I'll probably regret chiming in here - but
you can't compare Medicare and Medicaid costs to employer sponsored premiums.

Hospitals and providers lose money on Medicare reimbursements - the costs are artificially low because they are subsidized by employers and insurers.

If you tried to apply Medicare reimbursements across the board, 90% of providers would be bankrupt by March.

There is huge debt and consolidation across the hospital industry for a reason.

anybody who bought that line, well ...

You realize that it's PRIVATE COMPANIES that are CHOOSING not to offer these plans anymore BASED ON THEIR CAPITALIST MOTIVES right?

Or are you saying you want the government in the business of compelling these private companies to lose money by offering these plans that they don't want to offer anymore??

This is the same thing that's been going on for years - the insurance company decides to discontinue a plan - sometimes because it's not profitable, sometimes because they can make more money by getting those customers to switch to a new plan and start a new round of raising rates on it, or for any of a number of other reasons.

It's not like this just started happening this year because of ACA.

More market interference from an unconscionable piece of garbage legislation.

There's not a pit in hell warm enough for any SOB who voted for it afaic.

I pay 300 a month for a good, not great plan. That is increasing 10% due to Obamacare. Although we now also have a high deductible option @200/month + hsa that I will be switching to.

It feel like we've had this debate here a lot and people have gotten really mad at me for making this point, but I still don't understand why people think government-implemented policy is supposed to just assume that everyone in America will act in policy's best interest at all times. Did nobody know that private companies and capitalism would exist after the ACA? Isn't that something that should have been accounted for when selling the policy to the public? Maybe ACA is still worthwhile even if a few people have to pay a little more, but in general, I think policy should be judged on how well it actually works, not how well it theoretically works if everyone acted in the way we wish they would. I mean, I could come up with some great plans to make inner-cities safer, as long as I can assume that nobody will commit crimes to screw up my great policy.

Medicare is a major problem...For every $1 that a person pays in, it will cost $3 per person in spending.

Well it is an important distinction in the context of Obama's "lie" about being able to keep your plan. And whether you consider it beforehand or not, it is important to draw that distinction so people know why the change is taking place.

And if the Republicans really managed to prevent the debt limit deal, any consequences wouldn't really be their fault, because it would be the credit agencies and the debt holders who would be directly responsible.

And it was really the Iraqi insurgents that dragged out the Iraq war, not the U.S. military. If the insurgents didn't shoot at the military and stuff, then the job would have been done a lot faster.

This mindset kind of fills me with pessimism, the idea that the ACA will be great, as long as everyone, including its opponents, cooperate with it fully and always act in the policy's best interest. I'm actually going to just decide to assume that the brains behind the ACA don't share that mindset and actually did think it was worthwhile to consider concepts like capitalism and private industry, and possibly even the impact of entities that might not act so friendly to the plan.

The behavior of the private companies in a capitalistic system should have been at least somewhat predictable. It comes across as more of a complete failure of the President and his advisors in creating the policy to take into account market reaction than anything else. I find it hard to believe that they thought that big bidness would just set aside its attempts to maximize profits to help make this thing work. But I find it even harder to believe that they accounted for it and just wanted to be branded as either incompetent or liars. The whole thing has me just....puzzled.

Based on the way you put it in quotes, it sounds like you don't really think it's a lie.

But insurance companies just can't take certain steps arbitrarily. There are numerous investigations going on by state insurance regulatory agencies into the practices of the insurance companies with regards to how they've been handling the switch in the individual plans.

edit: to clarify, even with the PPACA, the burden of monitoring insurance company behavior is a state level function, there is not much federal oversight.

If it helps, the implementation of the policy in 2014 seems to indicate that it may have been as the greater good to be seen as incompetent if they could just get the bill passed.

It however, fits if you assume that passing a bill (winning you re-election points) was the goal, not necessarily making it work. If Obama didn't get ANYTHING passed, he'd come off as weak & unable to get his agenda moved, making him vulnerable for re-election.

