• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obamacare's latest unintended victims: Firefighters

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Matt1970 said:
Maybe next time we will read a law before we vote for it.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing a point I've been trying to make. This isn't rocket science, it's far more complicated and is beyond the beginnings of comprehension and apparently beyond the political hacks as well. There is no social system that I know of as complex as US healthcare, and when I hear things like "it's been worked on for over a year" I have to laugh. It isn't a matter of just time since obviously that's not what Congress and staffers do full time even if they really understood much.

I'm afraid that the ultimate problem is that our system is beyond its limits, and I don't mean manpower, but things have become too complex. You might as well ask anyone off the street to build that starship. There are possible alternatives but that would involve someone else possibly taking some credit and admitting that partisan politics fails, and too many would see things go up inflames first. Nero, pass the popcorn.
 
sactoking said:
I haven't followed this topic at all and I'm not too familiar with it but I would like to discuss the bold part briefly. If what I'm reading is true, then the IRS has not issued a ruling, but that the firefighter lobby has asked them to. However, current IRS rules indicate that the firefighters are boned since they seem to imply that volunteers are employees. With that in mind, there's no guarantee that the IRS will actually address the topic since, from their point of view, it has already been addressed.

If what has been discussed so far is accurate then this isn't really a situation where no rule exists and one side is being Chicken Little in their fear of the forthcoming rule being against them, it's a situation where there is a rule and it is known to be against them and they're trying to get it reversed.

Based on my experience with the ACA so far, all involved agencies have been extremely reluctant to overturn existing precedent (SEE: IRS rules adopting a flawed definition of dependent).
Click to expand...

Precedent doesn't really matter, because the ACA is a paradigm shift. The IRS should be keenly aware of it, and of the legitimate requests by the firefighters' association for a rule change. I support that. Volunteer firefighters are absolutely necessary in some parts of this Country. Even the bonehead bureaucrats of the IRS have that pretty well dialed in, I think. We'll find out. Meanwhile, concerned citizens should contact their representatives. Email works well. That's particularly true for those who may be affected. They have influence with the IRS. Funny how that works.

If the usual ravers did that, they'd probably have more effect in less time, but they wouldn't get to badmouth the world, preach doom, gloom & perdition as parroted memes of speculation as fact.
 
How do they do this exactly? Not all firefighters get close to 30hrs and some go over it all the time. The IRS is going to have to take this and run with it not just for firefighters but other companies aswell.
 
Precedent does matter, and the IRS has proven that. The ACA requires employers to provide insurance to "employees (and the dependents)". The intent was to cover spouses and dependents, since the term dependent is defined to include spouse in the DOL rules. However, the IRS interpreted the term to not include spouses, since current IRS definitions of dependent don't include spouses, even though such an interpretation was against the intent of the law. The result is the IRS stuck with precedent and spouses can be dropped from coverage even though that was never the intent.
 
All I know is that if we insure sick fuckers, poor scum, and old people my health care premiums are sure to rise and anything that creates a mess for Obamacare is good news to me. The only fucking thing that matters in life is that I get to keep my money for me and I don't have to see the bodies. I FUCKING WON'T LOOK AT THE BODIES!!!!!!
 
sactoking said:
Precedent does matter, and the IRS has proven that. The ACA requires employers to provide insurance to "employees (and the dependents)". The intent was to cover spouses and dependents, since the term dependent is defined to include spouse in the DOL rules. However, the IRS interpreted the term to not include spouses, since current IRS definitions of dependent don't include spouses, even though such an interpretation was against the intent of the law. The result is the IRS stuck with precedent and spouses can be dropped from coverage even though that was never the intent.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure that the IRS did it that way as a concession to employers wrt group coverage costs, a way of not fucking with it. That's the way it's been for a very long while.

Volunteer firefighters are entirely different, and entirely necessary. Nobody will benefit if they disappear. A variety of other people receive 1099 compensation w/o being considered employees subject to the ACA, and volunteer firefighters shouldn't be any different.

