Do you think Obamacare would be an easier sale if all Federal Employees had to buy in?
I believe Obamacare would be better received if everyone had to put up with the same insurance, including unions, congressmen, senators, judicial, and president. The elites with their cadillac insurance make it a hard sell. What is your answer to this dilemma?
I don't think it would make it a lot more attractive, but all of those who opt out are certainly voting against it by their choice.
There was a recent bill introduced into the House of Representatives by a Florida Republican that would mandate all elected politicians (including the President) to take their insurance under the Obamacare law, instead of getting a free ride with the best coverage available at the tax payers expense.
Let's see how far that one will go.
It certainly would give Obamacare a whole new outlook.
Here is a link to the new ad for Obamacare that you might find interesting.
http://www.thisisobamacare.com/?&ut … s_lsaca_kc
(if it is not click-able you can copy and paste it into your search bar).
It is something that every American should see.
No wonder so many congressmen are against it. They have it made now.
Why are over 50% of Americans against it? I read it is really only going to touch about half of the ones who really needed it and what about the homeless, do they get coverage?
"Obamacare" was strictly a democratic party BULLY creation. They -the DEMS - rammed it thru Congress (2009) when they were temporarily gifted a super majority. Putting it another way, the DEMS put their proverbial middle finger in the face of the republicans and forced them - and Americans - to accept a defacto takeover of American health care system. The Republicans are giving the DEMS a deserved payback for the socialist Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The DEMS were suppose to get bi-partisan support for EVERY law they create. Not ONE republican voted for Obamacare. What the DEMS did - BULLYING Obamacare thru Congress - is nothing short of despicable.
Oh, and yes, the democrats in Congress MUST have the insurance they created. Hypocrites that they are, not surprised they don't want it.
Obamacare had several Purposes (grand schemes) dealing with taking our money and little practical good for anything else. The Politicians Opting out of it is almost foolish in itself since they themselves would not be paying for it but rather... more of our money would be spent on them in this regard. But they see the foolishness of it and want no part in it... This is a Red Flag for the public that cant be ignored.
Your Question becomes something like this:
If the Federal Employees would all play along... do you think the Public would be more easy to Dupe?
Answer... Quite Probably. But not all of the Public would fall for it even then.. only about 54%... :-)
The question is deceptive and gives the answer it wants to hear. @D. Williams is wrong and @S Lere is also disingenuous.
First, if any member of Congress, their staff; the President and his staff. federal workers like myself (retired), or unions, refuse the insurance provided by their employer, the Federal government, then they are required to purchase their own insurance per Obamacare; therefore they are not exempt.
The Federal Employees' Benefit Program (FEBP) is not a "free ride", Mr. Williams; I paid my share, about 20%, more than the contractor who worked for me who did get a "free ride" with his employer. In fact, I patterned my own companies health insurance plan after the FEBP in terms of benefits available and price sharing. The only real difference is that I don't have an exchange for my employees to pick from which FEBP does. It is this insurance exchange portion upon which the Obamacare exchange program is based, in addition to the Massachusetts Republican governor's Romneycare plan.
So, the FEBP is no more than an employer provided insurance plan, no different than the one I offer my own employees. So, by analogy, are you, @jstfishinman, suggesting I dump my own companies insurance plan and force my employees into the Obamacare insurance exchange programs?
@S Leretseh, I would hope you know as well as I do that when Parties have supermajority power in Congress, they "rammed it thru Congress". This has been happening for over 200 years. Since those of the conservative bent (Republican or Democrat) are dead-set against all Americans having health insurance, this would never happen with them in a position to block it. This was true with the 13th - 15th Amendment, the 20th Amendment, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Social Security, and Medicare.
The same is true on the other side with the dismantling of regulations created after the Great Depression to protect citizens from the predatory financial industry.
In any case, every President since Harry Truman, except Bush 43, felt a need to get some sort of universal health care in place for all Americans. Clinton had a good chance and botched. Obama had the next chance and almost botched it but, after over 60 years of trying, finally got it done in the only way possible by not letting the tyranny of the minority ruining it for all.
If every Federal employee had to buy it then yes but that is a big IF am pretty sure it wont happen.
No I don't believe that would change the overall effect it will have on our nation.
I recently published a hub about U.S. Congress members and their retirement funds and benefits and stated in it that they along with their staff as well as ALL Federal employees will have to choose a healthcare plan from the insurance boards in their state both before and after they retire.
