|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 19, 2013 5:34:45 GMT
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)--who is the architect of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObanaCare), but who also described it, in April, as a "huge train wreck"--has now had an epiphany as regarding the manner in which it was implemented: "It is my belief that for major legislation to be durable, sustainable, it has to be bipartisan. ...I mean, one party can't jam legislation down the other party's throat. It leaves a bitter taste." Here is the link: www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us/politics/baucus-still-fretting-over-health-law-he-shepherded.html?_r=0 Too bad he didn't think of that some 3 3/4 years ago...
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 20, 2013 10:58:01 GMT
I don't believe we can dispute what Senator Max Baucus is saying especially based upon the political history of "Obamacare" where once the Republicans took control of the House they did everything possible to scuttle the program. If one of the two houses of Congress is actively opposed to the implementation of a legislative program it is going to cause serious problems with the implementation of the program and we've certainly seen that with "Obamacare" implementation.
Obstructionism, where on party is opposed to anything being proposed by the other party, is the worst form of government. Our political system depends upon compromise but that has been virtually non-existant in the US Congress since 2010 when the "Tea Party Movement" and Republicans gained control of the House.
We must also address the fact that Republicans, in 2009, refused to address the problem before the Congress when it came to poviding health care for tens of millions of Americans. Republicans never offered any proposals that would have provided health care to the "uninsured" Americans which was the problem before Congress. How can a bipartisan solution be created when one party refuses to address the problem at all? The problem had been ignored for decades and a continued refusal to address the problem wasn't really an option in 2009.
There were three proposals in 2009. A single-payer system proposed by the House, the ACA (that was adopted) proposed by the Senate. and the "Do Nothing" proposal by House and Senate Republicans. Those three proposals haven't really changed since 2009 as the "single-payer" system is still being proposed in the event that Obamacare fails and the Republicans are still proposing "Do Nothing" about the tens of millions of Americans that would go without healthcare if "Obamacare" fails.
The biggest fear of Republicans today is that "Obamacare" might succeed when in reality they should fear it failing because a single-payer system is what is waiting in the wings to replace it.
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Dec 21, 2013 1:09:50 GMT
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)--who is the architect of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObanaCare), but who also described it, in April, as a "huge train wreck"--has now had an epiphany as regarding the manner in which it was implemented: "It is my belief that for major legislation to be durable, sustainable, it has to be bipartisan. ...I mean, one party can't jam legislation down the other party's throat. It leaves a bitter taste." Here is the link: www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us/politics/baucus-still-fretting-over-health-law-he-shepherded.html?_r=0 Too bad he didn't think of that some 3 3/4 years ago... EXACTLY! Too late now. They've created a total mess....and he must be trying to salvage some portion of his reputation. Ain't gonna happen.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 23, 2013 13:09:28 GMT
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)--who is the architect of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObanaCare), but who also described it, in April, as a "huge train wreck"--has now had an epiphany as regarding the manner in which it was implemented: "It is my belief that for major legislation to be durable, sustainable, it has to be bipartisan. ...I mean, one party can't jam legislation down the other party's throat. It leaves a bitter taste." Here is the link: www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us/politics/baucus-still-fretting-over-health-law-he-shepherded.html?_r=0 Too bad he didn't think of that some 3 3/4 years ago... EXACTLY! Too late now. They've created a total mess....and he must be trying to salvage some portion of his reputation. Ain't gonna happen.
Yes, a mess has been created so now it's time to sort out the problems and FIX THEM. How do we fix the problems while still ensuring that the tens of millions of people that weren't receiving the health care services that they need will continue to receive them after "Obamacare" goes into effect on 1/1/2014?
That is the challenge before us today.
We need to "keep the good" and "fix the bad" so that the problems that were behind "Obamacare" are still addressed. We simply can't ignore the problem which was tens of millions going without heath care services they needed and the tens of thousands that died every year because they weren't receiving timely medical services.
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Dec 26, 2013 16:56:38 GMT
Max Baucus is late with his revelation....some 5 years late!! Had any of the Democrats or Obama actually listened to the Republicans in early 2009, they'd have known that shoving down the throats of America a massive law that affects everyone....as this one does. Remember all the Town Hall meetings during that summer? Republicans and Tea Party were demonized for daring to even speak out against it. Just as in everything else Obama has done.....it was either "my way or the highway."
