WWTBAM Bored

More than 1 million extra people (over a year ago) are now voluntarily working part-time rather than full-time because Obamacare exchanges mean they are no longer tethered to a full-time job in order to have access to affordable insurance. According to this article, many of the people taking advantage of this option are young parents who are spending more time with their children.

Dean Baker wrote:The basic story is that most people had been dependent on their job for insurance for themselves and their families. To qualify for insurance most employers required that people worked full-time. This meant that many people who might have preferred to work part-time did not have that option because they needed to work full-time for insurance.

The ACA changed this by allowing workers to get insurance through exchanges. This meant that if people could afford to get by working fewer hours, they could then buy their own insurance on the exchanges. This option is especially important for workers who have a serious health condition or have a family member with a serious health condition. Before the passage of the ACA, the cost of insurance in the individual market would have been prohibitive.

The sharp rise in voluntary part-time employment over the last year seems to indicate that many workers are taking advantage of the opportunity to work fewer hours and get their insurance through the exchanges.

Obamacare works. --Bob

Fox Butterfield is that you?

Butterfield was noted for writing a sequence of articles[11] discussing the "paradox" of crime rates falling while the prison population grew due to tougher sentencing guidelines, without ever considering the possibility that the tougher sentencing guidelines may have reduced crime by causing criminals to be imprisoned.[6][12] "The Butterfield Effect" is often brought up by James Taranto in his column for the online editorial page of the Wall Street Journal called Best of the Web Today, typically bringing up a headline which displays the effect with the joke "Fox Butterfield, Is That You?".

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Fox Butterfield is that you?

Butterfield was noted for writing a sequence of articles[11] discussing the "paradox" of crime rates falling while the prison population grew due to tougher sentencing guidelines, without ever considering the possibility that the tougher sentencing guidelines may have reduced crime by causing criminals to be imprisoned.[6][12] "The Butterfield Effect" is often brought up by James Taranto in his column for the online editorial page of the Wall Street Journal called Best of the Web Today, typically bringing up a headline which displays the effect with the joke "Fox Butterfield, Is That You?".

Are you suggesting that the writer failed to distinguish between workers voluntarily taking part-time work and workers who want to work full-time but can't? If so, you're mistaken. --Bob

Tax payers shall be allowed a deduction from gross income for premiums paid for health insurance.

That's what economic freeedom looks like and it didn't take 2000 pages. Pretending PPACA was about economic freedom is insulting

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Tax payers shall be allowed a deduction from gross income for premiums paid for health insurance.

That's what economic freeedom looks like and it didn't take 2000 pages. Pretending PPACA was about economic freedom is insulting

Tell that to the million-plus people who can afford to spend less time working (many of them choosing instead to spend more time with young children) because they don't need a full-time job to get affordable health insurance. Tell it to the millions of young adults who can remain on their parents' policies while they enter the work force.

A deduction for health care premiums doesn't help people very much who don't pay much in taxes. And people who get health insurance through work already get to pay for it with before-tax dollars. Hell, there's even a cafeteria plan (section 125) available (for those who can afford it) to put away additional before-tax money to be used for health care expenses. That's what we had before. It didn't work very well. This is working better. Much better. --Bob

Deduction for premiums doesn't do much for people who don't pay much in taxes .

So they should have subsidies for their health insurance. How is that economic freedom?

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Deduction for premiums doesn't do much for people who don't pay much in taxes .

So they should have subsidies for their health insurance. How is that economic freedom?

They're not at risk of bankruptcy based on a single accident or illness outside their control. They and their families aren't at risk of death because no one will pay for medicines the rest of us take for granted. Instead, they can preserve their health, and with it, their ability to work. --Bob

Just wondering where your post about Jonathan Gruber went to. He counted on you to do what you are now doing. At least you could credit him.

Rube Goldberg machines work, you know.

That doesn't make them the most efficient way of doing things.

The OP simply states if people have access to afforable health care, they have greater economic freedom.

Well DUH!!!

That doesn't mean that Obamacare as provider of that freedom was the best way to accomplish that.

Jeemie wrote:Rube Goldberg machines work, you know.

That doesn't make them the most efficient way of doing things.

The OP simply states if people have access to afforable health care, they have greater economic freedom.

Well DUH!!!

That doesn't mean that Obamacare as provider of that freedom was the best way to accomplish that.

I don't think anyone, myself included, thinks that Obamacare was the best way to accomplish broader health insurance. Merely the best way that was politically feasible, and a vast improvement over the status quo ante. --Bob

Like Democracy the Affordable Health Care may not be perfect but compared to other options it is the best system avaiable.

Did you know for 2010 in Canada the government spent about $2200 per person on health car and individuals spent about another $1000 per person for things like medication, vision and dental. For the same time frame in the US the government spent almost $4000 per person on health care and an addirional $3100 was paid by private insurance.

macrae1234 wrote:Did you know for 2010 in Canada the government spent about $2200 per person on health car and individuals spent about another $1000 per person for things like medication, vision and dental. For the same time frame in the US the government spent almost $4000 per person on health care and an additional $3100 was paid by private insurance.

