A lot of people (like myself here in AZ where the servers crashed) just want to see what the options are. But, it's not going to be that much different from what a normal person could get from a broker:

When Obamacare Exchanges Launch, Premiums Will Be Low, Deductibles High - Forbes

If you want a higher deductible plan now ($1500 to $5000 as in many of the exchanges), you can find one for fairly cheap from a broker. Now, the ACA will probably be slightly cheaper because it's subsidized. But, as many have said here, we will be picking up the bill down the road as citizens. The main improvements for the ACA is in allowing those with pre-existing conditions to apply and giving massive subsidies to small businesses and lower income people. Of course, both of those could have been done independently and without threatening employer coverage.

I thought competition drives costs down and is better for the consumer? I bees confused by the philosophy.

/sarcasm because I know its really about not having America become Russia and hating Obama.

There's already a ton of competition for health care. I could call a broker right now and get quotes from 5-6 private health care options here in Arizona. The exchanges aren't bringing in new competition, they are basically doing akin of what China is doing to US businesses. They are heavily subsidized to allow a much cheaper price to certain consumers (esp below a certain income level) and cheaper expenses.

Obamacare to the health industry is essentially the business equivalent of a combo of China and Walmart. It is highly subsidized by the government and can strong arm all suppliers into specific costs (for hospitals) and deductible/premium level (insurers). It's about as anti-capitalism as you can get. All that said, it will probably be effective as long as we (as taxpayers) keep pumping money into it.

Uhhh, if we spend way more per capita than other OECD countries it isn't a lower cost to the consumer.

You don't want to count the money spent on health insurance by the employer, but you have to for this argument. Where we differ is that you see most government health spending as wrong and I don't care whether health spending is public or private. I don't care if I and my employer spend 5K or if the government and I spend 5K. If my taxes go up, but my private insurance costs go down it's all a wash.

I really don't think that's an assertion you can support with data.

NOTE: I added the bolding to Arles' post.

You think people with fulltime jobs and employer provided coverage would prefer to increase their tax burden by 10-20% to get universal coverage? That seems ridiculous. You are basically saying they would rather pay 4-5K more per year (at the low end) to get, at best, the same coverage they have now.

So according to all the POL arguments Ive heard for the past 8 years is that get the govt' out and prices go down because the free market and competition is best for the consumer and either drives prices down or quality up. That is complete BS when it comes to the past 40 years of health care in this country and can only be asserted when bastardized by arguments hiding in sheep's clothing. The fact is that some people hate Government on a scale of 1-10 and as that goes up, the will to see facts that dont fit the narrative go down equally.

Now, I think having companies absorb a big percentage of health care cost so employees don't have to foot the bill in terms of higher premiums or higher taxes is a fine solution at this point.

What everyone is failing to realize is that if all companies put employees in "exchanges" tomorrow and stopped offering coverage - those benefits would be lost to the employees. It's not like the employers are going to give everyone $400-$700 a month raises because their don't have to cover them. They will pocket that savings and the burden will fall back on the employee. If you think that benefit will be somehow realized by an employee if health coverage stops, you are not being realistic. What would happen is a massive outcry by the public for more government subsidies to reduce their now double premium rate.

Now, if it happens at a much slower rate over time, small groups of employees will just simply get screwed and have to pay higher premiums.

I agree with this, but that doesn't mean we don't count the money spent on healthcare. What I think would happen is that over time salaries would increase to make up that difference when companies begin to compete for employees in a near full employment market, but, yes, initially the money wouldn't all go to the employee.

Of course I think absent the ACA more and more companies are going to stop offering good healthcare. The single best thing we could do for business is get them completely out of healthcare.

I think if you opened up competition across states it would help a bit, but I do think health care is a little different because it's viewed by many as a "right" - not a service. If we had the opinion that everyone should have an affordable option to have catastrophic coverage (ie, $5K deductible) and then our current employer or private provided insurance would be supplemental and knock down the deductible to as low as $250 if people choose to pay the premium - it would be a much different system.

But, as I said earlier, most people feel they have the right to cheap doc visits, prescriptions and specialists. With that in mind, it's a very difficult system to keep costs down given that expectation.

Then you need to completely change the system and a lot of people's expectations (esp those with families and over 50) would need to change on what acceptable levels of prescriptions, coverage and deductibles are for what they currently pay.

Right now, a family of 4 with the husband working at Intel gets a great $250 deductible plan with 90% coinsurance and a monthly family copay of $350. For what you want to have happen, that family would probably have to pay close to $1000 a month to get that same policy without employer subsidies.

