Obamacare Causes Companies to Cut Hours page 2

189 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Benu01:
Additionally, Health Care is a privilege not a right.

That’s up for debate. But to get to the bottom of your feelings on this one (and I don’t mean this as an emotional argument): If you or a friend had a heart attack or pulmonary embolism but no health insurance, would you reasonably expect a facility to save your life and care for you? Or should they turn you away, or some other option?

 
Flag Post

They would take care of you, but they would expect full payment, and they may reject you if you are expected not to have enough money.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

….and they may reject you if you are expected not to have enough money.

So extrapolating on this statement, if you went to the ER and said, “I can’t breathe…I’m having chest pains and sweating too. But sorry no, I don’t have health insurance and can’t pay…” could they realistically decline and show you the door?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by Benu01:
Additionally, Health Care is a privilege not a right.

That’s up for debate. But to get to the bottom of your feelings on this one (and I don’t mean this as an emotional argument): If you or a friend had a heart attack or pulmonary embolism but no health insurance, would you reasonably expect a facility to save your life and care for you? Or should they turn you away, or some other option?

One of the arguments made FOR Obamacare was that ppl w/o health insurance are already being given care….hospital EMERGENCY ROOMS (< very expensive) can’t turn away seriously ill ppl. They have to “stabilize” them and THEN they can boot ’em out.

Thus, in effect, the cost of this kind of “free” care is rolled into the bills (usually insurance) of other patients. Thus, we all end up paying for this level of “health care” anyway….just at a much more expensive rate were it to be done in a much cheaper facility…AND, if such clinics were to do PREVENTATIVE medicine.

At least that is how the “argument” goes.

 
Flag Post

They should. If this sort of behaviour would be allowed, any reasonably smart person would stop paying for health care and go to the doctor for the slightest of issues without having to pay a single cent. If you are rejected for not having money to pay for a service (which, by all means, should sound fairly obvious), then you should be expected to find a way to get that service if you need it. One way is to become rich. Another is to get health insurance.

If you request a simple operation not costing much money, they might be able to settle with you in a different way, but many larger operations cost too much for the hospital to hand them out in the hopes they’ll get paid eventually. Another solution is for the government to entirely fund the hospital’s operations, allowing everyone to have free health care, but this would require them to increase taxes, effectively forcing every person paying taxes to get health insurance and pay health insurance for those who don’t pay taxes. This leaves us with the option of forcing citizens to get health insurance, or leaving it optional and rejecting those who can’t pay the services. If you, as a government, don’t want to come over as “heartless” (even though you yourself decided not to have health insurance), then force your citizens into health insurance so that you won’t have to reject anyone.

EDIT: This was at Twilight. As Karma said, I do believe hospitals are required to give aid to the seriously ill, even if they don’t get paid. This is exactly the kind of thing that leaves people calculating they shouldn’t actually get health care.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

If you request a simple operation not costing much money, they might be able to settle with you in a different way, but many larger operations cost too much for the hospital to hand them out in the hopes they’ll get paid eventually.

I can understand hospitals and whatnot wanting to make a discernment between the two. For instance, I would like to have LapBand surgery—it would be good for my health, but not necessary to save my life right now (and even though I have healthcare it still doesn’t cover it…isn’t that ’bout a bitch…but I digress….)

However, someone who is having chest pains and will die in a few hours without that acute level of care, I can see them being put in a different category and highly prioritized. Even if they don’t have healthcare and would never pay. To let them sit on the curb and die would seem pretty draconian.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

….and they may reject you if you are expected not to have enough money.

So extrapolating on this statement, if you went to the ER and said, “I can’t breathe…I’m having chest pains and sweating too. But sorry no, I don’t have health insurance and can’t pay…” could they realistically decline and show you the door?

Not in a county or city hospital. They are required to take so many low income people because they are being subsidized by taxpayer money. they will come for their money if you don’t meet certain standards.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Not in a county or city hospital. They are required to take so many low income people because they are being subsidized by taxpayer money. they will come for their money if you don’t meet certain standards.

They will come for their money even if you do meet certain standards! LOL. I just applied for (and supposedly qualified for) internal assistance. Damn but they’re tenacious.

