President goes all in on Immigration

[skydivr]

Three reasons:

1. The math still does not add up in their favor.
2. I'm over 50.
3. That's exactly what the other side wants. I could pay a $2000/employee penalty, and save myself personally almost $200K a year if we just dumped everyone onto Obamacare. The problem is that, once private heathcare is squeezed out of the system and only single-payer remains (which is the end-game in the first place), that $2000 penalty won't be $2K, it will be$5K, then $10K...endgame...

No, not mostly young smokers. We don't have a lot of employee turnover. Everyone I'm looking at currently in my office has been here over 10 years..

I'd really wonder, just to see what happened, if the limit was raised to 500 employees, to that only big businesses had to do this...and I'd expect immediately a huge squeeling sound as the large companies, who lose a competitive edge, did a 180 and all of a sudden thought it was a bad idea because only THEY had to participate...

 

[IG.]

You have a lot of hate in you Skydiver. You are letting it get the best of you. I'm not sure you guys know what socialism actually is, because if you did I don't see how you can call anything Obama has done socialism. Anyway, I'm sure there is nothing I can say to change your mind. But the facts are not on your side no matter how much anecdotal evidence you post.

arch, I know firsthand what socialism it - I lived it! And I can assure you what is going on now is not just a hint of barely noticeable glow of socialism, but a bright light of socialism visible from miles away.

Like others and I said in other posts - just wait and see.

 

[jellyrug]

Three reasons:

1. The math still does not add up in their favor.
2. I'm over 50.
3. That's exactly what the other side wants. I could pay a $2000/employee penalty, and save myself personally almost $200K a year if we just dumped everyone onto Obamacare. The problem is that, once private heathcare is squeezed out of the system and only single-payer remains (which is the end-game in the first place), that $2000 penalty won't be $2K, it will be$5K, then $10K...endgame...

No, not mostly young smokers. We don't have a lot of employee turnover. Everyone I'm looking at currently in my office has been here over 10 years..

I'd really wonder, just to see what happened, if the limit was raised to 500 employees, to that only big businesses had to do this...and I'd expect immediately a huge squeeling sound as the large companies, who lose a competitive edge, did a 180 and all of a sudden thought it was a bad idea because only THEY had to participate...

OK, I can see why you are p**ed. Looks like you got the bad end of this?

 

[jellyrug]

arch, I know firsthand what socialism it - I lived it! And I can assure you what is going on now is not just a hint of barely noticeable glow of socialism, but a bright light of socialism visible from miles away.

Like others and I said in other posts - just wait and see.

Were you allowed to protest peacefully while the police and guard waits until cars are burnt and windows are broken?

Were your news agencies allowed to publicly discredit the President?

Was your government considerate towards illegal immigrants, or did no one want to come to your country?

Could you buy guns and walk around with them in the street?

You will never see the socialism that you experienced in the Soviet Union here, ever.

Personally, I think we are a little bit too democratic and allow people to get away with what would never fly in a lot of other places. The Ferguson thing is a perfect example of what I mean by saying this.

As a matter of interest, what do you think Putin is doing to part of your old country?

 

[fallenarch]

Socialism means the no one owns anything, or more precisely everyone owns everything. So with socialism there is no personal ownership. Communism allows personal ownership but it is subject to the good of the whole. Capitalism puts personal freedom above most all concerns. The big fight in the Democratic party was whether or not the government should literally run 30% of the economy. Hilary wanted a government run full access health care system. Obamacare is managed by the government to an extent but allows healthcare companies to exist and still compete in the market - a much more "American" solution. To call Obama a socialist is a bit silly, given the definition of socialism.

Do you call COSTCO socialist? They allow buyers to pool their buying dollars so they have more power in the market to demand better pricing. That's basically what Obamacare does. If you are dumb enough to think that the healthcare industry is going to regulate themselves you are crazy. We have proof they will loot the country and bring businesses to their knees while running unheard of profits (that's historical facts by the way). It so stupid because there is only one entity capable of doing this - the government.