If the employer was no longer paying that expense of coverage, though, they would have to entice that worker with higher salary. It's not like salaries would stay static in a U.S. that suddenly had universal care.

Take a look at your last Total Compensation Memo (if your company does one). Add your max out-of-pocket to the amount of premium you pay to the amount of premium your employer pays (and thus pays you less in salary). What does that add up to?

For me, it adds up to about the same tax hike you mention,and for that I'd get a system (if we're talking about good single-payer systems) with no co-pays, no deductibles, no surprise costs, cheap drugs, and no worry that I'll lose coverage for my family if I lose my job.

Sign me up!

Hahaha, good one. :(

There are quite a few areas of politics like this. Not that I agree with it, but you could substitute "government shutdown" for abortion and pro-life would be analogous (the phrase "you can't just have a little abortion" comes to mind)

SI

Again, you're ignoring the money from their compensation that goes to healthcare. They may not realize it, but the 350 isn't all they are paying.

Why? if all employers stopped providing health care, why would some have to offer higher salaries? No one would be doing it (esp for middle wage jobs in the 30-60K range) - what would be the point in raising salaries?

I think what would happen is bigger companies that could afford to keep offering these plans would start paying people less. They would simply say "yeah, you could take that 50K offer at the small company over there - but then you have to go on the exchange and that will cost you $400 more a month. So, why not take our 45K offer and have good health care at a cheaper rate."

As the studies show, no one really understands how much employers pay for premiums. So, once the information came out and some companies dropped it, people with families would gladly take a 5% paycut to go to a company that offered it.

If you remove employer-provided health care coverage, the companies do better, the uninsured do better and the out of work do better. Everyone with a fulltime job and employer coverage would do much worse. That's the tradeoff and I'm fairly surprised that people are OK with that. I would rather have a plan that keeps employed people in the middle class where they are, cover a percentage of the uninsured (prob not all, but a lot) and maybe raise state taxes for everyone 1-2% over this ACA poop platter.

True, but easily overstated: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Char...e-Surgery.aspx


Not so much:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publ...or-Update.aspx
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/health.aspx

I think your great health care policy is blinding you to the reality of what it's like for people who do not have one. Do you know what the cost of a doctor's visit is? An ER trip for a kid that split his chin? Do you know how much a minor necessary surgery costs?

People aren't crying in their beer because they don't get cheap doctor visits. People are crying in their beer because they can't possibly afford the combination of premiums, deductible, coinsurance costs and uncovered costs on the cheap high deductible plans. A family like mine would be paying between 700 and 1,200 for a 5K or greater deductible plan, plus a $1,000 deductible for prescriptions. We are a healthy family but just my son's asthma medicine would eat up that deductible every year. In the last five years we've had a vasectomy to pay for, a thyroid surgery, tonsil removals, two ER visits and tons of pediatrician visits for physicals or sick kids. So we're talking about $11K in for sure costs, plus at the least several thousand in expenses. If I hit that deductible I still have a 30% copay.

People who don't have insurance plans aren't being whiny bitches, necessarily. They just don't have $15,000 to spend on health care.

No, if healthcare was offered by the government already, then I'm not going to pick this 45K job with a health plan over this 55K job without one. Arle's super health plan will no longer be that interesting to him, and employees will look at other companies with better salaries. If his health plan is still better, then it's still worth money.

Is part of this problem essentially that a lot of companies really /haven't/ shopped around on insurance pools or that there are such a limited number in state that there's very little competition going on right now for those big company businesses? Basically, the American Airlines, Apples, and Caterpillars of the US only have a couple of places large enough to handle their business so there's the same price fixing oligopolies going on with health insurance as in the rest of business?

Ultimately, isn't part of the idea of this change and the exchanges is to "increase competition" for individuals so they take more care in deciding which insurance to buy?


SI

I'm floored that people think if health care was removed from companies that people would end up recouping that benefit in a higher salary. That is simply never going to happen - especially for people making in the 30-80K range. Maybe it would for the 90K+ crew with very valuable skills. But, there will always be a guy who was making 30K who would be thrilled to take someone's 35K job without insurance. The middle is where people will get screwed by this - as is often the case.

Honestly, I'd have to call bullshit on that statement. That's the not-so-secret desire for the majority IMO, something for free or next to it.

The question then becomes roughly a) what is the right to have it; and more interestingly perhaps b) what happens to those costs if they had to compete in the real world w/out so much artificial incentive to jack the prices up.

