Daily Obamacare Thread: Good and Bad

[tytlyf]

And the bad news keeps rolling in.

Duke University: 44% of U.S. firms consider cutting health care to current workers | WashingtonExaminer.com
Fewer than 2 million signed up for Medicaid under the health law, report says - The Washington Post
House committee to investigate why ObamaCare site has no appeals process | Fox News
Insurers Say Limited Doctor Choice Key To Plan Affordability Under Health Law - Kaiser Health News

Funny. Why do you post links and headlines without any input from yourself? Do you read what you post? Me-thinks no. You do realize that these right wing media outlets are scaring their audience on the ACA to make sure they don't change their current plans? It's a win win for insurance companies gouging the ignorant. They're profiting huge (short term or long) with this scare tactic. And people still think the ACA is government healthcare.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Maybe the word "gospel" was the incorrect word but it coveys the fact. You are using the term "you" very loosely here.

Yes. I meant it in the general sense. I understood what the CBO report meant when it was released. Yes, some will "choose" to work less in order to maintain their healthcare and subsidy. That's a tiny fraction of the population. Those who need to maintain their healthcare but make enough to pay their bills and debt will seek out full time employment or work more than one job.

And the CBO reported that the "some" was 2.3 million by 2021.

Yep but they also estimate a steady addition of jobs and steady lowering of the of unemployment.

No, my stance is not that we should avoid subsidies. What I find hypocritical is on one hand this administration is touting income inequality on one hand and applauding the idea of earning less money by working at a lower paying job. When the government policies and programs make it more advantageous to earn less money by working less in order to qualify for government assistance is not what this country needs. What we need is the concept of working harder to better oneself not working less.

It's not advantageous to the total number of those who's debt will outweigh their income. Cheap insurance won't be the long term trend that will make the majority of people choose to work less. This report is saying (some will choose) to supply less labor..not that there will be a shortage of jobs demanding labor. So if there's no shortage of jobs demanding labor but a small percentage choose to work less then employers will still be able to hire part time as well as full time employees. As far as "working harder".....We in fact are working harder than ever before...


U.S. Wages Aren't Keeping Up With U.S. Productivity, EPI Says

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/258375/WAGES-PRODUCTIVITY.jpg


:sad:

 

[metis]

Maybe so, but the CBO also stated that the number of uninsured will never fall below 30 million. I thought that the ACA was supposed in correct this. If not, what the heck did the Democrats do.
CBO: Uninsured Under Obamacare Never Falls Below 30 Million | The Weekly Standard
Note: for some reason my system will not open the PDF files linked in the report. I even when to the CBO web site and found the report and my system still reports that the file is corrupted and can not be opened (yes I have the most current Adobe PDF reader). I HATE COMPUTERS!!!!!!!

The last figure I saw, which was several days ago, was that they believe 27 million more will now become insured. One of the reasons why I have disliked the ACA is because I believe all Americans should at least have basic health-care coverage, along with the fact that it's a too complicated piece-mean approach, imo.

If we had at least partially replicated the German model that works through non-profit private insurance companies, and yet is basically simple, we would have been far better off. BTW, Denmark moved to the German system last year, and it'll be interesting how that works out for them.

 

[metis]

BTW, what some people are forgetting is that health-care costs before the ACA was passed were inflating at a tad over 9% per year, plus people were being dropped and co-pays were skyrocketing. Basically, the system was crumbling around us, and all the Republicans did was to suck their thumbs, and all they do now is whine.

 

[Revoltingest]

BTW, what some people are forgetting is that health-care costs before the ACA was passed were inflating at a tad over 9% per year, plus people were being dropped and co-pays were skyrocketing. Basically, the system was crumbling around us, and all the Republicans did was to suck their thumbs, and all they do now is whine.

All the insults aside, how is that Obamacare lowered the inflation rate of health care without being implemented yet?

 

[Revoltingest]

Watch Out for Obamacare's Subsidy Cliff: Earn $1 More in Wages, and You Could Pay $20,000 More for Insurance | The Weekly Standard

On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office released a new study finding that the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, will cause "a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024."

That doesn't mean that Obamacare will cause 2.5 million employees to be laid off, but rather that the law will encourage the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time workers to drop out of the workforce. Here's how it will work (or rather, discourage work): Obamacare offers Medicaid to people earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line in states that opted into the program, and it provides subsidies to people earning above that amount, up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line. As your income increases, the subsidy decreases.
CBO explains that "the phaseout effectively raises people’s marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work."
For some people, CBO notes, the incentive to reduce their hours or quit their jobs will be especially strong: "People whose income exceeds 400 percent of the FPL are ineligible for premium subsidies, and for some people those subsidies will drop abruptly to zero when income crosses that threshold."
The Obamacare subsidy cliff is so steep that if you earn just $1 above the threshold, you could end up paying anywhere from a few thousand dollars to $20,000 more for insurance, depending on your age.

