The unofficial Obamacare thread...

[gourimoko]

I understand it isn't a true retirement fund even though many people treat it as such.

If we want a national retirement/investment fund, I have no problem with that - but we should not conflate what Social Security is and what is intended for with the need and purpose of a retirement fund. Because what I see, all too often, is someone saying "I know what Social Security is, and I understand it's not a retirement fund;" but in the same breath they'll contradict themselves by complaining that "I can get a better return from my own investments." Social Security is an insurance program. It protects one against old age, disability, and widowhood.

Like a responsible person I plan on covering myself in my old age through insurance, retirement accounts, and other personal investments.

Great!

But since you've said they'll prevent it from going insolvent by increasing taxes and delaying the age at which you can receive it, I've now done a complete 180 on this thing. I personally can't wait until they take more of my money because they certainly aren't getting enough already.

You realize where your money is going right? I mean, this argument is basically an argument against not only the social safety but taxation itself. Are you saying that you don't want to pay into the social safety net? You don't think it's your responsibility?

If you want my opinion, I think Social Security could use some modernization to provide greater benefits as I said in my previous post. I'm also against raising the retirement age - we should be doing everything possible to lower it.

But this doesn't mean I think we should dismantle the safety net - as this would damage the economy on the whole, and leave millions of seniors and the disabled out in the cold.

I'd like to see the figures on that and the ages pulled. I can certainly see the 60+ crowd and those approaching social security in full support. I don't know a single salaried working person in their 30's that likes social security taxes or believe they can't handle their own issues later in life through their decisions today.

Then you don't know many people.

When asked whether Social Security needed changes or it need to be replaced with something new (akin to Ryan's plan), 83% of respondents said they only wanted changes. 10% wanted a replacement.

When asked if Social Security was a failure, 72% said no (69% of Republicans said no). Persons 35-49 said no 73-25. Only persons 18-34 said "yes" 42-58, but still a 16 point majority favored the program.

Furthermore, 62% (33% say "no") of Americans say it is more important for the government to keep the promise of Social Security rather than having Americans give up benefits.

Social Security does a Fair to Excellent Job (79%); only 16% said it was poor or inadequate.

When asked which is more important, reducing the deficit and debt or maintaining the benefits of Social Security or Medicare, 60% of Americans say maintaining the programs, only 32% say reducing the deficit.

When asked what society should prioritize between reducing benefits or increasing taxes, 56% say we should avoid reducing benefits, only 33% say it's more important to avoid tax increases.

When asked if Social Security is good for the country or bad for the country, 79% say the program is good, only 15% say it is bad.

70% of Americans say that Social Security is Very to Extremely Important to their overall retirement, only 12% stated that it was of slight to negligible importance, with 13% stating it was of moderate importance.

59% of Americans support a sliding scale which would reduce benefits for the wealthiest, and provide greater benefits for the poorer and working class retirees.

51% of Americans oppose chained CPI while only 37% support it.

Sources:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 11-14, 2013. N=1,003 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. Feb. 15-18, 2013. N=1,003 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.
AP-GfK Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications. Aug. 16-20, 2012. N=1,006 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.9.
CNN/ORC Poll. Sept. 23-25, 2011. N=1,010 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
CNN/ORC Poll. Sept. 9-11, 2011. N=1,038 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
Pew Research Center. June 15-19, 2011. N=1,502 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.

I will feel like I've failed as a person if I need my child/children to financially provide for me in my old age. My parents are that way today...I don't think they've even ever let me pick up the dinner bill and I'm approaching 31. I understand there are people out there who need the help and weren't as lucky as my folks, but

This isn't a welfare program. It is an insurance program. No one gets Social Security retirement benefits that didn't fully pay into the system. This isn't some handout, it's old age insurance, that you pay for. So this entire argument about personal responsibility seems, with respect, ridiculous. You pay these taxes so long as you work on any dollar you make under $100k. The safety net portion is for the disabled only; but the widowers, children who've lost parents, and retirees - their benefits have been paid for!

So why are you literally equating this to a free lunch?

at the end of the day, I just don't think the government needs to be the ones managing these programs.

Why?

If they want to mandate it...Ok, they mandate it. But they suck at operating these things efficiently as evidenced by this Obamacare roll-out and the US Postal Service.

We're talking about Social Security and Medicare, not Obamacare and the USPS. Both SS and Medicare work wonderfully. Medicare is one of the best insurance programs in the world. Is it underfunded? Yes. But that's something that can be fixed and there are many avenues to not only stabilizing the program due to the baby boomer's retiring (and getting sick), but there are things we can do to expand the program.

Medicare-For-All or a Medicare buy-in (read: Obama's Public Option) are both permanent fixes for Medicare.

Social Security needs an adjustment due to the population boom after WWII. So it's time to pay our dues, not complain about them.

And BTW, this isn't a republican vs. democrat thing either.

You're right about that. Republican voters wildly support Social Security and Medicare.

The gov't just sucks at running these programs because it comes at it from a non-impacted/non business centric position.

That's not a reason, that's just an unfounded statement. Again, Social Security has never collapsed, become insolvent, or refused to pay a debt obligation. Why? Because doing so would be a violation of the 14th Amendment, and a default on the full faith and credit of the United States. Social Security, being a government program, promises that those benefits will be paid come hell or high water.

No company, pension fund, or 401(k) investment can back that promise. None. That is the point. Social Security isn't your 401(k), it's not designed to be. It is designed to give you the minimum essential amount to survive, to make sure that rent is paid, and food is on the table every month. You can live on Social Security, but it is not, and never has been intended to be, a replacement retirement fund.

While UPS and FedEX continue to run circles around our Postal Service, the government is largely content with watching 3/4th's of our Post Offices operate at a loss.

I thought we were talking about Social Security?

Since you continue to mention UPS and FedEx, and I hear this argument a lot, you do understand that UPS and FedEx rely on the United States Postal Service, right? FedEx uses USPS for 60% of their deliveries, and the USPS is their #1 client, by far. FedEx would go out of business overnight if the USPS ceased it's operations.

UPS is fairly different, however, the USPS is it's 11th largest client, and UPS relies on the USPS for almost 1/3rd of it's total deliveries. While UPS could survive without the USPS, it would not be advantageous for the company.

But again, I see these comparisons quite often, and they stem from a deep misunderstanding of the relationship between UPS, FedEx and the USPS. They are not competitors. Nor are they even in the same business.

