Uh-huh

[Brainfade]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-turns-3-10-disturbing-212600864.html

Just over three years ago, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously quipped about ObamaCare that "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it. But only now, as ObamaCare's third anniversary approaches — President Obama signed it into law on March 23, 2010 — is the country starting to find out what the sweeping health care overhaul will actually do. ObamaCare backers typically tout popular features that went into effect almost immediately. The law expanded Medicare's drug coverage, for example, and let children stay on their parents' plans until they turned 26. But the bulk of ObamaCare doesn't take effect until next year. That's when the so-called insurance exchanges are supposed to be up and running, when the mandate on individuals and businesses kicks in, and when the avalanche of regulations on the insurance industry hits. As this start date draws near, evidence is piling up that ObamaCare will: Boost insurance costs. Officially the "Affordable Care Act," ObamaCare promised to lower premiums for families. But regulators decided to impose a 3.5% surcharge on insurance plans sold through federally run exchanges. There's also a $63 fee for every person covered by employers. And the law adds a "premium tax" that will require insurers to pay more than $100 billion over the next decade. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation expects insurers to simply pass this tax onto individuals and small businesses, boosting premiums another 2.5%. Push millions off employer coverage. In February, the Congressional Budget Office said that 7 million will likely lose their employer coverage thanks to ObamaCare — nearly twice its previous estimate. That number could be as high as 20 million, the CBO says. Cause premiums to skyrocket. In December, state insurance commissioners warned Obama administration officials that the law's market regulations would likely cause "rate shocks," particularly for younger, healthier people forced by ObamaCare to subsidize premiums for those who are older and sicker. "We are very concerned about what will happen if essentially there is so much rate shock for young people that they're bound not to purchase (health insurance) at all," said California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones. That same month, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini said ObamaCare will likely cause premiums to double for some small businesses and individuals. And a more recent survey of insurers in five major cities by the American Action Forum found they expect premiums to climb an average 169%. Cost people their jobs. The Federal Reserve's March beige book on economic activity noted that businesses "cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff. Around the same time, Gallup reported a surge in part-time work in advance of ObamaCare's employer mandate. It found that part-timers accounted for almost 21% of the labor force, up from 19% three years ago. Meanwhile, human resources consulting firm Adecco found that half of the small businesses it surveyed in January either plan to cut their workforce, not hire new workers, or shift to part-time or temporary help because of ObamaCare. Tax the middle class. IBD reported in February that much of the $800 billion in tax hikes imposed by ObamaCare will end up hitting the middle class, including $45 billion in mandate penalties, $19 billion raised by limiting medical expense deductions, $24 billion through strict limits on flexible spending accounts, plus another $5 billion because ObamaCare bans using FSAs to buy over-the-counter drugs. Add to the deficit. The Government Accountability Office reported in January that Obama-Care will likely add $6.2 trillion in red ink over 75 years if independent experts are right and several of its cost control measures don't work as advertised. Cost more than promised. The Congressional Budget Office now says ObamaCare's insurance subsidies will cost $233 billion more over the next decade than it thought last year. Be a bureaucratic nightmare. Consumers got their first glimpse of life under ObamaCare when the Health and Human Services Department released a draft insurance application form. It runs 21 pages. "Applying for benefits under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul could be as daunting as doing your taxes," the AP concluded after reviewing the form. Exacerbate doctor shortages. Last summer, a study by the Association of American Medical Colleges found that the country will have 62,900 fewer doctors than its needs by 2015, thanks in large part to ObamaCare. At the same time, a survey of 13,000 doctors by the Physicians Foundation found that almost 60% of doctors say ObamaCare has made them less optimistic about the future of health care and they would retire today if they could. Leave millions uninsured. After 10 years, ObamaCare will still leave 30 million without coverage, according to the CBO. As IBD reported, that figure could be much higher if the law causes premiums to spike and encourages people to drop coverage despite the law's mandate.

:pray:

[Ram]

Last summer, a study by the Association of American Medical Colleges found that the country will have 62,900 fewer doctors than its needs by 2015, thanks in large part to ObamaCare. At the same time, a survey of 13,000 doctors by the Physicians Foundation found that almost 60% of doctors say ObamaCare has made them less optimistic about the future of health care and they would retire today if they could.