 
Flag Post

I can understand hospitals and whatnot wanting to make a discernment between the two. For instance, I would like to have LapBand surgery—it would be good for my health, but not necessary to save my life right now (and even though I have healthcare it still doesn’t cover it…isn’t that ’bout a bitch…but I digress….)

Well, we both agree that hospitals shouldn’t be forced to take in such people.

However, someone who is having chest pains and will die in a few hours without that acute level of care, I can see them being put in a different category and highly prioritized. Even if they don’t have healthcare and would never pay. To let them sit on the curb and die would seem pretty draconian.

It seems like an “immoral” idea, yes, to do as such, but giving in to those who need help while they are not lowering their net income with health care reinforces the stance that you should basically not get any health care. Why would I pay for that if I could just get health care for free? If there’s no incentive to get health care (= you get treated for the worst cases regardless of having health care or not), then very few people would. There must be a line drawn, no matter how bad it sounds. This is why forced health care seems like the better alternative.

Note that you will not get helped if you have a disability that won’t kill you, but still requires treatment. But privatised health care will not sell you health care if you have a disability, because, shocker, you would actually be needing it! Another reason for obligating everyone to have health care (and as such, make the health care firm non-profit).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:
Another solution is for the government to entirely fund the hospital’s operations, allowing everyone to have free health care, but this would require them to increase taxes, effectively forcing every person paying taxes to get health insurance and pay health insurance for those who don’t pay taxes.

I’m going to have to rely on a little extrapolation and make a few assumptions but…

How much does health insurance cost an individual? The Average Premium for Individual Coverage in 2011 was $183 per month
)
So that’d be circa $2200 per annum, per person… circa $9700 for the ‘typical’ family of 2 + 2.4 children (less any group discounts)

How would a NHS style system cost individual tax payers??? Here comes the major assumption/extrapolation time…

Total UK Healthcare expenditure £105 Billion

We have approx 30 Million taxpayers (about half the total population) so if funded entirely and uniformly by income tax (which it isn’t) would equate to circa £3500 per tax payer…

Approx 40% of all tax revenue comes from the top 10% of tax payers… which brings this figure down to an average of approx £2300 per person for 90% of taxpayers. Obviously being an average some will pay more, others less…

Only a proportion of funding comes from direct taxation (income tax and NI) there are, for example, charges for certain services (dental, optical and prescription), research funding and employer’s NI liability. Let’s be very pessimistic and say these account for only 10% of the budget… so most taxpayers will pay an average of £2070 per annum.

Hmm, how many tax payers per family??? The ONS says there are around 26.4 Million households… so an average of 1.13 taxpayers per household. An average household NHS tax liability, therefore, of £2352 per annum.

Assuming similar rates and distribution of taxpayers in the US as the UK, and a similar PER CAPITA health expenditure per household would only be $3800 per household, per annum.

I know which of the two figures I would prefer to pay… $8,000 (reasonable estimate based on the first link?) for a household’s private insurance figure against $3800 in taxation for a centrally funded system providing for everyone.

Yes, I know it was a big assumption, but you’d have to be spending a hell of a lot more than us, per capita, to get up to anywhere near the $8000 mark to be equivalent to the current health insurance spend.

 
Flag Post

You’re pointing fingers at the wrong people calling this problem “obamacare’s” fault. Your fellow conservative lobbyists for the insurance companies fought tooth and nail to insure this provision. Properly executed nationalized healthcare would have seen the premiums for employers’ benefits go down due to single payer provisions, cutting out unnecessary price gouging that doesn’t reflect the real value but a market value. The same reason Papa Johns bitches and moans about having to pay for healthcare on employees they wouldn’t have otherwise had to pay for is the same reason insurance companies fought so hard to make conservatives stunt nationalized healthcare: CEO’s pockets don’t have enough green lining. There’s nothing fiscally responsible about their reaction to Obama’s reelection, it’s posturing and you should really work towards leaving these childish things behind if you want the republican party to be taken seriously in the future.

