FARK.com: (7191119) Obamacare explained like you're a 5 year old or a Republican

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Obamacare explained like you're a 5 year old or a Republican (facebook.com)		482
		More: PSA, obamacare, Republican, chronic illnesses, tanning booth, health information

• • •

12756 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jul 2012 at 8:16 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7191119

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

482 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

INeedAName		2012-07-02 08:04:28 AM

mat catastrophe		2012-07-02 08:13:36 AM

miss diminutive: Very informative. Nice to see some information without the usual warrrrgaarrrbl.

Whatever. I still have time to start my rumor that it bans fireworks effective immediately.

Because I think that would be hilarious to watch.

keylock71		2012-07-02 08:16:41 AM

INeedAName: Stop using facts. This thread is about randomly throwing around garbage and hoping something sticks.

The level of misinformation coming from the opponents of this law is astounding...

We heard all the same criticisms is Massachusetts when MAssHealth was instituted. They mostly turned out to be bullshiat.

I suspect that will be the case with the ACA, too.

I used the MA health Connector to purchase our current plan (which, as I've said, is actually superior to our previous employer provided plan). We saw no loss in quality of care. We didn't even have to switch doctors. Our co-pays went down or remained the same. Prescription costs went down dramatically ($50 vs $3.65 per month for one of my medications), AND I actually have dental and eye coverage for the first time in my life.

Oh, and as I pointed out above, Insurance companies in MA are about to pay out 12 million in rebates because they didn't meet the requirements for the percentage of money required to be spent on health care, not "administrative costs".

My own personal experience, of course, but listening to all the Chicken Littles on Fark makes me laugh in light of those experiences with "socialized medicine" (Dun dun duuuunnnnnnnn).

On a related note, the wife and I lived in Ireland for about five years and I have experience with actual socialized medicine, and, I can tell you, it's pretty damn good.

RubberBandMan		2012-07-02 08:17:40 AM

There's a tax on medical devices, why?

/Sell medicale devices
//think mine are exempt
//Not sure

BeesNuts		2012-07-02 08:25:28 AM

EnviroDude: vpb: EnviroDude: Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a... President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!

What the h*ll could possibly go wrong?'

Donald Trump

No you didn't get it strait. Only financially irresponsible people get fined. Ask a five year old to explain it to you.

You mean self employed types that might have to choose between food or insurance. Or people with HSAs that now have to buy a product they don't want.

Please continue

You chose to be self employed. If it's that much of a problem for you, then you can always go get a real job like the rest of us, freeloader.

/doin' it well?

dletter		2012-07-02 08:26:35 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: dletter: DamnYankees: Lots of pretty good stuff in there.

I liked just about everything in there except for the $2,500 limit on FSAs. Not saying there shouldn't be some limit on FSA accounts, but, $2,500 seems low.

Except that FSAs were intended to cover what insurance won't. And with the law, insurance can only leave you high and dry for $2500.

Allowing people to put more aside before taxes could turn into a tax shelter.

If that is true (I didn't see $2500 anywhere else in the summary of the law) then that makes sense.

Debeo Summa Credo		2012-07-02 08:31:33 AM

keylock71: Debeo Summa Credo: That may be okay (healthy people subsidizing sicker people), but thats what they mean by your rates are going to increase.

We're paying less for the health insurance we have through the Commonwealth of MA than we did for the plan we had through my wife's former employer. I'm self-employed and my wife's current employer doesn't offer health insurance.

The plan we have now covers more than the previous plan, as well, and the prescription plan is superior.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. Now, I've heard similar ravings about masshealth from another source, so i dont doubt you but where does the benefit come from? How does
mass' health plan lower costs for everybody without reducing benefits? Who loses? Are you and your spouse high risk and therefore beneficiaries of the plan, while non high risk individuals lose out?

Virtually every talking point in TFA presents the upside without discussing the bad side. You cant dispute that eliminating lifetime caps and eliminating insurers ability to not write policies for people with high risk conditions won't cause costs to increase, right?

armoredbulldozer		2012-07-02 08:34:01 AM

Well, it was written by a five year old. That is why over half of Americans don't like it, especially since Congresspeople were bribed into passing it. Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana Purchase etc.

