Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Health care repeal tactics

Health care repeal tactics
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2011, 09:01 PM
 
If you aren't a fan of the health care legislation that was passed, why not urge our politicians to come up with something that is better that can be used to replace the current legislation in addition to having it repealed rather than just trying to destroy what is currently in existence? It seems that most of us agree that what we had was in need of some sort of reform, so why aren't politicians who are unhappy with what was passed working on that replacement?

Trying to destroy what is in existence seems like a losing tactic. If repeal succeeds, won't voters be interested in the "okay, now what" part of this? Why not have the replacement package waiting in the wings and start getting some support behind it? Not only will this ensure re-elections, but it will also help drive the repeal process, right? I don't see "okay, let's just go back to what we had before" as a particularly alluring option that is going to keep voters happy in the longterm.

Let's refrain from bitching about the current health care plan, its weaknesses, diatribes about this and that - by now I think most of us know where people in here stand in regards to health care and what was passed. What I'm addressing here is pure political strategery, not ideology.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2011, 09:36 PM
 
Because Besson,

1 step at a time. The garbage that is there now needs to go before we can get some real reform.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2011, 09:55 PM
 
Why? Repeal and replace at the same time. Repeal because there is something to replace it with that has more support.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2011, 10:56 PM
 
I got nothing.

And so do politicians. That's why they better keep their slimy fingers out of our hair.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2011, 11:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I got nothing.

And so do politicians. That's why they better keep their slimy fingers out of our hair.

-t

Thanks for sharing, I guess?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2011, 11:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Thanks for sharing, I guess?
You're most welcome. May it guide your ways henceforth.

-t
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2011, 11:45 PM
 
Glad I live in Canada.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 12:49 AM
 
Yes. We are. Very.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 01:31 AM
 
It's so much fun watching you'all.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 01:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
It's so much fun watching you'all.
Don't worry about Crash, he attacks stuff, that's just what he does.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 02:04 AM
 
This time I more or less agree with you, besson. The Republicans fail to capitalize on a major advantage if they only talk about repeal instead of pushing their replacement for Obamacare. The public at large just hears talk of repeal, and the message that the GOP will preserve the popular provisions of the legislation while adding additional "common sense" reforms gets lost. You really have to strain to hear it.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 02:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
This time I more or less agree with you, besson. The Republicans fail to capitalize on a major advantage if they only talk about repeal instead of pushing their replacement for Obamacare. The public at large just hears talk of repeal, and the message that the GOP will preserve the popular provisions of the legislation while adding additional "common sense" reforms gets lost. You really have to strain to hear it.

Not only that, but it makes the whole "party of no" rhetoric easy to get by people. At the very least it would be nice if there was some focus to the reasoning behind wanting to repeal it in the first place. I'm not saying that there aren't good reasons, but it is as usual surrounded by a whole lot of hyper-rhetoric from people like Michelle Bachmann that go on about how it is job killing, and lots of other differing rhetoric from other people that make these messages seem unbelievable because of their divergence. Some focus on these reasons is needed if the Republicans want to avoid either being branded as the party of no, or else simply trying to repeal this because they want everything and anything Obama to fail. I have to admit, my gut feeling is that they are interested in being the former and may have intentions in line with the latter. My suspicions could be averted if they actually publicized what sorts of ideas will replace the current legislation once it is hypothetically repealed. If they can't come up with better ideas, then maybe they should be doing something more constructive with their time, like coming up with these ideas?

I'm disappointed how discussion about improving health care just fell by the wayside, as if this bill just fixes everything (I'm sure it doesn't), or else there can't be follow up legislation to replace or amend with something that might be better. Sometimes the best way to replace a bad idea is with a better idea.

