# ObamaCare: The Worst That Can Happen vs. Shutdown & Debt Ceiling **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 8, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702 "2013-10-08T18:09:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/61 "2013-10-09T22:42:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I do not think that word means what you think it means. “[In finance, default occurs when a debtor has not met his or her legal obligations according to the debt contract, e.g. has not made a scheduled payment, or has violated a loan covenant (condition) of the debt contract. A default is the failure to pay back a loan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_(finance))” Well, congratulations on winning the war of semantics. Yes, so-called “prioritization” might not technically be a default. [It also sucks, the Treasury Department says that’s impossible, there’s no guarantee that it would prevent a default, and might not be legal](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/07/if-we-hit-the-debt-ceiling-can-obama-choose-which-bills-to-pay-2/): > [@](#): > > The Treasury Department maintains that it has no ability to pick and choose which bills to pay if it’s short of cash. According to the agency’s inspector general, its computer systems are designed to “make each payment in the order it comes due.” Full stop. And if they somehow jerry rig the system in order to not miss an interest payment, sending the global economy into a freefall? > [@](#): > > It might not be legal. It’s unclear whether Treasury even has the legal authority to prioritize payments — the agency has never dealt with this situation before. “Anyone who says they know for sure whether this is legal is not telling the truth,” said Steve Bell, a former Republican staff director of the Senate Budget Committee now at the Bipartisan Policy Center. > > It might fail, logistically. Again, the Treasury Department has long insisted that its payment systems simply aren’t set up for prioritization. But hey, let’s assume that despite all of this, they manage to not miss an interest payment. Everything would be hunkydory, right? Well, no. You conceded that much. But let’s see how bad that would be: > [@](#): > > Even in this scenario, a debt-ceiling breach could still cause economic havoc. Remember, once we blow past the debt ceiling, the U.S. government will only bring in enough revenue to cover about 65 percent of its expenses. The government would have to cut back on something else, whether it’s Social Security or Medicare or veterans benefits or any of the millions of other payments it approves each day. More than $100 billion would get sucked out of the economy over the coming month. > > Sam Ro points to a research note by Goldman Sachs on the dire consequences: > > > [@](#): > > > > If the Treasury decided to set aside interest payments and make other payments in arrears, we estimate it would result in a pullback in primary (i.e., noninterest) outlays of 4.2% of GDP (annualized). In both cases, the effect on quarterly growth rates (rather than levels) could be even greater. > > > > **If this were allowed to occur, it could lead to a rapid downturn in economic activity if not reversed very quickly.** > > So it’s possible, though not certain, that the Obama administration could avert a default and complete meltdown of financial markets in the event of a debt-ceiling breach. But avoiding a recession would be extremely difficult. > > And markets would likely react badly in either case: A recent note from Deutsche Bank’s David Bianco estimates that if we blow past the debt ceiling and Treasury starts prioritizing payments, the S&P 500 could lose 10 percent of its value (see the orange line). And that’s without an actual default on the debt. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/62 "2013-10-09T23:25:26Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > The Employer Mandate was also included in those calculations, but employers have been given a deferral by the administration. I believe you are mistaken. The employee mandate delay was announced on July 2, and the premiums were finalized in September. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/63 "2013-10-09T23:54:06Z")
P.S. Reviewing my last post. I can’t find the actual deadline the companies had to meet in submitting exchange premiums, so I could be wrong about September being the month. But even if I am wrong on September, I don’t see why the employer mandate delay would much affect premiums. Also, the delay on the employer mandate would, if anything, be favorable to the finances of insurance companies participating in the exchanges, because the delay caused a moderate number of healthy working people into being eligible for exchange coverage. One reason that I think the premium deadline must have been after July 2 is that I can’t see the Obama administration having given such a gift to the insurance companies. If the administration did do that, the media would have caught it by now. