Except that California, which has been on the forefront of implementing it, has found it to be less expensive and more effective than projected. My beef with it is that it doesn’t go far enough.
You’re half-right, Vent. You’re blaming businesses for doing the above actions, but you’re blaming the symptom, not the root cause.Symptom: Higher Premiums. This is caused by the fact that the government requires insurance companies to have appropriate reserves to balance claim payments vs. premium dollars. Actuaries do nothing but stare at balance sheets all day long and determine if what they are charging is going to be enough to pay out claims, with a small (usually 1-3%) profit margin. With the changes (both regulatory and coverage) the PPACA is forcing on insurance companies, they have no other option but to raise premiums. That, or the business goes bankrupt, hurting more people than any premium increase could.Symptom: Lost Jobs. That’s because companies cannot afford to pay for the healthcare as mandated by the government. These plans are exceptionally expensive, and employers can’t afford them. In addition, the PPACA has some ridiculously stupid regulations in it that affect businesses everywhere. Remember the debacle that was the 1099 filing nonsense? Corporate American spends billions of dollars a year just in compliance today. Businesses now are trying to stay open, and they are having to cut people and automate processes, because employees are now turning into a liability instead of an asset.Symptom: Hours Cut. This is because the PPACA set a 50-FTE limit on the threshold. So this does one of two things. Businesses at 49 FTE’s don’t hire any more full-time employees, and those at 50+ cut the hours of (employees-49)FTE’s and then make the workforce part time. Here’s something to consider. A business that has 50 employees is a small-to-medium sized business. Dependent upon the industry in which they operate, they may not have a very large profit margin, especially in franchised fast-food. A franchisee around here owns 8 subways, with like… 58 FTE’s total. Something like that. And the PPACA wraps them all together, instead of per-store. The profits of the business are around 120k, before the owner gets paid. Even if he were to pay the penalty instead of paying for health insurance, he’s still looking at paying $2k per employee, or $116,000 a year. So how is he supposed to live off of $4k a year? This kind of thing is happening all across the country.So don’t blame it on the businesses. They are simply reacting to what the government has done.
If any of this blather is true…and I haven’t read the entire act, but I’ve read a lot about it…, thus, blather, the gummint needs a new department….the Department to Investigate Unintended Consequences…which will vet every law before it is passed, closing loopholes and end runs, and providing unending employment for lawyers.
Dycel, As to your first piece, I want proof that that’s where the 52.7% went. Because I’m pretty certain that administration costs include a lot more than CEO Pay/bonuses and lobbying. I’d like evidence to back up your argument.Also, my statement is not rhetoric; I know the owner of those subways. I know how the franchise system works. Corporate Papa John’s, you may be correct. But the individual franchisees are going to feel the pressure from the PPACA. And I can promise you that all the franchisees employ a massive amount more than the corporate office(s). It’s not about saving a buck. It’s about staying in business. If you want to suppress the economy, the PPACA is a great tool to do it. And the so-called “Public Option,” will do the same thing, only in a different way. Instead of placing the burden on businesses, it will place the burden on taxpayers. And I’m sorry, but there’s not enough money coming out of “the rich” to pay for everyone to be insured. “The poor” are going to have to chip in, too.
Looks like your hyperlinks aren’t playing nice. Make sure you don’t forget your Tag. I feel your pain.As to the papa johns analogy, you’re still missing the point. Sure, they can raise the cost of (insert product here) by 9 cents (which I still challenge if that is correct). But who does that ultimately impact? You’re right, it’s a direct pass-through. But who pays that bill? The consumer does. That’s why raising taxes on any segment of Corporate America is a fool’s errand: The company will just pass the costs directly on to the consumer. But that pass-through only works for big business. Small businesses don’t work that way. If that 50-employee limit wasn’t there, just imagine a 5-man show trying to afford paying an extra 10k a year in direct, underlying expenses per employee. He would price himself out of the market, and he would be forced to close his doors. It’s a travesty, because people don’t think things fully through. Just like idiot Pelosi said what she said (Pass to know, blah blah), the people writing these bills don’t even think about what the consequences are going to be. There are provisions in the PPACA that make it such that family members can’t be excluded from the FTE rolls, even though most small businesses operate with a great deal of family help. Or something similar.I don’t claim to have all the answers, though I do frequently provide suggestions. But I do know that the PPACA is wrong in so many ways. It’s bad for Businesses and bad for Americans. Sure, it provides coverage (not to be confused with care) for millions of people. But at what cost to others? What government gives to one person is taken from another. And that is something most liberals seem to ignore.