AND YES......Republicans DID put several plans for healthcare on the table.....for years even before Obama came to office. ALL were soundly rejected without even any serious consideration. Democrats knew what they were going to do IF they EVER got total control....and that is exactly what they did. And now....they are suffering the results of their actions. In Maryland right now......Democrats are at each other's throats over Obamacare and the total failure of their state-run exchange.
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Dec 26, 2013 17:07:24 GMT
IF one believes that Republicans have never offered anything on health care; think again. A little reading will prove otherwise. BUT did the Democrats come onboard with ANY of these multitude of ideas and pieces of legislation??? No, they did not. They waited until the first opportunity....when they had ALL control; the White House, the Senate, AND the House....and then did it just as they wanted to.....without including Republicans or anyone in the nation who were claiming (and now we know rightly so) that something as massive and intrusive as Obamacare would not work. So, they have reaped what they sowed; but at the expense of the American people. I believe they will pay dearly over the next couple of national elections. Here's a list of ALL that Republicans have offered.....but was always soundly rejected by Democrats:
"Let’s start with 5 comprehensive health reform proposals that have actually been introduced in Congress—some well before President Obama even was nominated for president, and all months before the House (11/7/09) or Senate (12/24/09) voted on what eventually became Obamacare.
Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783) introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) July 12, 2007.
Every American Insured Health Act introduced by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Bob Corker (R-TN) with co-sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mel Martinez (formerly R-FL) and Elizabeth Dole (formerly R-NC) on July 26, 2007.
Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Healthy Americans Act on January 18, 2007 and re-introduced the same bill on February 5, 2009.
Patients’ Choice Act of 2009 introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) on May 20, 2009.
H.R. 2300, Empowering Patients First Act introduced July 30, 2009 by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA). [...]
Likewise, conservative market-oriented health policy scholars have developed a rich menu of potential replacement plans for Obamacare:
Individual Pay or Play proposed in 2005 by John Goodman; this is a minimalist version of a broader reform envisaged by Goodman built on converting the tax exclusion into universal tax credits.
Health Status Insurance originally proposed by John Cochrane in 1995.
Universal Health Savings Accounts proposed by John Goodman and Peter Ferrara in 2012. This combines fixed tax credits with individual pay or play and health status insurance concepts along with Roth-style Health Savings Accounts.
Fixed tax credits. A variety of proposals have centered on using fix tax credits to replace the current inefficient and unfair tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits. Two good explanations of how that would work are here:
James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit, “How to Replace Obamacare,” National Affairs, no. 11 (Spring 2012). James C. Capretta. Constructing an Alternative to Obamacare: Key Details for a Practical Replacement Program. American Enterprise Institute, December 2012. Income-Related Tax Credits proposed by Mark Pauly and John Hoff in Responsible Tax Credits (2002) and endorsed by the American Medical Association. More recently, 8 scholars from Harvard, University of Chicago, and USC–Jay Bhattacharya, Amitabh Chandra, Michael Chernew, Dana Goldman, Anupam Jena, Darius Lakdawalla,Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson—releasedBest of Both Worlds: Uniting Universal Coverage and Personal Choice in Health Care (2013) which also is built around a model of individual health insurance subsidized with income-related tax credits. Flexible Benefits Tax Credit For Health Insurance by Lynn Etheredge in 2001. Near-Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2001 by Sara Singer, Alan Garber and Alain Enthoven (covers only non-elderly). Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2013 by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Avik Roy (covers Medicare and Medicaid in addition to privately insured).
What about the Bush plan in 2007? Conover said that Dubya proposed:
sweeping health reform plan that would have replaced the current tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage with standard tax deductions for all individuals and families. The Bush plan called for a tax deduction that would have applied to payroll taxes as well as income taxes. Moreover, if one were worried about non-filers, the subsidy could easily have instead been structured as a refundable tax credit in which case even those without any income taxes would have gotten an additional amount. This is the kind of policy detail that easily could have been negotiated had the Democrats been in a cooperative mood in 2007. They were not.
[...]
What’s sad is that the Bush plan actually was superior to Obamacare when it comes to providing universal coverage. Remember, Obamacare actually does not provided universal coverage. The latest figures from CBO says that when it is fully implemented in 2016, Obamacare will cut the number of uninsured by only 45%, covering 89% of the non-elderly. Even if illegal immigrants are excluded, this percentage rises to only 92%. In contrast, the Bush plan (without a mandate!) would have cut the number of uninsured by 65%. But that’s ancient history.