The fact that the IRS may not be smart enough to rule that way is, as I offered, reason to spread the concern & take appropriate action with our representatives. They can encourage the IRS to do the right thing. This shouldn't be cause for partisan raving at all. Nobody has even suggested anything to the contrary, other than the usual conspiracy theorists & raving nay-sayers. It's like they want it to not work, and they'll do whatever they can to make it that way. If the People haven't seen fit to have Repubs run the Country, they'll be damned if they'll let anybody else do it, either.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I think you are missing a point I've been trying to make. This isn't rocket science, it's far more complicated and is beyond the beginnings of comprehension and apparently beyond the political hacks as well. There is no social system that I know of as complex as US healthcare, and when I hear things like "it's been worked on for over a year" I have to laugh. It isn't a matter of just time since obviously that's not what Congress and staffers do full time even if they really understood much.

I'm afraid that the ultimate problem is that our system is beyond its limits, and I don't mean manpower, but things have become too complex. You might as well ask anyone off the street to build that starship. There are possible alternatives but that would involve someone else possibly taking some credit and admitting that partisan politics fails, and too many would see things go up inflames first. Nero, pass the popcorn.
Click to expand...

The problem is with the people that tried to dumb it down saying it will do such magical wonderful things and at the same time save us money. Now the same people are in scramble mode defending this claiming we need to wait it out to see the magic in it and the cost haven't really gone up that much have they? That certainly isn't what we heard when they were trying to sell this to us.
 
Sales pitch and reality are two different things, no doubt.
That said, an oversold reform is not necessarily a bad reform.
It's probably not as good as supporters said it would be, and not as bad as the detractors said it would be. I think it's going to be a net positive, you can disagree.
In 3 years, we should have more data and we can decide to stay the course or change it by picking the corresponding candidates at the ballot box.
 
Matt1970 said:
The problem is with the people that tried to dumb it down saying it will do such magical wonderful things and at the same time save us money. Now the same people are in scramble mode defending this claiming we need to wait it out to see the magic in it and the cost haven't really gone up that much have they? That certainly isn't what we heard when they were trying to sell this to us.
Click to expand...

I suggest reading Satire X by Juvenal. Some things never change.
 
senseamp said:
Sales pitch and reality are two different things, no doubt.
That said, an oversold reform is not necessarily a bad reform.
Click to expand...

As my old dad would have said tongue in cheek, "A lie is as good as the truth if you can get people to believe it."

As far as being necessarily bad, that in the abstract may be true, however this is a massive distraction from looming issues that have been put off for yet another day, or administration. Very satisfactory from a political standpoint, but for needed reforms? No so much.

The "we can reverse in three years" is disingenuous. The bureaucracy has been established and you know that it can't be dismantled in any significant way any more than you can tear down a bad foundation on a skyscraper and act as if it's nothing. Everything going forward will be based on this. Seriously, I wish that supporters would just tell everyone else that no matter what we're not going to get anything else and we should just shut up and obey. That would be some refreshing honesty. Let's stop pretending this isn't about winning.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
As my old dad would have said tongue in cheek, "A lie is as good as the truth if you can get people to believe it."

As far as being necessarily bad, that in the abstract may be true, however this is a massive distraction from looming issues that have been put off for yet another day, or administration. Very satisfactory from a political standpoint, but for needed reforms? No so much.

The "we can reverse in three years" is disingenuous. The bureaucracy has been established and you know that it can't be dismantled in any significant way any more than you can tear down a bad foundation on a skyscraper and act as if it's nothing. Everything going forward will be based on this. Seriously, I wish that supporters would just tell everyone else that no matter what we're not going to get anything else and we should just shut up and obey. That would be some refreshing honesty. Let's stop pretending this isn't about winning.
Click to expand...

