A sweet water view of the Affordable Care Act.

[MarAzul]

Interesting too see the analysis of the ACA by an economist that doesn't think the American people are stupid.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=PwkNCGc7m3ntb9Vh411klg&bvm=bv.80642063,d.aWw
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=cF0mveCOmHUTA_zSMiKPHw&bvm=bv.80642063,d.aWw

There is another good read in the Hillsdale College publication but I gave up looking online for a link. It's titled Effects of the ACA on Economic Productivity.

If you tax something you will get less off it! Yep, that was my experience with the ACA when they taxed my Health Care Benefits.

Here is the Hillsdale link.

http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/current

It only remains to be seen how long it will take other Americans to see they have been Taxed
instead of helped.

 

[donkiez]

Sorry, the page you are requesting could not be found

and

PAGE UNAVAILABLE

The document you requested either no longer exists or is not currently available.

You may use the "Back" button in your browser to return to the previous page or click Home to return to the WSJ.com home page.

To report this problem, contact Customer Support at support@wsj.com




An obvious conspiracy to keep the facts hidden!

 

[Denny Crane]

Scrubbed by the guys in black helicopters.

 

[MarAzul]

Sorry, the page you are requesting could not be found

and

PAGE UNAVAILABLE
An obvious conspiracy to keep the facts hidden!

Sorry. Fixed

And the Hillsdale link.

http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/current

 

[barfo]

Sorry. Fixed

And the Hillsdale link.

http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/current

Looked at your link. This is in the running for most hilarious disclaimer ever:

From an economic or labor-market perspective, I’m going to explain how the costs of the ACA outweigh its benefits. But I can’t measure or estimate its effects on health care. I leave that to others.

Hey, look at this thing! What is it for? I have no clue. But it definitely costs more than it's worth!

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

ACA doesn't deal with health care. It deals with insurance policies with deductibles so high that people can't afford to see the doctor anyway.

Of course he can examine the cost and the benefits of the financial side of things. Whether people are getting to see the doctor, are getting medicines they need, are going to live longer, etc., is something he couldn't measure.

Makes sense, barfo.

But we might take your word for it over the PhD in economics from UofChicago.

 

[donkiez]

Its kind of like him saying he is only going to analyze the perceived negative aspects of the law in the worst case scenario, and part of which is only relevant to employers in the 40-60 employee range. Then the problem is that he doesn't even do a good job of analyzing it from an economics perspective. The economics of ACA are much broader and more complex than he makes it sound. While his points about the employer mandate and the subsidies as taxes have some validity the actual effects, on the scale of our economy are undertermined. Sorry man, but I see this is as a typical conservative bs piece, thinly disguised as informative with a few key words and terms and no real new information for anyone who has been paying attention.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's exactly like him saying he's analyzing the economic impact of the cost structure.

 

[MarAzul]

Its kind of like him saying he is only going to analyze the perceived negative aspects of the law in the worst case scenario, and part of which is only relevant to employers in the 40-60 employee range. Then the problem is that he doesn't even do a good job of analyzing it from an economics perspective. The economics of ACA are much broader and more complex than he makes it sound. While his points about the employer mandate and the subsidies as taxes have some validity the actual effects, on the scale of our economy are undertermined. Sorry man, but I see this is as a typical conservative bs piece, thinly disguised as informative with a few key words and terms and no real new information for anyone who has been paying attention.

Well Sir I can certainly tell you that I know some business owners that have come to understand some aspects of the ACA. You know the penalty for not providing health care being 2000 dollars for each employee? That is very well understood to be a tax and it is the first time that and expense has ever been laid on a business man where he can not deduct a cost as a cost of doing business.

Can you imagine how ridiculous it is to lay a cost on a business man and he can not account for the cost as a business expense? What makes more sense to these small employers is to keep the employed on part time or convert the employee to part time and give the guy a bonus of 2000 dollars to buy his own health insurance. Of course that still screws the employee out of working hours but at least the owner can deduct his expenses.

I just talked with a man doing just that yesterday. I could go on and on about the perversions in the act, and many there are, but these sort of taxes I don't think are going to stand. I expect the Court will chuck the law on the next go around or at least enough of it so that it will have to be scrapped.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://news.yahoo.com/newly-insured-struggle-primary-physicians-155516875.html

A discussion about how the actual health care is "working."

