Premiums for Obamacare announced in CA - four times cheaper than current rates - conservative pundit discovers enough testicular fortitude to admit he's been dead wrong from the beginning.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    You are correct, I mis-categorized his politics.

    What was I thinking?

    It should've been self-evident; trying to use "testicular fortitude" and "conservative" in the same sentence was just foolish.

    My bad.

     



    Ooooh...Airborne being a "tough" guy again.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    ...

     

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    Up to 75% Could Be Hit by Obamacare Tax  

    Monday, 27 May 2013 04:27 PM

     The so-called "Cadillac Tax" facing employers who offer premium healthcare plans to their workers already is affecting employees, even though it doesn't kick in until 2018.

    Employers say they have to get started bringing down costs now, The New York Times reports, so employees who are used to $20 co-pays at the doctor's office and $500 deductibles are learning a new reality. Many now are looking at deductibles as high as $6,000 for families.

    That's exactly how Obamacare planners designed it, the Times story says. The intent of what is officially known as the Affordable Care Act all along was to get companies to drop plans that protect workers from the high cost of healthcare, which can lead to unnecessary tests and procedures.

    "The consumer should continue to expect that their plan is going to be more expensive, and they will have less benefits," Cynthia Weidner of the benefits consultant HighRoads told the Times.

    Still, the tax is one of the most controversial parts of the healthcare law. It imposes a 40 percent tax on the portion of a health plan's cost that exceeds $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family. That cost includes what both the employer and employee pay.

    Some employees are feeling the pinch already. The Times talked to a nursing assistant who had to drop out of school and get extra jobs to pay for medicine for her husband, who has cystic fibrosis.

    "My husband didn’t choose to be born this way," said Abbey Bruce.

    “The reality is it is going to hit more and more people over time, at least as currently written in law, ” said Bradley Herring, a health economist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

    Herring estimated that as many as 75 percent of plans could be affected by the tax over the next decade — unless employers manage to significantly rein in their costs. 



    So, Obamacare prevents through taxation people and companies from buying the health care they want, i.e. the plan they are happy with, and want to keep.

    Another Obama lie exposed. 

    One has to ask:  To what end is the limitation on "Cadillac "plans aimed?  To get rid of them?

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    Not only are the CA rates lower than the chix-littles around here predicted, but two other states, OR and WA, also announced the same cost savings.

     

     



    You mean like the CBO???

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    ...

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Here is what the article headline says about this writer...

    "Rick Ungar, Contributor ....I write from the left on politics and policy"

     




     

    Are the facts cited in the article incorrect?

     




    They don't line up with the title of this thread.

     

     

     

    Are you slow?

    My mischaracterization of the authors politics in no way change the facts... unless you are an idiot who can't argue the facts, then by all means carry on.

     




    I guess I am slow.

     

    Claiming that the California exchange is four times cheaper than current care, then reading the article, and finding out that it is cheaper only for those who are subsidized by the government, means that the facts don't line up with your claim.

    Also consider that this subsidy does not mean that healthcare is cheaper.  A large portion is simply paid for by the tax payer, in order to make it look cheaper.  I call that "progressive goggles".

    You with me?



    Also, what kinds of plans are these? What's covered? Not covered? Copays? Deductibles? Out-out-pocket max? 

    I guess we can assume they are comparing apples to apples.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    ...

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    In response to bigdog2's comment:


     

     

     

     

    Up to 75% Could Be Hit by Obamacare Tax  



    Maybe the assumption was that if your company scales back its health care plan offerings to avoid the "cadillac tax" it would not simply pocket the savings.  

    Ironic the woman in the story works at a hospital.  The hospital is reluctant to pass on the cost of the new health care tax to its customers?  That's hard to swallow.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    Are the facts cited in the article incorrect?



    lol, people dont care about facts on these boards. Its about politics and how to make the other side look bad and promote one sided ideology.

    Both sides are consumed with vitriolic politics equally! THAT'S the problem.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     


     

     

     

     

    Up to 75% Could Be Hit by Obamacare Tax  

     



     

    Maybe the assumption was that if your company scales back its health care plan offerings to avoid the "cadillac tax" it would not simply pocket the savings.  

