SIMPLE to do.

[.blank cd]

again, prove it or i dont believe it. you are using your 1 claim to combat all the media and information out there that is contrary.

You realize what a broad claim is right. Did any of us say "ALL PREMIUMS WILL RISE , REGARDLESS, NO MATTER WHAT, EVERY SINGLE PERSONS PREMIUMS WILL RISE"?

No, we didnt, so stop acting like we did. here you go again changing the argument to try to escape.



That is you changing the argument, i dont really care what Pundits said, WE are having this discussion. WE are the ones posting info. We arent debating what die hard partisan people are talking about, we are debating all the articles and information being SUPPORTED that premiums are rising.

Youre ONLY argument against all of this is "well, personally MY rates didnt rise, and CONTINUE to go down, therefore , you are all wrong".

So all im asking is for you to prove it. Id love to see the 1 case that someone is having their rates go down. Because no one, not even the LEFT LEANING mainstream media is agreeing with you anymore. Its like your holding the winning lottery ticket but you wont show it because .................you dont really have it.

This is kinda the way you argue though, you get backed into a corner and you like to make wild claims with no proof, or bring up other non important things to blather about, shifting the topic. I mean you realize the mountain you are trying to climb, you are equating "my cousin got a job, so therefore, the economy is GREAT!". Are you really that naive?

I'm not backed into a corner at all, and i haven't changed my argument. Still not sure how you've deduced that from anything I've said.

[Vteckidd]

I'm not backed into a corner at all, and i haven't changed my argument. Still not sure how you've deduced that from anything I've said.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/154/912/berneydidnotread.gif?1318992465

*unsubscribed because if you wont provide any proof to your claims, i consider the argument over.

[Sinfix_15]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/154/912/berneydidnotread.gif?1318992465

*unsubscribed because if you wont provide any proof to your claims, i consider the argument over.

My rate doubled. Can i post proof of this and win a prize?

[David88vert]

Here are some facts about Obamacare in GA that might interest you:

Only two organizations will supply people to help an estimated 1.9 million Georgians pick a health plan under the federal Affordable Care Act according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. When the federal department begins operating Georgia’s health exchange Oct. 1, individuals and small businesses will have a choice of 20 plans offered by five insurers, although two of the insurers announced yesterday that they will pull out of offering services in the exchange, so it appears that this number will drop to three. Only the University of Georgia’s extension service and the Structured Employment Economic Development Corporation, or SEEDCO, will serve Georgia as navigators. SEEDCO is a national company geared to helping the poor and will recruit other organizations in Georgia and Tennessee, such as the Atlanta-based advocacy organization Georgia Watch and UGA and SEEDCO will have $3.2 million to work with total.

13 attorneys generals have agreed that there are not enough privacy protections of people seeking help from navigators, and they have written to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to call for more training and oversight of the navigators, including criminal background checks and fingerprints. Her department has not addressed these privacy concerns yet.


According to the reports in the AJC:

•If you're a 25-year-old, male non-smoker in Atlanta, today you can buy insurance comparable to the cheapest policy allowed by Obamacare (the "bronze" plan) for $66.17 a month. If the premium increases go through as proposed, the cost of that plan would nearly triple, to $197.28 a month. The cost of the very cheapest plan on offer would be $150.68, or 85 percent more than you currently pay. That means you'd have to pay $84.51 a month more to keep the same quality of insurance you have now.

•If you're a 45-year-old, male non-smoker in Atlanta, today you can buy a plan comparable to Obamacare's "bronze" plan for $118.78 a month. The proposed premium increase would basically double that cost to $233.59 a month. The cheapest plan available would be $216.71 a month, or 82 percent more than you pay now. For the same quality insurance you have now, you'd have to spend another $97.93 a month.

•For a 64-year-old, male non-smoker, the cost of the cheapest "bronze"-type plan today is $293.25 a month; the proposed increase is to $501 a month, a 71 percent hike. The cheapest plan on offer would be $450.21 a month, or 54 percent more than you pay today. That means paying $156.96 a month more just to maintain the same type of insurance.

Over the course of a year, we're talking about these men spending more than $1,000 just to maintain their quality of coverage -- without an option to buy lower-quality insurance, which Obamacare prohibits on the individual market.

Health insurance costs typically raise up 10% annually in GA. These are statistics well-documented and recorded at the Georgia Insurance Commissioner's office and are publically available.

Currently in GA, an insurance company can charge up to seven times as much for its most expensive individual health plan than it charges for its cheapest plan.
Obamacare prohibits a ratio of more than 3:1 which means that younger, healthier people will be charged more to subsidize people who are older and/or have poorer health habits.


If you want a quote from a non-politician, then Trump should take the win:
"Let me get this straight . . .
We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t!
Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke!!!!!
What the hell could possibly go wrong?"

But an ever better quote came from the Democrats before they voted on Obamacare, and it is:
“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” - Speaker Nancy Pelosi, March 2010.

[Vteckidd]

“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” - Speaker Nancy Pelosi, March 2010.

http://freepatriot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Pelosi.png

[Sinfix_15]

^^^^^

http://www.nwps.ws/pub/forum-gifs/conan-rofl.gif

[David88vert]

http://youtu.be/KoE1R-xH5To

[David88vert]

Remember when you could keep your current plan if you wanted to?
Apparently you can't if you are an IBM, Time Warner, Caterpillar, DuPont, or GM retiree.

"About 44 percent of companies plan to stop administering health plans for their former workers over the next two years, a survey last month by consultant Towers Watson & Co. (TW) found."

“Things are going to change dramatically,” said Ron Fontanetta, a partner at New York-based Towers Watson, which advises GE and other large companies. “Over the next two to three years, we see a much more aggressive rethinking of what employers are going to provide.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-09/ge-to-ibm-ending-retiree-health-plans-in-historic-shift.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/07/ibm-moving-some-retirees-_n_3886749.html?ir=Business



http://youtu.be/KoV0NeHNklk

[Sinfix_15]

Supporting Obama has become like a religion. Facts, logic, results or a lack there of will no sway those who support Obama. If you need an example, just look at blank. He's a deacon in the church of Obamanism.

[.blank cd]

Supporting Obama has become like a religion. Facts, logic, results or a lack there of will no sway those who support Obama. If you need an example, just look at blank. He's a deacon in the church of Obamanism.

:facepalm:

[David88vert]

Who is making money off Obamacare?
Obamacare Architects Are Profiting from the Broken Bill - Kate Andrews (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kateandrews/2013/08/27/obamacare-architects-now-profiting-heavily-from-broken-bill-n1675291)

[Sinfix_15]

:facepalm:

I'm really sorry, please except my apology....






Church of Obamanomics****

That is what i meant to say.

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-kyPd2px0RM

[Sinfix_15]

Directly from the Obamacare website.....

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s268/Virtutis/Obamacare_zpsda4b9da9.jpg (http://s154.photobucket.com/user/Virtutis/media/Obamacare_zpsda4b9da9.jpg.html)