Was it was ok for all the unions and 1,000 plus major companies to get waivers right out of the gate from President Obama?
How do you know they weren’t the intent of the the program? Are you in their heads? President Obama has openly stated he wants single payer. What better way to to get there quickly than to put out a steaming pile of legislation like this. Your “Who coulda foresaw that” award should be the “moron” award. Yea, who would’ve thought that businesses would try to maximize their profits and do what they needed to do to keep their jobs and stay in business?
“We already have rationing with our present care. The govt subsidy will allow more people to get treatment. Not less”You’re making a pretty huge assumption that doctors will be available for all these millions of new patients. Millions more will be able to afford/get coverage. But the amount of doctors will remain static. In addition, the number of doctors who will treat PPACA-insurance-holding people will either remain static or shrink. That means you will be paying for insurance which you cannot use. You will be waiting months to see the doctor instead of weeks. And then the worst part is you will have the IPAB who will be deciding what gets covered. The difference between IPAB and a private carrier is twofold. One, the private carrier answers to the state insurance commissioner, and if you feel they are operating in bad faith you can pursue that with the state (much more local and nimble). Secondly, you can change insurance companies if you don’t like your current one (assuming you’re in the individual market).Those two options don’t exist with the IPAB. The first option is completely absent, because the IPAB answers to no-one, and the second option means you’re stuck with them because you can’t afford anything else. The PPACA is going to give people a false sense of security for medical coverage, and will not serve to expand care. The tragedy here is that all of these negative aspects of the PPACA could have been avoided had Congressional Democrats listened to us, scrapped the bill, and started with something else. Congressional Democrats sought to expand coverage, and to build more dependency, not to make care more affordable. The price tag on the PPACA is a clear indicator of this, now up to 1.6 trillion. So much for debt neutral.
cdward almost 11 years ago
Except that California, which has been on the forefront of implementing it, has found it to be less expensive and more effective than projected. My beef with it is that it doesn’t go far enough.
SpicyNacho Premium Member almost 11 years ago
He will just blame Republicans or Bush or somebody other than the Dems that pushed this through without looking at all the unintendended consequences.
david.reichert almost 11 years ago
The Democrats started to work for the people with FDR, after the Republicans laid down the liberal mantle of Teddy Roosevelt.
Pity we don’t have any more Roosevelts.
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
You’re half-right, Vent. You’re blaming businesses for doing the above actions, but you’re blaming the symptom, not the root cause.Symptom: Higher Premiums. This is caused by the fact that the government requires insurance companies to have appropriate reserves to balance claim payments vs. premium dollars. Actuaries do nothing but stare at balance sheets all day long and determine if what they are charging is going to be enough to pay out claims, with a small (usually 1-3%) profit margin. With the changes (both regulatory and coverage) the PPACA is forcing on insurance companies, they have no other option but to raise premiums. That, or the business goes bankrupt, hurting more people than any premium increase could.Symptom: Lost Jobs. That’s because companies cannot afford to pay for the healthcare as mandated by the government. These plans are exceptionally expensive, and employers can’t afford them. In addition, the PPACA has some ridiculously stupid regulations in it that affect businesses everywhere. Remember the debacle that was the 1099 filing nonsense? Corporate American spends billions of dollars a year just in compliance today. Businesses now are trying to stay open, and they are having to cut people and automate processes, because employees are now turning into a liability instead of an asset.Symptom: Hours Cut. This is because the PPACA set a 50-FTE limit on the threshold. So this does one of two things. Businesses at 49 FTE’s don’t hire any more full-time employees, and those at 50+ cut the hours of (employees-49)FTE’s and then make the workforce part time. Here’s something to consider. A business that has 50 employees is a small-to-medium sized business. Dependent upon the industry in which they operate, they may not have a very large profit margin, especially in franchised fast-food. A franchisee around here owns 8 subways, with like… 58 FTE’s total. Something like that. And the PPACA wraps them all together, instead of per-store. The profits of the business are around 120k, before the owner gets paid. Even if he were to pay the penalty instead of paying for health insurance, he’s still looking at paying $2k per employee, or $116,000 a year. So how is he supposed to live off of $4k a year? This kind of thing is happening all across the country.So don’t blame it on the businesses. They are simply reacting to what the government has done.
magicwalnut Premium Member almost 11 years ago
If any of this blather is true…and I haven’t read the entire act, but I’ve read a lot about it…, thus, blather, the gummint needs a new department….the Department to Investigate Unintended Consequences…which will vet every law before it is passed, closing loopholes and end runs, and providing unending employment for lawyers.
echoraven almost 11 years ago
That link was real credible. Almost as credible as the National Enquirer or “The Onion”.
