An example of how Obama policy affects the real world

[HookdOnASquealin]

Last year I posted on here about how Obama's increased taxes and increase in healthcare for my employees were going to cost my business (aka me) an additional $25,000 for the year so my solution was to raise my prices on my customers, thereby passing along the cost to the customers.

This year, we have the same tax rate but my healthcare cost are going up another $8000 even though we took a plan with a higher deductible so the increase wasn't over 20%. Plus, with new HIPPA regulations, my perfectly fine computers are no longer good enough to handle the new requirements so I now have to purchase 12 new computers which will run me a little over $30,000. If you add it all up, I am looking at having over $63,000 more in expenses compared to 2 years ago due to all of this government crap. To be fair, there will be a few deductions (179s) on the purchases but my customers will still get to see another price increase starting Jan 1. So once again, the libs try to punish the business owners and we simply pass along the punishment to our customers.

This post was edited on 9/30 5:04 PM by HookdOnASquealin

 

[jhskiier]

Doesn't really mean anything unless we know the gross and net receipts for your business, no offense.

The effect on the debt/currency over the long term of not bending the cost curve in health care is undeniable. Granted the affordable care act is too liberal, but it could have been a much better bill if the Republicans had used there votes to influence the policy rather than try to derail the effort. That left the democrats in a situation where they had to shift the bill to the left because they needed every single Democratic vote.

 

[holbein03]

Originally posted by jhskiier:
Doesn't really mean anything unless we know the gross and net receipts for your business, no offense.

The effect on the debt/currency over the long term of not bending the cost curve in health care is undeniable. Granted the affordable care act is too liberal, but it could have been a much better bill if the Republicans had used there votes to influence the policy rather than try to derail the effort. That left the democrats in a situation where they had to shift the bill to the left because they needed every single Democratic vote.

Could you please rephrase that in english?

 

[jhskiier]

So basically, health care spending has been increasing above the rate of inflation and GDP growth for about 40 years.

The easiest way to understand that is to say,

If you make 5 dollars a year, and the price of a cup of coffee is 1 dollar. Your spending 20% of your income on that cup of coffee.

If you increase your earning to 6 dollars a year, but the price of a cup of coffee goes up to 2 dollars, your now spending 30% of your income on the same cup of coffee.


Over the long term Medicare is the largest component, by far, of the nations deficit. In addition, the US spends about 17% of its GDP on Healthcare, which is about double the percentage that comparable countries (Rich Democratic Social Welfare States) spend on Healthcare. Whats more striking is that in terms of health outcomes, i.e., life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.... we lag behind those same countries. Now to be sure, we are still #1 at the high end, meaning advanced surgery, cancer treatment, etc. But despite our ability to do amazing things medically, it has not affected the actual outcomes in terms of making people healthier on the whole.


So the basic idea is that we have to cut the amount that we are spending on Healthcare.

Obamacare does several things to address this.

1. Mandate that everyone buys health insurance.

- The purpose of this is to force the uninsured to by health care. Which accomplishes two things.

a. It puts more young healthy people into the insurance pool, which because they are younger and healthier brings down costs for everyone, since they are often not inclined to buy insurance until they are older.

b. It prevents what is a massive free rider problem. If someone gets sick, like very sick, and goes to the emergancy room, the hospital is required by law to provide stabalizing care even if that person doesnt have health insurance. That care is charged to medicare, partly, and also passed on to the consumer in terms of higher hospital costs.


2. The famous DEATH PANEL...

- This is actually a panel of experts set up to advise on medicare payment standards, as well as the new minimum coverage standards under Obama Care. The idea behind this is to cut procedures that dont actually make people healthier. And mandate those that do. So for example, preventive care, meaning primary care checkup, physicals, blood work, etc, are mandated with zero out of pocket costs. The reason for this is that it is much cheaper for you to visit a doctor and find out that you have type 2 diabetes and treat it early, then to have you treated at an emergancy with no insurance after your liver has failed. Its basically a committee set up to define best practices and use the purchasing power of medicare to push those standards out to providers.


3. A series of Taxes aimed at controlling the growth in healthcare spending.


So the basic idea of a tax is to bring in revenue. But it also modifies investment behavior. Meaning that if you were to make 2 dollars selling your cup of coffee, but were taxed 50 cents, you would only make a 1.50 in profit. So the degree to which you would invest in selling more cups of coffee would be relatively less. One of the largest problems our health system has, because it is private, is that, like other private enterprises, investment is directed to the areas that are most profitable. Thats the reason your local hospital as a new cancer and orthopedics wing, but not an expanded primary care clinic. The problem is that profitability does not co-inside with people being healthier. Its a lot like a national park. The government might be making a lot of money on concession stands in Yellowstone, but that doesnt mean that it is a good idea to start bulldozing bear habitat to sell more candy bars.

