So has Obamacare worked? Has it not? Is it helping or hurting?

[Hayabusa Rider]

You can't prove something that hasn't happened yet. You can prove, however, that since ACA was passed, nationwide healthcare costs have increased barely 3% annually, and that ACA is almost certainly part of the reason for that (the other reason being the recession).

As I linked to before last year's increase was 4 or 5% depending on whether we're looking at individual or family premiums, but I'll not quibble over a couple percent nor the fact that the key provisions of Ocare haven't materialized which include substantial hikes on things like union health plans. No, it's the complete and willful ignorance of real and dire needs which could easily destroy our wedding which no amount of "let's cut reimbursements and fix it with UHC" will address.

Science gives the statistics and the answer to the peak annual costs are in the range of 300 BILLION. Then there's diabetes, heart disease and on and on. This is the reality of demographics. This isn't Congress. This isn't the ACA. This isn't nearly as uncertain as global warming, but it still has deniers it seems.

There is no health care system which has a chance. None. This will break nations. The science and math says so. You can pray that the levee doesn't break like the Republicans or sing songs and play campfire games like the Democrats while the avalanche bears down on us all, shouting down those who wish to avoid disaster.

Well if it keeps on raining the levees gonna break, and Obamaclaus isn't going to swoop down and rescue us.

 

[First]

As I linked to before last year's increase was 4 or 5% depending on whether we're looking at individual or family premiums, but I'll not quibble over a couple percent nor the fact that the key provisions of Ocare haven't materialized which include substantial hikes on things like union health plans. No, it's the complete and willful ignorance of real and dire needs which could easily destroy our wedding which no amount of "let's cut reimbursements and fix it with UHC" will address.

Read this: A recent study by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) showed that for Americans who receive health insurance through their employers, premiums rose 3% from 2011 to 2012, the lowest increase since 1996.

That's an article from last month.

Science gives the statistics and the answer to the peak annual costs are in the range of 300 BILLION. Then there's diabetes, heart disease and on and on. This is the reality of demographics. This isn't Congress. This isn't the ACA. This isn't nearly as uncertain as global warming, but it still has deniers it seems.

Huh? K thanks. Everyone knows demographics are driving healthcare costs.

There is no health care system which has a chance. None. This will break nations. The science and math says so. You can pray that the levee doesn't break like the Republicans or sing songs and play campfire games like the Democrats while the avalanche bears down on us all, shouting down those who wish to avoid disaster.

Well if it keeps on raining the levees gonna break, and Obamaclaus isn't going to swoop down and rescue us.

Sorry, but socialized medicine has been around forever, and hybrid systems like the Swiss' aren't collapsing. Eventually, when you're wrong for decades and decades and decades, at some point you have to admit defeat.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You've demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension of the issues, ignored or minimized scientifically determined facts, and appealed to a system which hasn't dealt with anything like we will. You keep going from the realities which we will all to soon have to face to fall back on irrelevancies. You apparently did not probably still do not understand the impact of the greatest challenge since the great depression. You look for politicians to solve the most difficult problem of our time, the ones who have less knowledge than a first year medical student, who do not understand all the fundamentals and none of the subtle aspects of health care. Those who can't do incredibly simple things like make a budget or figure out how to handle Syria. You pronounce prevention as impossible, never consider who should lead reform but believe something that will consume more of our GDP than anything else will magically disappear by appealing to a system that never dealt with a fraction of the problems your mentality forces is to suffer.

That may sound harsh but it also applies to those in charge. We don't need a new opiate for the masses, a diversion from real needs, politics as usual.

The problem and solutions are beyond your politicians and it's time to let the scientific and medical care experts lead. Faith in the ignorant will fail. Politics will fail. Diversions may fool but as solutions will fail. Get rid of faith based reform.

 

[First]

You've demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension of the issues, ignored or minimized scientifically determined facts, and appealed to a system which hasn't dealt with anything like we will. You keep going from the realities which we will all to soon have to face to fall back on irrelevancies. You apparently did not probably still do not understand the impact of the greatest challenge since the great depression. You look for politicians to solve the most difficult problem of our time, the ones who have less knowledge than a first year medical student, who do not understand all the fundamentals and none of the subtle aspects of health care. Those who can't do incredibly simple things like make a budget or figure out how to handle Syria. You pronounce prevention as impossible, never consider who should lead reform but believe something that will consume more of our GDP than anything else will magically disappear by appealing to a system that never dealt with a fraction of the problems your mentality forces is to suffer.

