Affordable Care Act is not a job killer according to the CBO?

[colourwheel]

 

In other words, if this CBO projection turned out to be even close to accurate it would be the exception to the rule, because the historical precedent is for them to be EXTREMELY inaccurate.

 

Which is funny how one political party has been pounding their constituents spinning inaccurately how over 2 millions jobs will be lost by the new healthcare mandate in a course of 7-10 years based on a historically flawed report to begin with... :laugh: shows how desperate the Republican party must be....

[TRoaches]

.....and the other party (and their fans :wink:) are holding that report up and spinning its projections in a positive way, claiming that its projections are indicative of the ACA's positive effects on the economy (net increase in demand for goods, boost demand for labor, create jobs, etc).

 

You have two sides interpreting the report to their favor, one in a positive way and the other in a negative way. You have chosen to accept the positive interpretation and reject the negative interpretation, despite the fact that neither interpretation is based on reality. Your premise has no more or less merit than that of a person who accepts the negative interpretation. You are simply being hopeful. Hope made for a fine campaign slogan, but the economy does not run on hope.

[colourwheel]

 

.....and the other party (and their fans :wink:) are holding that report up and spinning its projections in a positive way, claiming that its projections are indicative of the ACA's positive effects on the economy (net increase in demand for goods, boost demand for labor, create jobs, etc).

 

Only because that other party is trying to correct the record on the spin, regardless if the report is historically usually wrong to begin with.

[TheVampireDante]

Due to being in violation of her formal warning conditions, Colourwheel will no longer be participating in forum activities for a period of 60 days from this point.

 

Carry on the discussion without her, and if you must reference something she has posted - I highly recommend you watch what you say, and the tone it is said in.

[rizon72]

Personally, the entire 2 million jobs lost isn't good news. Even if its over 10 years, that 200,000 jobs lost per year, and 16,667 jobs per month that have to be made up somewhere in the market. That means we need to add even more jobs per month to get back to a healthy economy. No matter how you look at it mathematically, its not a good thing.

[kelticpete]

all I know is that linking your healthcare your employer is a pain. we don't do it with car insurance, but we require people to have car insurance. I can't tell you how many people I know who stay in a specific job or don't go entrepreneur/freelance/contractor because health wise for them or family they need their current healthcare plan.

 

I don't particularly care about the details of the ACA or the details of the anti-ACA. I just know that employer linked healthcare means that your employer chooses your healthcare. A friend recently was pissed because the job he got 4 years ago was one he took partially because of it's good benefits. He has a sick kid with a lot of health bills. anyway, the management changed hands and they have consistently been getting crappier and crappier coverage. he likes his job, his co-workers, what he does...but he is looking for something else because he has to have better coverage. his kids health costs can easily go catasropho, and when drugs you take cost 10 dollars goto 100 a pop (that was a recent change) you are kind of screwed. yep. his drug formulary changed and basically the three 10 dollars went to a 15 dollar drug (no biggie), and two that I think were over a 100 bucks a month because they are not formulary or something.

 

we have two teams, one of which realizes we need a new system but can't get a decent way to legislate/do it. and another team that thinks things are fine. they ain't fine. the ACA is totally flawed. it does some great stuff and it does some bad stuff. it also has given some people I know a chance at cheap insurance, and other people I know the bummer of much higher premiums. tradeoffs. anyway. complex issues. no fingers pointed here or shame given. just sadness.

[rizon72]

 

we have two teams, one of which realizes we need a new system but can't get a decent way to legislate/do it. and another team that thinks things are fine. they ain't fine.

 

I thought that was too four years ago. Then I learned a lot more, both sides want change, the difference is one side wants complete government control, the other, much less government control than what we have now. The biggest problem at the moment (to paraphrase a good movie) we are a town with two bosses, and when you have that, you have one boss too many. We have the government on one side, the private sector on the other, and us in the middle.

 

Both sides know there is a problem, but the media has been real good at portraying one side as thinking things are just fine.

[kelticpete]

@rizon, I am probably the most leftist person I know. I score further left than any candidate other than dennis kucinich or the green party candidates, but no one I know or support would want "complete government control." that is radical over-statement. I don't know of any democrat or green party person who is not open to free market being a big part of the health care venue. "complete government control" would mean the government would employ, pay and administrate all healthcare. like cuba. yuck. I don't think anyone actually elected wants that. most left-leaners don't even want a single government system like britain. most of the lefties I know in austin want the system to

 

a) make everyone buy health insurance like people buy car insurance, because the healthy people who are forced into system will help the insurance market now, and someday they will get old and be glad young healthy people are forced into it like they were.

 

b) have some sort of subsidized/government options for poor/low income/elderly/disabled.

 

c) important-- have free market involved so that people with cold hard cash can literally BUY better/faster/quicker healthcare options. they deserve it. the poor deserve healthcare, but the "winners" of society get to reap greater rewards, even in health. that is life.

