The US Government Has Shut Down

[trumpet-205]

In a nutshell, the individual mandate has the same purpose as having people pay into Social Security and Medicare who are not yet reaping the benefits. There are also exemptions to the mandate. Regardless, how one feels about the ACA and/or individual mandate is irrelevant should be irrelevant to what's going on with the budget and government shutdown.
https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/

I agree, as much as I hate individual mandate (exemption only covers very small amount of people) this should NOT be used to invoke a government shutdown.

 

[the_randomizer]

In summary, both parties are being crybabies. In fact, they're like the two brothers who argue over which toys are theirs.

 

[Lacius]

I agree, as much as I hate individual mandate (exemption only covers very small amount of people) this should NOT be used to invoke a government shutdown.

"CBO estimates that in 2016, after the major provisions of the health law are implemented, 24 million people will be exempted from the mandate's penalties."
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Sto.../FAQ-on-individual-insurance-mandate-ACA.aspx

While I would much rather there be a single-payer system, the individual mandate brings down healthcare costs while simultaneously incentivizing more people to be insured. Exemptions include but aren't limited to people who cannot afford it.

In summary, both parties are being crybabies. In fact, they're like the two brothers who argue over which toys are theirs.

While I'm not saying the Democrats can do no wrong, tell me again how the Democrats are being crybabies in this situation or are at all responsible for the shutdown.

 

[trumpet-205]

In summary, both parties are being crybabies. In fact, they're like the two brothers who argue over which toys are theirs.

George Washington once said in his Farewell address that parties exist to grab political power. Lincoln once said that nation's greatest enemies is its own people, not outsiders.

the individual mandate brings down healthcare costs while simultaneously incentivizing more people to be insured.

Except that it doesn't. ACA tries to use the concept "economies of scale" to bring down insurance cost. Economies of scale (more people buy something less it'll cost to produce; basis for mass production) ONLY works in free market, not when under the influence of government mandate.

 

[Lacius]

Except that it doesn't. ACA tries to use the concept "economies of scale" to bring down insurance cost. Economies of scale (more people buy something less it'll cost to produce; basis for mass production) ONLY works in free market, not when under the influence of government mandate.

This is still a free market system despite the mandate. People are free to shop around and choose, causing free market pressures to apply to costs. Also, each example we have of an individual mandate with regard to health care, including but not limited to the case in Massachusetts, involves health care costs going down for a number of reasons stemming from the presence of the mandate.

 

[dalc789]

Greeeat, my family's fucked. Right now my dad's the only one with a job, and that's at a commissary. With the shutdown, he's working on furlough. So no pay until this shit gets resolved.

 

[whinis]

This is still a free market system despite the mandate. People are free to shop around and choose, causing free market pressures to apply to costs. Also, each example we have of an individual mandate with regard to health care, including but not limited to the case in Massachusetts, involves health care costs going down for a number of reasons stemming from the presence of the mandate.

It wasn't a free-market system before or after the ACA as most insurance is tied to your job and hence people are often not able to freely shop and choose. Free market pressures does not apply here without or without the individual mandate. Also there are many studies which have shown things like healthcare can't be a free market system as things that one relies on adds in pressure to accept the closest rather than the best resource.

with that being said the mandate is not enough to push people into the system who do not want it as like it or not the ACA has caused premiums to rise and given incentive for employers to layoff employees if they are a small business to get exemption from portions of the law or to move more employees to part time. Both of those scenarios are a bad outcome of this law and why poll numbers tend to be low for the overall bill but cherry-picked functions of the bill are seen as favorable.

EDIT: to clarify the penalty this year for not having insurance is $95 and will be at max $695 in 2016, whenever you don't get sick and insurance is currently averaging $150-$400 a month then $695 a year penalty is nothing.

 

[BenRK]

Once again, Congress proves its pointlessness.

 

[Lacius]

It wasn't a free-market system before or after the ACA as most insurance is tied to your job and hence people are often not able to freely shop and choose. Free market pressures does not apply here without or without the individual mandate. Also there are many studies which have shown things like healthcare can't be a free market system as things that one relies on adds in pressure to accept the closest rather than the best resource.

