All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who would do a better job of running the USA?
11/21/2013 2:54 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Do you think your experience is typically of what most people are experiencing?
Most business owners I talk to are seeing a variety results. It has more to do with the type of plans offered. I have a PPO with a deductible. The cost went down (really it stayed the same, the savings is something like $6 dollars a month). If you have an HMO with no deductible, it's likely that the cost will go up. But that's been a reality of the insurance market for years and has nothing to do with the ACA.
11/21/2013 2:55 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 2:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 2:47:00 PM (view original):
What's better?

Full-time job, no healthcare
Part-time job, govt mandated healthcare
You're begging the question.

Someone with a full time job and no health care isn't "losing their coverage." Which is what we are talking about now.

 
I'm changing the subject.   Which one of those two options is better for a non-skilled worker?
Ahem.
11/21/2013 3:03 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Do you think your experience is typically of what most people are experiencing?
Most business owners I talk to are seeing a variety results. It has more to do with the type of plans offered. I have a PPO with a deductible. The cost went down (really it stayed the same, the savings is something like $6 dollars a month). If you have an HMO with no deductible, it's likely that the cost will go up. But that's been a reality of the insurance market for years and has nothing to do with the ACA.
Is it your contention that the ACA really has no impact to the costs of businesses that provide healthcare benefits to their employees?
11/21/2013 3:07 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Do you think your experience is typically of what most people are experiencing?
Most business owners I talk to are seeing a variety results. It has more to do with the type of plans offered. I have a PPO with a deductible. The cost went down (really it stayed the same, the savings is something like $6 dollars a month). If you have an HMO with no deductible, it's likely that the cost will go up. But that's been a reality of the insurance market for years and has nothing to do with the ACA.
Is it your contention that the ACA really has no impact to the costs of businesses that provide healthcare benefits to their employees?
Yes
11/21/2013 3:13 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 3:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Do you think your experience is typically of what most people are experiencing?
Most business owners I talk to are seeing a variety results. It has more to do with the type of plans offered. I have a PPO with a deductible. The cost went down (really it stayed the same, the savings is something like $6 dollars a month). If you have an HMO with no deductible, it's likely that the cost will go up. But that's been a reality of the insurance market for years and has nothing to do with the ACA.
Is it your contention that the ACA really has no impact to the costs of businesses that provide healthcare benefits to their employees?
Yes
Really?
11/21/2013 3:25 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 2:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 2:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/21/2013 2:47:00 PM (view original):
What's better?

Full-time job, no healthcare
Part-time job, govt mandated healthcare
You're begging the question.

Someone with a full time job and no health care isn't "losing their coverage." Which is what we are talking about now.

 
I'm changing the subject.   Which one of those two options is better for a non-skilled worker?
Ahem.
I'll answer.    The guy with the full-time job has a better chance at providing basic necessities for his family than the part-time worker forced to purchase insurance.

The ACA is actually ******* the exact people it's supposed to help.   However, less people will be unemployed because there is no sound business reason to give unskilled workers enough hours to force the offer of healthcare coverage.   So the Prez's unemployment numbers look nicer and he can tout that he helped get healthcare coverage for all despite lowering the quality of life for many.

Fortunately, the demographic that voted for him isn't really smart enough to know that he's ******* them.  It's just big business screwing labor again.
11/21/2013 3:30 PM
"So the Prez's unemployment numbers look nicer and he can tout that he helped get healthcare coverage for all despite lowering the quality of life for many."

That's Barry the Socialist in action.  "We've got to spread the wealth around, Joe".
11/21/2013 3:32 PM
Sure. I'd imagine there's a small element of premium increases that can be attributed directly to the ACA, but premiums in general have been going up for years. That isn't the fault of the ACA.
11/21/2013 3:36 PM
So any business that attempts to justify reducing or eliminating benefits, or imposing things like spousal surcharges, by "blaming" the ACA is lying?
11/21/2013 4:08 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 3:36:00 PM (view original):
So any business that attempts to justify reducing or eliminating benefits, or imposing things like spousal surcharges, by "blaming" the ACA is lying?
Businesses look to cut costs all the time. What does that have to do with the ACA?
11/21/2013 4:19 PM
I really don't feel like diggning back though this thread, but I'm fairly certain bl was arguing earlier that the ACA would drive down healthcare costs.  Now we're shifting to "Yes they're going up, but that's not the fault of the ACA."