That may sound harsh but it also applies to those in charge. We don't need a new opiate for the masses, a diversion from real needs, politics as usual.

The problem and solutions are beyond your politicians and it's time to let the scientific and medical care experts lead. Faith in the ignorant will fail. Politics will fail. Diversions may fool but as solutions will fail. Get rid of faith based reform.

Well, that was a whole lot of vague fluff.

I'm a pragmatist, so scientists and medical experts should be part of the equation. And they have been, not sure what's led you to believe otherwise. But as they're scientists and medical care experts, and not leaders, they can't "change" anything. That's what your public reps are for. There's an important difference between the two, which you would know if you worked in public policy before or led a team of, say, expert engineers. Those scientists and engineers working out the details are invaluable, yes of course, but they're narrowly focused and don't look at or see the big picture or more importantly know how to effectively communicate the big picture to leaders in power. Hence the need for good leaders in the public arena who are able to discern good experts for themselves. None of these leaders need to as informed on healthcare as a medical student, that's just arrogant tripe. But they do need to be well informed, and they need to have access to honest experts in said fields.

 

[Aikouka]

Has it worked? Sure. However, I don't recall anything in ObamaCare that was strictly designed to reduce premiums across the board. From what I recall, there's a good deal about reducing exclusions. The problem is that health insurance is a private industry, which expects to make money. If they're forced to spend more money on payouts, you can be damn sure that they'll try to recoup that elsewhere (i.e. premiums).

Honestly, I can't see health insurance getting any better so long as the companies are run like businesses. Like all businesses, they're going to constantly strive to make more money. That may sound like I'm screaming for some sort of nationalized healthcare, but I don't know if that's the proper solution either.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, that was a whole lot of vague fluff.

I'm a pragmatist, so scientists and medical experts should be part of the equation. And they have been, not sure what's led you to believe otherwise. But as they're scientists and medical care experts, and not leaders, they can't "change" anything. That's what your public reps are for. There's an important difference between the two, which you would know if you worked in public policy before or led a team of, say, expert engineers. Those scientists and engineers working out the details are invaluable, yes of course, but they're narrowly focused and don't look at or see the big picture or more importantly know how to effectively communicate the big picture to leaders in power. Hence the need for good leaders in the public arena who are able to discern good experts for themselves. None of these leaders need to as informed on healthcare as a medical student, that's just arrogant tripe. But they do need to be well informed, and they need to have access to honest experts in said fields.

And these experts are the ones who gave you Iraq, the NSA, the Sequester and on and on. They couldn't find their way out of a paper bag, much less know how to ask as evidenced by their missing the obvious or at least pretending it's not there. None of what has been done has addressed the most serious upcoming issues. The leaders in power think they have it all worked out and it seems that many believe ti to be so. They don't seem aware of the big picture, nor are they open to it. Hence this non health care reform.

 

[First]

And these experts are the ones who gave you Iraq, the NSA, the Sequester and on and on.

No, they're not.

Btw, the NSA is extremely important. In case you didn't know (which, apparently, you don't).

They couldn't find their way out of a paper bag, much less know how to ask as evidenced by their missing the obvious or at least pretending it's not there. None of what has been done has addressed the most serious upcoming issues. The leaders in power think they have it all worked out and it seems that many believe ti to be so. They don't seem aware of the big picture, nor are they open to it. Hence this non health care reform.

Except healthcare reform like this has already been tried in some form or fashion in other states and other countries successfully. When the Armageddon doesn't occur, make sure and come back here and tell us why it didn't and why it's sure to occur long after you've passed from this planet. Should be entertaining.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, they're not.

Btw, the NSA is extremely important. In case you didn't know (which, apparently, you don't).



Except healthcare reform like this has already been tried in some form or fashion in other states and other countries successfully. When the Armageddon doesn't occur, make sure and come back here and tell us why it didn't and why it's sure to occur long after you've passed from this planet. Should be entertaining.

At this point you've demonstrated a lack of interest in established facts. Please never ever go of on global warming objectors.

I'll leave you to it though because there's no point arguing with 5 day creationists or other deniers of science. I'll leave you to your faith.

 

[First]

At this point you've demonstrated a lack of interest in established facts. Please never ever go of on global warming objectors.

