SEC=UGA Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Well, I've been complaining about the costs that Obamacare has passed on to me over the past year and now it seems that this law may be costing others. And, it may be costing jobs as it is apparently taking (if my insurance costs are representative of those of other companies, about $280 per kid per month) +/- $3.36 billion out of the pockets of buinesses. According to the CDC, one million more adults in America now have health insurance thanks to the Affordable Care Act. During the first three months of this year, the number of young adults aged between 19 and 25 with health insurance rose by 3.5 percentage points, equivalent to about one million more people, data from NHIS (National Health Interview Survey) revealed. Most offspring can now stay on their parents' health insurance plans until they are 26 years of age, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. The HHS (Department of Health and Human Services) wrote on its web site today that no other age group had a gain in coverage - the department added that the Affordable Care Act made the difference. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, said: "As a mom, I know how scary it is to think about what could happen to your kids if they go without health care coverage, which is what makes today's news so important. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act hundreds of thousands more young people have the health care coverage they need." According to a recent Gallup survey, the rates of insured adults aged between 18 and 25 increased from 71% to 75.1% during the second quarter of this year. Sherry Glied, Ph.D., HHS assistant secretary for planning and evaluation, said: "Overall, these three national surveys show a consistent pattern of expanded health coverage among young adults due to the Affordable Care Act. The law helped many young adults get the health insurance they need, and it is continuing to expand insurance coverage to uninsured Americans all across the country." In an issue brief today, the HHS wrote: "While it is theoretically possible that the increase in insurance coverage for young adults in 2011 is due to some factor other than the Affordable Care Act, it is hard to identify a plausible alternative explanation for the increase in coverage among young adults. One possibility is that the recession did not affect young adults as much as other age groups, but in fact, the opposite occurred. Unemployment among 20-24 year-olds increased by 7.3 percentage points (from 8.2% to 15.5%) from 2006 to 2010, compared to a 4.8 percentage-point increase among 25-54 year-olds (from 3.8% to 8.6%).[6] Given the toll the recession has taken on employment among young adults, we would expect that insurance rates would, if anything, have decreased in this group compared to older adults. This observation bolsters the conclusion that the increase in coverage among young adults is a result of the Affordable Care Act." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 The sooner the link between employment and health care is broken, the better. It's a hugh drag for businesses as well as being a cost they have very little control over. You'd think they'd be screaming for a government run system or individual mandate. Why aren't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 And yet they still manage to hoard trillions of dollars while bitching about an increase in insurance coverage for young adults as if that's a bad thing. Screw them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-sept...-the-super-rich They are an endangered species. (i know my thread will get gunned as always so here is the link for you buddy who lives an hour away) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 You'd think they'd be screaming for a government run system or individual mandate. Why aren't they? maybe because they're not really fans of the business environment in cuba? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 maybe because they're not really fans of the business environment in cuba? So they don't like the government options and they don't like the cost of having the responsibility themselves. What do they like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 So they don't like the government options and they don't like the cost of having the responsibility themselves. What do they like? businesses directly involved in health care will of course prefer the cronyist option, where their profits are protected by the government against competition and risk. business in general I would say is probably pretty ambivalent on the question except to the extent it directly impacts their labor costs. in any case, why is it you speak as if full socialism and govenerment-directed employer mandates are the only two options? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Why should the government FORCE me to cover my employees children? Further, if I remember correctly, the age of majority in this country is 18. So, why should I be forced to cover my employees adult offspring? Maybe we should raise the voting age to 26, also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Maybe we should raise the voting age to 26, also. that is the next republican plan in the hopper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 maybe because they're not really fans of the business environment in cuba? And yet they manage to be pretty big fans of the corrupt, communist, polluting Chinese. Go figure. Can you spray Pam for 1/4 of a second too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 And yet they manage to be pretty big fans of the corrupt, communist, polluting Chinese. Go figure. Can you spray Pam for 1/4 of a second too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 businesses directly involved in health care will of course prefer the cronyist option, where their profits are protected by the government against competition and risk. business in general I would say is probably pretty ambivalent on the question except to the extent it directly impacts their labor costs. in any case, why is it you speak as if full socialism and govenerment-directed employer mandates are the only two options? I wasn't referring to health care businesses or health care insurance companies. Of course they prefer the current system since it's a self-serving racket. My question is about regular companies of any kind other than health care e.g. IBM, GE, Xerox, Ford, the local building supply company, etc, etc. Why don't they get all up in arms to get rid of this monstrous administrative and expense overhead that consistently outpaces inflation and probably profit too? Second, assuming businesses no longer were involved in health care at all, it seems to me the serious options remaining for health care would be single payer funded through direct taxation (Have to agree here socialism!!) or private individual insurance purchase, whether funded by increased wages (from employers no longer encumbered by health care costs) or via government voucher / tax credit for those without the increased wages. What else is there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Why should the government FORCE me to cover my employees children? Further, if I remember correctly, the age of majority in this country is 18. So, why should I be forced to cover my employees adult offspring? Maybe we should raise the voting age to 26, also. So we are on the same side - neither of us think your company should be involved in employee health care in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Right. So the healthiest segment the population starts paying for more coverage they are less likely to use and rates go up? Az has cronyism nailed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 We had the same requirement for the "young adults" being added to our group. While the employee bears a small portion of that burden, the business picks up the rest. Result? Our group is larger and healthier. Both were pointed out as to why our health insurance is only going up 1% versus the 10% + it has in the past. If it keeps the renewals that low, that more than mitigates the individual cost of the add-ons. SEC, maybe you are doing it wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I wasn't referring to health care businesses or health care insurance companies. Of course they prefer the current system since it's a self-serving racket. My question is about regular companies of any kind other than health care e.g. IBM, GE, Xerox, Ford, the local building supply company, etc, etc. Why don't they get all up in arms to get rid of this monstrous administrative and expense overhead that consistently outpaces inflation and probably profit too? Because that would be an admission that government can serve legitimate purposes beyond the promotion of commerce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Right. So the healthiest segment the population starts paying for more coverage they are less likely to use and rates go up? Az has cronyism nailed. no, that's the "cost containment" part of obamacare, the massive wealth transfer from the relatively young, single and healthy to the old and sick and those who spit out a bunch of kids. the part that makes rates go up is the part that says you can wait until you get sick then walk in and buy "insurance" at the going rate for a healthy person (minus a relatively paltry "fine" if you don't carry insurance, of course). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 no, that's the "cost containment" part of obamacare, the massive wealth transfer from the relatively young, single and healthy to the old and sick and those who spit out a bunch of kids. the part that makes rates go up is the part that says you can wait until you get sick then walk in and buy "insurance" at the going rate for a healthy person (minus a relatively paltry "fine" if you don't carry insurance, of course). So we have two real life examples are your talking points. : I'm curiuos as to what bp and sec are each leaving out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 We had the same requirement for the "young adults" being added to our group. While the employee bears a small portion of that burden, the business picks up the rest. Result? Our group is larger and healthier. Both were pointed out as to why our health insurance is only going up 1% versus the 10% + it has in the past. If it keeps the renewals that low, that more than mitigates the individual cost of the add-ons. SEC, maybe you are doing it wrong? how many people in the group before and after? that difference, plus the 1% premium increase, is how much your costs have actually gone up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 We had the same requirement for the "young adults" being added to our group. While the employee bears a small portion of that burden, the business picks up the rest. Result? Our group is larger and healthier. Both were pointed out as to why our health insurance is only going up 1% versus the 10% + it has in the past. If it keeps the renewals that low, that more than mitigates the individual cost of the add-ons. SEC, maybe you are doing it wrong? Holy christ... Say my insurance in year 1 is 10K. That 10K is to cover 10 employees and their families. The burden for the employee and his/ner spouse is 800, the kid adds 200 to that. Well, in year 2 little johnny, susie, omar and monique turned 23 and were out of school, my insurance premiums should have dropped by 800. Making my new Insurance cost 9,200. But, due to Obamacare little johnny, susie, omar and monique were not dropped and thus impacted my bottom line to the tune of 800. Not only that, but now they can stay on until they are 26. So, it's 800 this year, 800 next year, 800 the next year and 800 the next year. Grand total, this law has cost me $3,200. What I am saying has NOTHING to do with any increase by my insuarnce company and has EVERYTHING to do with a law that requires me to keep people on my insurance who should have dropped off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Holy christ... Say my insurance in year 1 is 10K. That 10K is to cover 10 employees and their families. The burden for the employee and his/ner spouse is 800, the kid adds 200 to that. Well, in year 2 little johnny, susie, omar and monique turned 23 and were out of school, my insurance premiums should have dropped by 800. Making my new Insurance cost 9,200. But, due to Obamacare little johnny, susie, omar and monique were not dropped and thus impacted my bottom line to the tune of 800. Not only that, but now they can stay on until they are 26. So, it's 800 this year, 800 next year, 800 the next year and 800 the next year. Grand total, this law has cost me $3,200. What I am saying has NOTHING to do with any increase by my insuarnce company and has EVERYTHING to do with a law that requires me to keep people on my insurance who should have dropped off. One more time, in case you missed it. Do you agree that employment / employers should have nothing whatsoever to do with their employees health care? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) It isn't just in the cost of coverage. When Obama signed that law over 40 construction projects that I know of were cancelled. 40 projects times 100 workmen is 4000 people that would have been employed that are not. Actually that is just the number of people working on site, and doesn't include those that would be manufacturing the materials, supplying the materials, or staffing the contractors offices. Ursa, I agree that the employer link to insurance should be cut. Do you happen to remember why employers first started offering health insurance? Edited September 22, 2011 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 It isn't just in the cost of coverage. When Obama signed that law over 40 construction projects that I know of were cancelled. 40 projects times 100 workmen is 4000 people that would have been employed that are not. Actually that is just the number of people working on site, and doesn't include those that would be manufacturing the materials, supplying the materials, or staffing the contractors offices. Well you can't argue with facts. Obamacare was responsible for our unemployment rate. You people are nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 It isn't just in the cost of coverage. When Obama signed that law over 40 construction projects that I know of were cancelled. 40 projects times 100 workmen is 4000 people that would have been employed that are not. Actually that is just the number of people working on site, and doesn't include those that would be manufacturing the materials, supplying the materials, or staffing the contractors offices. Ursa, I agree that the employer link to insurance should be cut. Do you happen to remember why employers first started offering health insurance? Yes, of course, wage control. We are long past that so let's get rid of the ridiculous notion that employment and health care belong together. There isn't a single argument in it's favor that I can think of from any POV. Once we decide to do that, then we can figure out what to put in it's place. Whatever, it always amazes me that companies bleat about the costs but don't seem to throw their collective weight behind an effort to eliminate it from their list of responsibilities altogether. Maybe they think it would be a PR issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 . Do you happen to remember why employers first started offering health insurance? Because there wasn't government option... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.