Obamacare: Businesses get extension, individuals don't

[strawman]

The Affordable Healthcare Act requires that employers with more than 50 employees provide health insurance to everyone working more than 30 hours a week. Companies which do not do this pay a penalty of $2,000 per employee.

It also requires individuals to carry health insurance, and if they don't have health insurance they must also pay a penalty of $95.

Due to intense lobbying, the Obama administration will allow businesses another year before they have to supply healthcare to all full time employees or pay a fine. They now have until January 2015.

Individuals, however, must have healthcare or pay a fine as of January 1st, 2014.

Which means all those employed in the hospitality, service, and other industries where healthcare is not typically provided will be required to pay a fine, or pay for their own health insurance, all while employers get a break.

Seems a little backwards, giving those in low wage jobs a "break" by delaying their receipt of affordable healthcare, smacking them with a fine if they don't pay for it out of pocket, and letting the businesses make another year's profit off cheap wage.

If they're lucky they will be making just barely enough to scrape by, but still living far enough in poverty that the individual mandate doesn't apply. Of course, they still won't have healthcare, but at least they won't be fined for being poor and without healthcare.

Comedy of errors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23156568

 

[Chad Sexington]

Shoulda just gone with Canadian-style free healthcare. It just appears, here. Literally no one pays for it, it is summoned from the void and bestowed upon us. Yes, we had to sacrifice a few virgins to a few dark gods, and yes, the fowl sulphuric smell of our hospitals is hard to ignore, but at least no one gets fined for not having health insurance.

Plus, free birth control.

 

[Bubble181]

Just to be clear: if both individuals and corporations were starting these the same time, a lot of those people wouldn't have to pay a fine, because they'd have to be able to get health insurance through their employer. But since the corporations get a year's extension, the people have to cough it up themselves somehow, magically?
That's dumb, that.

 

[GasBandit]

The whole thing is dumb. Scrap it all. Though, at this rate, by 2015 everybody will have a waiver, it seems.

 

[Shakey]

Just to be clear: if both individuals and corporations were starting these the same time, a lot of those people wouldn't have to pay a fine, because they'd have to be able to get health insurance through their employer. But since the corporations get a year's extension, the people have to cough it up themselves somehow, magically?
That's dumb, that.

Pretty much, which is why I don't understand what the hell they're doing. This isn't going to work if it's not an all or nothing thing. I wouldn't be surprised if they pushed back the individual portion of it soon. It's just too stupid to not.

 

[strawman]

Shoulda just gone with Canadian-style free healthcare.

Well duh. Obamacare is fundamentally flawed. It either shouldn't have been implemented at all, or it should have gone full throttle to the single payer system.

This frankenstein of a monster, however, is bad all around.

 

[Cheesy1]

Pretty much, which is why I don't understand what the hell they're doing. This isn't going to work if it's not an all or nothing thing. I wouldn't be surprised if they pushed back the individual portion of it soon. It's just too stupid to not.

From what I read, it's a political ploy. Midterm elections are coming up, and they're using this as a kiss up to businesses to make the Democrats look better. It also takes away a line of attack by Republicans against their opponents.

 

[GasBandit]

Well duh. Obamacare is fundamentally flawed. It either shouldn't have been implemented at all, or it should have gone full throttle to the single payer system.

This frankenstein of a monster, however, is bad all around.

I'm certain it's a calculated failure to provide a stepping stone to single payer.

"Welp, we tried fixing it with the private sector (hee hee no we didn't) and look how bad everything is, so, welp, nothing to do now but nationalize the whole darn thing!"

 

[Gared]

I'm certain it's a calculated failure to provide a stepping stone to single payer.

"Welp, we tried fixing it with the private sector (hee hee no we didn't) and look how bad everything is, so, welp, nothing to do now but nationalize the whole darn thing!"

As both an individual who is concerned with health care coverage (and getting the tax payers to stop paying for so much healthcare), and as an individual who voted for the schmuck in office (really got suckered on that one), I can't believe I'm saying this... but I hope that this is the last piece of ammunition needed by the GOP to repeal the whole damn thing.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I'm certain it's a calculated failure to provide a stepping stone to single payer.

"Welp, we tried fixing it with the private sector (hee hee no we didn't) and look how bad everything is, so, welp, nothing to do now but nationalize the whole darn thing!"

