Question for libertarians & conservatives

Not so at all. There are many folks who are physically, mentally, or emotionally "challenged" that need help and should be helped. There are also some folks going through TEMPORARY difficulties like down-sizing or layoffs who should get get TEMPORARY help to see them through the rough spots. Gees, why is it always necessary to explain to a liberal that between "always" and "never", between "none" and "all" is a gray area of "sometimes" and "some"? Conservatives know those gray areas are always there and don't need to be reminded. Liberals need to be reminded.

 

The more simple solution to managing the constantly changing employment status of millions of Americans is universal coverage. A cheaper and more effective system than the employer based system we have.

 

Its not up to ME to pay for YOUR healthcare. Its not up to a central government to manage your life or mine. We all must manage our own lives. I raised three children and gave them food, paid for their healthcare, gave them a nice home and education. They are grown now and responsible for themselves.
There are some physically, emotionally, and/or mentally challenged adults that need help like little children and they should be helped. But most are like my own children... all grown up and able to fend for themselves.

 

I have no argument with Public Health .. I've lived with it all my life, and would probably leave the country if we lost it.

But in order for it to do what you and I want it to do (care for the many, to a high standard), it MUST be carefully policed. It cannot last when an ever increasing number are paying reduced premiums due to under or unemployment. It only works long term, when the vast majority are contributing at full capacity.

Our own system will eventually collapse for this reason. As higher and higher percentages are paying smaller or nil premiums, the ability to continue that high quality universal care will be eroded. At some point we will need to limit the service to those who participate in full - only allowing largess for the temporarily disadvantaged (by circumstances beyond their control), the young, the elderly, and the disabled. We have to earn it, else we won't be able to pay for it.

 

Initially, yes. But if you want it long term then the majority will have to contribute the maximum tax levy (which can only happen in full time employment).

 

I have never taken a job that did not provide medical coverage. It must be part of the deal... like pay and vacation, etc. Its not a problem.

 

I love that idea here that adding a benefit to someone who won't use it (a circumstance that by definition doesn't impact costs) is a more important cost driver than paying a half a million dollars for a single employee.

The reality is (1) essential health benefits requirements were already in effect in 2014 and you're not dead, (2) the terms of existing plans were grandfathered and didn't have to re-negotiate anything, and (3) a "large aerospace company" shelling out $500K for an operation was almost certainly self-insured (or at the very least in the large group market) and thus was and is never subject to benefit mandates anyway. So nothing about this story actually works to suggest anything about Obamacare.

As for your surgeon, one wonders when he was ever "paid by Obamacare," whatever that means.

 

Obamacare sets rates of reimbursement, I'm surprised you didn't know that. And yes, most medical policies had to be renegotiated because Obamacare mandated NEW REQUIREMENTS... like druggie coverage, maternity.... even for ME... then in my sixties. When a policy is forced to CHANGE it must be renegotiated. Yoy think insurance companies provide new and ADDITIONAL coverage... for FREE? Ok... you run with that... LOL.

 

No, it doesn't. Reimbursement rates for commercial insurance are set via negotiations between health care providers and the insurance companies they contract with, same as always. Nobody gets "paid by Obamacare."

That said, if you're under the impression that Obamacare lowered all the reimbursements for health care (i.e., the cost of health care to anyone consuming it), your narrative seems a little muddled. If it lowered the prices your employer was paying for care, your employer's costs dropped, no?

Once again:

(1) Plans that existed when the ACA passed were grandfathered, no benefits had to be added to them (42 U.S. Code § 18011 - Preservation of right to maintain existing coverage | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu).)

(2) Aside from that, no self-insured or large group plans (which is almost certainly what you had) had to add benefits under the ACA anyway.

But out of curiosity, which do you think would cost your employer more: whatever it spent on the maternity care you consumed (which sounds like it was zero!) or the half a million dollars it paid for your operation?

 

Obamacare did the reimbursement when companies were forced to cancel their traditional insurance due to new requirements that would have raised their premiums. My company had to add many new benefits that were cost prohibitive... like maternity (I was in my 60's), mental health, addiction and other things never considered or required before Obamacare. So they just stopped providing company insurance and let Obamacare take over. Deny it all you want, but many companies stopped providing coverage when Obamacare mandated new requirements and forced existing company policies to be renegotiated... at a higher premium.

 

Which major aerospace company doesn't offer any health insurance?

 

I can't speak to that, because I'm not in America. Employers don't provide anything like that here.

 

A lot of American employers don't either. But I would never work for one that didn't.

 

Is it required by law? How do some get around not providing it?

 

Some don't need high quality folks, just warm bodies. Its all about the nature of the business. Companies that sell pizza have lots of applicants for jobs. Boeing, for example, needs a different level of employee that can build aircraft and space vehicles so they have to attract a different sort of person with better benefits.

 

Per the ACA, companies with 100 or more employees must offer health insurance.

 

Thanks. Figured there'd be some kind of size criteria.

 

Starting to think maybe this anecdote wasn’t entirely on the level.

 

Prove it.