Obamacare program costs $50,000 for every American who gets health insurance | Daily Mail Online
Well, my business spends about 15,500 on healthcare insurance per employee. It is a lot better than what Obamacare offers.
Business idea. Let Government pay me 40k per person (20% discount for them) then I can buy health insurance for the masses at 15k per person. 25k profit per person insured. I would have to hire a claims person and a couple of support guys to take calls and direct people to the right links and pages on the insurers sites, but I would need like 8 people to get it to completely pay for that. $200k for about 3 workers would be plenty. I could have them work from home.
2 million people times $25k - 200k = a depressing amount of waste in government.
Business idea. Let Government pay me 40k per person (20% discount for them) then I can buy health insurance for the masses at 15k per person. 25k profit per person insured. I would have to hire a claims person and a couple of support guys to take calls and direct people to the right links and pages on the insurers sites, but I would need like 8 people to get it to completely pay for that. $200k for about 3 workers would be plenty. I could have them work from home.
2 million people times $25k - 200k = a depressing amount of waste in government.
Think about it, can anyone believe that a government needs 20% of everything in order to effectively control us? Should they even need 10% to control us? That's one controller of some sort for every 10 people. I'm in the check out column, so it really doesn't matter to me, but I really do worry about my children and grandchildren. What language might they have to speak in the future?
Thanks for the chuckle
Either that, or it is unbearably tragic. I prefer hilarious. She's coming over for dinner tonight and I'll put forth your offer Boyfriends are a dime-a-dozen, but good jobs are hard to find.
By the way, it's fiancé, not boyfriend!
"Obamacare" is much better. Who is the 2013 Lie Of The Year Winner and what did that lie(s) pertain to?
My primary health care provider can't wait for the stupid idiotic bureaucrat mess to be repealed.
"Let's pass this bill so we can see what is in it" is the most insane statement I have ever heard a politician state in the 67 years of my life.
Once the donation-seeking Demorat Party made the mistake of sending me a questionnaire about how "Leader Pelosi" should do stuff.
I advised that "Leader Pelosi" should look out for falling houses and little girls with buckets of water. At least I did not have to use my own stamp to send it back.
Every little bit hurts!
Now we have over 100,000 pages of legislation that finished off the 2,000 pages of the bill. We have regulators that have been authorized by congress to change that 100,000 pages, or add to it at any time. No law need be passed.
They wish to target white gun owners that are also have a belief in god because these three things could make them a terrorist. All they need to is add some regulation and they can do based on the health care system.
That statement was true, and while insane it should have scared the hell out of anyone supporting this bill to realize it was true. It should have stopped the bill cold.
There were so many! Bought the first Spiderman even! All gone to a landfill so long ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_Wor...
87 percent of those who have signed up on ocare
are receiving subsidies. . figures. -- j
What I would like to know is what it is costing right now. Then I would like to know what it will cost next year, five years from now...and then finally, what it will cost in 2025. There should be uncertainty bars at each data point - for instance the medical device tax will alter the figures.
So, while I agree with the sentiments, I am not so trusting of what the article portrays.
Jan
I agree with NealS's comment that gov't should only be 10% of GDP. If we did that, it would be hard but not impossible to fund thinks like ACA. I would be okay with no ACA if it were part of a deal to cut gov't to 10% of GDP. But as it is, the numbers sound cheap, a very tiny part of my taxes to provide basic medical care to the poor.
This is a broad claim that I reject. If we accept taxes can be a moral way to fund non-excludable things, they can be a moral way to fund non-excludable things that happen to involve helping people. Otherwise, we're in the bizarre argument that it's fine for the gov't to tax me but only if the money is used on things that in no way sound helpful.
Your first sentence suggests you think it's moral for government to do some things and others. Then you say taxes that are stealing, though, are wrong. This sounds like the argument that it's only stealing if it in any way sounds like helping. So if you tax to fund police jailing people it's okay. But even if you find it's cheaper and saves lifes to use some program that involves job training or subsidized rent/healthcare/etc, we can't do it b/c it sounds helpful. Whether it works doesn't matter b/c it violates the more important principle of gov't not being helpful.
I tried to keep it simple so we could communicate, but I won't exchange thoughts with one who is irrational.
My comments are in no way related to my reverence for helping.