Please define how the U.S. government expenses were calculated.

Also, can you compare doctors' income in the U.S. vs. Canada?

Total health expenditure is the sum of public and private health expenditures as a ratio of total population.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... /table/T1/

I just updated numbers from this article
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024588/

macrae1234 wrote:Total health expenditure is the sum of public and private health expenditures as a ratio of total population.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... /table/T1/

I just updated numbers from this article
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024588/

Does your numerator then include all the health expenditures made by Canadians traveling to this country for health care they could not get in Canada? They would not be included in the denominator.

And another thought.

Total spending on a resource is a function of the availability of that resource. I believe North Korea has an even lower per capita spending on health care. Are you suggesting we should go to that model?

Does your numerator then include all the health expenditures made by Canadians traveling to this country for health care they could not get in Canada? They would not be included in the denominator.

Since they would be totally out of pocket they are not incuded as an expediture by either the government or private insurance they are not included in the denominator or the numerator
Numbers for Democratic Republic of Korea were not published by them however South Korea was around $1600. I was not suggesting adopting a model, other then the one currently in place, only that in the past the Government spent almost 25 per cent more money per person than Canada when over half the population between 18 and 64 had employer based health care. So it seems a bit ironic that people complain about providing subsidies to people to obtain affordable health care where they can have medication, wellness visits and much less expensive clinic vs emergengy visits when it seems that they were already providing extensive subsidies to someone.

BackInTex wrote:And another thought.

Total spending on a resource is a function of the availability of that resource. I believe North Korea has an even lower per capita spending on health care. Are you suggesting we should go to that model?

As of 2012, Canadian life expectancy was 82.5 years, whereas U.S. life expectancy was 79.8 years. So Canada gets better results for less money. --Bob

I would question trying to prove a point from just about any source of $$$ information. Neither health care providers nor insurers have any real clue that would reflect in consistent and accurate numbers - making any quotable figures an apples to oranges comparison.

I am blessed with having a spouse who is a complete bulldog when it comes to verifying and confirming things like heath care costs or insurance costs. (Verison wireless lives in fear of her phone calls too, but that's another matter). In a quarter century of having her watch over everything, I have seen the rare occasion where our health insurance coverage was accurate - certainly less than 10% of the time. For the most part, initial numbers are off and always wind up getting readjusted. The accuracy level of any initial insurance information is so low that we assume (correctly) that they are wrong. Usually, after much banter of facts and records back and forth, our health insurance will conclude with a highly technical "yep, you're right" and pay out what they should.

Hospitals are not much better. All billing is done by coding. Health care codes have so many different steps, sub-steps and sub-sub-steps that they will be interpreted differently by different people doing the coding. Coding also will vary if insurance is involved or not. And once the code is assigned no matter if it's accurate or not, getting it changed is like overturning a ruling on the field in an NFL game (without the benefit of instant replay). I had two identical surgical procedures done this past year a few months apart. Both took the exact amount of prep work. Both took the same amount of time. Both were done at the same hospital by the same doctor. You know where I am going here: Billing varied by thousands of dollars. It appears that one went by hospital guidelines and the other went more by insurance guidelines. Net result wan another "Ooops, we were wrong" reasoning.

So call me a cynic, but this is the source of all the numbers being quoted in either the pro or con of this issue. Tossing out 'officially published' numbers just doesn't do much for me if you're trying to prove a point.

We're probably still counting the 700 or so people who accidentally got cryogenically frozen last winter when it wqas so cold LOL Mac who left the ice and snow for the desert

[quote="jaybee"][/quote]

Jaybee obviously you don't have an insurance plan like mine with no deductable where we just pay the copay and let the medical facility and insurance company figure it out

macrae1234 wrote:Total health expenditure is the sum of public and private health expenditures as a ratio of total population.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... /table/T1/

I just updated numbers from this article
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024588/

Good. I knew that doctors in the U.S. make more than twice what those in Canada make. That NIH document confirms that.

What I question is what's considered "public health expenditures". All of Medicare?

Notes: Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965; by January 1970, all states but two were participating in Medicaid. Starting with 2009 NHE data, CMS revised the “Source of Funds” measure from a classification that was either public or private to one that is more program-based. CMS’s rational was that “financing arrangements have become more complex and the lines between public and private payers have become blurred as a single program may have federal, state, local, and private funding.”  As a result, the category “Other Third Party Payers” includes both public and private programs and also some programs that receive funds from both public and private sources, such as Workers’ Compensation, Worksite Health Care, and School Health.  “Other Pub. Ins. Programs” includes CHIP, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 
5.7 investment
10.6 other public health
15.5 medicaid
20.2 medicare
11.6 out of pocket
32.7 private health insurance

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:And another thought.

Total spending on a resource is a function of the availability of that resource. I believe North Korea has an even lower per capita spending on health care. Are you suggesting we should go to that model?

As of 2012, Canadian life expectancy was 82.5 years, whereas U.S. life expectancy was 79.8 years. So Canada gets better results for less money. --Bob

They're just more laid back than us- that's why they live longer.

Either that or all the beer preserves them.