To say "bureaucracy" is why it can't be reversed in three years is disingenuous as well. That's like saying Medicare hasn't been abolished because of the bureaucracy has been established.
It won't be reversed in three years because millions of currently uninsured people will have insurance because of Obamacare, either through Medicaid expansion, subsidies, or pre-existing condition exclusion ban. Repealing it will leave them without coverage, and will be politically unpalatable, as it should be. So yes, everything going forward will be based on the premise of near universal health coverage, and Obamacare replacements will have to live up to that standard. So supporters of Obamacare are not going to tell you to shut up and obey, and many of them may even like something else more. But just like we have to live with the political reality, so do the opponents. That something else is not going to be return to pre-Obamacare days where we simply say, yeah, tens of millions don't have insurance and that's fine.
 
senseamp said:
To say "bureaucracy" is why it can't be reversed in three years is disingenuous as well. That's like saying Medicare hasn't been abolished because of the bureaucracy has been established.
It won't be reversed in three years because millions of currently uninsured people will have insurance because of Obamacare, either through Medicaid expansion, subsidies, or pre-existing condition exclusion ban. Repealing it will leave them without coverage, and will be politically unpalatable, as it should be. So yes, everything going forward will be based on the premise of near universal health coverage, and Obamacare replacements will have to live up to that standard. So supporters of Obamacare are not going to tell you to shut up and obey, and many of them may even like something else more. But just like we have to live with the political reality, so do the opponents. That something else is not going to be return to pre-Obamacare days where we simply say, yeah, tens of millions don't have insurance and that's fine.
Click to expand...


Something else more? Heh, no. They only want what things that Obama's successors offer. They could have had more but many of them weren't able to conceive of anything beyond their political control.

Spin it any way you like, Obamacare will be be defended as much as Medicaid and that program has been in need of reform for decades, and it's untouchable.

I'll believe something else better will happen when Ocare supporters admit they went down the wrong road to begin with and let someone else without a D or R make decisions without political gain. Right.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Something else more? Heh, no. They only want what things that Obama's successors offer. They could have had more but many of them weren't able to conceive of anything beyond their political control.

Spin it any way you like, Obamacare will be be defended as much as Medicaid and that program has been in need of reform for decades, and it's untouchable.

I'll believe something else better will happen when Ocare supporters admit they went down the wrong road to begin with and let someone else without a D or R make decisions without political gain. Right.
Click to expand...

I am not sure who you mean. Someone who is not a politician, and therefore not elected or accountable, making decisions? No thanks.
Medicaid is defended because it's needed, and there hasn't been a viable replacement proposed. If you want to rant about Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare, without offering an alternative, then we'll stick with those.
 
senseamp said:
I am not sure who you mean. Someone who is not a politician, and therefore not elected or accountable, making decisions? No thanks.
Medicaid is defended because it's needed, and there hasn't been a viable replacement proposed. If you want to rant about Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare, without offering an alternative, then we'll stick with those.
Click to expand...

Yes, someone who is not a politician in control of your health. Legislators are inherently ignorant of what health care is and what it needs. What is needed is people who have a clue doing the work and getting it right. All the politicians are needed for is to review and implement. They can always send things back for clarification, but they are ignorant and that's not their fault. Willful ignorance and hubris however aren't so easy to excuse. Regulations are awful excuses for provider judgement and control.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Yes, someone who is not a politician in control of your health. Legislators are inherently ignorant of what health care is and what it needs. What is needed is people who have a clue doing the work and getting it right. All the politicians are needed for is to review and implement. They can always send things back for clarification, but they are ignorant and that's not their fault. Willful ignorance and hubris however aren't so easy to excuse. Regulations are awful excuses for provider judgement and control.
Click to expand...

Still not clear who you think is going to be in charge of everyone's health, and how they are going to get appointed to that job outside of a political act. Randomly chosen?
Obamacare was written by health experts, including those who crafted MA reform. Politicians reviewed it and acted.
 
rudeguy said:
known officially as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and derisively by Republicans as Obamacare,
Click to expand...

