Started By
Message
re: The cost of Obamacare... supporters of it.. please feel free to chime in
Posted on 4/12/14 at 1:12 pm to Alahunter
Posted on 4/12/14 at 1:12 pm to Alahunter
quote:
What are his thoughts on when the Fed pulls out of financial obligations in a couple of yrs and leaves the state holding the purse strings on the expanded Medicaid?
Never asked. Any they only pull out 10% until 2022.
quote:
So, personal profit is part of the reason he begrudgingly is for it?
Of course, but I didn't get the sense it was the primary reason. It may be, but I never asked.
1
Posted on 4/12/14 at 1:28 pm to The Spleen
quote:
Any they only pull out 10% until 2022
From 2008 to 2012, Alabama had an increase of 200,000 people in Medicaid enrollment. In that time frame, it consumed from 25% of the general budget, at it's lowest, until in 2012, it consumed 35% of the general budget. Total expenditures on Medicaid in the state of Alabama was $5.63 billion of which, $1.835 was paid by the State of Alabama. How does increasing the number of people on Medicaid and increasing costs on the State even seem feasible or logical?
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 4/12/14 at 1:29 pm to MIZ_COU
quote:
To doctors?
Not directly currently. I did "sell" directly to doctors from 2004 til last year, though. Most "sales" roles involving doctors are really marketing jobs, if you want to get technical. If you need a resume, let me know where to mail it.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 1:30 pm to Alahunter
I wonder what that increase would be if the retailers and service industry had to provide health care?
Posted on 4/12/14 at 1:42 pm to MIZ_COU
quote:
I wonder what that increase would be if the retailers and service industry had to provide health care?
Your idea would be to force private businesses and individuals to pay for benefits? Don't think that would increase costs of products and hurt the economy even more to force companies to continue to absorb increased prices due to Gov't interference? Or create larger gaps in corporate business, by driving start ups and smaller businesses out of business?
Posted on 4/12/14 at 1:47 pm to MIZ_COU
quote:
I wonder what that increase would be if the retailers and service industry had to provide health care?
Retail currently makes about a 4-6% pretax profit margin. If you added back healthcare costs to that, Medicaid costs would increase a bit as retailers close and Medicaid picks up the newly unemployed.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 1:52 pm to the808bass
quote:Or they would pass the costs on to customers, especially seeing as people would still buy clothes. Price would go up, and as this is a market that you can actually model using the supply / demand model (unlike health care) price would go up and demand would go down. There would be more unemployment.
Retail currently makes about a 4-6% pretax profit margin. If you added back healthcare costs to that, Medicaid costs would increase a bit as retailers close and Medicaid picks up the newly unemployed.
Now as to these newly unemployed swelling the medicare ranks they were allready uninsured.
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 4/12/14 at 1:57 pm to MIZ_COU
Retailers... consist of a lot more than clothing stores. And you left off service.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 1:58 pm to Alahunter
quote:I actually didn't say that at all. Go look.
Your idea would be to force private businesses and individuals to pay for benefits?
However the realities for a service or retail worker are that, or medicaid expansion, or dying quitely at home of cureable diseases. You are taking a very strong poition on that, whether you realize it or not.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 1:59 pm to Alahunter
quote:I was responded to 808 and so did he. And if I add that on it changes what?
Retailers... consist of a lot more than clothing stores. And you left off service
Posted on 4/12/14 at 2:01 pm to MIZ_COU
quote:
However the realities for a service or retail worker are that, or medicaid expansion, or dying quitely at home of cureable diseases.
You imply that there is only one answer, and that's furtherest from the truth. Why not open state lines and allow for competition on health care. That would likely lower costs. Reform Gov't and medical writeoffs, so that phantom costs aren't charged, so that hospitals can get Gov't reimbursement for services they wouldn't normally charge for. True reform could happen. But not with the abomination that is in effect and still left to go into effect.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 2:04 pm to Alahunter
quote:You really think that would decrease costs enough for a one of those workers to be able to buy it themselves?
You imply that there is only one answer, and that's furtherest from the truth. Why not open state lines and allow for competition on health care.
Really?
