Democrats Ask for Relief from ACA

[highland145]

The individual mandate applies to everyone, congress included.

The employer mandate and the individual mandate are two really different things with totally different objectives. Not really sure why you would discuss them together.

Can you tell me what you think will be different now?

Are you going to tell me that the delays aren't political?

Excuse me, but if you were paying $350/mo prior to the ACA for family coverage and now pay over $600 then you very likely had inferior coverage whether you realize it or not. You claim to have paid less for the same in the individual market than the total cost of a decent employer sponsored group plan even though you're well past the age where that was even possible.

I am covered if I get pregnant. Didn't have that before.

Not following the bolded.

 

[Matt1970]

Are you going to tell me that the delays aren't political?

I am covered if I get pregnant. Didn't have that before.

Not following the bolded.

You bet your ass they are. It's one thing to lie to 10 million people about keeping their insurance, it's quite another to do it to 10X as many people.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you going to tell me that the delays aren't political?

I am covered if I get pregnant. Didn't have that before.

Not following the bolded.

I keep asking a simple question that you won't answer. What will be different after "full implementation"?

 

[fskimospy]

You bet your ass they are. It's one thing to lie to 10 million people about keeping their insurance, it's quite another to do it to 10X as many people.

What does the employer mandate have to do with people keeping their insurance?

 

[highland145]

I keep asking a simple question that you won't answer. What will be different after "full implementation"?

What I expect is that companies will pay the penalty because it's cheaper that paying for insurance and the employees get to fend for themselves.

So are the delays political or not? Simple question.




Aside, we must really need lives or hobbies.

 

[fskimospy]

What I expect is that companies will pay the penalty because it's cheaper that paying for insurance and the employees get to fend for themselves.

So are the delays political or not? Simple question.

Aside, we must really need lives or hobbies.

Haha maybe so. I imagine some companies will pay a penalty but it's hard to see how on the whole how things will be much different.

 

[highland145]

Haha maybe so. I imagine some companies will pay a penalty but it's hard to see how on the whole how things will be much different.

I think it will be driven by the bottom line and stockholders. Why drop $12K on an employee when you can pay $2K in a penalty? The employees will get to pay the full cost. Not that I really care, at this point.

So why the delays?

 

[fskimospy]

I think it will be driven by the bottom line and stockholders. Why drop $12K on an employee when you can pay $2K in a penalty? The employees will get to pay the full cost. Not that I really care, at this point.

So why the delays?

Employers could be doing what you suggest today with no penalty at all but they are not. (Outside of a few cases) Seems like what you suggest would already be happening if it were going to and if anything the penalty would make it less likely, no?

Why are you obsessed with this delay thing? I think the employer mandate is a bad idea and the ACA is working quite well without it. I personally doubt it will ever be implemented. It was designed to keep businesses from dumping employees on the exchanges but we've already seen that's not really happening. Good news for everyone, right?

 

[highland145]

Employers could be doing what you suggest today with no penalty at all but they are not. (Outside of a few cases) Seems like what you suggest would already be happening if it were going to and if anything the penalty would make it less likely, no?

Why are you obsessed with this delay thing? I think the employer mandate is a bad idea and the ACA is working quite well without it. I personally doubt it will ever be implemented. It was designed to keep businesses from dumping employees on the exchanges but we've already seen that's not really happening. Good news for everyone, right?

IDK but if you pass a 100% partisan bill and then keep moving the goal posts/dates, unnecessarily, you're kicking it down the road for political reasons. We'll see in 2018 along with the spin as to why it's the other side's fault.

 

[fskimospy]

IDK but if you pass a 100% partisan bill and then keep moving the goal posts/dates, unnecessarily, you're kicking it down the road for political reasons. We'll see in 2018 along with the spin as to why it's the other side's fault.

Honestly if it's not necessary and what it was designed to prevent isn't happening, who cares other than people who are worried about how it will play out politically?

I mean the thing you said you were worried about isn't happening. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[highland145]

Honestly if it's not necessary and what it was designed to prevent isn't happening, who cares other than people who are worried about how it will play out politically?

I mean the thing you said you were worried about isn't happening. Isn't that a good thing?

Well, it is the law. Remember, "It's a big fucking deal." Granted, being law doesn't mean a whole lot these days.

So you're saying the delays aren't political?

 

[fskimospy]

Well, it is the law. Remember, "It's a big fucking deal." Granted, being law doesn't mean a whole lot these days.

So you're saying the delays aren't political?

I'm sure they are in part. I just don't know why you would care?

 

[dank69]

I love it. Employers aren't dumping people on to the exchanges when there is no penalty for doing so, but once there is a penalty, they will start doing so.

 

[highland145]

I'm sure they are in part. I just don't know why you would care?

The dems wanted it, voted for it en mass and, now, "we didn't really mean that part." B.S. Let it play out however it does.


There were simple things that could have been done to reduce health care costs to benefit the country but that wasn't the goal.

 

[highland145]

I love it. Employers aren't dumping people on to the exchanges when there is no penalty for doing so, but once there is a penalty, they will start doing so.

So why the delays?

 

[fskimospy]

The dems wanted it, voted for it en mass and, now, "we didn't really mean that part." B.S. Let it play out however it does.

There were simple things that could have been done to reduce health care costs to benefit the country but that wasn't the goal.

None of that makes any sense. First, the employer mandate will likely have little effect on things. Second, even if you disagree, considering that you think it will be a bad thing, you're basically advocating for bad things to happen so that your political opponents are somehow shown to be wrong or whatever. That's pretty weird.

