[h=1]OWING OBAMACARE? When you die,
you still may have to pay up[/h]

• [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/23/obamacare-death-debt-states-can-seize-assets-to-recoup-medicaid-costs/"][RIGHT]Fox News[/RIGHT][/URL]
• THE MILLIONS WHO ARE ENTERINGMedicaid under ObamaCare's expanded eligibility may not know that their assets are at risk, unaware that the federal law allows states to recover health costs after someone's death by seizing assets.
• Administration fears ObamaCare website problems could bankrupt health insurance firms
• Krauthammer on HealthCare.gov: 'All hell's going to break loose'

The Disaster Tour rolls on ......

Well, just got the numbers from our company's insurer. We have 64 American employees, 61 are male (yes, we'd like to hire more women but this is an IT company) and the median age is around 28 years old. For FY'13 the average out of pocket insurance premium was approximately $175/month - skewed lower due to so many young, single males. For the upcoming fiscal year, the average premium is going to skyrocket to about $350/month. We're going to have a couple of dozen of guys that are now doing to be out of pocket to the tune of nearly $4,000/year for insurance they won't use and certainly don't need. How is this called the Affordable Healthcare Act when it becomes less affordable for people?

Manhattan Buckeye;1571237 wrote:...couple of dozen of guys that are now doing to be out of pocket to the tune of nearly $4,000/year for insurance they won't use and certainly don't need. How is this called the Affordable Healthcare Act when it becomes less affordable for people?

Technically it's an additional $2000 out-of-pocket (which is still pretty significant).

But it's social health insurance. The concept is you contribute a net subsidy when you are younger, and then benefit as you get older. But that logic isn't going to be apparent to most people (nor should it necessarily be - it's major financial choices people have a right to manage themselves).

The reality is I don't really see where they are going to generate "savings" from as margins in insurance are already very slim. The opportunity is in pharma and medical devices (and malpractice, which isn't being addressed). And the other non-obvious thing to most people is if you attempt to force lower margins on pharma and medical devices, R&D is going to suffer.

My solution would be to mandate/regulate how insurance companies can pool risk (i.e. can't screen/filter on pre-existing conditions). Then open competition across state lines, etc...

GROWING DEM OPPOSITION COULD DOOM OBAMACARE
ObamaCare skidded to an all-time low in the latest Fox News poll, but in a switch, it’s Democrats who are driving down the already unpopular law. In June, 22 percent of Democrats were opposed to ObamaCare, which blends expansive new health-insurance regulations with a new welfare program. In the latest survey, that number rose to 30 percent, helping push overall opposition to a new high of 59 percent. (Just 36 percent overall supported the law.) While the number that is most encouraging to Republican hopes of taking control of the Senate is the sky-high 64 percent opposition to the law among independents, the spike in Democratic opposition promises to be very consequential.
[A survey by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation finds less than 40 percent of uninsured adults will obtain coverage in 2014.]

^^^ this isn't surprising given the huge tax on "cadillac" employer sponsored health insurance benefits that union members, both in the public and private sector, have enjoyed for years. People in this demographic lean hugely Dem, and it was likely not a nice surprise for them to see this major tax hit down the road.

Didn't they exclude union plans from this? You know, the great Obamakare wasn't good enough for his union constituents, Congress or administrative staff.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. On the one hand you have Moody's(?) saying the health insurance industry could be headed for a bailout, and then you hear how it can be gamed by forcing the sick into either a high deductible or high premium plan. So I don't know, but I bet if the insurance companies needed a bailout Dems would refuse and instead seek to nationalize the industry.

Manhattan Buckeye;1571687 wrote:^^^ this isn't surprising given the huge tax on "cadillac" employer sponsored health insurance benefits that union members, both in the public and private sector, have enjoyed for years. People in this demographic lean hugely Dem, and it was likely not a nice surprise for them to see this major tax hit down the road.

You hit the nail on the head. Having worked as a teamster and about to go into the field of teaching I can tell you many are livid. I will say this looks very good for republicans down the road, many wonder whether this current generation will be one more focused on the collective good or the good of the individual and I think it's honestly the latter. The Great Recession has encouraged a whole generation of fiscal conservatives

Aetna pulling out of exchanges. Hopefully the beginning of the end for this absolute disaster.

