Full stop, you are really not checking the information provided and you do not know what you are talking about, there are penalties in Massachusetts and from the Urban Institute study:
And yet they have no problem breaking pension agreements. A bonus should not be promised in a contract. A bonus is a payment given after an exceptional performance.
Completely unlike the two year push against the Tea Party morons.
Maybe carbon taxes aren’t exactly the same as a tax on a business. A carbon tax is designed to manipulate the market. No one is being put at a disadvantage if everyone has to buy health insurance.
Besides noticing a personal jab, this is a straw man (for both the subject at hand and the unrelated carbon tax), I already noticed that some layoffs are coming, just not at the levels you expect as the evidence from Massachusetts reports.
Sure you can have it both ways. Since health care is actually cheaper in countries with UHC, it is entirely plausible to be of the opinion that implementing it in America will result in more economic efficiency rather than less. One can also simultaneously believe that restricting carbon emissions will result in a short to medium term loss to the economy, but is still necessary in order to stave off long-term disaster.
I have my own opinions on the matter but am not interested in debating them now. But it is plausible to hold those two beliefs simultaneously without being a hypocrite.
So that doesn’t say the gov’t is limiting how much doctors may charge, it says it is limiting how much Medicare will reimburse. And it claims this is causing doctors to pull out of medicare.
Even granting what it says (which is very different from the claim you said it supports) don’t you expect market forces to adjust what the doctors are asking for and what the seniors can pay etc, so that it ends up alright?
Medicare has always had a set reimbursement schedule that is well known to physicians. Claiming that the federal government will only now suddenly put caps on reimbursements for Medicare services is a special flavor of stupid. Try again Sam.
So, then he did not deserve anything resembling a bonus if he did nothing to save the company with two years to run it.
“Unavoidable”? So the observation I made about executive compensation and the fact that even Fortune has indicated that it is out of control was accurate.
Not my point, so it is irrelevant. You are the one claiming that folks thought that the bonuses should have been distributed to the employees. I have never made any such claim. I only note that top executives have enjoyed inflated compensation that has been recognized for over a decade and that they have found ways to protect their gains even when the rest of the economic bubble has collapsed.
Ignoring your straw man for the moment, I suspect that Hostess would not have been bankrupt if the board of directors had spent more energy looking for competent people rather than letting a bunch of overpaid idiots, who had already spent twenty years failing to improve the company, play “Let’s reorganize the deck chairs on the Titanic” for the last two years. I am in that industry and Hostess has been looked on as an inefficient and poorly run outfit for years, yet the board has continued to see fit to hand out bonuses. Interestingly, in any company for which I have worked, (heavy industry, transportation, and retail, with touch of insurance), middle management and labor never gets bonuses when the company is in trouble. That is reserved for executive compensation. I am well aware that if executives donated their entire salaries to the rest of the work force, they would not extend those wages by a month, often not even a week or a day. However, it is still obscene that they are granted bonuses when they repeatedly fail to meet minimum standards of performance–keeping a company alive.
That compensation committees promise bonuses without requiring that the company make a profit is not surprising - but it is hardly justification of CEO bonuses.
In the US today, in lower salary positions, some companies offer health benefits and some do not. Clearly paying more for employees is uncompetitive. Obamacare levels the playing field, so the only companies who will be suffering are the ones who have screwed their workers. Companies who have offered health care will be in good shape, and might pick up market share. If the entire industry screws its workers, those companies who can be more efficient while providing benefits will win.
I don’t mind paying a tiny bit more so the guy on the other side of the counter can go see a doctor and still eat. I also don’t mind paying a bit more to ensure that 12 year old kids aren’t making my clothing. I believe in capitalism, and I believe that the competitive market can find solutions for good prices and good working conditions - like it has for the past century. I’ve heard it all before - how the EPA and OSHA would be the ruin of American business.
Look, folks, I am who I am, and I understand what’s going on because it’s been my professional field for the last 15 years. You don’t have to believe a word I say. Unless I say that Obamacare is great and awesome, you’re going to disagree with me. You supported Obamacare from the start simply as a validation of your pre-determined political leanings. Your response to criticism of the law are not measured, logical responses, but instead knee-jerk reactions in an effort to support your worldview. Anybody who would respond to my post with “He must not actually be a health policy analyst…” is what we in government affairs call “Kool-Aid drinkers.” We see people like you all the time. You’ll believe anything you’re told that supports the implementation of the law, and outright discount any evidence that supports the law is not as effective as it was claimed it would be.