There is no way possible for UPS or FedEx to replace the USPS. The Postal Service is delivers 160 billion parcels per year (worldwide), compared to UPS and FedEx's 6.5 billion per year (and remember, the USPS will handle between 30-60% of those parcels). They employ between 500-750,000 workers and handle 40% of all the mail delivers on the planet.

The "efficiencies" you see with respect to UPS and FedEx are because they, smartly, have partnered with USPS as a back-end; UPS has kept it's employees benefits and pay below market average (is that what we want?); and they have a higher price overall that USPS per parcel.

Also, their revenues are not dictated by a body that is annually trying to destroy them as a company. Obama and the Republicans have cut the USPS by 30%, yet they continue to handle 40% of the mail parcels on Earth.. hmm..

So let's just get something straight. The Post Office handles 160 billion parcels or 24x what UPS and FedEx deliver (combined, not counting the fact that they use the USPS for a large portion of their delivers). It has a total annual cost of business equaling ~$80Bn (2012) with annual revenues of $65Bn, hence a $15Bn short-fall annually. Has that always been the case? No. In 2008, obviously, revenues fell by ~$10Bn annually as a result of the economic collapse.

So is the USPS just some failed government program?

Of course not. Is it underfunded? Considering that once the economy recovers, it will likely still float somewhat in the red annually, yes it is underfunded. By how much? Around $5Bn/yr.

Is it worth $5 billion to maintain the USPS, that by the way, employs on average 625,000 career workers with good pay, pensions, 401(k)s and benefits? The USPS that provides for 40% of the mail volume of the World, that delivers almost all of the mail in the United States for pennies on the dollar? The national postal service that we've had since 1792?

I'd say so.

There were a lot of people shouting from the roof-tops that the government would botch this launch and that the program itself wouldn't be sustainable based on the figures the administration was pushing (amount of young people that would have to enter the exchange, the costs of running the program, the debate of taking the penalty vs. buying insurance). Obviously there's a long way to go to see how this all plays out, but I'm betting against the gov't everytime when it comes to managing a program as robust as this.

Now we're back to Obamacare.. K..

Well, we'll see. As I've stated, I'm opposed to Obamacare. I think the website has been an abysmal failure. But you realize the website is literally 1/20th of the Affordable Care Act, right? I mean.. you don't need the website to get on the exchange. The website isn't what governs the insurance changes or allows you to cover your kids until they're 26, or provides insurance for those with preexisting conditions. It's not the website that expanded Medicaid to everyone not able to afford health insurance or not being provided insurance through their employer. And it's not the website that guarantees women can get contraceptives, or that gay couples won't be discriminated against. It's not the website that provides a Patient's Bill of Rights that protects you from junk insurance or irresponsible medical practices.

So let's just keep this in perspective. In 10 years time, no one will remember or care about this website glitch.

My opinion is by 2016, Hillary Clinton is distancing herself from Obamacare as much as possible and the Republican Party is using it as a rallying call against the Democratic Party.

You are saying that Clinton will distance herself from her lifelong ambition, from her lifelong goal of universal health care? Have you seen 1 single Clinton speech this year? She's been it's most vocal advocate.

Can't believe you'd think this... Clinton will go out of her way, once elected, to expand Obamacare into true universal health care. That is a fact.

I have a family friend that works in Internet Consulting and the Government is his biggest client. He's essentially been living in Washington the last month and he says the problems are bigger than anyone even imagines at this point. He says the whole thing is a gigantic mess and it's going to take a long time to sort through. His position is the current problem is only getting started...they aren't anywhere close to a fix. And whatever they budgeted for the infrastructure of this program is peanuts compared to where it ends up.

I find everything you've just said rather hard to believe.

The website doesn't actually do much. It provides a base calculation, based on your insurance application, and then processes that on the backend server. Any competent technology firm with enough experience and capital could have rolled this out. The problem was that the technology firm retained had no experience with a project of this magnitude. Looking at the technology used, they would have been fine if they'd retained a major company to write this software, including Google (my choice), Facebook (second choice), Oracle (third choice), or Microsoft (fourth choice).

It was a monumental mistake on the part of Kathleen Sebelius and, as Max pointed out, President Obama. But saying that there is some insurmountable technological problem here makes no sense. It's not complicated. It's simply a matter of network infrastructure and scalable and efficient programming.

In essence, the site would work fine if there were 1 person accessing it every couple of seconds. The problem is that the massive amounts of people (and mostly bots) making requests has effectively turned into a natural distributed denial-of-service attack, and the system was not thoroughly designed to handle this many requests. There are many technical reasons for this that I could go into if you like, but suffice it to say, there was a disconnect with regards to the development team, the networking team, the project management, and the HHS department. They did not create a system that could handle many millions of unique requests per second.

 

[RealKingofCleve]

Just want to quickly respond to a small part of Gour's post about the polling: 59% of Americans support a sliding scale which would reduce benefits for the wealthiest, and provide greater benefits for the poorer and working class retirees. This is a little ridiculous. I understand most people always think the rich should pay more, maybe we can get a rich tax a 70% like France! But rich people have paid into social security the same as working Americans, its time to stop going to the richie rich card everytime there is a financing problem.

 

[CleveRocks]

Just want to quickly respond to a small part of Gour's post about the polling: 59% of Americans support a sliding scale which would reduce benefits for the wealthiest, and provide greater benefits for the poorer and working class retirees. This is a little ridiculous. I understand most people always think the rich should pay more, maybe we can get a rich tax a 70% like France! But rich people have paid into social security the same as working Americans, its time to stop going to the richie rich card everytime there is a financing problem.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic

-Ben Franklin-

 

[gourimoko]

Just want to quickly respond to a small part of Gour's post about the polling: 59% of Americans support a sliding scale which would reduce benefits for the wealthiest, and provide greater benefits for the poorer and working class retirees. This is a little ridiculous. I understand most people always think the rich should pay more, maybe we can get a rich tax a 70% like France! But rich people have paid into social security the same as working Americans, its time to stop going to the richie rich card everytime there is a financing problem.

Both of these statements are logically invalid. First, no one is talking about creating a socialist system and no one is talking about having a 70% tax. Secondly, the rich do not pay as much into Social Security as every else as there is a $96k cap on the tax itself. Payroll taxes, since they are capped and only relate to earned income and not capital gains are highly regressive, not progressive, therefore it is false to state that the rich pay more (as a percentage of their income) as the middle class does - as the reverse is true.