    Ironic the woman in the story works at a hospital.  The hospital is reluctant to pass on the cost of the new health care tax to its customers?  That's hard to swallow.




    So, you go to work for a nice company that has a great health care plan.  The government taxes that plan out of existence.  Why?  You don't deserve it. 

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     


     

     

     

     

    Up to 75% Could Be Hit by Obamacare Tax  

     



     

    Maybe the assumption was that if your company scales back its health care plan offerings to avoid the "cadillac tax" it would not simply pocket the savings.  

    Ironic the woman in the story works at a hospital.  The hospital is reluctant to pass on the cost of the new health care tax to its customers?  That's hard to swallow.

     




     

    So, you`re saying you don`t believe the data?

     




    No, I'm saying the companies are reacting strangely.  I understand if you were offering your employee health care coverage worth $20K/year, and it will suddenly cost you $28K, you will want to adjust your offerings.  What I don't understand is if now you're offering $10k / year of coverage, why pocket the extra $10K you used to pay?  Why not divert it to salary?  Half that amount would make up for any changes in copays and deductibles.

    What am I missing?  

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Also consider that this subsidy does not mean that healthcare is cheaper.  A large portion is simply paid for by the tax payer, in order to make it look cheaper.

     

    So you don't want subsidization.

    What are the other options?

    Throw them all into medicare/medicaid in which case the taxpayer pays more?

    Or, say "F 'em. As long as me and my own have what they need.....      Charity will magically cure everything (aka I don't want to think about it)".

     

     



    Free market, baby.  Take  a look at how things work in elective markets.  Works just fine.  The Plastic surgery industry might be a good model for how to construct a wider free market medical system..

    But, I have got to ask:  don't you understand that the "subsidy" simply means someone else is paying?  There are no magic bullets here.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     


     

     

     

     

    Up to 75% Could Be Hit by Obamacare Tax  

     



     

    Maybe the assumption was that if your company scales back its health care plan offerings to avoid the "cadillac tax" it would not simply pocket the savings.  

    Ironic the woman in the story works at a hospital.  The hospital is reluctant to pass on the cost of the new health care tax to its customers?  That's hard to swallow.

     




     

    So, you`re saying you don`t believe the data?

     

     




     

    No, I'm saying the companies are reacting strangely.  I understand if you were offering your employee health care coverage worth $20K/year, and it will suddenly cost you $28K, you will want to adjust your offerings.  What I don't understand is if now you're offering $10k / year of coverage, why pocket the extra $10K you used to pay?  Why not divert it to salary?  Half that amount would make up for any changes in copays and deductibles.

    What am I missing?  

     



    Any surplus money a company finds is going toward the company's profit....it rarely ever goes to the employees in the form of compensation.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    ...

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     


     

     

     

     

    Up to 75% Could Be Hit by Obamacare Tax  

     



     

    Maybe the assumption was that if your company scales back its health care plan offerings to avoid the "cadillac tax" it would not simply pocket the savings.  

    Ironic the woman in the story works at a hospital.  The hospital is reluctant to pass on the cost of the new health care tax to its customers?  That's hard to swallow.

     




     

    So, you go to work for a nice company that has a great health care plan.  The government taxes that plan out of existence.  Why?  You don't deserve it. 

     




    Maybe it has something to do with my first question - why does a nurse's assistant have a health care plan worth half her salary?  Are there certain companies and industries getting such ridiculous discounts on coverage that they are effectively colluding to raise costs on the rest of us?

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     


     

     

     

     

    Up to 75% Could Be Hit by Obamacare Tax  

     



     

    Maybe the assumption was that if your company scales back its health care plan offerings to avoid the "cadillac tax" it would not simply pocket the savings.  

    Ironic the woman in the story works at a hospital.  The hospital is reluctant to pass on the cost of the new health care tax to its customers?  That's hard to swallow.

     




     

    So, you`re saying you don`t believe the data?

