Of course you can keep it

[Azazello1313]

Fixed. Employer-based insurance reallly is the stupidest idea. Think about it; what if you had to buy your car through your employer? Or, send your kids to your employer's choice of college? It makes no sense.

 

As an ajoinder: just because something was great thirty years ago doesn't mean it still is and always will be.

 

Peace

policy

 

agree completely, that policy is right at the heart of why our health care inflation is so out of whack. it highly incentivizes a system where most people have really extensive coverage through their employer (since it's completely tax sheltered) that insulates them almost completely from their actual health costs. the rest either pay through the nose for insurance, get government insurance if they're old or poor that also insulates them from their actual health costs, or they ride it out and hope they don't get sick. the biggest problem is that at no point is the consumer really participating in any way in the cost-benefit decisions about their own care.

 

health reform could have fixed this problem fairly easily by simply removing the tax exemption for employer-provided healh plans. since that would amount to a pretty serious tax hike on most people, you could offset it by a tax credit (for everyone who gets insurance, not just those with employer provided plans) for the cost of a basic, fairly high deductible health plan. then boom, you're taxing the really exorbitant health plans as income (as you should), you've eliminated the severe health insurance penalty against self-employment. you've just created competition in the marketplace once again, and now everybody (instead of nobody) has some incentives to control cost. you've raised taxes on people with $25K health plans, but you've raised enough revenue to expand medicaid to cover more low income uninsured. once costs start coming down, the govt coffers are in even better shape to deal with the uninsured. maybe at that point the government starts providing, as a right of citizenship, universal catastrophic coverage (with HIGH deductibles to keep the govt cost low and to keep market incentives in place for the vast majority of health decisions) and doing away with the tax credit, as the cost of supplemental health coverage would come way down at that point if they don't have to insure against catastrophe.

 

the point is, there are sensible ways of doing this that address costs by fixing some screwed up economic incentives. the approach of obamacare was to build further upon the crappy foundation of employer-provided insurance with a bunch more government mandates and fees designed to suck power toward washington. you have to keep in mind that, fundamentally, there are two ways health care reform proposals can get at cutting costs -- one is by fixing the screwed up economic incentives so that health care consumers have greater exposure to the costs of their own care; two, is by embracing the british model of controlling costs by central govt management setting prices and deciding what care gets approved for whom. IMO, obamacare sets us much farther down the wrong path.

[Perchoutofwater]

agree completely, that policy is right at the heart of why our health care inflation is so out of whack. it highly incentivizes a system where most people have really extensive coverage through their employer (since it's completely tax sheltered) that insulates them almost completely from their actual health costs. the rest either pay through the nose for insurance, get government insurance if they're old or poor that also insulates them from their actual health costs, or they ride it out and hope they don't get sick. the biggest problem is that at no point is the consumer really participating in any way in the cost-benefit decisions about their own care.

 

health reform could have fixed this problem fairly easily by simply removing the tax exemption for employer-provided healh plans. since that would amount to a pretty serious tax hike on most people, you could offset it by a tax credit (for everyone who gets insurance, not just those with employer provided plans) for the cost of a basic, fairly high deductible health plan. then boom, you're taxing the really exorbitant health plans as income (as you should), you've eliminated the severe health insurance penalty against self-employment. you've just created competition in the marketplace once again, and now everybody (instead of nobody) has some incentives to control cost. you've raised taxes on people with $25K health plans, but you've raised enough revenue to expand medicaid to cover more low income uninsured. once costs start coming down, the govt coffers are in even better shape to deal with the uninsured. maybe at that point the government starts providing, as a right of citizenship, universal catastrophic coverage (with HIGH deductibles to keep the govt cost low and to keep market incentives in place for the vast majority of health decisions) and doing away with the tax credit, as the cost of supplemental health coverage would come way down at that point if they don't have to insure against catastrophe.

 

[Ursa Majoris]

Not just the HI companies, but you have all of the people who do the processing, billing, etc...

Dude, that's still an insane number.

[Azazello1313]

or maybe the best idea would be for the fed govt to get out of the way and let a few different states try it a few different ways, see what works and what doesn't.

 

they've already tried almost a carbon copy of obamacare in massachusetts. and let's just say it's not really working out as they hoped.

[SEC=UGA]

Dude, that's still an insane number.

 

It could very well be, haven't looked that deep into it.

[redrumjuice]

Why would you possibly want the gov't to handle healthcare anything?

