Choking on Obamacare

[theeedude]

Healthcare costs have been rising faster than inflation for 50 years.

And what do you think a single payer system is but allowing business to free load off the tax payer the costs of medical insurance? I find it amusing you are complaining about business freeloading when you propose a system that would remove the cost of health care insurance from business all together and allowing them to reap the externalities without the cost.

I am not surprised you find that amusing, since you are incapable of seeing the distinction.
Single payer is paid by taxes levied on all employees and/or businesses. It does not favor one competitor over another.
Freeloading by businesses who don't provide insurance is paid by health care premiums of businesses that do. It explicitly rewards those businesses who freeload off other businesses.

 

[werepossum]

Healthcare costs have been rising faster than inflation for 50 years.

And what do you think a single payer system is but allowing business to free load off the tax payer the costs of medical insurance? I find it amusing you are complaining about business freeloading when you propose a system that would remove the cost of health care insurance from business all together and allowing them to reap the externalities without the cost.

But it's okay, 'cause he's going to drive businesses out of business in Phase II. Then it's all going to be a big utopia, once we've abolished the abomination of capitalism and learned to accept what Government provides.

 

[theeedude]

You've learned to accept what the private health insurance market provides, which is tens of millions of uninsured and double the cost of competing economies to get inferior results.

 

[sm625]

Regulate to death. Force the jobs overseas. Let the pissed off americans fly planes into IRS buildings, and use that as an excuse to ramp up "defense" spending. People are so stupid for letting any of this go on. If you ever wonder how does an invading army win a war against an enemy who is 47% armed? This is how they do it. But still you people dont realize this is war.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

But it's okay, 'cause he's going to drive businesses out of business in Phase II. Then it's all going to be a big utopia, once we've abolished the abomination of capitalism and learned to accept what Government provides.

Remember that he's the guy who blamed everyone else when regulation wouldn't allow someone who had medicaid couldn't access his benefits because they were poorly enacted. I'd take things with a grain of salt.

 

[Darwin333]

Random question: Does anyone know of any studies on what health care and insurance costs will be in 30-40 years? Seems like they go up a ridiculous amount (20%?) each year, which isn't exactly sustainable. If that number if anywhere close to correct, how is health care going to be funded in 2050?

At 7% a year we hit the wall soon, very soon.

I have yet to see any hard data that shows "Medicare for all" would reduce the cost increases in any meaningful way while still providing the same care that we expect and demand.

 

[sactoking]

In 23 days "Obamacare" will increase taxes on pharma companies by $300,000,000 just for the fun of it. If you think that tax won't get passed on to consumers you're delusional.

The American people will have $300,000,000 less over the course of the next year. Economic recovery, indeed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

At 7% a year we hit the wall soon, very soon.

I have yet to see any hard data that shows "Medicare for all" would reduce the cost increases in any meaningful way while still providing the same care that we expect and demand.

Of course it won't because it's not possible in any current system to deal with the problems of delivering the current standard of care with the changing demographics. Of course the moment to attack the problem was while there was a great deal of interest a few years ago. We got nothing.

 

[Throckmorton]

The idea that regulations take money away from "job creation" is asinine.

The government mandates that your car have a catalytic convertor. How does that take away a job? Would the car manufacturer hire an extra worker if a car was cheaper to make? Why? Doesn't the job of the guy building catalytic converters count?

 

[fskimospy]

LOL George Will opinion piece.

 

[dmcowen674]

CKE restaurants have 95 percent employee turnover in a year — not bad in this industry — and the health-care benefits under CKE’s current “mini-med” plans are capped in a way that makes them illegal under Obamacare. So CKE will have to convert many full-time employees to part-timers to limit the growth of its burdens under Obamacare.

In an economic climate of increasing uncertainties, Puzder says, one certainty is that many businesses now marginally profitable will disappear when Obamacare causes that margin to disappear. A second certainty is that “employers everywhere will be looking to reduce labor content in their business models as Obamacare makes employees unambiguously more expensive.”
===========================================
Another failure induced by Obamacare and over-regulation.

Actually Obamacare is a complete success here.

If this Company was "marginally profitable" as they put it then it shouldn't be in business anymore to begin with.

Obama is a Messiah weeding out bad shit. :thumbsup:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The idea that regulations take money away from "job creation" is asinine.

The government mandates that your car have a catalytic convertor. How does that take away a job? Would the car manufacturer hire an extra worker if a car was cheaper to make? Why? Doesn't the job of the guy building catalytic converters count?

That depends on the regulation. If expensive irrelevancies are added then there is less money to do the job. It all depends.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Actually Obamacare is a complete success here.

If this Company was "marginally profitable" as they put it then it shouldn't be in business anymore to begin with.

Obama is a Messiah weeding out bad shit. :thumbsup:

Somehow I don't think Obamacare supporters really want this kind of help.

 

[Carmen813]

Anyone else laughing about the fast food chain complaining about health care costs?

 

[sactoking]

The idea that regulations take money away from "job creation" is asinine.

