Wendy's cuts hours to dodge O-care

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kinda like that fact that Republican are for upholding the law and protecting the innocent unborn, while liberals are all for the breaking of laws and letting innocents die, even if the ARE born (ask Obama....)

Kinda not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kinda like that fact that Republican are for upholding the law and protecting the innocent unborn, while liberals are all for the breaking of laws and letting innocents die, even if the ARE born (ask Obama....)

Kinda not.

Lol when my 2 year old doesn't agree with something I say, she wrinkles her nose, points her index finger at me and says "...mmmaybe not"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are you conservatives so hell bent on making sure low-income people don't have health insurance?

You do realize they still get health care -- and we all get to pay for it. Right?

No one opposes low-income people having health insurance, this is a silly straw man. The issue is under what circumstances one person should be forced to pay for someone else's health insurance. That is a point one can reasonably debate; what one cannot reasonably debate is that, if one makes employing people full-time more expensive, such as by mandating very expensive benefits, the natural consequence is a decrease in the willingness of employers to hire people full-time.

[Anonymous]

But you realize that by not mandating healthcare, you are STILL paying those costs? The increased costs for uninsured are absorbed by the insured, increasing premiums. One of the goals of o-care is to drive those costs down.

signed, republican m.d.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But you realize that by not mandating healthcare, you are STILL paying those costs? The increased costs for uninsured are absorbed by the insured, increasing premiums. One of the goals of o-care is to drive those costs down.

signed, republican m.d.

You are clearly way smarter than most of the other Republicans on this board. That must be tough for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But you realize that by not mandating healthcare, you are STILL paying those costs? The increased costs for uninsured are absorbed by the insured, increasing premiums. One of the goals of o-care is to drive those costs down.

signed, republican m.d.

That is a fair point, but it doesn't answer the question of who, specifically, pays for what. Obamacare's principal distributional effect will be to force younger people to pay higher premiums (far in excess of their actuarial risk) for insurance to subsidize older (largely richer) people. That is leaving aside things like mandatory birth control coverage without a copay, which (assuming even modest efficiency in the health care market) is simply a wealth transfer from men to women. There is a reason auto insurance does not cover oil changes. These things may or may not be good policy -- reasonable people can disagree -- but the whole point of Obamacare is to make these cross-subsidies opaque and to hide the costs because they are not politically sellable if they were to be openly debated.

And I don't see how turning doctors into government employees (as the inevitable single-payer system that will emerge from the unsustainability of Obamacare as passed will) can do anything than other than degrade the medical talent pool. Bottom line, Obamacare will expand coverage to those who did not have it at the cost of degrading the quality of care overall---indeed, there will likely be rationing when the imaginary cost savings do not materialize---at substantial financial expense to boot. Unless you believe the rosy promises of cost control and improved efficiency -- something that government regulatory programs do not usually stimulate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you realize that by not mandating healthcare, you are STILL paying those costs? The increased costs for uninsured are absorbed by the insured, increasing premiums. One of the goals of o-care is to drive those costs down.

signed, republican m.d.

That is a fair point, but it doesn't answer the question of who, specifically, pays for what. Obamacare's principal distributional effect will be to force younger people to pay higher premiums (far in excess of their actuarial risk) for insurance to subsidize older (largely richer) people. That is leaving aside things like mandatory birth control coverage without a copay, which (assuming even modest efficiency in the health care market) is simply a wealth transfer from men to women. There is a reason auto insurance does not cover oil changes. These things may or may not be good policy -- reasonable people can disagree -- but the whole point of Obamacare is to make these cross-subsidies opaque and to hide the costs because they are not politically sellable if they were to be openly debated.

And I don't see how turning doctors into government employees (as the inevitable single-payer system that will emerge from the unsustainability of Obamacare as passed will) can do anything than other than degrade the medical talent pool. Bottom line, Obamacare will expand coverage to those who did not have it at the cost of degrading the quality of care overall---indeed, there will likely be rationing when the imaginary cost savings do not materialize---at substantial financial expense to boot. Unless you believe the rosy promises of cost control and improved efficiency -- something that government regulatory programs do not usually stimulate.

Doesn't Obama care take income into account? Those at 4x poverty level don't have to pay right? So all the young people in my office making $40k don't have to pay for these folks?

It's nice that you think the "wholepoint" of Obamacare is to hide costs. I naively thought the whole point was to insure that EVERYONE has the ability - and even the obligation - to obtain and keep health insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kinda like that fact that Republican are for upholding the law and protecting the innocent unborn, while liberals are all for the breaking of laws and letting innocents die, even if the ARE born (ask Obama....)

Kinda not.

I suggest you do some research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you realize that by not mandating healthcare, you are STILL paying those costs? The increased costs for uninsured are absorbed by the insured, increasing premiums. One of the goals of o-care is to drive those costs down.

signed, republican m.d.