I’ll say this: It simultaneously cracks me up and depresses me to see that people will lecture me about what this law does, given my professional background. Do you go to your doctor and tell him how you need to be treated? Do you tell your lawyer the legal nuances on which your case should proceed? You don’t? Then don’t tell me what’s going on with the ACA. You’re not qualified. Everything you know about it are political soundbites.
And to answer your question about how “great” the law was in Massachusetts - it wasn’t. Yes, the state acheived 96% insurance coverage (gee, how would I know the exact number… could it be that I work in the field… naaahhhhh…), but can you tell me what happened? What? You mean you can’t tell me what happened? How can you not tell me what happened, especially if you know more than I do about it? I’ll refresh your memory.
What happened was that the newly insured couldn’t get in to see a doctor, at least within the state of Massachusetts. Why? Well, you tell me why. You can’t? Let me refresh your memory as to why.
It was because the physician shortage meant that there weren’t enough doctors in the state to see the influx of new patients. If somebody needed to see a doctor, they had to wait two to three months on average, and simply because there weren’t enough doctors. Then can you tell me what happened? You can’t? Then let me refresh your memory.
These newly insured patients went to the ER instead to be treated, where they crowded the emergency room. Luckily, Massachusetts is a geographically small state. The newly insured had to start seeing doctors out of state to be treated.
Frylock, Medicare/Medicaid pay about $40-$50 for an E/M office visit, versus private insurance plans that pay about $200 on average per visit. Unless a senior/poor person has secondary insurance, the physician takes a huge loss on seeing these patients. In some states (not all), doctors can balance bill the patient, but trying to get money from these patients is like getting water from a rock. As a result, a lot of physicians siomply will not tak Medicare/Medicaid patients. In fact, a lot of physicians won’t take patients with high deductible health insurance plans, either.
Concerning market forces, you’re right, there’s pressure from market forces that affect what physicians bill. However, these market forces have been what caused a need for reform in the first place, since they were pushing the cost of health care up between 8%-12% a year since the 1990s. If anything, physicians have to charge more, and thanks to Congress having not fixed the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, since about 2005 this has meant that Medicare reimbursement hasn’t even closely matched cost increases. Each year since 2005, Congress has had to vote extra money to Medicare to keep it afloat.
Amazingly, the ACA did not do anything to fix the payment issues, which were the root cause of the problem.
This is twice now that you’ve replied to my posts in a way that seems to show you don’t know what you’re reeplying to.
I wouldn’t deny that many doctors don’t take medicare/medicaid patients, but your great effort in explaining to me why they do that wwould seem to indicate you think I’d deny it. I wouldn’t. I haven’t.
It makes no difference to me whether you’re “really” a health policy analyst or not. I’m sure you are. I don’t doubt you for a second. But assertions don’t cut it around here, whatever your profession. What you’re saying about MA in the above requires citation in order to be taken seriously.
It’s not that I doubt it. It’s that I don’t even hear it unless it is accompanied by a link or reference.
This line of logic might stand if diseases and medical problems typically fixed themselves over time. If I don’t have insurance I’ll wait till it gets real bad and then your insurance will have to cover my emergency expenses, in the same why you pay for every shoplifted book with your purchase at Barnes & Noble.
Everyone needs coverage, or everyone is on their own. What exists now is what is unfair.
Okay, Frylock, what you’re failing to understand is that I AM the reference people quote. It does not make sense that you could: 1) admit I’m a professional in the health policy field; and then 2) say my opinion doesn’t count without a reference. That’s contradictory logic. What do you think I do all day long? Your federal government pays me quite a bit of money to know this stuff so I can advise senior health care leaders.
This attempt at disingenuity makes it obvious you’ve supported the ACA from the beginning and are only making veiled attempts to discredit the law’s detractors. Like I said, I’ve seen you people many times in the past. I started in politics before I focused on health care, and I can spot you guys. I will admit, however, that you do a very good job at concealing your partisanship and could fool most people. If you want to get better at it, however, I suggest practicing a few things. First, make an effort to admit what the bad parts of the law are. This gets your opposition to lower their guard and start listening to you. Second, practice focusing your arguments on concepts, not politics. For example, instead of challenging me based on a “lack of references,” you could have, for example, replied that emergency room wait times did not increase substantially under the Massachusetts law. Whether or not this is true, I don’t know, but you could have feigned a compelling argument that could have had me rechecking my sources. I don’t suggest admitting somebody is a professional health policy analyst, and then flat out contradicting said professional for not quoting references, for the same reason you wouldn’t tell your doctor to start quoting the literature to you before he treats you. It’s implied that a professional in his field has an intimate understanding of the subject matter.
Of course I knew that, and my primary post reflected that. Then you said I wasn’t who I was, which changed the subject. What you quoted was my response to your having changed the subject.