It's not completely asinine, nor is it completely true.

The government mandates that your car have a catalytic convertor. How does that take away a job? Would the car manufacturer hire an extra worker if a car was cheaper to make? Why?

Well, quite possibly yes. If a car costs $20,000 the manuf. might sell 8,000 units annually. If you mandate catalytic converters be added and the price increases to $20,500 the manuf. might sell 7,750 annually. If an assembly line worker can make 250 units annually then the manufacturer's labor needs drop from 32 workers to 31 workers. Additionally, net revenue for the manufacturer dropped by $1,125,000.

If the car itself costs $16,000 to build and the catalytic converter costs $450 to purchase then net material costs dropped by $512,500. The Company's profit margin is affected by $612,500. That's an additional 8 jobs at $50k/yr + $25k/yr in benefits. Total jobs lost by the manufacturer: 9.

This is, obviously, a hypothetical scenario using numbers I made up but it illustrates the point that regulations that increase operational costs CAN cost jobs.

Doesn't the job of the guy building catalytic converters count?

Yes, it does. Obviously to the car manufacturer it doesn't, but to the public it does. There are a few key questions though:
1. Will the manufacture of 7,750 catalytic converters create more jobs than were lost by the car manufacturer? If one person can make 2000 catalytic converters per year then you need 4 workers. That's not a good trade-off. If one person can make 500 catalytic converters then you need 16 workers, so that may be a good trade-off.
2. Is the catalytic converter company new or existing? If it's new then it might add more jobs since you'll have to account for supervisors, HR, accountants, etc. If it's existing then it's possible that the workers will be the only jobs added since an existing company might be able to absorb them into the current infrastructure. Additionally, a new company would need to buy equipment which would give a one-time spur further down the line whereas an existing company might be able to add a shift with no new equipment.
3. How are catalytic converter jobs paid compared to can manufacturing jobs? If the car manufacturer loses 9 workers and the catalytic converter manufacturer gains 9 workers but the catalytic converter workers are paid 75% as much as the car manufacturer workers, that's a net loss to society.

So, yes, gov't regulation can cause the loss of jobs. It can also create jobs. It can cause jobs to shift to lower-paying industries and it can cause jobs to shift to higher-paying industries.

 

[sportage]

Random question: Does anyone know of any studies on what health care and insurance costs will be in 30-40 years? Seems like they go up a ridiculous amount (20%?) each year, which isn't exactly sustainable. If that number if anywhere close to correct, how is health care going to be funded in 2050?

No one is suppose to have healthcare in 30-40 years from now, or 10-15 as far as that goes. Surely not through the employer. I give the average employer abother 5-7 years to even offer healthcare to workers in any form.

Naturally... congress will still and forever enjoy their life time government paid healthcare, thanks to you the tax payer...

 

[Attic]

The idea that regulations take money away from "job creation" is asinine.

The government mandates that your car have a catalytic convertor. How does that take away a job? Would the car manufacturer hire an extra worker if a car was cheaper to make? Why? Doesn't the job of the guy building catalytic converters count?

Some regulations are needed, others not. I'm not sure it can be argued that the needless regulations do anything other than hurt business. The meaningful debate is about which regulations are required to achieve a desired effect and which ones are in fact hurting business and businesses ability to grow and operate efficiently. For the ones hurting business, is it worth it?

You can look at the need for regulations a few ways. For one, consider forcing them on a business in a moral effort for an end result, but while not firstly interested in the cost of those regulations or the actual affect they have achieved. Then consider regulations based solely on themselves and reason what effect they've had. The former is the environment business are being subjected to currently and they are arguing it's hurting business.

Majority of folks want a good end result, this is not where the debate is, the debate is do we sacrifice everything to keep the end result merely in our sights, or do we ensure we don't sacrifice the very thing we intend to regulate and move forward where and when appropriate.

 

[umbrella39]

According to some that doesnt hurt business and their ability to expand.

According to some giving them tax breaks helps their business and results in jobs for Americans.

 

[shortylickens]

Random question: Does anyone know of any studies on what health care and insurance costs will be in 30-40 years? Seems like they go up a ridiculous amount (20%?) each year, which isn't exactly sustainable. If that number if anywhere close to correct, how is health care going to be funded in 2050?

The reason the costs go up is because hospitals and drug companies are businesses, not public services. They wanna make money. And one day they realized the average person was paying well below equilibrium on the supply-demand curve, so they upped the price of everything. People were still willing to pay. Actually, they didnt pay, insurance paid, which drastically increased the money flow into health care. When the businesses realized they could get a lot more, they started charging a lot more.

If the government actually wanted to help they would eliminate, not add to the problem. Outlaw health insurance. When people can only pay with cash on hand the prices of everything will drop significantly. Pumping more money into things does NOT fix them. Especially when it comes to the government which doesnt have to be efficient.
Those planes bought on your tax dollars for $50 million? Little tip, they aint worth anywhere near 50 million. And they break a lot, even with regular maintenance. In fact considerably more maintenance than any other jet before them.