 

Leave it up to the states then, you follow Massachusetts budget busting nightmare health coverage, and I'll follow Texas.

[westvirginia]

agree completely, that policy is right at the heart of why our health care inflation is so out of whack. it highly incentivizes a system where most people have really extensive coverage through their employer (since it's completely tax sheltered) that insulates them almost completely from their actual health costs. the rest either pay through the nose for insurance, get government insurance if they're old or poor that also insulates them from their actual health costs, or they ride it out and hope they don't get sick. the biggest problem is that at no point is the consumer really participating in any way in the cost-benefit decisions about their own care.

 

health reform could have fixed this problem fairly easily by simply removing the tax exemption for employer-provided healh plans. since that would amount to a pretty serious tax hike on most people, you could offset it by a tax credit (for everyone who gets insurance, not just those with employer provided plans) for the cost of a basic, fairly high deductible health plan. then boom, you're taxing the really exorbitant health plans as income (as you should), you've eliminated the severe health insurance penalty against self-employment. you've just created competition in the marketplace once again, and now everybody (instead of nobody) has some incentives to control cost. you've raised taxes on people with $25K health plans, but you've raised enough revenue to expand medicaid to cover more low income uninsured. once costs start coming down, the govt coffers are in even better shape to deal with the uninsured. maybe at that point the government starts providing, as a right of citizenship, universal catastrophic coverage (with HIGH deductibles to keep the govt cost low and to keep market incentives in place for the vast majority of health decisions) and doing away with the tax credit, as the cost of supplemental health coverage would come way down at that point if they don't have to insure against catastrophe.

 

the point is, there are sensible ways of doing this that address costs by fixing some screwed up economic incentives. the approach of obamacare was to build further upon the crappy foundation of employer-provided insurance with a bunch more government mandates and fees designed to suck power toward washington. you have to keep in mind that, fundamentally, there are two ways health care reform proposals can get at cutting costs -- one is by fixing the screwed up economic incentives so that health care consumers have greater exposure to the costs of their own care; two, is by embracing the british model of controlling costs by central govt management setting prices and deciding what care gets approved for whom. IMO, obamacare sets us much farther down the wrong path.

 

But then they wouldn't CONTROL the whole damned thing. That's what everyone is missing here! Call me paranoid, tinfoil hat, whatever. But az just quickly and simply elucidated the most simple and easy way to "bend the cost curve down". That's what the dems SAY they want, but their actions go completely in a different direction. They add something that even the non-partisan CBO says will probably increase costs. It's bass-ackwards, and there are only two explanations that I can see: 1) they are a passel of incompetent fools not fit to run the french fryer in a fast food restaurant, or 2) they really don't care about costs right now, because they can ration and do whatever they want when they control it all. And you guys who think the repubs won't let that happen, I got three words for you: Medicare Part D...

[redrumjuice]

Unless you don't want to keep it.

 

CBO Director Says ObamaCare Will Drive People From the Workforce

 

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said the most significant economic effect of President Barack Obama’s health care reform package will be to drive people out of the job market.

 

“For the economy outside the health sector, the most significant impact of the legislation will be through the labor market,” Elmendorf said on Oct. 22. “We estimated that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent, primarily by reducing the amount that people choose to work.”

He explained that people would choose not to work because they could subsist on the generous federal insurance subsidies and Medicaid payments contained in the health care overhaul.

[westvirginia]

Unless you don't want to keep it.

 

CBO Director Says ObamaCare Will Drive People From the Workforce

 

So it costs a fortune, and will disincentive to working. And for those of you that would argue this - my wife is a flooring specialist at Home Depot (which sucks because those cucksockers don't even give their employees a discount, so I go to Ace - but I digress) and there are probably 20 employees there that work basically for insurance. So instead of doing this in semi-retirement, it makes more sense to sit on your ass and collect the gov't benefit. Yeah, it might make room for someone else in the work force but will that person pay over $10K in taxes to offset the fedgov subsidy? I don't think so. Just another piece of fuel on the fire that proves these idiots have no clue how the real world (the one outside gov't) works.

[driveby]

So it costs a fortune, and will disincentive to working. And for those of you that would argue this - my wife is a flooring specialist at Home Depot (which sucks because those cucksockers don't even give their employees a discount, so I go to Ace - but I digress) and there are probably 20 employees there that work basically for insurance. So instead of doing this in semi-retirement, it makes more sense to sit on your ass and collect the gov't benefit. Yeah, it might make room for someone else in the work force but will that person pay over $10K in taxes to offset the fedgov subsidy? I don't think so. Just another piece of fuel on the fire that proves these idiots have no clue how the real world (the one outside gov't) works.