You act as though a.) employers have no say with regard to which insurance policies they buy, b.) that employees have no say with regard to which insurance they end up going with: employer-provided or other, and c.) that employees and employee unions have no say with regard to which health insurance their employers provide.

with that being said the mandate is not enough to push people into the system who do not want it

Does it cause 100% of people to be covered? No. Does it cause a lot more people to be covered and lower costs? Yes.

as like it or not the ACA has caused premiums to rise

Depending on the case, the ACA has caused health insurance premiums to either go down or go up at a much slower rate. It has not caused prices to go up in any case.

and given incentive for employers to layoff employees if they are a small business to get exemption from portions of the law or to move more employees to part time.

In principle, you might be right. I'm aware of this, and it's disconcerting. It should perhaps be done away with. In practice, however, it might be another story:

“You’ve got 5.7 million firms in the U.S.,” says Wharton’s Mark Duggan, who served as the top health economist at White House’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. “Only 210,000 have more than 50 employees. So 96 percent of firms aren’t affected. Then if you look among those firms with 50 or more employees, something on the order of 95 percent offer health insurance. So it’s basically 10,000 or so employers who have more than 50 employees and don’t offer coverage.” Those companies probably employ around one percent of American workers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...te-shouldnt-be-delayed-it-should-be-repealed/

It should also be noted that the employer mandate doesn't go into effect until 2015.

Both of those scenarios are a bad outcome of this law and why poll numbers tend to be low for the overall bill but cherry-picked functions of the bill are seen as favorable.

No, the law gets bad press due to right-wing rhetoric. That's why the elements of the law are largely supported but not when listed by name. It's why the following happened:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A middle-aged man in a red golf shirt shuffles up to a small folding table with gold trim, in a booth adorned with a flotilla of helium balloons, where government workers at the Kentucky State Fair are hawking the virtues of Kynect, the state’s health benefit exchange established by Obamacare.
The man is impressed. "This beats Obamacare I hope," he mutters to one of the workers.

"Do I burst his bubble?" wonders Reina Diaz-Dempsey, overseeing the operation. She doesn't. If he signs up, it's a win-win, whether he knows he's been ensnared by Obamacare or not.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...amacare-at-the-clinton-global-initiative.html

People like the ACA as long as it's not by name, and that's what conservatives in congress are deathly afraid of, hence the shutdown.

EDIT: to clarify the penalty this year for not having insurance is $95 and will be at max $695 in 2016, whenever you don't get sick and insurance is currently averaging $150-$400 a month then $695 a year penalty is nothing.

You're calculating costs without factoring gains from having health insurance. If you do the math, it's an average net gain from having health insurance and a net loss from paying a penalty and getting nothing in return; the amount of the net gain depends on one's demographic information. The mandate was also intentionally low, particularly at the beginning.

Edit: Let the record show that I'm for a single-payer option. I don't mean to sound like an ACA commercial, but them's the facts.

 

[Sporky McForkinspoon]

If ACA doesn't include individual mandate, I support it.

I would prefer a single payer system, however if we are to use the insurance regulation method the ACA introduces, the individual mandate is crucial to it. It's fairly basic economics, by removing the ability to discriminate based on pre existing conditions, people in my situation (young, health and unlikely to need more than basic health care in any given year) won't get it. Only people who either have or are at risk to get e.g. cancer will get insurance since as soon as you have symptoms you can call and get insurance at the drop of a hat. Therefore, the cost of insurance will skyrocket for the people who actually need healthcare. It doesn't work.

The system works by adding a large number of low risk people to the pool. They are in effect subsidizing the elderly and the sick, and that's okay. When they get old or sick they'll be subsidized, and if they never need healthcare, GOOD FOR THEM.

 

[Lacius]

The system works by adding a large number of low risk people to the pool. They are in effect subsidizing the elderly and the sick, and that's okay. When they get old or sick they'll be subsidized, and if they never need healthcare, GOOD FOR THEM.

Which is how Medicare works, the only difference being that the gains one gets from Medicare (aside from the moral gains) is that he/she will be covered when he/she is older, while the low-risk people have the benefit of health insurance in the unlikely event they get sick and when they become higher risk with the ACA.

