It is also not paying a major expense. A great equivilant is moving jobs out of the US. Companies get all kinds of credits and the like for staying in the US. In the end it is still cheaper to go overseas. Health care seems to be the same way. If companies are paying more out of pocket, than the fine they will get, it is an easy decision to drop coverage. Insurance is like 10k a year. Fines are no where close to that, and neither are the credits.

"Gotta retain top talent" only works on Wall Street I guess.

"Gotta retain top talent" only works on Wall Street I guess.

 

When you have 17% effective unemployment, it is pretty easy to replace about 90% of the workforce.

When you have 17% effective unemployment, it is pretty easy to replace about 90% of the workforce.

Then why haven't they been replaced now with workers who aren't provided health care, when right now there are no fines for doing so?

Oh, and I'd also like an explanation for why employer provided Health Insurance in Massachusetts increased by 100,000 people after Obamneycare was installed there, rather than decreased. And MA provides larger subsidies for the uninsured than are available in the PPACA, which means that the employer attachment in the PPACA is stronger than in MA.

 

If you want a discussion at a blog with an explanation/example, here's one. I'm sure it's a blog so some people will refuse on principle to read it, but if the State of Tennessee, for example, chose to end its plan and push people onto the exchanges, it'd be looking at an additional cost of about $200 million a year.

Then why haven't they been replaced now with workers who aren't provided health care, when right now there are no fines for doing so?

 

Why hasn't every manufacturing center moved to China?

Because now they have a cheap alternative to dump them on.

 

 

Then why haven't they been replaced now with workers who aren't provided health care, when right now there are no fines for doing so?

 

And that

Why hasn't every manufacturing center moved to China?

Your plan is for employers who provide Health care to be as rare as manufacturers who did not move overseas.

 

And yet if I bother to point out that the summary to this is "then no Americans will have health care", somehow I'll be the one getting laughed at.

 

Seriously...you've done a great job illustrating why the employer/health care link that the PPACA works really hard to preserve is not the best option and a government-only plan is.

Why? It's prevented millions of seniors from entering into poverty.

I didn't say end social security - I said change it.

 

I'm not a true libertarian, nor am I a staunch conservative on government, as I thought was obvious.

 

Your plan is for employers who provide Health care to be as rare as manufacturers who did not move overseas.

 

And yet if I bother to point out that the summary to this is "then no Americans will have health care", somehow I'll be the one getting laughed at.

 

Seriously...you've done a great job illustrating why the employer/health care link that the PPACA works really hard to preserve is not the best option and a government-only plan is.

 

And you've done a great job at proving that the whole point is to destroy any incentive for private insurance.

I didn't say end social security - I said change it.

Changing it might as well be ending it. The beauty of the current system is its simplicity. It keeps the administrative costs down well below those of private sector retirement plans, it makes sure everyone has something, it isn't subject to the fluctuations of the market or to financial crises, etc.

Changing it might as well be ending it. The beauty of the current system is its simplicity. It keeps the administrative costs down well below those of private sector retirement plans, it makes sure everyone has something, it isn't subject to the fluctuations of the market or to financial crises, etc.

 

God forbid we do that anywhere else...

And you've done a great job at proving that the whole point is to destroy any incentive for private insurance.

Private insurance has done that.

 

The point is to get the most people the best health care for the most manageable cost.

 

If you're determined to keep a private system, the PPACA is about as good as you can do.

 

Unless you want to give me another round of telling me how we can't afford to have everyone insured and the sick are sorry, out of luck again.

God forbid we do that anywhere else...

Like Medicare, where the administrative costs are vastly below private plans as well?

Private insurance has done that.

 

The point is to get the most people the best health care for the most manageable cost.

 

If you're determined to keep a private system, the PPACA is about as good as you can do.

 

Unless you want to give me another round of telling me how we can't afford to have everyone insured and the sick are sorry, out of luck again.

 

That is exactly where this will be a massive failure.

That is exactly where this will be a massive failure.

Compared to a European system, sure. Compared to the current system, or to any increased-privatization system, however, the PPACA will still be a massive improvement.

Compared to a European system, sure. Compared to the current system, or to any increased-privatization system, however, the PPACA will still be a massive improvement.

 

It won't be the best care, and it won't be for the best cost. If I know anything about the federal government, I would bet my life on those two things.

When you have 17% effective unemployment, it is pretty easy to replace about 90% of the workforce.

 

Keep highlighting the "capitalism as an abusive power structure" construct, it reinforces the need for a safety net.

It won't be the best care, and it won't be for the best cost. If I know anything about the federal government, I would bet my life on those two things.

 

In that case we might as well copy another vastly most successful system in whole. The current system certainly doesn't match either of those criteria for an overwhelming majority of people

I didn't say end social security - I said change it.

 

I'm not a true libertarian, nor am I a staunch conservative on government, as I thought was obvious.

 

You've posted about this before, correct me if I'm wrong but your position is that it should be a semi-privatized retirement fund, like a 401(k). That completely ignores many of the functions of OASDI and the many perils of treating it as an investment vehicle

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/j...deadline-libya/

 

time to end US involvement in Libya

Like Medicare, where the administrative costs are vastly below private plans as well?

 

You mean like medicare where many doctors and medical facilities won't accept the patients with that for insurance? That doesn't really help the argument for you.

You mean like medicare where many doctors and medical facilities won't accept the patients with that for insurance? That doesn't really help the argument for you.

I'm impressed by the precision of your language.

Keep highlighting the "capitalism as an abusive power structure" construct, it reinforces the need for a safety net.

 

Ugh. I hate the assumption that just because someone gives you a job, it makes them responsible for you and your entire family from cradle to crave. That's not an "abusive power structure", that is the socialization of personal responsibility.

 

And if you want guys want a much better example of what I believe will happen to health care with this plan, I think the history of private pensions is probably the best parallel I can think of.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/j...deadline-libya/

 

time to end US involvement in Libya

This might be better placed in the Libya thread.

Ugh. I hate the assumption that just because someone gives you a job, it makes them responsible for you and your entire family from cradle to crave. That's not an "abusive power structure", that is the socialization of personal responsibility.

So how on Earth are people supposed to have health care in your world? The government shouldn't provide it, that's socialism. Your employer providing it for you is "Socialization of personal responsibility." The only way left is to rely on the individual market, where being old or sick is a pre-existing condition and they don't want you.