How much is the health care cabal willing to gouge if the current market simply doesn't exist?

But I don't understand why you don't have a better plan? If it's pre-existing conditions, I sympathize and think that should be dealt with in some public subsidized way. If that's not the case, there are better options for most people than what you describe. I don't know you situation, but I know for a fact that I could get a family plan for $700 a month out here through United Healthcare as an individual that gives me a $500 deductible. I looked when I was considering doing some consulting.

As an addendum, I just went to Individual Health Insurance Quotes | UnitedHealthcare and put in for a quote for myself, wife and two sons. I got a ton of $1K deductible plans ranging from $300 to $630 based on the level of coinsurance and out-of-pocket maxes you want. I also know that you can do even better than the site if you use a broker or are a small business owner. And this is independent of the ACA.

Your argument here is that companies have been providing health insurance to employees out of the goodness of their heart. That if they eliminated health insurance coverage, no employee would complain or request more money. That's just not how the labor market works. You're acting like there is no competition for labor.

Just be careful not to overstate how much competition there is in the majority of fields. The vast majority of "players" are simply replacement value at this point anyway.

No, they do it as a competitive necessity - much like a 401K. But they know that the specific coverage plan isn't key to most employee's decisions to accept a job. Heck, most don't even learn about a company's plan until after they accept and go through orientation.

If most employers dropped coverage, there would no longer be that need for that competitive necessity as most people would be in the same boat. And, again, the few that did still offer it would have a huge competitive advantage to the point they could offer much lower salaries. In the end, the employees would not make out any better. Most salaries would stay the same as they are now and people would just be paying more out of pocket for premiums offered through these exchanges.

Then they would all be making minimum wage. If you are paying more than that, it is due to competition.

So, by your argument, small businesses that offer no health insurance right now pay a much higher wage than larger businesses having similar positions with benefits - correct?

Your points contradict each other. On one hand you say they do it because of competition, then say it doesn't matter and employees don't care. If employees didn't care and didn't factor it into their salary, companies wouldn't provide it. Companies are not in the business of giving out benefits out of the goodness of their heart.

I'm sure some do and I'm sure some don't. What does small vs big business have to do with anything? There are a lot of other variables at play.

My argument is that benefits given to employees are valued by the employees otherwise the company wouldn't be providing it. Companies don't give away money for free.

No, they do it because people expect it from all fulltime positions. If most didn't have it, then people wouldn't expect it and the ones that did could underbid the ones that didn't. But when everyone has it - it's almost the same as no one having it. How many jobs have you seen offer their health insurance plans to you before accepting? There may be some that do it for higher salary positions, but I've never seen one.

Again, people are arguing in circles here. I see three camps:

1. Health care should be de-linked and taxes/premiums will go up for most people but that's for the better good. More people will have better access to coverage and that's worth the pain for the middle class
2. Health care should be de-linked and employers will now pay their employees more money to compensate. More people will have better access to coverage and there really won't be much pain for the middle class.
3. Health care should stay linked to employment for now because the cost to the individual is much lower than any alternative for their level of plan. It's not a great system for the uninsured, part time or self-employed, but any change should focus only on those three areas.

I am in option 3 and most of the people arguing seem to be in option 2 - but I just don't see that as a feasible alternative and think 1 is more likely.

Companies don't work together to keep salaries down. They are competing for labor. If they all received a $5000 reprieve per employee, companies would use that $5000 to out-price their competition. It's how our economy works.

Same for any product on the marketplace. If the cost of goods was cut in half for all soda makers, they all wouldn't maintain the same price because the public isn't aware. They'd be cutting prices trying to beat out their competition.

I think you are overly generalizing point 2. I think with a more comprehensive health plan, a lot of middle class will have less pain due to having less out of pocket expenses for health care. As people have pointed out, Middle Class folks have employer health care - but in a lot of cases its crap coverage, leading to a lot of out of pocket expenses.

I do think that fact does make it evident that other countries have better coverage than the US does.

Not sure earnings entirely relates to the point I was making. Maybe it's clearer if I had said "replacement value within fields".

I think other countries have consistent care across the population while many people here have access to better or similar care for less out of pocket (when you factor premiums, taxes and coinsurance) and others have worse access. If I had confidence that a plan could be implemented that didn't negatively impact those with the better/cheaper plan - I would certainly consider it a more viable option. My fear, though, is that to have a similar system as other countries - a lot of people will be paying more in taxes than they did with employer based coverage for potentially worse care.

