Obamacare
Quote: boymimboAZ, I think you're generalizing unions. However, the world climate is significantly different than it was 20-30 years. Many, many unions have given up major concessions in order to keep business afloat. Airlines come first to mind. For manufacturing, global markets do it cheaper and faster than the American counterparts. This gives manufacturers the ability to simply close up shop or to put major demands on unions to cut costs. And of course, working in groups in order to get the best deal for the collective is in the best interest of the employees.
Manufacturers will face the competition whether the union is there or not, the difference is in how they are able to respond. If a new technology lets you reduce workforce by 20% then you do it. But if it is a union shop they may say, "NOT SO FAST" and you are stuck. Eventually the whole plant will close.
But bargaining in a group is not in your best interests. Well, if you are below average it is.
Quote:I suppose manufacturers and governments can continue to crash unions and pay its employee whatever its market is. For oligarphies like airlines, governments, and segregated manufacturers, I guess they can set the market to oh, say $10/hr. All of a sudden you have a segment of society who instead of making $50K / year is now making $20K, and collecting food stamps to boot. They lose their home, and then people are complaining about why their neighbourhoods are going to shit.
You cannot "set a market." The market is there. If an airline puts up an ad offering $10/hr for stewardesses and gets more applications than it needs well that is the market. If nobody shows up then next week they can try $12. The best way to prevent people from losing their home is a free and growing economy so there is lots of work for everyone.
Quote:Besides government who get COLA raises (if that), I'm trying to think of unions who have been receiving better beneifts and wages over the last 10 years and I can't find an example. Unions are giving up concessions all of the time for their employers, including bloated pensions. Sometimes, they strike and try to make a stand, to everyone's temporary detriment.
First, government employees get a raise every year. When Obama talks of a "government wage freeze" what he means is the rate card. You still get an annual bump. What doesn't change is that a person with 10 years gets the same rate as the person with 10 years did last year. But that person now gets the 11 year rate. Given that the last 10 years includes the Panic of 2008 it will be hard to find many groups union or no that are doing a lot better. But unions only take concessions when the wolf is at the door. And look at Hostess where they said they didn't care if the place closed, the cry was "NO CONCESSIONS!" Now if you want a Twinkee you have to go to Canada (where I was just informed they still have them.)
Quote:I don't command the salary that I should because my executive is very greedy.
Why are you so greedy that you want to take more from the stockholders than you are worth?
Quote:It's called giving people a living wage in order to give them a chance. There are people in society who just don't have the mindset to make $60 - 70 - 80K / year. They graduate high school and go right into manufacturing, because hey, they're the 50% of society who aren't smart enough for college, or they have demands on their life that prevent them from going to school. Or they go and serve their country in the military for a few years.
You cannot "give a living wage." A living wage can only be earned. And you earn by producing more by your labor than your salary, leaving room for both other costs and *shudder* PROFIT. If a person is only capable enough to make $15 worth of widgets an hour then he will only get about $8/hr at best in wages and benefits. If he wants more then he needs to educate himself to get a skill that will let him make $50 an hour worth of product. Then he might get $20/hr in wages. But if his union forces a so-called "living wage" of $15 when he is producing only $15, then the "greedy executive" will look for subcontractors in China. Otherwise the "greedy executive" will be out of work, along with the rest of the plant.
The laws of economics are as strong as the laws of physics. As you cannot travel faster than light you similarly cannot pay a person or group of persons more than they produce over the long term and hope to maintain a business.
If you pay a person $15 an hour to make $100 worth of widgets an hour (which happens all of the time), why not pay that same person $3/hour to make $100 worth of widgets an hour in Cambodia? You just made $12/hour more in profit. Corporations don't work on the premise of Sales - Cost - Employee Wages - G&A = <Reasonable Profit> anymore. They work on the premise of Max(Sales - Cost - Wages - G&A). Period. You assume that corporations look after the general good of its employees. They don't.