Lest I get defenses up, in no way am I suggesting that these tactics are not practiced by the left at times, but it still all sucks.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 02:41 AM
 
The one thing I don't think you're factoring into your analysis, however, is that you probably don't appreciate why so many Americans (and so many Republicans by extensions) are so anti-Obamacare. I believe it was passed illegally, and I believe it's unconstitutional. A lot of other people believe the same thing - that the Democrats disregarded both the Constitution and the rule of law in ramming this legislation through. We believe that the clearly expressed will of the country was rejected because Obama decided he wanted to pass this thing no matter what - in quasi dictatorial fashion.

We also believe that the legislation is ridiculously corrupt. Democrats admitted they didn't read the 2,000+ pages before enacting it, and most of those pages were completely unnecessary pork and other legislative spam. The legislation became the poster child for the corruption of the new administration and Obama's arrogance. Thus, the desire to repeal it on the right is something of a political gag reflex.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 02:55 AM
 
Couldn't resist getting into the ideology and specifics of the legislation, huh?

I don't know why you choose to believe that the electorate or even your average politician knows constitution law all that well. Some surely do and can make that argument, but if you were to survey a whole bunch of people as to why the health care bill is unconstitutional, I'm sure you'd get very, very few good answers.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 08:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Couldn't resist getting into the ideology and specifics of the legislation, huh?
I honestly didn't know such discussion was off limits in this thread.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 09:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
The one thing I don't think you're factoring into your analysis, however, is that you probably don't appreciate why so many Americans (and so many Republicans by extensions) are so anti-Obamacare. I believe it was passed illegally, and I believe it's unconstitutional. A lot of other people believe the same thing - that the Democrats disregarded both the Constitution and the rule of law in ramming this legislation through. We believe that the clearly expressed will of the country was rejected because Obama decided he wanted to pass this thing no matter what - in quasi dictatorial fashion.

We also believe that the legislation is ridiculously corrupt. Democrats admitted they didn't read the 2,000+ pages before enacting it, and most of those pages were completely unnecessary pork and other legislative spam. The legislation became the poster child for the corruption of the new administration and Obama's arrogance. Thus, the desire to repeal it on the right is something of a political gag reflex.
Bizarre. Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798 - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 09:35 AM
 
Until Harry Reid and company start listening, all their antics will be seen on all the republican campaign ads in 2010 as a reminder that the DEMOCRATS WEREN'T LISTENING, and still refuse to listen. Obamacare will be held up as the kind of wasteful unlawful BS that they produce, and it has impacted everything in a negative way.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 05:02 PM
 
Repeal -> quick and thus likely to happen

New reform -> slow, even less momentum than before, so drawn out over more than a year and a half and less likely to happen
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Repeal -> quick and thus likely to happen

New reform -> slow, even less momentum than before, so drawn out over more than a year and a half and less likely to happen

The speed part of this is probably true, but what about support and buy in?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Until Harry Reid and company start listening, all their antics will be seen on all the republican campaign ads in 2010 as a reminder that the DEMOCRATS WEREN'T LISTENING, and still refuse to listen. Obamacare will be held up as the kind of wasteful unlawful BS that they produce, and it has impacted everything in a negative way.
Weren't listening to who? Im so sick of this stupid terrible stupid and terrible line of reasoning. It's stupid. And terrible.

Some people were in favor of it and some weren't. They weren't listening to the ones who weren't in favor of it. Not everyone was opposed to it. But hey, I guess if people keep repeating that same line over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over then eventually someone might believe it.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2011, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I honestly didn't know such discussion was off limits in this thread.
Anything that requires thought beyond some emo-slogan on a bumpersticker is off limits in a besson3c thread.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2011, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Repeal -> quick and thus likely to happen

New reform -> slow, even less momentum than before, so drawn out over more than a year and a half and less likely to happen
The kaboom. The earth-shattering kaboom. ^

IMO this legislation needs to be eliminated asap because it looms over the jobs picture like a storm cloud. As long as the most contentious pieces of it continue to roll through the court systems will only continue to do so. It needs to be repealed because it began and ended in back-room deals, exemptions for favored unions (which is preposterous if such good legislation), Federal college grants, and other ambiguities littered throughout this thing entirely drowning out the one or two redeeming qualities of this non-read, rushed legislation. The good of it could be pieced together with new, legitimate reform in 15 minutes and get suits to stop incubating money.