Instead of bringing everyone to a median line that hurts many and helps others, I'd rather focus on getting better options to those with poor ones and leave those with good plans alone. Maybe that isn't feasible, I don't know. But I'd rather try than risk having a significant number of people with good plans moved over to more expensive for less benefit/higher deductible "exchanges".

Because you live in a different place than me? This is exactly my issue -- you're assuming your experience is that of the rest of the world. There are only two health companies that offer high deductible plans in Maine, basically. They cost $800 or $1,200 alternately for a 5K deductible, and differ in coverage obviously. If I wanted a regular HMO, I would have to pay between $2,600 and $6,400 a month.

There does not exist a plan like you describe in my state, nor in many, many other states. That's the problem.

So basically your solution is (for lack of a better phrase) "More Government". Ie, expand Medicare to those who are poor, but under the poverty level, those who have pre-ex and can't get coverage due to it, those who have massive deductibles for any insurance whatsoever?

How wouldn't that increase taxes? Hell, how could you get any increased coverage for the poor and needy without increased taxes or throwing everyone on exchanges with individual subsidies?

Basically, you are advocating for a unicorn. You want your good coverage, but want the poor to be covered more, but don't want your taxes raised. Welcome to utopia.

Btw, I disagree with your view of different country health care - lot of people paying more for substantially better health care (single payer tends to allow for people to be no to little out of pocket costs - and you can get a private plan on top of it for non-essential stuff - which isn't covered in most US private plans).

Maybe we should leave this issue to the states? *ducks*

As long as it's not to my state, that's fine, lol.

Why stop there. Counties deserve a voice too.

But screw municipalities, they don't need to be heard.

You know, the one thing I do look forward to with Obamacare is the % of people who pass their annual checkup with flying colors that are still on welfare. And during that annual checkup, as a free service, we should provide those folks with ID cards so they can vote. And if you are illegal, you have to leave the country. And if you are unemployed, you have to take the job the hard-working illegal immigrant just gave up. Sounds like a win-win for everybody.

If I make $100,000/year as the husband (or wife) in a family of four and file jointly, I'm in the 25% tax bracket in the United States.

If I make the equivalent of $100,000/year as the husband (or wife) in a family of four and file jointly (or however it's done), I'm in the 40% tax bracket in the United Kingdom.

(NOTE: This is back of the napkin math, not real math. So, tally-ho, nitpickers!)

So, a $15K difference.

But, in the U.S. I will also pay, on average, a premium contribution on my employer-sponsored plan of $4,565/year. (2013 Summary of Findings | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation)

I will also pay, on average, out of pocket expenses of $3,301/year (http://www.bankrate.com/finance/insu...e-cost-1.aspx).

So, of that $15K difference, almost $8K is money I'm paying anyway.

Now, does the $7K delta represent the discount in my salary my employer pays me because of this? If they were to dump my coverage, would they pay me that extra? Hard to say.

I agree with Jon that it's probably more likely something like this would happen higher up on the spectrum with people who have in-demand and/or unique skills or are otherwise in demand. And while people on the lower end of the spectrum might not benefit from this wage jump, they're more likely to benefit from either the ACA premium subsidy for exchange plans which goes up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, ( which is $88,200 for our hypothetical family of four) or qualify for Medicaid, of course.

Well, mind - the UK has more benefits than just NHS for the extra taxes ;). Very cheap tuition for university is well worth increased taxes in itself.

So you're saying I would have zero out of pocket with a national plan? And remember, that $3K out of pocket is often pretax for people with medical savings accounts - as are their premiums. So, you aren't paying taxes on that 8K difference. So, in terms of lost money, it's closer to 6K (it would be 8K before taxes anyway). But we are splitting hairs a bit so I will use your numbers. The point remains that person is now paying $7K more for virtually no person gain for their family. That's losing almost $600 a month for the privilege of providing better health care to other people. That's kind of a tough sell, isn't it? I don't think a lot of people have that kind of money to just throw around for the greater good.


This is a key question. My guess is the high end positions would get some kind of concessions for the loss of coverage while the middle class would just eat most of it as a loss as they are deemed fairly replaceable. We have guys in our factory with the same health plan that Execs have access to and they make between 30 and 50K. I'm fairly sure that we wouldn't bump their salary 7-9K to make up that lost benefit if we dropped coverage. That's between a 18-25% raise for those guys.

The subsidy scales though. So, if you are two parents making 35K each, you are not saving much from the ACA. Certainly not enough to makeup for the increase premium cost and you will probably end up with a higher deductible (unless you want to pay over triple your old premiums).

