Obamacare's effect on the middle class

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
So, we've seen the numbers as to the cost to the government, but AFAIK this is the first reflection of how HB3200 would affect the middle class. Not surprisingly, it doesnt look good.

If you think this assessment is wrong, I would like to see some discussion as to WHY this report is wrong. For example, blah blah blah is wrong, because blah blah blah.

Obamacare could cost you $4,000 a year

If the public insurance option is dropped, that's likely to leave many employees with a big bill for their coverage.

(not posting the whole article due to length)

Now that it's highly possible that the Obama administration will drop the requirement for a public-insurance option from its health-care agenda, it's enlightening to examine what the remaining plan means for most Americans.

If the public option had evolved into a program resembling Medicare for most working Americans --what Conservatives feared and many Democrats wanted -- it might have provided rich coverage, at bargain premiums, for people with moderate incomes.

That won't happen with the proposed alternative, medical co-ops, because they won't pack nearly the purchasing power of a government-run plan to push down prices. Nor will the co-ops get the government subsidies that would likely radically lower premiums under a public option, just as they do under Medicare.

The conclusion is shocking. Middle- and upper-middle class Americans could face an enormous increase in their premiums. The hit could easily approach $4,000 for someone earning less than $90,000 -- or more than double that increase as soon as the worker's pay hits six figures. That's because Obama's plan would collect hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes at the expense of medium earners, and re-channel the money into subsidies for the uninsured, low-income earners, and union retirees over age 55.



 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Between this and the cap and trade bill... I will be working 26 hours a day.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
I'm going to make a big but reasonable assumption: America's employers will choose to drop their coverage for employees. That's an option granted them under the legislation.

It is a big assumption. It's also an option granted to employers in the absence of legislation...

Employers are likely to choose the "pay" option, because their health-care costs are rising far faster than their payrolls, and they'd reap big savings by eliminating the administrative costs of providing benefits.

Costs are also increasing relative to payrolls in the absence of legislation, and they could also "reap big savings by eliminating the administrative costs of providing benefits" in the absence of legislation.

I won't comment yet one way or another, but it already looks pretty clear that this author is doing a poor job of isolating phenomena unique to passage of HR 3200 or the Chairman's mark.

Nor does he do a great job of comparing outcomes with legislation vs. outcomes without legislation. That is, he doesn't say, "If HR 3200 passes, middle class families could end up paying $xxxx more than they do now in a worst-case scenario. If HR 3200 doesn't pass, middle class families could end up paying $yyyy more than they do now in a worst-case scenario. $xxxx is more/less than $yyyy." Why that comparison matters
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
You can blame the GOP and conservative Dems that are bought off by lobbyists for shitcanning the public option.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,959
4,549
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Obamacare's effect on the middle class...Increase of $4000/year in premiums!

If you think this assessment is wrong, I would like to see some discussion as to WHY this report is wrong. For example, blah blah blah is wrong, because blah blah blah.
I'll use your format: Your topic summary is misleading, because it applies one of the worst case scenarios to the entire group of the middle class.

One person earning $85k a year may be considered middle class, but he is certainly upper middle class. The median salary for men is $45k and women is $35k. In the article's example, the one person earns more than the median salary for two combined people (median household income is $50k). And it ignores the change in the wife's salary. Thus, that example is not a good representative for the entire middle class. When you go to the middle of the middle class, that same analysis would have been close to break even (since the subsidy will be larger). When you go to the lower middle class, that same analysis would have been a slight positive (or even major positive if that means gaining health care).

Regardless of your exaggeration, your point is still correct. This plan shifts money around. Any time a plan shifts money around, there are losers and there are gainers. In this case, upper middle class could certainly be the losers. I'm just unhappy with your assignment of that possibility to the ENTIRE middle class.

That Fortune article also is potentially misleading since it repeatedly assumes the worst and ingores any of the best. True, sometimes you lose on a tossup three times in a row. But you should expect to win at least one of them. The article assumes businesses would drop health insurance plans (in which case the cure would be to RAISE the 8% tax penalty). The article assumes there are no premium price reductions due to millions of young healthy people joining the insurance plans. The article implicitly assumes that cheap high deductible plans become extinct (my current health insurance plan costs a grand total of $36/month and I had a preexisting condition) and that everyone will be stuck in expensive plans. Sure some of those assumtions will likely come true. But to assume the worst in all cases leads to a biased and probably misleading conclusion.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
It's okay. Everyone knows we are the richest country in the world. They keep spending money because they know we are all just holding out and not using those thousands of dollars we have stashed away. Whats that ? You don't have thousands stashed away ? Don't worry about it, your kids credit is good with us !
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Ausm
You can blame the GOP and conservative Dems that are bought off by lobbyists for shitcanning the public option.

Well at least they did one good thing.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
Originally posted by: Ausm
You can blame the GOP and conservative Dems that are bought off by lobbyists for shitcanning the public option.

Of course you can, because whatever the GOP says, Obama must do. :roll:

I have an idea -- why not craft a plan that works for everyone AND holds up to budgetary scrutiny? Or maybe unify your party so the GOP can't stop your plans?

And you win, by the way -- when I saw the thread, I thought to myself: "I wonder who will be the first lefty to blame the GOP." Congratulations.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Marked before the moonbats start attacking the source of the research and totally dismissing the facts. These facts are coming from a PWC analysis.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: spidey07
Marked before the moonbats start attacking the source of the research and totally dismissing the facts. These facts are coming from a PWC analysis.

