The Democrat Thread

[Y2HH]

Which is exactly what you'd predict they did if you did a large scale study, as has been done repeatedly but which you've told me can't be done.

 

Ok, I shouldn't say they "can't be done", and if I said that, I take it back. You can do such studies...they just won't be accurate.

[StrangeSox]

More backhanded stupidity and outright ignorance.

 

You're dismissing the entire concept of predictive macroeconomic policy studies here.

[Y2HH]

I'm pretty sure we're both saying the same thing: Republican scare-mongering claims here are bulls*** and it'd be good to shift from our current employer-provided health insurance model anyway.

 

If employers drop insurance but raise compensation to the point that I get the same thing in some manner that's economically beneficial to them, awesome. But that relies on the exchanges working extremely well to keep insurance costs down. Either way, the scenario of 30% of companies dropping insurance and not making up for it to employees in any way is pretty much fantasy for a variety of reasons, most of which fit right into Republican orthodoxy.

 

Many employers already do this...it's called consulting. Unfortunately, as someone that's been a consultant, and knowing many that currently work with me, they'd prefer to have the coverage rather than having to get their own.

[Y2HH]

You're dismissing the entire concept of predictive macroeconomic policy studies here.

 

Those same types of studies "predicted" our housing market was sustainable in 2007...and that Fannie and Freddie were completely solvant companies.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Many employers already do this...it's called consulting. Unfortunately, as someone that's been a consultant, and knowing many that currently work with me, they'd prefer to have the coverage rather than having to get their own.

 

Sure, because our existing system is a gigantic, expensive mess that f***s over individuals. Supposedly the exchanges will offer cheap, affordable insurance.

[Balta1701]

Sure, because our existing system is a gigantic, expensive mess that f***s over individuals. Supposedly the exchanges will offer cheap, affordable insurance.

It won't do that...opening up Medicare to everyone would have but that's Socialism.

 

What it will do is at least make individual plans somewhat closer to competitive by effectively taking all the individuals and turning them into a group themselves.

[StrangeSox]

Those same types of studies "predicted" our housing market was sustainable in 2007...and that Fannie and Freddie were completely solvant companies.

 

This is a specific type of fallacy but the name escapes me. Basically all studies are invalid because some are wrong. Policy decisions must be made blindly.

[StrangeSox]

It won't do that...opening up Medicare to everyone would have but that's Socialism.

 

What it will do is at least make individual plans somewhat closer to competitive by effectively taking all the individuals and turning them into a group themselves.

 

Oh I know it probably won't. But we've got this bizarre claim by Republicans that employers are going to drop insurance!!!! because Obamacare is going to work so well for providing cheap insurance options, therefore we need to repeal Obamacare?!! Zuh?

[southsider2k5]

It won't do that...opening up Medicare to everyone would have but that's Socialism.

 

What it will do is at least make individual plans somewhat closer to competitive by effectively taking all the individuals and turning them into a group themselves.

 

You mean the medicare system that less and less medical facilities are even willing to accept? We would just move into an insurance program that less and less providers would accept?

[NorthSideSox72]

Y2HH, if it was as simple as "if they save a lot of money, they will cut insurance benefits", then companies would have dropped this en masse a long time ago. The rates were increasing so much more than inflation, even before the health care legislation was passed. So not, its not at all that simple. Its more like "if it makes business sense", or if "they can't afford it anymore", then they may drop it. Insurance is a benefit, its ALWAYS an added cost, so they have to look at the full compensation package and decide if they are competitive enough.

 

[Y2HH]

Sure, because our existing system is a gigantic, expensive mess that f***s over individuals. Supposedly the exchanges will offer cheap, affordable insurance.

 

Actually it wasn't all that hard to get insurance. It was quite easy to get insurance, and it wasn't expensive, I know because for years I was paying for my own insurance. As a matter of fact, when my wife was still my girlfriend (2005-2008), I had her drop her employer sponsored healthcare because she was able to go out on her own and get it *much* cheaper directly from Blue Cross at the time. Everyone at her company followed suit.

 

Most people don't even realize you could just get it on your own, and further, that's it's often cheaper than what your company gives you. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the people posting here never once bothered to price check what they could get on their own vs what they pay for their employer coverage.

 

That said, most still don't WANT too...they'd rather their employer handle that for them. People hate having to do things like this on their own...and I'm not sure why...maybe out of laziness.

 

 

[Y2HH]

Y2HH, if it was as simple as "if they save a lot of money, they will cut insurance benefits", then companies would have dropped this en masse a long time ago. The rates were increasing so much more than inflation, even before the health care legislation was passed. So not, its not at all that simple. Its more like "if it makes business sense", or if "they can't afford it anymore", then they may drop it. Insurance is a benefit, its ALWAYS an added cost, so they have to look at the full compensation package and decide if they are competitive enough.

 

A lot ARE doing this.

 

Hence the boom in "consulting jobs".

 

Consultants get no health coverage.

[Balta1701]

You mean the medicare system that less and less medical facilities are even willing to accept? We would just move into an insurance program that less and less providers would accept?

100% absolutely.

 

Just because doctors can make more money by catering to a richer and richer class of people doesn't mean that it's a good thing for health care.

[southsider2k5]

Oh I know it probably won't. But we've got this bizarre claim by Republicans that employers are going to drop insurance!!!! because Obamacare is going to work so well for providing cheap insurance options, therefore we need to repeal Obamacare?!! Zuh?