 
Flag Post

Yesterday I posted that one of the three ways companies would deal with the added costs of Obamacare is to raise prices of goods. I wake up this morning and see this: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/15/florida-restaurateur-to-impose-surcharge-for-obamacare/

I’m proud to say, I friggin called this one. Obamacare costs go to companies, but we all end up paying for it in the end. It’s a tax on us all, filtered down through the goods we buy, and lowering the hours we work, and lowering our pay rates. Those are the three ways. Obamacare is a horrible idea. There is no magical pot of gold that supposed rich people have that they big government is going to swoop down and pay for all our needs out of. Big government is not fighting for us, but fighting for itself. Why can’t people see that?

 
Flag Post

Sweet MyTie. You say the same thing so eloquently and clearly in many ways.

Such a shame that the “progressive” thought process can not somehow understand the basic workings of labor and market economics.

It’s almost like there are clouded by this repulsion to profit and a delusion that they are victims, or at least need to act like heroes on behalf of the victims.
Their belief system trumps rational understanding and acceptance of the clear facts you have outlined.

So sad.

 
Flag Post

Donseptico, I’m not entirely sure what your argument boils down to. I think we both agree that private health care is expensive, but you didn’t really talk about public health care (part of my argument). Do you prefer public health care (everyone is obligated to take on insurance) or obligating those who pay taxes to pay for everyone’s health care?

 
Flag Post

Here is another view on the upcoming Obamacare from a doctor.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/07/what-obama-victory-means-for-your-health-care-doctor-take/?intcmp=obnetwork

 
Flag Post

Of course a doctor is the most suited to talk about finances. Just like I only get surgery from economists.

 
Flag Post

So you are saying, a doctor who is in business for himself and has to take care of his budget can’t possibly know anything about finances? Yet Obama, who has proven he knows nothing about an economy to make it work does? Really?

 
Flag Post

A doctor with an agenda to peddle, sure. If you like I could find one saying the opposite, but you would dismiss that as fast as I dismiss this rubbish.

 
Flag Post

Redem, I would ask you and all of the others not of our country why it is so important that our country mimics your countries? Why is it so important to you that we have government controlled healthcare? Let’s be honest, it won’t affect you personally, or your country as a whole. Is this just another way for outsiders to help tear America down? Maybe you feel this is punishment for decisions our government has made that you don’t agree with and you have to hurt the people of the country to feel like you have accomplished a blow against our freedom.

You know, you don’t have to make attempts to tear down America, we have enough of our own people more than willing to do this.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:

Of course a doctor is the most suited to talk about finances. Just like I only get surgery from economists.

The thing is, the economists agree with the doc. Here ya go, Eienstein:
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/30/wsj-chief-economist-75-of-obamacare-costs-will-fall-on-backs-of-those-making-less-than-120k-a-year/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wsj-economist-brunt-of-obamacare-costs-will-be-shouldered-by-those-making-under-120k/

You don’t need to be a doc, nor an economist to see that when the government forces people to buy stuff, through tax and subsidization, or imposed fines and subsidization, it’s going to have a big positive effect on the insurance companies, drive up demand for healthcare, with no real increase in supply. What happens when supply stays the same but demand goes up? Come on, anyone? No one? The price goes up. That’s what happens. Why do people have so much trouble understanding basic economics?

 
Flag Post

Why do people have so much trouble understanding basic economics?

I’m getting the feeling you don’t really get the concept of insurance.

no real increase in supply.

What the heck do you even mean with that? Insurance is to provide monetary safety for the future, not to expect present cash inflows.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Why do people have so much trouble understanding basic economics?

I’m getting the feeling you don’t really get the concept of insurance.

no real increase in supply.

What the heck do you even mean with that? Insurance is to provide monetary safety for the future, not to expect present cash inflows.

I’m getting the feeling you don’t understand how some people spend half their lives in the emergency rooms with colds and wart removal. Those who get something for free (from others who have to pay for it) tend to abuse it.

 
Flag Post

Those who get something for free (from others who have to pay for it) tend to abuse it.

Obligatory health insurance fixes that problem. Have you been reading my posts?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Redem, I would ask you and all of the others not of our country why it is so important that our country mimics your countries?