WOW! Bush’s plan would’ve cut the number of uninsured Americans by 65%!? Liberals will do their best to keep this fact buried."
www.redstate.com/mvespa/2013/09/09/republicans-have-introduced-alternatives-to-obamacare-for-years/
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 26, 2013 17:38:25 GMT
I want to thank JP5 for the research but it was somewhat superficial based upon further investigation from what I've found. Let me just address the first citation:
Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783) introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) July 12, 2007.
An interesting proposal that had components similar to Obamacare while in some respects being more intrusive. For example it forced enrollment into a "state" insurance plan for anyone that required health services but that didn't have insurance. Even Obamacare doesn't dictate that requirement as a person can simply refuse and pay a fine (tax) instead.
It is more dependent upon "state" government as the states would establish the minimal coverage requirements for insurance as opposed to the federal government. Of course we know that historically some states would have cut coverage to virtually nothing to comply with the federal law so we'd have some states with good coverage and other states with virtually no coverage under the law.
One of it's great failings is that it's based upon tax deductions and tax credits that don't really help the poor in obtaining insurance because they can't afford the insurance with or without a tax credit (subsidy). Something like 47% of all Americans already have a zero or negative federal tax and they still can't afford health insurance. It didn't expand Medicaid to provide coverage for those that simply couldn't afford even one dollar for health insurance.
It didn't mandate coverage for "pre-existing" conditions so those with these medical conditions would never be covered.
I didn't find any provisions for raising the federal revenues to pay for the reductions in revenue (based upon new deductions) or to pay for the tax credits (subsidies) in the legislation although I could have missed it. Based upon the fact that the US was deficit spending throughout the Bush adminstration should we assume this measure would have been paid for with deficit spending.
Basically it was a fairly good albeit very limited proposal that failed to meet the fundamental criteria of ensuring that all of the tens of millions of Americans that didn't have insurance would be able to obtain it. We can note that many of the principles behind it were incorporated into Obamacare though.
We can note that it died in committee in 2007-2008 which was when the Great Recession hit the US and more spending was probably not on the table for health care during that time frame. Bush was far more interested in bailing out multimillionare banking interests (investors) with TARP.
I'll look into the other proposals as time permits but admittedly this is "close" to doing something but fell a bit short of addressing the problem of tens of millions of uninsured in America.
www.theorator.com/bills110/text/s1783.html
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Dec 27, 2013 4:34:54 GMT
I want to thank JP5 for the research but it was somewhat superficial based upon further investigation from what I've found. Let me just address the first citation:
Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783) introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) July 12, 2007.
An interesting proposal that had components similar to Obamacare while in some respects being more intrusive. For example it forced enrollment into a "state" insurance plan for anyone that required health services but that didn't have insurance. Even Obamacare doesn't dictate that requirement as a person can simply refuse and pay a fine (tax) instead.
It is more dependent upon "state" government as the states would establish the minimal coverage requirements for insurance as opposed to the federal government. Of course we know that historically some states would have cut coverage to virtually nothing to comply with the federal law so we'd have some states with good coverage and other states with virtually no coverage under the law.
One of it's great failings is that it's based upon tax deductions and tax credits that don't really help the poor in obtaining insurance because they can't afford the insurance with or without a tax credit (subsidy). Something like 47% of all Americans already have a zero or negative federal tax and they still can't afford health insurance. It didn't expand Medicaid to provide coverage for those that simply couldn't afford even one dollar for health insurance.
It didn't mandate coverage for "pre-existing" conditions so those with these medical conditions would never be covered.
I didn't find any provisions for raising the federal revenues to pay for the reductions in revenue (based upon new deductions) or to pay for the tax credits (subsidies) in the legislation although I could have missed it. Based upon the fact that the US was deficit spending throughout the Bush adminstration should we assume this measure would have been paid for with deficit spending.
Basically it was a fairly good albeit very limited proposal that failed to meet the fundamental criteria of ensuring that all of the tens of millions of Americans that didn't have insurance would be able to obtain it. We can note that many of the principles behind it were incorporated into Obamacare though.