You mean the facts that this estimate is based upon the fact that there is no public option to drive down costs?

Glad you now suppor the public option spidey. Do all conservatives feel this way? What are we fighting over? Welcome aboard!
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: spidey07
Marked before the moonbats start attacking the source of the research and totally dismissing the facts. These facts are coming from a PWC analysis.

You mean the facts that this estimate is based upon the fact that there is no public option to drive down costs?

Glad you now suppor the public option spidey. Do all conservatives feel this way? What are we fighting over? Welcome aboard!

No public option, no outrageous price increases and theft of your hard earned money to support deadbeats, just say no to socialism.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Ausm
You can blame the GOP and conservative Dems that are bought off by lobbyists for shitcanning the public option.

Well at least they did one good thing.

As inconclusive as he is otherwise, the author would disagree with you on this one point.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: blanghorst
Originally posted by: Ausm
You can blame the GOP and conservative Dems that are bought off by lobbyists for shitcanning the public option.

Of course you can, because whatever the GOP says, Obama must do. :roll:

I have an idea -- why not craft a plan that works for everyone AND holds up to budgetary scrutiny?

They learned from the Neocons. Don't question our leaders.

Seriously, people were getting behind and pushing an agenda they had no understanding of at all. The response when this was pointed out was to the effect of "well you don't know that it's bad either". True. Just like Iraq.

As I've said many times, the Dems could have made health care their first priority by finding out just what is needed, what can reasonably be done, and what practical solutions could be had. No, they just pushed and pushed legislation first, consequences second.

I'm not opposed to reform, but I am to a pig in a poke. I won't support the health care equivalent of another damn fool war.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Ausm
You can blame the GOP and conservative Dems that are bought off by lobbyists for shitcanning the public option.

Well at least they did one good thing.

As inconclusive as he is otherwise, the author would disagree with you on this one point.

Perhaps, but the public option was another "don't look behind the curtain" piece of legislation. What, precisely, did it entail?

I've asked this question several times today, and of course it's ignored. What was to prevent the government from leveraging the public option to remove all opposition to complete government control of health care? Good will?
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,151
12,589
136
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: blanghorst
Originally posted by: Ausm
You can blame the GOP and conservative Dems that are bought off by lobbyists for shitcanning the public option.

Of course you can, because whatever the GOP says, Obama must do. :roll:

I have an idea -- why not craft a plan that works for everyone AND holds up to budgetary scrutiny?

They learned from the Neocons. Don't question our leaders.

Seriously, people were getting behind and pushing an agenda they had no understanding of at all. The response when this was pointed out was to the effect of "well you don't know that it's bad either". True. Just like Iraq.

As I've said many times, the Dems could have made health care their first priority by finding out just what is needed, what can reasonably be done, and what practical solutions could be had. No, they just pushed and pushed legislation first, consequences second.

I'm not opposed to reform, but I am to a pig in a poke. I won't support the health care equivalent of another damn fool war.

that's my issue as well. the speed with which congress wants to pass legislation has me concerned that, whatever it turns out to be, will be poorly designed and highly ineffective
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,959
4,549
126
Originally posted by: spidey07
Marked before the moonbats start attacking the source of the research and totally dismissing the facts. These facts are coming from a PWC analysis.
By the way, Spidey07, you are in the wrong thread. Here is the PWC thread. This is a completely different topic.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Topic Title: Obamacare's effect on the middle class
Topic Summary: Increase of $4000/year in premiums!

Good, pay up bitch

Yes, pay up so America haters like Dave can freeload off of your hard work.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: spidey07
Marked before the moonbats start attacking the source of the research and totally dismissing the facts. These facts are coming from a PWC analysis.

You mean the facts that this estimate is based upon the fact that there is no public option to drive down costs?

Glad you now suppor the public option spidey. Do all conservatives feel this way? What are we fighting over? Welcome aboard!

No public option, no outrageous price increases and theft of your hard earned money to support deadbeats, just say no to socialism.

stop eating paint chips, they aren't good for you, even if they are yummy
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Topic Title: Obamacare's effect on the middle class
Topic Summary: Increase of $4000/year in premiums!

Good, pay up bitch
With $5 milk and $700/barrel oil how can we possibly afford this?

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
anyways this is a pretty misleading article, largely around the incredibly misleading and vague term 'middle class' which in this case appears to be used in the old british sense of the word, not the pluralistic american sense. A single earner earning 85k is a very nice income in most areas and firmly upper middle class.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Topic Title: Obamacare's effect on the middle class
Topic Summary: Increase of $4000/year in premiums!

Good, pay up bitch
With $5 milk and $700/barrel oil how can we possibly afford this?

Yeah, that $10/gal gas is a killer.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
anyways this is a pretty misleading article, largely around the incredibly misleading and vague term 'middle class' which in this case appears to be used in the old british sense of the word, not the pluralistic american sense. A single earner earning 85k is a very nice income in most areas and firmly upper middle class.

bullshit. That's squarely middle class. It's a factory workers wage, so are you trying to say a factory work is upper middle class?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
anyways this is a pretty misleading article, largely around the incredibly misleading and vague term 'middle class' which in this case appears to be used in the old british sense of the word, not the pluralistic american sense. A single earner earning 85k is a very nice income in most areas and firmly upper middle class.

bullshit. That's squarely middle class. It's a factory workers wage, so are you trying to say a factory work is upper middle class?

You LIE