Deeerrrr….maybe because what those OTHER COUNTRIES are doing is, at the very least, CONSIDERED (by, at the very least, SOME Americans)to actually be superior….at least in a way of being more effective than how we are doing the same thing.

Good gawd, man…our smallish city is constantly sending representatives to other countries (junkets) to observe various activities there….mostly how it relates to businesses.

Many cities in the U.S. have sister cities to facilitate just this. Plus, I think YOUR word, “minic” is just more of your typical hyperbole shit.

Why is it so important to you that we have government controlled healthcare?

Deeeerrrr. Perhaps because these ppl HAVE A FUCKING CONCIENCE? Just maybe….BUT, such is what I see in their arguments for such healthcare IN GENERAL. I see this as being more there arguement than a “PUSHING FOR” it in the U.S. A paranoia about extreme external influences is YOUR bailiwick.

Let’s be honest,

OH FUCKING NO.
NOT that…doing that will cause Armageddon.
Maybe ya meant: FRANK

… it won’t affect you personally, or your country as a whole.

Highly debatable. In today’s global society, when someone sneezes in France, someone in the U.S. catches a cold. vika can tell ya just how interconnected our medical economics are w/ England (at the very least).

Is this just another way for outsiders to help tear America down?

Wow, can YOU get any weirder on these paranoia of yours?

Maybe you feel this is punishment for decisions our government has made that you don’t agree with and you have to hurt the people of the country to feel like you have accomplished a blow against our freedom.

And America doesn’t impose sanctions and embargoes against countries they feel aren’t agreeing w/ us….exp. in the areas of their “freedoms”?
You know, you don’t have to make attempts to tear down America, we have enough of our own people more than willing to do this.

Yup, and jake-o…YOU are one of them,,,in YOUR own way. Do we need to remind ya…Gay RIGHTS,,,women’s RIGHTS over THEIR bodies,,,health care for those who don’t want to b treated as are ppl in 3rd-world countries,,,etc.?
Originally posted by jhco50:

I’m getting the feeling you don’t understand how some people spend half their lives in the emergency rooms with colds and wart removal.

I’m getting the feeling that YOU are, once again, failing to either READ what others post…OR, ya’re opting (per usual) to completely ignore them in favor of a good healthy nurturing of YOUR egocentric biases.

It is the very arguement that this use of ER’s and the huge $$$$$ involved is what might hugely effect the cost of OTHER MEANS of caring for those who don’t currently have health care insurance….eh?

Those who get something for free (from others who have to pay for it) tend to abuse it.

And this doesn’t apply to most EVERYONE?
Esp. the “fat cats” at the top who totally “rob” the American worker of their hard-earned share of the profits.

jake-o, I’ve NEVER been able to understand why SOME ppl are so intent on SEEING ONLY the ABUSES the indigent and working poor manifest,,,,INSTEAD OF the many, MANY ppl who are immensely helped by “entitlement” programs. Ya know entitlement as in BEING ENTITLED to something. Please, jake-o…read that definition. Please, read up on the many programs that help the many Americans who ARE ENTITLED TO some help and ARE NOT ABUSING those programs.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Those who get something for free (from others who have to pay for it) tend to abuse it.

Obligatory health insurance fixes that problem. Have you been reading my posts?

You don’t understand what the “problem” is. When Obamacare goes live, the consumption of healthcare will go live. Millions of Americans will become healthcare consumers overnight. The “problem” is that millions of Americans will not also become doctors overnight. Demand goes up. Supply stays the same. This results in an increase in costs. Basic economics.

Further, in “response” to the increase in costs, the US gov will have to step in and add additional regulations, and provide supply to the deficits, and regulate the inner workings to prevent abuse, etc etc etc. What Obamacare represents is a complete nationalizing of the healthcare industry.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:And this doesn’t apply to most EVERYONE?
Esp. the “fat cats” at the top who totally “rob” the American worker of their hard-earned share of the profits.
You state a problem with no ready solution. The issue is, liberals want to use big government as a solution to this problem. If someone is robbing you, you don’t jump off a cliff to get away from him.