 

I don't know of anyone in real life, who thinks that rich people should have terrible healthcare so that poor people can have terrible healthcare as well. the problem is in how to balance the amount of legislation/free market involved.

 

I also think that insurers should have to be NON-profit, so that they are not looking at revenue as their top priority. non profits have to stay competitive and make money, but their focus is not stockholders/dividends/this last quarter. when an insurance company is "for profit" then their ultimate motive is always to make money. if they are non-profit, they still need to stay solvent, do good job as company to survive but they can focus on their core purpose which is to provide coverage.

 

 

 

and I live in texas. the only answer I have personally heard from any candidate for office in this state on healthcare is "let the free market decide" which begs the question that if employers make the decisions, how is that a truly free market? car insurance is a "free market" health insurance is not. the fact that we can either use company plan we work for or go with a very expensive single family plan on our own is not a "free market".

Edited February 15, 2014 by kelticpete

[HeyYou]

@rizon, I am probably the most leftist person I know. I score further left than any candidate other than dennis kucinich or the green party candidates, but no one I know or support would want "complete government control." that is radical over-statement. I don't know of any democrat or green party person who is not open to free market being a big part of the health care venue. "complete government control" would mean the government would employ, pay and administrate all healthcare. like cuba. yuck. I don't think anyone actually elected wants that. most left-leaners don't even want a single government system like britain. most of the lefties I know in austin want the system to

 

a) make everyone buy health insurance like people buy car insurance, because the healthy people who are forced into system will help the insurance market now, and someday they will get old and be glad young healthy people are forced into it like they were.

 

b) have some sort of subsidized/government options for poor/low income/elderly/disabled.

 

c) important-- have free market involved so that people with cold hard cash can literally BUY better/faster/quicker healthcare options. they deserve it. the poor deserve healthcare, but the "winners" of society get to reap greater rewards, even in health. that is life.

 

I don't know of anyone in real life, who thinks that rich people should have terrible healthcare so that poor people can have terrible healthcare as well. the problem is in how to balance the amount of legislation/free market involved.

 

I also think that insurers should have to be NON-profit, so that they are not looking at revenue as their top priority. non profits have to stay competitive and make money, but their focus is not stockholders/dividends/this last quarter. when an insurance company is "for profit" then their ultimate motive is always to make money. if they are non-profit, they still need to stay solvent, do good job as company to survive but they can focus on their core purpose which is to provide coverage.

 

 

 

and I live in texas. the only answer I have personally heard from any candidate for office in this state on healthcare is "let the free market decide" which begs the question that if employers make the decisions, how is that a truly free market? car insurance is a "free market" health insurance is not. the fact that we can either use company plan we work for or go with a very expensive single family plan on our own is not a "free market".

Or Canada? Or Australia? Or the UK?

 

"Socialised" medicine, or, single-payer, (what it really is) would actually be better for us. Your employer has no control over your health care, doesn't matter where you work. It would also dramatically reduce the cost of health care that the government is now paying. That IS what is going to end up happening anyway. All those 'subsidies' for health insurance are going to come from somewhere, instead of going into insurance companies pockets, I would rather see them paid directly to health care providers.

 

Insurance companies add nothing to health care, except cost. There have been numerous offices (private practice) that have decided they are NOT going to accept ANY insurance at all. You pay for the services you get, when you get them. Guess what happened? Prices DROPPED. Considerably. Why? Because the doctors didn't have to have a bunch of staff whose SOLE purpose was to deal with insurance companies......

 

Ok, so, people being insured IS a good thing, given current circumstances..... but, what is going to happen here? Are the younger generation going to sign up for obamacare right away? Start paying those premiums? Or, will they skip it, and pay something to the tune of a 95 dollar penalty on their taxes, if they even FILE taxes for a year or three. We are going to have a significant increase in demand for health care, but, staffing for providers has been on the decline for some time now, and the trend is only going to continue. What happens when demand increases, and supply decreases? If you guessed "prices go up", you win a prize. So, insurance policy pricing will also increase. Are the subsidies going to increase??

 

Nope. The ACA was a bad plan. They are addressing the WRONG problem. But then, its our government. I shouldn't be surprised.

[rizon72]

My biggest problem with Obamacare or even single payer here in the US, it doesn't address the cost of getting healthcare. Until the cost is brought under control, doesn't matter which way we go, it will be a train wreck waiting to happen. Read somewhere that the democrats actually didn't think the bill would pass, so they rushed it, passed it in one part of Congress, never expecting it to pass the other side. When that happened they would then be able to bring it back, work out the problems in the bill, and pass a better bill. They rushed it though to make it look like Congress was doing something to the public. If that's true, this is what happens when you pass something to pass something.

 

I lost my faith in a single payer system when my mom died four years ago. She stayed for a week in ICU, and the bills we got and what medicare paid for...if that's how our government wants to run our insurance, we are doomed. It was a big slap of reality vs what I had been told.