• 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.

Ready For the Real Obamacare to be Implemented?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I assume state and federal government insurance plans are exempt from this tax? My 0 deductible employer plan is probably gonna go away if they are gonna get an insane tax for it, lmao. Time to find gainful employment with the government...
 
alcoholbob said:
I assume state and federal government insurance plans are exempt from this tax? My 0 deductible employer plan is probably gonna go away if they are gonna get an insane tax for it, lmao. Time to find gainful employment with the government...
Click to expand...

It's why (as the article states) most companies are making a move and a push towards getting employee's to choose HSA compatible plans. Basically shit coverage, but an HSA investment account that the employer gives a contribution to.

It's a way to avoid the tax through a shit coverage, but giving money for the actual costs of healthcare. Though the article says they are considering finding a way to tax that as well.
 
eskimospy said:
I always find it funny that conservatives think America is the best country in the world except when it comes to running our government. Then, America is a uniquely incompetent first world country that can't accomplish what all the rest have.

It just so happens to conveniently match up with what they are ideologically predisposed to want, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
Click to expand...

Here's a nice long Vox article that is probably the most insightful analysis of what the two parties have become over the last 35 years or so.

The healthcare debate makes a lot more sense viewed through this lens.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9214015/tech-nerds-politics
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Ready For the Real Obamacare to be Implemented?

So who is ready for the Obamacare?

Oh, you didn't know? The american middle class is about to start paying a shitload more on their health insurance. Why? Because apparently people who want to take care of themselves and not be sick or have large medical expenses need to PAY MOAR!!! The costs of the actual insurance isn't enough, because it needs to be taxed.

I have to ask ATOT - especially the liberals - how do you justify the incoming Cadillac Tax on decent employer healthcare? Most people on ATOT are:
1) Employed
2) Have decent to good healthcare insurance
3) Will likely be affected by this - and will see the results when you pick your benefits for 2018 likely.

And in all honesty - Do you really think companies are going to pay this ridiculous tax? Of course not. They are going to lower everyone's coverage until it is within range of not paying. So essentially, this tax has done nothing but make our insurance worse off for those of us that want to be prepared for possible future costs/risks. That's nice 🙄
Click to expand...

Unless you are going to be living in a cardboard box due to this why do you care?

Or are you going to be living in a cardboard box because of this?
 
eskimospy said:
I always find it funny that conservatives think America is the best country in the world except when it comes to running our government. Then, America is a uniquely incompetent first world country that can't accomplish what all the rest have.

It just so happens to conveniently match up with what they are ideologically predisposed to want, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
Click to expand...

Except for the military; they can't ever give them enough money.
 
rudder said:
How long would I have to wait to have an MRI in Mexico versus here in the U.S.? In the U.S. were have the highest rates of diagnostic equipment per patient. If I twisted my knee at lunch while out walking.... I could be having an MRI by 5:00 p.m. Just an example.. don't read into it as more than that.
Click to expand...

I have to. Yes you could have an MRI done but about 3-5 days after having it your insurer will send you a bill for about 2-5K because the hospital sets its costs at what you can afford and its impossible to get a cost estimate done before you have the MRI. Your insurer said you need to see a GP Doctor before before they'll pay that. You'll then make a call to your insurer that will be painful and take forever, ultimately you'll speak with someone outsourced who works in India they'll stonewall you to pay ultimately they'll have you visit another Doctor who most likely will say an MRI was appropriate but he is just doing that because he knows its outrageous to ask you to pay a few thousand for an MRI. He'll recommend a brace that will cost your insurer $300.00 to pay for and that Doctors visit will cost you $50-$100 plus bill your insurer another few hundred. One month later you'll get another bill from the hospital for an unpaid balance with an interest charge on it from your first MRI visit. You'll call them this will be an equally irritating experience. They will then cut some cost off and pressure you to pay now but ultimately they'll look at what your insurance company will pay and they'll bill you the difference. One week later you'll get an adjusted bill from the MRI hospital that is less but not that much, you'll call again and find out your insurer won't pay the full value. You'll call your insurer again they'll ultimately pay more. You'll get another MRI bill this one will be an amount of money you can pay but the bill will be so manhandled and obscured you will have no idea what you are actually paying for.


So yeah our system works great and there is great value in it for patients.
 