QuakerOats;1571702 wrote:Aetna pulling out of exchanges. Hopefully the beginning of the end for this absolute disaster.

I didn't know they could do that. Don't they still have to offer qualifying plans? Seems like you'd be missing out on a lot of potential customers, but if that exchange pool is heavily skewed toward sick/old then it might make sense to pull out as a better mix of customers might seek you out.

Even if the law wasn't flawed, the rollout/execution has just been a total disaster. Obama should have been elbow deep in this, but he was too busy campaigning and demagogue. Forget who, but some CEO was saying this is the most important thing ahead for you and your signature achievement - he was just astounded that Obama would have been so detached from the process

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/watch-employees-pennsylvania-company-learn-increased-health-costs-due-obamacare_775944.html


Watch this video as small business employees get the knockout punch from obamaKare.

The devastation is just beginning. Simply unbelievable.

Unpopularity of Obamacare Rises Among Uninsured...

Favorability down 46 points since passed...

VIDEO: Employees Learn High Costs of Obamacare...

REPORT: Boston Tops List for Doctor Wait Times with 72 Days...

QuakerOats;1574412 wrote:http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/watch-employees-pennsylvania-company-learn-increased-health-costs-due-obamacare_775944.html


Watch this video as small business employees get the knockout punch from obamaKare.

The devastation is just beginning. Simply unbelievable.

Nice to see this video made Cleveland's WTAM ........ at some point critical mass has to take over and this disaster gets rolled back !!

http://www.wtam.com/pages/wcpage.html

CBO: Obamacare killing 2 million jobs...



On top of that, everybody else is sitting on their hands waiting to see just how destructive this disaster becomes.

Change we can believe in ...

CBO says yesterday that another 2.3 MILLION jobs will be lost due to obamaKare.

This regime is doing all they can to crush our economy, for good.

Change we can believe in ...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/05/obamacare-job-loss-report-turbocharges-twitter-sen-roberts-asks-were-books/?intcmp=latestnews

QuakerOats;1576616 wrote:CBO says yesterday that another 2.3 MILLION jobs will be lost due to obamaKare.

This regime is doing all they can to crush our economy, for good.

Change we can believe in ...

But that's a good thing according to the Obamabots. Has there ever been a group of people so delusional and unwilling to admit they were wrong? If half of this country is really this stupid/stubborn I'm not sure this country will exist in its current form in 20 years.

QuakerOats;1576192 wrote:On top of that, everybody else is sitting on their hands waiting to see just how destructive this disaster becomes.

Are you shocked by this?

Again I give Obama, the Dems, and his willing minions in the media credit for mapping out a "plan" designed to fail miserably in order to "encourage" the sheeple to clamor for an overt gubmint-controlled single-payer health care system as the "fix to this mess."

And milquetoast RINO Repubs are all too willing to appease.

Ingenious.

Manhattan Buckeye;1576855 wrote:But that's a good thing according to the Obamabots. Has there ever been a group of people so delusional and unwilling to admit they were wrong? If half of this country is really this stupid/stubborn I'm not sure this country will exist in its current form in 20 years.

Deep down, they know Obama is seriously damaging the liberal movement...so they defend him to the point of absurdity because to do otherwise risks setting them back another 10-20 years.

Will be interesting to see how Hillary is going to sell the same agenda while pretending it's not more of the same 8 years of mostly failed policy. After GWB, the Repubs could have run Reagan and he would have been slaughtered. But the media will make sure Hillary doesn't have such an uphill climb.

QuakerOats;1576616 wrote:CBO says yesterday that another 2.3 MILLION jobs will be lost due to obamaKare.

I'm am absolutely floored that people are dumb enough to believe the Pelosi spin that a person voluntarily leaving the workforce is a lost job.