     

     




     

    No, I'm saying the companies are reacting strangely.  I understand if you were offering your employee health care coverage worth $20K/year, and it will suddenly cost you $28K, you will want to adjust your offerings.  What I don't understand is if now you're offering $10k / year of coverage, why pocket the extra $10K you used to pay?  Why not divert it to salary?  Half that amount would make up for any changes in copays and deductibles.

    What am I missing?  

     



    Common sense, that's what you are lacking.  

    Companies offer good insurance plans in order to attrack good employees.

    What Obamacare does is make it impossible for companies to do so.

    Comapnies will choose to keep the money, pay the fine, returning it to their stockholders/owners. That's their reason for being.  That's the proper business decision, considering the government is making it difficult to compensate your employees with a decent helath care plan.

    That's the bottom line.

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     


     

     

     

     

    Up to 75% Could Be Hit by Obamacare Tax  

     



     

    Maybe the assumption was that if your company scales back its health care plan offerings to avoid the "cadillac tax" it would not simply pocket the savings.  

    Ironic the woman in the story works at a hospital.  The hospital is reluctant to pass on the cost of the new health care tax to its customers?  That's hard to swallow.

     




     

    So, you`re saying you don`t believe the data?

     

     




     

    No, I'm saying the companies are reacting strangely.  I understand if you were offering your employee health care coverage worth $20K/year, and it will suddenly cost you $28K, you will want to adjust your offerings.  What I don't understand is if now you're offering $10k / year of coverage, why pocket the extra $10K you used to pay?  Why not divert it to salary?  Half that amount would make up for any changes in copays and deductibles.

    What am I missing?  

     

     



    Common sense, that's what you are lacking.  

     

    Companies offer good insurance plans in order to attrack good employees.

    What Obamacare does is make it impossible for companies to do so.

    Comapnies will choose to keep the money, pay the fine, returning it to their stockholders/owners. That's their reason for being.  That's the proper business decision, considering the government is making it difficult to compensate your employees with a decent helath care plan.

    That's the bottom line.

     

     




    I see.  So companies spend a lot of money on health care plans to attract employees.  But now Obama is taxing those plans, so those companies are racking their brains trying to figure out another way to attract employees as they hand over the previously used health plan money to their share-holders.  

    Common sense, you say?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Common sense, you say?

    The common sense part lies in the fact that the new regulations are causing the cost of health care to rise so much it becomes cheaper to just pay the fine and let the employees default to the federal system.

    They might want to compete for employees but they're not stupid.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    Common sense, you say?

     

    The common sense part lies in the fact that the new regulations are causing the cost of health care to rise so much it becomes cheaper to just pay the fine and let the employees default to the federal system.

    They might want to compete for employees but they're not stupid.

     



    That's the part the progressives don't ever seem to get.

    I guess working for the state or a university where such market pressures don't exist warps their brains.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    Common sense, you say?

     

    The common sense part lies in the fact that the new regulations are causing the cost of health care to rise so much it becomes cheaper to just pay the fine and let the employees default to the federal system.

    They might want to compete for employees but they're not stupid.

     



    That's the part the progressives don't ever seem to get.

    I guess working for the state or a university where such market pressures don't exist warps their brains.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Free market, baby.  Take  a look at how things work in elective markets.  Works just fine.  The Plastic surgery industry might be a good model for how to construct a wider free market medical system..

    Leave saving lives up to the free market...?  Invest in body bag and coffin manufacturers.

    Clearly, there's a difference between elective and necessary procedures.

    You favor eliminating medicare/caid entirely then.

     

     

     

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    The common sense part lies in the fact that the new regulations are causing the cost of health care to rise so much it becomes cheaper to just pay the fine and let the employees default to the federal system.



    That's just not true.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    dupe

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    He chose a good family to be born into...    



    If so, then it didn't seem to take.

     

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    The common sense part lies in the fact that the new regulations are causing the cost of health care to rise so much it becomes cheaper to just pay the fine and let the employees default to the federal system.

     



    That's just not true.

     



    So the fine is more than the cost of health care premiums?

     

Share