That is a fair point, but it doesn't answer the question of who, specifically, pays for what. Obamacare's principal distributional effect will be to force younger people to pay higher premiums (far in excess of their actuarial risk) for insurance to subsidize older (largely richer) people. That is leaving aside things like mandatory birth control coverage without a copay, which (assuming even modest efficiency in the health care market) is simply a wealth transfer from men to women. There is a reason auto insurance does not cover oil changes. These things may or may not be good policy -- reasonable people can disagree -- but the whole point of Obamacare is to make these cross-subsidies opaque and to hide the costs because they are not politically sellable if they were to be openly debated.

And I don't see how turning doctors into government employees (as the inevitable single-payer system that will emerge from the unsustainability of Obamacare as passed will) can do anything than other than degrade the medical talent pool. Bottom line, Obamacare will expand coverage to those who did not have it at the cost of degrading the quality of care overall---indeed, there will likely be rationing when the imaginary cost savings do not materialize---at substantial financial expense to boot. Unless you believe the rosy promises of cost control and improved efficiency -- something that government regulatory programs do not usually stimulate.

Obama said it'll bend the cost curve. what more assurances do you need?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you realize that by not mandating healthcare, you are STILL paying those costs? The increased costs for uninsured are absorbed by the insured, increasing premiums. One of the goals of o-care is to drive those costs down.

signed, republican m.d.

That is a fair point, but it doesn't answer the question of who, specifically, pays for what. Obamacare's principal distributional effect will be to force younger people to pay higher premiums (far in excess of their actuarial risk) for insurance to subsidize older (largely richer) people. That is leaving aside things like mandatory birth control coverage without a copay, which (assuming even modest efficiency in the health care market) is simply a wealth transfer from men to women. There is a reason auto insurance does not cover oil changes. These things may or may not be good policy -- reasonable people can disagree -- but the whole point of Obamacare is to make these cross-subsidies opaque and to hide the costs because they are not politically sellable if they were to be openly debated.

And I don't see how turning doctors into government employees (as the inevitable single-payer system that will emerge from the unsustainability of Obamacare as passed will) can do anything than other than degrade the medical talent pool. Bottom line, Obamacare will expand coverage to those who did not have it at the cost of degrading the quality of care overall---indeed, there will likely be rationing when the imaginary cost savings do not materialize---at substantial financial expense to boot. Unless you believe the rosy promises of cost control and improved efficiency -- something that government regulatory programs do not usually stimulate.

Doesn't Obama care take income into account? Those at 4x poverty level don't have to pay right? So all the young people in my office making $40k don't have to pay for these folks?

It's nice that you think the "wholepoint" of Obamacare is to hide costs. I naively thought the whole point was to insure that EVERYONE has the ability - and even the obligation - to obtain and keep health insurance.

It obviously costs something to give "EVERYONE" that ability. Rather than forthrightly acknowledge that and debate it on the merits, the proponents of Obamacare claimed that it would be free -- indeed, better than free, it would in fact cost less. We are going to give better health care to more people for less money. That is implausible on its face, there are no free lunches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you realize that by not mandating healthcare, you are STILL paying those costs? The increased costs for uninsured are absorbed by the insured, increasing premiums. One of the goals of o-care is to drive those costs down.

signed, republican m.d.

That is a fair point, but it doesn't answer the question of who, specifically, pays for what. Obamacare's principal distributional effect will be to force younger people to pay higher premiums (far in excess of their actuarial risk) for insurance to subsidize older (largely richer) people. That is leaving aside things like mandatory birth control coverage without a copay, which (assuming even modest efficiency in the health care market) is simply a wealth transfer from men to women. There is a reason auto insurance does not cover oil changes. These things may or may not be good policy -- reasonable people can disagree -- but the whole point of Obamacare is to make these cross-subsidies opaque and to hide the costs because they are not politically sellable if they were to be openly debated.

And I don't see how turning doctors into government employees (as the inevitable single-payer system that will emerge from the unsustainability of Obamacare as passed will) can do anything than other than degrade the medical talent pool. Bottom line, Obamacare will expand coverage to those who did not have it at the cost of degrading the quality of care overall---indeed, there will likely be rationing when the imaginary cost savings do not materialize---at substantial financial expense to boot. Unless you believe the rosy promises of cost control and improved efficiency -- something that government regulatory programs do not usually stimulate.

Exactly!

In addition, this does not take into account the millions of illegals that taxpayers will inevitably have to pay for. Obama can say they are not 'included' but hospitals can't check ID, so how is it prevented?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you realize that by not mandating healthcare, you are STILL paying those costs? The increased costs for uninsured are absorbed by the insured, increasing premiums. One of the goals of o-care is to drive those costs down.

signed, republican m.d.