RealKing, this is like the 5th or 6th time you've stated something that was based on misinformation. I know you mean well, and that's why I'm even mentioning it. Don't take my word for it -- do your own research. Is the Social Security tax progressive or regressive? Who pays more, the wealthiest or the poorest?

Also, remember what the purpose of Social Security is.. It is an insurance against old age and destitution. The wealthiest Americans are highly unlikely to ever become destitute, therefore, why should they collect as much as someone who depends on the program.

In essence, if someone who has $250,000 annually in stock dividends has reached retirement age, and SS entitles them to $1,250/mo in income. Should they still collect the same amount, whereas, if the value were scaled based on pre-benefit income, someone who was poor might receive an additional $250/mo?

If you want my answer, it's no. Why? Because I agree with you, they've paid into it, and it is an old age insurance - just because you're rich, doesn't mean you aren't old. But that's a much better argument than the slippery slope one, or quoting Ben Franklin 200+ years out of context as if he were Jesus Christ.

 

[RealKingofCleve]

Both of these statements are logically invalid. First, no one is talking about creating a socialist system and no one is talking about having a 70% tax. Secondly, the rich do not pay as much into Social Security as every else as there is a $96k cap on the tax itself. Payroll taxes, since they are capped and only relate to earned income and not capital gains are highly regressive, not progressive, therefore it is false to state that the rich pay more (as a percentage of their income) as the middle class does - as the reverse is true.

RealKing, this is like the 5th or 6th time you've stated something that was based on misinformation. I know you mean well, and that's why I'm even mentioning it. Don't take my word for it -- do your own research. Is the Social Security tax progressive or regressive? Who pays more, the wealthiest or the poorest?

Also, remember what the purpose of Social Security is.. It is an insurance against old age and destitution. The wealthiest Americans are highly unlikely to ever become destitute, therefore, why should they collect as much as someone who depends on the program.

In essence, if someone who has $250,000 annually in stock dividends has reached retirement age, and SS entitles them to $1,250/mo in income. Should they still collect the same amount, whereas, if the value were scaled based on pre-benefit income, someone who was poor might receive an additional $250/mo?

If you want my answer, it's no. Why? Because I agree with you, they've paid into it, and it is an old age insurance - just because you're rich, doesn't mean you aren't old. But that's a much better argument than the slippery slope one, or quoting Ben Franklin 200+ years out of context as if he were Jesus Christ.

When did I say they pay more than everyone else in social security taxes? I said they have paid in just the same as everybody else and are entitled to receive the benefits. My point was, do you think Americans responding to that poll are thinking oh this is insurance against destituion so rich people could lose most of their investment value, or are they thinking, oh the rich should continue paying and not receive what they paid in because rich people dont need it? I was just throwing that rich tax in there because any time you can get more from rich people or give less to rich people its popular.

 

[gourimoko]

When did I say they pay more than everyone else in social security taxes?

Right here...

This is a little ridiculous. I understand most people always think the rich should pay more, maybe we can get a rich tax a 70% like France!

If that's not what you meant, that's sure how it came off.

 

[The Oi]

I've had two friends get notification that they're being dropped from their plans next year because their plans don't satisfy requirements established by Obamacare. Anyone else getting this? Also, exactly how is this being decided? Are they just going to be left in the lurch and forced to get new plans? How do I know this won't happen to me?

Do we think Obama was lying when he said we could keep our healthcare plans or just ignorant? The misinformation this guy circulated is absolutely incredible.

This has started off hard on the wrong foot. Has anything gone right with this?

 

[RealKingofCleve]

Right here...



If that's not what you meant, that's sure how it came off.

My last line in that post was: But rich people have paid into social security the same as working Americans.

The France line was just me saying anytime rich people have income taken away whether its increased taxes or decreased ss benefits, it sounds good to the majority of Americans.

 

[billmac91]

If we want a national retirement/investment fund, I have no problem with that - but we should not conflate what Social Security is and what is intended for with the need and purpose of a retirement fund. Because what I see, all too often, is someone saying "I know what Social Security is, and I understand it's not a retirement fund;" but in the same breath they'll contradict themselves by complaining that "I can get a better return from my own investments." Social Security is an insurance program. It protects one against old age, disability, and widowhood.

I've seen your explanation on what SS is and isn't well before my original post, so again, I understand SS is not a retirement fund. But my point was that a lot of people treat SS as their retirement funds....and they do. Like, a ton of people. Which still creates huge issues when someone depending on SS doesn't have enough, especially if they end up having severe medical issues.

It seems to me that if one is looking to purchase an insurance policy, one's rate should reflect the risk they carry to use said policy. That being said we would expect "young and healthy" individuals to have a lower rate for health insurance, since their risk is far lower. So why is it that so many of my young and healthy patients are reporting drastic increases in the cost of their health insurance, by increased premiums, higher deductibles, and higher copays? If I drive safely my car insurance premium is reduced. If I floss and don't get cavities my dental insurance premiums decrease. And if I purchase smoke alarms and a security system my home owners insurance is decreased. So why are young and health conscious individuals being punished in the health insurance arena. Seems that an open market to healthcare would have been a better choice for the revolution.

Great!



You realize where your money is going right? I mean, this argument is basically an argument against not only the social safety but taxation itself. Are you saying that you don't want to pay into the social safety net? You don't think it's your responsibility?

If you want my opinion, I think Social Security could use some modernization to provide greater benefits as I said in my previous post. I'm also against raising the retirement age - we should be doing everything possible to lower it.

But this doesn't mean I think we should dismantle the safety net - as this would damage the economy on the whole, and leave millions of seniors and the disabled out in the cold.

First, I think it's bullshit to move the goalposts on retirement age. I understand our life expectancy is arguably longer than those currently on SS, but in fairness, we should get SS at the same age as all of those before us. I mean, just because the government has done a poor job of running it, and it will be insolvent by 2037 if changes aren't made, isn't the taxpayers fault. We should get the same benefits as those before us.

On a sidenote, because this thread is about Obamacare after all and somehow it has shifted to SS, projections have come out that say if we created a $5 billion federal account a year for pre-existing conditions, we could service those people with that account without needing healthy young people to pay higher preminums to cover them. $5 billion is a drop in the bucket of our budget....seems more logical to pass that, which Americans would readily agree too, than jacking up the working Americans cost of insurance.