More like less optimistic about the future of the number of zeroes in their bank accounts - Obamacare clamps on medicare payments, making it harder for physicians to reel off one bloated medicare claim after another. Btw, is it not ironic that the professional medical doctor community, usually known for having some of the best incomes in the country, start whining about livelihoods.

[Lurker]

More like less optimistic about the future of the number of zeroes in their bank accounts - Obamacare clamps on medicare payments, making it harder for physicians to reel off one bloated medicare claim after another. Btw, is it not ironic that the professional medical doctor community, usually known for having some of the best incomes in the country, start whining about livelihoods.

Sriram, would you care about a policy if it reduced the number of zeroes in your bank account? :nervous:

[Ram]

Sriram' date=' would you care about a policy if it reduced the number of zeroes in your bank account? :nervous:[/quote'] Well, if I had 4 zeroes in my bank account and that got reduced to 2 (ie, the problem faced by 10s of 1000s of people who were left unemployed in the aftermath of the 2008 credit crisis, almost exclusively caused by Wall Street greed), then that is a problem. However, if I had 10 zeroes in my bank account and that got reduced to 9 due to new govt regulation, I know that is tough, but I still think I got a pretty good life. And take my word, the only people who are even remotely impacted by new govt. legislation are actually the corporates, who btw already make millions and billions in profits. You do not see regular folks protesting in bus stops and train stations about Obamacare do you? Its a bit like golfer Phil Mickleson recently announcing that he may leave America because of high taxes? I am sure the excess taxes in the United States forced him to cut down on buying 2 diamond rolex watches to just one. Poor guy. :(( All so-called 'findings' about Obamacare are nothing but calculated propaganda to shrink the popularity of the legislation even more. And here's how I know the legislation is actually consumer friendly - A friend of mine, who buys insurance on his own from a big ticket insurer, got a refund check at the end of 2012 because by law, insurance companies are required to use a fixed percentage of the premium YOU pay, for YOUR healthcare (who would have guessed right?). My friend had no illness thru the whole of last year and surprise surprise - He gets a refund check from the insurer, along with the letter saying they are required to refund the excess money back, as per the affordable care act, aka, ObamaCare. Now, by nature I am a complete skeptic, but I never thought I'd live to see the day where a corporation actually gives you back a portion of the money you gave them. And while we are on the topic of regulation working FOR the people, here's another instance - I recently applied for an bigger limit on my credit card issued by a major bank. Along the with the letter informing me of the bank's decision on my request to enhance my limit, came another note saying that, the bank had used information from a credit agency to make that decision and by law, they are required to provide me with a free copy of that report. As a consumer, I felt EMPOWERED that day.

[Lurker]

Well, if I had 4 zeroes in my bank account and that got reduced to 2 (ie, the problem faced by 10s of 1000s of people who were left unemployed in the aftermath of the 2008 credit crisis, almost exclusively caused by Wall Street greed), then that is a problem.

Obama has done nothing about Wall Street either. Lets leave it at that.

However, if I had 10 zeroes in my bank account and that got reduced to 9 due to new govt regulation, I know that is tough, but I still think I got a pretty good life. And take my word, the only people who are even remotely impacted by new govt. legislation are actually the corporates, who btw already make millions and billions in profits. You do not see regular folks protesting in bus stops and train stations about Obamacare do you? Its a bit like golfer Phil Mickleson recently announcing that he may leave America because of high taxes? I am sure the excess taxes in the United States forced him to cut down on buying 2 diamond rolex watches to just one. Poor guy. :((

What is so fundamentally wrong about Mickelson's statement? At best Mickelson is taxed at 55%. At worst about 65%. Who in his right frame of mind wants to lose 55 bucks out of every 100 he makes off the bat? Would you? It is a very fair question. Unfortunately he was pumelled for it.

And while we are on the topic of regulation working FOR the people, here's another instance - I recently applied for an bigger limit on my credit card issued by a major bank. Along the with the letter informing me of the bank's decision on my request to enhance my limit, came another note saying that, the bank had used information from a credit agency to make that decision and by law, they are required to provide me with a free copy of that report.

I was part of a team that ran credit card campaigns for Chase(6 years). You always had that right as a consumer Sriram. Nothing new there provisionally but good to see that is being followed.

[Ram]

Obama has done nothing about Wall Street either. Lets leave it at that.

