danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:How do you pay $0 per month?

VA?

Fully deserved if one risks their life for their country.

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:How do you pay $0 per month?

VA?

Fully deserved if one risks their life for their country.

Never questioned that veterans deserve decent healthcare. Of course, I think we all do, but here we go.

Not getting into the weeds. Just stating that Obamacare is not as good for me as my current insurance.

bbauska wrote:Not getting into the weeds. Just stating that Obamacare is not as good for me as my current insurance.

Does it affect your current insurance, though?

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:
Fully deserved if one risks their life for their country.

Never questioned that veterans deserve decent healthcare. Of course, I think we all do, but here we go.

Cute. The relevant question is how much health care do we all deserve (for free)?

ray

The relevant question is how much health care do we all deserve (for free)?

I thought the narrow question was whether the ACA was going to be good for the economy?
Because if you want to broaden it to the question of health care for free ? Well, thats a canard. Health care isn't free.
even Bbauska's is being paid for by tax payers.
The fact that he feels entitled to this tax payer support, as a veteran is fine. That he feels citizens who didn't serve in the military aren't entitled to the same security is a question of morality.

In other nations, where health care costs are 9 to 12 % of GDP versus the 17% of GDP that the US spends, veterans like Bbauska aren't uniquely entitled to the security of health insurance. Everyone is... And yet, the share of the economy eaten up by health care is smaller. If 5% of GDP is redirected from health care to other sectors would that have a positive effect on the economy?
Consider that companies would not have to continue to fund and run benefits programs and you'd have more efficient companies. (Say if the car companies hadn't incurred all kinds of benefits costs because they were part of Universal Medicare?)

Of course, you've now widened the argument. And the narrow question is whether or not ACA is helping the economy. Tom and B want to argue that ACA isn't helping them so it isn't helping the economy. At least thats what I take from their statements....
I think that demonstrating that millions of Californians will now be spending less for insurance, and therefore will have money for other things, demonstrates that the ACA will give the economy a boost.
Moreover, getting people who are uninsured onto insurance is a boost... People with insurance use health care expeditiously, getting treatment early, rather than waiting , hoping and ending up dependent on emergent care - the most expensive kind of treatment, This will help lower over all health care costs... And emergent care used by the uninsured, usually ends up being subsidized by other patients or taxpayers ...
I don't expect that every single person, Tom and B included, need to have a positive benefit from ACA for the program to be successful. well, not compared to Universal systems elsewhere, but better than the incumbent systems in the US. Nor does every person have to benefit for the program to have a positive effect on the economy. The millions of Californians affected as I've shown, out weigh the complaints of Tom and the smug entitlement that Bbauska expresses.

Millions of Californians will be spending less for insurance? and New York may also be spending less? so some claim and millions are likely to spend more as well now that you are forcing them to buy what they can not afford, suddenly they have zero disposable income and spend less on restaurants, clothing, vacations, cars, even food. How is that "Good for the economy?)

Smugness?

Wow. I just answered your request about the ACA being better for people. I gave you an instance where it is not. BTW, You have not said that the ACA would be worse than what I have, so I am assuming.

If Obamacare will be good for the economy, great!

It will not be good for me and my family. Priorities... My family is #2 on my list, and ideological government programs are a bit lower, Hence, I don't like it,

Is that smugness? Hardly.

rickyp wrote:ray

The relevant question is how much health care do we all deserve (for free)?

I thought the narrow question was whether the ACA was going to be good for the economy?

Fair enough. So, why don't you prove it?

Even Obama's union friends are starting to sour on it:

But some unions leaders have grown frustrated and angry about what they say are unexpected consequences of the new law -- problems that they say could jeopardize the health benefits offered to millions of their members.

The issue could create a political headache next year for Democrats facing re-election if disgruntled union members believe the Obama administration and Congress aren't working to fix the problem.

"It makes an untruth out of what the president said, that if you like your insurance, you could keep it," said Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. "That is not going to be true for millions of workers now."

The problem lies in the unique multiemployer health plans that cover unionized workers in retail, construction, transportation and other industries with seasonal or temporary employment. Known as Taft-Hartley plans, they are jointly administered by unions and smaller employers that pool resources to offer more than 20 million workers and family members continuous coverage, even during times of unemployment.

The union plans were already more costly to run than traditional single-employer health plans. The Affordable Care Act has added to that cost -- for the unions' and other plans -- by requiring health plans to cover dependents up to age 26, eliminate annual or lifetime coverage limits and extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

"We're concerned that employers will be increasingly tempted to drop coverage through our plans and let our members fend for themselves on the health exchanges," said David Treanor, director of health care initiatives at the Operating Engineers union.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05 ... z2UgzdDClf

Btw, before you shout "Fox News!" just know that the UCFW is a union I used to belong to and it is quite large.

Fate, one of the problems with employer based insurance is that unions have larded on and created enormous long term liabilities for companies.
If, a long term effect of ACA is moving away from employer supplied insurance to a central health insurance supplier or market.... that would be very good for business. It takes them out of being health benefits suppliers and managers.

