IGX

If you have purchased health coverage on the federal government's new Obamacare marketplace, about a dozen or so reporters would like to speak with you. We promise we won't take up too much of your time!

We just need to find you first.

The federal government has said that somewhere out in this vast country of 313 million people, where 48 million lack insurance coverage, someone has managed to sign up for health insurance on the federally-run marketplaces. As of yet, we haven't tracked this person - or these people - down.

This is not for lack of effort. Reporters here at The Washington Post and at other publications have been on the hunt for this mythical creature.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... quite-yet/

Nobody in the state of NY has enrolled yet.
The state hasn't certified any insurance companies or hospitals to enroll people yet.
Seems somebody in the bureaucracy forgot about that step.

That, and deadbeats don't have money to buy health insurance.

Kazuya Mishima wrote:That, and deadbeats don't have money to buy health insurance.

It isn't the deadbeats.

Part-time work spiked during the recent recession and has stayed stubbornly high, raising concerns that elevated part-time employment represents a “new normal” in the labor market. However, recent movements and current levels of part-time work are largely within historical norms, despite increases for selected demographic groups, such as prime-age workers with a high-school degree or less. In that respect, the continued high incidence of part-time work likely reflects a slow labor market recovery and does not portend permanent changes in the proportion of part-time jobs.

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/ ... recession/

Turdacious wrote:

Kazuya Mishima wrote:That, and deadbeats don't have money to buy health insurance.

It isn't the deadbeats.

Part-time work spiked during the recent recession and has stayed stubbornly high, raising concerns that elevated part-time employment represents a “new normal” in the labor market. However, recent movements and current levels of part-time work are largely within historical norms, despite increases for selected demographic groups, such as prime-age workers with a high-school degree or less. In that respect, the continued high incidence of part-time work likely reflects a slow labor market recovery and does not portend permanent changes in the proportion of part-time jobs.

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/ ... recession/

If you were a part time worker doing 38 hour/week at a company that didn't want to make you full time prior to Obama care, you're likely to now be a 28 hour/week employee. So, at $10/hour you were grossing $1520/month and are now grossing $1200/month. I don't know what the monthly net of that will be but it's a 21% decrease in gross pay + Obamacare insurance costs.

I may misunderstand the impact of Obamacare on part time employment but it looks like Obamacare related reductions in hours are a HUGE hit in the pocket to the working poor that far exceeds the benefits of any subsidies and has to be changing the part time employment market for the worse.

Knoledzeable liemen can correct me if I'm wrong.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Kazuya Mishima wrote:That, and deadbeats don't have money to buy health insurance.

It isn't the deadbeats.

Part-time work spiked during the recent recession and has stayed stubbornly high, raising concerns that elevated part-time employment represents a “new normal” in the labor market. However, recent movements and current levels of part-time work are largely within historical norms, despite increases for selected demographic groups, such as prime-age workers with a high-school degree or less. In that respect, the continued high incidence of part-time work likely reflects a slow labor market recovery and does not portend permanent changes in the proportion of part-time jobs.

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/ ... recession/

If you were a part time worker doing 38 hour/week at a company that didn't want to make you full time prior to Obama care, you're likely to now be a 28 hour/week employee. So, at $10/hour you were grossing $1520/month and are now grossing $1200/month. I don't know what the monthly net of that will be but it's a 21% decrease in gross pay + Obamacare insurance costs.

I may misunderstand the impact of Obamacare on part time employment but it looks like Obamacare related reductions in hours are a HUGE hit in the pocket to the working poor that far exceeds the benefits of any subsidies and has to be changing the part time employment market for the worse.

Knoledzeable liemen can correct me if I'm wrong.

But you could pick up a second job, correct? Diversify your working, and less risk of taking it in the shorts when one job goes down.

One thing about getting health insurance outside of company benefits is it removes a huge point of friction in moving from one job to another.

nafod wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Kazuya Mishima wrote:That, and deadbeats don't have money to buy health insurance.