You talk about what people are "worth". Well, we're worth the same as the person in India making $4/hour at the call center. We're worth the $3 / hour that is paid to the child building the IPhone at Apple. We're worth the $1 / hour that the lady making the garments in Bangladesh that's sold at Walmart later that month. I'm worth the $15/hour that programmer in India is worth for doing support.
And that's what I mean by the lowest common denominator. If we continue to make the statement, "pay them what they're worth", then you can say goodbye to a pile of jobs. Do you think for one second that if the United States just canned its mininum wage laws and opened up its H1-B program to anyone and everyone with no limits, that corporations would not be bringing in tens of millions of people to do work at $2, $3 / hour.
And don't even get me started on environmental laws.
The laws of economics are only as strong as the laws that support them. They are bent by rules and government legislation and unfettered greed.
Quote: AZDuffmanyou similarly cannot pay a person or group of persons more than they produce over the long term and hope to maintain a business.
You can if you don't make a profit yourself.
This is what Libs want small business to do,
have their employees making the same
amount as the business owner makes, then
its 'fair'. Of course the business owner takes
all the risk and works all the long hours, but
thats beside the point..
Quote: boymimboAZ, you assume that capitalism is perfect and that corporations will pay employees what they are worth. And while that may have been true 30 years ago, it's nonsense today.
Not at all. When a transaction is made it by definition is what something is worth, otherwise the transaction will not happen. You act as if corporations somehow in 1980 decided "hey, we have been nice for 200 years, time to start screwing the worker!"
Quote:If you pay a person $15 an hour to make $100 worth of widgets an hour (which happens all of the time), why not pay that same person $3/hour to make $100 worth of widgets an hour in Cambodia? You just made $12/hour more in profit. Corporations don't work on the premise of Sales - Cost - Employee Wages - G&A = <Reasonable Profit> anymore. They work on the premise of Max(Sales - Cost - Wages - G&A). Period. You assume that corporations look after the general good of its employees. They don't.
Management of a corporation is paid to look out for the welfare of the shareholder, not the worker.
Quote:You talk about what people are "worth". Well, we're worth the same as the person in India making $4/hour at the call center. We're worth the $3 / hour that is paid to the child building the IPhone at Apple. We're worth the $1 / hour that the lady making the garments in Bangladesh that's sold at Walmart later that month. I'm worth the $15/hour that programmer in India is worth for doing support.
You are only worth the same $4 the Indian worker is being paid if you give the same level of service. However, if you can give better service due to education and being in the same culture so as to communicate better you will get more. A local iPhone assembler will be worth more if the quality of work is higher and supply chains shorter.
Quote:And that's what I mean by the lowest common denominatorth. If we continue to make the statement, "pay them what they're worth", then you can say goodbye to a pile of jobs. Do you think for one second that if the United States just canned its mininum wage laws and opened up its H1-B program to anyone and everyone with no limits, that corporations would not be bringing in tens of millions of people to do work at $2, $3 / hour.
If this is the case, then why do unions support the guy and party who desires open borders and amnesty?
Quote:The laws of economics are only as strong as the laws that support them. They are bent by rules and government legislation and unfettered greed.
Well, greed is a problem in off-shoring jobs. Greedy Wal-Mart shoppers want the lowest price and will buy crappy products to get it. But it still proves you cannot break the laws of economics. Customer wants the lowest price, vendor wants the highest price. Worker wants the highest wage, employer wants the highest ROI.
If there were no laws at all, the laws of economics would still take over. Even in a destroyed economy (Japan 1945, Russia 1993) some system to supply will spring up. The problem is an uneducated public thinks that a WMT cashier can be paid $35K per year because they think bags of money just get delivered to a roomful of executives dressed like the guy on the Monopoly(R) "Community Chest" cards.
Wow.....AZDuffman you hit it out of the park! You know how the world turns. Good stuff.Quote: AZDuffmanNot at all. When a transaction is made it by definition is what something is worth, otherwise the transaction will not happen. You act as if corporations somehow in 1980 decided "hey, we have been nice for 200 years, time to start screwing the worker!"