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/64 "2013-10-10T01:09:50Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > P.S. Reviewing my last post. I can’t find the actual deadline the companies had to meet in submitting exchange premiums, so I could be wrong about September being the month. But even if I am wrong on September, I don’t see why the employer mandate delay would much affect premiums. > > Also, the delay on the employer mandate would, if anything, be favorable to the finances of insurance companies participating in the exchanges, because the delay caused a moderate number of healthy working people into being eligible for exchange coverage. One reason that I think the premium deadline must have been after July 2 is that I can’t see the Obama administration having given such a gift to the insurance companies. If the administration did do that, the media would have caught it by now. He wasn’t gifting the Insurance companies, he was gifting the businesses that were complaining. You are correct that the premiums look like they were due in September (though I also can’t find a hard date, but the posts about the subject on google all seem to stem from early September, so a ~Sept 15 deadline seems likely) but I also would think that the insurances costs took that deferral into account, as pretty much everyone says that the offered packages are more expensive than anticipated by the ACA proponents. Having the Small/Medium business segment anticipated to pitch in members should have lowered those costs. As to the differences between the two: the individual mandate extension only delays the penalty by a year. The exchanges and such stay open (unless I missed some of this annoying story in the media) and the rest of ACA will roll out. You just won’t get penalized for not having insurance for an extra year. These penalties go to the general fund for health care, but they don’t get absorbed by insurance companies. The employer mandate deferral actually allows one decision maker in every small and medium business from having to jump on the insurance bandwagon for an extra year. From a “damage” perspective between the two, I agree with you. The employer mandate is different from the individual mandate and is the **worse** of the two to defer. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/65 "2013-10-10T01:40:40Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > . . . pretty much everyone says that the offered packages are more expensive than anticipated by the ACA proponents . . . Not in the newspapers I read. I can’t find the original New York Times story I read, but this from Dallas seems similar: [Obamacare premiums projected to be lower than expected](http://www.dallasnews.com/business/health-care/20130924-obamacare-premiums-projected-to-be-lower-than-expected.ece) And from New Orleans: [Hoping to shop for health insurance when the federal marketplace opens online next week? Newly released data show that Louisianians will pay less on annual premiums through the exchange than originally projected.]([http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/2013/09/health\_care\_premiums\_will\_be\_m.html](http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/2013/09/health_care_premiums_will_be_m.html)) Googling there are many similar hard-news articles. Now, not every mainstream media article is favorable to Obamacare. Some say that that the most expensive hospitals are often excluded from coverage, but that’s not the same as saying the premiums came in high. Surprise! – I did find ax-grinding right wing opinion articles saying premiums came in high. That’s why you shouldn’t watch TV 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/66 "2013-10-10T03:42:59Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Not in the newspapers I read. I can’t find the original New York Times story I read, but this from Dallas seems similar: > > [Obamacare premiums projected to be lower than expected](http://www.dallasnews.com/business/health-care/20130924-obamacare-premiums-projected-to-be-lower-than-expected.ece) > > And from New Orleans: > > [Hoping to shop for health insurance when the federal marketplace opens online next week? > > Newly released data show that Louisianians will pay less on annual premiums through the exchange than originally projected.]([http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/2013/09/health\_care\_premiums\_will\_be\_m.html](http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/2013/09/health_care_premiums_will_be_m.html)) > > Googling there are many similar hard-news articles. > > Now, not every mainstream media article is favorable to Obamacare. Some say that that the most expensive hospitals are often excluded from coverage, but that’s not the same as saying the premiums came in high. > > Surprise! – I did find ax-grinding right wing opinion articles saying premiums came in high. That’s why you shouldn’t watch TV 😉 I don’t watch TV. For instance, the “premiums came in low” in your articles was a comparison to a CBO estimate from March of 2012 as a general cost for the entire US (which is a bad estimate method to use for individual states as COL is different, but let’s let that slide). That estimate was $15,400 a year for a family