Obamacare Explained in One Sentence

Wulfman... wrote:

CapnLoki wrote:

Wulfman... wrote: From observing the "law makers" and how they have gone about their work, it would appear that they aren't very good at their trade. All you have to do is look at how many laws get challenged in courts of appeal or get overturned? Obviously, that isn't "brain surgery", either.

"Law makers" is a euphemism. Congress, especially the House, is filled with Politicians. Always has been, always will.
...

You either misunderstood me or I should have been more specific. I was trying to be general enough to encompass the folks at the local, state AND federal levels.

With regards to the ACA explained in one sentence, I like this one from an article in the Huffington Post:

"I just see a huge train wreck coming down." - by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

idamtnboy wrote:

Therapist wrote:Yes. My husband and I would love to have been able to invest all the SS taxes paid by us and our employers in the stock market. We would have some big bundles today to leave in our estate for our grandchildren.

SS is not, and never has been, a retirement program, although politicians and most people characterize it that way. Here's a primer on SS.

We need to clear up an all too common misconception. Social Security was never intended to be, never has been, and probably never will be, a retirement investment program. It was established as the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program. The official title for collecting contributions is the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Funds not needed to support current benefits and operating expenses go into the Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund to be held to meet future expenses not met by the then current contributions. Supplemental Security Insurance provides benefits for the disabled and underage poor children. SS originally included, and maybe still does, payments to states to support unemployment insurance benefits.

The key operative word is "insurance." All insurance plans are based on an "in and out" funding scheme. Current insurance policy holders, whether it is for life (death) insurance, fire insurance, car insurance, liability insurance, or whatever insurance you can think of, pay into the fund to cover the losses suffered by other insurance policy holders. Excess income is stashed away to cover excessive future losses, or paid to policy holders as dividends, or paid to management as bonuses, or some combination of all three.

Social Security has always operated this way, and always will. It is financially impossible at this point to suddenly start investing contributions to pay for future retirement benefits because current benefits have to be paid somehow.

The idea of SS being a retirement program has been allowed to exist because the concept of retirement benefits is politically a whole lot more palatable than is insurance. No one hates retirement benefits. Almost everyone hates insurance, especially when it is compulsory like car insurance. Insurance is seen mostly as money gone out the window. Payments into a retirement fund are viewed as belonging to the contributor. That is the idea behind the thinking like you see in the below email.

I'm not sure why the hue and cry about the word "benefit." Benefit is used for all kinds of payments from all kinds of financial programs. The monthly SS check IS a benefit. Many people argue the wrong idea of SS benefits being "earned income." If your house burns down the money the insurance company pays you is a benefit, but it is not "earned income." You have no claim on the money without meeting the two requirements for filing a claim, namely your house burned down, and you paid for the policy. In the same vein no one has a claim on a SS retirement benefit check until they have met two conditions, one having been a contributor into the insurance pool, and two, reaching the age set by the rules whereby that person is entitled (there's that nasty word!) to file a claim.

Because of all the natural disasters of the past few years casualty insurance funds are in a squeeze. Everyone who contributed into them may not receive a payout as large as they expected, or need, to be made fully whole. If measures are not taken, the same type of squeeze will affect the Social Security funding scheme.

As long as Uncle Sam is good for its debts all the money put into the SS trust fund will be there for benefits payout. Arguably, the fund might be healthier today if the money had been invested in instruments other than G bonds. As an aside, taking all the money that comes into SS and investing it into commercial markets may not be wise. The massiveness of the funds could easily distort investment markets. The Board of the Federal Thrift Savings program, the retirement fund of Federal employees, is concerned about this issue. It's a whole lot smaller than the SS fund would be.

NateS wrote: Thank you for this factual and historical reminder. For those who study history rather than merely inhaling and regurgitating opinion pieces with which they agree, it is a refreshing and accurate summary. For that other group, however, it is merely something to reject and ridicule, and it is a sure bet that they will continue to do so. Just watch.

Best wishes, Nate

NateS wrote:See also:

https://www.facebook.com/NationalCommittee

Regards, Nate

Goofproof wrote:The orgional idea of SS may not have been too bad a idea. What it allowed way the Camel to get his nose under our tent. Government smelled blood, in the form of growing $$$ that can be ripped from our paycheck. Then the people found out if you had a lawyer and a hangnail you could get a paycheck for life from SS.