Management of a corporation is paid to look out for the welfare of the shareholder, not the worker.
You are only worth the same $4 the Indian worker is being paid if you give the same level of service. However, if you can give better service due to education and being in the same culture so as to communicate better you will get more. A local iPhone assembler will be worth more if the quality of work is higher and supply chains shorter.
If this is the case, then why do unions support the guy and party who desires open borders and amnesty?
Well, greed is a problem in off-shoring jobs. Greedy Wal-Mart shoppers want the lowest price and will buy crappy products to get it. But it still proves you cannot break the laws of economics. Customer wants the lowest price, vendor wants the highest price. Worker wants the highest wage, employer wants the highest ROI.
If there were no laws at all, the laws of economics would still take over. Even in a destroyed economy (Japan 1945, Russia 1993) some system to supply will spring up. The problem is an uneducated public thinks that a WMT cashier can be paid $35K per year because they think bags of money just get delivered to a roomful of executives dressed like the guy on the Monopoly(R)"Community Chest" cards.
Actually, Walmart products aren't that bad. The toys, the pharmacies, and the groceries are the same as anywhere else. They get better pricing due to volume and the ability to name its price to its suppliers with a 'take it or leave it' attitude.
Unions choose the best of two evils and have always, traditionally, voted left. Name a union who supported Mitt. Mitt was clearly anti-union.
The QC in the Iphone is finite. The cost of manufacturing the iPhone is actually very low such that the cost of labor in producing the iPhone would barely put a dent in Apple's profits. Corporations will source labor from where it is cheaper, and that place is always going to be overseas. So America has a choice. Compete by lowering its own cost of labor, have the government put up barriers (tariffs) or give tax incentives to corporations to keep its jobs here (already happening), let go of all of the jobs that can be sourced elsewhere, or hope that corporations understand that the fabric of society depends on people earning enough money to buy its own products.
"When a transaction is made it by definition is what something is worth, otherwise the transaction will not happen."
This is from your post above.
Thank you.
Quote: DigitalTimAZDuffman, give me one example when this is not true.
"When a transaction is made it by definition is what something is worth, otherwise the transaction will not happen."
This is from your post above.
Thank you.
How would I give an example of when it is not true, it is my statement. And it is always true.
Quote: boymimboYep, out of the park, and into the basement... just like the rest of America is heading.
Don't blame me there, I voted against Obama both times.
Quote:The QC in the Iphone is finite. The cost of manufacturing the iPhone is actually very low such that the cost of labor in producing the iPhone would barely put a dent in Apple's profits. Corporations will source labor from where it is cheaper, and that place is always going to be overseas. So America has a choice. Compete by lowering its own cost of labor, have the government put up barriers (tariffs) or give tax incentives to corporations to keep its jobs here (already happening), let go of all of the jobs that can be sourced elsewhere, or hope that corporations understand that the fabric of society depends on people earning enough money to buy its own products.
It isn't just the labor cost on the iPhone. iPhones are assembled closer to where components come from. And while labor costs might be less overseas, labor productivity and flexibility are often higher in the USA. Unions, by their nature, limit productivity and flexibility. So if you want to be in a manufacturing job in the USA you are far better to be in a union-free environment than a union-shop. If non-USA labor was the best way to go then Honda, Kia, Hyundai, Daimler-Benz, Toyota, and BMW would not have built plants here. Nor would the many lesser-known foreign transplants.
Unions somehow think they should not have to compete with any other labor. This is not the case, and if it were we would all be worse off.
So that's 4 times total ?
LOL! This will be on the tombstone of Obamacare. "Gee,
we had no idea it would cost so much."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_PRE_EXISTING_CONDITIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-16-04-00-09
Quote: AZDuffmanIf non-USA labor was the best way to go then Honda, Kia, Hyundai, Daimler-Benz, Toyota, and BMW would not have built plants here. Nor would the many lesser-known foreign transplants.
..
Your arguments are appealing to soulless overlords of business, I imagine.
Anyway...
