Nancy Pelosi said "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Now that we are starting to see what's in it, it looks more and more like a pig in a poke - The Link. I suspect the affected folks won't like this surprise. And by the way, why on earth is the government subsidizing a family of four with an income of $94K????? HHD
HHD BO must think this gets him closer to single payer. does any semi intellgent person not think taxes will have to go iup to pay the "Gov't" can pay the subsidy? How many will realise it is their OWN taxes paying for their own subsidy?
^You nailed it! The underlying objective of Obamacare was to create such a mess that single payer would look like the only way out. HHD
Many of us did not for a second believe the crap that came out about how "wonderful" Obamacare would be for every single person, so it is no surprise to us. The problem is we will be screwed along with the idiots who believed it,
Perhaps ramifications about Obamacare will become more evident by spring of 2014 -- running through the mid-term election year -- and pressure both the Senate and House to go all Republican and lead to throwing the whole thing out. But that's two years to get to the next Congress after Nov 2014, so a lot of damage between now and then. Still, when premiums hit households next January... look the hell out. Not to mention what businesses face. Not to mention when things don't always work out smoothly for those going for services. Our household is on private insurance (I'm self-employed) so it's already made me wary. We have a mix for how we handle it, but none of it is shared by an employer. And we really are not that well positioned to bare the costs for others -- it's enough to bare it for ourselves. That whole program is completely insane. But the society will have to suffer to ever get it.
While not my preferred option, Im starting to feel that a single payer system (in this case the government) may be only acceptable option that can be realistically achieved. I can accept a baseline socialized health care coverage option for everyone. It should not be gold plated by any means. Just provide basic health care coverage. Anyone who wants additional coverage could purchase it. This will allow competition at least for that supplemental insurance market which we so desperately need to keep the costs down.
MrD You only have to read the post above yours to see that once people get slapped with the reality of Obamacare and mired down the idea of a single payer system could look like the only way out. I hope our Pols and the smart media continue to point out that is NOT the only solution , not even a good solution.
There's a reason why the admin is behind the 8 ball relative to implementation. They are smart enough to know the plan won't work, but not courageous enough to admit as such. They will rope-a-dope this thing to get past the mid term elections and then think of what to do next. They have no plan and don't have a way out. So they just kick the can......
Yeah, this thing is a disaster. I have always thought that we have been heading towards a single payer system long before obamacare. This may just speed up the process. As much as I don't like the problems that come along with a single payer system, I don't see another way that we will deal with the out of control costs. Its going to take a system where the single payer can say "we aren't going to pay that price". Not arguing that it will be a good system, just a likely outcome.
Cancer clinics have already started turning away Medicare patients due to cuts in reimbursement. This sends them to the more expensive option at the hospital. Unfortunately, the hospitals also expect as much as a 30% cut in reimbursements as well. As this debacle continues to unfold, the Dems will get their wish of a single payor system. Then everyone can get in line for rationed care.
Simple math and running a business thought process: According to a March poll by the Wall Street Journal and Vistage International, 46% of small business owners are unsure about whether providing a work-sponsored health plan will be more or less costly than paying the law's penalties. The Journal reports that some businesses have begun calculating the difference. For example, small business owner Rick Levi—who owns Consolidated Management in Des Moines, Iowa, which operates cafeterias at schools—currently spends about $140,000 annually on premiums for coverage for 25 managerial staff. Under the ACA's employer mandate, the company would be required to offer affordable coverage to all 102 full-time employees, which Levi estimates would cost more than $500,000 annually. In contrast, he estimates that paying the penalty for not complying with the law would cost $144,000. The Journal notes that a potential drawback to some employers' plans to pay the penalty is that such fines are not tax-deductible, while health insurance costs are. There are indications that many small businesses will comply with the mandate. A survey of 400 employers with 50 or more workers conducted in February by the National Small Business Association found that 71% said they plan to continue offering coverage, while just 3% said they plan to pay the penalty. However, some small businesses might try to avoid the health reform law's employer mandate by employing fewer than 50 full-time workers. Still others might mitigate the cost of the mandate by increasing employees' share of health premiums, the Journal notes (Maltby/Needleman, Wall Street Journal, 4/7). I wonder why the jobs report was so bad and the economy remains where it does? The real negative effects of Obamacare are still to come.
smoking is pre-existing If obamacare wasn't already doomed for failure this will fan the flame. Smoking is considered a preexisting condition and insurers will not be allowed to charge smokers more than non-smokers. For the many who already believed the healthcare reform bill was a thinly veiled attempt to destroy the private insurance market this will not come as a surprise. But even for obamacare supporters, this can't possibly pass the smell test. I don't think anyone would argue that a smoker is by definition a higher risk than a non-smoker, caeteris paribus, and thus is more expensive to insure.
I agree, Heiman. With this latest Obama fail of the day, it appears once again that the government is rewarding poor choices and behavior. There's no such word as 'accountability' for a liberal these days.
Damn Republicans! Here is a nice little article that was published on the Investor's.com website. Trying to pin it on the Republicans is laughable and even the dems are starting to realize what a clusterfuck it is.