I'll leave you to it though because there's no point arguing with 5 day creationists or other deniers of science. I'll leave you to your faith.

You're quite sad. I'm also not sure you're a native English speaker since both your rhetoric and syntax are jumbled and confusing.

 

[piasabird]

I work for a community college and they handle insurance a little differently. We have Blue Cross Blue Shield with a $7,000 deductable. Then we have an HRA which caries all but about the first $250 of the deductable. It is a bit of a hassle to keep chasing after all of the paperwork. So what I do is I do that on company time.

 

[dali71]

Obamacare was a major factor in my former employer's decision to outsource our IT department to India earlier this year, so in my case it has definitely been negative.

 

[palehorse]

Those are speculative premium increases, they haven't happened. But note that even if premiums increase significantly (say, double digits), what matters is the net difference in cost to the healthcare consumer from everything from drugs to deductables to coverage beyond deductables to the big cost savings from subsidies to people with pre-existing conditions. Premiums could go up 100%, and it doesn't matter if your net cost goes down with subsidies, better drug coverage after meeting your deductable, etc.

Unless, of course, those traumatic premium increases are financially devastating to the families who are forced to pay them each month beginning next year. In those cases, they'll be stuck dreaming of the "old days" when their annual premium increases were only 5-7% for the exact same levels of coverage.

Sucks to be them, right?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Unless, of course, those traumatic premium increases are financially devastating to the families who are forced to pay them each month beginning next year. In those cases, they'll be stuck dreaming of the "old days" when their annual premium increases were only 5-7% for the exact same levels of coverage.

Sucks to be them, right?

It's a matter of faith for some people. Pretend that things are hypothetical and maybe they'll even go away.

Costs must go up over time when there is no action to prevent it. I had picked Alzheimers because I was attending a seminar of geriatric specialists and the subject was dementia. There is no cure for Alzheimer's of course, but it is known for example that those who belong to the group which has the largest waist circumference have three times the chance of having Alzheimers. We know that stress and other factors which cause a low level of chronic inflammation drastically increases all sorts of problems in later life. What makes sense is to give tax incentives to corporations which meet metrics for the improved quality of life. That pays off later with less strain on the system and lower costs which when added together are staggering. Make changes now to lessen demands later and start planning to place needed resources in place when needed. You don't want to fall behind the curve on needed specialists. You can't just pop them out by signing a bill. There's a great deal which should be done but magical thinking wins the day. The way to cut costs is to use resources wisely and for the greatest benefit to the patient. Ignorance however is not bliss.

 

[Zorkorist]

It's a matter of faith for some people. Pretend that things are hypothetical and maybe they'll even go away.

Costs must go up over time when there is no action to prevent it. I had picked Alzheimers because I was attending a seminar of geriatric specialists and the subject was dementia. There is no cure for Alzheimer's of course, but it is known for example that those who belong to the group which has the largest waist circumference have three times the chance of having Alzheimers. We know that stress and other factors which cause a low level of chronic inflammation drastically increases all sorts of problems in later life. What makes sense is to give tax incentives to corporations which meet metrics for the improved quality of life. That pays off later with less strain on the system and lower costs which when added together are staggering. Make changes now to lessen demands later and start planning to place needed resources in place when needed. You don't want to fall behind the curve on needed specialists. You can't just pop them out by signing a bill. There's a great deal which should be done but magical thinking wins the day. The way to cut costs is to use resources wisely and for the greatest benefit to the patient. Ignorance however is not bliss.

Wall of text much?

You sound like a socialist, and you and Government know so much better.

The fact is that health care spending is out of control, because of socialist ideas... like Government, Insurance, Lawyers.

There's nothing special about health care. It's something that every person should have access to. But not at the cost of Socialist Government, Insurance and Lawyers.

Instead, let's empower, Doctors, Nurses, CNA's. Let's pay them that much more. Let's create an employment environment, where people love to care for their fellow man. Where they are paid well for their caring.

Instead of paying a bunch of fucking Politicians, Insurance executives, and Lawyers.

-John

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wall of text much?

You sound like a socialist, and you and Government know so much better.

The fact is that health care spending is out of control, because of socialist ideas... like Government, Insurance, Lawyers.

There's nothing special about health care. It's something that every person should have access to. But not at the cost of Socialist Government, Insurance and Lawyers.