No no no, no, no no no. Lost jobs are lost jobs and are a bad thing. People being financially secure enough to retire/leave the workforce is a good thing, and something that offsets lost jobs. But 2.3 MILLION less jobs are 2.3 MILLION less opportunities for someone to better themselves - and liberals have the audacity to talk about upward mobility when they just killed 2.3 MILLION jobs just with Obamakare?!?

Today's links ---- incredible

Obamacare enrollees hit snags at doctor's offices...
Subsidy Cliff: Earn $1 More in Wages, and You Could Pay $20,000 More for Insurance...
CBO Director: 'Creates a Disincentive for People to Work'...
AOL CEO: 'Obamacare Is Additional $7.1 Million Expense For Us'...
Man says personal info stolen after using website...
'Anti-Obamacare' message pays off in campaign...
Cantor takes up replacement bill...
Iran pokes USA with 'Rouhanicare'...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/04/obamacare-expected-to-lead-to-loss-nearly-25-million-american-jobs-report-says/


You can't make this stuff up, I'm going to quote what Carney said.

However, the White House focused on the report's claim that the loss of jobs will not be due to employers cutting back, but due to Americans choosing to voluntarily leave the workforce. White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement the report proves ObamaCare is allowing Americans to be "empowered" to make such a choice.
"At the beginning of this year, we noted that as part of this new day in health care, Americans would no longer be trapped in a job just to provide coverage for their families, and would have the opportunity to pursue their dreams," he said. "This CBO report bears that out, and the Republican plan to repeal the ACA would strip those hard-working Americans of that opportunity."

Did he really just say that 2.3 million less jobs is a GOOD THING?!?!

Please tell me the liberals are not drinking this Kool Aid and believing it...yeah, millions of less jobs is a good thing.

jmog;1577149 wrote: Did he really just say that 2.3 million less jobs is a GOOD THING?!?!

I couldn't believe this either. But if you read the CBO, it actually says "equivalent of 2.3M less jobs...primarily because people choose to supply less labor". Which is really suspicious (and conveniently untestable) logic.

I don't believe people have "voluntarily" reduced hours worked in probably at least a few decades. It also flies in the face of people struggling to get by - they weren't paying for healthcare before, so now giving them free healthcare means they need less disposable income?

The only explanation that makes sense is that old "disincentive" to work - where their marginal tax rate is so high (due to loss of free handouts from Obamakare, SNAP, etc) that there really is no point to putting in more hours. The CBO report might say that in very carefully worded, roundabout language.

gut;1577280 wrote:I couldn't believe this either. But if you read the CBO, it actually says "equivalent of 2.3M less jobs...primarily because people choose to supply less labor". Which is really suspicious (and conveniently untestable) logic.

I don't believe people have "voluntarily" reduced hours worked in probably at least a few decades. It also flies in the face of people struggling to get by - they weren't paying for healthcare before, so now giving them free healthcare means they need less disposable income?

The only explanation that makes sense is that old "disincentive" to work - where their marginal tax rate is so high (due to loss of free handouts from Obamakare, SNAP, etc) that there really is no point to putting in more hours. The CBO report might say that in very carefully worded, roundabout language.

Economist Casey Mulligan has been on this case regarding the Affordable Care Act for a while:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/10/mulligan-.html

This is an area where I agree with you. I talk about the demand side a lot but this is exactly what conservatives are talking about with regard to the supply-side. People voluntarily choosing NOT to produce is not a good thing.

Means testing is bad. In the ideal world there would be no means tested programs. If you're going to have a public program, make it universal and available for rich and poor alike.

BoatShoes;1577295 wrote:People voluntarily choosing NOT to produce is not a good thing.

The right types of people can be (which is a very difficult thing to achieve with policy). For example, one effect of the Great Recession is people who would normally have retired have had to keep working to build their savings back up. That lack of promotional opportunities for younger workers trickles all the way down. If you're not at full employment, people voluntarily reducing hours isn't a bad thing.

But unless you are at full employment, one person reducing their hours creates opportunity for additional hours for someone else...unless businesses are actually eliminating those jobs/hours. So the hours worked really shouldn't drop. And like I said, this just doesn't pass the smell test because the low wage workers the CBO is talking about here mostly didn't have employer provided insurance nor were they purchasing private policies.