A good example is medical device tax.

Medical devices are incredible, great products. The problem here is that because they are so profitable, the health care system over invests in them relative to their positive affect on public health. The tax itself wont have any great affect on that industry, but the revenue will be used to invest in the type of preventitive care where their has been severe underinvestment.



Finally, and I think its very important to note, Obama care is too liberal. Democrats, I know I am one, have a tendancy to put too much faith in the ability of bureaucracy to manage things. The most effective government reforms, at least up until the 2nd Bush administration, were products of conservative think tanks.

1. Cap and Trade was developed by the Bush administration and the heritiage foundation to control admissions for Sulpher Dioxide. Which was causing acid rain.

2. Obama Care is really just a copy of Romney care, which was based on the Heritage foundations conservative response to Hillary Clintons healthcare plan in the 90s.

But for a moderate democrat that cares about defecits, rising health care costs meant one of two things was going to happen. Either it was going to get so expensive that nobody could afford it and medicare was going to have to be dismantled, or we were going to do something to create a universal system that brought costs somewhat in line with other Western countries.


Critisism of the law is fine, welcomed in fact, but if your voting for people that dont have an idea about how to address the issues the bill is meant to confront, then your missing the forest for the trees.

 

[rzrbk7777]

Originally posted by jhskiier:
So basically, health care spending has been increasing above the rate of inflation and GDP growth for about 40 years.

The easiest way to understand that is to say,

If you make 5 dollars a year, and the price of a cup of coffee is 1 dollar. Your spending 20% of your income on that cup of coffee.

If you increase your earning to 6 dollars a year, but the price of a cup of coffee goes up to 2 dollars, your now spending 30% of your income on the same cup of coffee.


Over the long term Medicare is the largest component, by far, of the nations deficit. In addition, the US spends about 17% of its GDP on Healthcare, which is about double the percentage that comparable countries (Rich Democratic Social Welfare States) spend on Healthcare. Whats more striking is that in terms of health outcomes, i.e., life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.... we lag behind those same countries. Now to be sure, we are still #1 at the high end, meaning advanced surgery, cancer treatment, etc. But despite our ability to do amazing things medically, it has not affected the actual outcomes in terms of making people healthier on the whole.


So the basic idea is that we have to cut the amount that we are spending on Healthcare.

Obamacare does several things to address this.

1. Mandate that everyone buys health insurance.

- The purpose of this is to force the uninsured to by health care. Which accomplishes two things.

a. It puts more young healthy people into the insurance pool, which because they are younger and healthier brings down costs for everyone, since they are often not inclined to buy insurance until they are older.

b. It prevents what is a massive free rider problem. If someone gets sick, like very sick, and goes to the emergancy room, the hospital is required by law to provide stabalizing care even if that person doesnt have health insurance. That care is charged to medicare, partly, and also passed on to the consumer in terms of higher hospital costs.


2. The famous DEATH PANEL...

- This is actually a panel of experts set up to advise on medicare payment standards, as well as the new minimum coverage standards under Obama Care. The idea behind this is to cut procedures that dont actually make people healthier. And mandate those that do. So for example, preventive care, meaning primary care checkup, physicals, blood work, etc, are mandated with zero out of pocket costs. The reason for this is that it is much cheaper for you to visit a doctor and find out that you have type 2 diabetes and treat it early, then to have you treated at an emergancy with no insurance after your liver has failed. Its basically a committee set up to define best practices and use the purchasing power of medicare to push those standards out to providers.


3. A series of Taxes aimed at controlling the growth in healthcare spending.


So the basic idea of a tax is to bring in revenue. But it also modifies investment behavior. Meaning that if you were to make 2 dollars selling your cup of coffee, but were taxed 50 cents, you would only make a 1.50 in profit. So the degree to which you would invest in selling more cups of coffee would be relatively less. One of the largest problems our health system has, because it is private, is that, like other private enterprises, investment is directed to the areas that are most profitable. Thats the reason your local hospital as a new cancer and orthopedics wing, but not an expanded primary care clinic. The problem is that profitability does not co-inside with people being healthier. Its a lot like a national park. The government might be making a lot of money on concession stands in Yellowstone, but that doesnt mean that it is a good idea to start bulldozing bear habitat to sell more candy bars.

A good example is medical device tax.

Medical devices are incredible, great products. The problem here is that because they are so profitable, the health care system over invests in them relative to their positive affect on public health. The tax itself wont have any great affect on that industry, but the revenue will be used to invest in the type of preventitive care where their has been severe underinvestment.



Finally, and I think its very important to note, Obama care is too liberal. Democrats, I know I am one, have a tendancy to put too much faith in the ability of bureaucracy to manage things. The most effective government reforms, at least up until the 2nd Bush administration, were products of conservative think tanks.