That is a fair point, but it doesn't answer the question of who, specifically, pays for what. Obamacare's principal distributional effect will be to force younger people to pay higher premiums (far in excess of their actuarial risk) for insurance to subsidize older (largely richer) people. That is leaving aside things like mandatory birth control coverage without a copay, which (assuming even modest efficiency in the health care market) is simply a wealth transfer from men to women. There is a reason auto insurance does not cover oil changes. These things may or may not be good policy -- reasonable people can disagree -- but the whole point of Obamacare is to make these cross-subsidies opaque and to hide the costs because they are not politically sellable if they were to be openly debated.

And I don't see how turning doctors into government employees (as the inevitable single-payer system that will emerge from the unsustainability of Obamacare as passed will) can do anything than other than degrade the medical talent pool. Bottom line, Obamacare will expand coverage to those who did not have it at the cost of degrading the quality of care overall---indeed, there will likely be rationing when the imaginary cost savings do not materialize---at substantial financial expense to boot. Unless you believe the rosy promises of cost control and improved efficiency -- something that government regulatory programs do not usually stimulate.

Exactly!

In addition, this does not take into account the millions of illegals that taxpayers will inevitably have to pay for. Obama can say they are not 'included' but hospitals can't check ID, so how is it prevented?

That is not a bug, it is a feature. The point of Obamacare is to redistribute medical resources, even at the cost of slightly shrinking the pie. It is a bad deal for those who had access to care before the bill was passed. That stuff about "if you like your plan you can keep it" was a straight-up, intentional lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you realize that by not mandating healthcare, you are STILL paying those costs? The increased costs for uninsured are absorbed by the insured, increasing premiums. One of the goals of o-care is to drive those costs down.

signed, republican m.d.

That is a fair point, but it doesn't answer the question of who, specifically, pays for what. Obamacare's principal distributional effect will be to force younger people to pay higher premiums (far in excess of their actuarial risk) for insurance to subsidize older (largely richer) people. That is leaving aside things like mandatory birth control coverage without a copay, which (assuming even modest efficiency in the health care market) is simply a wealth transfer from men to women. There is a reason auto insurance does not cover oil changes. These things may or may not be good policy -- reasonable people can disagree -- but the whole point of Obamacare is to make these cross-subsidies opaque and to hide the costs because they are not politically sellable if they were to be openly debated.

And I don't see how turning doctors into government employees (as the inevitable single-payer system that will emerge from the unsustainability of Obamacare as passed will) can do anything than other than degrade the medical talent pool. Bottom line, Obamacare will expand coverage to those who did not have it at the cost of degrading the quality of care overall---indeed, there will likely be rationing when the imaginary cost savings do not materialize---at substantial financial expense to boot. Unless you believe the rosy promises of cost control and improved efficiency -- something that government regulatory programs do not usually stimulate.

I think your estimate on the effect is wrong. Today, a company negotiates its insurance cost based on the pool of employees participating in the plan. If more young people come in, the employer should be able to reduce its per employee cost. And thus premiums would go down, even for existing young people in the plan.

Mandatory birth control costs may be offset by fewer obstetrics costs. Not everyone aborts an unintended pregnancy, and each one is expensive. If you are concerned about a wealth transfer from men to women, all I have to say is that unintended pregnancies are not a "woman's problem". Men bear the cost of unwanted children, too. More birth control = fewer men making child support payments or marrying women out of obligation.

Lastly, you have failed to account for one of the primary cost transfers of Obamacare. And this is really, really important. Currently your premiums go to covering those who are uninsured. You don't see it on your bill, but it is baked into your medical costs. The key transfer of cost is to make the uninsured pay their premiums like everyone else so that we don't subsidize them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think your estimate on the effect is wrong. Today, a company negotiates its insurance cost based on the pool of employees participating in the plan. If more young people come in, the employer should be able to reduce its per employee cost. And thus premiums would go down, even for existing young people in the plan.

This assumes participation in a group plan. For young people on the market for an individual policy, guaranteed issue + community rating means vastly higher premiums for people. To say nothing of the mandatory coverage contained in qualified policies that make it impossible to buy the type of high-deductible catastrophic policy that people that age actually need. You aren't really going to dispute this, are you? Or is Obamacare really roses for all, with no person negatively affected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think your estimate on the effect is wrong. Today, a company negotiates its insurance cost based on the pool of employees participating in the plan. If more young people come in, the employer should be able to reduce its per employee cost. And thus premiums would go down, even for existing young people in the plan.

This assumes participation in a group plan. For young people on the market for an individual policy, guaranteed issue + community rating means vastly higher premiums for people. To say nothing of the mandatory coverage contained in qualified policies that make it impossible to buy the type of high-deductible catastrophic policy that people that age actually need. You aren't really going to dispute this, are you? Or is Obamacare really roses for all, with no person negatively affected?

Even that logic seems flawed. Today, the young people with insurance, outside of employer plans, are the ones who need it most ie the sickest. If more healthy people enter the pool because of the mandate, the average risk level drops and premiums do not go up.