If you can't add another realistic option to my list those are the choices and pretending they are not makes a very clear choice
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 4/12/14 at 2:09 pm to MIZ_COU
quote:
Or they would pass the costs on to customers, especially seeing as people would still buy clothes.
Retail demand is a bit inelastic these days, I would guess. You can always raise your prices. But there's no guarantee that your customers will pay it. Charging $2 more for a shirt means people buy fewer shirts. Not that no one buys shirts. If the retail industry shrank by 10%, the economy would tank and it wouldn't matter if Medicaid grew or shrank.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 2:10 pm to MIZ_COU
quote:
You really think that would decrease costs enough for a one of those workers to be able to buy it themselves? Really?
State lines would help a bit. Being able to buy truly catastrophic insurance would be even better. And making all fee schedules public would be the a huge key. That would drive down costs faster than anything. It might not make health insurance a lot cheaper. But it would make healthcare a lot cheaper.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 2:12 pm to the808bass
I would argue from a straight ecom math standpoint that the economy would tank if they had to provide health benefits is rediculas. But if I go ahead and grant you that point can I put you in the let the frickers die group?
quote:also i would like to see that curve
Retail demand is a bit inelastic these days,
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 4/12/14 at 2:14 pm to the808bass
quote:Ok then how does someone making minimum wage pay the deductable or get health care before it becomes catastrophic.
Being able to buy truly catastrophic insurance would be even better.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 2:16 pm to MIZ_COU
quote:Well, stick around for this and next year, watch our economy tank at worst or stagnate at best and then decide if I'm actually that far off base.
I would argue from a straight ecom math standpoint that the economy would tank if they had to provide health benefits is rediculas. But if I go ahead and grant you that point can I put you in the let the frickers die group?
What do you mean "let the frickers die"? There's a world of people who don't have healthcare or even food and shelter. If you're not donating every penny of your disposable income to them, then you're for letting those frickers die. If that seems like a stupid argument, it's only because it is.
We have limited resources. We cannot take care of every person on the earth. Pretending we can is stupid. So the argument is about the most efficient and moral distribution of resources. Not "let the frickers die." Idiot.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 2:26 pm to MIZ_COU
quote:
Ok then how does someone making minimum wage pay the deductable or get health care before it becomes catastrophic.
Healthcare is provided before payment. So, if one had health insurance, you would present your insurance information to the provider and they would provide the services. You then pay the bill or declare medical bankruptcy (as people do every fricking day).
And the best thing for a person making minimum wage to do is to get off minimum wage.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 2:31 pm to the808bass
Oh I thought we were having a discussion and you brought out the word stupid again. I would respond in kind but that would also be stupid, as you are not stupid.
So I will say you are one of the most arrogant self satisfied people I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with. You think you are incapable of being wrong (which is stupid), that you are never wrong (which is stupid), that you are the ultimate authority on all topics (which is stupid), and if you think it it is true (which is stupid). When asked repeatedly for sources you will finally link to mostly opinion pieces that agree with you, much as a conspiracy theorist would. I just love the little dripping sarcastic comments you make to someone that has the audacity not to agree with you such as "I knew you could do it.:gold star:", and "My little textual critic is all grown up now." And then there is your favorite word in the English language, stupid, which is directed at any and all who don't agree with you.
You sir might be as awesome as you think you are. Note the dripping sarcasm.
So I will say you are one of the most arrogant self satisfied people I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with. You think you are incapable of being wrong (which is stupid), that you are never wrong (which is stupid), that you are the ultimate authority on all topics (which is stupid), and if you think it it is true (which is stupid). When asked repeatedly for sources you will finally link to mostly opinion pieces that agree with you, much as a conspiracy theorist would. I just love the little dripping sarcastic comments you make to someone that has the audacity not to agree with you such as "I knew you could do it.:gold star:", and "My little textual critic is all grown up now." And then there is your favorite word in the English language, stupid, which is directed at any and all who don't agree with you.
You sir might be as awesome as you think you are. Note the dripping sarcasm.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 2:33 pm to Stonehog
quote:
I can't post anything without Rocky chiming in
Quite the drama queen aren't you?
Page 12 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News