Again, not to sound like a broken record, but no matter how you slice it - separating employers from health care will result in a pretty massive crapburger for most of the middle class workforce. Maybe that's worth it over time, but let's atleast be honest that it would happen.

I'm pretty sure what I would pay in 18 years of a VAT tax would more than cover the instate tuition here in Arizona for my son. There are a lot of taxes in the UK (up to 12% payroll tax, 40-45% income tax, VAT) to where they are not getting quite the deal people think. Hey, it works for them but we don't even know if their plan would scale to the US given our population, expectations of the public and other issues like illegal immigration (no way to ever cover them).

To assume that we could get cheap tuition for college, full health coverage and the other benefits for the UK without raising our tax burden into the 60% range after it's said it done is - as you say - advocating for a unicorn.

And in more washington based insanity news, apparently a man set himself on fire on the national mall and danced around.

I don't see that at all. I went to Anthem (Blue Cross) and chose Maine:
https://www.anthem.com/health-insurance/home/overview

There's a healthchoice plus $2K deductible plan that costs $830 a month. In network, you have a 20% co-insurance with no lifetime max. It's not a great plan, but it's not $1200 for a 5K deductible. Given Maine costs about 15-20% more to live in than Phoenix, that seems close to on par - but certainly a little higher.

This is another example of where if we can open up health options across state lines a lot of people could benefit that way as well.

You do realize that the 25% taxes in the example doesn't cover state income taxes, right? The UK doesn't have state taxes of that nature. And I already pay 7% in sales tax as it is (in a red state). FWIW, the cheap tuition also covers grad school.

In addition, in the UK, the 40% applies if you make over $65,000. Below that its 20%. Above $300,000 its 45%. They have much wider bands than the US does.

And, you know, cheap tuition, full health coverage, along with infrastructure and education benefits (now paid by the state) would probably be quite a deal for 60% (where in the US right now taxes to feds, states, sales is 45-50% all included for most people).

From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxatio..._United_States
(that's all inclusive federal and state)

The average US federal taxation rate is under 20%. No way it would need to get to 60%.

edit: According to The Economist in 2012 a British citizen with income of 100,000$ would pay a total effective tax of under 35%.

Damn, Arles, when did you take over your local Occupy chapter? So far you've made the following arguments:

Corporations don't care about their workers and will cut salary and benefits whenever possible.

Corporate profits only benefit the rich.

Increasing corporate profits won't benefit the average worker.

Reducing regulation/paperwork for corporations won't benefit the average worker.

What the country really needs is a massive expansion of Medicaid guaranteeing access to all those that currently can't afford insurance.


At some point you jumped way to the left of me.

I'll take them one by one below

I think they want to make money and do what it takes to land retain the best combination of salary value and ability in their position. No more, no less. They aren't out to provide charity but they aren't out to screw people either. If there is a way to save money and still keep their workers with good morale, they will investigate.

I've never said that and am not sure where you get that from.

This is somewhat akin to 1. I think some could, but by and large corp profits help the job security and maybe some form of minimal raise for average workers - but not much more. Just like I don't think companies want to screw their workers - I don't see much workers getting a ton from corporate profits. If they did, there wouldn't be nearly the number of small businesses out there as exist today.

They have an HR dept for a reason. No sure this helps or hurts the average worker. Laying off 1-2 HR guys because you don't have benefits won't really impact most workers - that is unless they are that HR guy. ;)

A lot of this already exists. If you don't make much and have kids, you probably qualify for some form of state subsidized care right now. What I am saying is look at additional subsidized care if gaping holes (ie, pre-existing conditions) aren't currently handled. An "ACA lite" that dealt with pre-existing conditions and workers making under 35K wouldn't be a terrible idea - provided there were income caps preventing companies from using this as a shield to drop coverage on the rank and file middle class.

No, I just try to think each issue out objectively without jumping to the "Republicans are bad" - "no, democrats are bad" sheep mentality. I may agree with some liberal ideas and other conservative ones. I don't think there's a rule against that? Well, unless you plan to run for one of the parties - which thankfully I do not ;)

Apparently China employs 2m people to monitor the internet ... perhaps this is the master-plan against unemployment for the US ... have the NSA hired everyone? ;)

BBC News - China employs two million microblog monitors state media say

OK, I need you to stop arguing two separate arguments at the same time. Again, I was replying to your quote: "I think other countries have consistent care across the population while many people here have access to better or similar care for less out of pocket (when you factor premiums, taxes and coinsurance)". I'm not making an assertion (which you suggest I am making in your reply) that we should simply make people pay $15K more and drop them all to the exchanges.