Then you don't know many people.

When asked whether Social Security needed changes or it need to be replaced with something new (akin to Ryan's plan), 83% of respondents said they only wanted changes. 10% wanted a replacement.

When asked if Social Security was a failure, 72% said no (69% of Republicans said no). Persons 35-49 said no 73-25. Only persons 18-34 said "yes" 42-58, but still a 16 point majority favored the program.

Furthermore, 62% (33% say "no") of Americans say it is more important for the government to keep the promise of Social Security rather than having Americans give up benefits.

Social Security does a Fair to Excellent Job (79%); only 16% said it was poor or inadequate.

When asked which is more important, reducing the deficit and debt or maintaining the benefits of Social Security or Medicare, 60% of Americans say maintaining the programs, only 32% say reducing the deficit.

When asked what society should prioritize between reducing benefits or increasing taxes, 56% say we should avoid reducing benefits, only 33% say it's more important to avoid tax increases.

When asked if Social Security is good for the country or bad for the country, 79% say the program is good, only 15% say it is bad.

70% of Americans say that Social Security is Very to Extremely Important to their overall retirement, only 12% stated that it was of slight to negligible importance, with 13% stating it was of moderate importance.

59% of Americans support a sliding scale which would reduce benefits for the wealthiest, and provide greater benefits for the poorer and working class retirees.

51% of Americans oppose chained CPI while only 37% support it.

Sources:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 11-14, 2013. N=1,003 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. Feb. 15-18, 2013. N=1,003 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.
AP-GfK Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications. Aug. 16-20, 2012. N=1,006 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.9.
CNN/ORC Poll. Sept. 23-25, 2011. N=1,010 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
CNN/ORC Poll. Sept. 9-11, 2011. N=1,038 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
Pew Research Center. June 15-19, 2011. N=1,502 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.

I still haven't seen you link this study. Not that I don't trust you, and I see the sources, but it'd be great to read in all of it's context. I also think the study is massively different if you poll the same 35-49 year old survey takers and tell them SS has increased the age in which you can receive it by 2-3 years. Again, I think the study needs to be linked, and secondly, the program isn't going to be the same for our generation so that needs to be on the table.

This isn't a welfare program. It is an insurance program. No one gets Social Security retirement benefits that didn't fully pay into the system. This isn't some handout, it's old age insurance, that you pay for. So this entire argument about personal responsibility seems, with respect, ridiculous. You pay these taxes so long as you work on any dollar you make under $100k. The safety net portion is for the disabled only; but the widowers, children who've lost parents, and retirees - their benefits have been paid for!

So why are you literally equating this to a free lunch?

I'm not equating it to a free lunch. I'm equating it to a forced program on Americans where we have to give dollars to the government who can't manage a budget and are trillions in debt. I'd feel much more comfortable investing the dollars the governemnt takes out of my paycheck by myself. I don't personally feel like they need to be raiding my paycheck for me. And I don't trust them, and rightfully so knowing the program needs a massive overhaul to stay solvent, to invest my money smartly and effectively. And I sure as hell don't think they should be borrowing dollars from SS for other needs. It isn't their money for starters, and we're in massive debt. So they shouldn't even look at borrowing against it....

Why?



We're talking about Social Security and Medicare, not Obamacare and the USPS. Both SS and Medicare work wonderfully. Medicare is one of the best insurance programs in the world. Is it underfunded? Yes. But that's something that can be fixed and there are many avenues to not only stabilizing the program due to the baby boomer's retiring (and getting sick), but there are things we can do to expand the program.

Medicare-For-All or a Medicare buy-in (read: Obama's Public Option) are both permanent fixes for Medicare.

Yeah...Medicare is awesome dude. That's why my mom, forced onto Medicare because GE pushes it's clients 64 and older to this program instead of private insurance after the passing of Obamacare, just lost her rheumatoid arthritis doctor. Her doctor said she is not accepting any more Medicare patients but she could recommend a different doctor going forward. Two thumbs up for Medicare!!!

Social Security needs an adjustment due to the population boom after WWII. So it's time to pay our dues, not complain about them.



You're right about that. Republican voters wildly support Social Security and Medicare.



That's not a reason, that's just an unfounded statement. Again, Social Security has never collapsed, become insolvent, or refused to pay a debt obligation. Why? Because doing so would be a violation of the 14th Amendment, and a default on the full faith and credit of the United States. Social Security, being a government program, promises that those benefits will be paid come hell or high water.

No company, pension fund, or 401(k) investment can back that promise. None. That is the point. Social Security isn't your 401(k), it's not designed to be. It is designed to give you the minimum essential amount to survive, to make sure that rent is paid, and food is on the table every month. You can live on Social Security, but it is not, and never has been intended to be, a replacement retirement fund.

I mean, c'mon man, read that sentence. And you wonder why too many Americans treat it as their sole retirement.

I thought we were talking about Social Security?

We were talking about Obamacare, but for some reason you switched entire argument to SS, but OK.

Since you continue to mention UPS and FedEx, and I hear this argument a lot, you do understand that UPS and FedEx rely on the United States Postal Service, right? FedEx uses USPS for 60% of their deliveries, and the USPS is their #1 client, by far. FedEx would go out of business overnight if the USPS ceased it's operations.

I did not know that, but since you mention it, I'm not surprised. Why am I not shocked two first class corporations have found terrific ways of turning massive profits? So while 3/4ths of our Postal Offices operate at a loss, UPS and FedEx make huge amounts of money? Is this supposed to make our government look good? That while our Postal Service continues to be a tax payer drain, it helps UPS and FedEx remain insanely profitable? Sweet man! That's fantastic! I'm glad my tax money can help large corporations get rich. I only wish I owned more of their stock.

Facetiousness aside, a smart business savvy organization finds a way to make the USPS hugely profitable. There's a reason our government isn't able to figure it out, and it's mostly because of how inefficient they are. If it was their own personal dollars tied up in it, I'm sure they'd quickly figure out a better solution though.

UPS is fairly different, however, the USPS is it's 11th largest client, and UPS relies on the USPS for almost 1/3rd of it's total deliveries. While UPS could survive without the USPS, it would not be advantageous for the company.