in the second lowest-cost silver plan in 2016. So they are taking a single data point, just plugging it into the CBO’s original estimate and then saying it’s coming in 16% lower in 2016. I find that…questionable at best. You’re taking what amounts to an educated guess as to costs in 2016 and then replacing a data point and going “Look how the resulting guess changes!” It would be a better illustration to compare this year’s estimated to this year’s actual. And the people believing it’s more expensive is because of statements from Obama, like: > [@](#): > > "I can tell you right now that in many states across the country, if you’re, say, a 27-year-old young woman, don’t have health insurance, you get on that exchange, you’re going to be able to purchase high-quality health insurance for less than the cost of your cellphone bill,” Mr. Obama said Tuesday, speaking at a health care forum in New York City with former President Bill Clinton. [Source](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/us/politics/officials-detail-premium-costs-of-health-plan.html) So, when you go and check our your health exchange as a 27 year old person who’s never had health insurance and [this](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/24/us/health-care-premiums.html?_r=0) is what you see (for the link hating: $145 per month after subsidy if you make $25,000 a year), you have to either go “What kind of cell phone does a Congress man/President use that individually costs more than that?” or “Wow, what I’m seeing is way more than they expected!” Then, there are those people who have health insurance that remember the statements made by Obama during his campaign about healthcare being $2,500 a year cheaper. And that certainly hasn’t materialized from this package, either. To add on top of that, the unsubsidized plans average $774 across the information the HHS provided in the exchanges (family of 4 at $94,000 a year). This is $9,288 per year. That means, even with the “16% lower in 2016” statement, that means that over the next 2.5 years, an additional $3,648 per year (or $304 per month) will be added as costs for the unsubsidized plans. If we assume that the subsidized rate will also cost more over the same time frame (and will not freeze at it’s current rates of subsidy, and it very well could be increased through Congressional action as part of a social program) that means that the $282 for a family of 4 making $50,000 a year will add $110 per month after subsidies using the same rate of increase. Thus, public perception is that it’s more expensive. Without watching TV, I might remind you. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/67 "2013-10-10T06:29:45Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > $145 per month after subsidy… you have to either go “What kind of cell phone does a Congress man/President use that individually costs more than that?” or “Wow, what I’m seeing is way more than they expected!” The average individual’s cell phone bill is up by 31% since 2009, to $71 a month. ([cite](http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/16/pf/cell-phone-bill.moneymag/index.htm)) My wife and I pay just north of that $145 figure for our plan and my rate has a 17% discount through my employer. So while the insurance may not be as cheap as some people pay for their cell phone service, it’s not out of line for what a lot of other people are paying. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/68 "2013-10-10T11:30:28Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > The average individual’s cell phone bill is up by 31% since 2009, to $71 a month. ([cite](http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/16/pf/cell-phone-bill.moneymag/index.htm)) My wife and I pay just north of that $145 figure for our plan and my rate has a 17% discount through my employer. So while the insurance may not be as cheap as some people pay for their cell phone service, it’s not out of line for what a lot of other people are paying. If you are getting individual insurance, why do you assume you are getting multiple devices on a cell phone plan? If the insurance was even $80-90 after subsidy, I would agree that it’s “cheaper than a cell phone bill” in spirit, if not in actuality. However, it’s a bit more than double the $71 figure for the average cost of a cell contract. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/69 "2013-10-10T13:53:44Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > If you are getting individual insurance, why do you assume you are getting multiple devices on a cell phone plan? If the insurance was even $80-90 after subsidy, I would agree that it’s “cheaper than a cell phone bill” in spirit, if not in actuality. However, it’s a bit more than double the $71 figure for the average cost of a cell contract. You do know that if the average bill is $71 that means that there are many people paying more, right? That’s how averages work? > [@](#): > > In a new survey sponsored by CouponCabin and conducted by Harris Interactive, nearly half of Americans with mobile phones (46%) said their monthly bill comes to $100 or more per month. More than 1 in 10 consumers (13%), meanwhile, drop $200 or more monthly on mobile phone service, according to the survey > > [Time Magazine](http://business.time.com/2012/09/13/groceries-or-mobile-phone-plenty-of-consumers-spend-more-on-the-latter/) (9/13/2012) So like I said: it’s not out of line for what a lot of other people are paying. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/70 "2013-10-10T14:05:16Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > For the sake of debate, I’m going to assume that Republicans who are against ObamaCare are doing so out of a genuine concern that it will hurt this country. > > But who will it hurt? And how much? > > If the law doesn’t work as planned, what is the worst case scenario for the average american, most americans, small businesses, the overall economy of the country and the overall quality and cost of healthcare compared to a world where the status quo was still the status quo? > > Now, let’s compare that to the best case scenario that comes from shutting down the government. And the best case scenario that comes from not raising the debt ceiling. > > Even if ObamaCare is more negative than positive, can it be logically argued that it’s full implementation would be worse than a prolonged government shutdown and defaulting on the debt which is what many Republicans have said they are willing to do? I think this is a very compelling argument. I have serious concerns about Obamacare; it’s not a wise course of action for the country to take. But at its worse, it would not cause the level of damage being inflicted by the shutdown. This is destroying the village in order to save it. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/71 "2013-10-10T14:38:06Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > You do know that if the average bill is $71 that means that there are many people paying more, right? That’s how averages work? > > So like I said: it’s not out of line for what a lot of other people are paying. If you go read that [survey](http://www.couponcabin.com/blog/1-in-5-mobile-phone-owners-pay-more-per-month-for-phone-service-than-groceries/), you’ll see that 58% of those surveyed said that their costs come from **group** plans. Group versus Individual plan information was not segregated for the average cost. So, yes, it goes up to $200 but that’s for multiple devices. Is it fair to compare the price of group cell phone coverage with individual insurance? If we abuse your provided example, you pay $150 a month for your wife and yourself. What is that? Two devices? If it’s two devices, that’s $75 a month for each of you. Applying that $150 a month figure to a **27 year old individual making $25,000 a year** is not a good comparison. But, let’s say that the 27 year old in this hypothetical is on your group plan with a significant other. That 27 year old’s cost is $75 a month, or half the cost. That person is still paying twice the cost of her cell phone charges in insurance. The information provided by the president is flawed on it’s face, good sir. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/72 "2013-10-10T14:46:33Z")
Many, many individuals pay $120 a month-plus on their comprehensive cell phone plans. [Cite from March of this year](http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/26/4150428/how-much-do-t-mobiles-new-plans-save-you-on-an-iphone-5) And since those figures do not include taxes, phone insurance, for some carriers using your phone as a Hot Spot, the cost of apps, the cost of your phone upgrades, and even more since mobile phone companies are pretty good at finding things to bill you for, ONCE MORE I will assert that it’s not out of line for what a lot of people are paying. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/73 "2013-10-10T17:46:38Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Many, many individuals pay $120 a month-plus on their comprehensive cell phone plans. > > [Cite from March of this year](http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/26/4150428/how-much-do-t-mobiles-new-plans-save-you-on-an-iphone-5) > > And since those figures do not include taxes, phone insurance, for some carriers using your phone as a Hot Spot, the cost of apps, the cost of your phone upgrades, and even more since mobile phone companies are pretty good at finding things to bill you for, ONCE MORE I will assert that it’s not out of line for what a lot of people are paying. Where does it say that on your cite? I see "the carrier now offers unlimited talk, text, and data for only $70 per month ($120 per month if you’re a couple of two, or $150 per month for a family of four). " which is $70 for an individual. Even if you take the final costs for the individual and add the average device subsidy (20-30 per month), T-Mobile comes in at $95 a month after taxes. And this is their “Cadillac” service plan. You can also get started on TMobile for $30 less a month. (The other carriers have similarly priced starter plans). Remember your other [cite](http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/16/pf/cell-phone-bill.moneymag/index.htm), this average being $71 a