I agree that 40% is an insane tax rate, but it's only on the value that exceeds the government's health care allotment. Maybe that's a substantial hit and maybe it isn't, I don't have enough information to judge. If 26% of Americans are hit but the average hit is a couple hundred bucks or less, it's not exactly a catastrophe. If 26% of Americans are hit but the average hit is a couple grand, then we'll see this delayed yet again and probably reduced and/or phased in so that people don't take the hit (financial or a drop in coverage) all in one year. Gotta remember too that the ACA is merely one step in switching to government-provided health care, which people aren't going to want if their health care is better and cheaper.

Ideologically I agree with Glenn that people should pay for their own health care. Practically speaking health care is too expensive for a significant number of Americans to afford. Having those people die because they can't afford expensive care and diagnostics is neither moral nor societally smart. Raising the cost for those who can afford it is the only practical way to bring an acceptable level of care to those who can't afford it. I love me some free market individualism, but it's not the best choice for every single situation.
 
Blackjack200 said:
Here's a nice long Vox article that is probably the most insightful analysis of what the two parties have become over the last 35 years or so.

The healthcare debate makes a lot more sense viewed through this lens.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9214015/tech-nerds-politics
Click to expand...
Hey, if you can't trust one of the most aggressively progressive web sites out there for a fair and balanced view of the two parties, who can you trust?
 
werepossum said:
I agree that 40% is an insane tax rate, but it's only on the value that exceeds the government's health care allotment. Maybe that's a substantial hit and maybe it isn't, I don't have enough information to judge. If 26% of Americans are hit but the average hit is a couple hundred bucks or less, it's not exactly a catastrophe. If 26% of Americans are hit but the average hit is a couple grand, then we'll see this delayed yet again and probably reduced and/or phased in so that people don't take the hit (financial or a drop in coverage) all in one year. Gotta remember too that the ACA is merely one step in switching to government-provided health care, which people aren't going to want if their health care is better and cheaper.

Ideologically I agree with Glenn that people should pay for their own health care. Practically speaking health care is too expensive for a significant number of Americans to afford. Having those people die because they can't afford expensive care and diagnostics is neither moral nor societally smart. Raising the cost for those who can afford it is the only practical way to bring an acceptable level of care to those who can't afford it. I love me some free market individualism, but it's not the best choice for every single situation.
Click to expand...

If you are going to be rational about this why not go all the way. Your statement that ideologically you would prefer people pay for health care but can't afford to simply means you have to change your ideology to make any sense. It makes no sense to prefer a system that would bankrupt people or make their illnesses potentially fatal. Why not prefer we worship the devil but settle for God instead because he is supposed to love poor people.
 
I started paying more for my college insurance that first year. And the benefits were worse.

I guess it will make me laugh to see the employees get boned. Working class types.
HA!

Wait, I want a job........
 
Moonbeam said:
If you are going to be rational about this why not go all the way. Your statement that ideologically you would prefer people pay for health care but can't afford to simply means you have to change your ideology to make any sense. It makes no sense to prefer a system that would bankrupt people or make their illnesses potentially fatal. Why not prefer we worship the devil but settle for God instead because he is supposed to love poor people.
Click to expand...
Because preferring that government pay for everything isn't rational. People need to pull their own weight, with government only stepping in where that isn't possible or practical.
 
Honestly healthcare just irritates me. We've known since the early to mid 80's that the costs were growing at an unsustainable rate. There has been periodic talk of fixes but far more grandstanding. Even the ACA its a start but its also far from the solution. I'm tired of partisan hacks spewing out useless or unrealistic points.
We all know:
Costs are too high and rising
Billing is too concealed
Its close to impossible to estimate the cost of medical services
We need to service everyone
Everyone needs to contribute something
Drug companies will over bill & over prescribe whenever possible
Some people won't do preventive care
Some people will be paranoid or selfish with care

Lets get some ideas together to fix the problem. Lets look at what successful healthcare systems do and emulate what works. Lets give a shit about patients experiences.
 
Slew Foot said:
2018? This will get repealed/changed by then.
Click to expand...

How? Republicans want the tax so they can claim obamacare failed and argue to repeal rather than fix it. Democrats want the tax because it is unfair that some people have better coverage than the poor.

