Unemployment rate is at a 6 year low. I'm not saying that some part-timers haven't had to deal with some bad side effects of the law, but overall there are more jobs available now and real median household income has slowly started to rise from 2011 to 2014
These are some broad statements. First, both full and part-time position availability has increased, though they couldn't have gotten much worse after the 2008 crash. "Burdensome regulations" is vague to put it lightly and a phrase I hear a lot from a particularly polarized part of the political spectrum. I just recently finished a job search and had two part time job offers prior to landing a full time offer all in a matter of 3 weeks. Maybe my experience isn't common, but that was my experience.
Ok, so anything a company does that you don't like, they can just blame the government and you buy it? So maybe you can explain why US corporate profits are at an all time high? Maybe it's all of those burdensome regulations that are driving profits higher? Explain this to me please.
Psai.. No. I'm just a guy that worked in the insurance industry for over 15 years as a management consultant, spent 3 years of my life living and volunteering overseas (which gives me some perspective that you might not find in somebody that has been either in diapers or school their entire life), I also have an MBA with a concentration in Healthcare Administration. So, please, yes, as a medical student, tell how you smart people think. I'm intrigued.
Premiums have increased at less than historical rates!! 10% increases year over year have been the norm for 2 decades! This is like arguing with climate deniers. Every time you have a conversation with one, you have to start from square 1. And yes, people have to sign up. Maybe you'd rather pay for everybody else's ER visits? That's the better plan in your opinion? Hell, let's just get rid of car insurance and we can all start paying for uninsured drivers too.
Man, are you even trying? "Healthcare access goes down when people can't afford to be treated." Use your grown up words and do some research. Here, I'll even help you out (http://www.factcheck.org/2014/02/aca-impact-on-per-capita-cost-of-health-care/).
See everybody. THIS is how you debate. I need to run to an interview now, but will be back tonight. Thank you ajh1983 for the substantive input.
Cidem, do you know what non-sequitur means? It means irrelevant. You claim that companies are being forced to cut part time employees hours because of a specific provision in the law. Of course, nobody is forcing the companies to cut hours, the companies are opting to cut hours as a cost saving action. If US companies were currently struggling, I might agree with you, but they are not. Their decisions are simply bottom line based and, importantly, completely their own. Nobody is forcing them to make cuts and their profits are, on average, higher than ever. So, they crunch the numbers, see that they can improve their bottom line by making cuts and have the added protection of being able to blame it all on the ACA. From an exec standpoint, it's a win win. They get exactly what they want while screwing their employees and blaming somebody else. Again, if US corporation were not seeing record profits year over year, I might agree with you, but the argument that ACA has somehow forced them to make the human resource decisions they have is laughably transparent.
Oh, man, you are a beauty. The whole premise of your comment is based on the lie that I am saying "all companies are making record profits". Which, of course, I never said (in other words, you need to brush up on your debate skills). What i said is that, on average, US companies profits have been at record levels, which is 100% true. If you think decisions around the 30 hour rule are what is saving companies from financial catastrophe and delivering them to record profits, I have a bridge to sell you. Finally, you completely ignore that fact that available work hours (and jobs) have increased since the law was passed. Unemployment is down. The number of people opting to not look for work is also down. How do you reconcile all of this, Cidem?
I'll tell you why it's so hard to believe for him. His experience has been negative and, since he has a myopic view of the world and is utterly devoid of any historical perspective, he feels the ACA should go away and that anybody that claims a positive experience is either ignorant or lying. He feels that his personal negative experience means that over 10 million people should be kicked off health coverage, insurance companies should be allowed to cancel your policy if you get sick, and that you should be denied coverage if you have any sort of pre-existing condition. Apparently, there are millions of people that have been negatively impacted by the ACA that didn't bother to come out to vote in 2014 and would rather lose healthcare protections that took over 100 years to get because their employer, and not their government, cut their hours and made a scapegoat of the ACA.
Oh, Psai. There there. It's Friday! Buck up little camper. First, now that you're a grown up, when somebody send you a link, you need to read the grown up words and not just look at the pictures. The article talks about the slowed growth of expenditures as not being related to decreased utilization. I was pretty clear the link was in response to your utilization comment...i even quoted you just before the link. Hard to make that more clear. Very hard. Yet, you seemed to screw it up.
Agreed. Way too much red tape. We spend $900 per person in this country on administrative costs alone. Hopefully, the push toward digitizing medical records will help.
That's it? That's all you got? Well, if you're finally giving up, I'm going to go get a beer. Enjoy your evening all!
Is that like an "I know you are but what am I?" sort or response? I'm going to go cry in my beer now.
So you feel that pen and paper should be the future of medicine? That is truly visionary.