We can note that it died in committee in 2007-2008 which was when the Great Recession hit the US and more spending was probably not on the table for health care during that time frame. Bush was far more interested in bailing out multimillionare banking interests (investors) with TARP.
I'll look into the other proposals as time permits but admittedly this is "close" to doing something but fell a bit short of addressing the problem of tens of millions of uninsured in America.
www.theorator.com/bills110/text/s1783.html
Sen Enzi's legislation was NOT as obtrusive as Obamacare; nowhere near it. It kept the private healthcare that was already making 85 to 90% of the nation happy with their plans. It offered over state lines competition which would have lowered costs. It capped deductibles and copays below anything now being offered by Obamacare. It provided a portable feature, which would have done away with the pre-existing condition problem. It allowed ALL insurance companies in to the state Exchanges to offer their healthcare plans, creating more competition. It allowed Associations for Small Businesses that would work for them the way health insurance works for large companies. It stopped junk lawsuits which ads multi-millions to the cost of healthcare in our country. Senator Enzi also stated that after Pres. Obama caught all the flack at the Town Hall Meetings in 2009 during the making of Obamacare....he called a "Summit" for legislators to make it look as if he was including others and being open to ideas. But according to Enzi, Obama already had his mind made up and didn't really listen to anything they had to say or offer. The Summit was not a true listening session......he made his speech and then chose to rebut every differing idea and concern right after it was expressed---not even taking the time to digest what he had heard. And it was obvious to those present that Obama had written his closing speeches the night before or he would have included some of their ideas. He had already determined that nothing was going to come out of the summit and no real changes would be made, but wanted the TV exposure anyway to make his point. IOW's he never had any intention of including them or even listening; his mind was already made up. A true listening session is opened with a few comments and then the summit host actually listens while each person gets to speak. Then the host concludes by telling what was learned as a result of the session. Instead, per Enzi, (and he kept a Diary as it occurred), the WH sent out a recap of the events......but each time either misstated what Enzi said or left it out altogether. Whenever Enzi would send in a correction......he never heard back from them; never received a corrected copy of what had occurred. IOW's the Summit was a joke and as with so many other things Obama does, it is always "his way or the highway."
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Dec 27, 2013 4:45:37 GMT
BTW, you thanked me for providing all the proof that the Republicans had, in fact, offered many pieces of legislation regarding comprehensive health care over the years.....even during the early months of Obama's term. BUT the claim has continued to be made by liberals, the mainstream and others on this forum that Republicans never offered anything or had ideas of their own. What IS fact.....is that NONE OF THEM EVER even looked to up to see that they were wrong. They just made the claim, because that's what they wanted the answer to be.
None of the Republican plans and legislation would have taken down our entire healthcare system....as Obamacare is apparently doing right now. Their plans did not throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. Their intention was not to create a Trojan Horse that would be so bad.....as to lead to a true goal of single-payer healthcare, which the country (both Dems and Republicans) said for years they did NOT want. Instead they got lies; intentional lies like....'If you like your health plan, you can keep it," or "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." But I do believe the Democrats and this administration are going to learn next year that you do NOT get away with intentionally lying to the American people. They will reap what they sowed. Obamacare has been nothing but a BIG, FAT LIE.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 27, 2013 20:08:13 GMT
BTW, you thanked me for providing all the proof that the Republicans had, in fact, offered many pieces of legislation regarding comprehensive health care over the years.....even during the early months of Obama's term. BUT the claim has continued to be made by liberals, the mainstream and others on this forum that Republicans never offered anything or had ideas of their own. What IS fact.....is that NONE OF THEM EVER even looked to up to see that they were wrong. They just made the claim, because that's what they wanted the answer to be.
None of the Republican plans and legislation would have taken down our entire healthcare system....as Obamacare is apparently doing right now. Their plans did not throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. Their intention was not to create a Trojan Horse that would be so bad.....as to lead to a true goal of single-payer healthcare, which the country (both Dems and Republicans) said for years they did NOT want. Instead they got lies; intentional lies like....'If you like your health plan, you can keep it," or "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." But I do believe the Democrats and this administration are going to learn next year that you do NOT get away with intentionally lying to the American people. They will reap what they sowed. Obamacare has been nothing but a BIG, FAT LIE.
