Unions catch up with the right on Obamacare:
Labor unions are breaking with President Obama on ObamaCare.
Months after the president’s reelection, a variety of unions are publicly balking at how the administration plans to implement the landmark law. They warn that unless there are changes, the results could be catastrophic.
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) — a 1.3 million-member labor group that twice endorsed Obama for president — is very worried about how the reform law will affect its members’ healthcare plans.
Last month, the president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers released a statement calling “for repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act.”
UNITE HERE, a prominent hotel workers’ union, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters are also pushing for changes.
In a new op-ed published in The Hill, UFCW President Joe Hansen homed in on the president’s speech at the 2009 AFL-CIO convention. Obama at the time said union members could keep their insurance under the law, but Hansen writes “that the president’s statement to labor in 2009 is simply not true for millions of workers.”
Liar-in-Chief.
The unions have now realized that Obamacare strips the ability for them to negotiate benefits – including healthcare – and this has become one of the most significant things that they do. If they can’t offer this to their members, what good are they? Obamacare could be the greatest threat to union membership ever. It could end them.
So are the young who have to pay for my insurance under the plan:
As the full implementation of Obamacare nears, young adults and unions are growing more skeptical of the law.
A new Fox News poll found not only that 56 percent of voters want to go back to the days before Obamacare, but that 55 percent under the age of 35 wanted to go back to the pre-Obamacare system.
No surprise here. There are many studies that project insurance premium “rate shock” in the individual market when Obamacare begins next year, especially effecting young adults. This week, the American Action Forum (AAF) released a poll confirming what many already know: young adults are price-sensitive consumers. The higher their insurance premiums increase, the more likely they are to forgo purchasing insurance and pay the individual mandate, especially given that under Obamacare they can purchase equally priced coverage later if they do become sick. The AAF poll found:
Among currently insured respondents, if out-of-pocket premium costs increase even 10 percent, 17 percent of respondents would discontinue coverage and pay the penalty indefinitely, or until an illness prompted them to sign up for coverage. If premiums increase by 30 percent, only 55 percent would continue purchasing coverage, and 45 percent would go without.
Repeal this cluster fuck.
These leftist/liberal groups and crony capitalist drug and healthcare companies thought that they had a wink and an nod agreement with the regime. They actually thought that they were going to be exempt from this mess – but Obama needs their money to make this work.
You can’t make a deal with a liar. You can never trust a tyrant. A scorpion is always a scorpion, they always sting – it is in their nature..
The Rio Norte Line 
Every one but a progressive looking for single payer or a moron could see this coming.
No different than our Republican Congressmen and Senators in DC. These 8 years will go down as the Age of the Usefull/ Useless Idiots. We should just double ther salaries if they would agree to just go home and do nothing for the next 3 1/2 years.
If the pace continues there will be nothing left.
I just got sick and almost lost it. Watching the news and Big Tubby and the Dear Leader were chumming it up on the Jersey Shore. They should get married and move in together. It would be a great sitcom for the low information voter.
The only entity that this crap was useful for was the government.
“The only entity that this crap was useful for was the government.”
Who is now doing everything they can to run from this monstrosity, I might add. 🙂
Augger,
I beg to differ. This is EXACTLY what the govt. wants as it will provide the “proof” they need that the system is hopelessly and irreparably broken and thus “prove” the need for single payer (i.e. govt).
It’s been planned this way. Remember what FDR said. There are no mistakes/coincidences: if it happens in politics, you better believe it was planned that way.
It’s ALL about control, bro
I don’t just remark out of thin air, Joe. 😦
Congress, Fearing ‘Brain Drain,’ Seeks to Opt Out of Participating in Obamacare’s Exchanges
Augger,
You know me better than that. I have never treated you as though you make idle comments. All I am saying is, stories to the contrary not withstanding, we know better than to accept what comes out of Washington on face value (or, at least, we should know better).
This supposed Congressional remorse is — IMHO — just more theatrics. Count it same-same as the “conservative option” Rubio is pushing which, in the end, is STILL AMNESTY! Likewise, in the end, Obamacare is STILL the path to single payer.
Yes sir, and all I am saying is that they are running from the stinky turd they themselves dropped on the ground.
Remember, tyranny is the goal. Single payer and amnesty are just rungs in the ladder to get there. If they just call what they are doing by a good name most will vote for it. Look how they sold the progressive income tax system (legalized theft). The list goes on. Social Security, War on Poverty, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Amnesty will put the nail in the coffin. Unfortunately, Republicans we helped elect only served to slow it down a few years but in the end accepted it to prove they could compromise and get along. In short they sold us out.