Don't get me wrong. I think they did predict it, and I think they (correctly) thought it was a good thing that these substandard plans would get cancelled. My point is that it's important for them to point out the difference between what the ACA is mandating to be done and what the insurance companies are deciding to do as a reaction to the ACA.

:+1:

Why substandard? My plan did what I wanted it to do. There's no evidence BCBS would simply fail to honor it. Nor is there evidence that it will fail to honor it next year under similar circumstances. I was also free to simply pay for the health care I consumed - no insurance at all.

Let's not pretend that Obamacare does anything for healthy self-employed people other than force us to pay more - some for services we should have the ability to opt out of, and some so that the same offer can be extended to older and/or sicker people. And complaining about that point seems kind of weird - it's like complaining that it's unfair for McDonald's to charge more for six Big Macs, five large orders of fries and a smoothie than it charges for a side salad and a coffee.

Those who are working for companies with more than 50 people and have insurance through these companies are largely insulated from this extra taxation - and let's not pretend, as well, that this isn't a form of taxation.

I realize there are a lot of proponents of Obamacare out there. It's hard to turn down something that's essentially free. It's also hard to feel negatively toward something that could benefit the poor when it doesn't impact you at all (those who already have insurance through an employer). But when the entire burden is placed on a smaller group, it's not too pleasant.

This was cleverly implemented for those of you who wanted it politically. Very few pieces of the law were brought in at first - so that only people with this "substandard" insurance were affected. Then in late 2013 - after Obama was safely re-elected, the bigger stuff hit. And, finally, after the midterms next year, at the start of 2015, the adjustments will hit and many of the grandfathered plans will be eliminated. I would not want to be a Democrat running in 2016.

Considering that the Supreme Court's argument - who is denying that it isn't taxation?

I expect a similar Gomer Pyle-esque "Aww shucks, who could have anticipated that?" response when, after 2015, companies start kicking employees to the exchanges without giving them raises to makeup for their employer paid portion of benefits.

I see it now: "How were we supposed to know that employers weren't going to give $20 an hour factory workers a $9K per year raise to cover their $700 a month portion. I mean, that's just unfair that these people go from paying $300 a month out of pocket to now facing a $900 a month bill for similar coverage through the exchanges. But, no one could see this coming..."

You are aware then that the company would be missing out on a big tax break. The per-employee fine for not providing insurance is not tax deductible, but any employer contributions to an insurance premium are deductible.

Insurance companies don't want to lose clients either, so they will have more of an incentive to work with larger employers to keep them as clients.

Stop deflecting knee jerk talking points with facts!! :mad:

You might be right, but these predictions don't carry a lot of weight because if they're wrong, capitalism was to blame, not the ACA.

Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Forbes

Companies sweating Obamacare tax—and acting on it: Study
Not all companies need all those tax breaks. Companies have been looking for a way to get out of the healthcare game for decades and these exchanges offer them cover to do so - esp when it's only a $2000 per worker a year fine to drop them. For most companies, that's about the cost of covering a worker for 2-3 months.

Employees (esp middle class) are going to be moving from their nice $300-$400 a month out-of-pocket plans they have now to exchanges that will cost around $800-$1200 a month for the same coverage. This is going to be devastating for many middle income families when it happens.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Most companies started offering health insurance, even though it cost them money to entice better employees. They may bluster about dropping employees to the exchanges, but they realize they'll have a competitive disadvantage to hiring workers.

And Employer Sponsored Plans have been losing their grandfathered status for 2 years now. This isn't something that just happened.

I don't think anyone knows any "facts" moving forward. A lot of the facts we were told at the start have been false. The reality is that providing insurance to employees was a necessary evil for most major companies as many companies had just been doing it and you needed to provide them to "keep up with the Jones'" and retain people.

However, esp on the lower skilled jobs, it would be very attractive to pull coverage as it would save companies a ton of money and if enough companies did this they would still have access to a strong labor pull. I think higher paid jobs will keep coverage for a bit, but even those could eventually lose it. Remember, it's not just the cost - it's the cost of insuring with a plan that the ACA deems sufficient. I don't think people really understand the "unforseen consequences" that could be down the road because of this.