While I do appreciate the additional citations I've not reviewed them all. I have reviewed the proposal by former President Bush and the proposal by Senator Mike Enzi but neither of those offered comprehensive health care for all of the uninsured Americans. They added to those that could afford private health insurance but left out millions of Americans that couldn't afford health care. As also noted Enzi's proposal apparently lacked any funding mechanism that would pay for the costs of the tax deductions and tax credits it proposed. It would have simply driven more deficit spending and deficit spending is fiscally irresponsible (one of my complaints with Obamacare that is also going to drive deficit spending in the future).
Obamacare doesn't take down our entire healthcare system and I don't know where that idea comes from. It does increase the number covered by Medicaid (except in Republican States that have refused to expand Medicaid based upon the Supreme Court decision) but it also increases the number of those covered by employer provided group health insurance policies as well as the number of those being covered by private health insurance policies. As can also be noted under Obamacare any number of national health insurance providers could have been included under a state health insurance exchange. There was no limit imposed if the state decided to create it's own health insurance exchange.
Enzi's proposal did provide portabability for health insurance but we already had that under COBRA. The problem with COBRA, as well as Enzi's proposal, is that when a person loses their job they can't afford to continue their health insurance policy in many cases. A person that loses their health insurance because of unemployment has to start all over again in finding private insurance and a pre-existing condition drives the costs so high they can't afford it. Of the estimated 3 million uninsured with pre-existing conditions the problem for the vast majority wasn't that they couldn't obtain insurance but instead that they couldn't afford it. Only about 130,000 Americans were flat out denied private health insurance because of a pre-existing condition but about 3 million Americans couldn't afford it because it cost more than many earned for the entire year. The premiums could run over $3,000/mo and that was unaffordable for many households especially when the person might be unemployed because of a catastrophic illness to begin with. Their spouse maybe the only income earner and earn more than the limits for Medicaid.
I never understood the logic behind the Republican proposals for "Tort Reform" that amount to nothing more than "Screw the Victims of Malpractice" by doctors. First and foremost we should not include the costs of malpractice as a cost of health care to begin with. It isn't a cost of treating illness or injury but instead it's a case of perpetuating illness or causing injury based upon physician incompetence. If we want to "save money" related to malpractice why not limit attorney fees or making them a supplemental payment? Currently a victim of malpractice that wins in court has to pay their attorney out of their own pocket and that can amount to 30% of their entire award for pain and suffering. We can also note that the few hundred million in malpractice awards annually are insignificant when compared to the trillions of dollars spent on health care annually. It's one of those Republican proposals looking for a problem as it wouldn't result in any significant health care cost savings.
I do need to find the time to look at the other Republican proposals though as I'm sure each has some merit just like Obamacare has some merit. So far I don't like Obamacare but it did address the problem of between 30-40 million Americans that didn't have insurance. I haven't seen a Republican proposal that would have provided this insurance but I'm still looking. I also believe that the problems with Obamacare can be fixed and that only Republicans are capable of offering many of the fixes necessary.
The key though is ensuring that the 30-40 million previously uninsured Americans have some form of health "insurance" so that they can receive necessary medical services. How is the best way to ensure that remains the question to be answered.
My proposal, at least for working Americans, is make the employers that profit from the labor of their employees be financially responsible either by providing group insurance or contributing to an "escrow" account that the employee can use to help pay for private health insurance. Employers directly profit from low paid labor while the taxpayers do not. It makes sense to have those that directly profit from the labor of the employee to pay the costs of the necessities of the employees and health care is a necessity.
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Dec 27, 2013 22:15:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 28, 2013 13:07:19 GMT
I've often stated there are serious problems with "Obamacare" that need fixing but it really doesn't change much as far as healthcare in America. It uses Medicaid and private insurance that have been a component of the health care system since the mid-1960's and it only addresseses about 10% of the US population.
There are of course many transitional problems but those are short term problems that are insignificant in the greater picture. The problems with signing up and with the loss of fundamentally poor quality private insurance policies that will, in most cases, be replaced by other private insurance policies under the exchanges (often costing the person less out of pocket due to the subsidies) are transitional and have no real meaning long term.
On the other hand there are serious problems that are going to be long term that need to be addressed.
There are cost concerns where some are legitimate while others are not.