The notion that there are no other ideas related to healthcare reform by Republicans or others opposed to Obamacare is not only mistaken, but has been corrected ad nauseam by myself and others.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2011, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The kaboom. The earth-shattering kaboom. ^

IMO this legislation needs to be eliminated asap because it looms over the jobs picture like a storm cloud. As long as the most contentious pieces of it continue to roll through the court systems will only continue to do so. It needs to be repealed because it began and ended in back-room deals, exemptions for favored unions (which is preposterous if such good legislation), Federal college grants, and other ambiguities littered throughout this thing entirely drowning out the one or two redeeming qualities of this non-read, rushed legislation. The good of it could be pieced together with new, legitimate reform in 15 minutes and get suits to stop incubating money.

The notion that there are no other ideas related to healthcare reform by Republicans or others opposed to Obamacare is not only mistaken, but has been corrected ad nauseam by myself and others.

ebuddy, I demand that you be more informative and entertaining to me, because well... I'm besson3c.

I'm not interested right now in why anybody feels the bill should be repealed. The question I'm asking and I've yet to get a satisfying answer to is why repeal only rather than repeal and replace at the same time? At the very least, there could be a sneak peak of what a replacement will look like, a promise/commitment, something to foreshadow and start drumming up support for...

I understand the speed argument. Why is it that repeal only is going to be comparatively easy and quick compared to repeal + replace? The quick part I can see providing that the votes are there, but isn't it much more likely for there to be votes if there was also a replacement package waiting in the wings? Now is the perfect opportunity to be drumming up support for a replacement package, I think, one that shows off all of the ideas you claim that the Republicans have. Even simply *trying* to do all of this will stifle all of the "party of no" rhetoric, right?

That replacement package will entice all of the people that believe that the current package is an improvement over what we have, but that the bill is imperfect. Hell, I think even the president himself could be on board with a replacement package. He himself has said that the bill isn't perfect, and the whole private health insurance exchange can't be too far removed from what the Republicans would want to do in encouraging competition and all of that? Plus, he has labeled himself as this non-partisan president that will accept good ideas from either party. Give him some good ideas, checkmate.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2011, 03:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
ebuddy, I demand that you be more informative and entertaining to me, because well... I'm besson3c.

I'm not interested right now in why anybody feels the bill should be repealed. The question I'm asking and I've yet to get a satisfying answer to is why repeal only rather than repeal and replace at the same time? At the very least, there could be a sneak peak of what a replacement will look like, a promise/commitment, something to foreshadow and start drumming up support for...

I understand the speed argument. Why is it that repeal only is going to be comparatively easy and quick compared to repeal + replace? The quick part I can see providing that the votes are there, but isn't it much more likely for there to be votes if there was also a replacement package waiting in the wings? Now is the perfect opportunity to be drumming up support for a replacement package, I think, one that shows off all of the ideas you claim that the Republicans have. Even simply *trying* to do all of this will stifle all of the "party of no" rhetoric, right?

That replacement package will entice all of the people that believe that the current package is an improvement over what we have, but that the bill is imperfect. Hell, I think even the president himself could be on board with a replacement package. He himself has said that the bill isn't perfect, and the whole private health insurance exchange can't be too far removed from what the Republicans would want to do in encouraging competition and all of that? Plus, he has labeled himself as this non-partisan president that will accept good ideas from either party. Give him some good ideas, checkmate.
I'm glad you asked besson3c. This is exactly what House Republicans are trying to do.