 

[fallenarch]

Arch, you really do crack me up. I had to take your post the other day and pass it around the office for laughs (I wish I could have recorded their reactions for you as they were precious), and I really need to nominate it for sticky status as the most delusional post ever made on the .org. You are an accountant, which means you should be really good at counting other people's money. This plan isn't Voodoo economics, it's Hoodoo economics. Good gawd, even the guy the helped write the plan admits it worked because the liberal voting base was "too stupid" to figure it out. They are laughing at every person that voted for them. Anybody that can count past ten knows the math doesn't work, unless you continue to separate people who have earned anything from their wealth. And now, we're gonna add 5 million more people to the rolls - and the people who will suffer the most aren't the rich, it's gonna be those who are at the bottom...But we all know it's not for those people, it's for their eventual vote. I don't know where you are getting your 'facts' (maybe out of a box of cracker jacks?), but from where I'm sitting, and given the shellacking the Dems took in the mid terms, it would appear that a majority of the county may be starting to see thru the BS....

Don't mistake my 'hate' for nothing more than determination in calling out the Emperor who has no clothes....

I don't get why your responses are always how you are laughing at me for my positions or how you passed it around the office. Do think somehow I give a F@#K what the people in your office think? Make a point without trying to imply that the other side is "obviously stupid". You are angry and uninformed, that's the real problem in this country - people like who don't understand that there are other positions in the world and you don't always get your way in a democracy.

 

[skydivr]

I don't get why your responses are always how you are laughing at me for my positions or how you passed it around the office. Do think somehow I give a F@#K what the people in your office think? Make a point without trying to imply that the other side is "obviously stupid". You are angry and uninformed, that's the real problem in this country - people like who don't understand that there are other positions in the world and you don't always get your way in a democracy.

But Arch, there seems to be so much hate in you......

 

[skydivr]

OK, I can see why you are p**ed. Looks like you got the bad end of this?

It's not going to hurt me nearly as bad as it will our employees. That's who gets the bad end of this.

Do some math (come on Arch, pull out your calculator and follow along...) Small companies sometimes have a Net Profit Margin as low as 2%, depending on your type of business. A $100,000 increase in our premium (our prior cost near $300K) with a 30% increase means we'd have to have an additional 5 MILLON DOLLARS SALES in order to just break even....

 

[fallenarch]

But Arch, there seems to be so much hate in you......

Another post devoid of anything to advance the conversation?

 

[fallenarch]

It's not going to hurt me nearly as bad as it will our employees. That's who gets the bad end of this.

Do some math (come on Arch, pull out your calculator and follow along...) Small companies sometimes have a Net Profit Margin as low as 2%, depending on your type of business. A $100,000 increase in our premium (our prior cost near $300K) with a 30% increase means we'd have to have an additional 5 MILLON DOLLARS SALES in order to just break even....

I don't get this. I admit we are 500 people but our premiums have gone down by about 15%. We had to make some adjustments, as you can't really get a good deal out there anymore without going to high deductible HSAs but we reimburse the staff for the amount they are on the hook for and it still amounts to a 15% reduction - everyone happy. It's my experience that small businesses make higher profits than we do (at least in the A/E markets). We just to a huge volume relative to the small guys. For example we have made only about 1% profit for the last two years but that's pretty good since we lost about 40% of our revenue when Obama shut down the wars. During the height of the wars we were making about 25% profit.

 

[jellyrug]

I think we should just stop the war in Iraq, invade it, make it another US state and pump some oil. After all, they will never be able to manage themselves. Is that not what Putin is doing in Ukraine, and everyone is letting him get away with it?

But then again, if Obama does that uncle John Boehner will try and sue him.

Wait, perhaps we should wait for 2016, then everyone will agree, that is with a Republican President.

Just jokin, lighten up guys.

 

[skydivr]

Another post devoid of anything to advance the conversation?