"In 2010,
the percentage of workers belonging to a union in the United States (or total labor union "density") was 11.4%
compared to 18.6% in German
Japan 18.5% as of 2010"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States
Interesting stats, eh?.
Quote: Buzzard" Don't blame me there, I voted against Obama both times."
So that's 4 times total ?
He ran for POTUS 4 times?
a pre existing condition and he signed up for
Obamacare. His premium was $500 a month
(which soon went up to $650), and a deductible
and out of pocket expenses of $6000. So he was
paying $13,000 a year for Obamacare. His question
was, what do people do who can't afford $13K,
because unless you pay you aren't covered.
Quote: EvenBobI was just reading today about a guy who has
a pre existing condition and he signed up for
Obamacare. His premium was $500 a month
(which soon went up to $650), and a deductible
and out of pocket expenses of $6000. So he was
paying $13,000 a year for Obamacare. His question
was, what do people do who can't afford $13K,
because unless you pay you aren't covered.
I think I heard the same thing on Rush on the the way to work. One good thing about this, it's making me prepare to quit smoking and start taking care of myself.
Is this an imaginary friend or a stupid friend? Maybe he's just a lying friend? I'm curious because today, you can't actually sign up for something that's called Obamacare.Quote: EvenBobI was just reading today about a guy who has
a pre existing condition and he signed up for
Obamacare. His premium was $500 a month
(which soon went up to $650), and a deductible
and out of pocket expenses of $6000. So he was
paying $13,000 a year for Obamacare. His question
was, what do people do who can't afford $13K,
because unless you pay you aren't covered.
Quote: s2dbakeryou can't actually sign up for something that's called Obamacare.
LOL, ya think? Whats it really called, something like
the 'Bend Over While We Stick it To You Act', or
something like that.
This is an interesting exercise for you EvenBob, perhaps a chance for you to prove to me that you aren't wrong about absolutely everything. Find me a way to sign up for something that you might call "Obamacare" that is actually a result of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Something that I would have to pay a premium to. Perhaps something with "Death Panels". Or better yet, let me save you the trouble because nothing like that exists today. Nothing. Even the bit about expanding Medicaid coverage doesn't actually happen until 2014.Quote: EvenBobLOL, ya think? Whats it really called, something like
the 'Bend Over While We Stick it To You Act', or
something like that.
Quote: s2dbakerthe Affordable Care Act..
So far its the unAffordable Care Act. And it hasn't even
started yet.
Still waiting for that link Bob.Quote: EvenBobSo far its the unAffordable Care Act. And it hasn't even
started yet.
Quote: s2dbakerStill waiting for that link Bob.
'Waiting is.' Master Po, TV series Kung Fu.
So you can't find a way to sign up for Obamacare. Is that what you're saying there?Quote: EvenBob'Waiting is.' Master Po, TV series Kung Fu.
Quote: s2dbakerSo you can't find a way to sign up for Obamacare.
2014. Waiting is..
So Bob, are you a time traveler? Because you just posted that you read a story about some guy with a pre-existing condition that signed up for something called Obamacare which doesn't take affect until 2014. This guy had to be in Obamacare for a year since you quoted him paying $13,000 for a year of Obamacare. Yet you admiit that Obamacare does start until 2014. How do you square that circle for us? In case you forgot, here is what you posted:Quote: EvenBob2014. Waiting is..
Quote: EvenBobI was just reading today about a guy who has
a pre existing condition and he signed up for
Obamacare. His premium was $500 a month
(which soon went up to $650), and a deductible
and out of pocket expenses of $6000. So he was
paying $13,000 a year for Obamacare. His question
was, what do people do who can't afford $13K,
because unless you pay you aren't covered.
Perhaps my Google is broken. I didn't see anyplace on that page to sign up for Obamacare. The link did say that the previous law with relevance to insurance coverage for people with Pre-Existing conditions was expiring and no longer accepting new applicants. The hopeful note at the bottom of the page clearly says, well I'll just copy and paste and highlight:Quote: PapaChubbyHow about this. Perhaps your Google is broken.