That's called shifting the goalposts, and while I don't think you meant to do it intentionally, I'd like you to stop it.

Otherwise, on the subject of what citizens in single-payer countries get vs. what we get here, and how much the cost of it impacts the average citizen, Imran & JPhillips have covered it.



Again, not to also sound like a broken record, but health care for most of the middle class in this country is already a crapburger (which is a great term, btw). As I documented in multiple links: premiums keep going up, benefits keep getting leaner, and employers (especially small-to-mid size) have been shedding plans steadily for the past decade (way before ACA).

I went to the link and checked, and you're describing the individual plan. The family version of that plan has a $931 monthly premium, with 30% coinsurance and a $4K deductible. For coverage to start in 2013 (because Autumn was talking about his current situation, not 2014, I believe).

In addition, if you read the brochure, holy shit that's a benefit-lean plan.

Honestly, if I made $100K/year and you bumped my federal income tax from 25% to 30% (an extra $400/month or so), and told me for that I'd get a health plan that:

*every provider nationwide was in network
*all drugs were free or very cheap
*basically 0 out of pocket costs
*no FSA/HSA paperwork (opportunity costs, people - how much time do you lose fighting with your private bureaucracy?)
*no loss of coverage due to a technicality
*no pre-existing condition bullshit ever
*no worrying about what my kids will do after 26
*outcomes would still be, on average, as good as they are now, if not better

I might take that plan.

Ok, it's not my intention to shift the arguments - I just occasionally ask a random question that comes to me ;)

I think the big disconnect here is that many in this thread feel that middle class health coverage is pretty dire. While I think most middle class workers have access to solid plans ($500 deductible with solid coinsurance at a fair out if pocket in the $200 to $500 a month range). And any change of this scope will be a fairly big premium increase for these people, IMO.

But, the ACA has been passed and eventually the opponents will stop peeing in the wind and it will be funded and live. Then, we will see how it plays out. My hope is that by 2015 some teeth have been put into the dropping of coverage (at least more than 800-2K).

Fair enough.

And, to be fair, I'm mainly be snitty because I deliberately posted the "mission accomplished" gif to annoy both Mike D and EagleFan (not Eaglesfan27) and neither of them rose to the bait. :(

I think the mission was accomplished because we both worked in crapburger and snitty into our posts :D

:highfive: :D

Sorry, been busy at work and have not read thru the somewhat heated but informative thread discussion on Obamacare. This is not to reply to any specific post but to state my thoughts for the record.

Obama was re-elected and his healthcare reform was clearly one of the key achievements (or failure depending on your perspective) for his first term. He was running on this platform and he won. It has withheld numerous assaults on it and the Supreme Court confirmed its legitimacy. I do not believe all GOP are really this stubborn, its a smaller radical subset that is grandstanding and playing politics.

I support this bill because I want to see significant change and I want the poor, those without jobs, the elderly before medicare eligibility etc. get some and/or affordable coverage. My problem is (1) healthcare costs and delivery is broken (2) I do not know if Obamacare is the best answer but it will change the current dynamics of provider-payer-medical products and patient. The healthcare issues I am concerned with will not change by capitalism alone so I support Obamacare and am willing to see how it plays out.

(I do believe many who do not have jobs or some healthcare have made bad decisions in their lives. However, there are many with children, underskilled, lost jobs due to the Great Recession etc. that should have access to affordable healthcare beyond the emergency room)

I hate the lack of transparency. What other service do you buy that you do not know the cost upfront when buying it. There is no easy way to compare costs at a hospital (yes the $10 aspirin is a real, I saw it on my after-the-fact bill when we had our first child).

I do not like how some Drs are against this. My theory is that when you peel back their arguments, they are against it because its a financial situation with them. There are tons of Drs outside of the US willing to come here to work for less. The foreign top tier may not be as good as the US top tier but they are good enough in the 80-20 rule.

Ultimately, I think Obamacare will evolve to become like SS, Medicare, Medicaid. It will be bloated, it will be inefficient but it will help a significant number of people who would not have healthcare otherwise. I'm willing to pay more taxes for this.

You missed out the tax-free allowance at the bottom end - currently a little over £9,000 (or about $15k). (In other words, if a person makes less than £9,000 per year, they don't pay any income tax at all.)

In my case, I get paid a little over £2,000 gross per month, and have take-home pay of about £1,550 - the deductions (of around 25%) include my contribution to the pension/retirement benefits scheme as well as income tax and National Insurance.

