or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Insurance Costs Under Obamacare
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Insurance Costs Under Obamacare - Page 47

post #691 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I see Wal-mart is cutting healthcare insurance to tens of thousands of part time employees, raising contributions required from full time employees, and has downgraded its profit forecasts with rising cost of healthcare insurance part of the mix.


Don't worry, Medicaid will probably cover most of the 29 hour workers.

It's the Obama way
post #692 of 739
I'm sure Walmart has no political axes to grind and is an objective observer.
post #693 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by texas_jack View Post

I'm sure Walmart has no political axes to grind and is an objective observer.

Why would Walmart grind a political axe against Obamacare?
post #694 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

Don't worry, Medicaid will probably cover most of the 29 hour workers.

It's the Obama way

Whatever people think about the implementation of Obamacare, are people really nostalgic for the "old days" where these kind of workers simply wouldn't have had insurance and basically no options to get it?

Either that or they're still on Medicaid now and were then too.
post #695 of 739
They're on their parents' insurance or Medicare, not Medicaid. Only teenagers, old people and the occasional retard work at Wal-Mart.
post #696 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by texas_jack View Post

I'm sure Walmart has no political axes to grind and is an objective observer.

That's the thing: Walmart is not an observer. Walmart is a player and the single biggest player in the private sector, second only to the US federal government overall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Whatever people think about the implementation of Obamacare, are people really nostalgic for the "old days" where these kind of workers simply wouldn't have had insurance and basically no options to get it?

Either that or they're still on Medicaid now and were then too.

They had employer sponsored insurance; now they don't. I'm not sure how we quibble here over this.

And yeah, I am nostalgic for the "old days." In the old days I had hopes the US would rationalize healthcare delivery and paradigm. I have no hope for either now.
post #697 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

They had employer sponsored insurance; now they don't. I'm not sure how we quibble here over this.
Looking at the more general picture, not just Walmart.
Quote:
And yeah, I am nostalgic for the "old days." In the old days I had hopes the US would rationalize healthcare delivery and paradigm. I have no hope for either now.

The "repeal" crowd seems mostly to be lobbing to wipe the whole thing out, without even any discussion these days about the alternative.

It might end up being one of those tragic "what ifs" in history. I have little confidence that the Republicans would have ever pushed for a real change in the entrenched system (not implying that Obamacare is such) and the Democrats may never have had the will or leverage to push for someone more comprehensive and less fucked up.

I was hoping that it would at least act as a stopgap and/or rile people up enough to move the discussion forward. We've been talking about this literally since Jimmy Carter and nothing has gotten done. Shame that one party finally expended a lot of energy and capital on it and came up with this.
post #698 of 739
It goes back much farther than Carter. It goes even farther back than Truman but it was part of his "Fair Deal" back in the 40s.
post #699 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Looking at the more general picture, not just Walmart.
The "repeal" crowd seems mostly to be lobbing to wipe the whole thing out, without even any discussion these days about the alternative.

It might end up being one of those tragic "what ifs" in history. I have little confidence that the Republicans would have ever pushed for a real change in the entrenched system (not implying that Obamacare is such) and the Democrats may never have had the will or leverage to push for someone more comprehensive and less fucked up.

I was hoping that it would at least act as a stopgap and/or rile people up enough to move the discussion forward. We've been talking about this literally since Jimmy Carter and nothing has gotten done. Shame that one party finally expended a lot of energy and capital on it and came up with this.

The far Left, the Bernie Sanders of the world, wanted this so it would fuck up and they could get single payer. They didn't actually want this system, but they pushed for it anyway because their solution was unpalatable for the majority of Americans.

The Right, for the most part, has indeed been against much more than modest changes. With that being said, there have always been people on the Right arguing for tort reform and shopping across state lines for health insurance which I think would have far greater impact on the cost of health insurance than forcing people to buy it.

We need to decouple insurance from employment, but people are happy with it generally, except when they change job or get some kind of illness that then locks them into their job.

I am not against changing the system, and I think what piob talks about using a Bismark style system. From what I've read on the system, places like Japan and Hong Kong where most tax dollars go to covering basic and emergency care while people still get private insurance for everything else (or the flexibility to go to additional hospitals). Although these types of options are never discussed.
post #700 of 739
We should stop being fat, stop texting in the car, and stop being stupid.

That would solve most of our healthcare issues.
post #701 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

We should stop being fat, stop texting in the car, and stop being stupid.

That would solve most of our healthcare issues.

Or just let the poors die. That would solve all our health care issues.
post #702 of 739
Then who will build the roads?
post #703 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Then who will build the roads?

We have plenty of poors and if we open the borders we'd have plenty more.
post #704 of 739
Roads and borders now appearing in two distinct threads.

Interesting.

Where are the bombs?
post #705 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

The far Left, the Bernie Sanders of the world, wanted this so it would fuck up and they could get single payer. They didn't actually want this system, but they pushed for it anyway because their solution was unpalatable for the majority of Americans.
I liked some of the provisions of Obamacare, but as it started reached the final version, that's about where I settled. I was hoping it would be more or less functional, but still bad enough that we needed to fix it. Unfortunately it looks like the result will be the the Democrats emerge terrified of touching healthcare again and the Republicans are only going to expend enough energy to kill this and go back to the old system (if even that much). We're probably better off than without it, but it's not at all obvious. Some people came out a lot better than others.
Quote:
With that being said, there have always been people on the Right arguing for tort reform and shopping across state lines for health insurance which I think would have far greater impact on the cost of health insurance than forcing people to buy it.
The insurance marketplaces are a good idea, especially as they start functioning better.

I'm not sure how well shopping across state lines would have worked. I feared a rush towards the lowest common denominator. It worked ok for credit cards, but I don't think letting health insurance companies all cluster in the least regulated states would have been a good model. There just weren't enough meaningful safety nets for health care at the national level.
Quote:
We need to decouple insurance from employment, but people are happy with it generally, except when they change job or get some kind of illness that then locks them into their job.
Yup. Absolutely no argument there.
Quote:
I am not against changing the system, and I think what piob talks about using a Bismark style system. From what I've read on the system, places like Japan and Hong Kong where most tax dollars go to covering basic and emergency care while people still get private insurance for everything else (or the flexibility to go to additional hospitals). Although these types of options are never discussed.

The last line seems to be the important part. Big ideas don't even get talked about these days.

Even with a better fundamental system (and I like that one too), I think we need to start addressing the amount of care we consume. We've got a messed up culture on medical care, both from the consumer and supplier end. This is especially true for the oldest and sickest people, where we spend most of our health care dollars. It's not just the fatties costing us money, it's Grandma getting emergency surgery at 91, staying on life support for three weeks, then dying anyway.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Insurance Costs Under Obamacare