US Supreme Court Say NO NO NO to Obamacare!!

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, I agree. I personally go with high deductible insurance for the lower premiums. For most people, catastrophic is what I think society should guarantee. There are, of course, people who aren't healthy (and often not through their own doing) and I think society should also guarantee the health care they need, whether they're rich or poor.

I still haven't seen any particular reason why it should be believed that companies will start cutting health insurance without a compensating bump in salary. I don't think the ACA makes that more likely...in fact, I think it makes it less likely due to the penalty for doing so.

Because $1200 is less than $10,500 (the figure that I saw most companies pay per employee). The employee is still getting his health care.

I recommended to the owner of the company I work that he cover employees with $10,000 catastrophic plans only. Then he could put $10K or $20K in a savings account and pay the deductible in the case where one or two employees rack up big medical bills. Nobody at the company has racked up big bills in the past 10 years.

 

[Minstrel]

Because $1200 is less than $10,500 (the figure that I saw most companies pay per employee). The employee is still getting his health care.

The employee is getting less health care, which is an effective salary cut. Higher deductible means you pay more out of pocket, even if you're covered for the massive things. It's still a downgrade to have your lower-deductible health insurance cut and only be given a salary bump sufficient for a higher-deductible plan, so people will still react negatively to that. Again, what you're claiming companies can now do is something companies could have done for years. Except now there's an added $1200 cost to doing it.

 

[Denny Crane]

He's not getting less health care.

Companies could have not offered insurance all along, but then the employee would not be getting health insurance. For $1200, the employee IS getting health insurance. It's just the sucky govt. variety.

 

[Minstrel]

He's not getting less health care.

Companies could have not offered insurance all along, but then the employee would not be getting health insurance. For $1200, the employee IS getting health insurance. It's just the sucky govt. variety.

I haven't seen any provision for government offering health care themselves, outside of an expansion for people who already qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. For middle class wage-earners, they still have to buy insurance from the private sector.

Also, if you think the insurance they're getting "from the government" will be "sucky," you can't also argue that it's not lesser health care than currently provided by the employer.

 

[Denny Crane]

I haven't seen any provision for government offering health care themselves, outside of an expansion for people who already qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. For middle class wage-earners, they still have to buy insurance from the private sector.

Also, if you think the insurance they're getting "from the government" will be "sucky," how can you also argue that it's not lesser health care than currently provided by the employer?

My health insurance "quality" has declined each of the past three years. The company (about 35 employees) has seen its premiums increase by $35K each year, and there's a point where they had to offer bigger deductible policies with higher co-pays, etc., just to be able to offer anything at all. This year, they're offering a $10K deductible policy and a medical savings account.

That's typical of the businesses that employ 80% of the workforce.

 

[maxiep]

You didn't read my post carefully. I said "on this point" (which was whether it was a tax or a fee), and not on the entire concept of the bill, it was an appropriate comparison.

As for whether the entirety of the bill is appropriate to compare to an auto insurance mandate, that's a different discussion. You can choose to not to drive a car, and you can choose not to live in the US. It's not contingent on you "being alive" as cool a talking point as that is. It's contingent on you being part of the US society who's elected officials have decided one social responsibility is health insurance. You can always choose not to be a part of the society, if you find it too objectionable. You could also choose to remain in the society and fight the mandate, though you'll then have to abide by it until your fight is won.

Yeah, there's that pesky Constitution that stands in the way of your argument that our Government gets to define our rights. Other than that tattered shred of toilet paper, you're on solid ground.

 

[MARIS61]

My health insurance "quality" has declined each of the past three years. The company (about 35 employees) has seen its premiums increase by $35K each year, and there's a point where they had to offer bigger deductible policies with higher co-pays, etc., just to be able to offer anything at all. This year, they're offering a $10K deductible policy and a medical savings account.

That's typical of the businesses that employ 80% of the workforce.

A solid arguement for complete government control of the healthcare industry. In a free market the healthcare monopoly has us by the balls and profits obscenely by reducing benefits while increasing prices up to 35% per year. They do it because they can, and their greed overrules their conscience.

Denny, you are your own worst enemy. Socialized healthcare is affordable to all.

 

[MARIS61]

Because $1200 is less than $10,500 (the figure that I saw most companies pay per employee). The employee is still getting his health care.

I recommended to the owner of the company I work that he cover employees with $10,000 catastrophic plans only. Then he could put $10K or $20K in a savings account and pay the deductible in the case where one or two employees rack up big medical bills. Nobody at the company has racked up big bills in the past 10 years.

Why do you know so much about the medical bills of your fellow employees? That's supposedly confidential personal information protected by federal law.

 

[MARIS61]

Hmmm that makes sense... all those medications are damn pricey.. that's why he wanted Obamacare.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/b...llion-in-fraud-settlement.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Denny Crane]

A solid arguement for complete government control of the healthcare industry. In a free market the healthcare monopoly has us by the balls and profits obscenely by reducing benefits while increasing prices up to 35% per year. They do it because they can, and their greed overrules their conscience.

Denny, you are your own worst enemy. Socialized healthcare is affordable to all.

In a free market without regulations, health care was inexpensive, or free for those who couldn't afford to pay. There were no monopolistic health care companies - those are an invention of government, just like Socialized health care is.

Where medicine is socialized, it bleeds the people for taxes and the taxes keep having to go up because it costs more and more.

 

[MARIS61]

In a free market without regulations, health care was inexpensive, or free for those who couldn't afford to pay. There were no monopolistic health care companies...

As usual, you're fondly remembering things which never occurred.

http://www.strangerdimensions.com/2012/04/25/how-mad-cow-disease-affects-humans/

 

[jlprk]

A good government has responsibility to ensure certain rights for all funded by taxation, like education, police protection, freedom to use drugs, and health care. They are rights, not privileges.