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
Dycel, As to your first piece, I want proof that that’s where the 52.7% went. Because I’m pretty certain that administration costs include a lot more than CEO Pay/bonuses and lobbying. I’d like evidence to back up your argument.Also, my statement is not rhetoric; I know the owner of those subways. I know how the franchise system works. Corporate Papa John’s, you may be correct. But the individual franchisees are going to feel the pressure from the PPACA. And I can promise you that all the franchisees employ a massive amount more than the corporate office(s). It’s not about saving a buck. It’s about staying in business. If you want to suppress the economy, the PPACA is a great tool to do it. And the so-called “Public Option,” will do the same thing, only in a different way. Instead of placing the burden on businesses, it will place the burden on taxpayers. And I’m sorry, but there’s not enough money coming out of “the rich” to pay for everyone to be insured. “The poor” are going to have to chip in, too.
joe vignone almost 11 years ago
Just like the Patriot Act!
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
Looks like your hyperlinks aren’t playing nice. Make sure you don’t forget your Tag. I feel your pain.As to the papa johns analogy, you’re still missing the point. Sure, they can raise the cost of (insert product here) by 9 cents (which I still challenge if that is correct). But who does that ultimately impact? You’re right, it’s a direct pass-through. But who pays that bill? The consumer does. That’s why raising taxes on any segment of Corporate America is a fool’s errand: The company will just pass the costs directly on to the consumer. But that pass-through only works for big business. Small businesses don’t work that way. If that 50-employee limit wasn’t there, just imagine a 5-man show trying to afford paying an extra 10k a year in direct, underlying expenses per employee. He would price himself out of the market, and he would be forced to close his doors. It’s a travesty, because people don’t think things fully through. Just like idiot Pelosi said what she said (Pass to know, blah blah), the people writing these bills don’t even think about what the consequences are going to be. There are provisions in the PPACA that make it such that family members can’t be excluded from the FTE rolls, even though most small businesses operate with a great deal of family help. Or something similar.I don’t claim to have all the answers, though I do frequently provide suggestions. But I do know that the PPACA is wrong in so many ways. It’s bad for Businesses and bad for Americans. Sure, it provides coverage (not to be confused with care) for millions of people. But at what cost to others? What government gives to one person is taken from another. And that is something most liberals seem to ignore.
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
Bah! <./a> tag. Let’s see if that works.
SpicyNacho Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Was it was ok for all the unions and 1,000 plus major companies to get waivers right out of the gate from President Obama?
How do you know they weren’t the intent of the the program? Are you in their heads? President Obama has openly stated he wants single payer. What better way to to get there quickly than to put out a steaming pile of legislation like this. Your “Who coulda foresaw that” award should be the “moron” award. Yea, who would’ve thought that businesses would try to maximize their profits and do what they needed to do to keep their jobs and stay in business?
rhfcubs almost 11 years ago
You really should look to an alternative to Fox News. Maybe a source that uses real data.
Michael Peterson Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Apparently, it should have included a provision doubling the tin foil allotment.
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
“We already have rationing with our present care. The govt subsidy will allow more people to get treatment. Not less”You’re making a pretty huge assumption that doctors will be available for all these millions of new patients. Millions more will be able to afford/get coverage. But the amount of doctors will remain static. In addition, the number of doctors who will treat PPACA-insurance-holding people will either remain static or shrink. That means you will be paying for insurance which you cannot use. You will be waiting months to see the doctor instead of weeks. And then the worst part is you will have the IPAB who will be deciding what gets covered. The difference between IPAB and a private carrier is twofold. One, the private carrier answers to the state insurance commissioner, and if you feel they are operating in bad faith you can pursue that with the state (much more local and nimble). Secondly, you can change insurance companies if you don’t like your current one (assuming you’re in the individual market).Those two options don’t exist with the IPAB. The first option is completely absent, because the IPAB answers to no-one, and the second option means you’re stuck with them because you can’t afford anything else. The PPACA is going to give people a false sense of security for medical coverage, and will not serve to expand care. The tragedy here is that all of these negative aspects of the PPACA could have been avoided had Congressional Democrats listened to us, scrapped the bill, and started with something else. Congressional Democrats sought to expand coverage, and to build more dependency, not to make care more affordable. The price tag on the PPACA is a clear indicator of this, now up to 1.6 trillion. So much for debt neutral.