How will the POTUS healthcare law decision effect manufacturing?

What do you think? Will it be a landmark, or a bump in the road?

Will the taxes/fines be a deal breaker?

Will there be any effect at all?

What say you?

It is working good in Massachusetts with Romneycare! Thanks to Mittens!! Yes to me Obamacare is the same. So it can work well just getting both sides of congress on the same level with taxes. Effect? It can be real bad if you let the Teabagers piss in the cool-aid!

GP15-1 said:

It is working good in Massachusetts with Romneycare! Thanks to Mittens!! Yes to me Obamacare is the same. So it can work well just getting both sides of congress on the same level with taxes. Effect? It can be real bad if you let the Teabagers piss in the cool-aid!

Click to expand...

I recall the NPR broadcasts of the SCOTUS proceedings, notably the lines of questioning. I understand the need to ask "clueless" questions, or asking "devil's advocate" questions, but it was a bit unnerving.

I prefer to reduce the issue to the absurd, i.e. that any person will NEVER need healthcare. We all are mortal, and that mortality is brought on by health issues, ultimately.

Who pays for that healthcare? It's a dishonesty to claim immortality; immortality doesn't exist for any creature on this earth. It's a dishonesty to deny the peace of mind that comes with having plans for dealing with the unexpected (or expected) health issues. Does anyone want to be around the anxious?

It is also a dishonesty to deny that a person's teeth, or a person's gait, are used as indicators of social status. We all do it, we all make judgments on whether a person's smile is toothy or toothless, whether a limp is present, and proceed from there. Somewhat prejudicial isn't it? For anyone who claims the American Dream is alive and well, what is the value of denying anyone the preventative care that could eliminate superficial defects?

The U.S. has many ineffective social programs; Head Start is documented as a failure [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2081778,00.html] Why not see how this care proposal works for a decade or two? There is evidence that academic excellence is influenced by environment [Matt Ridley on Twins and the Question of Inherited IQ | Mind & Matter - WSJ.com]; perhaps the goal of academic excellence is better served by healthcare, not Head Start? Better served by healthcare, not No Child Left Behind?

Let's give this health care law a chance to succeed, or to fail, and then we can either scrap some other programs, or we can scrap the health care law.

willbird said:

In a general way you cannot tell much based on a "state" the size of a COUNTY in most real states ;-). The whole state of Mass is only 4x the population of Franklin County in Ohio ;-), roughly 3x the size of Cuyahoga county.

Click to expand...

Okay....I agree with you. Which state's presidential primaries should be scrapped? "All politics are local" is a maxim, but you also propose that all health issues are local, that some locality has zero disease, zero health issues?

If so, don't claim that cancer clusters are imagined.

I for one hope it passes then my wife could quit her job and I could buy health insurance on the open market and not be denied coverage. I would gladly pay 1500 per month for our family of 3 if I could get coverage. I am at the point where I need to hire someone to do the website and packing and shipping since my wife is working for health insurance. I think there would be an explosion in the number of self employed if you could get health coverage. That would drive the economy, we are being held hostage by insurance companies. Even if we had to pay 2-3 grand a month for coverage it would be possible if they would actually cover us.

I think the stumbling block is the individual mandate. That will likely be tossed out but much of the remainder will stand up to the SCOTUS. My larger view is this is like any free lunch - someone is going to pay, and because of the layers of bureaucracy the total cost will be higher to those who do the paying. And of course those who pay will also pay for those who do not. In that regard this is just another redistribution of the wealth.

Sorry for the drift - just realized you said POTUS, not SCOTUS.

kpotter said:

I for one hope it passes then my wife could quit her job and I could buy health insurance on the open market and not be denied coverage. I would gladly pay 1500 per month for our family of 3 if I could get coverage. I am at the point where I need to hire someone to do the website and packing and shipping since my wife is working for health insurance. I think there would be an explosion in the number of self employed if you could get health coverage. That would drive the economy, we are being held hostage by insurance companies. Even if we had to pay 2-3 grand a month for coverage it would be possible if they would actually cover us.

Click to expand...

The Obamacare program does not do away with insurance companies.

social security and medicare are "moronic socialist programs"???

they are good programs.necessary for lots of folks. single payer HC would/will be too.

100 years from now i predict that this will be just a blip in time and people will look back and see this period of time as another dark ages.

My company is in Massachusetts and of course we have Romney care. My costs have sky rocketed under his health care law so I'm hoping that the Supreme Court upholds the law and makes the rest of the country as uncompetitive as we are with this massive cost. I give my people BCBS that costs them $.75 per hour for a family plan ($30.00 per week). I pay $11.00 per hour for the plan ($22,000 / 2000 hrs per year = $11.00/hr) and the costs have been going up 15 to 20% per year with no end in sight and the legislature is throwing on mandated coverages as fast as they can buy new votes. We got rid of pre-existing conditions so we have people pouring into the state during the open enrollment period (I think it has been changed from year round open enrollment to July 1st to the beginning of August) to get high priced medical treatments essentially for free. The Mass. Supreme Judicial Court recently declared that you only need to be in the state and declare yourself to be a resident and you can get immediate coverage during this open enrollment period. If you know anyone that needs medical treatment our open enrollment is coming up in a week or so and they can come here, declare themselves to be a resident and get BCBS and pretty much get treated for free. Tell them to send me a "Thank you" for the tip.

Jake

Gordon B. Clarke said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Healthcare should never have anything to do with insurance companies or any other companies. When profit can be made prices NEVER go down.

Gordon

Click to expand...

Prices go down every day Gordon.

Over here, our gasoline prices have gone down substantially over the past three months.

It's called market capitalism.

The solution to our health care problems is to have a two tiered system. If you can afford the top tier, good for you. If you have no money there would be free clinics with basic care. This way hospitals can turn away those that can't pay and send them to the free clinic.