What are you saying Lurks? Have you been following the news? Just in the last 5 years, financial institutions in the United States have either already paid up or are in the process of facing lawsuits from the US govt. totaling an excess of $30bn. That is unprecedented in US financial services sector. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/10/us-mortgage-settlement-idUSTRE81600F20120210 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21653131 http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/10/investing/standard-chartered-sanctions-iran/index.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/05/us-mcgrawhill-sandp-civilcharges-idUSBRE9130U120130205 This, in addition to the host of erstwhile high profile guys who have been convicted of insider trading and/or Ponzi schemes And if you think the appointment of Senator Elizabeth Warren as the head of the Senate Banking committee was a co-incidence, think again. She is a world renowned consumer rights protection advocate and the banks actively campaigned against her getting that post. There is absolutely no question that the regulatory environment has gotten stricter in the last 5 years. And as somebody who has spent the last 5 years working IN Wall Street, 90% of the time on Compliance/regulatory related projects, I can tell you that the new regulatory environment may necessarily not force the Wall Street executives to lose sleep in the night, but it has definitely forced them to think twice before embarking on an exotic/reckless financial instrument next time (If you come by the East coast some time, I will share with you several revealing anecdotes that will make you smile). And speaking of regulation and the financial services sector, personally, it is hilarious for me to see all the whining and moaning in the US press about ‘increased regulations’ and ‘big govt’. etc, when I know for a FACT that, compared to European and Japanese regulations, US regulations pale in the comparison. I am located in the East coast, but half of the time, the team that I am part of is speaking with our counterparts in Europe and Asia Pacific to ensure that our systems and best practices there meet the local regulations.

What is so fundamentally wrong about Mickelson's statement? At best Mickelson is taxed at 55%. At worst about 65%. Who in his right frame of mind wants to lose 55 bucks out of every 100 he makes off the bat? Would you? It is a very fair question. Unfortunately he was pumelled for it.

I think that is an incomplete statement because we are not talking about a guy who makes $100, who has $55 taken away. We are talking about a guy who makes $50 mn, who has $25 mn taken away. What Phil Mickelson does not acknowledge is that it is the US economic system of taxation and spending is what has created a market for him to make so much in the first place. My personal view on taxes has always been this – I do not mind being taxed at a high rate, as long as the money is used to create a market for me to go sell my skills and make even more money.

I was part of a team that ran credit card campaigns for Chase(6 years). You always had that right as a consumer Sriram. Nothing new there provisionally but good to see that is being followed.

Of course, I am not giving the Obama administration credit for this regulation, I know this has been around for a long time. My general point is that, good, pointed legislation can empowering for consumers, who are often forced to be powerless in the face of mammoth corporations and their expansive legal team.

[Ram]

And back to the topic of health-care – CA keeps pointing out to studies that say that ‘Premiums are going up’ or ‘Employers are hiring less because of Obamacare..’ What he does not remember to include is what the underlying reason behind this is. No – 1 – Of course the premiums are going to go up in some cases, because the Affordable care Act is going to significantly increase the operating costs of health-care providers. For example, It is no longer possible for health insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and simply cover just healthy individuals only. It is no longer possible for insurance companies to impose artificial life-time limits on coverage. So these guys are going to pass on the additional cost to the consumer. The only difference now is – I know that my premium may be up by 15%, but at least I know know that chance of my insurance company denying me coverage in the event of a serious illness is a lot lesser than it was before. So am I willing to pay an additional $100 for that peace of mind? You betcha! Besides, health-care costs are going to up, just purely by inflation. None of these so-called ‘studies’ ever care to point that. No – 2 – On the topic of employers threatening to hire less because of Obamacare, I am very curious to know – If increased health-care costs are forcing your employer to recruit less, I think it says more about your employer his attitude towards the welfare of the people who work for him, than the extent of US regulation.

[Brainfade]

And back to the topic of health-care – CA keeps pointing out to studies that say that ‘Premiums are going up’ or ‘Employers are hiring less because of Obamacare..’ What he does not remember to include is what the underlying reason behind this is. No – 1 – Of course the premiums are going to go up in some cases, because the Affordable care Act is going to significantly increase the operating costs of health-care providers. For example, It is no longer possible for health insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and simply cover just healthy individuals only. It is no longer possible for insurance companies to impose artificial life-time limits on coverage. So these guys are going to pass on the additional cost to the consumer. The only difference now is – I know that my premium may be up by 15%, but at least I know know that chance of my insurance company denying me coverage in the event of a serious illness is a lot lesser than it was before. So am I willing to pay an additional $100 for that peace of mind? You betcha! Besides, health-care costs are going to up, just purely by inflation. None of these so-called ‘studies’ ever care to point that. No – 2 – On the topic of employers threatening to hire less because of Obamacare, I am very curious to know – If increased health-care costs are forcing your employer to recruit less, I think it says more about your employer his attitude towards the welfare of the people who work for him, than the extent of US regulation.