But again, I see these comparisons quite often, and they stem from a deep misunderstanding of the relationship between UPS, FedEx and the USPS. They are not competitors. Nor are they even in the same business.

There is no way possible for UPS or FedEx to replace the USPS. The Postal Service is delivers 160 billion parcels per year (worldwide), compared to UPS and FedEx's 6.5 billion per year (and remember, the USPS will handle between 30-60% of those parcels). They employ between 500-750,000 workers and handle 40% of all the mail delivers on the planet.

The "efficiencies" you see with respect to UPS and FedEx are because they, smartly, have partnered with USPS as a back-end; UPS has kept it's employees benefits and pay below market average (is that what we want?); and they have a higher price overall that USPS per parcel.

Also, their revenues are not dictated by a body that is annually trying to destroy them as a company. Obama and the Republicans have cut the USPS by 30%, yet they continue to handle 40% of the mail parcels on Earth.. hmm..

So let's just get something straight. The Post Office handles 160 billion parcels or 24x what UPS and FedEx deliver (combined, not counting the fact that they use the USPS for a large portion of their delivers). It has a total annual cost of business equaling ~$80Bn (2012) with annual revenues of $65Bn, hence a $15Bn short-fall annually. Has that always been the case? No. In 2008, obviously, revenues fell by ~$10Bn annually as a result of the economic collapse.

So is the USPS just some failed government program?

Of course not. Is it underfunded? Considering that once the economy recovers, it will likely still float somewhat in the red annually, yes it is underfunded. By how much? Around $5Bn/yr.

The only thing I see when I read your explanation is that two very successful corporations have found different ways to profit off of the USPS. If the government was a private company, the USPS would be a highly profitable division. Since the giverment runs it, they continue to not make money. Call it underfunding all you want, it's a program that loses money.

Is it worth $5 billion to maintain the USPS, that by the way, employs on average 625,000 career workers with good pay, pensions, 401(k)s and benefits? The USPS that provides for 40% of the mail volume of the World, that delivers almost all of the mail in the United States for pennies on the dollar? The national postal service that we've had since 1792?

They should figure out a way to prevent 3/4 ths of their post offices from operating at a loss. A good company would do that, why can't they? And if they're losing money, than yes, they should find ways to be more efficient including removing benefits and jobs...if that would make them more profitable. Run the USPS like a business. FedEx and UPS are making a killing...the USPS should be too. This isn't that complicated.

I'd say so.



Now we're back to Obamacare.. K..

Well, we'll see. As I've stated, I'm opposed to Obamacare. I think the website has been an abysmal failure. But you realize the website is literally 1/20th of the Affordable Care Act, right? I mean.. you don't need the website to get on the exchange. The website isn't what governs the insurance changes or allows you to cover your kids until they're 26, or provides insurance for those with preexisting conditions. It's not the website that expanded Medicaid to everyone not able to afford health insurance or not being provided insurance through their employer. And it's not the website that guarantees women can get contraceptives, or that gay couples won't be discriminated against. It's not the website that provides a Patient's Bill of Rights that protects you from junk insurance or irresponsible medical practices.

So let's just keep this in perspective. In 10 years time, no one will remember or care about this website glitch.

I don't really get it to be honest. While in 10 years no one will remember the website was a complete disaster at launch, those who give a shit will remember that we contracted out this website for a cost of around $600 million but will spend 3 x's, 4 x's, maybe 5 x's that much? I don't know....name the cost. We'll end up spending it. And it's a microcosm of what happens when you let the government operate a venture this big. They suck at it. But to be fair, when the government goes after CGI to recoup monies spent and the damages caused by this glitch, I'll be the first to eat crow. Show me the articles of CGI paying penalties for not providing a quality product or hitting contracted deadlines. I'm sure we're aggressively pursuing all courses of action against CGI for this utter disaster, right?

You are saying that Clinton will distance herself from her lifelong ambition, from her lifelong goal of universal health care? Have you seen 1 single Clinton speech this year? She's been it's most vocal advocate.

Can't believe you'd think this... Clinton will go out of her way, once elected, to expand Obamacare into true universal health care. That is a fact.



I find everything you've just said rather hard to believe.

The website doesn't actually do much. It provides a base calculation, based on your insurance application, and then processes that on the backend server. Any competent technology firm with enough experience and capital could have rolled this out. The problem was that the technology firm retained had no experience with a project of this magnitude. Looking at the technology used, they would have been fine if they'd retained a major company to write this software, including Google (my choice), Facebook (second choice), Oracle (third choice), or Microsoft (fourth choice).

It was a monumental mistake on the part of Kathleen Sebelius and, as Max pointed out, President Obama. But saying that there is some insurmountable technological problem here makes no sense. It's not complicated. It's simply a matter of network infrastructure and scalable and efficient programming.

In essence, the site would work fine if there were 1 person accessing it every couple of seconds. The problem is that the massive amounts of people (and mostly bots) making requests has effectively turned into a natural distributed denial-of-service attack, and the system was not thoroughly designed to handle this many requests. There are many technical reasons for this that I could go into if you like, but suffice it to say, there was a disconnect with regards to the development team, the networking team, the project management, and the HHS department. They did not create a system that could handle many millions of unique requests per second.

I think you're grossly underestimating the amount of hard-working democrats that are about to get hit with a huge sticker shock. My company is headquartered in California. All I'm hearing is complaints about increased premiums and deductibles from people out on the west coast. I'm not sure how they thought Obamacare was going to be paid for, but it's starting to set in. I mentioned it before, but our CEO took a very subliminal shot at Obama on our last company-wide communications meeting. Told all salaried employees to get ready for huge increases in insurance costs. It's easy to say "fuck you rich CEO, you just hate Obama!!!11!!!1", until you actually look at the plans when open enrollment starts and you realize your costs have increased 2-fold.

I do think there is a strong possibility Hillary distances herself from Obamacare, especially if it is hated. I mean, just look at all of the people bitching about coverage they're being charged for that they'll never need. One of the most liberal friends I have was on Facebook last week bitching about how the coverage he would have to buy is including care for when he gives birth to a baby. Big Obama supporter, not happy with Obamacare....I think there will be more people like that than you are assuming. But time will tell....