 

[metis]

All the insults aside, how is that Obamacare lowered the inflation rate of health care without being implemented yet?

Because of the exchanges are coming in lower than previous market costs, plus this competition is massive because of so much money that's at stake whereas companies desperately want a piece of that action. Also, most of volume of the ACA actually deals with cost containment.

According, the recent CBO report is that they expect a reduction in overall costs, and if my memory is correct, it's by 13% within the next 4 years, which was mentioned by the director of the CBO in Congressional testimony a couple of days ago. However, if it turns out that my "memory" is somewhat off, I'll deny ever saying this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because of the exchanges are coming in lower than previous market costs, plus this competition is massive because of so much money that's at stake whereas companies desperately want a piece of that action. Also, most of volume of the ACA actually deals with cost containment.

How is any of this evidenced?
I'm not being contrary....I just see an awful lot of claims made, many of which later turn out to be erroneous.
Also, I see no preemptory effect of Obamacare to explain the drop in health care cost inflation preceding Obamacare.
It is likely riding on the coattails of an independent economic phenomenon.

According, the recent CBO report is that they expect a reduction in overall costs, and if my memory is correct, it's by 13% within the next 4 years, which was mentioned by the director of the CBO in Congressional testimony a couple of days ago. However, if it turns out that my "memory" is somewhat off, I'll deny ever saying this.

We shall see about their prognostications.
But note that the CBO also predicts the loss of the equivalent of millions
of jobs due to Obamacare. Is this cost factored into their calculations?

 

[metis]

How is any of this evidenced?
I'm not being contrary....I just see an awful lot of claims made, many of which later turn out to be erroneous.
Also, I see no preemptory effect of Obamacare to explain the drop in health care cost inflation preceding Obamacare.
It is likely riding on the coattails of an independent economic phenomenon.

I have not seen the most recent figures on this as I've not seen any released over the last few months, probably because we're in the midst of the sign-up period. What I did mention, however, was based on actual stats and not estimations.

We shall see about their prognostications.
But note that the CBO also predicts the loss of the equivalent of millions
of jobs due to Obamacare. Is this cost factored into their calculations?[/QUOTE]

It actually doesn't say that and, as a matter of fact, the director said the study shows an actually increase in the number of jobs in the long run. As far as the various components of their analysis, I can't speak to that.

If you Google it, I assume you can find his testimony to Congress made a couple of days ago, parts of which I watched on tape.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

independent economic phenomenon.

We shall see about their prognostications.
But note that the CBO also predicts the loss of the equivalent of millions
of jobs due to Obamacare. Is this cost factored into their calculations?

Are you sure about that? That's not what I've gathered from the reports or from the testimony by the CBO in the Congressional hearing the other day.

Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news - latimes.com

The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease; but that many workers or would-be workers will be prompted by the ACA to leave the labor force, many of them voluntarily.

The ACA: Losing Jobs vs. Choosing Not to Work

The report estimated a reduction in full-time-equivalent employment of about 2.3 million by 2021. But the drop is “almost entirely” due to a reduction in “the amount of labor that workers choose to supply”

That last part — which notes that the drop is not due to an increase in unemployment or underemployment — makes clear that comments like Cantor’s are misleading.

Republicans also have made claims before about the ACA leading to an increase in part-time employment, but our previous analysis of trends in the number of people working part-time for economic reasons didn’t bear that out. And the CBO report confirms that “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.”

the CBO report says in the short term (2014 to 2016) the law will increase employment while the economy is still weak.

With unemployment expected to remain higher than normal over the next few years, the CBO states, even if some people decide to work less, “other applicants will be readily available to fill those positions and the overall effect on employment will be muted.” Meanwhile, the report notes, health care subsidies to low-income Americans will lead to those people spending money on other things — which will create jobs

Finally, we should note that the CBO cautions that its ACA projections are “highly uncertain,” due to the government’s “limited experience with this type of program” as well as the “many uncertainties about how the market for health insurance will function under the ACA.”

And this....

[youtube]euGHP_VRfrs[/youtube]
CBO Director: ACA will *reduce* unemployment - YouTube


As well as this....

[youtube]xXab4B4j4SI[/youtube]
CBO Explains ACA Job Loss While Paul Ryan Dances And Congressman Bill Pascrell Sets It Straight - YouTube

 

[metis]

Are you sure about that? That's not what I've gathered from the reports or from the testimony by the CBO in the Congressional hearing the other day.

Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news - latimes.com



The ACA: Losing Jobs vs. Choosing Not to Work


And this....

[youtube]euGHP_VRfrs[/youtube]
CBO Director: ACA will *reduce* unemployment - YouTube


As well as this....