We're also seeing preliminary polling that indicates the young, healthy people so vital to this system are more likely to pay the penalty than enroll for healthcare coverage.  If that bears out, we're adding a bunch of older, less healthy people to the system with no counterbalance.  What do we believe will happen to pricing then?  Will that also not be the fault of the ACA?
11/21/2013 4:21 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 11/21/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
I really don't feel like diggning back though this thread, but I'm fairly certain bl was arguing earlier that the ACA would drive down healthcare costs.  Now we're shifting to "Yes they're going up, but that's not the fault of the ACA."

We're also seeing preliminary polling that indicates the young, healthy people so vital to this system are more likely to pay the penalty than enroll for healthcare coverage.  If that bears out, we're adding a bunch of older, less healthy people to the system with no counterbalance.  What do we believe will happen to pricing then?  Will that also not be the fault of the ACA?
Long term health care costs and current year health care insurance premiums are not the same thing.
11/21/2013 4:50 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 3:36:00 PM (view original):
So any business that attempts to justify reducing or eliminating benefits, or imposing things like spousal surcharges, by "blaming" the ACA is lying?
Businesses look to cut costs all the time. What does that have to do with the ACA?
It's a yes/no question.

Are businesses who blame the ACA for reduced/eliminated benefits, or for the imposition of spousal surcharges, lying?
11/21/2013 5:06 PM
"Angels On The Moon"
( ...
song & lyrics by the band "Thriving Ivory"... )

Do you dream that the world will know your name?
So tell me your name
Do you care about all the little things
or anything at all?
I wanna' feel, all the chemicals inside
I wanna' feel
I wanna' sunburn, just to know that I'm alive
To know that I'm alive

Don't tell me if I'm dying
'Cause I don't wanna' know
If I can't see the sun, maybe I should go
Don't wake me 'cause I'm dreaming
Of angels on the moon
Where everyone you know
Never leaves too soon

Do you believe, in the day that you were born
Tell me do you believe?
Do you know, that every day's the first
Of the rest of your life?

Don't tell me if I'm dying
'Cause I don't wanna know
If I can't see the sun
Maybe I should go
Don't wake me 'cause I'm dreaming
Of angels on the moon
Where everyone you know
Never leaves too soon.

This is to one last day in the shadows
And to know a brother's love
This is to New York City angels
And the rivers of our blood
This is to all of us
To all of us

Don't tell me if I'm dying
'Cause I don't wanna' know
If I can't see the sun
Maybe I should go
Don't wake me 'cause I'm dreaming
Of angels on the moon
Where everyone you know
Never leaves too soon

You can tell me all your thoughts
About the stars that fill polluted skies
And show me where you run to
When no one's left to take your side
But don't tell me where the road ends
'Cause I just don't wanna' know
No I don't wanna' know

Don't tell me if I'm dying
Don't tell me if I'm dying
 
( ...a fitting anthem, for ALL of life... Can a physician heal himself ?...
So, why even trust the government to get in between U & your doctor?)

U guys are racking your brains, trying to figure-out something, that will
always be arbitrary & random, & will change again 2'morrow... YOU will
still be responsible (& in lien) for your Med bills, whether U qualify 4 any
any benefits, or tax breaks, or not... 1/6th of the entire economy sure will
effect the other 5/6ths of it, 4-sure... bad_luck doesn't understand it @ all.

11/21/2013 5:27 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 4:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/21/2013 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 11/21/2013 3:36:00 PM (view original):
So any business that attempts to justify reducing or eliminating benefits, or imposing things like spousal surcharges, by "blaming" the ACA is lying?
Businesses look to cut costs all the time. What does that have to do with the ACA?
It's a yes/no question.

Are businesses who blame the ACA for reduced/eliminated benefits, or for the imposition of spousal surcharges, lying?
I have no idea if they are lying. It's more complicated than a simple yes or no.
of 57
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who would do a better job of running the USA?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.