Obamacare Sucker Punches Middle Class

Originally posted by sh76
===The system was unsustainable with rising costs (premiums increased in the 10 years preceding the ACA at 2 1/2 times the rate of inflation and overall health care costs rose to 19% of the total economy and were on pace to hit 30% in another 10 or so years)===

Agreed, certainly. The problem is that under the ACA premiums are rising even faster.

Evidence? AFAIK, the data is to the contrary. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/20/2498391/growth-in-health-care-costs-continues-to-decrease-since-passage-of-obamacare/

Originally posted by sh76
===The system was unsustainable with rising costs (premiums increased in the 10 years preceding the ACA at 2 1/2 times the rate of inflation and overall health care costs rose to 19% of the total economy and were on pace to hit 30% in another 10 or so years)===

Agreed, certainly. The problem is that under the ACA premiums are rising even faster.

I just love the word "unsustainable". In a government that prints money out their arse, what exactly does that mean? In fact, they continue to spend more, not less.

I suppose spending only becomes a concern when such demagoguery can be used to further destroy the middle class.

Originally posted by Eladar
http://theweek.com/article/index/254564/the-hidden-costs-of-obamacare

[b]ObamaCare has delivered another sucker punch to the middle class. This time it's sticker shock.

Now that most people can get past the tech problems of HealthCare.gov and actually see the real cost of insurance plans available, they are finding that Affordable Care is a big hit to t ...[text shortened]... out of the middle class. The elite need more peasants, and Obamacare is creating more and more.

Has it slipped your mind that Obama's mentor Karl Marx sought to eliminate the middle class?

Originally posted by no1marauder
A more healthy work force with more access to care is virtually certain to increase GDP. It will also increase employment in health services and the insurance industry.

You already had the US economy in a hopeless freefall because of Obama's re-election. At some point, the other poultry stopped listening to Chicken Little.

I fail to see how ACA creates a "healthier" workforce, when it is quite likely that fewer people will end up insured, and those included now will be the sicker, uninsurables.

When the employer mandate drops next year, it will be another blow to employment.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
My point, which you apparently missed, is that it is pointless to compare the "cheapest" plan if they don't have the same coverage.

That's precisely why ACA was unconstitutional. Despite Robert's contortions, it is not the government's duty to decide for individual citizens what they must buy, or what is "better" for them.

Originally posted by normbenign
I fail to see how ACA creates a "healthier" workforce, when it is quite likely that fewer people will end up insured, and those included now will be the sicker, uninsurables.

When the employer mandate drops next year, it will be another blow to employment.

The idea that less people will wind up insured is a right wing fantasy.

"Sicker" people will probably be less "sick" if they can actually get treatment, norm. And the expansion of health insurance will encourage more preventative care.

Originally posted by no1marauder
People who brought those cheap plans also knew that if it didn't wind up covering all their health care costs, the government would eventually bail them out. Thus the rest of society was, in effect, subsidizing the cheap plans. These people really don't have much cause to complain; the government has decided to regulate the market in a manner that increa ...[text shortened]... s must meet minimum standards that make the system more efficient really doesn't offend me much.

" I'd prefer there was no individual mandate, but saying that plans must meet minimum standards that make the system more efficient really doesn't offend me much."

I've yet to see a government mandate against individual judgement that offends you.

Originally posted by normbenign
That's precisely why ACA was unconstitutional. Despite Robert's contortions, it is not the government's duty to decide for individual citizens what they must buy, or what is "better" for them.

Roberts was wrong, but only because he rejected the Commerce Clause argument. Regulation of an industry that is now consuming almost 20% of GNP would surely pass constitutional muster with the Framers; the main purpose of the Constitution was to create a strong central government to deal with crisis, esp. economic ones.

Originally posted by normbenign
" I'd prefer there was no individual mandate, but saying that plans must meet minimum standards that make the system more efficient really doesn't offend me much."

I've yet to see a government mandate against individual judgement that offends you.

Then I guess you have severe reading comprehension problems.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The idea that less people will wind up insured is a right wing fantasy.

"Sicker" people will probably be less "sick" if they can actually get treatment, norm. And the expansion of health insurance will encourage more preventative care.

The people who can't afford the 'better' plans end up with nothing, paying a fine or 'tax' in Robert's speak. I personally know a fellow that dropped his employer provided coverage because it would have taken about half his weekly pay for his share of the new plan. How is he healthier? And he will still pay the fine/tax.

Originally posted by normbenign
The people who can't afford the 'better' plans end up with nothing, paying a fine or 'tax' in Robert's speak. I personally know a fellow that dropped his employer provided coverage because it would have taken about half his weekly pay for his share of the new plan. How is he healthier? And he will still pay the fine/tax.

I don't believe you. Employer provided coverage is presently unaffected by the ACA.

Come up with something a little more convincing.

I personally have my doubts that anyone will ever pay the mandate fine/tax.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Insurance is pooling of risk. Some, perhaps most, of the people who pay for health insurance are never going to need it for some specific conditions that are extremely costly for those who have it. It makes plenty of economic sense to spread the costs throughout the entire pool.

Insurance and risk pooling are fine, if insurance is a commodity which people can purchase freely. Nearly all insurance has rating factors which are beyond the range of pooling.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't believe you. Employer provided coverage is presently unaffected by the ACA.

Come up with something a little more convincing.

I personally have my doubts that anyone will ever pay the mandate fine/tax.

So why does the ACA mandate hiring additional IRS collection agents?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't believe you. Employer provided coverage is presently unaffected by the ACA.

Come up with something a little more convincing.

I personally have my doubts that anyone will ever pay the mandate fine/tax.

The employer mandate was not pushed back when my friend faced his open enrolment period. There are many people in this same boat, where employers presumed the mandate would go forward, especially for not friends of Obama.