Surprisingly little to do with the economic side of the equation.

"Coverage does not equal access," said Halby, who instead recommends his clients choose a plan outside the exchange that has a much broader provider network but also will not come with the government premium subsidies given to most of those who buy insurance through the exchange. "I tell people this up front: The premiums are going to be higher because there's no subsidy. However, I'm going to guarantee you can keep your doctor."

 

[donkiez]

Well Sir I can certainly tell you that I know some business owners that have come to understand some aspects of the ACA. You know the penalty for not providing health care being 2000 dollars for each employee? That is very well understood to be a tax and it is the first time that and expense has ever been laid on a business man where he can not deduct a cost as a cost of doing business.

Can you imagine how ridiculous it is to lay a cost on a business man and he can not account for the cost as a business expense? What makes more sense to these small employers is to keep the employed on part time or convert the employee to part time and give the guy a bonus of 2000 dollars to buy his own health insurance. Of course that still screws the employee out of working hours but at least the owner can deduct his expenses.

I just talked with a man doing just that yesterday. I could go on and on about the perversions in the act, and many there are, but these sort of taxes I don't think are going to stand. I expect the Court will chuck the law on the next go around or at least enough of it so that it will have to be scrapped.

I agree that the employer mandate is not a very good aspect of the law. I want to see employers getting out of the business of health care compensation actually. Its gone from a benefit to an expectation, in many cases, long before ACA and I think that hurts the mobility of the American worker.

My point was more to how ACA will effect the economy due to the employer mandate, and Im saying that its undermined. Many businesses in that small range of employees already provided health care for their workers, the ones that dont ether have to now do so, pay a penalty, change their business practices, or go out of business. It certainly sucks for those businesses but Im not sure it spells doom for our entire economy.

 

[MarAzul]

I agree that the employer mandate is not a very good aspect of the law. I want to see employers getting out of the business of health care compensation actually. Its gone from a benefit to an expectation, in many cases, long before ACA and I think that hurts the mobility of the American worker.

My point was more to how ACA will effect the economy due to the employer mandate, and Im saying that its undermined. Many businesses in that small range of employees already provided health care for their workers, the ones that dont ether have to now do so, pay a penalty, change their business practices, or go out of business. It certainly sucks for those businesses but Im not sure it spells doom for our entire economy.

It is a disaster for companies of 50 employees all the way up to those that are just less than large enough to self insure ( and pay the new ACR tax).

I am working with one right today with 94 employees. No way out, drop providing health care and reduce the companies to less than 50 full time employees. This is going to be accomplished by splitting the company into three companies and making more use of part time employees, out sourcing. Most companies can not pay the cost any longer and can not pay $2000 per employee a year especially when it can not be deducted as a business expense.

The ACA act as it stands right now has put this company that was making about 250 thousand a year profit into the position of and operating loss to the owner either from insurance cost or by the cost of the penalty and additional taxes.

Nationwide there are so many companies of this size that it is an unavoidable disaster for the entire country unfolding before us. It amazes the hell out of me that so few see how this can not work.

 

[MarAzul]

Hey! Where is barfo???

I expect him to be here telling all why these small companies have not been put in an untenable position.

 

[barfo]

Hey! Where is barfo???

I expect him to be here telling all why these small companies have not been put in an untenable position.

Sorry, no time to respond, too much work. For some reason my company has not yet gone out of business due to Obamacare. Since we are the only remaining company in the US after the Obamacare Holocaust, business is great! But I'm sure any day now we too will be destroyed by Obamacare.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

So they're working you extra hours to help pay for the extra expense?

AWESOME. Couldn't happen to a better person.

 

[MarAzul]

So they're working you extra hours to help pay for the extra expense?

AWESOME. Couldn't happen to a better person.

Ha! When he can't get er done, the next step could be to hire him a helper.
Then put them both on part time. Mr Monday-Wednesday and Mr. Thursday-Saturday.

 

[Denny Crane]

Ha! When he can't get er done, the next step could be to hire him a helper.
Then put them both on part time. Mr Monday-Wednesday and Mr. Thursday-Saturday.

Let him eat cake.