4 ms·

It's a big stretch to say only government could make such a blunder. These rules were not blunders in the sense you make them out to be. They were the best op

by syops 5y ago

It's a big stretch to say only government could make such a blunder. These rules were not blunders in the sense you make them out to be. They were the best option available given the reticence of roughly 50% of the population toward a single payer solution or other universal healthcare option. The designers of the ACA knew about these shortcomings but decided to kick the can down the road so to speak. Their goal was primarily to get far more people into the healthcare system and to get Americans used to the idea that pretty much everyone deserves access to healthcare. They achieved both goals.

missedthecue 5y ago
But my point is that they could have achieved most of it without those specific policies. For instance, we now have a situation where instead of working 40 hours per week without health insurance, people in many occupations can only get 29 hours scheduled. So not only did it utterly fail in its goal of getting more people signed up for insurance, but it actively made the lives of those people worse by stunting their earning power unless they try to piece two part jobs into one week with all the chaos that involves. It's just awful incentive alignment and I see it time and time again in government policies that were developed with good intentions in mind.
- syops 5y ago
  You should do some research on the topic. Far more people are insured now than before the ACA.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    Because the ACA made it illegal to not have insurance, not because Walmart and McDonalds are now insuring all 3 million of their employees.
    - syops 5y ago
      Do you really think no one got insurance through their employer as a result of the mandate? Certainly there were large numbers of people who had their hours reduced as a result of the employer mandate. There were a lot of policy hacks used to increase the number of insured people. Collectively they worked. The employer mandate was not a panacea as a result of the reduction of hours. However, those people who had their hours reduced weren't getting insurance before ACA anyway.

by syops 5y ago

missedthecue 5y ago

But my point is that they could have achieved most of it without those specific policies. For instance, we now have a situation where instead of working 40 hours per week without health insurance, people in many occupations can only get 29 hours scheduled. So not only did it utterly fail in its goal of getting more people signed up for insurance, but it actively made the lives of those people worse by stunting their earning power unless they try to piece two part jobs into one week with all the chaos that involves. It's just awful incentive alignment and I see it time and time again in government policies that were developed with good intentions in mind.

syops 5y ago
You should do some research on the topic. Far more people are insured now than before the ACA.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  Because the ACA made it illegal to not have insurance, not because Walmart and McDonalds are now insuring all 3 million of their employees.
  - syops 5y ago
    Do you really think no one got insurance through their employer as a result of the mandate? Certainly there were large numbers of people who had their hours reduced as a result of the employer mandate. There were a lot of policy hacks used to increase the number of insured people. Collectively they worked. The employer mandate was not a panacea as a result of the reduction of hours. However, those people who had their hours reduced weren't getting insurance before ACA anyway.