DeaH		2012-07-02 08:37:32 AM

TheLalagah: If you think other people should be forced to provide healthcare for you, then you think it's ok for other people to be your slaves. Think about it, then realize how angry someone might get about that. There is really nothing else to say.

Obamacare is all about personal responsibility. If you do not have insurance and you get really bad flu, you will go to the emergency room instead of to a doctor's office. I will be forced to pay for it. It's not fair to force me to pay for your deadbeat ass, especially if you could afford a monthly policy. The so-called "tax" or mandate fines you for being a deadbeat and trying to stick the rest of us with your extremely high medical bills. Why should I be forced to pay for your ER visit, which costs about ten times more than a doctor's office visit which you ought to be paying yourself?

vygramul		2012-07-02 08:37:52 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: After ACA is in effect, your premium would increase because you'd have to, in effect, subsidize the cost of insuring the very high risk individuals who were previously uninsurable.

That may be okay (healthy people subsidizing sicker people), but thats what they mean by your rates are going to increase.

Except that's why there's a mandate. All the young 27 year-olds who don't feel like getting insurance because they are young and healthy Will now have to get insurance, and they will therefore lower the rates, more than making up for the high-risk people.

vygramul		2012-07-02 08:41:13 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: keylock71: Debeo Summa Credo: That may be okay (healthy people subsidizing sicker people), but thats what they mean by your rates are going to increase.

We're paying less for the health insurance we have through the Commonwealth of MA than we did for the plan we had through my wife's former employer. I'm self-employed and my wife's current employer doesn't offer health insurance.

The plan we have now covers more than the previous plan, as well, and the prescription plan is superior.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. Now, I've heard similar ravings about masshealth from another source, so i dont doubt you but where does the benefit come from? How does
mass' health plan lower costs for everybody without reducing benefits? Who loses? Are you and your spouse high risk and therefore beneficiaries of the plan, while non high risk individuals lose out?

Virtually every talking point in TFA presents the upside without discussing the bad side. You cant dispute that eliminating lifetime caps and eliminating insurers ability to not write policies for people with high risk conditions won't cause costs to increase, right?

The young and healthy end up "losing". The reason that's in quotes is because they're not mking a good bet by not getting insurance to begin with, because the costs of being wrong are catastrophic.

Cinaed		2012-07-02 08:44:49 AM

The only reason anyone seems to actually dislike the HCR bills.

andersoncouncil42		2012-07-02 08:48:28 AM

vegasj: I saw an easier one...

so easy even a liberal can understand it.

[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 432x392]

OR, after not getting that pack of gum or health insurance, you have to go to the emergency room for a shattered tibia. After a couple of days in the hospital, two surgeries to insert a rod and many pins, you get a bill for $50,000 that you can't possibly pay. The hospital writes most of it off.

Now I know you don't know what this means, but I'll spell it out.
That makes you a F R E E L O A D E R

HotWingConspiracy		2012-07-02 08:56:43 AM

Obama wins again. Four more years. Shove your tricorn hats up your fat asses.

Infobahn		2012-07-02 09:01:41 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Obama wins again. Four more years. Shove your tricorn hats up your fat asses.

I hope that is true, but the Democrats have to use this victory and not squander the positive energy it has created.

unexplained bacon		2012-07-02 09:16:00 AM

it's nice to see team GOP struggling to zero in on a message here.
looks like their case is weak, and relies on misinformation.

their alternative solution is non existent as well.

let's see if America notices.

/rather have single payer, but this is better than nothing (or as it's come to be known, the GOP solution)

DrBenway		2012-07-02 09:17:17 AM

EnviroDude: What the h*ll could possibly go wrong?'

Donald Trump

Hate to break it to you but Donald Trump went wrong a long time ago.

Wait, you weren't quoting Donald Trump in that gob of type up there, were you? You know, as if he had some sensible point to make about anything that you felt was worth sharing? Oh, you poor dear. Bless your heart, Phil.

unexplained bacon		2012-07-02 09:17:19 AM

Infobahn: HotWingConspiracy: Obama wins again. Four more years. Shove your tricorn hats up your fat asses.

