Nevada restaurant owners on Obamacare: ‘We can't pay for this'
150 replies, posted
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;38623417]why does this make the whole "obamacare" thing sound like "We're doing this for you! The working class! Although we know full well its going to get a number of you [I]fired.[/I]"[/QUOTE]
Well if you buy into the brainwashed librul stereotype that still isn't really what they'd be thinking, because that thought process is:
-People should have the best possible healthcare access
-People should have maximum possible employment
-Lack of healthcare access is a more pressing issue than employment
-There is only one way to change healthcare access
-Changing healthcare access in this way is difficult and negatively impacts employment
-Changing employment is relatively less difficult and has a minor effect on healthcare access
It's not that old "we're coming to fix things for you, even though we're getting half of you fired" crap, just a simplistic algorithm.
[editline]28th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Strider*;38619853][img]http://healthyvoyager.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/20060825_restaurant_logos_18.jpg[/img]
Pretty simple to understand.
Even if the market [i]were[/i] perfectly competitive, your graph would still be irrelevant unless you can tell me what point you were trying to make that I missed.
Taxes always impose a deadweight loss, that's a hell of a lot more relevant than a graph showing that businesses are price takers in a perfectly competitive industry.[/QUOTE]
Okay, all that shit you used to post? Never do any of that crap again. Stick with this sort of thing.
You are entirely tolerable when you stick to actual economics.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;38623417]-raises hand- while I hope not to be targeted by either side here, I would like to ask...
why does this make the whole "obamacare" thing sound like "We're doing this for you! The working class! Although we know full well its going to get a number of you [I]fired.[/I]"[/QUOTE]
Pretty much what xenocide said.
Although some people will lose their jobs, everyone in the entire country will have health insurance. Which is preferable?
That's a subjective matter, and it should be obvious which side the democrats sit on, and which side the republicans sit on.
There's a strong sense in this thread and on facepunch as a whole that we should be able to give everyone health insurance and employers have no right to downsize to cope. Anyone with a remotely realistic viewpoint can see that's not the case.
[QUOTE=Glaber;38619754]Anybody can edit wikipedia to have it say anything. if you want a reliable source, use anything other than wikipedia
Heck, why didn't you just use Wikipedia's sources?[/QUOTE]
You should use a respectable source
like fox news
[QUOTE=bohb;38618704]Yes, glad you asked.
That business that runs the country, the government.
The government (on a national level) is primarily run by the far left, and we can all see what a great job they're doing. Getting the nation farther into debt by endlessly spending money, and putting it into even more debt by crippling its sources of revenue (taxes) by further levying unsustainable taxes on the people that pay them.[/QUOTE]
Why is it that Canada, with its much higher taxes, is doing so much better economically then the USA
[IMG]http://puu.sh/1vkYE[/IMG]
relationship is very clear
[QUOTE=Olas;38621867]Woah there, I was just poking fun. Not sure why you took it so personal.[/QUOTE]
Oh sorry, I wrote that like at 2AM. Holy shit I don't even remember being in this thread. Must've been drunk off my ass.
[QUOTE=Morcam;38627439]Although some people will lose their jobs, everyone in the entire country will have health insurance. Which is preferable?
That's a subjective matter, and it should be obvious which side the democrats sit on, and which side the republicans sit on.[/QUOTE]
That is not where the democrats sit, though. That's where some idiots who vote dem sit, but that's not the actual dem position. The party line is that there is no relationship between the PPACA and employment, or if there is, it's a positive one.
One of Obamacare's major selling points was an economic analysis concluding it would be as close to cost-neutral as possible, only breaking past that for businesses in between being too small to face certain mandates and too large to entirely absorb them through economies of scale. There are supposed to be two factors mitigating that- a cost decrease for small businesses, and a reduction in overall healthcare costs.