It isn't the deadbeats.

Part-time work spiked during the recent recession and has stayed stubbornly high, raising concerns that elevated part-time employment represents a “new normal” in the labor market. However, recent movements and current levels of part-time work are largely within historical norms, despite increases for selected demographic groups, such as prime-age workers with a high-school degree or less. In that respect, the continued high incidence of part-time work likely reflects a slow labor market recovery and does not portend permanent changes in the proportion of part-time jobs.

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/ ... recession/

If you were a part time worker doing 38 hour/week at a company that didn't want to make you full time prior to Obama care, you're likely to now be a 28 hour/week employee. So, at $10/hour you were grossing $1520/month and are now grossing $1200/month. I don't know what the monthly net of that will be but it's a 21% decrease in gross pay + Obamacare insurance costs.

I may misunderstand the impact of Obamacare on part time employment but it looks like Obamacare related reductions in hours are a HUGE hit in the pocket to the working poor that far exceeds the benefits of any subsidies and has to be changing the part time employment market for the worse.

Knoledzeable liemen can correct me if I'm wrong.

But you could pick up a second job, correct? Diversify your working, and less risk of taking it in the shorts when one job goes down.

I've thought about that and it has potential benefits. I think that overall, it will complicate the difficult lives of the working poor. Conversely, it's also possible that the number of unemployed teens might drop as they fill in the gaps of those who had their hours cut. All-in-all I suspect that the <30 hours/week thing will hurt more than it helps.

One thing about getting health insurance outside of company benefits is it removes a huge point of friction in moving from one job to another.

The fact that you can't be denied because of a pre-existing condition certainly offers people the ability to better themselves via enhanced mobility and removes one block to self betterment.

I'm of the opinion that Obamacare is a shit deal overall...it fucks the haves (enjoy higher healthcare cost and less availability of care), and the have nots (enjoy working less hours as your employer games the system).

nafod wrote:But you could pick up a second job, correct? Diversify your working, and less risk of taking it in the shorts when one job goes down.

Maybe, maybe not.
1. Jobs may not be available on a different shift than your primary job offers
2. Your current job requires you to work varied shifts
3. Transportation costs for getting from one job to another (time is a cost; and a lot of jobs are not available to people who rely on public transportation because of the location or time of the hours offered)
4. Childcare considerations
5. Bills have remained sticky while income has decreased.
6. Number of part time jobs compared to number of qualified applicants. Employers can take their pick of employees right now and may want someone they have exclusively.

It's hard to quantify these because they vary by each job, person, and where you live.

Another consideration is deductibles. In the scenario Doc presents, that person may only be able to afford a high deductible plan-- actually using the insurance could take up most of that person's discretionary income.

nafod wrote:One thing about getting health insurance outside of company benefits is it removes a huge point of friction in moving from one job to another.

This is one of the reasons why employer tax credits and mandates are almost universally opposed by economists, including Obama's advisers. The "play-or-pay" bullshit was put into the act by know-nothings in Congress, and the cuts to the tax credit that were initially in the law were gutted as a concession to unions.

Pinky wrote:

nafod wrote:One thing about getting health insurance outside of company benefits is it removes a huge point of friction in moving from one job to another.

This is one of the reasons why employer tax credits and mandates are almost universally opposed by economists, including Obama's advisers. The "play-or-pay" bullshit was put into the act by know-nothings in Congress, and the cuts to the tax credit that were initially in the law were gutted as a concession to unions.

Weren't employer and employee mandates a part of Gruber's original Obamacare proposal and his MassCare proposal?

Pinky wrote:

nafod wrote:One thing about getting health insurance outside of company benefits is it removes a huge point of friction in moving from one job to another.

This is one of the reasons why employer tax credits and mandates are almost universally opposed by economists, including Obama's advisers. The "play-or-pay" bullshit was put into the act by know-nothings in Congress, and the cuts to the tax credit that were initially in the law were gutted as a concession to unions.