For once, I hope you're right

 

[GasBandit]

For once, I hope you're right

And the sick thing is it'll probably work because your average American voter has become too lazy and scared to handle the responsibility that comes with liberty.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

And the sick thing is it'll probably work because your average American voter has become too lazy and scared to handle the responsibility that comes with liberty.

bla bla bla yeah whatever, just give me the free government healthcare since for-profit healthcare is the worst idea in human history

 

[GasBandit]

bla bla bla yeah whatever, just give me the free government healthcare since for-profit healthcare is the worst idea in human history

1) Really? The worst idea in human history? Even worse than "Hey, I bet the Jews are to blame for all this?"
2) God forbid anybody who goes to school for a decade give-or-take and runs up dozens of thousands of dollars in education expenses makes money from dedicating his life to healing.
3) Never mind... Charlie is being Charlie.[DOUBLEPOST=1372888029][/DOUBLEPOST]

bla bla bla yeah whatever, just give me free stuff

There... FTFY

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

it's not free, I'd probably have to (happily) pay higher taxes if it was implemented

 

[strawman]

it's not free, I'd probably have to (happily) pay higher taxes if it was implemented

Out of curiosity, it seems like you'd actually be happier in Canada or one of many European countries.

What do you like about American so much that's keeping you here?

 

[GasBandit]

it's not free, I'd probably have to (happily) pay higher taxes if it was implemented

Have fun dying of prostate cancer when the quality of care drops and a panel decides whether you get treatment or just painkillers.[DOUBLEPOST=1372890058][/DOUBLEPOST]

What do you like about American so much that's keeping you here?

Canada doesn't want him either, I'd assume.

Seriously, it's pretty damn hard to move to Canada. Much harder than to the US, and our immigration system is "broken" I'm often told.

 

[strawman]

Last I looked it wasn't terrible if you had good professional technical/engineering/computer skills, but I suppose that's because, unlike the US, they value highly skilled workers.

The pay isn't as good as in the US, though...

 

[GasBandit]

Last I looked it wasn't terrible if you had good professional technical/engineering/computer skills, but I suppose that's because, unlike the US, they value highly skilled workers.

The pay isn't as good as in the US, though...

Exactly. The few people I have talked to about it in canada say their problem is their doctors decide they like being paid and move to the US. The people who want to move to Canada are the deadbeats who want to sponge. "I'd gladly pay higher taxe-" SHUT UP YOU MAKE NOTHING

 

[Chad Sexington]

their doctors decide they like being paid and move to the US.

While doctors do make more in the US, Canadian doctors are not exactly poor with their multiple houses and killer vacations and nice cars and killer investment portfolios. That's not like "Boo, the rich doctors," thing either. They work hard, and are rewarded with the ability to live a high quality of life.

 

[GasBandit]

Only compared to some. And, of course, let's not forget the ever-present elephant in the room that the only reason Canada can afford to spend so much on social programs is because of its proximity to the US. And even with all that spending, their MRIs are still much fewer and have a queue months long. And do we even need to bring examples from the British NHS in?

And I'm not saying the American medical system was perfect, either. But socializing it would simply lower the standard of care. And Obamacare is even worse - tantamount to, at its core, trying to solve hunger by making it illegal to not buy food. It's so bad, all its biggest supporters are lining up to get waivers so they won't be subject to it.

 

[Eriol]

First things first: no, Canada does NOT want Charlie. We have enough wackos as it is thank you very much. Some even home-grown.

While doctors do make more in the US, Canadian doctors are not exactly poor with their multiple houses and killer vacations and nice cars and killer investment portfolios. That's not like "Boo, the rich doctors," thing either. They work hard, and are rewarded with the ability to live a high quality of life.

Ya I'll ask one of my relatives thats a doctor about those multiple houses they have, and ask him if I can borrow one or something.

Oh wait, that's not what happens. Maybe some severe specialists that are doing elective surgeries (which people still pay for out-of-pocket) for huge money (plastic surgeons) have that, but the typical doctor? Uh, no. They make good money, but not what you're describing.

 

[Cog]

I don't know a lot about how things work in US but, I think Gasbandit is right. Helping everybody is not possible and is more rational to give care to those who work for it and they of course will receive better treatment. The same way that dead penalty in general is better for the society even if a few innocents are killed. I'm not being sarcastic but I can actually respect someone who thinks like this (even if I don't agree) and is capable to still do that if some day they find themselves in the other side of the equation.

 

[Bubble181]

Eh, Belgium's got a practically completely socialized medicine, and we have amongst the top rated medical care in the world - higher than the US (as far as average care goes), some of the most advanced Western medical research centers, and people from all over the world come here for medical care. I'm not a fan of a lot of things Belgian, but our Health Care works, for a certai vaule of "works". It is, of course, dreadfully expensive and inefficient, but what isn't?

 

[mikerc]

And do we even need to bring examples from the British NHS in?

What, you mean like this guy?

 

[GasBandit]

What, you mean like this guy?

More like these hundreds of thousands of guys.

When you give a government bureaucrat veto power over your healthcare, you just snap the chain around your own neck.

 

[strawman]

The wealthy are still able to purchase additional/faster care under the NHS system, but then that's not much different than the US. If you're poor here, you will receive minimum emergency care to help you survive, but not elective, routine, or preventative care.

I think, though, that like the US, the NHS system works for about 90% of the people under it, and its only the 10% outliers that don't fit well into that system and don't have the financial means to get additional care.