Quote: Big Scary GovernmentStarting next year, the Affordable Care Act guarantees that all Americans – regardless of their health status or pre-existing conditions – will finally have access to quality, affordable coverage. People will be able to apply for affordable health insurance coverage choices in Health Insurance Marketplaces when open enrollment begins on October 1. The Health Insurance Marketplace will offer a choice of quality, affordable health plans. Coverage begins on January 1, 2014. Visit www.healthcare.gov to learn more about the Marketplace.
It costs a small fortune, covers almost nothing, and is subsidized by the government to such an extent that the subsidy pool has run dry well in advance of 2014.
Just curious. What insurance plans were available to people with pre-existing conditions before the interim program and Obamacare?Quote: PapaChubbyThe link I provided is to the interim program provided by the Affordable Care Act which was supposed to tide those with pre-existing conditions over until the permanent plan is enacted in 2014. It is definitely a part of the Affordable Care Act. You can call it Obamacare if you want. I choose not to, because I think its giving him too much credit. Hillarycare would be much more accurate.
It costs a small fortune, covers almost nothing, and is subsidized by the government to such an extent that the subsidy pool has run dry well in advance of 2014.
Quote: s2dbakerJust curious. What insurance plans were available to people with pre-existing conditions before the interim program and Obamacare?
According to proponents of the act, many with pre-existing conditions could not get insurance coverage. Either it is denied altogether, or is outrageously expensive. Those with large group plans, such as those available from large employers, generally cover pre-existing conditions. The interim plan is provided for those who cannot get traditional coverage. In order to apply, you need to demonstrate that you've been rejected for traditional coverage.
It looks like it covers 100,000 people. I'm getting the impression that 100,000 people who could not get health insurance are now covered until they can get regular insurance under Obamacare. The only "bad" thing I see is that any person who has a pre-existing condition and loses their health insurance for six months will have to go on COBRA for awhile until Obamacare goes into affect in 2014.Quote: PapaChubbyAccording to proponents of the act, many with pre-existing conditions could not get insurance coverage. Either it is denied altogether, or is outrageously expensive. Those with large group plans, such as those available from large employers, generally cover pre-existing conditions. The interim plan is provided for those who cannot get traditional coverage. In order to apply, you need to demonstrate that you've been rejected for traditional coverage.
I have a pre-existing condition and no insurance. I looked into PCIP a year ago, and decided I wanted no part of it. I'll take a look at the permanent plan when it becomes available, but I'm not hopeful. Chances are pretty good that I'll be paying the tax penalty for not having insurance.
It wouldn't be the first time that something went over budget but a lot of people got help that they would not otherwise have gotten.Quote: PapaChubbyI think the "bad" thing is that the people this interim plan covers are paying a lot of money for it, and it has large deductibles, and it may not cover anything to do with the pre-existing conditions (I'm not sure about this). Plus it is subsidized with tax dollars, and those who set the plan up grossly underestimated how many tax dollars it would require, so it has run out of money and can no longer accept new participants.
Why restrict yourself to looking at one policy? The Affordable Care Act prevents insurance companies from denying you coverage based on a pre-existing condition. You can shop around and get the best policy for you and your needs. There's nothing to sign up for.Quote: PapaChubbyI have a pre-existing condition and no insurance. I looked into PCIP a year ago, and decided I wanted no part of it. I'll take a look at the permanent plan when it becomes available, but I'm not hopeful. Chances are pretty good that I'll be paying the tax penalty for not having insurance.
But it sounds like you are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Let's see if in 10 months that you haven't found an insurance plan that you can afford and does the job that you need it to do.Quote: PapaChubbyWhen I say the permanent plan, I'm referring to the "Marketplace" which is allegedly being created. You are correct that the Act prevents insurance companies from denying me coverage. It doesn't prevent them from charging me way more than the coverage is worth to me.