If I had any integrity I'd admit that I got the idea on this from one of your posts a while back.

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:

nafod wrote:One thing about getting health insurance outside of company benefits is it removes a huge point of friction in moving from one job to another.

This is one of the reasons why employer tax credits and mandates are almost universally opposed by economists, including Obama's advisers. The "play-or-pay" bullshit was put into the act by know-nothings in Congress, and the cuts to the tax credit that were initially in the law were gutted as a concession to unions.

Weren't employer and employee mandates a part of Gruber's original Obamacare proposal and his MassCare proposal?

The individual mandate was. I don't think the employer mandate was there, but he might have included in anticipation of political pressure. Since the bill passed he's clearly been trying to convince people (maybe himself) that the employer mandate is not that bad, but I haven't seen him actively defend it as a good idea.

Pinky wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:

nafod wrote:One thing about getting health insurance outside of company benefits is it removes a huge point of friction in moving from one job to another.

This is one of the reasons why employer tax credits and mandates are almost universally opposed by economists, including Obama's advisers. The "play-or-pay" bullshit was put into the act by know-nothings in Congress, and the cuts to the tax credit that were initially in the law were gutted as a concession to unions.

Weren't employer and employee mandates a part of Gruber's original Obamacare proposal and his MassCare proposal?

The individual mandate was. I don't think the employer mandate was there, but he might have included in anticipation of political pressure. Since the bill passed he's clearly been trying to convince people (maybe himself) that the employer mandate is not that bad, but I haven't seen him actively defend it as a good idea.

As I understand it (and I just did a whole five minutes of google research, but nothing serious), the employer mandate in Mass. was ~15% what the federal mandate is ($260 v. $2000 per employee). Not sure whether or not that was part of his original proposal in Mass. or not. Either way that's a big difference in labor costs. Can't argue with your final point.

There is so much hype on both sides...all I can say is I don't think I like where this is going.

The point of Obamacare is to fuck the health care system so bad and make insurance prices rise so much, that they can in turn blame the evil insurance companies(even though they're mandated to not make any more than 20%), and voila! The solution is a single payer system - what they wanted all along.

Herv100 wrote:The point of Obamacare is to fuck the health care system so bad and make insurance prices rise so much, that they can in turn blame the evil insurance companies(even though they're mandated to not make any more than 20%), and voila! The solution is a single payer system - what they wanted all along.

We could only dream that the government could actually think two or three steps ahead.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:There is so much hype on both sides...all I can say is I don't think I like where this is going.

Medicare:
Independent Payment Advisory Board-- not off the ground yet (not sure it's even filled), and has a good chance to be a casualty of the funding deal (significant opposition on both sides)
Medicare fraud control efforts-- underfunded every year (significant opposition on both sides)
Doctors may be moving their practices away from serving Medicare patients

Medicaid:
Expansion not set up in all states, nobody knows if managed care will give poor patients good service
Aging population will need to go to nursing homes-- currently the largest medicaid expense and one that will rise over time.

Private insurance:
Multiple states are taxing private sector health insurance to pay for the medicaid expansion, causing costs to go up over the short and possibly long term
Birth control policy/Pfizer subsidy that only helps women who generally have no problem affording birth control and will do nothing to help the unplanned pregnancy rate.
Despite what most economists say, politicians still love expensive employer mandates, just not the Obamacare employer mandate.
Federal exchanges are not ready for prime time
IRS rules are still largely undefined
Evolving bureaucratic hurdles are increasing business expenses and hurting hiring.

Terry B. wrote:

Herv100 wrote:The point of Obamacare is to fuck the health care system so bad and make insurance prices rise so much, that they can in turn blame the evil insurance companies(even though they're mandated to not make any more than 20%), and voila! The solution is a single payer system - what they wanted all along.

We could only dream that the government could actually think two or three steps ahead.

They've already said their long term plan is single payer around ten years from now. Why would that be necessary if the Affordable Health Care Act is so great?

