6 ms·

This is expected. There is a whole class of people who are working just for insurance because it was prohibitively expensive on the open market for individuals.

This is expected. There is a whole class of people who are working just for insurance because it was prohibitively expensive on the open market for individuals. If you make it affordable for them to purchase healthcare as individuals they'll retire. Hopefully it means that people who want to work will be able to back fill those jobs. I think it's a good thing for the economy. It can't be a good thing to force individuals to work when they'd have the means to retire if they were able to purchase healthcare at the same rates as large companies.

hga 13y ago
Nit: large companies purchase healthcare itself, and have specialist companies administer it, including I'm sure arranging the usual negotiated rates. They're big enough to do their own pooling. Individuals have to buy insurance, because only a combination of them can form a (large enough) pool. And I note that your analysis that this is good only holds in a situation like today, where there's a labor surplus. In the future it could be a very bad thing, especially if individuals in otherwise productive parts of their life don't work and therefore don't pay for the Baby Boomers' retirement promises like Social Security and Medicare. ADDED: one thing we can be very sure about this law: there's going to be a bunch of "UNINTENDED consequences", and some of them will be bad. Some are likely to be very bad; one thing recently remarked on is that VCs are pulling back sharply from funding biomedical ventures, right now due to uncertainty, but things like the medical device tax are a component of that, and of well documented existing company retrenchment.
- fbags 13y ago
  One other thing we can be very sure about this law: there's going to be a bunch of "unintended consequences", and some of them will be good. Some are likely to be very good.
  - CWuestefeld 13y ago
    Can you name other government programs -- particularly any of this scope and complexity -- that have had unintended positive consequences?
    - fbags 13y ago
      Yes. Any moderately intelligent and informed person could look at a government program and identify both positive and negative impacts. As an example, the entire Silicon Valley ecosystem started from the confluence of government programs, such as one where private investor dollars were matched by government dollars to create the very first valley VCs. I don't think anybody inside or outside of the government, projected the immensity of the impact of those programs. Or y'know... about 90% of the stuff that spun out from NASA. Anyway... I get it: you're a closed-minded ideologue and you weren't REALLY asking a question, you were just being snarky. So I'll stop pretending that I respect you now. And I'll stop pretending that we're having a conversation.
      - CWuestefeld 13y ago
        I don't think you've answered the question. In your response you cite a program that enjoyed the effects that were intended, but to an even greater degree than had been expected (and aside from the effects being expected, it's also not a large and complex program). Another example of a program that successfully achieved its goal, but surpassed expectations, would be the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system (which is probably the most successful large program I can think of). What's the NASA spinoff you allude to? I expect it's, again, what had been promised. Part of the plan was to bring about technological innovations. The development of velcro, or things like it, was part of the plan. What I actually asked for is any example of what you claimed to be a certainty: a large, complex government program having unintended positive results. I wasn't being snarky, I was trying to demonstrate that the record here is nearly, if not entirely, on the downside. History shows us governmental programs failing in a myriad of ways, but this isn't balanced on the upside. I honestly can't think of a counterexample within my parameters (large size and complexity, and having unintended positive results). EDIT: A better way to state my question occurred to me. What I'm looking for is not quantitatively unexpected results, but qualitatively unexpected results, because I think that's what is implied in the above back-and-forth about these qualitatively unintended bad results versus a certainty of unintended good results.
        fbags 13y ago
  - cema 13y ago
    Let's wait and see. So far it has been below expectations.
Shivetya 13y ago
It won't be a good thing for the economy, more people on the dole is never a good solution. The ACA was only going to "work" if it had enough healthy workers paying into it, having larger numbers of unsubsidized players. With so many dropping into the clearly subsidized roles this will push the costs of the program up. With the guarantees to the insurance companies built into the law the public will end up footing an even larger bill which requires increase taxes and health care costs for those working putting a bigger drag on the economy. Having more part time jobs which is what will happen when the employer side of this kick is not better that keeping full timers.
- rch 13y ago
  The hope is that we will observe an increase in real wages at the bottom end of the scale, which will have a very positive effect on the economy. This is evidence that people have been effectively trapped in jobs just for the healthcare. I actually worked with someone (who knows python, JavaScript, c#, t/sql, etc.) who had to work loading boxes at UPS on the night shift while he was between jobs because, while he could afford to quit and look for a new job, he couldn't afford a gap in his insurance. It's not that he was sucking down tons of services either - just having a gap would have been bad news. Now I hear that jobs at Whole Foods and Starbucks are pretty good all around, but there are others that I think will rightly need to pay more going forward.
- scarecrowbob 13y ago
  Well, take my wife (please): she was working as an employee, taking a job that could have been done by someone else (teaching orchestra at a school), and then we moved and she started a business (private violin studio). While she makes more as a private teacher, prior to the ACA she was previously unable to purchase health insurance on the private market due to a food allergy (a precondition). We had to move for other reasons than her job, but consider that there are many people doing work that other people do, who are motivated to do things like start a business, but who are otherwise unable to do so because of the US healthcare system. Additionally, consider my parents, who are also working not because they need the income per se-- they could retire and live well-- except for the costs and difficulties of purchasing health insurance on a private market. So it isn't the case that people are just universally "going on the dole"... making private insurance closer to the same cost to purchase health insurance regardless of your status as an employee shouldn't affect the overall bottom line of the leeches who provide insurance.
AutoCorrect 13y ago
But then again it can't be a good thing to reduce the income of the young just so the old can retire earlier.