I also liked this message from a high-school buddy of mine that is now a doctor in Rhode Island:

It seems to me that if one is looking to purchase an insurance policy, one's rate should reflect the risk they carry to use said policy. That being said we would expect "young and healthy" individuals to have a lower rate for health insurance, since their risk is far lower. So why is it that so many of my young and healthy patients are reporting drastic increases in the cost of their health insurance, by increased premiums, higher deductibles, and higher copays? If I drive safely my car insurance premium is reduced. If I floss and don't get cavities my dental insurance premiums decrease. And if I purchase smoke alarms and a security system my home owners insurance is decreased. So why are young and health conscious individuals being punished in the health insurance arena. Seems that an open market to healthcare would have been a better choice for the revolution.

 

[gourimoko]

I've seen your explanation on what SS is and isn't well before my original post, so again, I understand SS is not a retirement fund. But my point was that a lot of people treat SS as their retirement funds....and they do. Like, a ton of people. Which still creates huge issues when someone depending on SS doesn't have enough, especially if they end up having severe medical issues.

How people perceive something and what that something actually is are two different things. Either way, people love Social Security and three quarters or more of the population do not want to radically change the program. I mean, what more needs to be said?

First, I think it's bullshit to move the goalposts on retirement age. I understand our life expectancy is arguably longer than those currently on SS, but in fairness, we should get SS at the same age as all of those before us. I mean, just because the government has done a poor job of running it, and it will be insolvent by 2037 if changes aren't made, isn't the taxpayers fault. We should get the same benefits as those before us.

We should have better benefits than those before us, with a lower retirement age.

On a sidenote, because this thread is about Obamacare after all and somehow it has shifted to SS,

In response to me saying that Social Security and Medicare are both examples of government programs that are working well and are beloved by the population, you stated:

Is social security really an example you want to use? It's going to be insolvement by 2037 unless they make dramatic overhauls to the program. I'd say social security is poorly run and another program Americans shouldn't have to pay into. I'd gladly take back my SS taxes and invest them how I see fit. I'm fully capable of planning out my life after my working years.

I don't think I'm out of line when I say the working Anerican would prefer not paying into SS. They'd rather keep those funds to themselves and invest privately.

You also brought up UPS and FedEx, in an attempt to say that the USPS is poorly operated.

projections have come out that say if we created a $5 billion federal account a year for pre-existing conditions, we could service those people with that account without needing healthy young people to pay higher preminums to cover them. $5 billion is a drop in the bucket of our budget....seems more logical to pass that, which Americans would readily agree too, than jacking up the working Americans cost of insurance.

:chuckles:

Uhh..Bill.. We already passed that.. It's called the Affordable Care Act. We set up exactly what you're describing, a $5 billion dollar fund to cover people with pre-existing conditions prior to the individual mandate taking effect from 2010 to 2014. The fund ran out of money in it's first year of operation. The mandate is required to sustain that type of coverage. This isn't according to the government - it's according to the health insurance (private) industry.

Entitlements: The $5 billion fund set up by ObamaCare to cover new high-risk insurance pools in each state from pre-existing conditions is already running out of money — a full year before projections.
So why should anyone believe ObamaCare's overall cost projections are any more accurate?
Panicked to control mushrooming costs in its pre-existing conditions insurance plan, or PCIP, the Health and Human Services Department is having to curtail benefits to cancer patients, among others.
It's a bad omen for the larger plan.
ObamaCare funded the PCIP with $5 billion to cover patients with pre-existing conditions from 2010 to 2014. Less than a third of the people HHS projected would enroll in the plan actually signed up for the coverage.
Yet despite the low enrollment, the plan is broke. In fact, it started running out of money at the beginning of this year, which means it busted its budget a full year ahead of projections.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-omen-for-rest-of-obamacare.htm#ixzz2jeErupGA

So much for the $5bn fund..

I still haven't seen you link this study. Not that I don't trust you, and I see the sources, but it'd be great to read in all of it's context. I also think the study is massively different if you poll the same 35-49 year old survey takers and tell them SS has increased the age in which you can receive it by 2-3 years. Again, I think the study needs to be linked, and secondly, the program isn't going to be the same for our generation so that needs to be on the table.

First off, these aren't studies they are public opinion polls. Second off, I've posted 5 polls and sourced them, each is publicly available. Lastly, what you are asking for are called cross-tabs, and polling firms charge to see that data, it is rarely free - so if you'd like you can go pay for it.

But what you are doing is looking a scientific sample in the face, and refusing to believe it on supposition alone; which frankly, I find disturbing. How can we have a reasonable conversation if you won't even acknowledge factual evidence presented in the premise of my argument?

I'm not equating it to a free lunch.

Sure you are.

I will feel like I've failed as a person if I need my child/children to financially provide for me in my old age. My parents are that way today...I don't think they've even ever let me pick up the dinner bill and I'm approaching 31.

I'm equating it to a forced program on Americans where we have to give dollars to the government who can't manage a budget and are trillions in debt.

I don't want to pay for the American global hegemony. I don't want to pay for wars against my own people. I don't want to pay for banks to get bailed out that robbed me blind. I don't want to pay taxes just to line the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex.

What are my options?

None, right? It's called taxation. We don't always agree with what the government does, or how it operates, but taxation is a power of the government - granted by the People, so that it might function and maintain society. Social Security is a program that the vast majority of the population wants to keep. So when you say you're being forced to pay, you can say that about any tax for a program that you personally disagree with.

I'd feel much more comfortable investing the dollars the governemnt takes out of my paycheck by myself.

But I wouldn't feel more comfortable with the average Joe investing his own wealth. Not at all. Because Average Joe will take the money and burn it, get swindled out of it, or have a bankster steal it. Social Security is the SAFETY NET THAT PROTECTS YOU FROM YOURSELF. THAT'S THE POINT! It's not an investment fund, it's not a retirement fund. Stop saying "I'd be more comfortable managing my own investments," it's not an investment! It's an insurance program.

You want me to stop mentioning this point, but you keep referring to it as an investment program - it's not!

I don't personally feel like they need to be raiding my paycheck for me.

You can say that about any tax.

And I don't trust them, and rightfully so knowing the program needs a massive overhaul to stay solvent, to invest my money smartly and effectively.

See.. there you go again. (hey: it's not an investment program).

And it doesn't need a "massive overhaul." It needs to be funded.

Why?? Why does it need to be funded?

Well.. because your parents were born, and guess what -- they're retiring. So since your parents, and my parents will be gladly taking their social security checks, we've got to pay for it. But why didn't their parents pay for it? Because of the unexpected population boom after World War II. A boom that could not have been predicted, and hasn't happened since.