We could toss out one-third of the Senate and the entire House in 2014, replace them with third-party candidates. I don’t see a lot of movement in that direction, but I believe that’s the only way to even start to fix this … and even that might not work.
Americans…Constitutionalists ….. will have to be committed to turning it around and taking the Country back from these disfunctional crooks……then we will have to undo the Agencys….by Defunding…. all within the Constituitional framework.
Levin is right that a movement to get rid of the IRS is necessary …. the simple fact is there ARE mechanisms for Funding the Parts of the Gov’t needed…..forms of a Fair-Tax..Flat Tax are seeming more and more attractive at this point.
While I agree with you completely, the major difficulty with this is that 47% of the country’s wage earners currently pay no federal income tax and they like it that way. Being made to pay their fair share is not going to sit well with them and few of them are likely to listen to the very sane argument that, under the current system, with what we are spending, we ALL could be and should be paying 58% of our income in taxes. They don’t “get” that and, since they are adults, it’s darned hard to educate them on it if they insist upon getting their information from the Huffington Post and MSN.
The actual rate required under a flat or “fair” tax, at current spending levels, would be devasting to all except the wealthiest. The “fair” tax on consumption would be less likely to succeed than a flat tax on income, but either would certainly put the focus on government spending (our tax rate is reduced as spending decreases). The only problem with that, is a reduction in overall government spending can only come after a broadening of the tax base in the private sector. That will only happen when the owners of capital have an “incentive” to bring jobs back to the states.
One step toward that would be dismantling the administrative state — getting rid of or drastically reducing agencies like the EPA and the Department of Energy would lower the cost of doing business in the US which would provide some incentive for companies to begin returning. Trying to force them to return is denying the reality that they left because it’s too expensive to do business here.
There is truth in the statement that excessive regulation adds unnecessary costs to business operations, but the debate should be about what constitutes excessive regulation. Are the current waves of deaths in overseas garment factories due our over-regulation? I would suggest that they are directly related to American and European clothing labels maximizing their profits by chasing the lowest wages regardless of the human cost.
The Department of Energy is hamstrung by the oil companies, and we likely waste billions trying to work around them. A true free market for energy development would probably solve a lot of the problem in that area.
I think we have even bigger problems when it comes to global competitiveness in the private sector.. The two major ones are the corporate income tax and the burden of employer sponsored health insurance. Defined benefit retirement plans are less a problem now, than in the past, but the ones remaining must be phased out eventually.
In the public sector, health insurance costs and retirement benefits are killing us.
We are going to have to “force” companies to bring the jobs back home. Even if we miraculously balanced the budget tomorrow, via cuts across the board, we would only be treading water. As jobs continue to disappear, further cuts would be required. Austerity, only, is a road to chaos. Just as we cannot tax our way out of this, neither can we cut our way out.
I don’t think anyone would disagree that our government is too big. What we disagree on is how it got that way. We will never agree on how to reduce the size of government until we face reality.
Our economy has been transformed into one 70% dependent upon consumer consumption. As traditional jobs were lost to technological advances or shipped overseas, the government created jobs to make up the difference. Outside of entitlements and military spending, the government spends more on salaries and benefits than anything else. How are we going to reduce that without creating private sector jobs?
I believe we need to cut our military spending, and I believe a number of entitlement programs need serious face lifts, but they are not the panaceas some make them out to be.
I would argue — and have extensively on my blog — that over-regulation has chased jobs overseas. Particularly with regards to unnecessary environmental regulations, our country has priced manufacturing off-shore. There’s no way I can go into the costs in a single comment here, but we’re talking trillions of dollars in lost economic activity because manufacturing on US soil is a regulatory nightmare. That is the primary reason why we’ve transformed into a consumer culture rather than a production culture. And, it is unnecessary because America’s air and water has never been cleaner, but the regulations continue to tighten.
Obviously, those problems are not an issue if an American company sets up in Bangladesh.
The other problem, which I haven’t covered yet, is the cost of labor. Not just high wages for low-skilled workers (for example, the auto industry), but also the costs of required benefits, which are often driven by the regulatory/administrative state. For example, the cost of workman’s comp is kept artificially high by a government-mandated lack of competition. We see the same issue in health insurance.
