Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with the objective, but simply letting employers off the hook is nothing but a cut in wages to millions of Americans. I prefer the German system where employers pay 1/2 and employees pay 1/2 of the cost of insurance. I would get HR out of the picture and have everyone buy on the exchanges because, as you said, competition for enrollees would put cost control pressure on the entire health care industry.
What? Why is it their responsibility to do ANYTHING but give their employees a paycheck?
What? Why is it their responsibility to do ANYTHING but give their employees a paycheck?
It isn't.
Because they are already doing for 85% of employees. Simply ending that, would be a massive wage cut - benefits are wages. It would be a multi-billion dollar shift of burden on to working people that would spike profits at the expense of workers. Alternatively, the money spent on health insurance for employees could go into paychecks directly.
Because they are already doing for 85% of employees. Simply ending that, would be a massive wage cut - benefits are wages. It would be a multi-billion dollar shift of burden on to working people that would spike profits at the expense of workers. Alternatively, the money spent on health insurance for employees could go into paychecks directly.
It's the employer's responsibility to pay you what you agree to when you agree to work for them. Nothing more, nothing less.
Your argument is nothing other than utterly absurd.
If an employer stops paying some benefit that isn't a contractual obligation, it isn't ANYONE's business except his own and those who work for him. And if they're willing to stay, then they agree to it.
It's JUST THAT SIMPLE.
You have no right, moral authority, nor any other reasoning to interfere.
Universally available and affordable health care is good and even a requirement to be considered a modern, prosperous nation. But is ACA the way to do it?
...I think that many are going to find that the cost of even insurance is beyond their ability to pay without significant blows to their quality of life.
Exactly so. Obama, Illinois Dems, and the ACA throw Chicago voters under the bus:
Quote:
To promote the Oct. 1 debut of the exchanges, the online marketplaces where consumers can shop and buy insurance, Obama administration and Illinois officials touted the lower-than-expected monthly premiums that would make insurance more affordable for millions of Americans. But a Tribune analysis shows that 21 of the 22 lowest-priced plans offered on the Illinois health insurance exchange for Cook County have annual deductibles of more than $4,000 for an individual and $8,000 for family coverage.
Those deductibles, which represent the out-of-pocket money consumers must spend on health care before most insurance benefits kick in, are higher than what many consumers expected or may be able to stomach, benefit experts said.
And those are annual deductibles. The $4,000/individual $8,000/family out-of-pocket payment requirement before insurance actually kicks in resets at the beginning of each year.
Universally available and affordable health care is good and even a requirement to be considered a modern, prosperous nation. But is ACA the way to do it? Poor people, as always, will get handouts and help that will make it possible for them to have the very best of care at the expense of mid to upper middle class taxpayers who do not have employer-paid coverage. I think that many are going to find that the cost of even insurance is beyond their ability to pay without significant blows to their quality of life.
Did I read that right? Are you acknowledging that Obamacare is a failed attempt to fix a glaring problem?
If so, then I wholeheartedly agree with you. What tends to get lost in the Obamacare debate is that "affordability" is relative. Just because the government deems a plan "affordable" does not mean that the individual or family seeking insurance can actually afford to make the payment.
Democrats ****ed up bad with this legislation. The only way they're able to save face is by demagogueing naysayers as being "against providing healthcare to everyone."
Which is yet another reason to despise Democrats, liberals, and liberal ideology.
Because they are already doing for 85% of employees. Simply ending that, would be a massive wage cut - benefits are wages. It would be a multi-billion dollar shift of burden on to working people that would spike profits at the expense of workers. Alternatively, the money spent on health insurance for employees could go into paychecks directly.
No, benefits are part of the total compensation package. The employee serves at the privilege of the employer. Benefits are not wages. Benefits are not guaranteed.
You may consider it semantics. I consider it failed liberal ideology and part and parcel of the "you didn't build it" mentality that you share with Barack Obama.
Did I read that right? Are you acknowledging that Obamacare is a failed attempt to fix a glaring problem?
If so, then I wholeheartedly agree with you. What tends to get lost in the Obamacare debate is that "affordability" is relative. Just because the government deems a plan "affordable" does not mean that the individual or family seeking insurance can actually afford to make the payment.
Democrats ****ed up bad with this legislation. The only way they're able to save face is by demagogueing naysayers as being "against providing healthcare to everyone."
Which is yet another reason to despise Democrats, liberals, and liberal ideology.
This is the issue that I had with Obamacare form the beginning -- WHO actually determines the definition of "affordable"? What I find affordable my neighbor might find completely unrealistic. Is $200 a month affordable for a family who has infants and are spending $350 a month on diapers and formula?
And are these plans "affordable" because they have sky-high deductibles and out-of-pocket limits?
As the saying goes, I can easily "afford" a Bugatti Veyron...........provided Bugatti is willing to finance me for the next 170 years.
It is blindly false to argue one aspect of obamacare as justification for the entire obamacare legislation when any provision in obamacare that is desirable can be repoackaged into legislation that does no0t turn the country and economy upside down.
ACA/Obamacare supporter always bring up catastrophic illness as a valid point, but the problem with US health care insurance it "insured" preventive cares. Is your car insurance company paying for your oil change? Your change tire, etc? How about your home owner insurance paying for replacing your broking light bulb?
If Obama want to fix health care, all it has to do is put the ACA to cover catastrophic only. This way, no one will get bankrupt for being ill.
Yes, you will have to pay out of your own pocket for physical, your cold visit, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