There are a lot of ideals on the table and they need to be compiled into a singular replacement bill just like Obamacare was. On January 19th, the House passed a bill that instructs four House committees to work on producing a replacement bill to the current health care law. The final vote was 253 in favor, 175 against. Here's the rub. These ideals or the "replacement bill" needs a fair hearing just as Obamacare had a hearing (albeit a very lop-sided hearing over the span of a year in which Republicans were the significant minority and strategically removed from the process) and of course this does not happen overnight. While they are presently moving forward on both simultaneously, there's no reason to hold one up for the other.

The more entertaining answer is, remove the tumor then administer chemo. Plus... politics. Get whichever Democrats who would support the current legislation on the record supporting it while repeal remains popular with the electorate.
ebuddy
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2011, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There are a lot of ideals on the table and they need to be compiled into a singular replacement bill just like Obamacare was. On January 19th, the House passed a bill that instructs four House committees to work on producing a replacement bill to the current health care law. The final vote was 253 in favor, 175 against. Here's the rub. These ideals or the "replacement bill" needs a fair hearing just as Obamacare had a hearing (albeit a very lop-sided hearing over the span of a year in which Republicans were the significant minority and strategically removed from the process) and of course this does not happen overnight. While they are presently moving forward on both simultaneously, there's no reason to hold one up for the other.
It seems to me that we have been talking about health care reform for the better part of two years now. (Even longer if you count the situation in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney gave Obamacare a test drive.) Even if Republican ideas were totally ignored while the Democrats controlled the House, you'd think they'd be bursting at the seams with two years worth of ideas by now, wouldn't you? And that before tearing down the health care law, they would offer something concrete to replace it?

Nobody (not even my Michelle) has managed to explain to me yet how Obamacare kills a single job, and yet that's all I hear in opposition. That, and "socialized medicine". Obamacare is specifically not socialized medicine -- if it was, it would be a single-payer system run by the government. And there are plenty of Liberals who view the current Health Care law as a sellout to the private insurance companies, because they are convinced that nothing less than a single-payer system will work. That's "socialized medicine", folks.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2011, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Even if Republican ideas were totally ignored while the Democrats controlled the House, you'd think they'd be bursting at the seams with two years worth of ideas by now, wouldn't you? And that before tearing down the health care law, they would offer something concrete to replace it?
This is exactly what's been pissing me off about the Republicans. All they have offered is "This is bad!" without ANYTHING (concrete OR vapor) as a replacement. The only thing I've heard is "tort reform". Well tort reform should happen regardless of Obamacare, so go ahead and move forward on that.

In theory it should be easier to "fix" a bad law then two create a new one. And all this screaming and angst before Obamacare is even in full swing.. Absurd.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2011, 08:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
It seems to me that we have been talking about health care reform for the better part of two years now. (Even longer if you count the situation in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney gave Obamacare a test drive.) Even if Republican ideas were totally ignored while the Democrats controlled the House, you'd think they'd be bursting at the seams with two years worth of ideas by now, wouldn't you? And that before tearing down the health care law, they would offer something concrete to replace it?

Nobody (not even my Michelle) has managed to explain to me yet how Obamacare kills a single job, and yet that's all I hear in opposition. That, and "socialized medicine". Obamacare is specifically not socialized medicine -- if it was, it would be a single-payer system run by the government. And there are plenty of Liberals who view the current Health Care law as a sellout to the private insurance companies, because they are convinced that nothing less than a single-payer system will work. That's "socialized medicine", folks.
It seems to me the word "socialism" is coming more from the left's caricature of the right than its usage in any real debate on the current healthcare law. If that's all you're hearing, it's likely because you've availed yourself only of those sources that cite their caricature of the debate instead of the debate itself. Besides, the complaint about socialism does little good if it waits until after the single-payer system is codified into law.

