Obamacare

Post Reply New Topic

I think that you are missing my point. I'm not talking about whether or not you will pay more/less taxes at all. I am basically saying that eliminating these programs altogether will collapse an already fragile economy, which I am certain will do your business great harm. I am fine with the fact that you don't think it is fair that it is mandatory. But if you want fairness in law, you will never, ever see that. Laws are made primarily by the wealthy (no matter what form of government) which means that most laws are going to benefit the wealthy more than the poor.

Just out of curiosity, are you against the minimum wage, labor laws (overtime pay/working hours limitations/etc.), corporate taxes, business registration, and accounting and business regulations? These are a few examples of mandatory laws that benefit some at the expense of others.

I'm not certain what you mean by the law already speaking for itself.
If you are talking about the website problems, they have nothing to do with the law itself.
If you are talking about some people losing their plans, you should realize that 1) it is primarily the companies taking advantage of its customers, not the ACA 2) most of the plans being cancelled do not meet some extremely reasonable minimum standards and 3) it is a very small minority of those insured that are affected and an even smaller percentage of the population as a whole.
If you are talking about higher premiums, the majority of the high rates will be more than offset by government subsidies, reducing the cost for most. And current policies through employers have not risen beyond what has been the average for the better part of a decade.

By the way, the (slight) majority of Americans will not actually be affected by the ACA in the short term in any way whatsoever.

Why don't you give the ACA a year or two before you try to make your arguments.

Yes. I oppose regulation by threat of force (e.g. law).

I oppose victimless crime in general. If a certain activity harms an individual or group of individuals, that harm should be addressed specifically. For example, a law against texting while driving seems dumb. Laws already exist that address the consequences of texting while driving. We don't need to make the act of doing so illegal -- there is no victim.

I'm far more pragmatic when it comes to real life than I am on this forum. I spent plenty of my life wanting things to be fair and achieved nothing as a result.

Let's face it, the world is and always will be an aristocracy. I work my way up the social ladder because I want my family to be closer to the top than the bottom. In doing so, I will participate in some activities that I consider morally objectionable. Right or wrong, the strong survive and the weak don't. I choose to win.

Some people here (GoonSquad) feel that my "depravity" is "revolting and infuriating". Perhaps it is, but I'm not ashamed of what I've achieved. What I have, I earned -- by working smart.

Redistribution of wealth isn't fair treatment under the law.

My insurance rates over the last decade have been increasing at a rate of 3-6% a year. As I explained earlier, in 2014 they go up an average of 75% across my employees, ranging from 40% to 150%. None of my employees qualify for any subsidies.


I somewhat agree with this. I try to keep an open mind to these things (as well as election results).

But there are a lot of major consequences coming to bear right now due to the ACA and as a small business owner, I feel like I'm getting the brunt of them.

I apologize if I have come across as accusing you of being somehow inferior. That was not my intent, although looking back through some of my posts it has come off that way. I admire the fact that you have worked hard and smart to get where you are. My issue is that working hard and smart doesn't always get you anywhere at all.
I personally believe that our social programs give more people the opportunity to get to where you are. Do I think that any of the social welfare programs are well designed? No, not at all. Do I think that any social welfare program is being run efficiently or cost effectively? Absolutely not. I just don't think elimination will do anything but harm for anyone who is not already established and above average financially. I would prefer to see someone (or preferably many someones) working on an alternative way to prevent hard working people from ending up in the gutter with no hope for the future. I am a big proponent of community service for government assistance. That would reduce the number of people abusing the system because they don't want to work, plus help those who are ashamed that they need help to keep some sense of self worth (which is vital to an individual's desire to improve). In addition, a service for assistance program would increase community based help and charity, further reducing the financial burden on government.

Our social welfare programs may be horribly flawed, but at the moment, it's the only thing keeping tens of millions of working class Americans from starving to death. For crying out loud, most people who work minimum wage jobs are near or below the poverty line. If we want a reduction in government assistance, we should start looking at ways to reduce poverty and increase people's incomes, not take away what little they have now.

Rising poverty and crime increase go hand and hand. This is the biggest factor in my personal views on all of these programs.

My business advice (I won't be offended if you completely ignore it), is to look into switching your employees over to a corporate/business health exchange. Some of these have been around long enough that the rates are significantly lower than average. There is a pretty good chance that you can maintain the same costs (or less) for your share while reducing the premiums your employees pay.

Depending on your state, it may also be quite feasible for you to send your employees over to the state run exchange. Depending on how much they make, you could end up saving both them and yourself a pretty nice chunk of change. Although there is a chance that your employees might not see it that way, since the premiums wouldn't be deducted before they get their checks.
I would wait on this if you do not have a state run exchange, though, as I think the federal exchanges are going to be pretty volatile while the insurance companies are trying to milk this for every penny they can get. They should settle within a few years, though, as the companies will begin trying to undercut each other to get a bigger slice of the pie.

I didn't get that from you, but thank you.

I agree that working hard and smart doesn't always get you anywhere. Life is a risk-based endeavor. Sometimes you work hard and smart and you fail and have to start over.


I wish I could believe that, but everywhere I see social programs taking away the consequences of failure. It's the fear of failure that makes people perform.


I agree that straight elimination would be a bad thing for our country and it's not a path that I would like to see either. But nobody else is standing in the way of wealth redistribution, so I take a hard line.

If it were up to me, we would work toward Milton Friedman's negative income tax. That's the most pragmatic solution I've ever seen to the problem. It's still redistribution of wealth, but it's done in a manner that I am willing to accept.

Right now, I pay the full premium for my employees. They only have to pay the income tax on it.

I'm looking into the exchanges to see if there are any options there. I appreciate your suggestions.

That is something I agree with 100%. It would fix some of the giant holes in our tax code. It would also alleviate much of the national economy's dependence on government assistance programs. It would also help reduce some of the issues surrounding minimum wage and its impact on employers.
The big problem is that the system has aspects that appeal to both extremes of the political spectrum, which in turn means it can easily be used in misinformation smear ads during campaign time. It is also less beneficial those in the absolute highest income brackets, who supply heaping piles of cash for election runs. It also makes it more difficult for large corporations to play the legal tax evasion game.
It seems unlikely that it will be put on the table by any major DC player in the current political climate and I don't see it happening for at least another generation or two. I think it will take a tanked economy and the collapse of corporate America for it to even be remotely possible to be accepted.

Obamacare is a good start. Health care is a right, not a privilege. Anyone who says it's a privilege should be required to go to a county hospital and tell some four-year-old with no health insurance that he's not good enough to get seen by a doctor because his mommy and daddy are lazy 47 percenters. Then you can talk.

If you notice, the people who are predicting the demise of American healthcare are the exact same people who don't want medicaid expanded, or the uninsured helped at all. They are gleeful as school girls with a first crush in their anticipation of healthcare becoming even more limited by it's collapse. And that being the case, I'd advise you not to hold your breath waiting for the Obamacare doomsday.

--duplicated post deleted--

Last edited by Mamselle on 01 Nov 2013, 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Have you considered presenting an argument rather than making a declaration? It might help us take you seriously.

... the 47 percent just came up... on page 47 in this thread...

Last edited by GGPViper on 01 Nov 2013, 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.