Obamacare saves billions for companies

[huskernut]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews

Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee surveyed the top 100 companies about how much they spent on health care -- a total of 71, covering 5.9 million employees, responded. The results suggested it would be far more attractive for companies to drop workers from those plans than keep them.
Even after paying a penalty of $2,000 per employee, the companies stand to save $28.6 billion in 2014 alone by shifting employees to health insurance exchanges governed by strict federal standards. The companies stand to save more than $422 billion over the first 10 years of the law by doing this.

That's great news when workers face a period of extremely low bargaining power. Companies will be able to dump the cost without paying higher wages, and at the same time (mostly likely) they'll be getting corporate tax rates lowered.

It makes one wonder why liberals want to vote for Obama.

[nems]

Heck ... A conspiracy theorist would believe Obama intentionally tanked the economy these past few years (while protecting labor unions), in order to ensure companies were forced into this position, to cut costs, while non-union employees were at their weakest bargaining position to have any other choice ... All while unions are protected.

I mean, to believe such a thing you would have to think that all that union financial support could influence government policy at this level.

[huskerdan1]

Well if they believe that 48 million is 1/4 of the US population than yes they are wrong.

I am pretty sure that they mean that 48 million is about 1/4 of the adults who are 19-64 not 1/4 of the entire population.

[huskernut]

Heck ... A conspiracy theorist would believe Obama intentionally tanked the economy these past few years (while protecting labor unions), in order to ensure companies were forced into this position, to cut costs, while non-union employees were at their weakest bargaining position to have any other choice ... All while unions are protected.

I mean, to believe such a thing you would have to think that all that union financial support could influence government policy at this level.

Given when the recession started, GWB must be in on it too.

[RedPhoenix]

In all seriousness, it's fairly evident where this is headed. It's quite clear that companies will do exactly what is discussed in this report. Heavily government subsidized insurance is government insurance. Those that lose their current health plans will go to this system. They won't have much other choice.

I personally think for those that happens to, it quite simply sux, and not something to be happy about.

Private insurance is private insurance.

[RedPhoenix]

That's a huge strawman. I know exactly what a company is and how it will make decisions for it's own best interest, basically as it is required to do for the benefit of its shareholders. Companies aren't charities.

I also know the option that is being created is highly inferior for those that will be losing their health insurance.

If this strawman is one of your arguments in favor of this, that's incredibly disappointing.

I've said I am 100% in favor of getting companies away from providing insurance to their employees. I think it will help bring down costs tremendously.

[RedPhoenix]

Against my better judgement to engage you in any type of dialogue, I have to correct your lie. I don't get mad when Bush gets blamed, bored maybe, when Obama still trys to blame him for racking up more debt in 3 1/2 years then all presidents before him combined, I hardly think the two cases are comparable.

You can also see post #50.

Have a nice life.

You do seem to get quite upset when it's brought up.

[Huskerwirejay]

I'm sorry your company is so uncaring.

I don't expect companies to have feelings. Feelings don't pay the bills.

it sounds like you're blaming Obama for your company doing exactly what you think they should do that seems like an odd point of view to have.

[SealBeachHusker]

What percentage of the population do you believe is uncovered by private insurance, Medicare, or state programs like MediCal?

How about 48 million people or 1 in 4 of all americans.

The study by the Commonwealth Fund polled 2,100 people aged 19 to 64 and found that 26 percent of non-elderly adults went without insurance -- a percentage that researchers said equals about 48 million people when measured against U.S. Census data.

You forgot a very important paragraph from your article:

"a study released on Thursday shows that one in four working-age Americans went without insurance at some point in 2011, often as a result of unemployment and other job changes"

And, I'll ask again, percentage not covered by private health insurance, medicare or State Programs such as MediCal...and now include the rest of the programs listed below.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Dail...-coverage.aspx

"With fewer Americans receiving health care coverage through their employers, government-funded programs like Medicare, Medicaid, military health care, the Children's Health Care Program (CHIPS) and coverage offered by various states have had to pick up the slack. In 2010, 31% of Americans relied on the government for health insurance, up from 30.6% in 2009" (Christie, 9/13)"

I'd honestly like to find an accurate number of people with no health coverage or eligibility for it (and not on a temporary basis) that's not a scare tactic or cherry picked number.

