The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Should the ACA - Affordable Care Act or Obamacare be renamed the LACA - the LESS Affordable Care Act

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,392 times Debate No: 37865
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (1)




The Affordable Care Act will raise my premium by a factor of ten times. If care costs me $300 a month now, it will be $3,000 a month by 2017. My benefits will not change with the possible exception of the removal of a 2 million dollar life time limit.

I believe, after looking into the text of the act, that there are many hidden taxes in the act. I spoke to my US Senator about some of the provisions in the act and he was unaware of these issues. Note that he voted for the act, but was unaware of at least some of the content of the act.

Due to my experience, the act should be renamed as the LESS Affordable Care Act (LACA). The LACA could indicate a LACA (lack of) concern by Washington as to the state of the citizenry.


I'll accept that debate. Pro posits that the Affordable Care Act mandates a 1000% increase in health insurance premiums over the next 3 years.

The burden of proof will be on Pro to demonstrate the factuality of that ten-fold increase. I find no rational analysis that anticipates numbers anywhere near that range.

Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1


1) The debate is as the debate was posited "Should the ACA - Affordable Care Act or Obamacare be renamed the LACA - the LESS Affordable Care Act"
2) The 1000 percent increase was my demonstration and ANY increase above the CPI (consumer price index) would result in LESS affordable care and the burden of proof is merely any increase above the CPI.
3) My 1000% increase is based on a notification that I received from my healthcare provider. It shows a 48% increase for 2014 over 2013. Increases were also forecast for 2015, 2016 and 2017. The final 2017 number IS ten times the 2012 and 2013 premium.
4) from Forbes's 6/10/13
"Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent.
" Democrats continue to try to dismiss the evidence that Obamacare will dramatically increase the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own. But on Thursday, the Ohio Department of Insurance announced that, based on the rates submitted by insurers to date, the average individual-market health insurance premium in 2014 will come in around $420, "representing an increase of 88 percent" relative to 2013. "We have warned of these increases," said Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor in a statement. "Consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014."
The rates that Ohio reported are proposed rates; the Department of Insurance still has to formally approve them. "A total of 14 companies proposed rates for 214 plans to the Department. Projected costs from the companies for providing coverage for the required [by Obamacare] essential health benefits ranged from $282.51 to $577.40 for individual health insurance plans."

It"s called "rate shock," but it"s not shocking to people who understand the economics of health insurance. In August 2011, Milliman, one of the nation"s leading actuarial firms, predicted that Obamacare would increase individual-market premiums in Ohio by 55 to 85 percent. This past March, the Society of Actuaries projected that the law would increase premiums in that market by 81 percent. Like good players on "The Price is Right," they both came in just under the Dept. of Insurance"s figure."
5) Quid Erat Demonstatum


1) The debate is as the debate was posited "Should the ACA - Affordable Care Act or Obamacare be renamed the LACA - the LESS Affordable Care Act"

The first premise of Pro's argument is that the ACA will raise his premium by "a factor of ten times, without any improvement in coverage. We may reasonably infer that Pro's second premise is that an increase in premium is less affordable. Therefore, Pro concludes, Obamacare is less affordable. In order to support this conclusion, Pro must demonstrate the validity of his sensational first premise or admit that his premise is false and try some other approach.

2) The 1000 percent increase was my demonstration and ANY increase above the CPI (consumer price index) would result in LESS affordable care and the burden of proof is merely any increase above the CPI.

Oversimplistic bullsh*t.

Health care premiums have risen 172% since 1999 while the CPI has risen 38%. 4 1/2 times faster. In spite of this, Pro proposes that any and all increase over CPI starting in 2014 must only be credited to Obamacare. By Pro's standard, even if Obamacare reduces healthcare inflation by 80% in its first year, Pro would call Obamacare LESS affordable. By any rational standard, Pro's analysis is ridiculous.


In order to establish that Obamacare is less affordable than the current state of affairs, Pro must prove the following:

*First, Pro must demonstrate that premium increases are caused by Obamacare. Obamacare does not mandate any premium increase, so Pro must demonstrate how increases are directly linked to Obamacare.