In the end, any bill the Repubs would pass will be so laden with amendments that it will never pass without a filer buster proof Republican controlled Congress and either a Republican president or veto or majority sufficient to override a veto.
 
brycejones said:
But wasn't it already supposed to collapse? I thought what was implemented so far was supposed to bring about the end of health care in this country and drive costs through the roof.
Click to expand...
It was a "train wreck." It was a "disaster." Remember? Funny thing is, though, righties never told us when the train wreck/disaster was going to happen. They never OWNED their reckless statements.

It's like the Second Coming all over again. Like a true believer on a street corner, just keep saying "The train wreck is coming," and those grass-roots know-nothings will follow you anywhere, including to their self-destructon.
 
Everyone agrees that the cost of health care in America is too high. Everyone agrees that we need to do something to control those costs. So why is it that when changes are made (such as the ACA's Cadillac Tax provision) that are, in fact, in accordance with recommended structural changes that have come out of studies of what the drivers are of America's excessive health care costs, the response is always, "That change is going to cost me more money"? Well, duh!

Righties: Why don't you tell us YOUR structural changes to America's health care system that would be LESS painful than the ACA's, yet will control costs at least as well. All I've seen from righties is the two "ACA replacements" that are addressed in this thread, which would be MUCH more expensive for middle-class Americans than the Cadillac Tax provision, and would also cause millions to lose their health care.
 
I work for a community college and we dont get an exemption for insurance.

I think ACA is the most mismanaged piece of junk insurance plan on the face of the earth. It is like it was put together by a 5 year old. It is designed to cause the maximum amount of headaches and it has built in management costs that make it impossible to manage or control. How is the IRS suppose to keep track of the insurance plans for 4 billion people?
 
Last edited:
piasabird said:
I work for a community college and we dont get an exemption for insurance.

I think ACA is the most mismanaged piece of junk insurance plan on the face of the earth. It is like it was put together by a 5 year old. It is designed to cause the maximum amount of headaches and it has built in management costs that make it impossible to manage or control. How is the IRS suppose to keep track of the insurance plans for 4 billion people?
Click to expand...

Much is explained in this post.
 
werepossum said:
Because preferring that government pay for everything isn't rational. People need to pull their own weight, with government only stepping in where that isn't possible or practical.
Click to expand...
And if American health-care costs were half what they actually are, like the are in most other first-world countries, that would be more realistic. But American health-care costs are already too great, and growing too fast (even though the rate of increase since the ACA went into effect has slowed down). More and more Americans are unable to "pull their own" health care weight. So your statement isn't remotely a solution. The Cadillac Tax is a part of the long-term solution.
 
werepossum said:
Because preferring that government pay for everything isn't rational. People need to pull their own weight, with government only stepping in where that isn't possible or practical.
Click to expand...

Having problems with your brain again, I see. How can the rider, where possible or practical, lead to an ideological preference where it is impossible or impractical to implement. What you are saying is that you have an ideological preference for the government to step in when necessary according to how you define necessary. In other words you have the same ideology as progressives. No sane progressive wants the government to step in where not necessary, like say in women's abortion rights.
 
shira said:
And if American health-care costs were half what they actually are, like the are in most other first-world countries, that would be more realistic. But American health-care costs are already too great, and growing too fast (even though the rate of increase since the ACA went into effect has slowed down). More and more Americans are unable to "pull their own" health care weight. So your statement isn't remotely a solution. The Cadillac Tax is a part of the long-term solution.
Click to expand...

How in the FUCK do you expect a TAX to LOWER THE COST of the healthcare industry? What retard mapping to you have in your brain to come up with that kind of logic (lack thereof)?

Please. Do tell. 🙄
 
Moonbeam said:
He must have been looking at my sperm count.
Click to expand...
For liberals, trusting scientific methods, performing a sperm analysis is simple. A sperm sample is examined under a microscope, a count is made of all sperm within a grid, and conclusions are drawn not only about the count/ml in that sample but overall in the man being tested.

For righties, a sperm analysis is MUCH more painful. The only valid method is to perform surgery on the man, extract every single sperm from the testicles, extract every last micro-ml of fluid from the prostate, figure out a way to count all the sperm and compute the total volume of fluid, and somehow put that information together to arrive at a sperm count. I pity right-wing men.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top