I hope that is true, but the Democrats have to use this victory and not squander the positive energy it has created.

sadly, always an issue for the Dems it seems.

unexplained bacon		2012-07-02 09:21:19 AM

Pharque-it: cchris_39: So a five year old can understand it. Ok let me give it a shot.

1. You're going to buy insurance.
2. If you don't we're going to take your money.
3. When we decide that you should buy something else, we'll let you know.
4. Unless you're a union or other big contibutor, then you will get a waiver.
5. Or some other eternally downtrodden politically correct victim that we so depend on for votes, then we'll get you out of it too.

Alrighty, thread over!

So you must be like .. 4?

you really want a laugh? ask him about his ideas for solving the healthcare issues in America....he busted out a 3 point plan last week that will really give you an idea just what you're dealing with here.

Hint: not exactly an intellectual elite.

KellyX		2012-07-02 09:23:47 AM

unexplained bacon: /rather have single payer, but this is better than nothing (or as it's come to be known, the GOP solution)

New Hampshire has already expressed interest in doing a single payer system, which if cheaper than the federal system, they'd be allowed to do (in 2017 I think is the earliest)...

I wouldn't be surprised if that works out that we don't see other states copy it and then eventually the entire system converted to it.

/still want a public option, they should just create it in Obama's 2nd Term and call it Medicaid 2.0

unexplained bacon		2012-07-02 09:30:06 AM

KellyX: unexplained bacon: /rather have single payer, but this is better than nothing (or as it's come to be known, the GOP solution)

New Hampshire has already expressed interest in doing a single payer system, which if cheaper than the federal system, they'd be allowed to do (in 2017 I think is the earliest)...

I wouldn't be surprised if that works out that we don't see other states copy it and then eventually the entire system converted to it.

/still want a public option, they should just create it in Obama's 2nd Term and call it Medicaid 2.0

just heard about that...sounds promising.
single payer seems to be the obvious answer I hope we go in that direction sooner than later.

artthehypnotist		2012-07-02 09:35:52 AM

I am a NAVY VET and get VA Health Care. What does this mean for me? Do I need to get insurance?

Debeo Summa Credo		2012-07-02 09:36:05 AM

vygramul: Debeo Summa Credo: After ACA is in effect, your premium would increase because you'd have to, in effect, subsidize the cost of insuring the very high risk individuals who were previously uninsurable.

That may be okay (healthy people subsidizing sicker people), but thats what they mean by your rates are going to increase.

Except that's why there's a mandate. All the young 27 year-olds who don't feel like getting insurance because they are young and healthy Will now have to get insurance, and they will therefore lower the rates, more than making up for the high-risk people.

Well, let's hope so. Expanding the pool to everyone and requiring participation is the most efficient way to make care available to everyone.

But the available pool of uninsured 20 somethings who will actually buy insurance (and not just pay the tax) doesn't seem
large enough to offset the increased costs that the bill imposes.

TFA is a view of the act through rose colored glasses, IMO. It's not a free ride. Just like right wing critiques focus on the potential negatives without considering the potential benefits.

Plinky		2012-07-02 09:41:53 AM

Ringshadow: My brother just found a provision in it that, supposedly, allows the RFID chipping of humans.

Solid Gold.

Tor_Eckman		2012-07-02 09:42:21 AM

artthehypnotist: I am a NAVY VET and get VA Health Care. What does this mean for me? Do I need to get insurance?

Nope. You are part of a far superior, tax-supported, government run, not for profit system of medical care.

No worries.

Lernaeus		2012-07-02 09:42:51 AM

So I guess when Obama said, "let's not have the same arguments as before," he meant, "switch from lies and obfuscation to gloating, sheer insults, and name-calling."

maweimer9		2012-07-02 09:43:12 AM

I haven't read through every comment, but this is truly an honest and fair question....the abstract summary indicated that all companies with 50 or more employees are required to purchase health insurance for their employees. I guess the question I have is will it be more cost beneficial to pay the fine than to buy insurance?

/Serious question
/Huge fan of Obamacare in theory

DrBenway		2012-07-02 09:44:33 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: It's not a free ride.