Cutting military spending by half would get us maybe a quarter of the way to where we need to go, but not as much as you think because the administrative state works largely behind the scenes, conducted by unelected bureaucrats. Example — why do you think medical and insurance costs rose so much? Just market factors or were “experts” pulling strings?
Cutting entitlement programs is essential to reducing government costs, particularly on the federal level. A large percentage of entitlement program costs never reaches the recipient, but is used in high federal employee salaries.States are much more appropriate to handle these programs because conditions within states vary. As we learned with welfare reform, one-size-fits-all really costs a lot more money than it should. Also, because states are constitutionally required to balance their budgets, they are incentivized to look for cost savings.
I would argue that the federal government needs to get the hell out of the employment business. They shouldn’t attempt to create private sector jobs. They should simply start reducing federal programs and laying people off in a measured manner. The private sector will respond by creating programs that fill those needs IF those needs are actually needed. That will create jobs and stimulate economic growth. The savings can be used to pay down the federal debt, which will provide more economic stimulus. Eventually, the federal tax burden can be reduced and the private sector will return to healthy independence.
But first we have to reduce/eliminate the administrative state that picks winners and losers throughout the economy and thus coersess the private sector into conducting bad business while at the same time those with enough money cozy up to the administrative state to feather their own nests. Big government and big business walk hand-in-hand. We can’t constitutionally do anything about big business, but we can starve it by reducing government.
It’s a huge problem. Big steps in the right direction would be the REINS Act, bringing the administrative state back under the control of Congress, a balanced budget amendment that puts some sort of cap on the growth of government spending, repeal of the 17th Amendment to bring the Senate back under states ocntrol, and probably an amendment requiring term limits.
It’s a huge, huge issue and one we’re not really addressing and probably won’t before collapse is imminent. There’s just too many people addicted to government spending who are not going to vote for common sense solutions.
Aurora,
Agreed.
The compliance cost of regulation will vary from one industry to another. The problem I have with general statements made by politicians is that they seldom, if ever, provide concrete examples of abuse.
Before I retired, I was irritated by the number of forms and surveys required by various government agencies, but the cost of compliance was actually less than that required by insurers. Like I said, I’m sure it varies by industry, but the specifics cannot be discussed absent some specific examples.
If we had universal health insurance, there would be no need for workers’ comp, but for one issue. Companies involved in the more dangerous industries, and those with no regard for employee safety, would add to the pool of health costs disproportionately. As a result, workers’ comp will always remain the liability of individual employers. The cost to an individual company bears some relationship to the total costs, but the type of industry and claims history are also factors. I would suggest there is no competition, due to the nature of the program.
There is no incentive for underwriters to offer workers’ comp, so their is no competitive advantage to be had. Most agents write workers’ comp policies only as part of a comprehensive commercial package. Participating doctors must accept scheduled reimbursements (doctors like WC about as much as they like Medicaid), so there is no opportunity to compete there. The major problem I observed, over the years, was the underwriters’ willingness to settle dubious claims (cheaper to settle than to fight). That type of reasoning opened the floodgates for bogus claims.
“…why do you think medical and insurance costs rose so much?”
Medical costs is too broad to comment, but my insurance premiums rose (and out-of-pockets increased simultaneously) primarily due to cost shifting. My rates went up disproportionately because the reimbursement for government sponsored care is below market and there are too many uninsured who never pay their bills.
“They should simply start reducing federal programs and laying people off in a measured manner. The private sector will respond by creating programs that fill those needs IF those needs are actually needed. That will create jobs and stimulate economic growth.”
I think most of the government jobs that could be cut, are not needed. Consequently, there would be no commensurate job creation in the private sector. Therefore, cutting them before a plan to bring back legitimate private sector jobs would only make matters worse. There would be higher unemployment, they would begin drawing government benefits, and their spending would decrease accordingly.
” The savings can be used to pay down the federal debt, which will provide more economic stimulus.”
We will not even begin paying principal, until the annual deficits are erased. Right now, that is not even on the radar.
I agree that there is too much cronyism. I also agree it exists to the degree that it does, due to the number of economic areas now influenced by, or under the control of, government. However, I believe the underlying evil is money in politics.
We can do something about big government in addition to shrinking it. We can clean up the corruption by demanding campaign finance reform. We can do something about big business by reforming the tax code.