hga 13y ago

Nit: large companies purchase healthcare itself, and have specialist companies administer it, including I'm sure arranging the usual negotiated rates. They're big enough to do their own pooling. Individuals have to buy insurance, because only a combination of them can form a (large enough) pool. And I note that your analysis that this is good only holds in a situation like today, where there's a labor surplus. In the future it could be a very bad thing, especially if individuals in otherwise productive parts of their life don't work and therefore don't pay for the Baby Boomers' retirement promises like Social Security and Medicare. ADDED: one thing we can be very sure about this law: there's going to be a bunch of "UNINTENDED consequences", and some of them will be bad. Some are likely to be very bad; one thing recently remarked on is that VCs are pulling back sharply from funding biomedical ventures, right now due to uncertainty, but things like the medical device tax are a component of that, and of well documented existing company retrenchment.

fbags 13y ago
One other thing we can be very sure about this law: there's going to be a bunch of "unintended consequences", and some of them will be good. Some are likely to be very good.
- CWuestefeld 13y ago
  Can you name other government programs -- particularly any of this scope and complexity -- that have had unintended positive consequences?
  - fbags 13y ago
    Yes. Any moderately intelligent and informed person could look at a government program and identify both positive and negative impacts. As an example, the entire Silicon Valley ecosystem started from the confluence of government programs, such as one where private investor dollars were matched by government dollars to create the very first valley VCs. I don't think anybody inside or outside of the government, projected the immensity of the impact of those programs. Or y'know... about 90% of the stuff that spun out from NASA. Anyway... I get it: you're a closed-minded ideologue and you weren't REALLY asking a question, you were just being snarky. So I'll stop pretending that I respect you now. And I'll stop pretending that we're having a conversation.
    - CWuestefeld 13y ago
      I don't think you've answered the question. In your response you cite a program that enjoyed the effects that were intended, but to an even greater degree than had been expected (and aside from the effects being expected, it's also not a large and complex program). Another example of a program that successfully achieved its goal, but surpassed expectations, would be the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system (which is probably the most successful large program I can think of). What's the NASA spinoff you allude to? I expect it's, again, what had been promised. Part of the plan was to bring about technological innovations. The development of velcro, or things like it, was part of the plan. What I actually asked for is any example of what you claimed to be a certainty: a large, complex government program having unintended positive results. I wasn't being snarky, I was trying to demonstrate that the record here is nearly, if not entirely, on the downside. History shows us governmental programs failing in a myriad of ways, but this isn't balanced on the upside. I honestly can't think of a counterexample within my parameters (large size and complexity, and having unintended positive results). EDIT: A better way to state my question occurred to me. What I'm looking for is not quantitatively unexpected results, but qualitatively unexpected results, because I think that's what is implied in the above back-and-forth about these qualitatively unintended bad results versus a certainty of unintended good results.
      - fbags 13y ago
- cema 13y ago
  Let's wait and see. So far it has been below expectations.

Shivetya 13y ago

It won't be a good thing for the economy, more people on the dole is never a good solution. The ACA was only going to "work" if it had enough healthy workers paying into it, having larger numbers of unsubsidized players. With so many dropping into the clearly subsidized roles this will push the costs of the program up. With the guarantees to the insurance companies built into the law the public will end up footing an even larger bill which requires increase taxes and health care costs for those working putting a bigger drag on the economy. Having more part time jobs which is what will happen when the employer side of this kick is not better that keeping full timers.

rch 13y ago
The hope is that we will observe an increase in real wages at the bottom end of the scale, which will have a very positive effect on the economy. This is evidence that people have been effectively trapped in jobs just for the healthcare. I actually worked with someone (who knows python, JavaScript, c#, t/sql, etc.) who had to work loading boxes at UPS on the night shift while he was between jobs because, while he could afford to quit and look for a new job, he couldn't afford a gap in his insurance. It's not that he was sucking down tons of services either - just having a gap would have been bad news. Now I hear that jobs at Whole Foods and Starbucks are pretty good all around, but there are others that I think will rightly need to pay more going forward.
scarecrowbob 13y ago
Well, take my wife (please): she was working as an employee, taking a job that could have been done by someone else (teaching orchestra at a school), and then we moved and she started a business (private violin studio). While she makes more as a private teacher, prior to the ACA she was previously unable to purchase health insurance on the private market due to a food allergy (a precondition). We had to move for other reasons than her job, but consider that there are many people doing work that other people do, who are motivated to do things like start a business, but who are otherwise unable to do so because of the US healthcare system. Additionally, consider my parents, who are also working not because they need the income per se-- they could retire and live well-- except for the costs and difficulties of purchasing health insurance on a private market. So it isn't the case that people are just universally "going on the dole"... making private insurance closer to the same cost to purchase health insurance regardless of your status as an employee shouldn't affect the overall bottom line of the leeches who provide insurance.

AutoCorrect 13y ago

But then again it can't be a good thing to reduce the income of the young just so the old can retire earlier.