Maybe I missed it. But I am surprised that no one has commented on the recent study by Stanfurd recommending moving a large number of public employees onto Obamacare. Much like Walmart. So that the taxpayers get to pay for their employees. This part of Obamacare was meant to protect those unfortunate people who had no coverage because the did not have a job or whose employers were too small to provide coverage.

The Stanfurd MD quoted said it would be a good alternative and it was legal. Typical Furd mentality. "It's legal. It saves me money Sc*** the public."

GivemTheAxe;842327878 said:

---

Maybe I missed it. But I am surprised that no one has commented on the recent study by Stanfurd recommending moving a large number of public employees onto Obamacare. Much like Walmart. So that the taxpayers get to pay for their employees. This part of Obamacare was meant to protect those unfortunate people who had no coverage because the did not have a job or whose employers were too small to provide coverage.

The Stanfurd MD quoted said it would be a good alternative and it was legal. Typical Furd mentality. "It's legal. It saves me money Sc*** the public."

---

Two articles on the topic:

http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_26013042/stanford-study-moving-some-public-workers-obamacare-could

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-usa-healthcare-employers-idUSBRE98816820130909


The "keep your doctor - keep your plan" and "it'll be cheaper" fallacies were just the beginning.

In the long term I would love to see health insurance decoupled from employment. There is no rational reason why a business should shoulder the responsibility of ensuring its employees have health care. This model developed after WWII but I feel has outlived its usefulness. It locks in workers to jobs they might otherwise leave (although that has been somewhat improved already by the PPACA) and drives up expenses for businesses. It would be analogous to compelling people to buy auto insurance (which we already do) but making it available primarily through their jobs.

sketchy9;842327928 said:

---

In the long term I would love to see health insurance decoupled from employment. There is no rational reason why a business should shoulder the responsibility of ensuring its employees have health care. This model developed after WWII but I feel has outlived its usefulness. It locks in workers to jobs they might otherwise leave (although that has been somewhat improved already by the PPACA) and drives up expenses for businesses. It would be analogous to compelling people to buy auto insurance (which we already do) but making it available primarily through their jobs.

---

Agree.

CalZebra2012;842327914 said:

---

Two articles on the topic:

http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_26013042/stanford-study-moving-some-public-workers-obamacare-could

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-usa-healthcare-employers-idUSBRE98816820130909


The "keep your doctor - keep your plan" and "it'll be cheaper" fallacies were just the beginning.

---

It was always said that it would be cheaper over all to have the unemployed/uninsured insured. It is clearly cheaper than having the uninsured using emergency room services as their main source of medical treatment.

Keep your doctor makes sense: nothing is forcing the employers to drop coverage for their employees. They are doing it if they can get away with it (that's the stanfurd way).

"Damn those pesky unions for trying to insist upon better-than-bare-minimum health insurance." "Next thing, the employees will be asking for a 'living wage'. Can you imagine their gall. Cutting into our exorbitant profits."

sketchy9;842327928 said:

---

In the long term I would love to see health insurance decoupled from employment. There is no rational reason why a business should shoulder the responsibility of ensuring its employees have health care. This model developed after WWII but I feel has outlived its usefulness. It locks in workers to jobs they might otherwise leave (although that has been somewhat improved already by the PPACA) and drives up expenses for businesses. It would be analogous to compelling people to buy auto insurance (which we already do) but making it available primarily through their jobs.

---

I enjoyed employer-sponsored health insurance for 43 years. Now that I'm on Medicare, I'm paying 3 times the premium for less coverage than I had under my employer's plan. My experience is that employers (especially large employers, which mine was) do a much better job of controlling costs and squeezing more out of insurance companies than does the government.

sketchy9;842327928 said:

---

In the long term I would love to see health insurance decoupled from employment. There is no rational reason why a business should shoulder the responsibility of ensuring its employees have health care. This model developed after WWII but I feel has outlived its usefulness. It locks in workers to jobs they might otherwise leave (although that has been somewhat improved already by the PPACA) and drives up expenses for businesses. It would be analogous to compelling people to buy auto insurance (which we already do) but making it available primarily through their jobs.

---

I like it (even while I acknowledge Golden One's comments). In something more resembling an actual market system, employers would have the option of offering what they want and letting other employers compete for employees.

68great;842328009 said:

---

It was always said that it would be cheaper over all to have the unemployed/uninsured insured. It is clearly cheaper than having the uninsured using emergency room services as their main source of medical treatment.

Keep your doctor makes sense: nothing is forcing the employers to drop coverage for their employees. They are doing it if they can get away with it (that's the stanfurd way).

"Damn those pesky unions for trying to insist upon better-than-bare-minimum health insurance." "Next thing, the employees will be asking for a 'living wage'. Can you imagine their gall. Cutting into our exorbitant profits."

---

I have no problem with the unions attempting to negotiate better pay and benefits in this instance (this is a red herring).

When Obama and Company pitched the cheaper card, they specifically stated that [U]healthcare would be cut by $2500 for the average family annual premium[/U].
He wasn't pitching it as "overall."

"Keep your doctor-keep your plan" is what he misrepresented in regard to [U]whether the ACA would force changes [/U]in doctors and wasn't about how employers would effect your doctor/plan election.

Nice spin attempt though. Obama and his supporters own this dog and hopefully, that will be a factor in the coming elections.

sketchy9;842327928 said:

---

In the long term I would love to see health insurance decoupled from employment. There is no rational reason why a business should shoulder the responsibility of ensuring its employees have health care. This model developed after WWII but I feel has outlived its usefulness. It locks in workers to jobs they might otherwise leave (although that has been somewhat improved already by the PPACA) and drives up expenses for businesses. It would be analogous to compelling people to buy auto insurance (which we already do) but making it available primarily through their jobs.

---

Agree. As I understand it, the employer writes off the cost of their health care programs as expenses.

So probably has to be part of a major tax overhaul which should be possible in about 2367...