5 ms·

Uh, what? The government isn't really giving an incentive at all. If I were young and didn't have a lifestyle that required a full-time salary, I certainly wo

Uh, what? The government isn't really giving an incentive at all. If I were young and didn't have a lifestyle that required a full-time salary, I certainly wouldn't be shackled to a full-time job just to keep insurance. I think that's the case for a ton of people. You also have to consider the small business case. I can't tell you how many technology workers I know who have health issues and would otherwise be building a startup or working as a consultant, but before the ACA they could never dream of getting or keeping health insurance. I mean I'm a relatively healthy 20-something and was denied health insurance several times, and when I was approved, was paying ridiculous amounts per month because I was 10 pounds overweight. Putting those prices back in line for most people and not tying health insurance to a full-time job is the whole point. I fail to see how this is government offering an incentive of any sort, unless that's what you meant and it was poorly phrased?

yummyfajitas 13y ago
If I were young and didn't have a lifestyle that required a full-time salary, I certainly wouldn't be shackled to a full-time job just to keep insurance. I think that's the case for a ton of people. So you are saying you might produce less as a result of subsidies given to you if you choose not to have a full time job? You are agreeing with 300bps.
- jeremymcanally 13y ago
  What I'm saying is if, for example, my spouse and I could work enough to pay our bills without working full-time jobs I absolutely would. And that would not require taking advantage of a government subsidy. If I worked 10 hours a week as a consultant at $120/hour, that's over $60k, well out of the realm of any real "subsidy" from the government for insurance. So, no, I do not agree with him.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    Requiring insurance companies to charge you and a person at a healthy weight the same price is a subsidy (and applies at all income levels). You agree with his claims, just not his tone.
300bps 13y ago
The government isn't really giving an incentive at all This statement is incredibly naive and shows a complete lack of knowledge of economics. When the government gives incentives for making less money, then they are giving an incentive to make less money. It's that simple, but let me explain. To get a bronze family plan on healthcare.gov, I was quoted $12,000 per year with a $12,700 deductible. Basically, I'd be paying $24,000 per year for healthcare. That's the list price, which is what I have to pay if my wife and I make more than $96,000 per year (1/4 of the income goes toward healthcare). The cost goes down the less I make below $96,000. This is government giving me an incentive to make less money.
- byoung2 13y ago
  * This is government giving me an incentive to make less money.* Or at least report less income. I bet a lot of people will move into the shadow economy, and get paid in cash. Instead of getting a W2 with 50k on it, I can work a part time job and report 20k, and do some off books work for 30k. I would qualify for the subsidy, and get a chunk of cash that I don't pay taxes on.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Of course, prosecution for tax evasion when you're noticed living beyond your means is an incentive not to do that.
    - hga 13y ago
      Funny enough, it's just been reported that under Obama criminal tax prosecutions have gone up, e.g. http://news.yahoo.com/u-fighting-increase-tax-crimes-under-obama-watchdog-205905030--business.html http://news.yahoo.com/u-fighting-increase-tax-crimes-under-o... "[...] under Obama the average annual number of tax crime prosecutions sought by the Justice Department has been 1,568, versus 1,303 under Bush." Doesn't sound like that's going to strike fear in the hearts of many. Plus I suspect detecting small fry like in byoung2's example is rather difficult.
      - 13y ago

yummyfajitas 13y ago

If I were young and didn't have a lifestyle that required a full-time salary, I certainly wouldn't be shackled to a full-time job just to keep insurance. I think that's the case for a ton of people. So you are saying you might produce less as a result of subsidies given to you if you choose not to have a full time job? You are agreeing with 300bps.

jeremymcanally 13y ago
What I'm saying is if, for example, my spouse and I could work enough to pay our bills without working full-time jobs I absolutely would. And that would not require taking advantage of a government subsidy. If I worked 10 hours a week as a consultant at $120/hour, that's over $60k, well out of the realm of any real "subsidy" from the government for insurance. So, no, I do not agree with him.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Requiring insurance companies to charge you and a person at a healthy weight the same price is a subsidy (and applies at all income levels). You agree with his claims, just not his tone.

300bps 13y ago

The government isn't really giving an incentive at all This statement is incredibly naive and shows a complete lack of knowledge of economics. When the government gives incentives for making less money, then they are giving an incentive to make less money. It's that simple, but let me explain. To get a bronze family plan on healthcare.gov, I was quoted $12,000 per year with a $12,700 deductible. Basically, I'd be paying $24,000 per year for healthcare. That's the list price, which is what I have to pay if my wife and I make more than $96,000 per year (1/4 of the income goes toward healthcare). The cost goes down the less I make below $96,000. This is government giving me an incentive to make less money.

byoung2 13y ago
* This is government giving me an incentive to make less money.* Or at least report less income. I bet a lot of people will move into the shadow economy, and get paid in cash. Instead of getting a W2 with 50k on it, I can work a part time job and report 20k, and do some off books work for 30k. I would qualify for the subsidy, and get a chunk of cash that I don't pay taxes on.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Of course, prosecution for tax evasion when you're noticed living beyond your means is an incentive not to do that.
  - hga 13y ago
    Funny enough, it's just been reported that under Obama criminal tax prosecutions have gone up, e.g. http://news.yahoo.com/u-fighting-increase-tax-crimes-under-obama-watchdog-205905030--business.html http://news.yahoo.com/u-fighting-increase-tax-crimes-under-o... "[...] under Obama the average annual number of tax crime prosecutions sought by the Justice Department has been 1,568, versus 1,303 under Bush." Doesn't sound like that's going to strike fear in the hearts of many. Plus I suspect detecting small fry like in byoung2's example is rather difficult.
    - 13y ago