At this point in the article I stoped reading. If you can't reign in your political bent such that it splatters the page within the first quarter, I'm going to have to take everything you say with a HUGE grain of salt, be it left or right.
 
senseamp said:
Still not clear who you think is going to be in charge of everyone's health,
Click to expand...

Considering that the government is mandating how its citizens are to care for themselves, I would think this answer to be rather clear.

and how they are going to get appointed to that job outside of a political act. Randomly chosen?
Click to expand...

The federal bureaucracy wields quite a bit of regulatory power that carries the force of law. The healthcare industry is no different. When the government intrudes upon the payment mechanism (the health insurance industry), then it effectively forces the providers to choose who they will and will not care for.

Obamacare was written by health experts, including those who crafted MA reform. Politicians reviewed it and acted.
Click to expand...

Obamacare was written by experts who shared a common philosophy, including those who crafted MA reform. Only one political party reviewed it and acted in a highly partisan fashion.
 
qwchrbichn said:
Considering that the government is mandating how its citizens are to care for themselves, I would think this answer to be rather clear.



The federal bureaucracy wields quite a bit of regulatory power that carries the force of law. The healthcare industry is no different. When the government intrudes upon the payment mechanism (the health insurance industry), then it effectively forces the providers to choose who they will and will not care for.



Obamacare was written by experts who shared a common philosophy, including those who crafted MA reform. Only one political party reviewed it and acted in a highly partisan fashion.
Click to expand...
WWYBYWB?


caps
 
senseamp said:
To say "bureaucracy" is why it can't be reversed in three years is disingenuous as well. That's like saying Medicare hasn't been abolished because of the bureaucracy has been established.
It won't be reversed in three years because millions of currently uninsured people will have insurance because of Obamacare, either through Medicaid expansion, subsidies, or pre-existing condition exclusion ban. Repealing it will leave them without coverage, and will be politically unpalatable, as it should be. So yes, everything going forward will be based on the premise of near universal health coverage, and Obamacare replacements will have to live up to that standard. So supporters of Obamacare are not going to tell you to shut up and obey, and many of them may even like something else more. But just like we have to live with the political reality, so do the opponents. That something else is not going to be return to pre-Obamacare days where we simply say, yeah, tens of millions don't have insurance and that's fine.
Click to expand...

This is a great post... So because so many people are getting freebies or massive discounts and it becomes politically unpalatable that makes it a good law/program to be in place? Human nature is always going to take advantage of that. It's ok to cut that porgram because it's not mine but not ok to cut this one. That's a disaster waiting to happen.

Or to put it more bluntly, the defense you have written here could be equally applied to the defense contract industry. For example some of the military contracts that have to kept despite the military wanting to stop/cut them due to the fact that the supply chain runs through 30-40 states and so the senators/congressman do not want to see the jobs lost.

Sorry but mob rule does not make it right - even if you are suggesting it does.
 
Naeeldar said:
This is a great post... So because so many people are getting freebies or massive discounts and it becomes politically unpalatable that makes it a good law/program to be in place? Human nature is always going to take advantage of that. It's ok to cut that porgram because it's not mine but not ok to cut this one. That's a disaster waiting to happen.

Or to put it more bluntly, the defense you have written here could be equally applied to the defense contract industry. For example some of the military contracts that have to kept despite the military wanting to stop/cut them due to the fact that the supply chain runs through 30-40 states and so the senators/congressman do not want to see the jobs lost.

Sorry but mob rule does not make it right - even if you are suggesting it does.
Click to expand...

You are comparing people getting healthcare they need to us buying military goods we don't need? The whole point of Defense industry is to protect Americans. It would be monumentally stupid to spend trillions to protect Americans from a hypothetical attack while watching them die for real from lack of insurance due to untreated medical conditions. We send our military to provide humanitarian assistance in third world countries while ignoring Americans in need of humanitarian assistance in America. That's stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top