Exactly, I'm talking about a family of four, which is what I am. If I want the sort of $500 deductible Arles is talking about I would be paying at least $3,000 a month. Which I point out simply to address the fact that based on where Arles is, he thinks $600 for a plan like that is reasonable, and where I live such a plan would appear to be a Nigerian scam. I don't have any numbers to suggest whether most people are in his situation or mine, but I do know that the Affordable Care Act is meant to address people in my situation. So it's not surprising everything seems hunky dory to him. If they had his plans in my state I'd probably think that too. I suppose the question is, how many states are like mine?

The key to getting my premiums down is to get more than two providers into my state. Under the previous system that was never going to happen. By adding a mandate and other requirements of the ACA the hope is that there will be a big enough and diverse enough pool in Maine to attract more companies. Hopefully that will work. In the meantime the subsidy means that I can afford health insurance for my family that was going to prove very difficult to afford for me prior to that.

Obamacare is free, there is no need for additional taxes.

Hope none of our guys were hurt.

U.S. forces raid terror targets in Libya, Somalia - CNN.com

Sweet! After coming back from watching Captain Phillips to seeing this...damn, just awesome.

How was the movie?

If the markets go down on Monday, we'll know whom to blame, as Boehner is demanding concessions from Obama to raise the debt limit,something that Obama has said repeatedly no way, no how)

John Boehner Claims He Doesn't Have Votes For Clean Continuing Resolution Bill

(then again, it's all Kabuki Theater isn't it? Boehner has already said privately that he'd rather raise the debt limit with Demvotes then default... honestly it's time for the House to vote on the Senate CR bill.. let's see the "moderates" in the GOP have the spine to back up their words in public on it)

((why do I "Moderates"? When Steve King, the man who said you can tell who illegal immigrants are by their cantelope-sized calves from carrying illegal drugs over the border, is considered a moderate, you are the extremist party))

Maybe this is simply a rhetorical question but ... how "privately" was that really said since, well, you & I both know about it?

And by the rules of the House, he's almost certainly safe as Speaker even if he does it so the lack of privacy or secrecy about it makes sense to me.

(Personally I'd prefer to tie a concrete block around both his ankles & drop him in a toxic waste pond if he did it that way... and I'm not even one that has the debt ceiling in their top ten list of issues, but I get just how safely he could do it)

By that same logic, "America" also elected, in the same election, a Republican majority in the House to combat or to counter-balance a Democrat in the Executive Branch.

I thought it was really well done. Even though we all know the story. To put it in perspective, the movie theater was filled with your typical group of loud-mouths and talkers when the movie started...fast forward to the ending credits (which were silent)....and you could hear a pin-drop even as people were filling out. It was a pretty intense portrayal.

I wouldn't mind tying in cuts to a debt limit increase, but only if those cuts were to the military or defense budget.

So in short, America, you idiots, this is what you get?

Is there a statistic on how many of the GOP that won election won based on primarily opposing Obamacare?

But then even using that logic, a current majority of the House prefers a clean CR without any Obamacare conditions.

A(nother) game of chicken.

T-11.

Anyone in the financial industry with investment advice on how to play this?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1

Probably the same number that voted for Obama primarily for ACA.

There never can be a "serious conversation" about spending cuts because that's the opposite of increasing the federal budgets and budget deficits. The only solution is to pay lip service to it.

Okay, good to know.

We have your country hostage. If you don't negotiate with us, we will blow it up.

I don't get how Boehner has the audacity to place the ball in anyone else's court, but his own. I have to admit, I generally follow politics pretty close. Many times the rhetoric gets brutal, and in this case it's gone nuclear. It's going to get really ugly here I think.

I know that Wall Street really thinks that someone is bluffing, and that something is going to get done, and personally, I think it's going to come down to the last minute again before something gets resolved. In the end it's going to be just another few month deal, just so they can repeat this process all over again. I still think the Reps are going to pay for this as it ramps up.

The problem with all this today is that people generally only listen to "their" side's arguments. They never consider that their side is wrong and that their side is unquestioningly right. That makes situations where the whole ACA v. Obamacare confusion comes from. The media have fucked so many ignorant people up that people can't even think for themselves anymore.

Look I love my kids, but if they fuck up and it's their blame, then they need to own up to it. They need to accept reality. We don't have that in our time anymore. Even a biker who brake checks someone can have his lawyer blatantly lie about what was happening to save his own ass.

Here we have a group of people who just can't accept reality, and desperately want to create their own.