Who, precisely, is arguing that it is, other than those complaining that it's going to jack up their own costs?

amiable		2012-07-02 09:45:04 AM

artthehypnotist: I am a NAVY VET and get VA Health Care. What does this mean for me? Do I need to get insurance?

No. You already have insurance through the VA which you will keep.

Crotchrocket Slim		2012-07-02 09:45:52 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: EnviroDude: Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a... President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!

What the h*ll could possibly go wrong?'

Donald Trump

I need to try this new trolling format of statement/rambling paragraph/sarcastic question/person you jack off to. It looks effective.

I can't imagine anyone seriously quoting Trump for reasons other than to mock him, but here we are...

artthehypnotist		2012-07-02 09:47:17 AM

Tor_Eckman: artthehypnotist: I am a NAVY VET and get VA Health Care. What does this mean for me? Do I need to get insurance?

Nope. You are part of a far superior, tax-supported, government run, not for profit system of medical care.

No worries.

And

amiable: artthehypnotist: I am a NAVY VET and get VA Health Care. What does this mean for me? Do I need to get insurance?

No. You already have insurance through the VA which you will keep.

Thank you.

keylock71		2012-07-02 09:47:22 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. Now, I've heard similar ravings about masshealth from another source, so i dont doubt you but where does the benefit come from? How does
mass' health plan lower costs for everybody without reducing benefits? Who loses? Are you and your spouse high risk and therefore beneficiaries of the plan, while non high risk individuals lose out?

Virtually every talking point in TFA presents the upside without discussing the bad side. You cant dispute that eliminating lifetime caps and eliminating insurers ability to not write policies for people with high risk conditions won't cause costs to increase, right?

Yep, anecdotal evidence, of course. But the fact is, my health insurance is more affordable than it previously was with no loss of quality or service. And to be honest, that's the most important thing to me. We're finally getting our heads above water in part because we're spending less on health care. We're not in any high-risk pool either. I'm self-employed and my wife's employer doesn't offer insurance. I have asthma, but that's not considered a pre-existing condition. We solidly lower-middle class as far as income goes, but we both work full time (I regularly put in 60 hour weeks) and live extremely modestly.

Having said that, cost is something we do need to be concerned about and the Commonwealth has be addressing that issue over the last few years.

Here's another interesting read on the subject.

unexplained bacon		2012-07-02 09:48:43 AM

Lernaeus: So I guess when Obama said, "let's not have the same arguments as before," he meant, "switch from lies and obfuscation to gloating, sheer insults, and name-calling."

can you point out some of the lies you're referring to?

while you're at it, what do you think we should do to fix healthcare, or do you think it's fine?

Tor_Eckman		2012-07-02 09:50:29 AM

maweimer9: I haven't read through every comment, but this is truly an honest and fair question....the abstract summary indicated that all companies with 50 or more employees are required to purchase health insurance for their employees. I guess the question I have is will it be more cost beneficial to pay the fine than to buy insurance?

/Serious question
/Huge fan of Obamacare in theory

Whether it is or not is irrelevant. Companies offer insurance to their employees as a benefit to attract good people and retain them. There has never been a penalty for companies that do not offer health insurance to their employees, yet most of them do. Why would they stop now?

And even if they did, would it be a bad thing? Individuals would benefit if healthcare insurance was divorced from their employment. Plenty of people take jobs they don't want or stay at jobs they hate because of the health insurance. Making it portable will be a good thing.

Otherwise Just Fine		2012-07-02 09:50:31 AM

vegasj: I saw an easier one...

so easy even a liberal can understand it.

[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 432x392]

That would make sense if healthcare was a pack of gum. That is to say, if you could go your entire life without needing it.

unexplained bacon		2012-07-02 09:51:31 AM

EnviroDude:

Donald Trump

hahahaha
wow

it's getting weaker. good.

unexplained bacon		2012-07-02 09:53:48 AM

the reason the GOP can't seem to come up with a good alternative plan to champion while they're trashing Obamacare is that Obamacare is essentially their plan.

how can the GOP pretend it hasn't veered hard right while they spaz out over the implementation of a plan they put forward just a few years back?