I don’t like federal regulatory agencies having the force of law, but I think we brought it upon ourselves. I don’t know what the answer is outside of returning the issues to the states. The problem with that is, though, we could find ourselves right back where we started. And that is why I am not crazy about repealing the 17th amendment. If the balance of power shifts back to the states, the money that influences any decision made at the federal level, merely flows back to state level lawmakers. The corruption would still exist.
Term limits just mean the crooks rake in as much as they can in their allotted time. We have to get the money out, and honest people in.
Seniority provides power to Senators and the states they represent. Reduce the seniority and you reduce the power, which reduces the utility of political bribery. Two terms, no more, and corporations are now forced to spread their manipulations across all Senators rather than just key ones like Harry Reid … or Ted Stevens when he was the most senior Republican in the Senate. I’d say no more than 6 terms for the House.
I believe in voting, but I believe in informed voting. Unfortunately, most Americans vote for the name they know. Term limits would certainly cut that down and force a flushing of the system.
I see your point about seniority. There is a pecking order, and the old-timers accrue more power and influence the longer they remain in office, but I don’t think turnover based upon arbitrary term limits would solve the corruption problem. Due to the amount of money required for a successful campaign, the corruption begins before they are even elected. Beyond voting for a familiar name, I think most people still vote based on party affiliation. When both parties are corrupt, that’s a real problem. I don’t see any hope for positive changes without the emergence of a strong third party, and that is going to be dependent upon more voters becoming better informed and better organized.
Well, yes, we do need to reform — or better yet, eliminate — the ballot access laws in our various states so that third parties have a chance in any election.
Have you written your legislators about that yet? I have and now I’m seriously considering a citizen’s initiative to get the question on the ballot. Here in Alaska, I’d need to gather about 31,000 signatures of registered voters and that would actually be doable here. Can you do that in Florida?
Yes, we have procedures for placing initiatives on the ballot, but I’m leaning toward a Libertarian candidate for governor this time. If we can just get some forward momentum going, who knows what might develop?
Can you get him on the ballot? Most states can’t because of ballot access laws. Alaska used to have strong showings by the Alaska Independence Party and the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party presidential candidates were on several past ballots. They weren’t on the ballot in 2012 because they hadn’t won enough of the vote in three previous elections. Getting them back on will require separate citizens iniatives for each party. That’s 31,000 signatures each.. What I want to see is a state constitutional amendment that allows a third-party candidate to get on the ballot with something more sane, like 5000 signatures. Or, hey, herre’s a novel idea — how about we do away with ballots completely and go back to the old-fashioned ticket system. It worked for Abraham Lincoln.
Current information on the Florida Division of Elections’ web site, for “Date Qualified”, remains blank. His candidacy was filed 01/10/13, but I do not know what is lacking for qualification.
I have written my state legislators on other issues, but have been primarily focused on Congress. I’m sure I’m on an FBI watch list. 🙂
I thoroughly think Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich have me on watch-lists. Don Young actually likes me, however. I went to his wife’s memorial service here and he remembered me from my emails. He doesn’t always vote the way I like and I’ve voted against him in every primary in the last six years, but I was impressed with his memory.
You do know that Libertarians generally oppose universal health care and will seek to repeal ObamaCare as soon as possible …along with Medicare, Social Security, etc.? Libertarians are usually very small government types.
Yes, and they also make the so-called Republican “tea party” look like spend thrifts. If you take military intervention out of the equation and stop fighting about abortion and gay marriage, then you create a new paradigm for discussing everything else. There will be pitfalls for any political party attempting to maintain strict philosophical purity, and I’m not drinking the kool-aid. I like to think I live in the real world, and believe it’s time to shake things up.
I am no fan of “Obamacare”, but without it there would be no discussion of the problem at all. We just continue with a broken system that everyone complains about. I’ve been doing that for 30 years, and I’m tired.
Have you heard the saying — Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner?
It sounds so good, so pure, so “democratic” to allow the people to vote for both the House and the Senate. And in the runup to passing the 19th Amendment, the progressives made sure that folks knew that their state legislatures were corrupt and that Senators had been bought and paid for. And, that was true in a couple of states. In the majority of states, however, it was not. In most cases, the legislatures carefully vetted the candidates and selected the ones they thought would best serve the state’s interest. Now, we have a system where corporations and special interest groups fund campaigns that essentially buy the very gullible votes of the people and the candidate who is selected is, most often, sent to Washington to serve the interest of those who paid for his campaign rather than the state that supposedly elected him. Here in Alaska, neither Mark Begich or Lisa Murkowski owes their election to the voters, so they really have no need to represent us, so long as their funders are happy with their representation. Research how Lisa got back into office in 2010 and you’ll see what I mean.