Instead, let's empower, Doctors, Nurses, CNA's. Let's pay them that much more. Let's create an employment environment, where people love to care for their fellow man. Where they are paid well for their caring.

Instead of paying a bunch of fucking Politicians, Insurance executives, and Lawyers.

-John

Let me tell you about my loving employer. I'm in health care and money is getting tight. My company loves. It loves so much that it is taking dangerous steps. It loves so much that it and other entities want more of us. Why? Because it loves what the government loves, the dollar. Both want to get providers, burn them out and toss them aside for new cannon fodder. They love. They (business and government) want less empowerment.

This is all about money not care. So don't give companies financial rewards to make things better. Don't implement beneficial policies. Don't change government from ignorant master to beneficial facilitator. Let's sing campfire songs.

 

[werepossum]

Obamacare was a major factor in my former employer's decision to outsource our IT department to India earlier this year, so in my case it has definitely been negative.

Wow, that sucks. Always winners and losers. The winners (besides the many bureaucrats of course) are those people who were previously unable to get insurance. The losers are the ones who lose jobs or have worse insurance because of this.

 

[First]

Unless, of course, those traumatic premium increases are financially devastating to the families who are forced to pay them each month beginning next year. In those cases, they'll be stuck dreaming of the "old days" when their annual premium increases were only 5-7% for the exact same levels of coverage.

Sucks to be them, right?

Huh? Again, the net payment is all that matters, premiums only being one of many ways to measure healthcare costs.

 

[palehorse]

Huh? Again, the net payment is all that matters, premiums only being one of many ways to measure healthcare costs.

For a healthy family, the monthly insurance premium is essentially all that matters, so you're missing my point and assuming every family requires ridiculously expensive healthcare every year -- they don't.

I'm not speaking of the overall net cost of healthcare for the nation. I'm speaking of the monthly costs to individual families who may not be able to afford double and triple-digit premium increases without dramatically changing their standards of living. I'm speaking of the monthly costs possibly doubling, or worse, for many families in the middle class.

That doesn't matter to you, though, does it? You're perfectly fine with those dramatic increases for middle class families as long as a few million other people get theirs for free, aren't you?

I'm not.

 

[First]

For a healthy family, the monthly insurance premium is essentially all that matters, so you're missing my point and assuming every family requires ridiculously expensive healthcare every year -- they don't.

And how many families' main expense is premiums? It seems inordinately unlikely that a pregnant wife and young children will experience a net gain in cost since they pay a lot more than just premiums. My son is in perfect health as is my wife, and my premiums pale in comparison to my actual out-of-pocket costs on my employer plan, it just isn't comparable. So frankly your whole point is moot, even families in good health can't avoid the combined costs of checkups, physicals, birth control, etc. etc.

I'm not speaking of the overall net cost of healthcare for the nation. I'm speaking of the monthly costs to individual families who may not be able to afford double and triple-digit premium increases without dramatically changing their standards of living. I'm speaking of the monthly costs possibly doubling, or worse, for many families in the middle class.

I think your focus on premiums pretty much makes the rest of your points irrelevant. A middle class family doesn't particularly care if one cost rises if others go down, or if they're able to now get care in the first place when they weren't before, or if they're now covered for mental health issues, etc. None of those positive changes from ACA you've been able to address; you'd rather focus on those who could be hit with higher costs due to potential premium increases (perfect, healthy families) instead of seeing that far more people will be helped by the law because their main healthcare expense aren't premiums, they're out-of-pocket.

That doesn't matter to you, though, does it? You're perfectly fine with those dramatic increases for middle class families as long as a few million other people get theirs for free, aren't you?

I'm not.

I don't really think you believe this. In reality you actually agree with me. You're just stubbornly sticking to your point knowing that a focus on premiums doesn't apply to most families.

 

[palehorse]

And how many families' main expense is premiums? It seems inordinately unlikely that a pregnant wife and young children will experience a net gain in cost since they pay a lot more than just premiums. My son is in perfect health as is my wife, and my premiums pale in comparison to my actual out-of-pocket costs on my employer plan, it just isn't comparable. So frankly your whole point is moot, even families in good health can't avoid the combined costs of checkups, physicals, birth control, etc. etc.