I did check about 7-8 sites listing the top issues of the 2012 presidential election and healthcare was not in the top 3-4 in all most of them. The top issues were economy (jobs), foreign policy (Iran, etc.), deficit, social security, medicare and healthcare.

I will still argue that ACA did not play a big role in why Obama was re-elected, despite what some have spinned it.

PilotMan, so the answer is to keep repeating this process without any solution?

Then by your logic above, the re-elected GOP did not win primarily due to their opposition to Obamacare. But yet we are here in this situation where they have made it their central argument.

I don't recall it being much of an issue at all - but then I'm in an uncontested blue state.

So I guess if the GOP wins in 2016, the Democrats can refuse to pass a budget unless the GOP quadruples welfare. If they say no, then the Dems can reduce their demand to doubling it and claim the GOP isn't compromising.

Admittedly it was likely more due to Romney losing than Obama winning.

Regardless, Healthcare reform was a central win in his first term and it became law. This is sour grapes and political grandstanding.

I agree, that's why I said earlier this was the wrong fight. The fight should be about federal budgets and deficits but they do not want to do any about those.

No the answer is that the process is the process. Unless you feel like breaking up the USA into 50 parts, or going the other route and anointing a dictator it is what it is.

The problem is that accepting the reality that what we have as far as laws and rules. Each side has to remember they are important and that the role they play is for the greater good. Your way might not be my way, but I'm here to help make this country work the best it can, and If I make you look good, I take pride that I did my best and we all succeed.

Instead we have a system where the new reality of progress is to go back and try as hard as you can to change the past. It's like the House is trying to be a new Butterfly Effect movie. Disney said "keep moving forward," sure stuff might not work or may need tweaked or changed, but unless we can do that we are destined to keep doing this: :banghead:

Isn't the answer to go back to the Regan/Tip O'Neil days where backroom bargains can be crafted? I think we only started getting really dysfunctional in the 90's and 00's.

Nice fact checking there Fox News:

Fox News' Anna Kooiman Falls For Parody About Obama Funding Muslim Museum

I didn't say healthcare was why Obama was reelected, I said that there was an election after the ACA was passed and if there was enough anger to repeal the law he would have lost.

One side has said openly and repeatedly that they won't compromise. Until that changes no combination of personalities will change things. Remember Obama has already agreed to over 2 trillion in spending cuts and was willing to do chained CPI and some Medicare changes, but Boehner and the GOP keep saying no because to get that they'd have to give up something.

Tip O'Neil = Boehner. Boehner has lost his "grip" on this party unfortunately.

I don't know if you can really make that argument. Depth of emotion (whether its anger or joy) doesn't really play into elections that are based on districts.

It's kinda like (looks for analogy) the multi-tiered answer approval polls that Rasmussen does. The most recent one had approval/disapproval at 48/51. But strongly approve was 27 while strongly disapprove was 40. It's the basic number that matters at the ballot box, not the more nuanced one (turnout not withstanding).

Plus you've got some percentage of people who were like me & sat out 2012 because they didn't believe Romney would have been a meaningful improvement anyway.

But surely thats the way the cookie crumbles with the democratic system setup the way it is - the idea is that everyone plays by those rules and gets on with things in a constructive manner ....

(no political system is perfect - if the US had proportional representation then I'd give it 5 minutes before people in sparsely populated states started complaining that they had little influence on national politics and that the system was biased towards 'city folk')

The current situation with obstructionist politics doesn't help anyone and is potentially incredibly destructive.

Any real conversation should start with cutting the military. While a 20% cut would pretty much solve the deficit thing, the economic devastation of destroying our nations largest social welfare program would be too much to bear.

So we just spin our wheels electing people who make cuts that just nip at the edge seem the most important and urgent thing ever.

Is someone not playing by the rules that exist? And nope, I'm not picking on you here Marc nor am I being facetious or even rhetorical, I'm posing what I think is a pretty legitimate question.

The rules -- the actual ones -- are what they are. They aren't what we'd like 'em to be (no matter who you talk to it seems) but they are what they are.

And the ability to bring things to a relative standstill is product of those rules. There are processes available to change the rules, rather frequent elections to change the actors, no shortage of means for the governed to communicate their desires to the governing. It's not an immutable construct.

Military spending is about 4 1/2% of GDP, so a fifth of that would amount to a little under 1% of GDP.

Obama's deficits have run about 8-9% of GDP on average.

I guess I'm not seeing this as a social welfare versus military argument. We need to cut spending from many buckets.