I'm just saying, even taking the worst leftist voter, none of them seriously believe this is a tradeoff between employment and healthcare, just that the employment issue will be gradually negated, either now or within the decade.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38617325]have you even taken basic economics glaber
because this is basic as shit
[sp]it's the Price/Quantity graph for a perfectly competitive market[/sp][/QUOTE]
In an economics class this is as basic as 2x=1 find x would be in a math class
[QUOTE=The Baconator;38630398]In an economics class this is as basic as 2x=1 find x would be in a math class[/QUOTE]
The answer is George Soros
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38629066]That is not where the democrats sit, though. That's where some idiots who vote dem sit, but that's not the actual dem position. The party line is that there is no relationship between the PPACA and employment, or if there is, it's a positive one.
One of Obamacare's major selling points was an economic analysis concluding it would be as close to cost-neutral as possible, only breaking past that for businesses in between being too small to face certain mandates and too large to entirely absorb them through economies of scale. There are supposed to be two factors mitigating that- a cost decrease for small businesses, and a reduction in overall healthcare costs.
I'm just saying, even taking the worst leftist voter, none of them seriously believe this is a tradeoff between employment and healthcare, just that the employment issue will be gradually negated, either now or within the decade.[/QUOTE]
The CBO estimated around half a percent of total labor (hours worked) would be lost, primarily in minimum and low-wage jobs. There's nothing complex about that. It's a tradeoff.
The actual dem position is obviously better than reality, just like the republican position is worse than reality.
[QUOTE=Morcam;38631049]The CBO estimated around half a percent of total labor (hours worked) would be lost, primarily in minimum and low-wage jobs. There's nothing complex about that. It's a tradeoff.[/QUOTE]
No, it isn't. I don't think you actually read the report that came from, but lucky for you Elmendorf cleared that up in an interview- it wouldn't be half a percent [I]lost[/I], it would be half a percent [I]voluntarily disregarded.[/I] [URL="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2012/06/13/cbo-chief-says-obamacare-isnt-killing-jobs"]“Most of that is people choosing not to work because they can obtain health insurance at an affordable price outside of the workforce.”[/URL] Voluntarily not seeking work doesn't interfere with the unemployment rate at all because unemployment is based on those who are actively looking for and cannot get work.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38632391]No, it isn't. I don't think you actually read the report that came from, but lucky for you Elmendorf cleared that up in an interview- it wouldn't be half a percent [I]lost[/I], it would be half a percent [I]voluntarily disregarded.[/I] [URL="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2012/06/13/cbo-chief-says-obamacare-isnt-killing-jobs"]“Most of that is people choosing not to work because they can obtain health insurance at an affordable price outside of the workforce.”[/URL] Voluntarily not seeking work doesn't interfere with the unemployment rate at all because unemployment is based on those who are actively looking for and cannot get work.[/QUOTE]
That'd be why I didn't say anything about unemployment. It's people retiring earlier and dropping out of the workforce, or working less hours because their healthcare is now subsidized for them. That doesn't change the fact that half a percent of our labor will slowly evaporate. The issue with the US's economy now isn't just the unemployment rate - the labor force participation rate has been dropping dramatically, which puts more economic burden on a smaller labor force. PPACA aggravates this.
I think it's about time to call Obamacare a failure and go back to the drawing board.
It SOUNDED real good where people who were employed were SUPPOSED to have decent healthcare.
That's not the result however. The result is that people are getting their hours or wages cut to avoid the healthcare or losing their jobs totally.
Posting on the internet "JUST INCREASE THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING" won't fix it.
Call it a failure when the bulk hasn't even kicked in yet, and these are just people make grand claims before they've even had a chance to feel the effects.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;38633101]I think it's about time to call Obamacare a failure and go back to the drawing board.
It SOUNDED real good where people who were employed were SUPPOSED to have decent healthcare.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this idea probably SOUNDS real good (to you), but it would cost way, way more to repeal the ACA than it would to just implement it. It still won't be fully implemented for about a year, it's clearly not anywhere close to the time to call it a failure and go back to the drawing board. (What makes you think it's a failure now? I'm guessing you probably thought it was a failure back when it was passed and are just saying this to falsely appear objective on the whole matter.)