*Second, Pro must demonstrate that Obamacare-driven increases exceed the normal annual premium increases charged by insurers. For a baseline, let's take the median between rate increases over the past 2 5-year periods:

<a href=; width="631" height="473" />

If premium increases in the age of Obamacare split that average, we should reasonably expect to see a 40% increase in premiums by 2019. But most nonpartisan analysts don't predict the increase will anywhere near that high. The CBO predicts that the non-group market will see average increases of 10-13%, the small group market 1 to -3% (probably lower) and the large group market 0 to -3% (same or lower). [1] On the most pessimistic side is a forecast from the Society of Actuaries. That report predicts that because of newly insured and mandated improvements in benefits packages, medical claims per policyholder will rise by 32% by 2017. While that does not necessarily translate into a 32% rate increase, the actuaries report predict a roughly proportional increase in rates.

"Opponents of the health overhaul seized on the figure to suggest the law could really be called the Unaffordable Care Act. The Obama administration says the study leaves out factors that will restrain what plan members actually pay, including more competition among insurance companies."[2]

So the most pessimistic analysis puts rate increases at only 2% higher than increases in 2008-12 period, the slowest rise in rates for any 5 year period since 1970.

*Third, Pro must separate employee price increases due to lesser employer participation, since this does not represent actual premium increases, just increased burden for the employee versus the employer and in no way reflects ACA mandates.

*Fourth, Pro must include tax credits for small businesses and non-employee insurance buyers and for employees whose insurance burden exceed 9.5% of household income. [3]

*Fifth, Pro must consider the increased value of insurance packages due to mandated benefits. Although Pro stated that his personal benefits will not change, this is not true for most Americans, since insurers will be required to provide insurance for a range of basic services including: "ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care. Among the essential health benefits; preventive care, childhood immunizations and adult vaccinations, and medical screeningswill have co-payments, co-insurance, and deductibles eliminated - these services will be covered by an insurance plan's premiums.Such services include mammograms and colonoscopies, wellness visits, gestational diabetes screening, HPV testing, STI counseling, HIV screening and counseling, FDA-approved contraceptive methods, breastfeeding support and supplies, and domestic violence screening and counseling.[4]

*Sixth, when considering affordability of a plan implemented nationally, Pro must demonstrate the above increases for the average American, not just increases to his plan.

3) My 1000% increase is based on a notification that I received from my healthcare provider. It shows a 48% increase for 2014 over 2013. Increases were also forecast for 2015, 2016 and 2017. The final 2017 number IS ten times the 2012 and 2013 premium.

In Pro's specific and singular case, his provider has decided to increase Pro's insurance premium by a whopping 31.25% times the most pessimistic prediction for national averages. Con recommends that Pro fire his health care provider immediately. Who is he buying insurance from, anyway? Bernie Madoff? Somali Pirates?

Fortunately for Pro, Obamacare provides multiple remedies.

First, Obamacare requires insurers to spend 80-85% on health care costs and rebate the overcharges back to the insured. So, if Pro's insurers jacks up insurance rate 1000% by 2017 and fails to deliver on providing an 800% increase in healthcare spending (not likely since healthcare costs are predicted to rise 8-9%), Obamacare forces his insurance company to give that money back.

Also, if Pro's insurance bill represents more than 8% of his household income, he will be eligible for substantial tax subsidies to offset the cost.

Most importantly, after Oct. 1st, Pro may choose from several hundred other insurance plans available on his state's insurance exchange. Almost any of these are guaranteed to compete favorably against those offered by the confidence men at Pro's current insurer. In my state of Colorado, 18 healthcare providers will offer 541 plans ranging in price from $177 to $774 per month (minus significant tax credits for 80% of individual plans).

4) Here is a link to the press release of June 6th with the 88% estimate

and here is the same ODI estimating HALF that increase, 41% just 7 weeks later.