Not to worry. You'll like it once you find out what's in it.

[driveby]

Union Drops Health Coverage for Workers’ Children

 

From related [bp] op-ed [/bp]

 

To sell Obamacare and manufacture support, desperate Democrats pandered to the college set and their parents. Former SEIU chief Andy Stern specifically touted the unfunded kiddie-insurance mandate as a strategic selling point, telling the Washington Post early this year that the lobbying and public-relations campaign would be “helped by which parts of the bill go into effect immediately.” “It’s hard to talk about things that’ll happen in 2019,” Stern admitted. “But if you can say to people that if your kid is 26 years old, you can keep him on your insurance plan? . . . They get that.”

 

Citing results in New Jersey, Wisconsin, and elsewhere, many critics pointed to how such top-down benefits mandates were driving up the cost of insurance and limiting access instead of expanding it. In response, top SEIU thug Dennis Rivera accused Obamacare opponents of “terrorist tactics” in a conference call earlier this spring with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

 

Now, confronted with the thorny allocation of scarce resources, profligate money managers at the SEIU are dropping thousands of kids’ health coverage because they, too, can’t afford to foot the bill imposed by the president — whom their union bosses spent more than $60 million to elect. And SEIU’s Rivera is nowhere to be found.

 

The SEIU also pumped tens of millions of dollars in union funds directly into the campaign for Obamacare. Workers regurgitated White House talking points, hyping increased access, lower premiums, and peace of mind for the working class. SEIU 1199 — which is now cutting off health-care coverage to children whose parents work in the health-care industry, of all industries — was at the forefront of those D.C.-directed “reform” rallies. The same militant leaders of SEIU 1199 sent hordes of their workers on buses to an anti–Tea Party rally convened by Comedy Central clowns in October, while their benefits and pension funds eroded.

 

[caddyman]

Union Drops Health Coverage for Workers’ Children

 

From related [bp] op-ed [/bp]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oops...union members turned into victims. Sounds like an INCONVENIENT TRUTH.

[bpwallace49]

Union Drops Health Coverage for Workers’ Children

 

From related [bp] op-ed [/bp]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michelle Malkin

 

[Perchoutofwater]

Michelle Malkin

 

 

I haven't read it, but where do you disagree with her on the issues she states? Or is it that you are just unwilling to listen to or read someone that you perceive to have views contrary to yours? I mean if you don't want to comment on something or don't feel that you can intelligently comment on something, why post anything? Attempting to discredit something based on who wrote it rather than what was actually written is sophomoric, and more worthy of bushwanker than you.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[caddyman]

I haven't read it, but where do you disagree with her on the issues she states? Or is it that you are just unwilling to listen to or read someone that you perceive to have views contrary to yours? I mean if you don't want to comment on something or don't feel that you can intelligently comment on something, why post anything? Attempting to discredit something based on who wrote it rather than what was actually written is sophomoric, and more worthy of bushwanker than you.

Common practice by this guy. Of course when he posts articles from Ezra Klein we are supposed to not consider the source. He acts like if you are a conservative blogger nothing you say is true. Pure hypocrite.

[bpwallace49]

I haven't read it, but where do you disagree with her on the issues she states? Or is it that you are just unwilling to listen to or read someone that you perceive to have views contrary to yours? I mean if you don't want to comment on something or don't feel that you can intelligently comment on something, why post anything? Attempting to discredit something based on who wrote it rather than what was actually written is sophomoric, and more worthy of bushwanker than you.

 

Perch . . . when you have someone post her book as . . . .

 

Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies (Regnery 2010). © 2010 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

 

How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously as a journalist? Maybe you have a very very limited memory, but IMO completely partisan op-eds are as useless as tits on a bull when it comes to intelligent conversation. Partisan op-eds from BOTH sides.

[bpwallace49]

Common practice by this guy. Of course when he posts articles from Ezra Klein we are supposed to not consider the source. He acts like if you are a conservative blogger nothing you say is true. Pure hypocrite.

 

Thanks for playing Zeke.

 

I have never posted anything as hyper partisan as Michelle Malkin, or on the other side, Keith Olbermann. Those people are fringe elements.

 

Now if you go by your definition of

 

Conservative= legitimate

anyone that disagrees with conservatives= not legitimate

 

Then you will never find anything but an echo chamber reflecting back to you what you want to hear. If you are OK with that, then good for you!