There are many Republican ideals and they have to be compiled into a replacement bill as explained prior. Why did Obamacare require a year of the most contentious congressional gadgets if Democrats have been kicking it around since the days of Hillarycare?? Of course, it takes time to compile a bunch of ideals into a piece of legislation, particularly if they plan to read it.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2011, 08:48 PM
 
If you don't believe Obamacare is killing jobs, you don't believe that increases in Medicare payroll taxes have an effect. Or employer mandates that fine businesses unable to provide government-approved healthcare, or numerous pages of new regulation, or billions in hidden costs exacerbating market uncertainty causing employers to sit tight; then there is literally zero to convince you of its "job-killing" attributes.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2011, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Nobody (not even my Michelle) has managed to explain to me yet how Obamacare kills a single job, and yet that's all I hear in opposition.
How about common sense ?

Or, analogous, do you believe that printing money by the Fed has no consequence ?

-t
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2011, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm not interested right now in why anybody feels the bill should be repealed. The question I'm asking and I've yet to get a satisfying answer to is why repeal only rather than repeal and replace at the same time?
It's a practical matter.

Repeal is quick because it's easy to explain.

Positive reform is complicated and thus slow.

What about this answer do you find unsatisfying?

Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Repeal -> quick and thus likely to happen

New reform -> slow, even less momentum than before, so drawn out over more than a year and a half and less likely to happen
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2011, 01:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
It's a practical matter.

Repeal is quick because it's easy to explain.

Positive reform is complicated and thus slow.

What about this answer do you find unsatisfying?

I've answered this earlier in this thread.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2011, 01:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm glad you asked besson3c. This is exactly what House Republicans are trying to do.

There are a lot of ideals on the table and they need to be compiled into a singular replacement bill just like Obamacare was. On January 19th, the House passed a bill that instructs four House committees to work on producing a replacement bill to the current health care law. The final vote was 253 in favor, 175 against. Here's the rub. These ideals or the "replacement bill" needs a fair hearing just as Obamacare had a hearing (albeit a very lop-sided hearing over the span of a year in which Republicans were the significant minority and strategically removed from the process) and of course this does not happen overnight. While they are presently moving forward on both simultaneously, there's no reason to hold one up for the other.

The more entertaining answer is, remove the tumor then administer chemo. Plus... politics. Get whichever Democrats who would support the current legislation on the record supporting it while repeal remains popular with the electorate.

I was not aware of the Jan 19 bill to work on a replacement for the current legislation. It will be interesting to see how it evolves, and how it differs from what was already passed.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2011, 01:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If you don't believe Obamacare is killing jobs, you don't believe that increases in Medicare payroll taxes have an effect. Or employer mandates that fine businesses unable to provide government-approved healthcare, or numerous pages of new regulation, or billions in hidden costs exacerbating market uncertainty causing employers to sit tight; then there is literally zero to convince you of its "job-killing" attributes.

I don't know if I buy this premise.

There is already a massive expense associated with providing employees with comprehensive health insurance. In my last job this was over $10,000/year per family. If an employer is willing to take on these expenses, it is because this employee is going to bring an ROI to the company that is going to justify the costs of having this employee (or save the company substantial money), and this is probably not going to change adding a little additional expense, as those jobs that are right on the border of no ROI after salary expense are probably few and far between.

Unless these increased costs are quite substantial, this may not have a tangible, noticeable impact, and whatever impact that does exist could be offset by a company offering a lesser health care package, requiring a higher deductible, whatever. There are of course many other variables that could have a similar impact that have nothing to do with this legislation.

I think one has to do more work to establish a direct connection here, and especially using the term "job killing".
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2011, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't know if I buy this premise.

There is already a massive expense associated with providing employees with comprehensive health insurance.
Yes, the devil you know. They've been doing this for years.

