Coincidentally yesterday I heard a representative from the Kentucky Chamber giving an update as to the effects of the upcoming Obamacare. Let me first start by saying that I am not opposed to a universal health care system. I genuinely believe we should all be provided with the necessary care to combat illness, injury, and disease. If you are a blue collar, lower middle class family doing things the right way and going about your business, why should your child with a hampering condition be given any less care than a family that can afford it? I am not trying to stray away from the subject, just letting you know my position.

 

With that said, Lipton Bash brings up an excellent point that this was marketed as "a way to fix sky rocketing health costs." Remember, the actual name is the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. The representative yesterday was not some kind of political hack, she was just delivering the facts. In short - and this not a shock to anyone - you will be paying more. People can try and spin it say money is shifting here or there, etc. But it is a guarantee that you will be paying more. You best just accept it. It is law and been upheld by the Supreme Court. Get your popcorn ready. What is really meant by Affordable Health Care is that those who monetarily can according to your income will pay more, those who cannot monetarily afford will be given coverage so that we can all be on a level playing field. Idealistic, I know. Where they really get you is that there are a lot of built in attractive tax breaks; however, in order to qualify you must be part of the government system.

 

I think the idea of the law is noble. I do not believe it is some sort of scheme so that Obama or the government can control and watch our everyday lives, but it is really going to alter American industry and how companies and their business models will look. The under 30 hour employee will become more and more prevalent across all sectors. From that perspective I do not think the law was thought out well.

 

Milton Friedman said that programs need to be measured by their results and impact - not their intent.

 

The road to ..... is paved with good intentions.

 

I think that a major problem is that the popular alternative - the 'free market' mantra is not viable either. Government can have role playing regulator - as it has done for most 'natural monopolies' such as telephone service and utilities. Health care operates more as a monopoly or oligopoly and not a the Adam Smith free market model (yes, I said that!). Government can also be the 'insurer of last resort' - especially for high cost, long term care issues since these are really like long term disability that would be covered under social security. When 'insurance' covers standard care like check-ups, etc. its not really 'insurance'. Its something different. But no one wants to recognize that.

Haven't read it yet. Pretty sure that even if I had, I still wasn't drunk or high when I voted for Obama.

 

Obviously not. I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts though (and the thoughts of anyone else that voted for President Obama).

On the comment about how Obamacare was marketed, in my memory the #1 reason Obama pushed was health insurance for everyone. Cost control was another talking point but it wasn't the reason Obamacare was put in place.

The cost control element was the public option, which obviously got axed from the bill.

Milton Friedman said that programs need to be measured by their results and impact - not their intent.

 

The road to ..... is paved with good intentions.

 

I think that a major problem is that the popular alternative - the 'free market' mantra is not viable either. Government can have role playing regulator - as it has done for most 'natural monopolies' such as telephone service and utilities. Health care operates more as a monopoly or oligopoly and not a the Adam Smith free market model (yes, I said that!). Government can also be the 'insurer of last resort' - especially for high cost, long term care issues since these are really like long term disability that would be covered under social security. When 'insurance' covers standard care like check-ups, etc. its not really 'insurance'. Its something different. But no one wants to recognize that.

 

I get goose bumps when people quote Milton Friedman. You win

On the comment about how Obamacare was marketed, in my memory the #1 reason Obama pushed was health insurance for everyone. Cost control was another talking point but it wasn't the reason Obamacare was put in place.

 

What is the official name of Obamacare ? It was first and foremost marketed as making health care more affordable. He just left out the part where it would only be affordable for the poor and more expensive for those who already had health care.

The cost control element was the public option, which obviously got axed from the bill.

 

Do you mean universal? Lol because that would make it more affordable. There is no such thing as free health care. Its a myth for working people. Everything comes at a cost.

Good points. I was going to like your post but I couldn't out of principle of universal care. I will never stop believing health care is not a right. Like any other service you get what you can afford. I have the right to pursue life liberty and happiness. But the pursuit does not guarantee me equal results.

And I hear you. I just have hard time believing if my child is stricken with cancer of which the treatment I can't afford, it does not feel right that those with access to money can save their child. The counter argument can be, "well, work harder and make more money", but the system is not made so that every person is to be making six figures +. The problem is not within how I feel the system should operate, the problem is the abuses that will come of a result of it.

Coincidentally yesterday I heard a representative from the Kentucky Chamber giving an update as to the effects of the upcoming Obamacare. Let me first start by saying that I am not opposed to a universal health care system. I genuinely believe we should all be provided with the necessary care to combat illness, injury, and disease. If you are a blue collar, lower middle class family doing things the right way and going about your business, why should your child with a hampering condition be given any less care than a family that can afford it? I am not trying to stray away from the subject, just letting you know my position.