For example the costs of Medicaid are not a valid complaint as they are merely a correction to the underfunding of Medicaid since the 1960's where Medicaid could not afford to fulfill it's Mission Statement of ensuring medical services for those that couldn't afford them. Had the US Congress and the States fully funded Medicaid since the 1960's so that it could fulfill it's Mission Statement there would have been no expansion under Obamacare. The problem with the expansion of Medicaid related to cost are who's paying for those costs. Basically those that can afford to fund it have the lowest tax burden relative to income in the United States (i.e. the top 1% of income earners). The "costs" are merely a sympom of the problem. Who's paying the costs is the real problem.
The costs of subsidizing private insurance is also an issue of "who's paying for it" as opposed to the actual costs themselves. From my perspective the "costs" for working Americans should be levied on those that are directly profiting from their labor (i.e. the employers). Why should I, as a taxpayer, be subidizing the employers that don't pay enough in wages so that their employees earn enough to afford health care? Health care is a basic necessity of the person and a working person should have their necessitities covered based upon their exchange of labor for goods and services by the employer. Basically I'm being forced to subsidize the employer that is profiting from the labor of the employee but that refuses to pay them enough so they can afford health care. Employers should be carrying the financial burden related to health care for the workers of America because the Employers are directly profiting from their labor.
Of course those are "my" proposals to fix the funding problems and it is the funding, not the costs, which are what need to be addressed. The costs are based upon the expenditures for the necessary services and they cannot be changed very much. We can reduce them slightly but it's the funding where the real problem lies.
Of note even the Tea Party Republicans are now changing their tune. Long have I advocated that the Republican Party address the problems with Obamacare and now even the Tea Party politicians are also beginning to understand that is what must be done.
I have been stating this for months as I knew it was the only possible solution to the problems of Obamacare and in the end even the Tea Party Republicans are admitting that this is the only possible option. The Republican Party is going to have to offer viable solutions to the problems with Obamacare as it will never simply go away. The problems of funding can be fixed but Republicans have yet to offer a viable proposal to address the problem of funding. If they focus on the "costs" as opposed to the "funding" then they will be addressing a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. Costs can be minimally reduced but not that much. The funding is still going to be the elephant in the living room and the primary problem I see with the funding is that the wrong people are paying for it.
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Dec 28, 2013 15:27:15 GMT
Again....we should NOT try to put band-aids here and there on a huge system like Obamacare when the entire system is unworkable and flawed. As I posted about....even important Democrats are finally recognizing this. And they are also recognizing that this should never have been done without bi-partisan support, which they made clear they did not want from the beginning. Had Obama and Pelosi and Max Baucus actually listened to the Republicans who warned of some of the very things that are happening today.....we wouldn't be where we are today. As hard as they might try, Democrats CANNOT blame any of this on Republicans. Republicans weren't involved....because Democrats didn't want Republicans involved. Obamacare is clearly ALL the Democrats' baby. Heck, Obama even refused to look at anything Sen Enzi had done or offered on healthcare....and he had been working in that are far longer than Obama, Pelosi, or any Democrat. My Congressman.....Burgess....who is a doctor.... was never invited in to the White House during these talks in 2009 to offer up ideas of what would work and not work....and he is a medical doctor. He did NOT want to include or talk to any Republicans UNLESS, of course, they would just simply come onboard to HIS plan in total. That's how he does everything....."my way or the highway."
You ask...."Why should I, as a taxpayer, be subidizing the employers that don't pay enough in wages so that their employees earn enough to afford health care?" I would answer with another question: "Why should the rest of us pay a whole LOT more for the product that employer provides because he's been forced to pay a manager's salary to someone who is not qualified to be a manger and who is, in fact, not skilled for anything but manual labor???" I think some Dems and Libertarians need to go back and take Econ 101 for a review of this area.
AND one more thing.....you claim that somehow it's Republicans' responsibility to fix the COST of this monster called Obamacare. (Meaning, pour more money into the failed system called Obamacare) But remember.....said all along it would NOT do what Obama and Pelosi claimed it would do, which was to reduce costs of healthcare. It was the Dems who claimed Obamacare would do just that. What you really mean is you want Republicans to agree to pour more and more money into this fisasco of a law.....even though the nation was sold a bill of goods (Obamacare) by Democrats who PROMISED this was the answer to all our problems and WOULD, in fact, bring healthcare costs down. NO WAY. Republicans want the costs to be brought down.....as previously promised.....and will not pour more money into an flawed and worse system. Dems had it all figured out....remember? They had the answers....and it was a massive takeover of 1/6th of our economy called Obamacare. They outright lied to the American people about ALL of it.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 28, 2013 16:15:36 GMT
Two points are raised with the first being "Bandaid" fixes and the second being the potential cost increases that could be passed on if employers were responsible for the health care of their employees.