month? That means that half of those costs fall below that $71 a month. Those are the people that would most likely be getting this subsidy at $25,000 individual income per year. Apps are a separate thing and are not covered on the cell phone bills for any of the major smartphone OSs (iOS, Win, and Android all have separate marketplaces that side step the carrier). If you want to include this, how far down that rabbit hole do you want to try and go? In-App purchases to a free app? Music/Media that’s bought on a cell phone? Because these things are more of a “fun time” purchase, I do not equate this with a cell phone cost and more along the lines of a “Cable TV/Gaming/Hooker” expense. On top of that, the “lot” of people that are spending $120 or more a month on their individual phones are likely NOT the same people that need subsidies at the $25,000 (which is about $21,000 take home not including the annual tax refund in April) mark for individuals. If they have a roommate, roughly half of that income is going for necessities. Food, gas, roof, electricity, etc. If they don’t have a roommate, that jumps to 3/4 or more of their income. This changes, of course, if they get other government subsidies (food stamps, free phone, etc). Then on top of necessities, you’ll have things like TV, Game systems (include computers here), a vehicle in many circumstances, and that “Extra” money kinda starts running out. This is the income level that a lot of people take the $30 [Go Phone](http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/plans/prepaidplans.html) plan option and side-step the whole “$120 a month” issue entirely. Now, let’s stuff all of that reasoning into a corpse bag and assume for arguments sake that every single person ever, without fail, pays $120 for each phone for cellular service (Which makes you get way more discount than 17% 🙂 ). It still costs 22.5% more to pay for insurance than it does to pay for your cell service. I thus maintain my assertion that this is contrary to what the President said which was that it was LESS than your cell phone bill. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/74 "2013-10-10T18:12:56Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Where does it say that on your cite? For individuals, AT&T offers 4GB of data and unlimited talk and text for $110 per month. A full two years of service plus an iPhone 5 would cost a total of $2,839.99. Divide that by 24. Voila. The price for Sprint is essentially the same. Which means individual data plans for two of the four major carriers in this country are in the $120 per month ballpark. Again, not including taxes, phone insurance ($6-15 a month), for some carriers using your phone as a Hot Spot (that’s included with AT&T but an extra $19.99 or $49.99 per month for Sprint), the cost of apps, the cost of your phone upgrades, etcetera. So once more with feeling: Not a significant difference for a great many people from the person who will need to pay less than $150 a month for their healthcare. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/75 "2013-10-10T20:15:02Z")
I think it is pretty clear that there would be more people covered. There might be more part timers - but it is not at all clear that this will increase the trend that is already happening, and there might be some more unemployment (very doubtful) but certainly far less than a default. (And assuming that the market and an auction after the default would look the same as before the default is delusional to put it mildly.) I think the overheated rhetoric of the Tea Partiers is a good demonstration that they don’t have a lot of actual objections. Lots and lots of people have already signed up on the state run web sites, so it is looking popular. The worst that can happen from the Republican point of view is clearly that ACA gets implemented and for the most part people like it. There are definitely people who will pay more (sometimes for more coverage) but many more people who get affordable insurance now where they could not get it before. I am fairly certain that much of the negative polling on ACA comes from FUD, not the facts. Hell, Cruz pretty much admitted that people will like it. As for the downside of default, I have a request of the Republican legislators who claim it is no big deal. They should agree that if a default happens, and some combination of bad things happen - Dow drops 2,000 points in a week, unemployment goes up 2% in three months, borrowing costs increase, whatever, they will immediately resign. I’m sure a lot of Dems would happily agree to the same deal about ACA going into effect with no default. Let’s see if they have the guts to stand behind their predictions. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/76 "2013-10-10T20:39:40Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > For individuals, AT&T offers 4GB of data and unlimited talk and text for $110 per month. A full two years of service plus an iPhone 5 would cost a total of $2,839.99. > > Divide that by 24. Voila. > > The price for Sprint is essentially the same. Which means individual data plans for two of the four major carriers in this country are in the $120 per month ballpark. Again, not including taxes, phone insurance ($6-15 a month), for some carriers using your phone as a Hot Spot (that’s included with AT&T but an extra $19.99 or $49.99 per month for Sprint), the cost of apps, the cost of your phone upgrades, etcetera. > > So once more with feeling: Not a significant difference for a great many people from the person who will need to pay less than $150 a month for their healthcare. So you went with the most expensive (not even verizon, which is the most populous) carrier, once again integrated “apps” and ignored the statements about how little you actually have if you make **$25,000** a year. A great many people do spend good money on their cell phones. This level of subsidy arent’t them. And if you move up the earnings chain and DO make enough to pay for all the cell phones you could want, you still aren’t going to be cheaper because the subsidy shrinks. Even if we go to the family level: $282 (family making $50,000) is more expensive than your $150 current cell bill. So, what do you tell the more than half of the people who pay less than that $147 cut off? “Well, you should have spent more on your cell phone so this seems like it’s cheaper.” ? Sorry, sir, still not feeling your feelings. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/77 "2013-10-10T20:40:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think this is a very compelling argument. I have serious concerns about Obamacare; it’s not a wise course of action for the country to take. > > But at its worse, it would not cause the level of damage being inflicted by the shutdown. This is destroying the village in order to save it. Cool. Thread’s over. Thanks for dropping by everyone! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/78 "2013-10-10T20:44:01Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Sorry, sir, still not feeling your feelings. I don’t give a shit. I provided a citation that individual phone bills for the \*\*two \*\*largest carriers are $120 a month before a bunch of other things which are not uncommon on cell phone bills, making a monthly bill comparable to the $145 a month premium which was used as an example above. Sorry that you don’t like this. Sorry it doesn’t resemble your phone bill or even the average phone bill. But it doesn’t represent some theoretical super high international plans either - $120 a month is standard for inclusive data plans these days. As I have showed you. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/79 "2013-10-10T21:00:28Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I don’t give a shit. I provided a citation that individual phone bills for the \*\*two \*\*largest carriers are $120 a month before a bunch of other things which are not uncommon on cell phone bills, making a monthly bill comparable to the $145 a month premium which was used as an example above. Sorry that you don’t like this. Sorry it doesn’t resemble your phone bill or even the average phone bill. But it doesn’t represent some theoretical super high international plans either - $120 a month is standard for inclusive data plans these days. As I have showed you. And, as you also showed, the AVERAGE COST is $71 a month, which you then ignored. You ignore that half of the users reported BELOW a $71 cost. You ignored the fact that you pulled the most expensive plan base and also ignored the most populous carrier to focus on the most expensive. You also ignored the fact that $120 is still 22.5% less than $147. You also add premium features that aren’t used all that much by the budget conscious. Apps? Hot spots? Not on a Go Phone. As a reference, Prepaid users are roughly [100 million](http://go.bloomberg.com/tech-blog/2012-08-13-prepaid-wireless-users-in-u-s-top-100-million-report-says/) in count and those plans top out at about $80, well below your “You can buy it for this price!” Statement. So, who’s using these plans? The families who make $50,000 a year or the individuals struggling to make ends meet at $25,000 a year? It’s NOT a comparable price for people making $25,000 a year, whether or not you want it to be. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2013, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702/80 "2013-10-11T00:15:05Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > I find that…questionable at best. You’re taking what amounts to an educated guess as to costs in 2016 and then replacing a data point and going “Look how the resulting guess changes!” Your statement I was responding to was: > [@](#): > > pretty much everyone says that the offered packages are more expensive than anticipated by the ACA proponents I never denied that people who are opposed to universal health care say the premiums are high. My objection was to the idea that “pretty much everyone” thinks that way. I don’t, and most of the front page no-ax-to-grind newspapers reports on the announced premiums agreed with me. I do apologize for accusing you of watching TV :smack: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamacare-the-worst-that-can-happen-vs-shutdown-debt-ceiling/670702.md?page=5)