[nems]

Given when the recession started, GWB must be in on it too.

I'm not really a conspiracy theorist ... I think Obama does exactly what he tells you he's going to do to you.

[nems]

I've said I am 100% in favor of getting companies away from providing insurance to their employees. I think it will help bring down costs tremendously.

I've seen no evidence to indicate health care costs will go down under this new model, short of government instituting it's own cost cutting measures in terms of coverage.

Something they will of course be better able to do once they have decimated the non government subsidized insurance marketplace.

[nems]

it sounds like you're blaming Obama for your company doing exactly what you think they should do that seems like an odd point of view to have.

No, I'm blaming Obama for creating a law that forces the situation in favor of government subsidized health care.

[Huskerwirejay]

it sounds like you're blaming Obama for your company doing exactly what you think they should do that seems like an odd point of view to have.

No, I'm blaming Obama for creating a law that forces the situation in favor of government subsidized health care.

isn't tax free healthcare=government subsidized health care?

[nems]

isn't tax free healthcare=government subsidized health care?

The government isn't covering the direct costs of healthcare through the existing employer provided system.

From this point forward, employers will have limited reasons to maintain their health plans, and the government subsidized "private" health insurance system will await you.

[One Man Jury]

Oh my poor naive friend...we are being Nudged into the "right" way of doing things

You got it.

[One Man Jury]

If i did that they would have to get the war dept going again

The government is great at what they do...pitting Americans against each other to distract.

You can tell by who writes their officials about what they believe in.... if it takes work on the American public it wont happen they want Government to change it for us on their own....

Just like your belief that Rommey would make the changes necessary.....I will make you a 1000 dollar bet right now. We will see 0 changes that will make a difference, in healthcare ...I mean a real difference, (not a repeal) A change in unemployment, a change in the war efforts, a greater foreign policy, any recovery in the debt,

You on? if so we can make specifics what the bet should be placed on....But I do want the same standards y'all are holding Obama to

I'll say it again- a trained frog would do a better job than Obama. Or even a stuffed frog. Or a goat. The latter 3 don't know how to screw things up. They wouldn't increase the national debt by 5 trillion in 3 years. None of the 3 would give GM to it's union.
You could have the goat eat our GDP and he couldn't do the fiscal damage Obama is doing. Goat-- change you can believe in.

[Husker Mort]

Against my better judgement to engage you in any type of dialogue, I have to correct your lie. I don't get mad when Bush gets blamed, bored maybe, when Obama still trys to blame him for racking up more debt in 3 1/2 years then all presidents before him combined, I hardly think the two cases are comparable.

You can also see post #50. Have a nice life.

Wrong AGAIN, huzkurz. Hopefully, at some point you will at least look into some of the propaganda you are fed and regurgitate here without pause.

"And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush." http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/due...bt-deceptions/

I'll say it again- a trained frog would do a better job than Obama. Or even a stuffed frog. Or a goat. The latter 3 don't know how to screw things up. They wouldn't increase the national debt by 5 trillion in 3 years. None of the 3 would give GM to it's union.
You could have the goat eat our GDP and he couldn't do the fiscal damage Obama is doing. Goat-- change you can believe in.

You guys make a nice pair. With huzkurz rhetoric and your ridiculous claims you could probably get the nomination of the Tea Party when they split off from "the establishment".

[One Man Jury]

You guys make a nice pair. With huzkurz rhetoric and your ridiculous claims you could probably get the nomination of the Tea Party when they split off from "the establishment".

Goat would have approved killing Bin Laden. Or biting him.

[Huskerwirejay]

isn't tax free healthcare=government subsidized health care?

The government isn't covering the direct costs of healthcare through the existing employer provided system.

No but they are subsidizing it via the tax code.

[Huskers57]

fine, those who are against the mandate, if you need health care and can't afford it, don't come crying to us.