What caused the dramatic change? ODI has no reply. In fact, ODI used artificial rates to plump their numbers. A 25 yr-old male's rate goes from $30/month to $199/month, a 64 yr-old woman's rate goes from $131/mo to $593. When Kaiser ran these same scenarios, they concluded the 25 yr-old would pay $88/month and the 64 yr-old woman would pay nothing. [5][6]

ODI's director is also Lt. Gov. and Tea Party candidate Mary Taylor. Here's the email she sent out releasing the ODI's August findings:

A white woman weeping, petition and fundraising buttons? Does this look like data analysis or propaganda?
When looking for facts about Obamacare, Pro would be better off citing healthcare providers like Kaiser rather than Tea Party Candidates fearmongering for donations.

Debate Round No. 2


1) Con must understand the difference between a premise and a demonstration. The

premise is that the ACA will make healthcare less affordable. The demonstration is

that it will raise my premium 1000%.

2) My healthcare premium did not increase from 1999 to 2013.

The healthcare provider has now announced a 48% increase to the 2014 premium and the only expanded coverage

is the removal of lifetime limits, and coverage for pre existing conditions. Additionally the provider is projecting a 1000%

increase by 2017 over 2013. By any "rational standard" that makes health care LESS affordable, since I am not anticipating

a commensurate 1000% increase in my income.

3) Con is "cherry picking" his data. An inspection of the first graph ( Cumulative ...1999 to 2012) clearly shows an increase in

slope (or rate of increase) after passage of the ACA. The graph lumps pre and post ACA together. Since ACA was

instituted in 2009, here are more accurate figures:

Health plan cost trends 2005 " 2012

According to a new survey Aon Hewitt survey on health plan cost trends, overall

national plan costs will increase to $10,475 in 2012:

Overall Plan Cost Trends: National

2012: $10,475
2011: $9,792
2010: $9,111
2009: $8,527
2008: $8,044
2007: $7,586
2006: $7,206
2005: $6,677

increase 4 years 2005 to 2008 = 20.5% (prior to ACA)

increase 4 years 2009 to 2012 = 30.2% (after ACA)

The graph labeled exhibit 1 is also flawed, by including 2007-2009 data with post

ACA costs. In other words the evidence of ACA caused increases are diluted by

inclusion of pre ACA figures. If you look at Con's first graph you can see the

years 2007 to 2009 were periods of lower rate of change which make the ACA look

better than reality allows.

How Obamacare Raises Healthcare Costs
From Forbes 3.18.13

"Obamacare was hailed as not only a great piece of legislation but as a key tool to

decrease the ever-rising cost of healthcare in the U.S. Unfortunately, the act

almost certainly will have the opposite effect. Obamacare will increase healthcare

costs significantly and will exacerbate many of the key cost drivers of healthcare.

Obamacare (is) a tax on the people who heretofore paid for their own insurance. At

no point in time is the insurance linked to outcomes, different ways to provide

healthcare or any of the difficult policy issues we have discussed before:

palliative care, entitlements of all the best care available, the lack of patient

responsibility in their own health, etc.

Additionally, the new system is going to have much more volume than expected.

Why? A new citizenship group may appear at any time due to changes in immigration

policy. Also, many workers are being put through the exchanges because their

employers figure it is easier to pay the fine than to pay the bloated health

insurance costs.

This is problematic. There will not be enough doctors to accept these new

patients. The cost of being a doctor is going up, not down. The insurance does

little to compensate for this fact. Also, the cost required to subsidize the

research needed to cure the illnesses we have is shrinking as the Medicare

reimbursements get cut. Finally, the new insurance does not have enough margin for

insurers or hospitals to help them cost shift in order to cover deficits in teaching

or other needs to create new doctors and cures.

Speaking of taxes, there is a new medical device tax, a flex account tax, a surtax

on investment income, a "haircut" for medical itemized deductions, a payroll tax

hike, and a few other sundry items. All told, these new Obamacare tax hikes

started January 1, 2013 and should run about a net $1 trillion increase over the

next decade. It is not at all clear that these taxes will cut spending on

healthcare or even slow the growth.