The key to this system is to make sure the free clinics are basically complete shit. This will give people an incentive to get off their lazy asses and get a job so they can afford the top tier.

It would work like any other market does. You want a fancy house? Better figure out a way to make some money. You want to sit on your ass all day and do nothing? Then you get to live in a homeless camp. Pretty simple.

Don't try and tell me this system is fair. Life isn't fair. I don't give a flying rats ass if some douche bag needs expensive medical care. I he can't pay, he can fuck off. Go to the free clinic. If they can't help him, than too fucking bad.

John Welden said:

The solution to our health care problems is to have a two tiered system. If you can afford the top tier, good for you. If you have no money there would be free clinics with basic care. This way hospitals can turn away those that can't pay and send them to the free clinic.

The key to this system is to make sure the free clinics are basically complete shit. This will give people an incentive to get off their lazy asses and get a job so they can afford the top tier.

It would work like any other market does. You want a fancy house? Better figure out a way to make some money. You want to sit on your ass all day and do nothing? Then you get to live in a homeless camp. Pretty simple.

Don't try and tell me this system is fair. Life isn't fair. I don't give a flying rats ass if some douche bag needs expensive medical care. I he can't pay, he can fuck off. Go to the free clinic. If they can't help him, than too fucking bad.

Click to expand...

The topic is how do you think the scotus decision will effect manufacturing.

Were you going to answer the question, or just troll?

John Welden said:

If you can afford the top tier, good for you. If you have no money there would be free clinics with basic care. This way hospitals can turn away those that can't pay and send them to the free clinic.

Click to expand...

Obamacare is multi-tier. There are the payers (they pay for the "free" clinics and the essential hospital care - clinics can't do it all or they would be called hospitals) and non-payers, there are the care providers who no longer work in the free market you and I work in, and there are the insurers who are the biggest beneficiaries of this policy because their services are mandatory. Just like now but with total oversight and micromanagement from the government who's oversight and micromanagement skills are comparable to none, and have never been better.

smalltime said:

Prices go down every day Gordon.

Over here, our gasoline prices have gone down substantially over the past three months.

It's called market capitalism.

Click to expand...

That trend is new and somehow short of the skyrocketing that took place from 1999 until today.

Charting The Dramatic Gas Price Rise Over the Last Decade

Market capitalism=gouging.

dp said:

Obamacare is multi-tier. There are the payers (they pay for the "free" clinics and the essential hospital care - clinics can't do it all or they would be called hospitals) and non-payers, there are the care providers who no longer work in the free market you and I work in, and there are the insurers who are the biggest beneficiaries of this policy because their services are mandatory. Just like now but with total oversight and micromanagement from the government who's oversight and micromanagement skills are comparable to none, and have never been better.

Click to expand...

Whatever. As long as rich people get richer and poor people suffer more, I'm happy.

Looking at manufacturing as a whole I don't think it will have much effect even if the fines were ten times the size.
Most large manufactures give health insurance to their employees already.

Even here in Michigan if you don't offer health insurance you will eventually lose your top guys to a shop that does.

I think the bigger shock wave will be at the service sector and hot dog cart level.
The other worry is that if people have less money in their pocket they won't buy as much made in USA stuff slowing down the economy overall.
Flip side is since this money will go into healthcare provided in the US, maybe people will buy one less TV from China and the money will stay in the country.

Bob

"The part that makes them "moronic" is that the money is paid into some govt slush fund, in which we must have faith that govt will have the cash to meet their obligations. And SS was conceived to be for WORKING people, probably medicare as well, but they have been morphed into yet another social welfare program where people who never paid IN can take money out."

There isn't a single thing in that part of the post above that is correct.

It's entirely, factually, wrong. Incorrect. Erronious. Not true.

Social security money goes directly from payroll taxes to the recipents. There's no government 'fund' where the money is kept.
There's no faith required that the recipents get their benefits because the taxes are paid by the companies and the workers.
Social security was always a social welfare program that was not means-tested and when started, paid benefits to folks who
never paid in.

Look if folks want to kill social security because it doesn't fit their world-view, that's fine. I can stop paying my taxes for that.
And whoever is collecting benefits, too bad.

But don't make up lies, or tell obviously incorrect stories about what it is, to justify killing it.

The roberts court will probably kill the ACA. This puts insurance companies back into the death spirals where they
price themselves out the markets. Eventually healthcare will simply be too expensive for the average american
to afford, and the consumers will simply stop buying.

There's all kinds of problems that happen when american workers simply stop going to the doctor when sick.
I doubt that will do anything good to the manufacturing sectors, and it will certainly tend to cut into the profits
of hospitals and insurance companies.

Now might be a good time to start naked shorting insurance company stocks.

Social security money goes directly from payroll taxes to the recipents. There's no government 'fund' where the money is kept.
There's no faith required that the recipents get their benefits because the taxes are paid by the companies and the workers.
Social security was always a social welfare program that was not means-tested and when started, paid benefits to folks who
never paid in.

Click to expand...

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, where did the surplus go?

Surplus? There ain't no surplus. We don't need no steenkin' surplus! It was designed to be pay as you go and toss the leftovers into the general fund. That lasts long enough that the people who made it law would be long dead. The end game for when expenses exceed income is to come up with painless magic money, or move the pea under another cup (raise the age of recipients, reduce benefits, break promises, change the game). Just like any game that has all the math problems of a Ponzi scheme.

John Welden said:

Whatever. As long as rich people get richer and poor people suffer more, I'm happy.

Click to expand...

Interesting philosophy. Would you still espouse this if suddenly you were switched from one side to the other as has happened to a lot of people. What about your friends and colleges?

Tom