Obamacare cost...

[byu71]

Excellent article by a Chicago business school professor about how to go about replacing obamacare.

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...93594?mobile=y

I will have to take your word for it. I never read articles on business by someone who has never done anything but taught business. Theories are great, reality and experience is better.

[Goatnapper'96]

I will have to take your word for it. I never read articles on business by someone who has never done anything but taught business. Theories are great, reality and experience is better.

I'll bet you believe in mah-FEE-yah kickbacks, eh?

[byu71]

I'll bet you believe in mah-FEE-yah kickbacks, eh?

It would clearly depend on who is getting the kickbacks.

[Goatnapper'96]

I will have to take your word for it. I never read articles on business by someone who has never done anything but taught business. Theories are great, reality and experience is better.

On a serious note whether or not the ideas this wanker presents will work or not might be a good debate on one thing I think he is perfectly correct: if the GOP does not present any viable alternatives to the failures of Obamacare they will not be able to take advantage of the failures as much as they could. There will be those hurt by Obamacare who will turn to the Republican Party out of anger/frustration but the author is correct that the law came from the reality that there are problems with US Healthcare/Insurance and just sitting by and only saying: "that idea sucks" misses out on a great opportunity to offer contrasting ideas.

I also am pretty sure something I wrote also proves at least one of VirginiaCoug's points.

[byu71]

On a serious note whether or not the ideas this wanker presents will work or not might be a good debate on one thing I think he is perfectly correct: if the GOP does not present any viable alternatives to the failures of Obamacare they will not be able to take advantage of the failures as much as they could. There will be those hurt by Obamacare who will turn to the Republican Party out of anger/frustration but the author is correct that the law came from the reality that there are problems with US Healthcare/Insurance and just sitting by and only saying: "that idea sucks" misses out on a great opportunity to offer contrasting ideas.

I also am pretty sure something I wrote also proves at least one of VirginiaCoug's points.

Totally agree they have to be for something. I wonder how they are going to be able to actually present it so the public at large understands they have a proposal.

Because I watch Fox I actually do know of proposal's and suggestions the GOP has made. However a better job is done by the Dems and the President with the help they get from the media in general, convincing most people the Republicans do not have any ideas.

[CardiacCoug]

Excellent article by a Chicago business school professor about how to go about replacing obamacare.

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...93594?mobile=y

Yeah that was great AA.

[Goatnapper'96]

Totally agree they have to be for something. I wonder how they are going to be able to actually present it so the public at large understands they have a proposal.

Because I watch Fox I actually do know of proposal's and suggestions the GOP has made. However a better job is done by the Dems and the President with the help they get from the media in general, convincing most people the Republicans do not have any ideas.

They have had the House for 3 years and have yet to move a competing bill. It is time to present a unified Republican solution rather than "ideas." Our current President is very much an "idea" guy as well as our "National Discussion in Chief Facilitator," however his bills don't work so well. It is time for a bill on the subject.

[byu71]

They have had the House for 3 years and have yet to move a competing bill. It is time to present a unified Republican solution rather than "ideas." Our current President is very much an "idea" guy as well as our "National Discussion in Chief Facilitator," however his bills don't work so well. It is time for a bill on the subject.

What are you going to do about the Tea Party? Or as they see it, what are you going to do about the Republican establishment?

Dang I wish the tea partiers weren't so concerned about their so called principles and realized in politics getting 75% of the loaf of bread is plenty good.

I keep hearing a large number of conservatives, religious righties, tea partiers stayed home and didn't vote because the "establishment" republican won the primary. What a dumb ass attitude. They would rather have Obama so they can prove a point to the republican establishment that they won't bend on their principles.

Principles are way overrated if you have too many of them.

[imanihonjin]

What are you going to do about the Tea Party? Or as they see it, what are you going to do about the Republican establishment?

Dang I wish the tea partiers weren't so concerned about their so called principles and realized in politics getting 75% of the loaf of bread is plenty good.

I keep hearing a large number of conservatives, religious righties, tea partiers stayed home and didn't vote because the "establishment" republican won the primary. What a dumb ass attitude. They would rather have Obama so they can prove a point to the republican establishment that they won't bend on their principles.

Principles are way overrated if you have too many of them.

I hear what you are saying but I think you would agree that some principles are uncompromisable. Thus the argument really is which are are which are not? As I see it far too long we have compromised to get along on the economic side and are headed in the same wrong direction just at a slower pace. My problem with the tea partiers is that they have just repainted the conservative movement and called it something different. Conservatives are just hypocrites who favor big government in other areas than progressives.

[byu71]

I hear what you are saying but I think you would agree that some principles are uncompromisable. Thus the argument really is which are are which are not? As I see it far too long we have compromised to get along on the economic side and are headed in the same wrong direction just at a slower pace. My problem with the tea partiers is that they have just repainted the conservative movement and called it something different. Conservatives are just hypocrites who favor big government in other areas than progressives.