Quote: s2dbakerSo Bob, are you a time traveler? :
I didn't realize you weren't paying attention. I posted
this a couple days ago.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_PRE_EXISTING_CONDITIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-16-04-00-09
Yes, PapaChubby and I were discussing that above. That plan is not going to accept new applicants but the currently enrolled applicants will continue to receive coverage until Obamacare kicks in. At which time, the current enrollees' premiums will drop because of Obamacare. Let me quote from the link that you provided:Quote: EvenBobI didn't realize you weren't paying attention. I posted
this a couple days ago.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_PRE_EXISTING_CONDITIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-16-04-00-09
Quote: Big Scary Government Is Out To Get Your ChildrenStarting next January 1, insurance companies will no longer be able to turn anyone away because of poor health. At the same time, the federal government will begin subsidizing coverage for millions of individuals who have no access to employer plans. That means many of the people currently in the PCIP program may end up with lower premiums once the government's financial help is factored in.
Wait, what? Is somebody not getting healthcare in this country?Quote: s2dbakerYes, PapaChubby and I were discussing that above. That plan is not going to accept new applicants but the currently enrolled applicants will continue to receive coverage until Obamacare kicks in. At which time, the current enrollees' premiums will drop because of Obamacare. Let me quote from the link that you provided:Quote: EvenBobI didn't realize you weren't paying attention. I posted
this a couple days ago.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_PRE_EXISTING_CONDITIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-16-04-00-09Quote: Big Scary Government Is Out To Get Your ChildrenStarting next January 1, insurance companies will no longer be able to turn anyone away because of poor health. At the same time, the federal government will begin subsidizing coverage for millions of individuals who have no access to employer plans. That means many of the people currently in the PCIP program may end up with lower premiums once the government's financial help is factored in.
Quote: s2dbakerThat plan is not going to accept new applicants
Because they're out of MONEY ALREADY! They come right
and say, gee, this is costing a lot more than we thought
it would. YA THINK? Wait till this health care act gets
rolling, they think its expensive now. Why do they think
socialized healthcare is bankrupting EU?
They took all the money they would normally put into defense,
and put it into health care, and they STILL went broke.
The PCIP plan is a bridge to tide certain people over until January 2014. If you have group insurance with pre-existing, you're likely covered. If you were insured with the same company when you got the insurance, you're covered. If neither of these conditions are met, then you had the opportunity to sign into this program (depending which state you are from), pay a premium and be covered. By covered, I mean:
Quote: pcip.gov
PCIP has a $2,000 annual medical deductible, and a $500 annual prescription drug deductible. After you have met the deductible, you will pay 30% of medical costs for in-network services.
For 2013, the maximum you will pay out-of-pocket for covered services in a calendar year when you use an in-network provider is $6,250. There is no lifetime maximum or cap on the amount the plan pays for your care.
We also provide preventive care (paid at 100%, with no deductible) when you see an in-network doctor and the doctor indicates preventive diagnosis. Included are annual physicals, flu shots, routine mammograms and cancer screenings.
Monthly Premiums in the most expensive state (Massechusetts) are:
00-18 $201
19-34 $300
35-44 $360
45-54 $461
55+ $641
If you can't afford it, you use Medicaid. I am wondering what the going rate is for pre-existing condition coverage? Oh yeah, you can't get insured, even through this program, because the funding ran out (which is fricking stupid)
and they have terrible teethQuote: EvenBobBecause they're out of MONEY ALREADY! They come right
and say, gee, this is costing a lot more than we thought
it would. YA THINK? Wait till this health care act gets
rolling, they think its expensive now. Why do they think
socialized healthcare is bankrupting EU?
They took all the money they would normally put into defense,
and put it into health care, and they STILL went broke.
yeah, if we socialize medicine we'll go broke......wait, are we going broke before of after the current 70 trillion in unfunded debt with this socialized medicine thing?Quote: treetopbuddyand they have terrible teeth
Quote: report
Since its inception, PCIP has cumulatively helped 134,708 people with medical conditions access the health care they need but have been unable to afford without health insurance. The average cost per enrollee in 2012 was $32,108 per year and varied widely by state, from a low of $4,276 per enrollee to a high of $171,909 per enrollee. Not only do costs vary by state they also vary per enrollee. In one year, 4.4 percent of PCIP enrollees accounted for over 50 percent of claims paid.