With all due respect to your anti-corporate views, I have to start with this response - "What a joke!" We're not just talking multibillion $$ corporates here. We're talking the guy who owns a small construction business and employs 50 people. The woman who owns 5 dry cleaning stores and employs 50 people. The eye surgeon who may employ 50 people in his 3 private practices put together. There are many, many more of those than the corporates you hate. And they cannot afford this - no matter how much their heart bleeds.

[Lurker]

What are you saying Lurks? Have you been following the news?

Lets keep it rather simple Sriram. How many Wall Street Executive have been brought to justice for the Real Estate fiasco. Now that Obama is in 2nd term he has had all the time he needs.

I think that is an incomplete statement because we are not talking about a guy who makes $100, who has $55 taken away. We are talking about a guy who makes $50 mn, who has $25 mn taken away. What Phil Mickelson does not acknowledge is that it is the US economic system of taxation and spending is what has created a market for him to make so much in the first place.

I have never understood that rationale in the first place. Just because Mickelson makes 60 million $ a year, me (or you or anybody else) should ask him to return 30-40 million $ as taxes? What kind of logic is that? Who wants to be in that position, except Warren Buffett, who is happy to be releived of 50-60% of his own money right off the bat?? Would anybody in your social circle ever do that? I doubt it, why should Mickelson feel any different?

My personal view on taxes has always been this – I do not mind being taxed at a high rate, as long as the money is used to create a market for me to go sell my skills and make even more money.

That is not how it works. Give yourself 5 years. You will most likely make more money and pay more taxes and see that it had nothing to do with anything else.

Of course, I am not giving the Obama administration credit for this regulation, I know this has been around for a long time. My general point is that, good, pointed legislation can empowering for consumers, who are often forced to be powerless in the face of mammoth corporations and their expansive legal team.

These are two different things, arent they? Big corporations not doing supposed to be doing what they should legally, and big government now forcing them to do so. In the end the consumer is getting screwed. You are now paying for bigger Govt and you will also pay the bank. Sure you get the credit report now, but you are entitled to receive that anyway. Only now Banks will slip in a charge some place. Watch your bills closely. There are no free lunches in US :winky:

[Ram]

With all due respect to your anti-corporate views, I have to start with this response - "What a joke!" We're not just talking multibillion $$ corporates here. We're talking the guy who owns a small construction business and employs 50 people. The woman who owns 5 dry cleaning stores and employs 50 people. The eye surgeon who may employ 50 people in his 3 private practices put together. There are many, many more of those than the corporates you hate. And they cannot afford this - no matter how much their heart bleeds.

You know that Obamacare has the small business exemption and 98% of the 6 million small businesses in the United States employ less than 50 people and hence are not subject to the healthcare mandate. And your characterization of me as being ‘anti-corporate’ is not accurate and I earnestly ask you to point out to specific instances where I have come across as such. My sense is that you are confusing my ‘anti-greed’ views as being ‘anti-capitalistic’ and ‘anti-corporates’. They are two entirely different things. For the record, I do not have any problems with corporates going out on the market place, selling a compelling product and making billions and billions in profits, as long as people who pay for the product get the desired value for the money they pay. Imagine this – If you went to the store and paid $600 for an iPad and all you got was a card-board casing for it, will you not be enraged? Something very similar has been happening with the healthcare Industry. People have been paying exorbitant sums of money as health-care premiums to insurance companies and other health-care providers, but getting very little care in return for that. It is time to redress this imbalance. And only the threat of legal action (arising from new legislation, like Obamacare) can achieve this.

[Brainfade]

Ram, if you had 50 employees and get an exemption from PPACA for having 49, what would you do? We just created a whole new class of 6 million uninsureds that the gov't has to subsidize. As for the rest of your points, I think we both agree that there is a problem with healthcare availability. We just don't agree that PPACA is the solution.