I know my state legislators. One of them is a neighbor. I went to high school with another. A third one is my dentist. And, they’re all term limited,so there’s little reason for corporations to buy them. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but we’ve limited the influence as much as we can. If the 19th were repealed, I would want Alaska’s legislature to vet and present nominations for Senator to be voted on in a non-partisan election. There’s already interest in that here. That would remove a great deal of the corruption that comes with party politics. And, by the way, prior to the 19th, there were states that already did it that way.
We have term limits here, in Florida, too. ALEC is making inroads throughout the states, and a chosen state representative can move to the state Senate, to the U.S. House, to the U.S. Senate. It the money machine gets its hook in someone, it does not let them go. However, having given your argument more thought, I do believe it would improve our odds of getting someone honest into the U.S. senate. I’ll think on it some more. 🙂
Then I’ve made my goal. =-}
We have term limits here in Alaska too. When a politician is forced to “retire”, there is competition for the opening and the people get a chance to listen to the candidates. It’s an up-close and personal experience in Alaska. When the “retired” politician wants to go on to “higher” office, people should (sheeple don’t) investigate that candidate’s record from their time in state office.
Term limits just prevents that automatic vote of “oh, I voted for him/her last time, so I’ll stick with that decision.”
It is ridiculous to think that a government-funded medical care system would be run efficiently. England has a horrible health care system and Canadians fill the parking lot of medical clinics here in Alaska because their own system is awful. The average English middle class family pays 60% of their income in taxes and health insurance and it’s required, so there’s no chance for many of them ever to own a home or start a business because they have no free cash from majority to death.
A far better solution would be to eliminate health insurance entirely and go back to either out-of-pocket care or health savings accounts. People who believe their medical care to be paid for by someone else have no incentive to take care of themselves or to ask a doctor why this or that costs so much money. You’re a prime example of that. You blame it on “cost shifting” when in reality, if you look back over the last 50 years, you will see that the Medicare system has driven the increase in medical costs and insurance. It’s a clear pattern until the Clinton Administration. Medicare increased its reimbursement, so doctors increased their charges and then insurance companies, often mandated by state law to cover 80% of customary costs, would raise their coverage and raise their premiums to follow. Getting rid of insurance would put ocnsumers rather than third-party payers back in control of hteir own health care. Costs would go down gradually over time as consumers asked, why does this cost so much and, you know what, I’m going to go to the doctor across the street because he charges 25% less. Insurance kills competition because it masks the true cost of medical care.
Do you own your home? If so, do you insure it? I do, and I do, for the same reason I have always purchased health insurance.
I do and it is insured. However, I wouldn’t own my home if I had been forced to pay for medical insurance when I was younger. My husband and I make a decent living, but we live in a high-cost state (Alaska). In order to save down payment money for a home, we lived a very spartan lifestyle for several years. We had a catastrophic medical insurance policy (I think it kicked in at $5,000 and it covered major surgery and some other big-ticket items at 80% after $1,000 deductible. We never used it, but it cost us $200 a year). We went to the doctor when we needed to, but we didn’t rush off for every sniffle. Both of us were healthy and we have healthy children. My cousin the research doctor in immune system disorders tells me that may very well be one reason why they were healthy — that we didn’t rush to the doctor every two seconds. That’s his professional opinion.
The high deductible wasn’t a problem because we had savings, made possible because we weren’t paying thousands of dollars a year in medical insurance. Yeah, and self-control helped too! Instead, we were paying maybe $500 a year in actual medical care. We also found a local doctor who gave a discount from people who paid cash. NO, my cousin does not live locally.
Your home insurance does not generally cover things like cleaning the carpets and painting the siding which is why it works. It’s there for a fire or a tree falling on the roof. Medical insurance tries to cover “washing the windows”, minor care that we really ought to be asking “How much does it cost? Why does it cost so much” and saying “Well, I can get it cheaper down the road.”
Medical insurance needs to go away because it is driving up medical costs unnecessarily by removing competition from the system, but catastrophic medical insurance is essential. And, it’s CHEAP! There is still a policy available through my work, but my work won’t let me opt out of regular medical insurance, so there’s no reason to purchase it, but it would cost about $400 a year.