There will always be outliers, though. The question is, do we let people blame themselves for their own lack of insurance, or do we let them blame the government for providing reasonable across the board care that doesn't fully address their specific need?

One of the articles I read from the AARP about the Canadian system, busting the major myths people have with socialized healthcare, showed that while people on average wait longer for routine operations and care that aren't emergencies, the total cost of healthcare is significantly lower. If they wanted faster care, or to cover more situations, they would necessarily pay higher taxes. I don't think that's an unreasonable trade off.

The main problem I have with social healthcare is that I am not part of many risk factor groups, but I'm still paying as much as the person who's destroying their lungs and liver voluntarily even though I'll pay far more into the system than I'll ever get out. Yes, I might still get cancer or Alzheimer's, but the statistical risk is lower, and currently my insurance premiums take into account my lifestyle.

Under social healthcare they can't discriminate based on voluntary behavior. In the same way they can't prevent people from spending food stamps on twinkies and ice cream, they won't be able to give people who live healthier lives a discount on insurance. Private insurance can.

Of course that's one of the reasons they are trying to reach a compromise with the mandates and health insurance exchanges, but, for instance, forcing faith based organizations to supply insurance for procedures and care they do not agree with shows that we are already heading in a direction where the government will ultimately decide what we can and can't get at these exchanges, regardless of our lifestyle and needs.

 

[Eriol]

One of the articles I read from the AARP about the Canadian system, busting the major myths people have with socialized healthcare, showed that while people on average wait longer for routine operations and care that aren't emergencies, the total cost of healthcare is significantly lower. If they wanted faster care, or to cover more situations, they would necessarily pay higher taxes. I don't think that's an unreasonable trade off.

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to do a lot either. If you compare health care spending per province per person, Alberta and Saskatchewan are among the highest spenders, but Alberta is near-top in most result categories, but Saskatchewan is near the bottom. (summary 1, primary source 1, primary source 2 (can't get much better than cihi)) So there's other factors that are swamping even amount of money into the system. As the cliche goes up here, "Throwing money at the problem does not mean it's a solution" no matter how much certain groups say that it is.

Also, it's illegal to try and pay for your own care. There are 3 single-payer systems in the world, Canada, Cuba, and North Korea. We're part of a great group there, eh? Look to Europe, not Canada for better models.

 

[strawman]

Also, it's illegal to try and pay for your own care.

Oof! That's a doozy. So if the government doesn't agree with my desired treatment plan, I have no real recourse, regardless of my means. Sounds like there's good business in opening a cash practice on this side of the border...

 

[Eriol]

Oof! That's a doozy. So if the government doesn't agree with my desired treatment plan, I have no real recourse, regardless of my means. Sounds like there's good business in opening a cash practice on this side of the border...

If you have the means, and it's serious, you go to the USA! Seriously. I'm not engaging in hyperbole. That's what happens.

Many in Canada are dead-set against having any health care you can pay for yourself up here (beyond elective I mean) as they say it causes "Two-tier health care" and that the public system will become a wasteland with all the "good" people being in the for-profit centres. Well wake up: it's ALREADY happening, it's just that the dollars (and staff) are going to the USA instead of staying in Canada and getting taxed.

 

[PatrThom]

forcing faith based organizations to supply insurance for procedures and care they do not agree with shows that we are already heading in a direction where the government will ultimately decide what we can and can't get at these exchanges, regardless of our lifestyle and needs.

It's already bad enough that under the current system I get herded into which doctors I can see, which pharmacy I can use, what hospitals I can go to, and when they overlap, it's even worse. Kati went in for a procedure with a doctor who was in network, but because the hospital itself was not in network, we had to pay the non-network rate even though the work was performed by that same doctor who is in network.

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

Yea, the promise of cheaper insurance through HMOs never really panned out.

For most youth simply socking the premiums away and insuring yourself is often more competitive, unless you end up with cancer or a few other expensive diseases or conditions.

 

[Covar]

Yea, the promise of cheaper insurance through HMOs never really panned out.

For most youth simply socking the premiums away and insuring yourself is often more competitive, unless you end up with cancer or a few other expensive diseases or conditions.

That's I chose a high deductible plan with an HSA at work. Hopefully the best of both worlds.

 

[GasBandit]

That's I chose a high deductible plan with an HSA at work. Hopefully the best of both worlds.

My brotha by anotha motha. Same here.

 

[strawman]

Interesting tactics for avoiding the mandate are on display in this article:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/08/smallbusiness/obamacare-fatburger/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

The article is about how it's already costing businesses who were trying to prepare for it, but it does demonstrate a few tactics I hadn't thought about for avoiding the mandate without reducing your number of employees.

 

[Bowielee]

I love how the fact that CEOs are unconscionable dickbags who will do anything to screw over their employees for their own profit are trying to play the victim.

"our employees are suffering because we fired them to avoid giving them health insurance."