bbauska

Wage slaves? Hyperbole, perhaps? Are they really shackled to the desk?

The term has a long history, especially in social economics. . But its been co-opted by a lot of the millenials who come into todays economy looking for a career and finding part time jobs... (My son the millenail uses the term frequently so i suppose my dropping it here reflects a cynical 24 year olds outlook ...
In Japan the term salary man hs the same kind of connotations...
The concept that the need to earn a living shackles one to desk or facrtory line... without the freedom to pursue other dreams...

and a car represents security, mobility, status, freedom, independence.
A house represents security, status, independence, pride.
but if someone can not afford them, they do not have them. Yes, if someone can afford health insurance it would be great! But your wild claims are not showing affordability but rather just the opposite. This latest example of yours simply claims it's not as bad as some expect, it does not say people can afford it, it does not say they will like the plan they are forced to purchase and what about the money these people will no longer get to spend elsewhere? This is going to make them feel good, having a crappy insurance plan they don't like, don't want, is going to "be good for the economy"?

rickyp wrote:fate

I have a feeling that you don't know what you're talking about. Many young people don't have insurance. When they are forced to, they're eyes are going to pop at the price.
All of your speculations, dear rickyp, are silly

Denver Post

Since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law in 2010, more than 3 million young adults age 19 to 26 have been able to stay on their parents' health insurance policies, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. But an estimated 16 million to 19 million others are still uninsured.
"Young adults are disproportionately more likely to be un- or underemployed and those that are able to find employment often earn lower wages, all of which limits their ability to access affordable job-based insurance coverage," says Kathleen Stoll, deputy director and health policy director of Families USA. "Because young adults are over-represented among uninsured and lower-wage workers, they will benefit the most from access to financial help for coverage under the Affordable Care Act

Its not speculation Fate.

Tom

Ricky, all people "want" a car, they "want" a big house. they :want" to go on a four week Hawaii vacation. Because they "want" something they can not afford and are being forced to buy does NOT mean they will be happy paying for it despite how much they wanted it!
...pretty bad example, keep trying

Denver Post

"Contrary to common wisdom, studies have shown that most young adults understand the importance of health insurance. They just haven't been able to afford it in the past," says Justin Nisly, spokesperson for Enroll America.
While a Kaiser Family Foundation poll in June showed that 77 percent of young adults consider having health insurance to be "very important," an August survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that just 27 percent of them know that they'll be able to purchase their own insurance in the state-run marketplaces opening for business Oct. 1.
The ACA, also called Obamacare, provides tax credits to help make insurance more affordable to those with incomes that are lower than 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($45,960 per person in 2013); people who earn up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($28,725 for individuals) can get subsidies to cover out-of-pocket medical expenses like co-payments. "It is very important that a young uninsured adult make that determination [about whether they qualify for tax credits] because so many will and can use it buy more comprehensive coverage," says Jen Mishory, deputy director of Young Invincibles, a research organization focused on young adults. "They would likely be missing out on a benefit if they do not explore whether they qualify."

http://www.denverpost.com/fitness/ci_24 ... -insurance

Trips to Hawaii aren't health insurance Tom. And there is asignificant amount of evidence that supports my conclusions as I show here...
Health insurance represents security and independence. (Not having it means insecurity...) And private insurance from the exchanges provides people with the freedom to take jobs without regard to the provision of insurance from their employer OR to what ever medical conditions they might have...
This freedom appeals to young people who don't want to become wage slaves tied to an employer...
All in all, considering the entire scope of the plan (parents benefits, subsidies, benefits of portability) , the ACA represents a pretty good bargain for most young people.

Lets bet.

This is going to be a disaster. The exchanges are going to be embarrassing OR they will be delayed.

How much do you want to wager?

One year from now, the ACA will be less popular than ever. Bet me.

Btw, I said young people who have to buy insurance. "Children" of 26 living in their parents' basement, drinking their beer, and spending all night playing Halo don't "have" to buy.

Ill bet you $20 by June 1, 2015 the ACA will be more popular than it is today.

freeman3 wrote:Ill bet you $20 by June 1, 2015 the ACA will be more popular than it is today.

I'll take it--if it's still the law.

I'm telling you . . . just wait until the exchanges get going. That is going to be the stuff of Saturday Night Live.

I would not take the bet, but only because it seems nobody likes it as it is, it would be hard to get WORSE than the perceived value now plus by that time the media might have had their time to spin it. But will it be "popular" ...not a chance! A one payer all get free care system would get better popularity, this system is just horrible in almost every way!

Bock b-b bock! Bock b-b bock bock b-b bock!

not a chance! This in no way says I think this turd of an idea will be popular in the least, I just can't see it dropping with any ease! And the liberal media (already trying to push favorability onto it as Randy has attempted to show "it's not as bad as people thought"???) will have it's way over time, not to mention, people tend to forget over time, not that they will like or appreciate it, it will just be one of those things we simply suck up and deal with. Nope, that's a bad bet!!

tom

it will just be one of those things we simply suck up and deal with.

Which aspects of the law do you think people will suck up and deal with?
- Universal access
- no "pre-existing conditions....disqualifying people?
- portability of afffordable insurance?
- subsidies for the poor and working porr (which includes many young people)
- reduced cost of health care due to savings

Fate at least thinks, without any signifcant evidence, that more people will end up paying more and thats why they'll be unhappy..
However of the currently uninsured, only a small portion are uninsured by choice. Most people are covered by work plans that aren't changing.... They won't benefit directly from the ACA unless they have dependents that aren't currently covered OR unless they have a preexisting condition that has stopped them from seeking other job opportunities...
And, the Kaiser study shows that few people will actually be paying more under the exchanges. So mathematically you're dealing with a very small group who will be disgruntled... and have to suck up paying for something they don't want. Of course, these are the same people who would willlingly go to an emergency ward where tax payers cover his costs if he decides not to pay ... Because its a hardship to pay....
The other point Fate ignores is the shyrocketing health insurance costs are a reality for both companies and indivisuals. And have been since the 90's... So any complainst about rising costs have to be assessed when compared to the background of dimisnishing affordability for everyone.... versus an attempt at providing cost savings through increased Medicare negotiations which are already producing results.