Steve,
To buy, or not to buy, health insurance is a choice. Not a “right” everyone is born with.
People should be allowed to make the choice, and then required to live with the consequences of their choices. Be the choice is buying insurance, cigarettes, or vitamins…
The Insurance industry should have to spread the not only the risks, but also the costs, amongst all those that wish to purchase insurance. (the fascism of the insurance industries and legislatures, prevented true competition for the individual)
Remember, medical insurance in the US was started by unions and large corporations, mostly in the 1950s. The involvement of the labor unions makes the socialist aspects of medical insurance inevitable. The involvement of big corporations almost necessitated the rise of the administrative state to properly regulate insurance so that big corporations (which now included insurance companies) would get the best deals for themselves.
Ultimately, though, it still comes down to the individual citizen who refuses to think in a different way and no longer asks market-based questions about medical care just as they would ask market-based questions about auto repair or groceries. WE are the problem! Once we get that straight in our heads, we can start dealing with the problems WE created.
By the way, I just added your blog to the site blogroll…good job, nice site.
I’m honored, Utah. I love your site and have stolen some of your ideas and made them my own.
The honor is all mine…
Actually, I believe employer sponsored health insurance has its roots in the thirties. The government put a freeze on wages and employers used health insurance subsidies to give workers “raises” while not actually raising their wages.
I believe the burden needs to be taken off employers, and individuals should make their own decisions and be responsible for the consequences. I don’t know how old you are, but in that vein, I would ask you as someone who is healthy, as I am myself, do you plan on foregoing Medicare and continuing to buy private insurance in your old age? The price of any insurance you purchase, whether it be a stripped down catastrophic policy, or otherwise, will be calculated based upon risks (age is the biggest) as well as current medical conditions, if any.
Just as those who are not lucky enough to be healthy throughout a lifetime could previously be denied insurance, so may you one day without the protections of “Obamacare” or guaranteed coverage via Medicare.
BTW, what you described would not be considered a catastrophic care policy here. We had a $10,000 deductible on a standard policy and it cost close to $10,000 annually in premiums. Before I retired, the “catastrophic” policies offered had $25,000 deductibles and the premiums were not that much less. And no one shops around when they are rushed to an ER with a stroke, heart attack, ruptured appendix, etc.
Well, no, nobody shops around when there’s a medical emergency and in my town, it wouldn’t do you any good anyway because if you don’t like the prices at Fairbanks Memorial, the next nearest ER is 400 miles away by road. And, that’s the point of the catastrophic insurance. If the government had just forced us to have the minimal level of insurance, the country wouldn’t hate it so much.
It’s been 16 years since I worked for an employer that didn’t require me to buy the insurance, so we haven’t paid for the catastrophic insurance since then. ObamaCare is going to make it unavailable next year, so ….
I checked the website. It’s just less than $1000 a year here and the deductible now is $7500. That is far less than I pay for regular medical insurance now.
And with the exception of end-of-life care, about 80% of insurance usage covers mundane care — regular doctor’s visits, eye glasses, dentistry — things that, if you weren’t paying $800-1500 a month in insurance premiums you could easily afford out of pocket. Medical savings accounts combined with catastrophic insurance would be enough for most people if the laws weren’t written to prevent common sense solutions.
I’m in my 50s and, frankly, I’ll be surprised if Medicare is still available when I retire. The early Baby Boomers will have driven it into insolvency by then … and that’s not just me saying that. The Congressional Budget Office and several economists have noted that it if it continues without adjustment it runs out of money about 2030. It’s doing better than Social Security, which runs out of money about 2021, if things stay the course they’re on now. That’s why entitlement reform is critical. Instead of actually addressing the problems, we ended up with another huge entitlement with ObamaCare, so the national bankruptcy is likely to come much sooner than predicted. So, no, I don’t plan to use Medicare simply because I don’t think it will be available.
So long as the government keeps its greedy paws off my retirement accounts, I won’t need Social Security. My children know that they get a paid-for house with built-in baby-sitters if they stick around to take care of us in our old age, so we’ve got that covered as well. It remains to be seen if catastrophic insurance will still be available by the time I retire. Furthermore, Alaska created ACHIA for hard-to-insure folks before ObamaCare was on the radar, so I’m not worried about being denied insurance, only about being able to afford the premiums.
There were ways to deal with it that didn’t involve a government takeover of 1/6th of the American economy and enslaving all of us to the insurance companies, but when you give all three of the political branches of government to the same political party you end up with bad policy every time.