Medicare needs an overhaul - not Social Security.

And I sure as hell don't think they should be borrowing dollars from SS for other needs. It isn't their money for starters, and we're in massive debt. So they shouldn't even look at borrowing against it....

The government? They do it all the time, and you're right, they shouldn't be touching it. You realize had they never borrowed against Social Security, we'd only need a very slight 10-year adjustment to fund the entire Baby Boomer retirement?

Yeah...Medicare is awesome dude. That's why my mom, forced onto Medicare because GE pushes it's clients 64 and older to this program instead of private insurance after the passing of Obamacare, just lost her rheumatoid arthritis doctor. Her doctor said she is not accepting any more Medicare patients but she could recommend a different doctor going forward. Two thumbs up for Medicare!!!

Anecdotes can only take an argument so far.. If you'd like to know what the rest of the nation thinks..

In Medicare Versus Private Insurance: Rhetoric and Reality, Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis and colleagues Cathy Schoen, Michelle Doty, and Katie Tenney present new evidence on how well Medicare works for beneficiaries compared with how well private insurance works for persons under age 65. Their analysis is based on data gathered by Princeton Survey Research Associates from April through July 2001. Interviews were conducted with a random national sample of 3,457 adults age 19 and older.

In their report, Davis and coauthors find that elderly Medicare beneficiaries are more likely than enrollees in employer-sponsored plans to rate their health insurance as excellent (32% vs. 20%) and less likely to report negative experiences with their insurance plans (43% vs. 61%). Medicare beneficiaries are also less likely than those with private insurance to go without needed care owing to costs (18% vs. 22%). The survey also finds that elderly Medicare beneficiaries are more likely to report being very satisfied with the care they received compared with those with private insurance (62% vs. 51%).

As the chart below illustrates, private insurance holders are actually less satisfied with health care and more concerned about costs than Medicare beneficiaries. The fact that Medicare was systematically more likely than employer coverage to be rated as excellent across income and health status categories challenges the received wisdom that Medicare is "out of date," and should "catch up" with the private insurance model. "Would-be Medicare reformers need to be cautious if they want to make the program more like the private sector," the authors conclude.

The World Health Organization ranks Medicare as one of the best national health programs on Earth; while the same organization ranks the entire health care system in the United States (for persons 19-64) as the most expensive in the industrialized world, while being in the lower echelon with regards to access.

I mean, c'mon man, read that sentence. And you wonder why too many Americans treat it as their sole retirement.

It's because they know that it will be there. They know it.

I mean, seriously, should it not be there? What's your point, really?

I don't even get why we'd want to do away with Social Security, wtf would be the advantages to that?

We were talking about Obamacare, but for some reason you switched entire argument to SS, but OK.

Read above. I mentioned Social Security and Medicare in a single sentence, and then you posted a retort attacking the very concept of the programs from a purely ideological standpoint. You did the same with regards to the Postal Service.

Just seems like you have a strongly ideological belief, and facts be damned if they don't conform to your worldview.

But to put it to rest, Social Security works and it is beloved. Medicare works, is underfunded, but still, it is beloved. The Postal Service works, and is hated, but it works.

I did not know that, but since you mention it, I'm not surprised. Why am I not shocked two first class corporations have found terrific ways of turning massive profits? So while 3/4ths of our Postal Offices operate at a loss, UPS and FedEx make huge amounts of money?

The post offices are all the same organization. Breaking it down like this, "3/4ths of the post offices," as if they were independently operated, is just absurd.

The post office is projected to have a $5.6bn shortfall in 2016, as you said "a drop in the bucket." Especially considering it cannot be replaced.

Is this supposed to make our government look good? That while our Postal Service continues to be a tax payer drain, it helps UPS and FedEx remain insanely profitable? Sweet man! That's fantastic! I'm glad my tax money can help large corporations get rich. I only wish I owned more of their stock.

It goes to show that the system is delivering 24x the same number of parcels as FedEx and UPS combined, while also delivering nearly the majority of their parcels, and handling 40% of the mail volume of the entire World, and they're doing it for $80bn. UPS, the more efficient of the two companies, moves 4 billion parcels/year at total cost of $24Bn. They save money on labor as each of their employees costs almost a third what a federal employee costs.

But, if they scaled their operations up (by 35x) their costs would likely exceed the $80bn amount the USPS needs to maintain it's operations.

So while UPS is very profitable, it is not of the same magnitude or scale as USPS (not remotely), and by UPS' own business proposals, they are not in competition with the USPS.

Comparing the two in this way, as I demonstrated earlier, just demonstrates a lack of understanding of the problem. And another fun fact - UPS and FedEx also use USPS for the majority of their rural deliveries.

Again, much of their efficiency is in using the already existing postal service, with whom they have multi-billion dollar partnerships with. They are not competitors, nor are they in the same business or even the same market.

Facetiousness aside, a smart business savvy organization finds a way to make the USPS hugely profitable. There's a reason our government isn't able to figure it out, and it's mostly because of how inefficient they are. If it was their own personal dollars tied up in it, I'm sure they'd quickly figure out a better solution though.

The only thing I see when I read your explanation is that two very successful corporations have found different ways to profit off of the USPS. If the government was a private company, the USPS would be a highly profitable division. Since the giverment runs it, they continue to not make money. Call it underfunding all you want, it's a program that loses money.

It wouldn't lose money if it charged the same rate as UPS would charge you to send a letter. You realize a stamp is only a few cents right?

Talk about wanting a free lunch. It's supposed to be operated as a not-for-profit organization, that benefits the population. That's what it does. It's designed to be cost neutral to the consumer, and it is, just look at what it costs UPS to move a package versus what it costs the USPS. And if you take the Postal Service out of the equation, you'd need to greatly increase UPS' costs; and forget about FedEx.

They should figure out a way to prevent 3/4 ths of their post offices from operating at a loss.

Why is the number of post offices that operate in the red even relevant at all for a federal organization that is funded and managed at the federal level?


It seems like you are cherry picking the worst sounding statistic, regardless of is meaningfulness or if it is germane to the conversation.

A good company would do that, why can't they? And if they're losing money, than yes, they should find ways to be more efficient including removing benefits and jobs...if that would make them more profitable. Run the USPS like a business. FedEx and UPS are making a killing...the USPS should be too. This isn't that complicated.