In the course of my research I learned that all state employees, regardless of position, appointed, hired, elected, etc., will also have to choose a healthcare plan from their state insurance boards once they are set up and the Affordable Care Act is in place.
I put my references at the end of my article like I always do, so you can read first hand if you prefer.
My hub: Can Members of Our U.S. Congress Retire With Full Pay After Just One Term? The Dirty Details!
My dear friend Aunt Jimi has written a hub about ObamaCare, and the truth about how it is going to work. I recommend her hub as well. It's very popular on Google.
NO - because no matter who has to buy in, mandatory purchase of any commodity or service is unconstitutional. Those who compare it to social security fail to understand that social security is an investment that pays dividends when the individual reaches retirement age. Obamacare will actually cost the individual more and more as they grow older because the government has never been able to manage anything without raising the prices beyond affordability. The current estimates for a family of 4 indicate that insurance for the family will rise between 300 and 1200 percent over the next 2 years. In addition, these families will also have a larger copay and personal expense for healthcare that was previously covered in their current accounts.
Healthcare has already risen for many under the current abstractions and those who are favored by the President will still be exempted regardless of what the coverage may require. The current administration has chosen to support such blatant discrimination in all areas of commerce and political activities. This has led to extreme corruption in many locales where the society has become deranged through political abrasion.
Social Security is mandatory, whether it is an investment or not. If you oppose "mandatory", to avoid being called a hypocrite, you must oppose Social Security and Medicare.
The gov't hasn't been managing healthcare, why is it so expensive now?
The gov't hasn't been managing healthcare ??? Medicare is the largest health insurer in the US. Since it's creation healthcare inflation has been more than 40% higher than CPI.Prior to it's creation 1935-1965 CPI averaged 2.8% & Medical CPI wa
Not only that but Medicare only pays about half of what they are billed by hospitals, leaving the taxpayers that go to a hospital to pay extra for treatment. No wonder hospitals and doctors are going out of business!
Last part was cut off. Medical inflation was 3% prior to medicare. And what most people don't get is insurance has nothing to do with care.Top institutes like the Mayo Clinic have stopped accepting Medicare in parts of the country,along with others.
Interesting analysis. One the one hand you blame Medicare for causing the huge inflation in medical care but, on the other hand, they did it by keeping their prices low; so low in fact that apparently no hospital or Dr wants to accept it.
No I blaming medicare for shifting a disproportionate amount of cost onto others and eliminating competition from the market while slowly destroying the process of price discovery. Every time the gov't gets involved in a market prices skyrocket.
and an order of magnitude of people suffer less; it is a matter of where your priorities lie, isn't it. There is a major public cost consequence associated with 30 - 40 million Americans not having insurance today; imagine the cost without Medicare.
What are you talking about. Medical care was more widely available before the gov't involved itself. Dr's made house calls and negotiated prices. People paid what they could afford. The cost of the gov't being involved has hurt availability
Not if you were uninsured it wasn't. If you didn't have insurance, you simply suffered or died in place. Why do you think Medicare was created for the elderly. just to pass the time and give Congress something to do?
False, most people didn't buy insurance because the cost of care was reasonable. And the elderly who were indigent were already covered under the Kerr-Mills Act. Medicare was passed to empower politicians and make people dependent on politicians.
We are probably the same age, old, and must remember two different worlds. I remember, before medical care was deregulated, you could get good care at a reasonable price (for middle class people who had insurance). But I barely remember house calls
Deregulated ??? The gov't has done nothing but regulate medical care for the last 50 years. Every Dr I know is totally bogged down in Gov't bureaucracy
http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/art … and_facts/
There is a big difference between bureaucracy and regulation. Once drugs couldn't be advertised, Drs could work independently without fear of a monopoly driving them out of business. Deregulation changed all of that and led to huge price increases.
Govt creates the monopoly by making it to costly to operate a small practice.When Drs deal directly with patients prices go down http://bangordailynews.com/2013/05/27/n … es-online/
It's quite typical for the elected elite to exempt themselves from the very laws they pass on the general public. Take Social Security for example. Congress was exempted from paying into the system until a 1983 tax act forced them to contribute. They took a free ride for decades while most of America was forced to pay into a system that was designed as a fiscal train wreck. It was only recently that the President signed into law a along with congressional approval, an insider trading ban. Then he subsequently went out and quietly gutted the law.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout … 59298.html
The reality it there is a constant double standard. Imagine that we need a separate law passed that says we need our elected official to abide by the laws already on the books. That's like saying we need to pass a law that bans congressman from holding up a liquor store. Because the existing laws aren't enough for them.