Then the government saw SS as a easy way to fund their sinking economy.
SS went from a program to help workers and their families in trouble to paid by the workers to a program for everybody with no reguard to what the individual put into it. Now days being disabled can range from a hang nail to being run over by a train, but too many are being put on the rolls when being too lazy to support themselves is sufficient to gain a SS check.

True Socialism. Jim

oak wrote:

Goofproof wrote:The orgional idea of SS may not have been too bad a idea. What it allowed way the Camel to get his nose under our tent. Government smelled blood, in the form of growing $$$ that can be ripped from our paycheck. Then the people found out if you had a lawyer and a hangnail you could get a paycheck for life from SS.

Then the government saw SS as a easy way to fund their sinking economy.
SS went from a program to help workers and their families in trouble to paid by the workers to a program for everybody with no reguard to what the individual put into it. Now days being disabled can range from a hang nail to being run over by a train, but too many are being put on the rolls when being too lazy to support themselves is sufficient to gain a SS check.

True Socialism. Jim

Jim on what facts do you base your opinions here? You obviously are shooting off at the mouth and do not have experience or facts to back up your opinions. I testified on Social Security Disability cases for many years and I can tell you that you do not get SSDI for a hangnail. First of all, you have to have paid into the system to get SSDI at all. Secondly, there are many many factors that go into the decision on an individual case by case basis, as to whether a person gets SSDI: age, education, skills, abilities and aptitude, prior work history, physical and mental impairments, exertional and non exertional limitations, and geographic location in relation to the job market, to name a few. There are other programs which are local/state benefit programs, which are different than SSDI, which have different requirements. I suggest you educate yourself before speaking about something you know nothing about.

Goofproof wrote:

oak wrote:

Goofproof wrote:
Then the government saw SS as a easy way to fund their sinking economy.
SS went from a program to help workers and their families in trouble to paid by the workers to a program for everybody with no reguard to what the individual put into it. Now days being disabled can range from a hang nail to being run over by a train, but too many are being put on the rolls when being too lazy to support themselves is sufficient to gain a SS check.

True Socialism. Jim

Jim on what facts do you base your opinions here? You obviously are shooting off at the mouth and do not have experience or facts to back up your opinions. I testified on Social Security Disability cases for many years and I can tell you that you do not get SSDI for a hangnail. First of all, you have to have paid into the system to get SSDI at all. Secondly, there are many many factors that go into the decision on an individual case by case basis, as to whether a person gets SSDI: age, education, skills, abilities and aptitude, prior work history, physical and mental impairments, exertional and non exertional limitations, and geographic location in relation to the job market, to name a few. There are other programs which are local/state benefit programs, which are different than SSDI, which have different requirements. I suggest you educate yourself before speaking about something you know nothing about.

Hangnail may be poetic license, with the right lawyer, you may have to have one on each hand. I base it on the millions that draw checks that could hold down worthwhile jobs. Drug adiction and alcoholic, are not disabilities, they are a choice. In this day, any excuse can be supported by lawyers to get around the orgional intent of need. If not keep appealing, in time the system will allow your claim, but the lawyers will get there share, and part of yours too. Jim

DiverCTHunter wrote: Socialism (caps are for emphasis): There are huge differences between Command Socialism (Cuba), Market Socialism (Venezuela & Brazil), Command Communism (the former USSR), and "Market Communism" (China).
snip ....

oak wrote:You are wrong on many levels.

49er wrote:

oak wrote:You are wrong on many levels.

It doesn't matter Oak. Some people could care less about the facts and will continue to base their opinions on bigotry, prejudice, and hatred.

49er

Obamacare Full Frontal: Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time


When the payroll report was released last month, the world finally noticed what we had been saying for nearly three years: that the US was slowly being converted to a part-time worker society. This slow conversion accelerated drastically in the last few months, and especially in June, when part time jobs exploded higher by 360K while full time jobs dropped by 240K. In July we are sad to report that America's conversation to a part-time worker society is not "tapering": according to the Household Survey, of the 266K jobs created (note this number differs from the establishment survey), only 35% of jobs, or 92K, were full time. The rest were... not.

* Congress, staff, to keep federal health premium payments

* Ruling aimed at avoiding "brain drain" on Capitol Hill (Adds comments from Republicans, Pelosi, edits)

By David Lawder

WASHINGTON, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Congress has won some partial relief for lawmakers and their staffs from the "Obamacare" health reforms that it passed and subjected itself to three years ago.

In a ruling issued on Wednesday, U.S. lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive a federal contribution toward the health insurance that they must purchase through soon-to-open exchanges created by President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law.