I think your focus on premiums pretty much makes the rest of your points irrelevant. A middle class family doesn't particularly care if one cost rises if others go down, or if they're able to now get care in the first place when they weren't before, or if they're now covered for mental health issues, etc. None of those positive changes from ACA you've been able to address; you'd rather focus on those who could be hit with higher costs due to potential premium increases (perfect, healthy families) instead of seeing that far more people will be helped by the law because their main healthcare expense aren't premiums, they're out-of-pocket.

I don't really think you believe this. In reality you actually agree with me. You're just stubbornly sticking to your point knowing that a focus on premiums doesn't apply to most families.

Your entire position is centered on not caring if/when the premiums increase dramatically for middle class families and ignores the impact such increases would have in real family budgets.

Example: My wife's employer and mine both offer the exact same plan from the exact same provider (Kaiser). However, the employer contributions for that plan are dramatically different. With her employer, the premiums would cost us $9,048 per year. With mine, our premiums currently cost us just $4,476 per year.

Those two very different costs cover the exact same plan with the exact same doctors, co-payments, coverages, and deductibles!

Now, what do you you think would happen if my employer drops coverage -- which they're seriously considering as we speak -- or simply adjusts their contributions to match my wife's employer?

That's a very real $4,500 -- a 100% premium increase -- that will tear a large gaping hole in our budget.

Please explain to me how/where we'd recoup that loss in your ACA-based utopia...?

 

[fskimospy]

Your entire position is centered on not caring if/when the premiums increase dramatically for middle class families and ignores the impact such increases would have in real family budgets.

Example: My wife's employer and mine both offer the exact same plan from the exact same provider (Kaiser). However, the employer contributions for that plan are dramatically different. With her employer, the premiums would cost us $9,048 per year. With mine, our premiums currently cost us just $4,476 per year.

Those two very different costs cover the exact same plan with the exact same doctors, co-payments, coverages, and deductibles!

Now, what do you you think would happen if my employer drops coverage -- which they're seriously considering as we speak -- or simply adjusts their contributions to match my wife's employer?

That's a very real $4,500 -- a 100% premium increase -- that will tear a large gaping hole in our budget.

Please explain to me how/where we'd recoup those costs in your ACA utopia...?

This is just hysterics. First, a terrible premise. Yes, for a healthy family the premium is all that matters... but if your family were always going to be healthy you could probably dispense with insurance in its entirety. That's like saying 'my car insurance premium is all that matters because I've never been in a wreck'. The overall silliness of this position is that you're saying that you don't care what it means for the country as a whole. Well health care policy is made for the nation as a whole.

Second, your counterpoint is if your employer screws you over that... you will be screwed over. Okay.

Third, this appears to be based on a fundamental ignorance of the law. Additionally, unless your wife makes a pretty good salary, her health plan will no longer be legal under the ACA. (employee contributions may not exceed 9.5% of her salary.) So unless she's making 100k+, her health plan will change. Next I'm sure you'll say "well her employer will just drop coverage too!" At that point you would be able for either subsidized premiums or for an exchange based plan that also will not exceed 9.5% of income.

So yeah, long story short: Unless you guys have an income well in excess of six figures your scenario is not realistic. If you do have such an income, pleading poverty is pretty silly.

 

[sactoking]

Third, this appears to be based on a fundamental ignorance of the law. Additionally, unless your wife makes a pretty good salary, her health plan will no longer be legal under the ACA. (employee contributions may not exceed 9.5% of her salary.) So unless she's making 100k+, her health plan will change. Next I'm sure you'll say "well her employer will just drop coverage too!" At that point you would be able for either subsidized premiums or for an exchange based plan that also will not exceed 9.5% of income.

Just as a point of clarification, this isn't entirely true.

Employee premiums in excess of 9.5% of income aren't "illegal" per se, but they do allow the employee to be eligible for a tax credit on an exchange. Enough employees receiving tax credits due to "unaffordable" employer-sponsored coverage (defined as premiums in excess of 9.5% income) may trigger the employer shared responsibility penalty. So it's not illegal per se, maybe a better descriptor would be "discouraged".

Also, remember that the affordability test only applies to the employees premiums and not dependents (who don't have to be offered affordable coverage) or spouses (who don't have to be offered coverage at all). Without knowing palehorse's personal situation it's correct to say that his scenario is plausible: his employer may cover a large part of the premium for both him and his spouse while the spouse's employer may only cover the premium of the spouse and leave his coverage unsibsidized. That might explain the cost difference while still remaining within the legal parameters of the ACA come 1/1/14.