 

With that said, Lipton Bash brings up an excellent point that this was marketed as "a way to fix sky rocketing health costs." Remember, the actual name is the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. The representative yesterday was not some kind of political hack, she was just delivering the facts. In short - and this not a shock to anyone - you will be paying more. People can try and spin it say money is shifting here or there, etc. But it is a guarantee that you will be paying more. You best just accept it. It is law and been upheld by the Supreme Court. Get your popcorn ready. What is really meant by Affordable Health Care is that those who monetarily can according to your income will pay more, those who cannot monetarily afford will be given coverage so that we can all be on a level playing field. Idealistic, I know. Where they really get you is that there are a lot of built in attractive tax breaks; however, in order to qualify you must be part of the government system.

 

I think the idea of the law is noble. I do not believe it is some sort of scheme so that Obama or the government can control and watch our everyday lives, but it is really going to alter American industry and how companies and their business models will look. The under 30 hour employee will become more and more prevalent across all sectors. From that perspective I do not think the law was thought out well.

 

This is about as well put as it could be. :thumb:

What is the official name of Obamacare ? It was first and foremost marketed as making health care more affordable. He just left out the part where it would only be affordable for the poor and more expensive for those who already had health care.

 

As the saying in business goes - "Don't confuse sales with implementation."

Question -- and this may be a topic for its own thread: Frequently during the course of the discussion about Obamacare and its unintended consequences, the concept of employers reducing workers' hours below 32 so they don't have to offer them insurance, most recently by bugatti. While I don't disagree that this will happen as a result of businesses tightening their belts, but isn't this something that's been going on for a decade or more? I recall lots of news stories about this happening about 10 years ago, during the time of the big spike in insurance rates.

 

I'm not doubting that some businesses that operate close to the margins will be adversely affected. But I'm also betting a lot will use the "let no good crisis/tragedy go to waste" theory and take advantage of the uproar over Obamacare and use it as an excuse to trim payroll when they don't really need to.

Question -- and this may be a topic for its own thread: Frequently during the course of the discussion about Obamacare and its unintended consequences, the concept of employers reducing workers' hours below 32 so they don't have to offer them insurance, most recently by bugatti. While I don't disagree that this will happen as a result of businesses tightening their belts, but isn't this something that's been going on for a decade or more? I recall lots of news stories about this happening about 10 years ago, during the time of the big spike in insurance rates.

 

I'm not doubting that some businesses that operate close to the margins will be adversely affected. But I'm also betting a lot will use the "let no good crisis/tragedy go to waste" theory and take advantage of the uproar over Obamacare and use it as an excuse to trim payroll when they don't really need to.

 

I've said this numerous times on this board. I spent 17 years in the retail industry, and the entire time I spent in the industry, the number of full time workers continuously was decreased. As early as 2005, I ran an $8 million/year store, and of 50 employees (not including the management team) we only had 5 full time employees. And from 2006-2009, I ran a small retail chain that employed about 25 people over 2 locations, we were already being forced to pass more and more of the healthcare premiums onto employees because of skyrocketing costs. Obamacare, while it does have problems, has become a convenient scapegoat for many issues that have been going on for a very long time.

And I hear you. I just have hard time believing if my child is stricken with cancer of which the treatment I can't afford, it does not feel right that those with access to money can save their child. The counter argument can be, "well, work harder and make more money", but the system is not made so that every person is to be making six figures +. The problem is not within how I feel the system should operate, the problem is the abuses that will come of a result of it.

 

I don't like any system that guarantees the same results. The current system needed fixed no question . But there were plenty of market based solutions and government solution catastrophic insurance that would of helped a lot more.

 

Its sounds cruel but life isn't fair and you don't need to make six figures to have good insurance .

Question -- and this may be a topic for its own thread: Frequently during the course of the discussion about Obamacare and its unintended consequences, the concept of employers reducing workers' hours below 32 so they don't have to offer them insurance, most recently by bugatti. While I don't disagree that this will happen as a result of businesses tightening their belts, but isn't this something that's been going on for a decade or more? I recall lots of news stories about this happening about 10 years ago, during the time of the big spike in insurance rates.

 

I'm not doubting that some businesses that operate close to the margins will be adversely affected. But I'm also betting a lot will use the "let no good crisis/tragedy go to waste" theory and take advantage of the uproar over Obamacare and use it as an excuse to trim payroll when they don't really need to.

I'm sure this was happening . But there is little doubt obamacare increased the amount and accelerated the frequency .

I've said this numerous times on this board. I spent 17 years in the retail industry, and the entire time I spent in the industry, the number of full time workers continuously was decreased. As early as 2005, I ran an $8 million/year store, and of 50 employees (not including the management team) we only had 5 full time employees. And from 2006-2009, I ran a small retail chain that employed about 25 people over 2 locations, we were already being forced to pass more and more of the healthcare premiums onto employees because of skyrocketing costs. Obamacare, while it does have problems, has become a convenient scapegoat for many issues that have been going on for a very long time.

 

Baloney . No one is arguing companies haven't down sized in the past. But there is to much evidence showing a direct link between Obamacare and part time workers and layoffs. It is your fault if you choose to ignore the examples provided that's on you.