Tom

Yes, if someone can afford health insurance it would be great! But your wild claims are not showing affordability but rather just the opposite. This latest example of yours simply claims it's not as bad as some expect, it does not say people can afford it, it does not say they will like the plan they are forced to purchase and what about the money these people will no longer get to spend elsewhere? This is going to make them feel good, having a crappy insurance plan they don't like, don't want, is going to "be good for the economy"?

Thats the whole point of the subsdies and the 4 levels of plan offered... And the whole point of minimal stanards for plans. It today that "crappy plans" exist that cover little ... The new standards ensure that any plan offered must have provisions that provide a base coverage that has real value..
Try reading the Kaiser study or the article....

GMTom wrote:not a chance! This in no way says I think this turd of an idea will be popular in the least, I just can't see it dropping with any ease! And the liberal media (already trying to push favorability onto it as Randy has attempted to show "it's not as bad as people thought"???) will have it's way over time, not to mention, people tend to forget over time, not that they will like or appreciate it, it will just be one of those things we simply suck up and deal with. Nope, that's a bad bet!!

Obamacare's impact with vary dramatically by state. In New York, many of the requirements of Obamacare have been law for many years, and actuaries have calculated that rates may actually go down in NY.

New York has had guaranteed issue and community rating since the mid-1990s. Our state government has for years mandated a long list of services that every insurer must cover, so we should see relatively few changes in New York driven by this new federal requirement. Finally, since our community-rated pools are so dominated by people who have numerous and complicated medical needs, it is unlikely that we will see more chronically ill than healthy people added to the insurance pool as the ACA is implemented.

This is a funny form of good news for New Yorkers: We won't experience large insurance rate increases next year, but only because we have had very expensive rates for a long time!

http://nyshealthfoundation.org/news-events/james-knickman/will-obamacare-increase-insurance-costs-in-new-york-state

I hate paying for insurance and high insurance rates grate on me. But employers should not have to make business decisions based upon the health of their workers. In New York, all small employers are pooled together and we are all offered the same rate, depending on the company/services purchased. So if you employ people who have serious and expensive health problems, your rate is the same as another company that doesn't. If we want to effectively use our labor force and allow businesses to make hiring and firing decisions based upon productivity, performance, etc. then this is the way it's got to be. You should be hiring someone because they'll be good for your business; the fact that person has an expensive chronic condition should never even be part of your thinking.

There are lots of warts in Obamacare. Making this a national requirement ain't one of them.

Rickyp:

However of the currently uninsured, only a small portion are uninsured by choice

yes, those who willingly choose not to be covered will be upset, no argument there. But what about those who simply can not afford insurance? How is Obamacare going to help them by forcing them to pay for something that is still unaffordable? Use a similar example
I want a car, but I'm poor and can't afford the payments.
You make it more affordable to some poor by making it more expensive to the majority. Now you reduce the cost a slight bit to the poorest who STILL can't afford the payments while raising the cost to everyone else. Now you have managed to upset almost every single person ...good plan!?
(and yes, my company plan will cost me more, I will get less of a raise, I will get lesser coverage as they now decide to go with the lesser plan.. it stinks!)

..and the study that shows rates are going to cost less? Uhhh, not in most of the country that is not the case now is it?

Or a house. You can give people money incentives to buy a house, and see how that goes.

Wait... Didn't we have many people who couldn't afford their houses and lost them because of variable interest rates? Yes, yes; you will say there was predatory lending, but in the end the people bought the houses and they did not pay. There were a few who were scammed, but a great many just lost their homes because they could not afford them. Does the government need to provide money to all them?

tom

But what about those who simply can not afford insurance? How is Obamacare going to help them by forcing them to pay for something that is still unaffordable? Use a similar example

Do you ever try reading anything linked as a source?
Or even anything that was quoted?

The ACA, also called Obamacare, provides tax credits to help make insurance more affordable to those with incomes that are lower than 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($45,960 per person in 2013); people who earn up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($28,725 for individuals) can get subsidies to cover out-of-pocket medical expenses like co-payments. "It is very important that a young uninsured adult make that determination [about whether they qualify for tax credits] because so many will and can use it buy more comprehensive coverage," says Jen Mishory, deputy director of Young Invincibles, a research organization focused on young adults. "They would likely be missing out on a benefit if they do not explore whether they qualify."

By the way, Medicaid ad Meciair have been providing people who cannot afford insurance coverage for years... i beleive they are both wildly popular.

Please, did YOU read what you had posted?
Is this insurance "FREE" or is it subsidized, meaning these people still must pay something they can not afford? Guess what, it aint free for most people!

October 1, the exchanges are scheduled to begin.

By October 15, we will have hundreds of unbelievable, incredible, insane examples of governmental incompetence. These exchanges will be an embarrassment of epic proportions.

OR

Sometime in the next 10-12 days, the President will announce he is unilaterally (and illegally) postponing the individual mandate.

I can't wait!

It's about time to see the Great Man exposed domestically as he has been internationally.

I understand Jimmy Carter is hiring an artist to sort out how to fit him onto Mount Rushmore.

President Obama's presidency has unfolded precisely as I thought it would.