After all this effort about Obamacare, health costs are going to go up " more

people being covered for more things with the hope that people currently with

health insurance will help pay for the new people in health insurance. We can

debate whether this is fair or not for a long time. The fact that it does very

little to solve our exploding healthcare cost problem is not up for debate. It


or Forbes 3.22.12

How Obamacare Dramatically Increases The Cost of Insurance for Young Workers

"In 2009, during the height of the debate over Obamacare, the law"s architect, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, was all over the op-ed pages, talking about how the bill would reduce the cost of health insurance. "What we know for sure," he told Ezra Klein, "is that [the bill] will lower the cost of buying non-group health insurance." His words were trumpeted by the law"s advocates, and were critical to persuading skittish Democrats to vote for the bill. But it turns out that "for sure" doesn"t mean what you thought it did. Because, now, Gruber is quietly telling state governments that the law will significantly increase the cost of insurance. And it will especially do so for young Americans: the ones who most struggle to find affordable health coverage.

Gruber now: Obamacare will increase premiums by 19-30 percent

As states began the process of considering whether or not to set up the insurance exchanges mandated by the new health law, several retained Gruber as a consultant. In at least three cases"Wisconsin in August 2011, Minnesota in November 2011, and Colorado in January 2012"Gruber reported that premiums in the individual market would increase, not decrease, as a result of Obamacare.

In Wisconsin, Gruber reported that people purchasing insurance for themselves on the individual market would see, on average, premium increases of 30 percent by 2016, relative to what would have happened in the absence of Obamacare. In Minnesota, the law would increase premiums by 29 percent over the same period. Colorado was the least worst off, with premiums under the law rising by only 19 percent.

Some low-income individuals would benefit from Obamacare"s subsidies; for those individuals, the impact of these premium increases would be blunted. But if premium costs go up at a rate faster than people expect, taxpayers will be on the hook for billions upon billions of extra subsidies."

Citing Kaiser at

"Costs Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge in 2011

By Julie Appleby
KHN Staff Writer
SEP 27, 2011

Employers' spending on health coverage for workers spiked abruptly this year, with

the average cost of a family plan rising by 9 percent, triple the growth seen in


Family plan premiums hit $15,073 on average, while coverage for single employees

grew 8 percent to $5,429, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser

Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. (KHN is an

editorially-independent program of the foundation.)

Workers paid an average of $921 toward the premium of single coverage and $4,129

for family plans.

The results mark a sharp departure from 2010, when the same survey found average

family premiums up only 3 percent."

I cannot "fire my provider" in the real world. The only way I could switch is if they stopped "providing".




Pro has hypothesized that Obamacare will make healthcare less affordable. For his only piece of evidence, Pro has described a notice from his insurance provider in the vaguest possible terms. In fact, the only information we are permitted to know about this remarkable policy is that the rate has not risen once over the past 14 years (while the average increase for health insurance premiums rose by 172%) and that the rate will now rise 1000% over the next four years (31.25 times faster than the average predicted by pessimistic analysts). Regrettably, we are not allowed to know the name of the healthcare provider, whether Pro receives his insurance through an employer, how much the plan costs, or any other fact that might allow us to evaluate the relevancy of Pro's claim. Whatever those facts, the little information we do possess demonstrates that the plan is so far from being representative of the experience of ordinary Americans that it must be exempted as an article of proof

In my previous argument, I requested that Pro consider potential increases for the average American, not just increases to his plan. Pro ignored this request.

In my previous argument, I advised Pro to consider the increased value of insurance due to mandated benefits. Pro ignored this advice and returned to his magic insurance policy citing little improvement in benefits. We aren't permitted to know whether his current benefits were so good that the mandated benefits were already included or if Pro is simply ignorant of new benefits available through Obamacare.

In my previous argument, I asked Pro to factor in tax credits kicking in for 67% of Americans. Pro ignored this argument entirely.

In my previous argument, I requested that Pro separate Price increases due to Insurers from price increases due to reduced employer cost-sharing. Pro dropped this argument completely.