Obamacare is just another example. It's gotten so bad that it has even lost the support of the labor unions. If it was such a wonderful piece of legislation, the President wouldn't be handing out waivers to companies and political allies.
It was poorly thought out, poorly implemented and will negatively impact most Americans. And why would elected officials want to subject themselves to the more than 20k pages of legislation they have just dumped on the rest of America. It's not like a single one of them has actually read these reg's or understands them. So let the rest of us spend countless dollars to hire teams of legal consultants and HR experts to make sure we're in compliance. In the meantime, the country is seeing 3/4th's of the new jobs created as part time, and the service industry slashing hours to avoid this compliance disaster. Then they'll turn around an blame employers. Watching this administration in action is like watching a Looney Tunes cartoon. We'll drop an anvil on you from the rooftop. And when you fall through the sidewalk, we'll blame you for damaging the sidewalk.
How come Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan (I think), Bush 41, Clinton, and Obama wanted something like Obamacare? Where they all incompetent dopes like you think Obama is?
Reagan did not support anything remotely similar to the way this was structured. Only an ER mandate. And the rest were all part of an ongoing political machine that implements policies that empower the government rather than those they govern.
How about this. Instead of an individual mandate; just make it a crime to incur a hospital bill that someone else has to pay for, IF you could have afforded insurance but chose not to buy it; say one day in jail for every dollar you can't pay.
Or how about some actual price discovery in the healthcare industry. It was quite affordable before the gov't decided to involve itself and distort the market. But that's what they did with every market they participate in like housing.
There are some people who will be worse off then they were before under Obamacare. For them it won't ever be an easy sell. Then there are some for whom Obamacare is a hard sell because it is Obamacare. Being that they have no logical objection to it, nothing is going to make it more sellable. I'm not really sure what to say to those people who live in Lala land. Send in a Leprechaun or a psychiatrist, I guess.
As for the rest of us (the majority) a great deal of the resistance to Obamacare will very likely evaporate over the next few months as people start signing up for health insurance through their exchanges and discovering that the conservatives have been lying their behinds off. Hopefully that will also translate to anger at all those buffoons who have fought so hard against something which ultimately will be beneficial to most average Americans and maybe we will finally be able to clean out some of the rubbish stinking up the joint.
If you work for a company that provides healthcare as a benefit then you will not be affected much by Obama Care. The federal government is an employer that offers healthcare as a benefit, so those people will also not be affected much by Obama Care. However, there are many part-time federal employees that can take advantage of the law and buy health insurance through the exchanges. If you are talking specifically about Congressman, I can understand the hyperbole but if you are talking about the park ranger, the meteorologist or the FBI agent, then I don't get it. Sounds like a question by someone who doesn’t really understand the law or its intention?
brblog, that sounds nice except that numerous employers like UPS, the University of Virginia and others have cut insurance for spouses as a result of this act and the massive increased cost associated with it. So they are affected.
To think the government can get involved in anything and not effect the public sector is wrong. Especially, insurance, these new government employees with limited training are going to affect insurance negatively. They need to pass Ins. broker tests.
The only positive to this whole legislation is it is so bad it may crash the whole system vs the current slow encroachment by gov't. Then maybe we'll see some real reforms with actual market incentives and proper allocation of resources.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America? However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that America has become worse under President Obama? The main crux of Obama's...
by Susan Reid 5 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces (exchanges) in every state?Is your state running its own exchange ... ...or is it...
by Charles Mark Walker 5 years ago
Shouldn't there have been healthcare reform before Obamacare is implemented?Healthcare reform would mean looking into a countless number of things wrong with the system.Yet now we are getting a new insurance that there are so many concerns about. It's like rebuilding an engine without taking it...
by Judy Specht 2 years ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new hospitals? New Jersey has closed how many community hospitals in the last few...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
believe would have made a more efficient president? Why?
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
How is your state doing with Obama Care State Exchanges? Read this article about how the California State Exchange is going to help lower premium costs.http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05 … ng-points/
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|