It's not like it can't be replaced with something better in the future, it's just not very likely to be considered, Republicans want to pretend like they have a better idea for providing healthcare reform for the country, but what they really want is to just abolish Obamacare and not replace it with anything. They were the ones arguing against any healthcare reform in the first place, nobody is stupid enough to think they just magically changed their stance on the issue.
I like how people think that everyone who owns a business is a filthy capitalist who only cares about getting rich, and making the poor poorer. I can hear you now, "Screw the rich!"
Restaurants have massive overhead because of all the food they have to throw away, and how clean they have to keep their facilities.
I also feel sorry for the misinformed souls that believe those without healthcare will die. Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is an act passed by congress in 1986 which states that if you walk into an emergency room, by law you must be treated regardless of gender, citizenship status, or inability to pay.
"Well UziXxX, these people will still have to pay when they're billed for their emergency room visit!"
To you I respond: I'm glad you feel that someone should have something at the expense of everyone else.
The affordable care act is 2,801 pages. As stated by Nancy Pelosi, "We need to pass it to see what's in it." I'm so glad we have great leaders like her helping to pass such a great law that passes the bill of services onto those who do not want them.
I personaly cannot wait until Obamacare kicks in that way everyone can feel the negative effects of it.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38633240]I like how people think that everyone who owns a business is a filthy capitalist who only cares about getting rich, and making the poor poorer. I can hear you now, "Screw the rich!"
[/QUOTE]
this is me everyday when i wake up
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38633240]I like how people think that everyone who owns a business is a filthy capitalist who only cares about getting rich, and making the poor poorer. I can hear you now, "Screw the rich!"[/QUOTE]
Republicans - When you can no longer form valid arguments, make yourself out to be a victim!™
[QUOTE=Ybbats;38633296]Republicans - When you can no longer form valid arguments, make yourself out to be a victim!™[/QUOTE]
Liberals - assuming conservatives are rich people who own businesses. Also assuming those who aren't liberal are republican.
No, seriously though. Read the rest of my post.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38633240]I like how people think that everyone who owns a business is a filthy capitalist who only cares about getting rich, and making the poor poorer. I can hear you now, "Screw the rich!"
Restaurants have massive overhead because of all the food they have to throw away, and how clean they have to keep their facilities.
I also feel sorry for the misinformed souls that believe those without healthcare will die. Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is an act passed by congress in 1986 which states that if you walk into an emergency room, by law you must be treated regardless of gender, citizenship status, or inability to pay.
"Well UziXxX, these people will still have to pay when they're billed for their emergency room visit!"
To you I respond: I'm glad you feel that someone should have something at the expense of everyone else.
The affordable care act is 2,801 pages. As stated by Nancy Pelosi, "We need to pass it to see what's in it." I'm so glad we have great leaders like her helping to pass such a great law that passes the bill of services onto those who do not want them.
I personaly cannot wait until Obamacare kicks in that way everyone can feel the negative effects of it.[/QUOTE]
Too bad if they cant afford it then they are failing as a business. Have we become so selfish that we would deny someone care just because we don't know them? I challenge you to personally speak to any of the millions of people too poor to afford insurance and who might possibly have something and not even know about it and tell them they should pay for it themselves. Health care should be a right. Why are we the only first world country without it...
[QUOTE=Mudbone;38633337]Too bad if they cant afford it then they are failing as a business. Have we become so selfish that we would deny someone care just because we don't know them? I challenge you to personally speak to any of the millions of people too poor to afford insurance and who might possibly have something and not even know about it and tell them they should pay for it themselves. Health care should be a right. Why are we the only first world country without it...[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38633240]Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is an act passed by congress in 1986 which states that if you walk into an emergency room, by law you must be treated regardless of gender, citizenship status, or inability to pay.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38633356][/QUOTE]
Glad to know if I'm shot I can get care but what about when someone finds out too late they have cancer and theirs a treatment for them. If they cant pay their screwed. No one should die because they are poor.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38633356][/QUOTE]
Maybe you missed the point of ACA being NOT leaving poor people thousands and thousands of dollars in debt. I like how you try to underplay it as 'not a big deal' in your first post. Yeah, it is a big deal, when you're poor. Moron.
