The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Unemployed? Try becoming a "Navigator". PPACA is going to need a bunch of them...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...5ee_story.html

And we still won't be able to save our posterior.

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

I'm sure some of you righties were going to get around to mentioning that Medicare spending is slowing down, right? You just haven't had a chance to get to your computers yet?

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...-than-expected

Hmmm...check out the rate of growth from 2002-2009 and then 2009 to now. Wasn't there some sort of law passed recently that might help explain the reductions?!?!

[mookie1995]

I'm sure some of you righties were going to get around to mentioning that Medicare spending is slowing down, right? You just haven't had a chance to get to your computers yet?

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...-than-expected

Hmmm...check out the rate of growth from 2002-2009 and then 2009 to now. Wasn't there some sort of law passed recently that might help explain the reductions?!?!

This means nothing. If I add 2000 to my total spending every year, guess what?? The growth rate goes down

[Rover]

This means nothing. If I add 2000 to my total spending every year, guess what?? The growth rate goes down

That makes no sense, but its cool.

[mookie1995]

That makes no sense, but its cool.

Well not as cool as your blubber.... I'm excited cause spending is going down? Or the rate is going down? Or the rate of growth is going down?

Only one of those takes less money from me

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

One of the single most important metrics for any business owner is the answer to the question (or variants thereof): "what happens if we add one more?" Is it worth it to hire one more person? is it worth it to sell one more item? etc.

It is quite clear that the people who drafted PPACA understood this concept not at all. The law is perverse in the old-fashioned sense in that there are outright contradictions between what it purports to do and the incentives it offers.

There is an excellent article here that explores many of these perversities for those who have the patience and interest to read it.

Here's a trend you'll be reading more about: part-time "job sharing," not only within firms but across different businesses.

It's already happening across the country at fast-food restaurants, as employers try to avoid being punished by the Affordable Care Act. In some cases we've heard about, a local McDonalds has hired employees to operate the cash register or flip burgers for 20 hours a week and then the workers head to the nearby Burger King or Wendy's to log another 20 hours. Other employees take the opposite shifts.

Welcome to the strange new world of small-business hiring under ObamaCare.

....

The savings from restricting hours worked can be enormous. If a company with 50 employees hires a new worker for $12 an hour for 29 hours a week, there is no health insurance requirement. But suppose that worker moves to 30 hours a week. This triggers the $2,000 federal penalty. So to get 50 more hours of work a year from that employee, the extra cost to the employer rises to about $52 an hour—the $12 salary and the ObamaCare tax of what works out to be $40 an hour.

....

But the damage won't be limited to franchisees or restaurants. A 2012 survey of employers by the Mercer consulting firm found that 67% of retail and wholesale firms that don't offer insurance coverage today "are more inclined to change their workforce strategy so that fewer employees meet that [30 hour a week] threshold.

It is kind of strange to me that when Congress passes a really bad law and people then try to comply with it the best they can, it's the people trying to comply with the law who get criticized because they are not doing what they are "supposed" to be doing, which is react to the law's "intentions." Instead, they are excoriated for responding to the law as it is actually written.

So Congress writes a bad law, the President signs a bad law, and yet it is "greedy businesses" who are at fault because they comply with the law??

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Lots of apocalyptic BS about nothing Fishy. Problem for you is universal health care has already happened in one state. We call it "Romneycare" and its been in place for years. No signs of a massive effort of employers dumping people onto state exchanges or screwing them over hours, and MA is a pretty expensive state so if were to happen anywhere it would happen here.

A for effort though, and I'm curious what you think about conservative hero Rick Scott now also agreeing to implement Obamacare.

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Lots of apocalyptic BS about nothing Fishy. Problem for you is universal health care has already happened in one state. We call it "Romneycare" and its been in place for years. No signs of a massive effort of employers dumping people onto state exchanges or screwing them over hours, and MA is a pretty expensive state so if were to happen anywhere it would happen here.

A for effort though, and I'm curious what you think about conservative hero Rick Scott now also agreeing to implement Obamacare.

Rover

If a state wants to implement a health care plan for it citizens fine. I don't like the feds involved. And they've been getting involved more and more into what used to be state issues, such as education and now health care. We've seen the disaster in NCLB and RTTT with how the children are taught, how teachers are evaluated, how $$ is doled out. All based on some nameless group of bureaucrats who publish something in the Federal Register. What works in Massachusetts may not work in Montana.