But exchanges weren't an option 2 years ago. By providing companies an out to drop coverage, exchanges may end up costing a lot of people a lot of money. The key is if enough companies take the gamble on being able to find good workers without offering good insurance plans. I think that number is going to rise in 2014 and get even higher in 2015-16. Eventually, enough companies will decide to pay the fine and save the 7K+ per employee on providing good health coverage to make it not required to land good people.

One more key point often missed is that this is exactly what the ACA proponents want. The only way for this system to survive over time is if enough healthy people between the ages of 25 and 45 join up in these exchanges to defray the cost. If it's just people with pre-existing conditions, high risk applicants and lower income - the costs will be enormous. If the ACA proponents were honest, they would say that they hope all employee-provided coverage would go away to help lower the cost on the exchanges. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see legislation down the road to reduce the tax benefits companies get for covering employees.

And on the other hand, you are making up unforseen consequences.

I guess we will see what happens going up to 2015. We have a few years before anything substantial happens either way.

Uh, the elimination of the pre-existing condition problem, and the ability to cover your kids up to age 26 were pretty substantial for a lot of people.

Typical result in last night's election for a marginally Blue state. With a Democratic legislature and governor, the Dems crafted a very bad bill to fund education within an increase in income taxes. It wasn't so much how they proposed funding but the details of the bill were scary. Fortunately, the voters of the state overwhelmingly voted against it. In very blue Denver and Bounder counties, it was nearly split 50/50 (and trounced everywhere else). So most people saw through the Dems' charade of "it's for the kids". The Republicans are rightly seen as obstructionist do-nothings but it is much better to do nothing than to put a bad legislation into law.

What was bad about the bill Bucc?

//genuinely curious - don't follow local ballot initiatives that closely

This is what I found:

Colorado bill vows education overhaul, but will voters raise taxes to fund it? - CSMonitor.com




It does seem to be complex, but I don't see anything in it that is really all that objectionable.

How about you you do that FIRST, and see where the current tax dollars are going, before you try and get more out of people?

Funding equity to charter schools sounds objectionable to me. Especially in a state like CO - I can see wacky cultish charter schools and shit popping up. Or Pentacostalist or stuff.

Pentecostalism is a perfectly legitimate church, FWIW.

Also, charter schools are created by the state - no religious charter schools could exist, IIRC.

Isn't it pentecostalism where they do the whole "speaking in tongues" rapture thing? If so, I stand by my characterization.

There have definitely been problems in other states with charter schools veering towards religious education - not sure if CO law protects better on that.

Above and beyond that though - charter schools are sketchy to me. I think there are good ones with altruistic motives, and then there others which are ways for the heads to line their own pockets. I don't think they should be funded by my tax dollars unless they're held to the same accountability standards (education & transparency wise) as public schools (which I think should be held to a higher standard than they are in this regard too by the way).

Which millions and millions of adherents in the US and around the globe. Your ignorance is showing.


There is a reason why Democratic mayors like Cory Booker have been such avid supporters of charter schools. Its because they have revitalized education in inner cities when the public schools had been failing for so long.

I'm not ignorant. Far from it. Just because there are millions of adherents doesn't mean it's not on the fringe. You know there's millions of Moonies too right? Doesn't make them less weird. I know you've become pretty religious since your conversion, but it's okay to admit that there are "fringier" groups under your religious umbrella.


I'm not saying I'm against all charter schools. I said there are good ones and there are bad ones, but the lack of accountability and some of the higher-profile cases of charter schools skimping on educational funds while administrators line their own pockets worries me, and I want there to be more stringent oversight and accountability for my tax dollars (in both public and charter schools I said). OMG...I'm a Democrat arguing for more stringent oversight - yes I am.

270+ million worldwide. One of the fastest growing denominations in the world. 13 million in the US - second largest Protestant denomination in the country after Baptists. Like I said, it is speaking from ignorance if you consider a denomination that is so large and influential to be a "fringe" faith.