Total cost = $1,026,762,600 for 2012.
My conclusions:
- When this law was passed, the prediction by the FBO was the funding would have run out by the end of 2012, which it did.
- The government did not foresee the huge costs by a very small portion of the insured.
- It would have been very wise for the government to pass funding to take in the remainder of those applicants through 2013, but of course, they wouldn't... without comprimising on some various cuts of pork.
- $5 billions is peanuts compared to the 2.5 trillion spent in health care every year by Americans, and is peanuts compared to the DOD's budget.
- This particular proportion of the people represent the most expensive pool of applicants, and therefore was likely to have the highest amount of variance and unpredictability.
Quote: boymimbobecause the funding ran out (which is fricking stupid)
The pre program, the thing helping people before
the main plan kicks in, is ALREADY BROKE! And
their excuse is, gosh Maude, this is way more
expensive then we thunk it would be.
Forget the real cost, which will bankrupt us. Wait
for all the fraud to kick in. There are crooks out
there right now figuring out how to rip off billions
from yet another fine gov't program. Its already
rampant in Medicaid and Medicare, Obamacare
is about to make a whole new group of millionaires.
Sober enough to be familiar with the term working poor !
Quote: EvenBobThe pre program, the thing helping people before
the main plan kicks in, is ALREADY BROKE! And
their excuse is, gosh Maude, this is way more
expensive then we thunk it would be.
Forget the real cost, which will bankrupt us. Wait
for all the fraud to kick in. There are crooks out
there right now figuring out how to rip off billions
from yet another fine gov't program. Its already
rampant in Medicaid and Medicare, Obamacare
is about to make a whole new group of millionaires.
Yep, I'm with you there, EvenBob. Fraud will be rampant. As will the costs.
As I understand it, one of the big pluses of government run health care is the ability to dictate how it pays for its services and therefore drives the market towards cheaper health-care. As well, as a monopoly, it can negotiate how much it pays for pharmaceuticals (which is why drugs are much cheaper in Canada) and other costs. With ObamaCare, none of this will be in place. Now, it will be able to outcompete insurance companies by paying lesser for covered services (at the Medicare rate I imagine) which will entice more people to come to ObamaCare which theoretically in turn will drive insurance companies to lower payments to its providers in order to maintain their customer base, driving costs down. However, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
Obamacare will be gamed on an epic scale. EvenBob your trying so hard to keep the BEAST under control. I admire that but isn't it just a tad too late? I gave up shortly after the "cash for clunkers" program. Perfectly useful cars being killed.....wait isn't that Obamacare.Quote: EvenBobThe pre program, the thing helping people before
the main plan kicks in, is ALREADY BROKE! And
their excuse is, gosh Maude, this is way more
expensive then we thunk it would be.
Forget the real cost, which will bankrupt us. Wait
for all the fraud to kick in. There are crooks out
there right now figuring out how to rip off billions
from yet another fine gov't program. Its already
rampant in Medicaid and Medicare, Obamacare
is about to make a whole new group of millionaires.
That's the silliest thing I've read all night. The Germans are not bankrupt and their healthcare system is completely run by the government. If a government can't or won't pay its bills, you can certainly blame any of hundreds of large spending programs for the deficit or even a lack of adequate revenue. Big Scary Socialized Medicine seems to be the favorite program to blame at the moment, but Germany chugs along just fine with theirs. By the same logic, you can say that Big Scary Socialized Medicine in Germany is keeping their budget balanced.Quote: EvenBobWhy do they think
socialized healthcare is bankrupting EU?
Quote: EvenBobThey took all the money they would normally put into defense,
and put it into health care, and they STILL went broke.
The American voters decided that their basic security is nowhere near as important as their aches and pains.