[Brainfade]

Also, on another thread, you had asked me (paraphrased here) - "if med mal insurance costs add only 2 - 5 % of medical costs, why should tort reform be tackled first?" The answer is simple: it forces doctores to practice defensive medicine. Doctors are forced to order unnecessary tests simply to avoid the perception of medical malpractice and avoid even the remotest threat of a lawsuit. They are forced to hire extra help simply to do the paperwork associated with all the regulations. And you, the patient, pay for all of that. And you are way off base on Medicare payments. Medicare reimbursement rates are so low that small physician practices are taking losses on their Medicare patients and dumping them (http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2013/01/01/27-pay-cut-or-not-more-docs-to-leave-medicare-in-2013/". What you are talking about are the ones that are committing fraud. The solution is to penalize the fraudsters and not burden the entire system by lowering reimbursements even further. It is like this: 2 out of 10 students cheat on an exam and make an average grade. I can either give the cheaters zeroes and bring the average down 20%. Or, I could take 20% off everyone's grade to bring the average down 20%. Only one approach makes sense. We could go on and on about this, but we all know that I am right and you are wrong :-)!!

[Ram]

Lets keep it rather simple Sriram. How many Wall Street Executive have been brought to justice for the Real Estate fiasco. Now that Obama is in 2nd term he has had all the time he needs.

Just for doing what he has done so far - which is to essentially recoup a small fraction of the money the US banks made by their reckless policies - Obama is being called a Socialist and a communist. You really think that, in a capitalist society like the United States where wealth is glorified and rich people are treated like Rock stars, that the establishment will start putting the CEOs of major banks behind bars? Who are we talking here? Jamie Dimon? Lloyd Blankfein? Never gonna happen. That will prompt a a HUGE backlash, even within the establishment and even the traditionally pro-Obama portion of the media will turn on him.

I have never understood that rationale in the first place. Just because Mickelson makes 60 million $ a year, me (or you or anybody else) should ask him to return 30-40 million $ as taxes? What kind of logic is that? Who wants to be in that position, except Warren Buffett, who is happy to be releived of 50-60% of his own money right off the bat?? Would anybody in your social circle ever do that? I doubt it, why should Mickelson feel any different?

I think you are missing the crux of the argument. Maybe we should have a separate argument on the premise of taxation. Unlike what most Republicans want to call it, taxation is not the govt 'stealing peoples' money'. It is the govt. taking away a portion of your income so that it continue to be the guarantor of social and civic conditions that continue to enable you to make more money. It is not a very complex argument - If there were no roads, then it would not be possible for me to go to work and earn a living. If there were no policeman/law enforcement, then it may not be safe for me to go to work and earn a living. If there are no public schools, then there may not enough educated people out there to need the product that I am selling. You can extend this argument to many other facets too. Now, when it comes to the percentage of taxation (which seems to be disagreement), my premise is that the more you earn, the more you are dependent on govt. subsidized infrastructure (both soft and hard) to earn that money. For example, If I am making a living selling hand-kerchiefs on the payment, then the contribution of govt in my livelihood is quite less. So I pay a lesser tax. However, if I make my money selling imported cars, then the sustenance of the business model has a critical dependency on the govt. keeping up in the infrastructure - Roads, ports, law-enforcement, maintaining safe shipping lanes, internet etc. So, I pay a bigger proportion of my income to the govt. as tax. This is why you have people selling hankies on the payment both in the United States and Eritrea. But you dont find too many luxury car importers in busness in Eritrea.

That is not how it works. Give yourself 5 years. You will most likely make more money and pay more taxes and see that it had nothing to do with anything else.

I dont mind paying more taxes as long as the money is used to create a market for me to go out there and make even more money. P.S; Iraq war, $1.2 Trn, not much of use to me. Bailout in 2008, $1 trn, helped me keep my job in 2008.

These are two different things, arent they? Big corporations not doing supposed to be doing what they should legally, and big government now forcing them to do so. In the end the consumer is getting screwed. You are now paying for bigger Govt and you will also pay the bank. Sure you get the credit report now, but you are entitled to receive that anyway. Only now Banks will slip in a charge some place. Watch your bills closely. There are no free lunches in US :winky:

Very quick question - Do you support the Civil Rights of 1964 and all of its provision?

[Ram]

Extending the question I posed above to Lurks to CA as well - Do you support the Civil rights act of 1964 and all its provisions?