In my previous argument, I advised Pro to distinguish between the regular healthcare inflation in the insurance industry and inflation due to Obamacare. Clearly, Pro intends to credit every future point of healthcare inflation to Obamacare, ignoring the regular annual increase in the cost of healthcare provision and the extra points tacked on by insurance providers. Pro ignores this advice entirely and instead argues that the charts provided represent "cherry-picking." To refute two graphs showing regular premium increases 1999-2012, Pro refines the argument to four years before/after 2009, the year Pro mistakenly states ACA was instituted. Huh? The graphs were included to demonstrate normal inflation rates, Pro is so focused on demonstrating higher rates during Obama's term that he misses my point (not to mention that averaged rate increases over Bush's 8 years are significantly higher than Obama's 5 year average, mostly due to the financial crisis of 2008).

Health insurance premiums

Importantly, Pro thinks that ACA was "instituted in 2009." Obamacare was signed into law March 23 2010 and the bulk of its provisions will be instituted 3 months from now, Jan 1 2014. Pro appears to be trying to demonstrate that increases in premiums before 2014 must also be credited to Obamacare. Even increases before the law was passed are credited to Obamacare! Strange math indeed.

In my previous argument, I also asked Pro to demonstrate how Obamacare is the direct cause of premium increases, since no premium increases are mandated by Obamacare and the whole point of the bill is slow down rate hikes. After all, if Pro can't define the relationship between Obamacare and premium increases all of Pro's assumptions collapse. Nevertheless, Pro ignored this argument entirely.

In short, Pro did not bother to respond to any of my six arguments against his plan to credit any increase in premium over CPI to Obamacare. Rather, he simply reiterated his argument in ALL CAPS. Clearly, Pro does not wish to evaluate the range of factors that will apply in determining whether Obamacare is more or less affordable for the average American.

On to the Forbes articles. I guess it is no surprise that Steve Forbes, who inherited his hundreds of millions of dollars and used it fund two weak runs for the Republican presidential nomination is opposed to Obamacare. After all, Forbes would like to see Social Security eliminated. Therefore, his magazine has been running some variation of the same anti-ACA editorial every week or two for the past five years. I can find no instance in any of these Forbes editorials where the potential advantages of tax credits, or mandated benefits, or increased regulation are ever considered. Most of the editorials focus on a very narrow view of Obamacare from the perspective of the very rich and show no concern for the uninsured, the uninsurable, or the fleecing of the middle-class.

Notice that Pro had no response whatsoever when I discredited his Forbes cut & paste in round 2. I showed how the Forbes article merely transmitted the political propaganda of a Tea Party fundraising effort without any effort to investigate an alternative perspective. When the same group dramatically altered their premium increase estimate from 88% to 41% in the space of 7 weeks, neither Pro nor Forbes Magazine expressed the least curiosity about the unreliability of their source.

In spite of my unchallenged discrediting of Pro's first Forbes cut & paste, Pro included 2 more lengthy cut & pastes in round 3, hoping that Forbes might some points in the absence of any compelling arguments from Pro.

The first of these comes from venture capitalist Michael Bell, who offers no credentials related to healthcare or insurance. Bell spends no time considering the potential health benefits, the impact of tax credits, the advantage of increased competition. One senses that his primary complaint is the 3.8% surtax on capital gains for people making more than a quarter-million dollars a year. There's no denying that taxes are going to go up a bit for the richest 5% of Americans, but that in no way promotes the argument for LESS affordable. For the richest 5% of American, small increases in taxes likely only cut into disposable income and healthcare remains just as affordable. Anyway, the top 5% pay an effective tax rate of 17.5% in spite of a 35% tax bracket.

The second cut & paste comes the same reporter who failed to follow up on Tea Party claims in the article from round 2: Romney campaign adviser Avik Roy. Deceptively, Roy states that Obamacare architect Michael Gruber has changed his mind and is "quietly telling State governments that the law will significantly increase the cost of insurance." To refute, I have added a YouTube video of Roy and Gruber debating Obamacare 8 weeks ago. Notice that Gruber states quite clearly that healthcare costs will go down or remain the same for all but 2.5% of the population and Roy does not disagree. We can't expect an objective position from a Romney employee regarding a plan named Obamacare, but it's interesting that Roy doesn't challenge any of Gruber's facts.

Finally, Pro spends some time documenting that healthcare premiums spiked in 2011. I do not dispute the fact, but fail to see the fact's relevancy when discussing the impact of Obamacare provisions implemented in 2014.