[QUOTE=Ybbats;38633389]Maybe you missed the point of ACA being NOT leaving poor people thousands and thousands of dollars in debt. I like how you try to underplay it as 'not a big deal' in your first post. Yeah, it is a big deal, when you're poor. Moron.[/QUOTE]
My mother raised me by her self. Times were always hard growing up. Last year she made ~$18k.
Don't try to lecture me about what poor people think is a big deal.
Don't lecture me about what it is to be poor.
Don't judge me on my beliefs or my positions.
The solution isn't to dump the costs onto someone else.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38633439]My mother raised me by her self. Times were always hard growing up. Last year she made ~$18k.
Don't try to lecture me about what poor people think is a big deal.
Don't lecture me about what it is to be poor.
Don't judge me on my beliefs or my positions.[/QUOTE]
Hes probably doing so because your coming across as an asshole. I grew up quite different. My family had money not a ton but we never went without. Now that I'm on my own and no family left as a support net I feel that I can understand both sides equally. The problem is blame is poor spending and money management on the governments side. Do you honestly believe that those without enough funds to see a doctor for at least a once a year check up should be left out to dry? Or those in need of treatment or surgery be denied because of lack of funds? Its not a matter of can we pay for this. It should be a matter of this is a priority and how are we going to pay for this. If they can find money to keep wars going they can find money to take care of people.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;38633439]My mother raised me by her self. Times were always hard growing up. Last year she made ~$18k.
Don't try to lecture me about what poor people think is a big deal.
Don't lecture me about what it is to be poor.
Don't judge me on my beliefs or my positions.
The solution isn't to dump the costs onto someone else.[/QUOTE]
No one is doing that. Nobody passed a single payer system. People are still responsible for paying for their own health care, it's just a lot easier to do so now and insurance companies can't screw over their own customers as easily as they used to.
[QUOTE=Morcam;38633057]The issue with the US's economy now isn't just the unemployment rate - the labor force participation rate has been dropping dramatically, which puts more economic burden on a smaller labor force. PPACA aggravates this.[/QUOTE]
That'd be a legitimate concern if you weren't looking at one figure in abstract. If you were just panicking about unemployment I could understand, but panicking about participation by itself is dumb.
The participation rate in abstract is meaningless because things which increase the strength of an economy are often entirely detached from labor participation. Education enrollment rates are up, and those correlate with increased GDP, [URL="https://lh3.ggpht.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SxwevOGv98I/AAAAAAAAG9s/pXzWfFj5e84/s1600-h/RealGDPEmployment.jpg"](which incidentally leads employment changes).[/URL] Having as many people employed as possible isn't a goal of any political party or we'd be giving people shovels and paying them a nickel an hour to dig holes in the shape of dicks in Nevada.
[QUOTE=Ybbats;38633494]People are still responsible for paying for their own health care, it's just a lot easier to do so now and insurance companies can't screw over their own customers as easily as they used to.[/QUOTE]
So the insurance companies will just increase premiums for everyone else to cover the new costs. Either way you look at it, the costs are actually being dumped onto someone else.
[QUOTE=Noble;38636797]So the insurance companies will just increase premiums for everyone else to cover the new costs. Either way you look at it, the costs are actually being dumped onto someone else.[/QUOTE]
That's the idea of socialized healthcare, described with words Republicans and right wingers alike likes to use.
It's meant to be dumped on those with money, so those without aren't S.O.L. when they need serious medical treatment or surgery.
Cutting health expenses out of the average Joe's taxes, and letting billionares and fortune 500 companies finance the well-being of the people in the nation(s) it's in.
And [B]IF[/B] you wanna complain about how it's not bundled with the ordinary tax, then blame Republicans for being more stubborn than a senile mule.
They're the one's who bastardized it, but there's 4 years to rectify their fuck-up's
On the topic of healthcare costs, doesn't the US pay the most per capita or something? wasn't there a study back that attributed a lot of it to waste?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.