[Fatman]

Burgers in India?

 

Nope, but I have had the McAloo Tikki Burger in Mumbai. Pretty good actually.

[driveby]

Michelle Malkin

 

How convenient of you to ignore the non-Malkin article, which was the factual basis for her "op-ed".

 

You should let Ursa and to a lesser degree wanker do the heavy lifting around here and limit yourself to filling in for Randall when he's on haitus.

[bpwallace49]

How convenient of you to ignore the non-Malkin article, which was the factual basis for her "op-ed".

 

 

You mean where the Medicaid reimbursements were cut over the last two years before Obama care was implemented at all? Yep . . must be due to teh health care bill . . . wait a minute. That was BEFORE the bill was passed at all! But . . but . .but . . that doesnt support the "blame everything on Obama" campaign! How on earth can we bridge this gap?

 

The union said in a statement that the state required the fund to participate in a new program — the Family Health Plus Buy-In Program — beginning in 2008. The union said it expected that by joining the program, many of its members would qualify for state assistance for health-insurance coverage. “Instead they raised insurance rate increases without any increase in funding, and then cut Medicaid funding to the same workers nine times in the last three years,” the union said in a statement.

 

Michelle Malkin and her far right brigade can try to tie this in with as flimsy as a rope as they like, but it doesnt change the fact that their plans were being cut and shifted due to the [gasp] FREE MARKET [/gasp] long before Obama even took office.

 

I would think if this was such an evil leftist plot to take over all health care in a orgasmic socialist explosion that the evidence would be much more compelling than this . . . . is this really the best you can do?

[driveby]

One of the largest union-administered health-insurance funds in New York is dropping coverage for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants, union officials said. The union blamed financial problems it said were caused by the state’s health department and new national health-insurance requirements.

 

“In addition, new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26,” Behroozi wrote in a letter to members Oct. 22. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

 

Are these statements ambiguous in any way?

[bpwallace49]

Are these statements ambiguous in any way?

 

The union said in a statement that the state required the fund to participate in a new program — the Family Health Plus Buy-In Program — beginning in 2008. The union said it expected that by joining the program, many of its members would qualify for state assistance for health-insurance coverage. “Instead they raised insurance rate increases without any increase in funding, and then cut Medicaid funding to the same workers nine times in the last three years,” the union said in a statement.

 

I will repost this, cause you might have missed it.

 

The reductions started in 2008. and the medicaid funding was decreased over the last 3 years.

 

Again, if that is your slim reed to try and blame that evil Obama to why their health care got pulled, then have fun with Malkin. the FACTS are that this started long before the health care bill was put in place and was due to free market influences. That insurance plan was well on the way to insolvency (like most union cadillac plans) because of underfunding.

 

You really cant find a better smoking gun for how terrible this plan is? Really? I must have been giving you waaaaaaay too much credit. Apparently Michelle Malkin op-eds is the limit of your indignant self-rightousness . . . .

[caddyman]

Thanks for playing Zeke.

 

I have never posted anything as hyper partisan as Michelle Malkin, or on the other side, Keith Olbermann. Those people are fringe elements.

 

Now if you go by your definition of

 

Conservative= legitimate

anyone that disagrees with conservatives= not legitimate

 

Then you will never find anything but an echo chamber reflecting back to you what you want to hear. If you are OK with that, then good for you!

Not what I said, but nothing you post surprises me. You constantly get exposed for the phony you are. Since you are such an arrogant ass, it is actually very entertaining to watch.

[bpwallace49]

Not what I said, but nothing you post surprises me. You constantly get exposed for the phony you are. Since you are such an arrogant ass, it is actually very entertaining to watch.

 

[driveby]

I will repost this, cause you might have missed it.

 

The reductions started in 2008. and the medicaid funding was decreased over the last 3 years.

 

Again, if that is your slim reed to try and blame that evil Obama to why their health care got pulled, then have fun with Malkin. the FACTS are that this started long before the health care bill was put in place and was due to free market influences. That insurance plan was well on the way to insolvency (like most union cadillac plans) because of underfunding.

 

You really cant find a better smoking gun for how terrible this plan is? Really? I must have been giving you waaaaaaay too much credit. Apparently Michelle Malkin op-eds is the limit of your indignant self-rightousness . . . .

So what you're saying then is that without Obamacare the unions would be dropping coverage for kids anyway? Heartless basturds.