1. Cap and Trade was developed by the Bush administration and the heritiage foundation to control admissions for Sulpher Dioxide. Which was causing acid rain.

2. Obama Care is really just a copy of Romney care, which was based on the Heritage foundations conservative response to Hillary Clintons healthcare plan in the 90s.

But for a moderate democrat that cares about defecits, rising health care costs meant one of two things was going to happen. Either it was going to get so expensive that nobody could afford it and medicare was going to have to be dismantled, or we were going to do something to create a universal system that brought costs somewhat in line with other Western countries.


Critisism of the law is fine, welcomed in fact, but if your voting for people that dont have an idea about how to address the issues the bill is meant to confront, then your missing the forest for the trees.

double post
This post was edited on 11/12 6:17 PM by rzrbk7777

 

[rzrbk7777]

Originally posted by jhskiier:
So basically, health care spending has been increasing above the rate of inflation and GDP growth for about 40 years.

The easiest way to understand that is to say,

If you make 5 dollars a year, and the price of a cup of coffee is 1 dollar. Your spending 20% of your income on that cup of coffee.

If you increase your earning to 6 dollars a year, but the price of a cup of coffee goes up to 2 dollars, your now spending 30% of your income on the same cup of coffee.


Over the long term Medicare is the largest component, by far, of the nations deficit. In addition, the US spends about 17% of its GDP on Healthcare, which is about double the percentage that comparable countries (Rich Democratic Social Welfare States) spend on Healthcare. Whats more striking is that in terms of health outcomes, i.e., life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.... we lag behind those same countries. Now to be sure, we are still #1 at the high end, meaning advanced surgery, cancer treatment, etc. But despite our ability to do amazing things medically, it has not affected the actual outcomes in terms of making people healthier on the whole.


So the basic idea is that we have to cut the amount that we are spending on Healthcare.

Obamacare does several things to address this.

1. Mandate that everyone buys health insurance.

- The purpose of this is to force the uninsured to by health care. Which accomplishes two things.

a. It puts more young healthy people into the insurance pool, which because they are younger and healthier brings down costs for everyone, since they are often not inclined to buy insurance until they are older.

b. It prevents what is a massive free rider problem. If someone gets sick, like very sick, and goes to the emergancy room, the hospital is required by law to provide stabalizing care even if that person doesnt have health insurance. That care is charged to medicare, partly, and also passed on to the consumer in terms of higher hospital costs.


2. The famous DEATH PANEL...

- This is actually a panel of experts set up to advise on medicare payment standards, as well as the new minimum coverage standards under Obama Care. The idea behind this is to cut procedures that dont actually make people healthier. And mandate those that do. So for example, preventive care, meaning primary care checkup, physicals, blood work, etc, are mandated with zero out of pocket costs. The reason for this is that it is much cheaper for you to visit a doctor and find out that you have type 2 diabetes and treat it early, then to have you treated at an emergancy with no insurance after your liver has failed. Its basically a committee set up to define best practices and use the purchasing power of medicare to push those standards out to providers.


3. A series of Taxes aimed at controlling the growth in healthcare spending.


So the basic idea of a tax is to bring in revenue. But it also modifies investment behavior. Meaning that if you were to make 2 dollars selling your cup of coffee, but were taxed 50 cents, you would only make a 1.50 in profit. So the degree to which you would invest in selling more cups of coffee would be relatively less. One of the largest problems our health system has, because it is private, is that, like other private enterprises, investment is directed to the areas that are most profitable. Thats the reason your local hospital as a new cancer and orthopedics wing, but not an expanded primary care clinic. The problem is that profitability does not co-inside with people being healthier. Its a lot like a national park. The government might be making a lot of money on concession stands in Yellowstone, but that doesnt mean that it is a good idea to start bulldozing bear habitat to sell more candy bars.

A good example is medical device tax.

Medical devices are incredible, great products. The problem here is that because they are so profitable, the health care system over invests in them relative to their positive affect on public health. The tax itself wont have any great affect on that industry, but the revenue will be used to invest in the type of preventitive care where their has been severe underinvestment.



Finally, and I think its very important to note, Obama care is too liberal. Democrats, I know I am one, have a tendancy to put too much faith in the ability of bureaucracy to manage things. The most effective government reforms, at least up until the 2nd Bush administration, were products of conservative think tanks.

1. Cap and Trade was developed by the Bush administration and the heritiage foundation to control admissions for Sulpher Dioxide. Which was causing acid rain.

2. Obama Care is really just a copy of Romney care, which was based on the Heritage foundations conservative response to Hillary Clintons healthcare plan in the 90s.

But for a moderate democrat that cares about defecits, rising health care costs meant one of two things was going to happen. Either it was going to get so expensive that nobody could afford it and medicare was going to have to be dismantled, or we were going to do something to create a universal system that brought costs somewhat in line with other Western countries.