 

I think the most bizarre part of this argument is the people who are usually claiming how evil and greedy corporations are, are now banking on the fact that the same corporations won't be making business based decisions, when history shows they did exactly that with the pension plans over the 20th century.

[Y2HH]

I think the most bizarre part of this argument is the people who are usually claiming how evil and greedy corporations are, are now banking on the fact that the same corporations won't be making business based decisions, when history shows they did exactly that with the pension plans over the 20th century.

 

This is exactly my point and has been since they started trying to argue with me.

 

I've been right about this health sham from the start (before it was passed), and as the only person on this board with an inkling of how health insurance works, I will continue to be right.

[NorthSideSox72]

A lot ARE doing this.

 

Hence the boom in "consulting jobs".

 

Consultants get no health coverage.

A lot? Seems so far the numbers dropping it are pretty low % wise. We'll see if that holds, it might not.

 

I do think that eventually, health care will become unwound from employment, and be a personal cost to people directly. And amazingly, I think that could be a good thing, as long as certain protections are in place around it.

 

[southsider2k5]

Y2HH, if it was as simple as "if they save a lot of money, they will cut insurance benefits", then companies would have dropped this en masse a long time ago. The rates were increasing so much more than inflation, even before the health care legislation was passed. So not, its not at all that simple. Its more like "if it makes business sense", or if "they can't afford it anymore", then they may drop it. Insurance is a benefit, its ALWAYS an added cost, so they have to look at the full compensation package and decide if they are competitive enough.

 

The problem was there was no alternative to dump them on. Just like social security took the place of pensions, now this exchange will be the dumping place for insurance. The scenario where a company is paying the increases in the costs of insurance looks at their employees and tells them they can either go get government insurance, or get shutdown, doesn't seem that implausible to me. Companies have done the same things over unionization and sales tax very recently. If there now exists a cheaper business alternative, which will probably also be cheaper to the consumer, to push employees into, companies are going to do it. History is on my side here.

[StrangeSox]

I think the most bizarre part of this argument is the people who are usually claiming how evil and greedy corporations are, are now banking on the fact that the same corporations won't be making business based decisions, when history shows they did exactly that with the pension plans over the 20th century.

 

No one is claiming that at all. I've explicitly said that employers currently and will continue to offer insurance plans to employees because, in the long term, it benefits the owners/shareholders. Retaining top talent and all that jazz.

[Balta1701]

I think the most bizarre part of this argument is the people who are usually claiming how evil and greedy corporations are, are now banking on the fact that the same corporations won't be making business based decisions, when history shows they did exactly that with the pension plans over the 20th century.

Ok, fine, I'll start saying what you keep insisting I'm saying.

 

Corporations will stop making business decisions.

 

Corporations will stop taking the employer tax deduction because they want to screw the government and they're going to lose money to do so.

 

No corporation makes business based decisions. Therefore, a plan that jumps through an enormous number of hoops to make sure corporations continue making the same decision they're making right now won't work because they're going to make decisions that lose them money out of spite.

 

[Y2HH]

A lot? Seems so far the numbers dropping it are pretty low % wise. We'll see if that holds, it might not.

 

I do think that eventually, health care will become unwound from employment, and be a personal cost to people directly. And amazingly, I think that could be a good thing, as long as certain protections are in place around it.

 

I've noticed a huge boom in consultants in the IT market...then again, that's the IT market, which I have knowledge of. What they do in other types of work I have no idea, and won't pretend to know.

[Y2HH]

Ok, fine, I'll start saying what you keep insisting I'm saying.

 

Corporations will stop making business decisions.

 

Corporations will stop taking the employer tax deduction because they want to screw the government and they're going to lose money to do so.

 

No corporation makes business based decisions. Therefore, a plan that jumps through an enormous number of hoops to make sure corporations continue making the same decision they're making right now won't work because they're going to make decisions that lose them money out of spite.

 

More foolishness right there...and a massive wad of assumptions that they can't save money elsewhere.

 

Stop leaning on a single tax deduction when they will find 50 others to replace it. Oh, and stop pretending corporations are trying to "screw the government", because that's completely dumb, they'd do it to SAVE f***ING MONEY, not to screw the government.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

The problem was there was no alternative to dump them on.

Sure there was. I can decline coverage and get my own otherwise. The costs and procedures may be different but it isn't materially different from the exchanges.

 

Just like social security took the place of pensions, now this exchange will be the dumping place for insurance.

 

Huh? edit: did you mean IRA's and 401(k)'s? It's not exactly like pensions and employee compensation in general was booming prior to the 1930's and then pensions disappeared by the 40's or 50's.

 

The scenario where a company is paying the increases in the costs of insurance looks at their employees and tells them they can either go get government insurance, or get shutdown, doesn't seem that implausible to me. Companies have done the same things over unionization and sales tax very recently. If there now exists a cheaper business alternative, which will probably also be cheaper to the consumer, exists to push employees into, companies are going to do it. History is on my side here.

 

More reasons for UHC.

Edited June 24, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

More reasons for UHC.

 

Won't happen now, so there is no point in discussing it.

[StrangeSox]

Won't happen now, so there is no point in discussing it.

 

I know

 

[Y2HH]

I know

 

I can tell you this...

 

Since the reform, health insurance companies are making more money than ever before.