I'm saying it _sounds_ (in this forum lending itself to simplified msgs) like your comment about stealing only relates to helping people: If we could save a life by jailing someone, that wouldn't be stealing. If we do it by giving out a free vaccine, it is.
My view is it's only stealing if it's done to provide an excludable good or service.
I agree this is a complicated subject for this format. I will provide more detail about why helpful things are not necessarily stealing, even if on the surface they look like forced alms.
I'm ignoring the ad hominem stuff.
If its illegal for man to steal another property it is also ill legal for that to happen with the entity taking the action being the government.
The argument above would then say its OK for all men and women to steal from each other. If the government were to set up a fund that took money voluntarily donated to take care of the poor and then used that money only for that purpose I would give to it. It would be my choice and the value I would receive from doing so would be worth it to me.
The only valid and moral system is one of trade. All parties must participate of their own will in anything that is not for everyone.
Also the only moral exclusion is ability. For example in the case of college grants. Basing them on race, financial status, country of origin... is first of discrimination as you are excluding some from availability. However if you use GPA, SAT, extra activities... as the criteria anyone can work to earn the grant. No one is excluded, no one has preferential treatment.
Any program the government does either must be done by voluntary contribution or requirements to receive must be based on merit. Otherwise the government breaks laws or discriminates. No other methods are moral.
I was talking about the federal outlays. The increased premiums due to covering people who are already sick are much more than the federal outlays.
"Oh and we can't even opt out and just pay cash, which would probably be cheaper at this point, "
This is an interesting statement. People have to pay for medicine one way or other.
I've only ever paid for medicine by check, except for when my wife needed a c-section and our baby had a brief breathing problem. We went over the deductible by a few thousand. They paid the claim without trouble. When our insurance company gives us trouble, it's out of confusion and not greed. They've gotten more confused since ACA. I sense they're overwhelmed by the changing requirements.
"You actually believe socialism is freedom."
Of course not.
" So I assume since its such a small amount that surely you will pay ten times that amount just to do your fair share. Right? "
When I submit my quarterlies, esp the one in Apr which is slightly more, it feels like I pay at least a few times more than a reasonable amt. I would love to see Fed gov't cut in half in cost and intrusiveness.
Its not just to make us dependent on the government. The end game plan is a single payer system where the government controls outright the 15% of our economy that is the health care industry.
I completely agree, but it will get worse until they can declare that the free market has failed in health care and the government will save the day.. Single payer system is on the way.
There's not a grand plan to make people on the gov't, although that's happening and it's a bad thing. We've basically made insurance against sickness illegal, by saying they have to cover perils that have already occurred. So of course costs double; that's the only possible outcome. My premium was going to go from $400 to $800, but I've managed to stay off an ACA-approved plan. They're slowly phasing in ACA requirements, though, and I'm now around $500 and change.
At the core of the problem, IMHO, is people don't want to pay for their medical care. Politicians are all to happy to come out with something like ACA that tacitly promises that somehow someone else will take care of middle class medical purchases, but one way or the other people end up paying for it, less efficiently than if they just purchased their medical care in the free market. The gov't could just hand money to the poor to insure against illness, something I would generally support, and it would be more efficient than a gov't *system*.
Before someone can say the free market has failed, we need to give it a try.
and you support these actions?
It's a damn shame that I, and other people of value, are gonna get what you deserve.
To quote you directly [from 3hrs,50 min ago}: "The gov't could just hand money to the poor to insure against illness, something I would generally support"
It was planned to fail and push us to the system he wanted in the first place. He wont be around to make it happen, but it will leave us with two choices eventually. Either have government run the entire health care system or go back to capitalism of the 19th century for it. Unless some grand catastrophic occurs that changes the minds of the "useful idiots" they will demand government take over health care and in that sector the last throws of capitalism will die to thunderous applause.
Obama was very smart in what he did here and it will likely run the course he planned it too.
I predict a less dramatic version of that unfortunate scenario. People who can afford advanced medical care will buy it as they always have. People who can't will be left with the gov't/HMO system. Enough people will use the gov't/HMO system that politicians will be justified in debating things like the number of ultrasounds to pay for and under what conditions they'll pay for more expensive medicines. This will be easier on them than debating actual gov't issues. It's really unfortunate.