So much BS in this thread from both sides. Very few of you actually understand the law which is not surprising. It's difficult to understand. However spouting talking points from your side of the aisle does not really do anything to further the conversation. I have sat through countless meetings on this piece of legislation. We have an entire legal team with decades of experience dedicated to deciphering it and briefing our teams and clients on the ramifications. But beside all the nitty gritty details of how it will effect companies and is costing them money. The biggest problem I have with it is two fold, the way it was passed and the fact that it cedes way too much power in to the seat of the federal government. It is a behemoth of a program taking over a large piece of our economy and is completely out of the scope of power enumerated to the federal government by the framers.
That said it is not a good piece of legislation. It is not going to accomplish what it set out to accomplish. It is going to cost way too much money(already has). Remember every single dollar it has cost up to this point has been a dollar earned by a producer and spent by a government that produces nothing and to what gain? So far not much. Latest reports show less people with coverage than before. The young and healthy have even more reason to remain uninsured. Now throw in the indirect cost to businesses across this country spent mitigating the effects, the man hours spent just trying to figure out how to be in compliance. If I got in to the absurdity of the details of what is required of a company and how they can still basically offer a package they know their laborers can not afford and remain in compliance you would wonder what the heck what was the point.
Lastly i do believe that 2014 will be a referendum on ACA and you will see the senate go back to the republicans and they will gain seats in the house. Gridlock in Washington is usually a good thing. The less they do the less they screw up.
Also now the insurance companies probablly will not give the doctors and hospitals as many passes.
Bottomline is that americans should be able to have healthcare, so if it makes it possible for folks then why do you oppose it.
nothing has changed....still the same amount of sick people....how the doctors get paid is all that has changed
I'm not sure an employer would want to do that. The cost of the employee share cannot exceed (I believe) 10% of their wage. Employees of companies required to provide health insurance can not get subsidies on exchanges (we'll just have to wait until Obama figures out that won't work real well; and he'll change that, too, I guess). So, the employees are in a trap ... unless they quit (and maybe become artists, as Pelosi suggests). Would an employer really want his whole workforce quitting the same day? Or, in the present job market, would the employees just reduce their standard of living further in the fear they cannot get another job? I admit I don't know the text of the law, but while an employer might do that, it doesn't seem like a reasonable course for the employer ... I suppose he could re-hire the key employees, and let the least valuable go elsewhere. Again, the low-skill worker is the one who gets hurt most.If I got in to the absurdity of the details of what is required of a company and how they can still basically offer a package they know their laborers can not afford and remain in compliance you would wonder what the heck what was the point.
Menmom,I think both those premises, in actual practice, are proving incorrect. Less competition as many insurors have decided simply to not offer policies at all. Less coverage, when certain drugs are excluded, and certain doctors and hospitals are also excluded from the networks.... with Obamacare their will be more competition and more coverage.
If the remaining insurors find they cannot survive when losses become insurmountable, more insurors will drop out of the system. Voila ... single-payer. And the govt dictates everything in health care, as they do in other single-payer systems.
Do you note what's happening in the UK. The original premise was that everyone got their health care through the system. The doctors and hospitals became "employees" of the govt; prices for procedures mandated; and govt decides which people can get which procedures. The govt has now come to the point of suggesting that individuals pay for health care privately. Those that can do so financially, do that. Guess what has happened with that change? Private health insurance has been resurrected so that those who choose private health care can limit their costs? Full circle?
Single payer greatly favors the 1% who have the resources to get care that the govt decides is not appropriate due to age or disease. That 1% can go wherever they want to purchase their health care. $ talks.
It becomes real logical to me why some Euro countries are now turning more into favor of euthanasia of infants & children with terrible diseases, and also for elderly. Since denial of benefits in single-payer systems have already been doing that (without admitting to the term of euthanasia), the next step toward calling euthanasia "care" is not a big one. While it may seem appropriate for sick, elderly to make those voluntary decisions for themselves, I'm not so sure about children. we have seen human spirit overcome deformities in ways we never imagined.
If the govt can dictate the benefits that a health plan can offer (as O-care does), then it has the power to deny benefits or set maximum payment amounts that can be allocated toward those benefits. While O-care supposedly does not allow the insurors to set lifetime maximums (and maybe yearly maximums?), what stops Obama (or his successor) from making executive changes to those details? He's already done that with other details.
First O-care has to get everybody signed up. Once everyone is dependent upon govt mandate for health care, then who will be able to challenge the change in the rules? The 1% won't care since they can get whatever health care they need by directly paying for it. I'm not begrudging the 1% their $. What does bother me is when the govt promotes doing what is best for "the greater good", but ends up creating "the greater bad" for many more people who had some "good" before.
"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim
I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.
EXXON, ATT, DOW, FORD, etc have no impact from the law.
Companies are required to offer insurance to their employees….what is wrong with that?
Individuals are required to have it or both are taxed. What is wrong with them having to pay for insurance like me?
Using the exchange matches insurer with insure…money changes hands between the two.
Doctor bills insurer and insurer pays doctor.
Now anywhere did you see money changing hands with the government other than collecting taxes? Sounds like government might make money from this to pay for the folks that can’t afford insurance.
Well one thing is for sure. We are still trillions in debt and it isn't going to get better anytime soon. I am just not seeing how the how government is going to make money in this.
Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
What if all we have today is what we gave thanks for yesterday?
Let the views of others educate and inform you, but let your decisions be a product of your own conclusions. (Jim Rohn)
There ought to be one day -- just one -- when there is open season on Congressmen.