Pro concluded his second round argument with the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum meaning the conclusion is an exact restatement of the hypothesis. Unfortunately, once we have disregarded the subjective political tracts and the entirely unrepresentative personal experiences, Pro has failed to make much of an argument at all. Pro's conclusion may be the same as his hypothesis, but readers of this debate expect a hypothesis to be supported with facts. Pro has failed to demonstrate why or how Obamacare will be less affordable for the majority of Americans. Therefore, the Affordable Care Act should retain its current title.


Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bigdave 6 years ago
Anytime a cost goes up by a factor of ten times, any rational person should be concerned. If a loaf of bread were to cost $40, that would be a concern. If Oromagi has not seen a cost increase for healthcare perhaps he is not looking.

When Oromagi comments about my income with " I doubt you're going to evoke much sympathy", it reveals a great deal about, shall we say "economic envy"

Bottom line, the ACA or LACA is a divisive issue in America. At a time when both domestic and international events require that we come together, Washington "magicians sleight of hand" is distracting our attention from the real issues.

Jolly's winning the special election in Florida may be a watershed event.

As always "Keep watching the news"
Posted by Oromagi 6 years ago
=> What is my complaint? The 1000% increase in my healthcare costs is one issue.

Wow, you're still sticking to this? So you are now claiming that you pay $3,000/month, $36,000/yr in healthcare insurance premiums with no tax break. I really don't believe anybody's paying this much for insurance- you'd need to be going to the emergency room two or three times a month in order to make insurance at this price worthwhile, right? Also, in order to not qualify for a tax break, $36,000 would have to be less than 9% of your salary, which puts your annual income in the $370k-$380k range after taxes. If that's true, I doubt you're going to evoke much sympathy.

=> Also note that I am not in the roofers union.

Nobody thought you were.

I had nothing to do with the article cited. I merely sent the article along as one more chink in the armour.

As I pointed out, Obamacare is forcing mobsters to pay more than $50,000 lifetime for retired roofers. Therefore the return value for roofers who've been paying exorbitant rates for years has been improved. What armour? What chink?

=>BTW, what is your source on the info re: roofers union racketeering?

There's lots of stuff out there. Just google Roofer's Union corruption, racketeering, murder, etc.

Roofer's Union admits racketeering:

15 In Roofers Union To Surrender Today In Racketeering Case

Here's a wikipedia arcticle about the NE Philadelphia Mob including their connections to the Roofer's Union.

Here's one where the same guy who you quote in your article, Kinsey Robinson, makes a deal that includes a guilty plea to racketeering charges:
Posted by bigdave 6 years ago
What is my complaint? The 1000% increase in my healthcare costs is one issue. Also note that I am not in the roofers union. I had nothing to do with the article cited. I merely sent the article along as one more chink in the armour. BTW, what is your source on the info re: roofers union racketeering?

Check also

As always "Keep watching the news"
Posted by Oromagi 6 years ago

Pretty easy to see why UUoRWA is in a bind. They've been paying top dollar on healthcare for a relatively young, healthy workforce, which allows them to keep nearly half of their employees paycheck, declare high employee compensation while saving millions on tax exemptions and collective bargaining. Most of the savings got turned into fungible, laundered money for the top execs to keep. Certainly, they weren't putting that money back into employee benefits- after union members retire, the benefits cap falls from $2 million to $50,000 lifetime just when employees start racking up healthcare costs. Worse, many of the union's top execs have been locked up over the past few years for Racketeering with the Genovese Crime Family. Worst of all, execs got caught gambling with the Union Pension Fund when they lost most of it in the Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme. Now, when their skimming schemes are failing and the money is gone, Obamacare makes the $50,000 lifetime cap illegal. So now the rats at the top will have to spend the little money they have left on employee healthcare rather than on golden parachutes for their personal exits from the sinking ship. Sounds like a win-win for Obamacare and roofers, lose-lose for crooks. What's your complaint?
Posted by bigdave 6 years ago
From Investor. Com ....."Late last week, the 22,000-member United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers dropped a bombshell on the Obama administration, not only withdrawing its support for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but also demanding its repeal.
The reason: ObamaCare subsidizes low-paid non-union workers in small companies that don't insure their employees, while leaving union shops with ObamaCare's higher health care costs and a 40% tax on Cadillac plans by 2018. That's a "death warrant" for unions, as the Atlantic's Megan McArdle noted.
"These provisions jeopardize our multiemployer health plans, have the potential to cause a loss of work for our members, create an unfair bidding advantage for those contractors who do not provide health coverage to their workers and, in the worst case, may cause our members and their families to lose the benefits they currently enjoy as participants in multiemployer health plans," said union President Kinsey Robinson."