[youtube]xXab4B4j4SI[/youtube]
CBO Explains ACA Job Loss While Paul Ryan Dances And Congressman Bill Pascrell Sets It Straight - YouTube

Thanks, and it's that Van Hollen link that's at least in part is what I was referring to.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Here's what I don't understand; are businesses threatening to have to fire workers or close down from having to offer lower healthcare costs? If so, then why are some companies (like the one I work for) still in business, even though they've been offering lower healthcare costs for years? The ACA hasn't affected our healthcare or business in the least. So it sounds to me like it's nothing more than political temper tantrums, which is what I've basically come to expect from this country.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Thanks, and it's that Van Hollen link that's at least in part is what I was referring to.

Exactly. I wanted to give both sides to show that even Paul Ryan can understand that the CBO isn't talking about the ACA causing a loss of jobs...He opened the hearing as if if it did until the CBO Director educated him as to what the report actually said...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Here's what I don't understand; are businesses threatening to have to fire workers or close down from having to offer lower healthcare costs? If so, then why are some companies (like the one I work for) still in business, even though they've been offering lower healthcare costs for years? The ACA hasn't affected our healthcare or business in the least. So it sounds to me like it's nothing more than political temper tantrums, which is what I've basically come to expect from this country.

85% of workers have health insurance. You, like me, may work at a place where your employer supplies health insurance for his/her employees. If your situation is like mine then nothing will change for your employer. It's business as usual. The ACA has actually strengthened this because you can keep your kids on until they're 26 and now that the ACA is in full gear no one can be denied for pre-existing conditions. And there are a host of other benefits added that insurers have to offer.

In reality the ACA affects business with 50 or more employees. This means the majority of small businesses are exempt from having to even cover their employees under the law which means the ACA has no affect on them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you sure about that? That's not what I've gathered from the reports or from the testimony by the CBO in the Congressional hearing the other day.
Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news - latimes.com

I'm not certain of anything regarding this program...except that it's glitch ridden.
I refer to hours lost due to Obamacare induced cutbacks.
From a Canuckistanian news source....
Obamacare to cut work hours by equivalent of 2 million jobs: CBO | Reuters
There is much argument over this CB0 prediction, but it points out a major
labor market distortion which doesn't serve us well.
The notion that some will "choose not to work" is putting a very strange positive spin on unemployment.

 

[metis]

The notion that some will "choose not to work" is putting a very strange positive spin on unemployment.

Actually not because we know there are many people who have been caught up in "job-lock", who would prefer to either retire or move on in their lives somewhere else, as even Paul Ryan even lamented back in 2009. No one that I can see says that this will make up the entire number, but the director feels it likely that most of the number may be accounted for by these reasons.

However, speculation is such an imprecise art.

 

[esmith]

Because of the exchanges are coming in lower than previous market costs, plus this competition is massive because of so much money that's at stake whereas companies desperately want a piece of that action. Also, most of volume of the ACA actually deals with cost containment.
According, the recent CBO report is that they expect a reduction in overall costs, and if my memory is correct, it's by 13% within the next 4 years, which was mentioned by the director of the CBO in Congressional testimony a couple of days ago. However, if it turns out that my "memory" is somewhat off, I'll deny ever saying this.
I have not seen the most recent figures on this as I've not seen any released over the last few months, probably because we're in the midst of the sign-up period. What I did mention, however, was based on actual stats and not estimations.
We shall see about their prognostications.
But note that the CBO also predicts the loss of the equivalent of millions
of jobs due to Obamacare. Is this cost factored into their calculations?
It actually doesn't say that and, as a matter of fact, the director said the study shows an actually increase in the number of jobs in the long run. As far as the various components of their analysis, I can't speak to that.

If you Google it, I assume you can find his testimony to Congress made a couple of days ago, parts of which I watched on tape.

Are you sure about that? That's not what I've gathered from the reports or from the testimony by the CBO in the Congressional hearing the other day.

Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news - latimes.com



The ACA: Losing Jobs vs. Choosing Not to Work

The point made that competition among insurance companies to get the massive amount of money coming in due to the ACA is somewhat wrong. In actuality many insurance companies are opting out of the state run exchanges (source at end). There are states that have only one insurance company offering plans. This is not competition. (reference the article).
The reference to the LA Times and their point that the ACA will not cost jobs according to the CBO, is not exactly the whole truth. If you go back to my post #64 where I sighted the CBO report you will see the following statement copied from the report:

In the longer run, some businesses also may decide to reduce their hiring or shift their demand toward part-time hiring—either to stay below the threshold of 50 full-time equivalent workers or to limit the number of full-time workers that generate penalty payments.