One size does not fit all.

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Looks like Chris Christie is taking the money:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf..._river_default

That crying sound you hear is either Fishy or Flaggy as another GOP governor does the right thing.

[mookie1995]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Looks like Chris Christie is taking the money:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf..._river_default

That crying sound you hear is either Fishy or Flaggy as another GOP governor does the right thing.

didn't he already switch parties?

[Rover]

didn't he already switch parties?

No, but he did hit the Old Country all you can eat buffet on Wednesday two weeks ago and stayed there until the following Tuesday.

Seriously though, I do have to wonder if someone who accepts Obamacare dollars can then turn around and survive a GOP primary if he choses to run for Prez. He'd be a lot of fun in the debates though. Hell, even I'd tune into that.

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

There was case making headlines in Germany recently that seems also to have been affirmed here.

A woman was raped and went to a Catholic hospital for treatment. The German council of bishops put out a statement that said Rape is not a procreative act (it is an act of violence) and so the woman has the right to defend herself against the rapist's sperm, which makes it okay for the hospital to administer a spermicide to her in order to kill the rapist's sperm before it can fertilize an egg. I think I read that the US council of bishops affirmed that decision as well.

[St. Clown]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

In response to Obamacare becoming law, my employer switched up insurance plans. Where I once had an HMO, paid the copay, and a % of the bill after a certain dollar amount was hit, I now have an HRA setup where I've had $1300 in claims trying to have a shoulder injury fixed, and not a single bit of it has been paid for by my insurance yet. Excuse me, that's not entirely true, they have been paying the 2% proivder tax. Wow, thanks for lowering my out-of-pocket expenses, government! I still have another $1700 to go before my insurance actually starts to pay benefits. Oh, and my premiums went up for this greatly "improved" service.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

No, but he did hit the Old Country all you can eat buffet on Wednesday two weeks ago and stayed there until the following Tuesday.

Seriously though, I do have to wonder if someone who accepts Obamacare dollars can then turn around and survive a GOP primary if he choses to run for Prez. He'd be a lot of fun in the debates though. Hell, even I'd tune into that.

Crazy, not stupid.

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

One of PPACA's most egregious mistakes might be on the way out.

WASHINGTON—The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday night to repeal a tax on medical-device sales, despite the fact that the levy helps finance the health-care overhaul.

The vote was largely symbolic, but the 79-20 tally signals strong opposition to the 2.3% tax on device sales that went into effect Jan. 1. Even though the levy is meant to help foot the bill for the signature legislative achievement of President Barack Obama's first term, 33 Democrats as well as independent Sen. Angus King of Maine joined Republican senators in voting to repeal the tax.

... the solid bipartisan support shows growing momentum for repealing the tax, which lawmakers have argued hurts U.S. competitiveness and costs highly paid jobs.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) introduced the measure earlier Thursday with the support of nine Democrats, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) said on the Senate floor Thursday that she had long opposed the tax, despite its connection to the health-care law.

"It still isn't right because it creates too much of a burden," Ms. Klobuchar said, arguing that the health-care overhaul won't generate enough new customers to offset the costs for medical-device companies.

One can only hope that more of the many mind-boggling mistakes in the law also get corrected...

Health insurers are privately warning brokers that premiums for many individuals and small businesses could increase sharply next year because of the health-care overhaul law, with the nation's biggest firm projecting that rates could more than double for some consumers buying their own plans.

The projections, made in sessions with brokers and agents, provide some of the most concrete evidence yet of how much insurance companies might increase prices when major provisions of the law kick in next year
....
The gulf between the pricing talk from some insurers and the government projections suggests how complicated the law's effects will be. Carriers will be filing proposed prices with regulators over the next few months.

Part of the murkiness stems from the role of government subsidies. Federal subsidies under the health law will help lower-income consumers defray costs, but they are generally not included in insurers' premium projections.

That last sentence is key. The law forces insurance premiums higher and then gives people subsidies to pay for those premium increases. Yet somehow this is supposed to be viewed as "reducing" costs. This is what happens when you have people who don't understand how math works trying to force outcomes while ignoring process.