HotWingConspiracy		2012-07-02 09:58:53 AM

Lernaeus: So I guess when Obama said, "let's not have the same arguments as before," he meant, "switch from lies and obfuscation to gloating, sheer insults, and name-calling."

Well yeah, it's no longer an argument. It's over, Obama wins. Again.

keylock71		2012-07-02 10:01:49 AM

unexplained bacon: the reason the GOP can't seem to come up with a good alternative plan to champion while they're trashing Obamacare is that Obamacare is essentially their plan.

how can the GOP pretend it hasn't veered hard right while they spaz out over the implementation of a plan they put forward just a few years back?

Yep...

History of Individual Mandate

'Course, the cynic in me thinks the GOP does, indeed, have an alternative. It boils down to:

"If you're not rich enough to afford health insurance, tough shiat."

I've yet to see a Republican articulate a plan more detailed than that. Repeal and Replace, my ass.

Johnson		2012-07-02 10:11:16 AM

maweimer9: I guess the question I have is will it be more cost beneficial to pay the fine than to buy insurance?

OK car analogy then:

You drive a car to work 5 days a week.
If you park on the street you get a ticket: $5 each day. If you use the secured parking garage next door, it is $150 a month. Well that's a no-brainer 'eh?

So you park on the street and save some bucks and pay the fines. Then one day you come out to find someone hit your outside mirror and knocked it off. That's $500 a pop. This starts happening every week.
At what point do you decide to park in the parking garage?

/sorry best I can do

unexplained bacon		2012-07-02 10:11:45 AM

keylock71: unexplained bacon: the reason the GOP can't seem to come up with a good alternative plan to champion while they're trashing Obamacare is that Obamacare is essentially their plan.

how can the GOP pretend it hasn't veered hard right while they spaz out over the implementation of a plan they put forward just a few years back?

Yep...

History of Individual Mandate

'Course, the cynic in me thinks the GOP does, indeed, have an alternative. It boils down to:

"If you're not rich enough to afford health insurance, tough shiat."

I've yet to see a Republican articulate a plan more detailed than that. Repeal and Replace, my ass.

it's funny that they'd step out with a ready made bumpersticker friendly chant like "repeal and replace" when they know full well they haven't come up with anything to replace obamacare with....yet, the GOPers don't seem to notice this.

The dittohead I had the pleasure of chatting with this weekend was just fine with leaving the system broke, heck he's got health ins. so what's the problem?

most of his "points" boiled down to two catagories:
1) why should I have to pay for....
2) I got mine.

truly the party of the moral manly men.

Tor_Eckman		2012-07-02 10:18:32 AM

unexplained bacon: keylock71: unexplained bacon: the reason the GOP can't seem to come up with a good alternative plan to champion while they're trashing Obamacare is that Obamacare is essentially their plan.

how can the GOP pretend it hasn't veered hard right while they spaz out over the implementation of a plan they put forward just a few years back?

Yep...

History of Individual Mandate

'Course, the cynic in me thinks the GOP does, indeed, have an alternative. It boils down to:

"If you're not rich enough to afford health insurance, tough shiat."

I've yet to see a Republican articulate a plan more detailed than that. Repeal and Replace, my ass.

it's funny that they'd step out with a ready made bumpersticker friendly chant like "repeal and replace" when they know full well they haven't come up with anything to replace obamacare with....yet, the GOPers don't seem to notice this.

The dittohead I had the pleasure of chatting with this weekend was just fine with leaving the system broke, heck he's got health ins. so what's the problem?

most of his "points" boiled down to two catagories:
1) why should I have to pay for....
2) I got mine.

truly the party of the moral manly men.

...and the women that love them! Next, on Jerry Springer! Jerry, Jerry, Jerry!

maweimer9		2012-07-02 10:25:24 AM

Johnson: maweimer9: I guess the question I have is will it be more cost beneficial to pay the fine than to buy insurance?

OK car analogy then:

You drive a car to work 5 days a week.
If you park on the street you get a ticket: $5 each day. If you use the secured parking garage next door, it is $150 a month. Well that's a no-brainer 'eh?

So you park on the street and save some bucks and pay the fines. Then one day you come out to find someone hit your outside mirror and knocked it off. That's $500 a pop. This starts happening every week.
At what point do you decide to park in the parking garage?