In addition some companies will drop their healthcare plans because it does not meet the minimum standards of the ACA. I worked for a very large high tech company with offices throughout the US and the world. They offered a company provided healthcare plan but it would not meet the current requirements. Employees had the option to increase the coverage out of their own pocket, but this would not meet the current requirements. Some companies will drop their plans and put their employees on the exchange. I would imagine those companies would increase the pay to compensate for the shift, however they may not. The point is one can not say that employers will not drop their healthcare plans. At this point in time we do not know what the final outcome of the ACA will be. There will be those that say it is the best idea since sliced bread and others that say it will become an albatross around the neck of Americans. Only time will tell.



Big insurers avoid many state health exchanges

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm not certain of anything regarding this program...except that it's glitch ridden.
I refer to hours lost due to Obamacare induced cutbacks.
From a Canuckistanian news source....
Obamacare to cut work hours by equivalent of 2 million jobs: CBO | Reuters
There is much argument over this CB0 prediction, but it points out a major
labor market distortion which doesn't serve us well.
The notion that some will "choose not to work" is putting a very strange positive spin on unemployment.

From the link you provided.....

Obamacare to cut work hours by equivalent of 2 million jobs: CBO | Reuters

The biggest impact would begin in 2017, CBO said, because major provisions of the law, including an expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor in half of the 50 U.S. states, will be well under way by then. The CBO said there would be smaller declines in work hours that would occur before then.

Work hours would be reduced by the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs in 2024, said the agency, which earlier predicted 800,000 fewer full-time jobs by 2021. The bottom line would be a slower rate of growth for employment and compensation in the coming decade, according to the report.

This will come as a result by some people cutting out the second part time job or choosing to work part time, have healthcare along with a subsidy and maintain their own personal level of living. Most people with higher debt to income ratio can't afford to do this so they will either work one full time job and a part time or work two full time jobs.

Your link continues with the following....

the CBO report undercut a Republican claim that so-called risk provisions that would compensate health insurers for unexpected losses amount to a bailout and should be repealed. The report said the provisions would actually net the federal government $8 billion over three years.

The White House pushed back on the argument that Obama's signature domestic policy achievement would mean an actual reduction in jobs.

The CBO report offered some bright spots on the broader fiscal front, saying the U.S. budget deficit would be a smaller than expected $514 billion in the fiscal 2014 year ended September 30. That is down from a previous estimate of $560 billion and a fiscal 2013 deficit of $680 billion.

But sluggish economic growth and stubbornly high unemployment would cause the improvement to be short-lived, it said.

Despite claims from Obamacare critics about the law's potential effects on hiring, CBO said the expected drop in work hours between 2017 and 2024 would result largely from worker decisions not to participate in the labor force, rather than from higher unemployment or the inability of part-time workers to find full-time hours.

:sad:

"The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor," CBO said.

"The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor," CBO said.

"The phaseout effectively raises people's marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work," CBO said.

But CBO Director Doug Elmendorf told reporters that the labor market would adjust in time.


"It is analogous in some ways to raising the minimum wage, and that effect will reduce the demand for labor in the short term," he said.

Yea, we see a different perspective of good and bad but so far....the ACA isn't going to be killing jobs as it will be the employee making the decision not to supply labor in order to maintain healthcare. This isn't indicative to everyone consider that many can't afford to work part time only to sustain their lifestyle even if that lifestyle involves living within one's means.

 

[metis]

The point made that competition among insurance companies to get the massive amount of money coming in due to the ACA is somewhat wrong. In actuality many insurance companies are opting out of the state run exchanges (source at end). There are states that have only one insurance company offering plans. This is not competition. (reference the article).

I believe there's something like around 2000 insurance companies in the U.S., plus it does go state by state. Even if some refuse to go along, there'll undoubtedly be others to fill the void.

The reference to the LA Times and their point that the ACA will not cost jobs according to the CBO, is not exactly the whole truth.

I never said that it wouldn't cost some jobs, especially in the short run, but if you access what the director actually testified to in congress, there should be gains in employment because of the ACA within about four or so years.

At this point in time we do not know what the final outcome of the ACA will be. There will be those that say it is the best idea since sliced bread and others that say it will become an albatross around the neck of Americans. Only time will tell.

This I agree with, and in our company are even some economists that are uncertain how this will all turn out. But, like with Social Security and Medicare, shortfalls with the system can be fixed, which is rather why I'd like to see the Republicans more as collaborators than to just say no even on items they previously had endorsed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yea, we see a different perspective of good and bad but so far....the ACA isn't going to be killing jobs as it will be the employee making the decision not to supply labor in order to maintain healthcare. This isn't indicative to everyone consider that many can't afford to work part time only to sustain their lifestyle even if that lifestyle involves living within one's means.

If we see government created incentives to become less employed, I see that as a negative thing.
It is equivalent to killing jobs, with the death just spread around more broadly.