If unions want to bulk purchase for their members, all well and good. But, the notion that a steel mill (for instance) should also be tasked with running an entire department devoted to managing health insurance doesn't make business sense.

rickyp wrote:Fate, one of the problems with employer based insurance is that unions have larded on and created enormous long term liabilities for companies.
If, a long term effect of ACA is moving away from employer supplied insurance to a central health insurance supplier or market.... that would be very good for business. It takes them out of being health benefits suppliers and managers.

Let's see . . . the ACA will be good for the economy because:

1. It will "be very good for business. It takes them out of being health benefits suppliers and managers."

Why don't businesses like it?

Is it good for the economy that more and more individuals, under the above "(taking businesses) of being health benefits suppliers and managers," that would mean the government and/or individuals will pay the freight. If people are having more out of pocket expenses, and you consistently argue lack of demand is what is handicapping our economy, how will that benefit it?

If unions want to bulk purchase for their members, all well and good. But, the notion that a steel mill (for instance) should also be tasked with running an entire department devoted to managing health insurance doesn't make business sense.

2. So, it will help the economy to have the government managing health insurance?

I hope the President makes that point over and over. If so, there will be an unparalleled landslide for the GOP in 2014.

Oh wit one minute Ricky
This was your topic and you stated Obamacare would be good for the economy. Now you claim an eventual possible move to a universal program is going to be good. So you are admitting Obamacare is not good and it's only a step towards something else?

So your talk of how it will help us is ...wrong?
Your talk of how it will help the economy is ...wrong?
Your talk of how we will like it when we know what it entails is ...wrong?
Obamacare is ...wrong?

fate

So, it will help the economy to have the government managing health insurance?

If it reduces the overall GDP spent on health care from 17 % to a lower number. Yeah.
The evidence for that possibility?
- the lower GDP for health care spending in every other western nation.
- the lower absolute costs for identical medical procedures in every other OECD nation. (By a wide margin)
- the lower cost for similar drugs and procedures paid by US Medicaid and Medicare versus private insuracne... where they have been allowed to negotiate the price...

Now you have to buy into the premise that it makes sense to try and reduce the health care segment from 17% to a lower percentage of GDP. Do you?



Fate

Is it good for the economy that more and more individuals, under the above "(taking businesses) of being health benefits suppliers and managers," that would mean the government and/or individuals will pay the freight. If people are having more out of pocket expenses, and you consistently argue lack of demand is what is handicapping our economy, how will that benefit it

US Businesses have, over the last 30 years, proven ineffective in combating health insurance premium inflation. and a business supplied system has been over all ineffective at reducing the rate of inflation of health costs.
To keep doing the same thing, means the same results.
To study best practices from both the rest of the world, and the American experience ... and apply those practices ... would make sense.
American businesses that prosper today, do study best practices globally...

Tom, I can't remember how many times I've said the ACA is only incremental improvement.
You understand that even incremental improvement can benefit the economy?

I don't think that the ACA was designed to move the US to a Universal system. However, it may lead to greater efficiencies that weren't originally intended or expected. Just changing from the status quo, stopping doing the same stuff year in and out, had to create dynamics for change and improvement.
One thing might be leading to more businesses freeing themselves from the task of providing benefits, and more people buying for themselves. For the individuals this would free them from the ties that bind them to employers. You opposed to freedom?
The challenge is to ensure that whatever central "market" exists.... that it provide value for money.
The results reported in California indicate this is the case..
Maybe not for you personally. But I'll take the reports affecting millions over your personal experience as a better gauge of the overall success of the program at improving the pocket books of millions.

rickyp wrote:fate

So, it will help the economy to have the government managing health insurance?

If it reduces the overall GDP spent on health care from 17 % to a lower number. Yeah.
The evidence for that possibility?
- the lower GDP for health care spending in every other western nation.

That is only evidence if Obamacare is based on another, proven system. Is it?

- the lower absolute costs for identical medical procedures in every other OECD nation. (By a wide margin)

Again, this would only be "evidence" if there were another country using our system. Meanwhile, costs have continued to go up--with no end in sight.

And, we're going to see an increasing shortage of primary care physicians. It's called "unintended consequences."

- the lower cost for similar drugs and procedures paid by US Medicaid and Medicare versus private insuracne... where they have been allowed to negotiate the price...

It's not JUST negotiation. Those lower prices are being subsidized by someone--either the companies or other customers. In the end, people who "can" afford it will be forced to pay the freight OR companies won't take risks on new drugs.

Now you have to buy into the premise that it makes sense to try and reduce the health care segment from 17% to a lower percentage of GDP. Do you?

Prove that Obamacare, as constructed, will do that.

Fate

Is it good for the economy that more and more individuals, under the above "(taking businesses) of being health benefits suppliers and managers," that would mean the government and/or individuals will pay the freight. If people are having more out of pocket expenses, and you consistently argue lack of demand is what is handicapping our economy, how will that benefit it

US Businesses have, over the last 30 years, proven ineffective in combating health insurance premium inflation. and a business supplied system has been over all ineffective at reducing the rate of inflation of health costs.
To keep doing the same thing, means the same results.
To study best practices from both the rest of the world, and the American experience ... and apply those practices ... would make sense.

Please show that is how Obamacare was designed. If you can't, then your point is moot.