/sorry best I can do

Appreciate the responses guys and I guess I'm understanding your points and agree with you.

Let's say I'm an engineer. I have two companies to choose from. One offers insurance and one doesn't. Since I'm an engineer, I can afford insurance. As a middle class worker, what will be the difference between the two companies, i.e what's my out of pocket cost if I have to buy my own insurance vs. how much will I have to contribute for the company that does offer insurance? Meaning will the gov't pick up the difference for the company that doesn't offer insurance?

I guess that's my main confusion at this point. What is the difference between taking the fine as a company and not offering insurance, thus passing the cost down to the employee vs. buying insurance the current way. To me, unless the company penalty + consumer cost >= the current process, won't most companies just disregard paying for insurance?

The reason I'm asking is because this is a legitimate argument from the right and I want a talking counterpoint when they bring this up.

Trapper439		2012-07-02 10:45:40 AM

TheLalagah: If you think other people should be forced to provide healthcare for you, then you think it's ok for other people to be your slaves. Think about it, then realize how angry someone might get about that. There is really nothing else to say.

9.3/10

You got a few bites, whilst also coming across as a truly sociopathic and yet believable hypocritical asshole by playing a misplaced victim card.

Well done, sir. You are a ~~gentleman~~ coont and a scholar.

Olympus Mons		2012-07-02 10:47:07 AM

Healthcare needs to be fixed in this country. The people who want choice, want to walk into the emergency room un-insured and leave it to us insured to eat their costs. What we pay is high because of them...them and just plain greedy executives/companies.

What does need to happen if this goes through is not to miss the...our costs come down now because we all are on it nationwide like a great bog group rate. We don't need to be left with a fine for not signing on unless they deliver whats in it for us to sign to begin with.... Cost needs to come down. Otherwise its randsom

KellyX		2012-07-02 10:47:41 AM

maweimer9: Let's say I'm an engineer. I have two companies to choose from. One offers insurance and one doesn't. Since I'm an engineer, I can afford insurance. As a middle class worker, what will be the difference between the two companies, i.e what's my out of pocket cost if I have to buy my own insurance vs. how much will I have to contribute for the company that does offer insurance? Meaning will the gov't pick up the difference for the company that doesn't offer insurance?

I guess that's my main confusion at this point. What is the difference between taking the fine as a company and not offering insurance, thus passing the cost down to the employee vs. buying insurance the current way. To me, unless the company penalty + consumer cost >= the current process, won't most companies just disregard paying for insurance?

The reason I'm asking is because this is a legitimate argument from the right and I want a talking counterpoint when they bring this up.

My understanding is if Company A has 50 or more employees, they have to offer you something (if you're a full time worker I believe is how they said it), Company B has 49 or less, they don't have to offer it, but they get tax incentives if they do offer it and are able to join a large small business insurance pool (which a lot of small businesses I know of have wanted for a long time, it's the only thing that's been holding up the company I work for from offering insurance).

If Company B chooses not to though, you can "shop" for your own insurance, depending on what you make a year would determine your monthly cost. I don't understand how to calculate it yet (I'm assuming some websites exist or will exist to do the math), but based on where you stand compared to the poverty level (I think its up to 500% above it) you get certain rates (basically the government covers the rest or something to that affect).

I think it went along something like if you make 25k a year and live alone, you'd pay maybe $125 a month, or something like that.

/don't consider my numbers correct, its just estimates and I might be misunderstanding the way they're meant to be calculated, but unless you're rich or very well to do, you're not going to be ass raped.

Debeo Summa Credo		2012-07-02 10:50:37 AM

maweimer9: Johnson: maweimer9: I guess the question I have is will it be more cost beneficial to pay the fine than to buy insurance?

OK car analogy then:

You drive a car to work 5 days a week.
If you park on the street you get a ticket: $5 each day. If you use the secured parking garage next door, it is $150 a month. Well that's a no-brainer 'eh?

So you park on the street and save some bucks and pay the fines. Then one day you come out to find someone hit your outside mirror and knocked it off. That's $500 a pop. This starts happening every week.
At what point do you decide to park in the parking garage?