I didn't see anything in your previous response that advanced the conversation either. I didn't call anyone stupid; in fact, I'm pointing out that the Liberal planners of the ACA called their OWN supporters stupid (and the rest you inferred), and if I were you, I'd be a lot more pissed at them than me. You are correct there are other positions in the world, and sometimes in a Democracy you don't get your way. I personally don't give much credit to those Socialist 'other nation's in the world as their track records sux worse than ours (ask IG), and hopefully after 1/1/15 you may see liberals not getting their way...however, I digress...

I don't get this. I admit we are 500 people but our premiums have gone down by about 15%. We had to make some adjustments, as you can't really get a good deal out there anymore without going to high deductible HSAs but we reimburse the staff for the amount they are on the hook for and it still amounts to a 15% reduction - everyone happy. It's my experience that small businesses make higher profits than we do (at least in the A/E markets). We just to a huge volume relative to the small guys. For example we have made only about 1% profit for the last two years but that's pretty good since we lost about 40% of our revenue when Obama shut down the wars. During the height of the wars we were making about 25% profit.

In other words, "If you want to keep your plan, you can"...means your firm changed to a high-deductable HSA, as it was the only route available to keep your costs down. I therefore could pretty much assume that means you had another, "regular" plan, and faced with a huge rate increase, you changed the nature of your plan - so in fact, you DID get an increase, and had to change in order to keep the costs down....Not exactly the same as a 'decrease'....

Obamacare has one, singular goal - to fail. To fail in order for the liberals to say "see, we tried - it didnt' work, and now the only way to go forward is SINGLE-PAYER". Once the government get's control of your health care, they OWN YOU. The quality and access will go down, and the expense will go up. Socialism, here we come...We don't need bigger, inefficient, expensive government, we a smaller, less intrusive government.

Having said that, going to a high deductable HSA in order to keep the costs down is probably what we are also going to be FORCED to do, and are currently looking into it. Remember that option will only last so long, and then someone will change the law to squeeze that out, also. This will be the third year in a row we've had to make huge adjustments in the health care we provide for our employees (That we provided BEFORE the government decided to MAKE us) and their interference has cost more people BY FAR than it helped. And the worse parts of the HCA aren't even in effect yet (intentionally delayed by this administration in order to get past the elections)...watch what happens when the 83% portion WE pay (having been told several times that we are being extremely generous at this percentage) becomes taxable income...

I will, however, throw you a bone. As much as I hate liberal interference, there is an instance where personally Obamacare may help my family. My 13YO daughter has JRA (Juvenile Rhematoid Arthritis). At 13 years old she has joint pain (she can't even straighten her hands fully right now). She will probably eventually require a weekly Enbril shot (which at the moment is about $1000 a shot), weekly for the rest of her life (pull out your calculator again). The clause that allows her to stay on my plan until she's 26, and the pre-existing conditions clause means she has a chance at having a decent life without being in debtors' prison. Under the HSA plan, after I get thru the huge deductable, it will probably cost me about $100 a shot. My biggest fear is that she will reach adulthood a functional cripple and her daddy won't be around to take care of her. I would gladly give 10 remaining years of my life off, if I could take it from her.

 

[fallenarch]

I didn't see anything in your previous response that advanced the conversation either. I didn't call anyone stupid; in fact, I'm pointing out that the Liberal planners of the ACA called their OWN supporters stupid (and the rest you inferred), and if I were you, I'd be a lot more pissed at them than me. You are correct there are other positions in the world, and sometimes in a Democracy you don't get your way. I personally don't give much credit to those Socialist 'other nation's in the world as their track records sux worse than ours (ask IG), and hopefully after 1/1/15 you may see liberals not getting their way...however, I digress...



In other words, "If you want to keep your plan, you can"...means your firm changed to a high-deductable HSA, as it was the only route available to keep your costs down. I therefore could pretty much assume that means you had another, "regular" plan, and faced with a huge rate increase, you changed the nature of your plan - so in fact, you DID get an increase, and had to change in order to keep the costs down....Not exactly the same as a 'decrease'....

Obamacare has one, singular goal - to fail. To fail in order for the liberals to say "see, we tried - it didnt' work, and now the only way to go forward is SINGLE-PAYER". Once the government get's control of your health care, they OWN YOU. The quality and access will go down, and the expense will go up. Socialism, here we come...We don't need bigger, inefficient, expensive government, we a smaller, less intrusive government.

