End of Obamacare?

Let me ask this a different way then... IF there was a study from 2009 to present, why is the "death blow" being dealt yesterday, and not before it went into effect? They didn't know what the future impact would be years ago?

I know what I'm asking is a completely logical question. I'm hoping there's a logical answer.

 

Then there's this article that paints a specific light on one of the parts of the ACA that no one wants to mention.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...ou-could-pay-20000-more-insurance_778743.html

 

you're making a big leap in assuming that legislators read the bills they're voting on. They won't read a study either - they're going to vote the way whichever the highest donor/lobbyist pays them to.

 

I don't believe they will end up making more money. Either the Feds are going to take over straight up, or we'll have the worst of both worlds. The insurance companies will become wholly owned subsidiaries of the US Government, separate only in name. The Department of Health and Human Services already treats them as such.

I believe that Obamacare is going to create an adverse selection spiral that will destroy the insurance market completely. The insurance companies will be on the verge of bankruptcy, then their Federal masters will offer them bailouts... with caveats of course. At that point we'll basically have nationalized healthcare, it'll just be provided through some kind of disgusting Frankensteinish crony capitalist / government hybrid creature.

That thing will be impossibly difficult to kill even compared to healthcare systems that were socialized in an honest way.

I believe the Federal Government has a quite limited lease on life. The United States, if we survive, is going to become something like the Holy Roman Empire. We'll swear fealty to the United States but in reality power will be in the hands of regional power blocs and states. The sooner it comes, the better. The US Government is a financially and morally bankrupt and increasingly discredited organization.

 

It's doubtful that many, if any, Congressmen will read a bill as complicated, and with as many tangents, as this Obamacare thing has. It's so complicated and convoluted that no one person could understand it with any accuracy unless he/she spends a hell of a lot of time, (months?) and has a hell of a lot of help, doing so. As far as Obama is concerned, he had this idea for his "legacy" and instructed his staff and minions to write it. No one single person wrote it and, because of that fact, it's no wonder that parts of it are completely unable to work properly with other parts of it. "To hell with the details" Obama thinks, his real thinking was, "on with my legacy".

The complexity of this thing is like telling a first grade class to "design and build me an automobile" before class ends today. Remember also; the Giraffe was obviously designed and built by a committee.

Of course, you all realize that even if we end up with a majority of Republicans in both houses this November and this legislation were to be thrown out, we will still end up with higher health costs because, when we go back to what we had before, the insurance companies will have laid out a hell of a lot of money doing, then undoing, all their programs and rules.
We clients are where the buck stops.

 

fixed it for you

 

You are operating under the misperception that it was about healthcare.

 

Some things are just obvious. But I find in life that what is obvious to me is not always obvious to others.

Professionally, someone will say to me, let's do it this way. Then when I explain to him the factors that he has not taken into account, he will say, gee, I guess my idea won't work then. Day in and day out, I deal with that kind of stuff from entry-level people to highly experienced engineers.

Politically, I don't even bother.

 

Where is the mention of the reality of the CBO report, not the Fox slant on it.
The CBO report said that 2 million workers will be able to choose to leave their job as a result of having health insurance thru the ACA versus getting the insurance thru work, thus the 2 million less jobs. It did not say that the 2 million people will be forced out of work. Big difference in the two. Do you like the idea that people have to keep working so that they have health insurance instead of retiring? If you have a young person with a family who would like to start a business but can not afford to leave their current job because they need the insurance, is that better than the individual being able to quit their job and start the business because they have insurance thru the ACA?

 

The problem with the democratic line your touting, is the fact that you and all these people are admitting that these people will not be working. So if they are sitting at home getting government subsidies. Who is paying for their subsidy? There is no such thing as free somebody has to pay.

Also you run the risk of that number increasing because it doesn't say the neighbor effect. Where the neighbor asks how can you stay home? Oh I can quit my job and get these subsidies too.

But then again socialist progressive whatever you want to call it its communism and they would be delighted to have everyone living on what they give out.

 

I would be hard pressed to believe that there are 2 million people with the nads and know how to start and run a business that are being held up by the cost of insurance. Besides, the stated purpose of this debacle was to insure those that were not insured, some 30 million IIRC. I don't think the program, to date, has reduced that number substantially. It's a failure except in what the real intent was. Control.

 

I know 5 people who in the last 30days left their corporate jobs to start up business. Everyone of them have said that access to medical insurance was the deciding factor. Many people don't take the risk to start their own business because they have a family and can't risk being without insurance. All of them bought a gold or platinum plan for their families.

Locking insurance to people's jobs traps them in a cycle of dependency. Big business and the government has used insurance as leverage to keep wages low and hold workers trapped in their jobs. Imagine if ever other insurance you got was through your employer. Quit your job and no more homeowners insurance, no car insurance. Nothing is less free market than allowing an employer to dictate what insurance options you have.

 

People have been free to purchase private insurance long before the ACA. In fact several people I work with didnt like our employer supplied plan and already had private insurance before the king deemed it mandatory. Sorry but I dont understand how access to health insurance was the deciding factor for these people when they could have done it long ago.

 

The preexisting conditions limited 4 of the 5 people. The 5th person found the quality of private sourced insurance to be lacking. Duplicating the insurance coverage was a key item for all of them.

Once you have a family and someone gets sick, your options become very limited for insurance.

I am sure you and your family is healthy and have no pre existing conditions. But for many in the 40-55 range, they are not as lucky.

 

You know a lot of sick ass people.

One of the only good things the ACA did was keep insurers from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. Unfortunately that could have been handled without all the other baggage.

Between all the people retiring, staying home with their kids, and starting their own business we wont have anyone left to be employees. Whos gonna make my cheeseburger?

 

Trapped in a cycle of dependency? The horror!!! We need more Federal programs to put a stop to this immediately.

 

It is hardly discriminating. The insurance companies charge a premium based on risk. You think it is reasonable to ask insurance companies to take more risk with little chance of reward? That does not seem to make much sense for a business.