How about conservatives favor a "smaller" big government. So here is my choice, smaller big government, big government or exploding big government. Little government just is not going to win, even though I want it.

So, I take an I will show you attitude on principle, stay home and smaller big government doesn't get elected. What gets elected is exploding big government. I sure showed them didn't I.

At least I can hear Rush, Hannity, Beck, Cruz, Lee all bitch about how bad things are. Of course Rush, Hannity and Beck all make big money if there is enough of an enemy to go after. They are just fine with Obama, et. al. in office. It is good for their pocket books.

[imanihonjin]

How about conservatives favor a "smaller" big government. So here is my choice, smaller big government, big government or exploding big government. Little government just is not going to win, even though I want it.

So, I take an I will show you attitude on principle, stay home and smaller big government doesn't get elected. What gets elected is exploding big government. I sure showed them didn't I.

It sure is hard to get motivated behind the same result only at a slower pace. A slogan of I am not as irresponsible as the other guy is just tough to sell.

[byu71]

It sure is hard to get motivated behind the same result only at a slower pace. A slogan of I am not as irresponsible as the other guy is just tough to sell.

Really. You do this and you die next Spring. However, if you do this you will still die, but it will be 20 Springs from now. You don't think you would be motivated?

[Topper]

Excellent article by a Chicago business school professor about how to go about replacing obamacare.

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...93594?mobile=y

I like this article, but wish there were better alternatives suggested to thwart the inevitable, "government must do it" argument. I especially liked this reminder,

Sure. We can have a single government-run airline too. We can ban FedEx and UPS, and have a single-payer post office. We can have government-run telephones and TV. Thirty years ago every other country had all of these, and worthies said that markets couldn't work for travel, package delivery, the "natural monopoly" of telephones and TV. Until we tried it. That the rest of the world spends less just shows how dysfunctional our current system is, not how a free market would work

[imanihonjin]

Really. You do this and you die next Spring. However, if you do this you will still die, but it will be 20 Springs from now. You don't think you would be motivated?

With republicans the difference is hardly as stark as living for 20 years longer.

[Uncle Ted]

A Large New Tax on Small Business
The latest ObamaCare levy takes effect Jan. 1.

ObamaCare includes so many taxes that it's hard to keep track, but one of the worst takes effect on Jan. 1. This beaut is a levy on health insurance premiums that targets the small business and individual markets.


At $8 billion in 2014 and $101 billion over the next decade, the insurance tax is larger than ObamaCare's taxes on medical devices and prescription drugs combined. The Internal Revenue Service classifies the tax as a "fee" but it functions like an excise tax on premiums. The IRS collects an annual flat amount specified by the Affordable Care Act to be allocated among the insurers according to market share.

But not all markets. IRS regulations published in November excluded "any entity that is a self-insured employer to the extent that such employer self-insures its employees' health risks." Since about four of five employers with more than 500 workers and most union-negotiated health plans are self-insured, they are spared from the tax. So is insurance on behalf of "government entities," such as original Medicare (but not privately run Medicare Advantage).


This political selectivity means the most gold-plated public, private and labor plans are exempt and the tax burden falls on the saps who work for small businesses, the self-employed and individuals—i.e., the people who can least afford it.


The White House tells business that the tab will be picked up by deep-pocketed insurers, which is good for a laugh. The Congressional Budget Office reports the tax will be "largely passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums" and "would ultimately raise insurance premiums by a corresponding amount." The Joint Tax Committee and private economists, such as former CBO director Doug Holtz-Eakin, say the tax will boost insurance costs about 2% to 2.5%. The consultant Oliver Wyman estimates the take will rise to as much as $500 per covered worker by decade's end.

Wasn't the Affordable Care Act supposed to be about expanding coverage in part by lowering premiums, not slapping on more overhead? By this liberal logic taxing cigarettes should create more smokers.


Oh, and to salt the wound, this "fee" is not deductible for corporate income tax purposes. In other words, health plans pay the tax and then federal and state taxes on the taxed amount. Mr. Holtz-Eakin estimates this unusual taxes-on-taxes rule means that the effect on premiums is 54% larger than the dollar amount of the tax itself.


The research arm of the National Federation of Independent Business calculates that the higher insurance costs will shrink hiring by 146,000 to 262,000 jobs over the next decade, with 59% of those losses hitting small business. They'll also be further encouraged to dump coverage and send their workers to the mercies of the ObamaCare exchanges. The latter was probably a main liberal purpose from the start.


Louisiana Republican Charles Boustany and Utah Democrat Jim Matheson's repeal bill already has 229 cosponsors, or a House majority, including some dozen Democrats. The White House naturally promises a veto. Happy New Year.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...20413773642016

happy-new-year-obama-millionaire-vacation-politics-1325453190.jpg