” it wouldn’t do you any good anyway because if you don’t like the prices at Fairbanks Memorial, the next nearest ER is 400 miles away by road.”
Exactly, and you just can’t ignore that.
” If the government had just forced us to have the minimal level of insurance, the country wouldn’t hate it so much.”
So, you are not opposed to a mandate? You are just upset about every little benefit packed into the minimum standard for policies offered on the exchanges
“And with the exception of end-of-life care, about 80% of insurance usage covers mundane care..”
That assumes you never develop a chronic illness. You know what they say about assuming. 🙂
“The early Baby Boomers will have driven it into insolvency by then … ”
Exactly right, yet Paul Ryan wants to exempt us from any overhaul. What a loser!
I don’t need S.S., and won’t need Medicare if the insurance industry is properly regulated. However, I will do whatever is to my advantage until the yahoos in Washington get a clue, just as I will also continue to own shares of Exxon Mobil until same.
I should clarify that the $10K deductible/$10K premium was when I was employed and it covered me and my wife. The deductible was combined; not $5K each. Currently, we pay $524 per month for my wife under COBRA, and she has a $5K deductible. Her COBRA rights expire in August, and we will be lucky to be able to get insurance for her prior to enrollment on one of the new exchanges.
When I retired, I tried to get her an individual plan, but the agent would not even talk to me, because she takes medication for high blood pressure and high cholesterol. I now have coverage with CHAMP VA.
Wow, totally different situation here. Regular medical insurance premiums for health adults is at least $800 a month unless you work for the biggest employer in the state — the State of Alaska, which I do. My husband looked into coverage for himself as a sole proprietorship and it was $1800 a month, so I cover him and the kids under my insurance, which is reasonable because I work for the State. It’ll be about $400 a month when it goes up in July. But, that’s only because the State of Alaska is part of a pool of government employees with about 40,000 members in a state with only 3/4s of a million people. So, numbers talk.
Never said insurance was a right. What has been deemed a right is that people with no insurance, or no means to pay, can show up at an ER and get care. The cost of their “right” to free care gets passed on to the rest of us. It does not matter if you have insurance or not. If providers are to keep their doors open, and maintain their desired level of profitability, they have to make it up somewhere.
The way insurance works here is screwed up. BCBS of Florida is not a pool of Florida residents. It is segmented by individual companies and individual people, and you can’t buy from BCBS of Alabama. Heck, if you are in a crappy group, you cannot even opt out and buy an individual policy somewhere else.
Steve,
“the department of energy is hamstrung by the oil companies” ?
Is that a typo?
If not a typo, Then: Are you drunk? Or merely stupid?
“A true free market for energy development would probably solve a lot of the problem in that area.” Completely accurate, I agree.
Jobs went overseas in response to State & Federal taxes and regulations increasing to the point, that it was cheaper to produce the object overseas and pay the shipping for ships, trains, and trucks, then pay the export and import taxes, etc.
That was my point texas. The oil companies dictate the majority of our energy policy. Drill more and import more oil, so the refiners can export it and leave us with a corn ethanol blend. It is a joke. The corruption is sickening. There is no free market. If there were, I’m sure there would be ample venture capital flowing into other forms of energy.
Steve,
The various governments, local thru federal, make more money in taxes than the owners, producers, and providers do.
Utah has written numerous posts explaining.
That is NOT equitable. That is theft. It is wrong. It is criminal. It is preventing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of jobs.
The current administration is basically NOT allowing any exploration and production in known reserves.
Allow the energy companies to explore and produce in the federal lands and oceans.
Lower taxes across the board for energy (and employers and workers).
America would become energy independent and “create” jobs, and more taxpayers and fewer “takers.”
That won’t happen with the Progressives in power. The progressives are purposely bankrupting the country, purposely creating wards of the state, through welfare, and purposely preventing job-creation. In summary, the progressives are purposely creating the same “environment” as pre-fascist Italy & Germany, pre-communist russia &china, et al.
I read in the paper this morning where the head of OPEC are telling us and the Europeans to suck it. If we want lower gas prices, cut the taxes. 🙂
They made a decision at their meeting to keep production level in order to keep the price where it is. If the U.S. produces more, they will consider cutting production. As long as worldwide demand stays strong, it does not matter how much we produce, because the U.S. is already a net exporter.
If we were really serious about energy independence, we would have already achieved it. 😦
Steve
“Force people to create jobs”?