 

[palehorse]

This is just hysterics. First, a terrible premise. Yes, for a healthy family the premium is all that matters... but if your family were always going to be healthy you could probably dispense with insurance in its entirety. That's like saying 'my car insurance premium is all that matters because I've never been in a wreck'. The overall silliness of this position is that you're saying that you don't care what it means for the country as a whole. Well health care policy is made for the nation as a whole.

Second, your counterpoint is if your employer screws you over that... you will be screwed over. Okay.

Third, this appears to be based on a fundamental ignorance of the law. Additionally, unless your wife makes a pretty good salary, her health plan will no longer be legal under the ACA. (employee contributions may not exceed 9.5% of her salary.) So unless she's making 100k+, her health plan will change. Next I'm sure you'll say "well her employer will just drop coverage too!" At that point you would be able for either subsidized premiums or for an exchange based plan that also will not exceed 9.5% of income.

So yeah, long story short: Unless you guys have an income well in excess of six figures your scenario is not realistic. If you do have such an income, pleading poverty is pretty silly.

Nobody said anything about "pleading poverty," but losing thousands of dollars every year is no small hit. So now "six figures" is the new "rich," and we should therefore just take it up the ass because it won't hurt "as much"? Fuck that, and fuck you.

I'm simply not willing to pay 9.5% of my wife's salary, or my own, for the exact same coverage I have today for less than 5% -- regardless of whether or not asshats like you continue to say I shouldn't mind doing so.

The scenario I described above -- my own -- will play out all across the entire population in the next couple of years. If you believe that we, the healthy middle class, are simply going to accept this rape without a fight, you're wrong.

As for my employer potentially screwing me: if they do so as a result of the ACA, then my wrath will be rightfully directed at those who support the ACA, not my employer. Period.

 

[palehorse]

Just as a point of clarification, this isn't entirely true.

Employee premiums in excess of 9.5% of income aren't "illegal" per se, but they do allow the employee to be eligible for a tax credit on an exchange. Enough employees receiving tax credits due to "unaffordable" employer-sponsored coverage (defined as premiums in excess of 9.5% income) may trigger the employer shared responsibility penalty. So it's not illegal per se, maybe a better descriptor would be "discouraged".

Also, remember that the affordability test only applies to the employees premiums and not dependents (who don't have to be offered affordable coverage) or spouses (who don't have to be offered coverage at all). Without knowing palehorse's personal situation it's correct to say that his scenario is plausible: his employer may cover a large part of the premium for both him and his spouse while the spouse's employer may only cover the premium of the spouse and leave his coverage unsibsidized. That might explain the cost difference while still remaining within the legal parameters of the ACA come 1/1/14.

Thank you for that explanation; and yes, I believe that's exactly what my wife's employer is counting on. If/when all large employers do the same, the annual premium costs for every middle class family may become enormous! :-|

 

[fskimospy]

Nobody said anything about "pleading poverty." I'm simply not willing to pay 9.5% of my wife's salary, or my own, for the exact same coverage I have today for less than 5% -- regardless of whether or not asshats like you continue to say I shouldn't mind doing so.

I didn't say you shouldn't mind doing so, I'm saying that I find your description of what will happen to be unlikely. I find it far more likely that you have no idea what the consequences of the ACA would be.

So now "six figures" is the new "rich," and we should therefore just take it up the ass because it won't hurt "as much"? Fuck that, and fuck you.

Stop being hysterical, you're just raving at this point.

I'm saying that on top of you likely not understanding what will actually happen under the ACA if you are collectively making more than $100k a year (and likely substantially more) if your budget has a 'huge hole blown in it' from this you are doing a poor job with financial planning. I can recommend some people if you would like.

The scenario I described above -- my own -- will play out all across the entire population in the next couple of years. If you believe that we, the healthy middle class, are simply going to accept this rape without a fight, you're wrong.

As for my employer potentially screwing me: if they do so as a result of the ACA, then my wrath will be rightfully directed at those who support the ACA, not my employer. Period.

Well surely if this will play out 'across the entire population' in the next couple of years you can provide some credible *nonpartisan* analysis that says this will be the case. Since I'm pretty familiar with the literature on employer sponsored insurance I know that most of it predicts only small changes in this respect, mostly centered on marginal, low paying job sectors. In all, you're just ranting.