FTR, I don't consider speaking in tongues to be strange and I engage in the practice myself. It not exactly a surprising thing down in these red states (or even religious folk in your blue state).

I consider it strange. I didn't realize you were a Pentacostalist though and it would hit so close to home for you. I'm sorry if I offended you. Obviously we feel differently about it, let's just leave it at that and save the "religion talk" for one of the periodic "religion" threads that pops up.

The problem is that its the same old education solution in this country: Throw more and more money into it without any kind of plan or accountability. There's a reason private schools educate kids to a better level and to half the cost of public schools - it's because they have accountability. A parent isn't going to keep paying to send a kid to a crap private school.

Come up with a plan and explain why you need the money. Heck, come up with the plan, pass it and then try to get incremental funding as you work through the steps in it. A lot of the initial reforms most states need don't cost a dime.

WTF?! The main problem it seems with the bill is that the PLAN is complex.

I consider myself Charismatic. However, it isn't due to my status that I was taken aback, it was the suggestion that something is a fringe belief when it is so prevalent. One of the things that tends to bother me is that sometimes atheists or mainline Protestants (of which I am one) don't seem to realize that some of the stuff they call 'fringe' has more adherents or people believing it than some of the stuff they consider mainstream.

It's complex in how it is drawn, but there isn't a clear path to results. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it has a good plan. Increasing the spending per pupil isn't the solution. Break it up into multiple phases beginning with the last piece in the bill "establish more transparency and accountability for how education dollars are spent".

Maybe after you see how money is spent, the solution might not be to just bump up the spending - it could be to completely change the spending paradigm altogether.

It's like a business going to a bank and saying "Well, I'm not sure what product I will make, how I will make it or how much I will sell it for. But can I have a low interest loan for $1 million to see if I can do it?" I don't fault the Colorado voters at all for voting that down. It's the job of the bill to convince people as to why they need $1 billion - not to just demand and say we are all anti-education if we don't agree.

Care to back this spending claim up? I can't find any references to private schools spending half the per-student amount of public schools.

Here's some figures I saw (this report seems to be widely referenced):

http://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs...PvtFinance.pdf

This is a discussion for another thread, so I'll not address it here.

Arles: I'm sorry, you said:


There is a Plan. Now you are shifting goalposts and saying it isn't a "good plan". I'm not sure you know what the exact plan is.

From the CS Monitor article:

That seems like a good outline of a plan to me. I'm sure the pages and pages of the bill go into more detail about it.

I think by half he meant "nearly double." It's Arles-math again.

Its also worth looking above just raw 'spending' and looking at the quality of education provided etc. - I know some 'private' schools in Florida which don't have many particularly qualified teachers at all and I'm sure their spending is 'cheap' in comparison to the public schools ... but I wouldn't send my kids there.

(as with Healthcare I think education is something its vital to invest money into for the good of society as a whole, it shouldn't be driven by a 'profit motive' in my opinion - not least because the entire concept of 'money' and 'profit' is a human created illusion .... yeah I know I'm a socialist hippy ;) )

There was a great article in the Washington Post a few years back that debunked this number:


The Real Cost Of Public Schools - Washington Post

Here's another well-written breakdown of the real costs:

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or.../pdf/pa662.pdf

There was an actual study done here in Phoenix on this. They looked at three different districts (city, high and low income) and compared the actual costs for both public and private with the stated costs. Here's what they found:

Paradise Valley (City district): Actual Public - $12,312; Stated Public - $9,883; Actual Private - $6,770

Cave Creek (high income): Actual Public - $13,929; Stated Public - $9,024; Actual Private - $6,770

Deer Valley (City district): Actual Public - $9,365; Stated Public - $8,323; Actual Private - $6,770

So, on average, the cost to educate a child in the public school is about double what it costs for a private school. Also, Charter schools tend to be much better than public schools - I want to make that distinction clear as well.