The government cant fix problems. They have already proven that beyond all reasonable doubt. For some reason people never learn and keep voting for republicans and democrats who will always piss away more of their dollars each year. In fact the government shouldnt try to fix problems. Thats not what the American government was set up for. It was put in place to protect freedom and allow individuals the opportunity to fix their own problems. Most of us have become so dependent on the handouts and intervention and regulations we cant even take care of ourselves any more.
Further expanding Uncle Sams control has NOT proven to correct any issues. It makes people feel better, and thats about it. The warm fuzzy is not their job, and should not be.

As for the OP, I dont think I agree that Obama has directly destroyed tens of thousands of jobs. The economy was a mess before he came in and Bush certainly had no intentions of created a health care program. But I do believe if the government started paying for health care the prices would certainly rise. If they dont actually plan to pay for it, what the hell is the point? More government control? We dont NEED that! The only real problem with the free market is sometimes its not pretty. Thats life, deal with it. I feel sorry for folks who think the world needs to be pretty all the time and its somebody elses job to do that. Grow up for fucks sake.

 

[IronWing]

The reason the costs go up is because hospitals and drug companies are businesses, not public services. They wanna make money. And one day they realized the average person was paying well below equilibrium on the supply-demand curve, so they upped the price of everything. People were still willing to pay. Actually, they didnt pay, insurance paid, which drastically increased the money flow into health care. When the businesses realized they could get a lot more, they started charging a lot more.

If the government actually wanted to help they would eliminate, not add to the problem. Outlaw health insurance. When people can only pay with cash on hand the prices of everything will drop significantly. Pumping more money into things does NOT fix them. Especially when it comes to the government which doesnt have to be efficient.
Those planes bought on your tax dollars for $50 million? Little tip, they aint worth anywhere near 50 million. And they break a lot, even with regular maintenance. In fact considerably more maintenance than any other jet before them.

The government cant fix problems. They have already proven that beyond all reasonable doubt. For some reason people never learn and keep voting for republicans and democrats who will always piss away more of their dollars each year. In fact the government shouldnt try to fix problems. Thats not what the American government was set up for. It was put in place to protect freedom and allow individuals the opportunity to fix their own problems. Most of us have become so dependent on the handouts and intervention and regulations we cant even take care of ourselves any more.
Further expanding Uncle Sams control has NOT proven to correct any issues. It makes people feel better, and thats about it. The warm fuzzy is not their job, and should not be.

As for the OP, I dont think I agree that Obama has directly destroyed tens of thousands of jobs. The economy was a mess before he came in and Bush certainly had no intentions of created a health care program. But I do believe if the government started paying for health care the prices would certainly rise. If they dont actually plan to pay for it, what the hell is the point? More government control? We dont NEED that! The only real problem with the free market is sometimes its not pretty. Thats life, deal with it. I feel sorry for folks who think the world needs to be pretty all the time and its somebody elses job to do that. Grow up for fucks sake.

We tried a completely free market health system with no insurance. It didn't work. We tried employer based insurance. It has failed. Time to try a single payer system.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well you could eliminate insurance. Of course that would eliminate health care, but who cares?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We tried a completely free market health system with no insurance. It didn't work. We tried employer based insurance. It has failed. Time to try a single payer system.

When that fails? How about investing in answers suited to our needs first?

 

[shira]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/choking-on-obamacare/2011/12/02/gIQAKDCXMO_story.html



Another failure induced by Obamacare and over-regulation.

Carl's is currently spending $12 million a year for health care for 21,000 direct employees. That's about $570 per year per employee. The premiums for a typical group PPO plan are at least $6000 a year. That should tell you something about why Carl's is complaining: It doesn't give jack about its employees.

Of course, with no requirement for health care coverage for employees, it's a giant race to the bottom by fast food companies. Carl's wouldn't be competitive if it offered decently-subsidized group policies to all it's employees. Maybe a hamburger would need to be priced 10 cents higher (just a wild guess) to cover the added costs.

But with a broad requirement that ALL fast-food companies have to follow, there will no longer be a competitive disadvantage to providing health care coverage. No more race to the bottom. Everyone's hamburgers will cost 10 cents more (or whatever).

The American public will be subsidizing everyone's health care by paying that extra 10 cents. And note that those currently insured are already paying for the health care of the uninsured, since the rates of health care providers have to include a pad to cover the costs for the uninsured. The difference is the system will have a much larger base, and the funding of health care for the currently uninsured will be much more organized.

Obamacare is a far more rational system than our current system.

 

[soccerballtux]

lol gotta love foxnews.

 

[shortylickens]

Well you could eliminate insurance. Of course that would eliminate health care, but who cares?

No it wouldnt.

Am I the only person that understands hospitals and drug companies WANT to stay in business? They wont close their doors just because they cant get 100 grand from heart surgery. They will have to be more efficient when the massive influx of easy money dries up, yes, but you guys a