Force people to work to create jobs.
That would be called a concentration camp. Nazi Germany, Russia, and China have been real successful at that.
Forcing U.S. corporations to do the right thing is a bit complicated, I know, but if you think about it long enough you might get it. The owners of capital will respond to nothing less than a way to enrich themselves. they use Congress and the tax code to their advantage. The tables must be turned.
Steve, One last comment,
As a percentage of GDP, our military spending is minuscule. It has already been cut below the level which can ensure the safety of America and Americans.
You must be the one that is drunk. LOL
😉
Not yet, but it’s still early.
The “Constitutional Framework.” Does that include “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
hahahaha
The only reason the unions are balking now is that Obamacare is going to drive their members to vote them out of their jobs, or their members will leave the unions because they have been lied to. Obamacare is what the progressives and communists in the labor bowel movement have alswys wanted. That is the reason for all of the loopholes written in it for them. Just like every other piece of toilet paper they write into law, it applies to everyone but them. They just can’t justify it to their sheeple followers now.
“Obamacare”, like most everything coming out of Washington, is a really bad joke, and the joke is on us.
IMO, the problem all along has been that we instituted universal care without universal insurance coverage. Short of denying care to those who cannot pay, there is no way to make the system work, without universal coverage. I agree that we will ultimately end up with a consolidated single-payer system, but not because that was the plan all along. For many it has been the goal, because it is easily argued that it would be the most efficient way of delivering care to all. I think the Obama administration just wanted to make a deal, but the deal will go south.
I would rather see a hybrid plan which consolidated all government administered health plans, but left purchasing decisions, beyond primary care needs, in the hands of individuals. I back the past reform preventing insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, when a person had prior credible coverage, but I do not agree that individuals should be allowed to completely override adverse selection clauses (wait until you need it to purchase it).
I believe insurance companies are necessary evils, but they require regulation. I believe premium support (vouchers, if you will) should be handled as a “welfare” issue. Given the correct development of a comprehensive plan, there is no reason to continue “Medicare as we know it”, or Medicaid, or SCHIP, or military and VA administered medical care.
You guys that are arguing how to fix Federal programs are forgetting one major detail … None of what you are suggesting is listed in the enumerated powers. Yes, I know the general welfare clause has been used as an argument to support social programs such as Universal Healthcare (otherwise known as Obamacare), but even the Supreme Court gunned down that argument, and passed the whole mess as a gigantic tax scheme.
Folks, we are a Federalist-Republic. These states pre-existed the Federal government, and it’s just about high time they push back against the Feds and reestablish their sovereign rights.
I agree augger, but we have to accept where we are before we can plot a different course. Whatever the government does, going forward, I think it must be done with the realization that some things simply will not change.
Outside of a total collapse of our society, I do not see a majority ever saying we should scrap all systems and return to a time when everyone fended for themselves. I would, however, like to see more people facing the fact that they will require medical care at some point in their lives. Some more than others, sure, but everyone will need some type of care if they live long enough.
One of my complaints about healthy people, who say they don’t want to be forced to buy insurance, is that they will all be signing up for Medicare when they turn 65. They coast through life, hoping never to have a severe accident or unexpected illness, but then expect the government to subsidize their medical needs in their old age. I have no problem with people who don’t wish to buy insurance, as long as they are held strictly responsible for the medical bills throughout their entire life.
There will always be a number; some level of income that will determine who gets what kind of assistance and in what amount. I have no problem with that either. I don’t have a problem with a number to help the needy. Everyone should be responsible for their own finances, and purchasing health insurance should be a high priority, even if one’s assets are limited. Rolling the dice and filing bankruptcy when things don’t work out is certainly not the answer.
How do propose the states solve the healthcare dilemma?
“How do propose the states solve the healthcare dilemma?”
I have an entire post which I recently reposted (mostly for you) here on the RNL that addresses this very question. It’s not hard to miss. 🙂
If you’re referring to your debit card, that would only take care of the bottom level (primary care). I don’t think you are really suggesting that the government load up debit cards to handle a triple bypass.
You guys and your simplistic response that the free market would be a cure-all. 🙂
You obviously did not read, Steve.
Actually, it was my second time. What did I miss?
Pingback: Employer Provided Health Insurance: How Did We Get Here? | The Rio Norte Line
Pingback: Damned if we do; damned if we don’t. | 1 Concerned Citizen