I don't know why they couldn't have lifted the documentation from a plan that's been shown to work.

The cost of medical expenses in the US is driving significant medical tourism. Places like the Dominican Republic have state of the art hospitals and doctors on the cutting edge of medicine, and can utilized proven, yet non-FDA approved, treatments.

Actually, a Canadian I know took his mom to the DR, spent a month there after the treatment and during her recovery, and she is doing fantastic, whereas in the Canadian system, she'd be taking up a bed at a long term care facility and would have never been treated.

I think he said the cost was less than 20% of what a similar treatment in the US would have been, and he couldn't have gotten it in Canada.

Herv100 wrote:

Terry B. wrote:

Herv100 wrote:The point of Obamacare is to fuck the health care system so bad and make insurance prices rise so much, that they can in turn blame the evil insurance companies(even though they're mandated to not make any more than 20%), and voila! The solution is a single payer system - what they wanted all along.

We could only dream that the government could actually think two or three steps ahead.

They've already said their long term plan is single payer around ten years from now. Why would that be necessary if the Affordable Health Care Act is so great?

Free phones, that's why!*

*If you can actually sign up.

Other than getting rid of exclusions on pre-existing conditions, the rest of the law is more about control than health care. I;ve skimmed the thing but the double speak and shit is a headache.

I talked with some who is in the insurance bizz and has read it and thinks it's a fucking trojan horse to fuck everything up. Healthcare system, the economy, creat dependency and this person voted for the little University commienigger the first time.

I actually thing the GOP should give up short term, let it take effect and then say "See, we wanted to stop this, See, the feds have no place in the, see fucking Liberals have fucked you and exempted themselves, vote for us. We might be greedy, but greedy makes for a good economy for those who will work and have IQ's over 90!"

The only people that I see supporting this shit now are people who make a lot of money, poor people and Mexicans.

How many Union heads who supported it in 09-10 now want exemptions or it defunded or got rid of?

Let them have it because the upper middle and middle class yuppies who were "We need to make sure everyone has health care or ghetto babies will die!" will be "Fuck them! Let them die!" when they cant buy a new BMW and their slit can;t go to Yoga class because their cost went up and they can no longer afford to be so free with their cash, or their jobs will go too.

Healthcare will always be a problem in this country as long as people get on more drugs (legal or not), get fatter, sit more, and try to prolong the last miserable 0.05% of their life as long as possible. Forget health coverage and paying for it - the debate on healthcare is ridiculous without a serious discussion of why Americans need so many drugs and doctors visits in the first place.

I would like to see tax breaks for people who have streaks of no doctor's visits or drug usage for 2 years or more. And then leave the treatment for people who can't control what they have.

And yes I did search on Google for 10 minutes so I know everything there is to know about healthcare and why I'm right.

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:But you could pick up a second job, correct? Diversify your working, and less risk of taking it in the shorts when one job goes down.

Maybe, maybe not.
1. Jobs may not be available on a different shift than your primary job offers
2. Your current job requires you to work varied shifts
3. Transportation costs for getting from one job to another (time is a cost; and a lot of jobs are not available to people who rely on public transportation because of the location or time of the hours offered)
4. Childcare considerations
5. Bills have remained sticky while income has decreased.
6. Number of part time jobs compared to number of qualified applicants. Employers can take their pick of employees right now and may want someone they have exclusively.

It's hard to quantify these because they vary by each job, person, and where you live.

Another consideration is deductibles. In the scenario Doc presents, that person may only be able to afford a high deductible plan-- actually using the insurance could take up most of that person's discretionary income.

And that's what the Nigger in Chief either does not get at best or is well aware of at worst.

Yeah, we can all get apart time jobs at McDonald's and Cosco! Too bad this shit will put us out of recession and into depression.

But Sara Fuck can get her birth control, there was no need to elect a man who ran a state and actually made a Billion $$$ in the private sector when you can have a checker baby con-law professor and all his staff, who really run the country right now.