 

[calmwaters]

They're awfully bureaucratic already, aren't they? It's their own fault for being like that; they can't get anything done. "The early bird gets the worm: the late bird gets the hole in the ground."

Wait what, how would the country even function without a government...?

We've got Sylvester Stallone and Chuck Norris; what you talkin' 'bout, boy? No seriously, if the government shuts down, then the citizens of the U.S. will have to create their own government. Created by the people, for the people. (Jeez, does this sound familiar to anyone?)

 

[nukeboy95]

(im sorry for this but)

 

[Sporky McForkinspoon]

Which is how Medicare works, the only difference being that the gains one gets from Medicare (aside from the moral gains) is that he/she will be covered when he/she is older, while the low-risk people have the benefit of health insurance in the unlikely event they get sick and when they become higher risk with the ACA.

Exactly, a single payer system would be better yet, but I'll take what I can get.

Let me tell you a story about me. Two years ago I was about to go back to school. I had run into some money problems a couple years before and had to drop out of college, I had worked hard at the best paying job I could get (read:terrible) until I was completely debt free. On literally the day I was at the local community college to register for classes I started vomiting and had a terrible pain in my stomach. Having no insurance I went to the local free clinic, they told me I had stomach flu, and to take some over the counter medicine and I'd be fine in a few days. Two days later I went back because I was feeling worse, the sickest I had ever felt, I had used up all my sick days at work and was told if I missed any more I'd be fired, same deal, stomach flu good bye. And the next day I felt a little better, not much but enough to force myself to go to work. Five days after I initially got sick I made a third visit to the clinic who gave me the same song and dance. So I worked for two more days.

Seven days after I first got sick my mother said that I looked awful and insisted on taking me to a hospital. It seems that a week before I had appendicitis, now I had an appendix that had burst on the fourth day, and I'd been walking around with a burst organ. By the time I got to the hospital it was literally in pieces. I am told I had less than twelve hours to live at this point.

I was given a bill for twenty five thousand dollars all told, being that I went to a catholic hospital I plead indigence and they cut that down to five thousand. Since the previous year I had made twelve thousand dollars, and was now fired, I had a hard time paying for it. I have since found a somewhat better job, one that is full time and pays a bit better than minimum wage. I've spent the last two years fighting again to get out of the most debt I have ever been in, and succeeded. And now I'm back to exactly the same spot I was in two years ago, except that I've gotten to waste two years of my life in the interim. I still don't have health insurance, but under Obamacare I can finally, for the first time since I turned eighteen afford to get it.

I am hopeful that the ACA will prevent more people having to experience what I have. The surgeon saved my life, but took two years in payment and that's bullshit.

 

[Lacius]

I still don't have health insurance, but under Obamacare I can finally, for the first time since I turned eighteen afford to get it.

I'd be interested in hearing what monthly premium you're offered.

 

[Sporky McForkinspoon]

Depends what level of coverage I decide on. A catastrophic plan would be about thirty dollars per month, a bronze plan that covers 60% of out of pocket for basically any healthcare is sixty per month, silver covers 75% and would cost me about eighty per month, gold covers 90% and would cost me one hundred per month, and a platinum plan would cover literally everything and be about one hundred and twenty per month.

That's based on me as a single, twenty three year old, non smoking, male, with no dependents.

Edit: for reference, the health coverage offered by my employer is approximately equal to the bronze level coverage, though it actually covers fewer things, is three hundred dollars per month to cover just myself with no spouse or dependents. A coworker of mine covers herself, her husband, and two children for eleven hundred per month out of pocket.

 

[hhs]

Thanks Obama!

 

[Sporky McForkinspoon]

Alright, it's clearly not Obama who tweeted that (he always ends ones he does personally with - BO) but whoever came up with that needs a raise.

 

[Dann Woolf]

As someone with little understanding of politics, I have no idea how to fix this, but I do know that punching everyone on all sides in the face would be a good start.

 

[Deleted member 318366]

Not many people know this but our government is childish. Congress likes to act like children and bicker over things that don't matter, personally I think obamacare is evil and will be the death of the country if not the shutdown then the debt ceiling but I do not think they need to shutdown the government just because they have an opinion that differs their own. Work something out!!!!