In my last job this was over $10,000/year per family. If an employer is willing to take on these expenses, it is because this employee is going to bring an ROI to the company that is going to justify the costs of having this employee (or save the company substantial money), and this is probably not going to change adding a little additional expense, as those jobs that are right on the border of no ROI after salary expense are probably few and far between.
Before we even get into the direct employer/health care relationship, let's consider the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) that is embedded in the new health care law for whatever reason. SAFRA cuts subsidies for large banks that supply student-loans and lends directly to students. Sallie Mae for example, as one of the largest private student lenders, estimates 2,300 jobs would be lost by this cut. With regard to the relationship between employers and health care; there's nothing to suggest the additional expense will be "little", but what is well known is that it will in fact be an additional expense. The devil you don't know. If you can't see how market uncertainty affects the job market, there's not much else that can be explained for you to buy it. Employers will be faced with either dropping coverage altogether (precisely why the larger unions have lobbied against and have been exempted from Obamacare) or drop employees. Companies offer insurance coverage to employees because of substantial tax breaks given them. When those breaks come with additional mandates and regulations or businesses are fined for not playing along or producing the "approved level of care", they will drop employees. These coverages also come off your wage btw. You are making less because of your "cadillac plan", it's part of your overall compensation package. These "additional expenses" aren't going to come from the bottom line, they will be passed on with higher prices, even lower wages, and/or less employees.

I'd have an easier time understanding your skepticism if employers weren't already citing this problem or trying to wrangle their way out of it besson3c.

Unless these increased costs are quite substantial, this may not have a tangible, noticeable impact, and whatever impact that does exist could be offset by a company offering a lesser health care package, requiring a higher deductible, whatever. There are of course many other variables that could have a similar impact that have nothing to do with this legislation.

I think one has to do more work to establish a direct connection here, and especially using the term "job killing".
"job killing" is a distasteful term because it's an effective message that resonates at a time when employment numbers are at the front of everyone's mind. I don't think any more work is necessary as the ones in the know are speaking quite loudly about it to anyone who will listen. The connection between this legislation and job-killing couldn't be any more direct and clear IMO.
ebuddy
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2011, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It seems to me the word "socialism" is coming more from the left's caricature of the right than its usage in any real debate on the current healthcare law. If that's all you're hearing, it's likely because you've availed yourself only of those sources that cite their caricature of the debate instead of the debate itself.
Bullshit.

Besides, the complaint about socialism does little good if it waits until after the single-payer system is codified into law.
My point is that Obama's health care plan keeps private insurance plans private; if it were truly Socialist, the government would be taking over those plans.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2011, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Bullshit.



My point is that Obama's health care plan keeps private insurance plans private; if it were truly Socialist, the government would be taking over those plans.

Maybe the problem is that we don't know which House Republicans to pay attention to? The Republicans making the news definitely include Bachmann. If Boehner has pledged to replace our health care system I haven't heard from him yet, ditto for the past Republican presidential candidates.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2011, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
If all you're hearing is Michele Bachmann decrying socialism in opposition to Obamacare, you're a shut-in. The fact that you linked to Rightnetwork.com to get your soundbite pretty much establishes my point.

My point is that Obama's health care plan keeps private insurance plans private; if it were truly Socialist, the government would be taking over those plans.
Right, after they fought tooth and nail trying to stuff the public option into the legislation and Obama admitted that the route to a single-payer system doesn't happen overnight. Like I said, the complaint of socialized medicine does little good after the single-payer system has been made law.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2011, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Maybe the problem is that we don't know which House Republicans to pay attention to? The Republicans making the news definitely include Bachmann. If Boehner has pledged to replace our health care system I haven't heard from him yet, ditto for the past Republican presidential candidates.
Maybe you're not listening?

BOEHNER BACKS PLEDGE TO REPEAL & REPLACE OBAMACARE
johnboehner.com

If he does so literally word for word from your request above, does that count? The good news is, you won't find the words socialist, socialism, or socialized medicine anywhere in there.

*edited to clarify the bold, capitalized text above: this wasn't yelling, but the direct copy/paste of a headline from Boehner's website. I emboldened it to illustrate that it was a headline, but that just made it look angry.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Feb 6, 2011 at 06:34 PM. )
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2011, 11:44 PM
 
That's wonderful, I sincerely hope that this whole debate is brought back to the fore, preferably without the distracting rhetoric. I don't mean this sarcastically either.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:44 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2