The decision by the Office of Personnel Management, with Obama's blessing, will prevent the largely unintended loss of healthcare benefits for 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives and thousands of Capitol Hill staff.

When Congress passed the health reform law known as Obamacare in 2010, an amendment required that lawmakers and their staff members purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. They would lose generous coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The amendment's author, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, argued that if Obamacare plans were good enough for the American public, they were good enough for Congress. Democrats, eager to pass the reforms, went along with it.

But it soon became apparent the provision contained no language that allowed federal contributions toward their health plans that cover about 75 percent of the premium costs.

This caused fears that staff would suddenly face sharply higher healthcare costs and leave federal service, causing a "brain drain" on Capitol Hill.

But Wednesday's proposed rule from the OPM, the federal government's human resources agency, means that Congress will escape the most onerous impact of law as it was written.

The OPM said the federal contributions will be allowed to continue for exchange-purchased plans for lawmakers and their staffs, ensuring that those working on Capitol Hill will effectively get the same health contributions as millions of other federal workers who keep their current plan.

The problem surrounding the Obamacare language for Capitol Hill staff was the subject of intense negotiations in recent weeks between House and Senate leaders and the Obama administration.

Some Republicans immediately slammed the OPM decision, using it as fuel for their campaign to turn public opinion against Obamacare just as its core provisions are due to go into effect.

"While the administration has handed out waiver after waiver and exemption after exemption for the well-connected in Washington, they have done nothing to lower health care costs for families in Michigan," said Dave Camp, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Camp said the OPM ruling is the "latest proof" of impending failure for the reforms and pledged that Republicans would keep trying to repeal them.

Last week, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said the language problem would have caused unintended "collateral damage" on congressional staff, causing many to leave for the private sector.

"They are a tremendous intellectual resource, people who could, shall we say, be better compensated financially outside" of government, said Pelosi, who spearheaded passage of the health care law in 2010 as House Speaker.

STILL MUST PURCHASE PLANS

Lawmakers and staff still must purchase plans on the exchanges for coverage that starts in January, OPM said, and they will not be eligible for tax credits to offset premium payments. These credits are the main federal subsidy mechanism for all other health plans purchased through Obamacare exchanges due to open in October. These tax subsidies fall off quickly as income rises.

Tim Jost, a healthcare law expert at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, said it was probably never Congress' intention to take away federal benefit contributions from Capitol Hill employees, just to push them into them into the exchanges.

"This clarifies what they really intended to do all along," Jost said. "Congress had subjected itself to a requirement that applied to nobody else in the country."

Republican Senator David Vitter vowed to reverse the OPM ruling to ensure that no members of Congress, Capitol Hill staff nor Obama administration appointees get any federal subsidies for health insurance purchased on Obamacare health exchanges.

"These recent maneuverings inside the beltway are precisely why the American people rightly despise Congress," said Vitter, of Louisiana. "Perhaps if White House appointees and Congress have to live under these same Obamacare rules, things would be changed quickly for the better." (Reporting By David Lawder; Editing by Bill Trott and Cynthia Osterman)

IRS chief Daniel Werfel says he wants to keep his health care plan, not switch to Obamacare:

"Mr. Werfel, last week your employees who are a member of the National Treasury Employee's Union sent a form letter for union members to send in to ask they be exempt from the exchanges," a congressman asked. "Why are your employees trying to exempt themselves from the very law that you're tasked to enforce?"
"I don't want to speak for the NTEU, but I'll offer a perspective as a federal employee myself and a federal employee at the IRS," said the IRS chief. "And that is, we have right now as employees of the government, of the IRS, affordable health care coverage. I think the ACA was designed to provide an option or an alternative for individuals that do not. And all else being equal, I think if you're an individual who is satisfied with your health care coverage, you're probably in a better position to stick with that coverage than go through the change of moving into a different environment and going through that process. So I think for a federal employee, I think more likely, and I would -- can speak for myself, I would prefer to stay with the current policy that I'm pleased with rather than go through a change if I don't need to go through that change."
UPDATE: Texas senator John Cornyn responds:
“Count the head of the IRS among the growing list of folks that includes Big Labor and the law’s chief architect who are deeply skeptical of the President’s signature achievement and don’t want any part of it.
“No American – even the head of the IRS – should be subjected to Obamacare. The wheels are coming off this monstrosity before our very eyes, and we must fully defund, repeal, and replace it before it collapses under its own weight.”