Critisism of the law is fine, welcomed in fact, but if your voting for people that dont have an idea about how to address the issues the bill is meant to confront, then your missing the forest for the trees.

Well written and insightful. But...... The biggest problem with obamacare is the same problem that infests every government bureaucracy- It is going to be much bigger than it needs to be, cost far more than it was supposed to(though we can't even pay for the projections), and is going to waste untold amounts of money in the process. By the time it is well entrenched into our society, it will not drive healthcare costs down but will most certainly drive the quality of healhcare down. That is what government bureaucracies do best, and I am convinced this was what this particular law was created to do in the first place.

What obamacare will do is add to cost of living for those who still bother to work and pay taxes as somebody has to pay for all those who get subsidized. It will throw billions a year into the hands of politicians who will in turn distribute it to those who "support" their positions. It will provide unnecessary jobs to countless bureaucrats which will indirectly add to the costs of healthcare for everybody.

Interesting that our governor called a special session and moved 43 mil in state funds to keep the teachers from having to face the hikes of their healthcare even though the teachers and schools have been rubber stampers of obamacare and anything liberal as long as they don't have to pay for it. I've been seeing in the news that city and county governments are addressing the new costs for government employees healthcare so as not to burden government employees with the crappy new rates the taxpayers are stuck with. So clearly, it's not just the feds who are going to basically exempt themselves from obamacare, it's all facets of government that are looking to pass the increases on to, that's right....Us.

So while in theory you make a lot of sense, in reality there is way beyond solid evidence that running anything through the government is a bad idea if there is any possible alternative. We aren't going to end up with better, more affordable healthcare, we are going to end up with Medicare gone wild , Medicaid on steroids, and masses of folks that know how to bilk government bureaucracies with a new source of revenue.
This post was edited on 11/12 4:23 PM by rzrbk7777

 

[jhskiier]

I really love that post, I don't go into it much because I'm using responding to right wing drivel but I 100% agree with your post. Government can't run a coffee shop.

The fact remains that there are still common problems that need to be addressed.

That's perhaps the most infuriating thing about republicans more broadly. A good portion of the best research on how to address these various issues comes from places like the CATO institute, but the idea of advocating a more active approach to poverty and inequality is dead on arrival in republican politics, and when these policies are put forward they are paired with funding levels that are insufficient. So the people that care about those things vote democrat, a party, my party, that often ignores the type of research.

Again the most frustrating thing about the healthcare bill, because it was conceived of in conservative circles, and with a dozen republican votes in the senate, would look different and been more effective IMO.

 

[rzrbk7777]

Originally posted by jhskiier:
I really love that post, I don't go into it much because I'm using responding to right wing drivel but I 100% agree with your post. Government can't run a coffee shop.

The fact remains that there are still common problems that need to be addressed.

That's perhaps the most infuriating thing about republicans more broadly. A good portion of the best research on how to address these various issues comes from places like the CATO institute, but the idea of advocating a more active approach to poverty and inequality is dead on arrival in republican politics, and when these policies are put forward they are paired with funding levels that are insufficient. So the people that care about those things vote democrat, a party, my party, that often ignores the type of research.

Again the most frustrating thing about the healthcare bill, because it was conceived of in conservative circles, and with a dozen republican votes in the senate, would look different and been more effective IMO.

You fall into the World Wrestling Federation world that politicians thrive on. Pick a side and hate/blame the other at all costs. Doesn't really matter which side you pick as long as you pick one and defend it, b/c both sides cash in when the population picks sides.

That's why both repubs and dems hate the Tea Party with all their hearts and stand united to discredit tea party candidates. The extreme take(as both parties claim) of the tea party is that neither side is honest, trustworthy, or competent enough to run amuck with our tax money. Neither side wants to see that movement take hold. 60 Minutes, commonly a left slanting show, exposed congressional slush funds(disguised and legalized as campaign funds) recently, and not surprisingly, their findings were universally bi-partisan. Both sides are taking their political standing and clout, and our money, and getting filthy rich while screwing us and bankrupting our country in the process.

Former Senator Barack Obama gave one of the finest speeches ever on the senate floor when then President Bush wanted to raise the debt limit. He spoke of bankrupting our childrens' futures with irresponsible spending of money we don't have. So now, President Obama, has spent 5 years making Bush look like a mizer. He has and continues to throw borrowed money around like a drunk lottery winner in Vegas with less than no regard to the waste and debt he is encouraging at record rates. Meanwhile, the repubs are trying to "play ball" like always and the dems are defending "their side" as always while Obama keeps pushing us to places from which we can never recover. We can only speculate as to what his goal is, but the WWF politicians are too busy trying to keep their personal gravy trains rolling to stop it. We are in trouble.