First of all I don't recommend Bandaid fixes to anything. I recommend permanent fixes to the problems.
Next is my proposition that employers, that are profiting from the labor of their employees should be responsible for funding their health care needs.
The mistaken belief is that this leads to increases in the costs of goods and services but that is a false belief. In truth "underpayments" by employers actually depress the economy as "consumption" is reduced when they fail to pay liveable wages to their employees. In truth Henry Ford proved that the costs of products can be reduced by increasing wages in manufacturing but that lesson has not been learned by the retail and service industries yet.
Even if we are myopic in addressing wages as a cost they are relatively insignificant related to the costs of goods and services. Walmart and McDonalds spend far more on overhead costs and product purchases than they do on wages. A 10% increase in wages, even if directly transferred to the consumer, only results in about a 1% increase in the cost of the products or services being provided for most low paying enterprises.
Even as a laissez faire capitalist I've found a problem with the "Law of Supply and Demand" when it comes to labor. No enterprise can "operate at a loss" and based upon the "Law of Supply and Demand" for low cost labor it's actually forcing people (and people selling their labor are engaged as an enterprise) to "operate at a loss" and this is not sustainable. The "Law of Supply and Demand" works for goods and services but fails when applied to labor. We have a serious problem with "underpayments" by enterprise that force a person to operate at a loss that needs to be pragmatically addressed.
Where I believe many "Republicans" are wrong is in their belief that "welfare to mitigate poverty" for working Americans is welfare assistance to the person when, in fact, were actually providing welfare assistance to their employers that don't pay them enough to live on. If the employers provided adequate compensation then their employees wouldn't be collecting welfare assistance.
Personally I'd rather pay slightly more for the goods and services than I would to be taxed to provide welfare assistance to the employees of a company that underpays their employees. At least I have a choice of buying or not buying from the enterprise but I have no choice when it comes to government spending to mitigate the proverty created by employers underpaying their employees so that they require financial assistance just to survive. The employers are profiting and they need to "share" some of those profits with the employees that generate the profits at least to the point that their employees can live without depending upon the taxpayers.
Allowing people to go hungry, to be homeless, or to deny them medical services because they can't afford them is morally wrong by virtually everyone's standards.
One final point I would make. It is less expensive to pay one or two percent more for a product at a place like Walmart than it is to send money to the US government to fund welfare assistance including "Obamacare" which is predominately a welfare program based upon Medicaid and subsidies for private insurance. It is ironic that "Republicans" complain about government spending but then many oppose spending by private enterprise that could resolve the problem at a much lower cost.
If it were not for underpayments for labor by private enterprise there would never have been a need for Medicaid or Obamacare. It is a point worthy of making.
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Dec 28, 2013 23:24:57 GMT
It's ridiculous to say that it's the companies' fault....that they should pay everyone.....an undefined "living wage," per you. They DO pay the federally mandated minimum standard for those starting at the company......in many cases far more than that depending on experience, etc.
Shiva claims this about employers........."my proposition that employers, that are profiting from the labor of their employees should be responsible for funding their health care needs." Employees also benefit from having a job. I started out at minimum wage as a young, inexperienced worker. It's where most people start.....unless their first job is out of college and even then it is sometimes not much more than that IF they don't also have some experience.
Decades ago....some companies--all on their own--- decided that as a way of attracting the BEST employees, they would offer health care as a benefit to attract the best. It's usually not 100% paid for by the employer---sometimes they pay 1/2 of the cost; sometimes they pay almost all of it---and they were always able to get a better deal than the individual could get on their own. People wanted to get jobs at those companies. The idea grew and grew. Now....all of a sudden....per Obama and the libs, companies should be MANDATED/FORCED to do this. That would be like them mandating all companies give their employees 6 weeks paid vacation each year. HELLO?? This is America, not France.....and employees are free to either take a job with a specific employer or not. And employer should be free to hire...or not hire whoever they want....AND to offer benefits they want to....or do not want to.
|
|