/sorry best I can do

Appreciate the responses guys and I guess I'm understanding your points and agree with you.

Let's say I'm an engineer. I have two companies to choose from. One offers insurance and one doesn't. Since I'm an engineer, I can afford insurance. As a middle class worker, what will be the difference between the two companies, i.e what's my out of pocket cost if I have to buy my own insurance vs. how much will I have to contribute for the company that does offer insurance? Meaning will the gov't pick up the difference for the company that doesn't offer insurance?

I guess that's my main confusion at this point. What is the difference between taking the fine as a company and not offering insurance, thus passing the cost down to the employee vs. buying insurance the current way. To me, unless the company penalty + consumer cost >= the current process, won't most companies just disregard paying for insurance?

The reason I'm asking is because this is a legitimate argument from the right and I want a talking counterpoint when they bring this up.

The argument I've heard is that companies may be willing to take the fine and not buy insurance, knowing that employees might be able to get insurance on the exchanges at reasonable rates.

Currently, employer based health insurance is beneficial to employer and employee because, because of group ratings and economies of scale, it provides a benefit to the employee in excess of the cost to the employer. For example if an employer decided to forego health insurance that costs $1,200 per month and just give the employee that $1,200
directly, the employee couldn't obtain equivalent coverage for that $1,200.

Under ACA, I guess the idea is individuals will be able to more easily obtain coverage on the individual exchanges, allowing employers more freedom to do away with their health plans without making it too undesirable to work for that employer.

That's at least what I've heard from a health plan industry insider.

Erix		2012-07-02 10:56:00 AM

Not sure if this was already addressed, but does anyone know exactly how the fines/taxes/whatever are used? There is no public option, so I'm assuming it goes into a general Medicare fund or something?

DeaH		2012-07-02 11:01:29 AM

maweimer9: Johnson: maweimer9: I guess the question I have is will it be more cost beneficial to pay the fine than to buy insurance?

OK car analogy then:

You drive a car to work 5 days a week.
If you park on the street you get a ticket: $5 each day. If you use the secured parking garage next door, it is $150 a month. Well that's a no-brainer 'eh?

So you park on the street and save some bucks and pay the fines. Then one day you come out to find someone hit your outside mirror and knocked it off. That's $500 a pop. This starts happening every week.
At what point do you decide to park in the parking garage?

/sorry best I can do

Appreciate the responses guys and I guess I'm understanding your points and agree with you.

Let's say I'm an engineer. I have two companies to choose from. One offers insurance and one doesn't. Since I'm an engineer, I can afford insurance. As a middle class worker, what will be the difference between the two companies, i.e what's my out of pocket cost if I have to buy my own insurance vs. how much will I have to contribute for the company that does offer insurance? Meaning will the gov't pick up the difference for the company that doesn't offer insurance?

I guess that's my main confusion at this point. What is the difference between taking the fine as a company and not offering insurance, thus passing the cost down to the employee vs. buying insurance the current way. To me, unless the company penalty + consumer cost >= the current process, won't most companies just disregard paying for insurance?

The reason I'm asking is because this is a legitimate argument from the right and I want a talking counterpoint when they bring this up.

Some of this depends on the size of the company offering you the job. You see, smaller companies never did have access the the size of pools that larger companies did. Under Obamacare, they will. Also, smaller companies didn't get tax breaks the way larger companies did for offering health insurance. Under Obamacare they will. There would be less reason not to offer health insurance. And, if more and more companies start dropping insurance despite penalties, more and more workers will qualify for government insurance pools. If this happens, the invisible hand of the market will have decided that single payer is the best option.

As for the penalties, they are not that large. (Beware: PDF, but it's only 10 pages and most of the text is on just a few of those pages.)

Jixa		2012-07-02 11:02:22 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x513]

/Yes, that's the only reason.
//They'll stammer, lie and obfuscate, but it always boils down to that.

That's how my parents see it. I thought of forwarding the article to them but they wouldn't bother to even attempt to read it. If I was foolish enough to try and read it to them, they would just go "Futurama hippie-during-the-Poppler-news-debate" on me. _{shuddup, shuddup, shuddupshuddup.}

Displayed 50 of 482 comments