Read More At Investor's Business Daily:
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Posted by bigdave 6 years ago
Keep watching the news.
Posted by Oromagi 6 years ago
Regarding Delta Airlines- that's a good thing, right? Unlike most companies, Delta forces its 80,000 employees to use its own health insurance- a non-competitive monopoly. Since Delta didn't have to worry about regulation or competition, their insurance was crap: more expensive than an average policy with very poor actual coverage: particularly after re-organizing after bankruptcy. If Delta forced its employees to live in Delta owned tenement housing, we'd expect Govt to tell Delta to at least bring its housing up to some kind of basic code: fire extinguishers and pest control, right? That's all that's happening now, just with health insurance. Delta Airline pulled in $36.6 billion in revenues last year and the government is asking them to spend 1/3 of 1% of those revenues to make sure their healthcare meets some kind of basic standards.

Furthermore, consider the source. When Richard Anderson took over Delta four years ago, he decided to move Delta from a primarily domestic carrier to an international competitor in Asia and Europe. That's fine, except the strategy has failed. Anderson moved all the big planes to China and India where people prefer cheaper domestic carriers and replace his American planes with smaller, older planes. The result is fewer Americans want to fly Delta, even though they control the gates at the busiest airport in America. Delta's profits have dropped from $4 billion/yr in 2009 to $1billion/yr. Nevertheless, Anderson and his top execs have concluded they're doing a fine job and keep giving themselves raises -a 42% raise in total compensation last year alone. Anderson also sits on the board of directors of United Health, the largest US healthcare insurer, so he has a vested interest in giving Obamacare the finger. Maybe Anderson should focus on how bad he is screwing up at Delta, rather than firing off scapegoat press releases to Fox News.
Posted by Oromagi 6 years ago
Regarding the HHS Actuary report- if you read the report you discover that before Obamacare, HHS predicted continued rises in %GDP spent on healthcare up to 40% of GDP. Although HHS predicts increases in %GDP until 2021, the report also predicts decreases in %GDP after 2021. That is, the report you cite predicts that Obamacare in the long term actually helps to fix a big national problem.
Posted by Oromagi 6 years ago
Still hyperventilating, eh bigdave? We examined in this debate how bias Forbes has demonstrated in its reporting regarding Obamacare, so further returns to that slanted are unlikely to impress. Even Forbes, however, doesn't make a claim as wild-eyed as $7400 per year. Conover's article reports a prediction of $7400 for a family of 4 over 10 years. That's $7400 / 10 yrs = $740/ 4 people = $185 per person. If healthcare only increases by an average $185 per year per person above a median cost $13,000/yr, Obamacare will be the most successful curbing of healthcare inflation in history. As always, we an count on Forbes to ignore Obamacare tax breaks and discounts for people making up to 4 times the federal poverty line. As always, we can count of Forbes to ignore the increased value of healthcare insurance and the increased numbers of folks with access to healthcare.
Posted by bigdave 6 years ago
Delta Air Lines has issued an urgent warning about the impact of ObamaCare, claiming the law's implementation will contribute to a roughly $100 million increase in health care costs next year alone.

"Like many large companies, Delta faces significantly increased healthcare costs in 2014 and beyond," the company said in a statement on Friday. "Delta will absorb the vast majority of those increased costs so that we can continue providing a high value, high quality health plan. Consistent with our culture, Delta will always keep the best interests of our people in mind in connection with the healthcare and other benefits we provide."

Soutce ...Fox News
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by thett3 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.