Oh and btw health care costs since the ACA was passed are coming in massively lower than previously projected.

 

[glenn1]

I love it. Employers aren't dumping people on to the exchanges when there is no penalty for doing so, but once there is a penalty, they will start doing so.

With the laws as current employers will continue to offer subsidized health insurance to the employees they value regardless if it cost more than the penalty. Some of the more marginal employees will have something like this happen to them and thus won't be counted as "dumped onto the exchange." Of course those aren't the people Democrats care about, so fuck 'em.

Half of all employees work for an employer who is self-insured. This means the company pays the medical bills and hires an insurance company to administer the plan. A self-insured company can avoid the $2,000 fine per full-time employee with a health plan that only covers the cost of preventive care, with no annual or lifetime limit. But since this insurance will not satisfy the full requirements of the new law, you may go to the exchange and get subsidized insurance. If you do, your employer will be liable for a $3,000 fine per employee. Your employer could avoid that fine by offering to “top up” the limited benefits by requiring you to pay up to 9.5 percent of your annual wage in premiums, and the full cost for your spouse and children.

The table (“Calculating Affordable Coverage”) shows an example of a $50,000-a-year employee who is asked to pay 9.5 percent of his or her annual gross wage for individual coverage ($4,720) and the full cost of coverage for the family ($10,000). Under the law, this is deemed “affordable,” and satisfies the employer mandate, even though few workers would willingly spend nearly half of their take-home pay on health insurance — unless they expect some whopping medical bills. If the family turns down this offer, and signs up for coverage through a health insurance exchange, they will not be entitled to subsidies for the policy they purchase.

 

[glenn1]

Here are some more neat employer options not discussed in my last post. I didn't realize that Democrats provided quite so many ways to screw the little guy, no wonder they needed to work so hard on the legislation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoo...ployers-do-to-reduce-the-cost-of-obamacare-2/

 

[fskimospy]

Here are some more neat employer options not discussed in my last post. I didn't realize that Democrats provided quite so many ways to screw the little guy, no wonder they needed to work so hard on the legislation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoo...ployers-do-to-reduce-the-cost-of-obamacare-2/

Did you ever notice that all your links are either right wing op-eds or from conservative advocacy think tanks?

Do you think that maybe this means you aren't getting the full story? The first obvious lie that came out was this guy's claim that part time jobs are soaring while full time employment is flat.

Look at that soaring part time employment!

Look at that stagnating full time employment!

Seriously, don't you ever get tired of being duped?

 

[glenn1]

Did you ever notice that all your links are either right wing op-eds or from conservative advocacy think tanks?

Do you think that maybe this means you aren't getting the full story? The first obvious lie that came out was this guy's claim that part time jobs are soaring while full time employment is flat.

Look at that soaring part time employment!

Look at that stagnating full time employment!


Seriously, don't you ever get tired of being duped?

It doesn't matter where I source my points from if it's factual. I notice you didn't even bother trying to explain away this statement, please do so if you're able. Either it's true and you can agree with it, or argue it's wrong and tell us why. Certainly that should be an easy task for someone of your perceived level of intelligence.

The table (“Calculating Affordable Coverage&#8221 shows an example of a $50,000-a-year employee who is asked to pay 9.5 percent of his or her annual gross wage for individual coverage ($4,720) and the full cost of coverage for the family ($10,000). Under the law, this is deemed “affordable,” and satisfies the employer mandate, even though few workers would willingly spend nearly half of their take-home pay on health insurance — unless they expect some whopping medical bills. If the family turns down this offer, and signs up for coverage through a health insurance exchange, they will not be entitled to subsidies for the policy they purchase.

 

[Spungo]

Look at that stagnating full time employment!

Seriously, don't you ever get tired of being duped?

Nice cherry picked data, straight from MSNBC

So basically jobs are where they were a decade ago, but the population has significantly grown in that time. Hence, home ownership at 20 year lows.

 

[fskimospy]

Nice cherry picked data, straight from MSNBC

Are you kidding? It's data from approximately when the ACA was passed, which is the piece of legislation under discussion. It also comes from FRED, which is an authoritative source.

I'm not sure if you understand the topic or understand what 'cherry picking' is.

So basically jobs are where they were a decade ago, but the population has significantly grown in that time. Hence, home ownership at 20 year lows.

Nothing about that is relevant to the relative distribution of part time and full time jobs after the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

 

[glenn1]

Did you ever notice that all your links are either right wing op-eds or from conservative advocacy think tanks?

Do you think that maybe this means you aren't getting the full story? The first obvious lie that came out was this guy's claim that part time jobs are soaring while full time employment is flat.

Look at that soaring part time employment!

BTW, here's a response to your post. The first is about part time employment and the second is from a non-right wing source not only admitting the point from my post but cheering on Walmart for just dropping part time workers coverage outright rather than offering them "affordable" plans which only serve to make them ineligible for exchange subsidies.

 

[fskimospy]

BTW, here's a response to your post. The first is about part time employment and the second is from a non-right wing source not only admitting the point from my post but cheering on Walmart for just dropping part time workers coverage outright rather than offering them "affordable" plans which only serve to make them ineligible for exchange subsidies.

Yes, some companies are in fact reducing hours. In no way does that mean that 'part time employment is surging', as shown by the data. The guy was full of shit.

 

[dank69]

Nice cherry picked data, straight from MSNBC

So basically jobs are where they were a decade ago, but the population has significantly grown in that time. Hence, home ownership at 20 year lows.

Speaking of cherry picking, looks like that last graph ends a little prematurely.