Having said that, going to a high deductable HSA in order to keep the costs down is probably what we are also going to be FORCED to do, and are currently looking into it. Remember that option will only last so long, and then someone will change the law to squeeze that out, also. This will be the third year in a row we've had to make huge adjustments in the health care we provide for our employees (That we provided BEFORE the government decided to MAKE us) and their interference has cost more people BY FAR than it helped. And the worse parts of the HCA aren't even in effect yet (intentionally delayed by this administration in order to get past the elections)...watch what happens when the 83% portion WE pay (having been told several times that we are being extremely generous at this percentage) becomes taxable income...

I will, however, throw you a bone. As much as I hate liberal interference, there is an instance where personally Obamacare may help my family. My 13YO daughter has JRA (Juvenile Rhematoid Arthritis). At 13 years old she has joint pain (she can't even straighten her hands fully right now). She will probably eventually require a weekly Enbril shot (which at the moment is about $1000 a shot), weekly for the rest of her life (pull out your calculator again). The clause that allows her to stay on my plan until she's 26, and the pre-existing conditions clause means she has a chance at having a decent life without being in debtors' prison. Under the HSA plan, after I get thru the huge deductable, it will probably cost me about $100 a shot. My biggest fear is that she will reach adulthood a functional cripple and her daddy won't be around to take care of her. I would gladly give 10 remaining years of my life off, if I could take it from her.

Obamacare has nothing to do with the HSA transition. Healthcare companies feel if you have to fork over a chunk of money before they have to pay anything people will be more careful In how they use their healthcare dollars. It's pretty much proven that with a $3000 deductible the Healthcare provider's cost fall dramatically. People spend less on healthcare when they actually know what it costs. You will note that the transition to HSA's preceded the passing of Obamacare. Whether or not there was a technical increase, people can see the same doctors they saw before, and get generally the same coverage at less cost to us (the owners).

Something interesting that I have never heard mentioned is that Michelle Obama actually worked for a healthcare company. ObamaCare addresses a very necessary issue which is controlling the near unchecked power of healthcare companies to extort money out of the economy while making obscene profits that would make a loan shark blush. People need to cover their 25 year old students on their family plans. It's wrong to pay into a healthcare plan for years and then have the insurance company say you reached your lifetime max right when you get cancer. What about excluding people who have either a birth defect or have had a heart attack?

Healthcare reform is necessary. Is Obamacare perfect? Absolutely not. But rather than putting all their efforts in repealing it simply because Obama got it passed, Republicans should be shaping it and making sure it doesn't become a single-payer system.

Healthcare is freedom. How many of you would leave your job if it wasn't for the healthcare coverage? How many of you would start a business if you could have healthcare? How many of those forclosures on houses that almost crashed the economy were due to healthcare debt (40%). If I make a widget and nobody buys it I'll lower the price to increase demand. If I sell healthcare you have to buy it no matter how much it cost - there must be some control other than free market forces. The healthcare industry is inherently monopolistic. We built an advanced analysis facility (x-ray, CT scans, MRI, and labs) for a local healthcare provider and they said the special MRI machines cost so much to purchase and run that they need to run 24/7 to be profitable. There can be no competition for technology this expensive, so they can set their price and if you need it you have to pay.

 

[fallenarch]

Also as far as the government making businesses provide healthcare, why shouldn't they? If Walmart has employees they can pay below the poverty line and then when those employees have to go to the hospital we all have to bear the cost. How is that fair? The same goes for young people. They feel like they don't need healthcare but then when they break their back trying to pull off that 360 on the skate board we all have to pay the cost because they can't.

 

[skydivr]

NOW we get to the bottom line: You believe that all people should have healthcare, and you believe that those who can be made to pay for it, should be made by the government to do so....Again, a noble idea, but the devil is in the details, and I haven't seen any unicorn tears on sale lately. Again, I guess we should average grades in school, because the kids who didn't study really SHOULD make the same grade as the kids who did...