You're making it complicated. In all of your options you never say why the USPS can't charge more? It's better to cut the benefits of three quarters of a million workers rather than charging 10 cents more per stamp?

Again, you're comparing a massive federal institution to small private companies that depend on that institution. It's ridiculous. They are underfunded, and they shouldn't be run "like a business," because it's not a business. The reason they are in financial trouble is because Congress refuses to pass a budget with sufficient funding to pay for the United States Postal Service.

I don't really get it to be honest. While in 10 years no one will remember the website was a complete disaster at launch, those who give a shit will remember that we contracted out this website for a cost of around $600 million but will spend 3 x's, 4 x's, maybe 5 x's that much?

Yeah.. no... The "website" didn't cost $600 million dollars. The data infrastructure, including the website, cost $500 million. The website itself was $85M.

I don't know....name the cost. We'll end up spending it. And it's a microcosm of what happens when you let the government operate a venture this big. They suck at it.

Again, the military, Social Security, Medicare, the Postal Service are all monumental organizations that work. The ACA is minuscule in comparison to even the federal Medicaid system.

But to be fair, when the government goes after CGI to recoup monies spent and the damages caused by this glitch, I'll be the first to eat crow. Show me the articles of CGI paying penalties for not providing a quality product or hitting contracted deadlines.

I've never paid a penalty when I didn't meet a deadline. What software firm does that??

I'm sure we're aggressively pursuing all courses of action against CGI for this utter disaster, right?

There surely will be an investigation and a lawsuit.

I think you're grossly underestimating the amount of hard-working democrats that are about to get hit with a huge sticker shock. My company is headquartered in California. All I'm hearing is complaints about increased premiums and deductibles from people out on the west coast. I'm not sure how they thought Obamacare was going to be paid for, but it's starting to set in.

Hate this line.. Obamacare was paid for years ago.

I mentioned it before, but our CEO took a very subliminal shot at Obama on our last company-wide communications meeting.

I also hate when CEO's go out of their way to interject their personal political bullshit into company meetings. Fucking hated that shit with my last employer.

Told all salaried employees to get ready for huge increases in insurance costs. It's easy to say "fuck you rich CEO, you just hate Obama!!!11!!!1", until you actually look at the plans when open enrollment starts and you realize your costs have increased 2-fold.

Your costs have doubled?

I do think there is a strong possibility Hillary distances herself from Obamacare, especially if it is hated. I mean, just look at all of the people bitching about coverage they're being charged for that they'll never need. One of the most liberal friends I have was on Facebook last week bitching about how the coverage he would have to buy is including care for when he gives birth to a baby. Big Obama supporter, not happy with Obamacare....I think there will be more people like that than you are assuming. But time will tell....

Nonsense. With all due respect, you're really making a lot of uncharacteristic assumptions about Hillary Clinton.

Hillary wants, and will push strongly for, true UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. It is her stated lifelong goal. She was just on the stump at a fundraiser for Terry McAuliffe doubling down on Obamacare just a few days ago. You're saying she's going to take an about-face and say what, exactly? Anything she says against Obamacare would only hurt her own chances of getting a Democratic Congress, and will also make her look like a flip-flopper considering she was the Secretary of State and a vocal proponent of the program from 2008-2013 (at least).

Never ever going to happen. Not in a million years.

What you will hear, is Clinton saying that we need to improve coverage, access, and costs, and since we have a mandate - let's get a public option. That alone will win her the election.

 

[KI4MVP]

the rich get a payout on social security that is based on how much they paid in, just like everyone else. There are some people so wealthy that they won't even notice a social security check (Bill Gates or Warren Buffett certainly don't need it), I'm not quite sure how much impact not paying them would make. According to wikipedia, there are 1342 billionaires in the US. Let them opt out if they don't need it (perhaps many of them already do, do you have to request it to start getting it). Once they try to make it into a law, the threshold would end up way too low and hurt people who have counted on that retirement check their whole lives or not have any real impact.

it would be far more significant thing to bump retirement up a bit. The average lifespan has gone up significantly since social security started, add a year of work for every two years of average life span increase. Bump retirement age by one month each year until we are at half of the difference (including any adjustments already made). That would save a substantial amount of money while giving people plenty of time to plan for the change. people in their 60s would have to work at few extra months. People in their early 50s would work just over a year longer. Not a bad deal considering the average life expectancy in the US has increase by about 8 years since they were born.

Some quick and very rough math says that would save over $50 billion in 2023 and 120 billion in 2023. combine that with a slight adjustment to how cost of living is adjusted and the social security deficit goes away. That math doesn't try to factor in the extra payments into the system those people will make.

 

[Jack Brickman]

What you will hear, is Clinton saying that we need to improve coverage, access, and costs, and since we have a mandate - let's get a public option. That alone will win her the election.

I think the fact that she's a Democrat alone will win her the election right now. :chuckles:

And I doubt anyone cares, but open enrollment for my company started this week and my health care costs basically stayed the same. They technically went up, but only because I swapped plans from a high deductible back to the PPO I had two years ago. They're more or less the same as my plan from two years ago, though.

 

[Maximus]

how are doctors going to drop their patients and stay in business?

Some will retire before being told they need to work more and make less. There will also be a boom of concierge medicine. All I know is that our doctor shortage is about to significantly worse. 6 months ago the AMA said we had a 20,000 shortage of doctors. They estimate a 159,000 physician deficit across all specialties by 2025.
The government will probably step in again at some point and then outlaw concierge medicine.

 

[KI4MVP]

Some will retire before being told they need to work more and make less. There will also be a boom of concierge medicine. All I know is that our doctor shortage is about to significantly worse. 6 months ago the AMA said we had a 20,000 shortage of doctors. They estimate a 159,000 physician deficit across all specialties by 2025.
The government will probably step in again at some point and then outlaw concierge medicine.

the sudden shortage is largely because the previously uninsured now can get medical coverage. Would it be better to leave them without access to medical care?

 

[jonmchugh]

My wife works for Suma at Akron City Hospital. Her insurance is really good. premium is a bit high but there is 0 deductible and that is very nice. right now we have to pay $50 a month for me to be on her insurance since i can get insurnace through my work. Now that $50 is being raised to $150 so I have to go back on my shitty insurance through my employer thanks alot obmacare!