 

[fallenarch]

NOW we get to the bottom line: You believe that all people should have healthcare, and you believe that those who can be made to pay for it, should be made by the government to do so....Again, a noble idea, but the devil is in the details, and I haven't seen any unicorn tears on sale lately. Again, I guess we should average grades in school, because the kids who didn't study really SHOULD make the same grade as the kids who did...

Well the constitution does say "provide for the general welfare". At the time that meant some levels of public health. But this gets to the fundamental problem I have with both Republicans and Libertarians. We are the government. As an individual we have very little power in the market. As a government of 350 million consumers we have absolute power. So we pool our money and buy things like planes, ships, roads, etc. All stuff very few of us could afford individually. Generally this collective buying power extends to items of "public utility", or things used by all more or less equally. Why not extend this to healthcare too? Now the other side of that is roads, planes, ships, and healthcare benefit businesses. No business can survive without a well trained, stable workforce workforce but how many include running schools in their bottom lines? All the money we spend in the middle east is for business, that's what it means when we say it's about oil.

I think it's selfish for a business to say I want the benefit of all this country offers and then say I don't want to pay for it. Ronald Reagan started an effort in this country that was different from all of his predessors - he started the myth that the government is against the people. The purpose of this is to make people rely on business and not the government. That's fascism, and much worse that an overly democratic government,

 

[IG.]

Arch, I think your logic is fundamentally flawed. There is a fine line between what constitutes a "public utility" vs. what is not. Things like national defense clearly fall into this category. Healthcare like many other individual needs are just that - individual needs, and the government clearly crossed the line by forcing some people to pay for others. Remember that government doesn't produce anything, and it is always someone else who pays. Following your logic, we should pay for other individual needs - like food, cars, entertainment, etc. - controlled and regulated by the government. This is a slippery slope towards socialism. Been there, done that.

If you personally are willing to pay for someone else's healthcare, my hat is off to you, and I applaud your compassion. However, forcing some people to pay for others is plain wrong. I have been unemployed for 2 years, my wife is the only one who works, we are having trouble paying our mortgage and other bills, yet we have to pay for someone else's health insurance to the tune of at least a few hundred dollars per month. And on top of that, I have no say in it.

Saying that our system helps businesses and other individuals to succeed and therefore they are liable to help others is a misguided notion. Our system is maintained by the will of the people to support free enterprise - a free (not forced) exchange of products and services. Our government has little to do with that. Same could be said about people who contribute little to society. The government's job is to maintain such system and foster free enterprise. It has been proven over time - that's what propelled our country to be the leader of the free world - both politically and economically. Obamacare clearly violates this principle, and enforces socialism - plain and simple. It does not appear to the government that there is anything wrong with that because the government itself operates internally on socialistic principles, directing all governmental activities top to bottom, exactly like in any totalitarian society. This is not necessarily bad, but has to be recognized for what it is.

Once again, if you and some other people want to pay for others' healthcare, you are free to do so. However, if you take a close look at all the Hollywood celebrities and others who support Obamacare, they themselves contribute very little. I can only repeat that proponents of socialistic principles always want someone else to pay for their ideas. Such is the case with Obamacare.

BTW, there are many charities who would help people in need - including with health issues. However, this requires a person in need to reach out to such charities, ask for help, explain the circumstances - in other words, go through the process which may screen out fakers, etc. Many people are too lazy to do that and would gladly accept Obamacare. Who in their right mind would not accept a free or almost free health insurance?

To sum it up, the government is not obligated to provide health insurance to all people because the government is not capable to provide anything. It is me and others like me who have to pay for someone else's healthcare. Frankly, I still can't comprehend why. It makes no sense to me, and I publicly disagree with that.

If you could model collective processes occurring in the minds of millions of people, you would notice that the level of frustration among hard working Americans grows. If the US were a totalitarian country, such frustration would've been buried inside. However, in our open society, the backlash is inevitable. This will ultimately hurt the same people who Obamacare was meant to benefit. I can only bring up the same philosophical principle: Something taken to an extreme can reach the exact opposite of the original intent.