4.5 milion lose company health ins in 18 months

dogtowner

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
17,849
Location
Wandering around
gee, thats not what they aid would happen...

but it was exactly what anyone looking at it objectively expected. wait untill it really starts ramping up the pain. but there is hope, you can make the nightmare go away next November.

Throughout the Obamacare debate, President Obama repeatedly promised, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Now, Gallup reports that from the first quarter of 2010 (when Obama signed Obamacare into law) to the third quarter of this year, 2 percent of American adults lost their employer sponsored health insurance. In other words, about 4.5 million Americans lost their employer-sponsored insurance over a span of just 18 months.


This is not what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had predicted would happen. Rather, the CBO had predicted that Obamacare would increase the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance by now. It had predicted that, under Obamacare, 6 million more Americans would have employer-sponsored insurance in 2011 than in 2010 (see table 4, which shows the CBO’s projected increase of 3 million under (pre-Obamacare) current law and an additional 3 million under Obamacare). So the CBO’s rosy projections for Obamacare (and even these paint a frightening picture) are already proving false.

Whether the decline in employer-sponsored insurance over the past 18 months is a product of Obamacare or of the Obama economy — and whether Obamacare is the principal cause of the anemic performance of the Obama economy — can be debated. But what’s clear is that, more than 25 months before Obamacare would really go into effect — if it’s not repealed first — employers are already dropping employees from their insurance rolls.


Take Walmart, for example — a prominent Obamacare supporter. Gallup writes,



“The nation's largest private employer, Wal-Mart, announced in October that new part-time employees who work less than an average of 24 hours a week would no longer be able to get their health insurance from the company. Wal-Mart laid out several other cuts to its health insurance offerings, including some workers’ ability get coverage for their spouses. Other companies have already made and will likely continue to make similar changes to their health insurance benefits….
“If Wal-Mart's decision is a precursor of how employers intend to manage their healthcare costs, the downward trend in employer-based healthcare will likely continue.”


So in addition to costing about $2.5 trillion over its real first decade (2014 to 2023), looting nearly $1 trillion from Medicare over that time (according to the CBO), forcing Americans to buy government-approved health insurance under penalty of law, and amassing unprecedented power and money in Washington at the expense of Americans’ liberty — if Obamacare stays on the books, you may like your health care plan, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you can keep your health care plan.
It’s time to repeal Obamacare.
 
Werbung:
gee, thats not what they aid would happen...

but it was exactly what anyone looking at it objectively expected. wait untill it really starts ramping up the pain. but there is hope, you can make the nightmare go away next November.

Once again, you are showing either a lack of ability to consider the whole issue, or a lack of honesty.

Obviously. . .when people in a period of high unemployment, people will lose their employer sponsored insurance. . .because most unemployed people (especially if it last several months) CANNOT AFFORD COBRA!

61 percent of those under the age of 65 receive coverage through their
jobs or through the job of a family member.6 As a result, when workers are laid off, they
(and their families) often lose their health coverage as well. A recent study of multiple years
of data from the U.S. Census Bureau regarding unemployment and insurance concluded
that, for each one percentage point rise in the unemployment rate, the number of uninsured Americans rises by about 1.1 million.

Did you check how many people filed for NEW unemployment insurance during those 18 months? I would predict that the number would be quite similar to the number of people who lost their "employer insurance!"

Wallmart has NEVER been a good employer. . .preferring to hire part-time people, rather than full time, precisely so that they wouldn't have to provide health insurance, and preferring to hire people over 65 (with medicare) rather than younger ones whenever possible.

Still, the main cause of "loss of employer health insurance coverage" is directly connected to people filing for unemployment for the first time. . .
It has nothing to do with AHCA!
 
Once again, you are showing either a lack of ability to consider the whole issue, or a lack of honesty.

Obviously. . .when people in a period of high unemployment, people will lose their employer sponsored insurance. . .because most unemployed people (especially if it last several months) CANNOT AFFORD COBRA!



Did you check how many people filed for NEW unemployment insurance during those 18 months? I would predict that the number would be quite similar to the number of people who lost their "employer insurance!"

Wallmart has NEVER been a good employer. . .preferring to hire part-time people, rather than full time, precisely so that they wouldn't have to provide health insurance, and preferring to hire people over 65 (with medicare) rather than younger ones whenever possible.

Still, the main cause of "loss of employer health insurance coverage" is directly connected to people filing for unemployment for the first time. . .
It has nothing to do with AHCA!


Obama keeps telling us he has created 2 million plus jobs. Labor notes small increases in net jobs to support this notion (net jobs being losses offset by gains where a positive figure means more hired than fired). so for there to be less people insured its because their new employers are not offering insurance. underemployment does not account for all of that leaving already documented company decisions as the obvious culpret.
 
Obama keeps telling us he has created 2 million plus jobs. Labor notes small increases in net jobs to support this notion (net jobs being losses offset by gains where a positive figure means more hired than fired). so for there to be less people insured its because their new employers are not offering insurance. underemployment does not account for all of that leaving already documented company decisions as the obvious culpret.

Yes, Obama created an enormous amount of jobs. . .but MANY government jobs have been lost. . .thanks to GOP wanting "smaller government!"

Many private industry jobs do not provide insurance coverage (especially part-time and temp, which has been the fastest growing sector!), while governent jobs do come with health care insurance.

So. . .4.5 million people may have lost their employer provided insurance. . .but it is absolutely not related to "Obama care."
 
Yes, Obama created an enormous amount of jobs. . .but MANY government jobs have been lost. . .thanks to GOP wanting "smaller government!"

Many private industry jobs do not provide insurance coverage (especially part-time and temp, which has been the fastest growing sector!), while governent jobs do come with health care insurance.

So. . .4.5 million people may have lost their employer provided insurance. . .but it is absolutely not related to "Obama care."



hmmm

as convincing as that argument is I think I'll trust Gallop's analysis instead. they do this for a living.
 
hmmm

as convincing as that argument is I think I'll trust Gallop's analysis instead. they do this for a living.

I'm not sure if GALLOP does that for a living. . .
But you may try GALLUP? :rolleyes

But if you do try GALLUP. . .you should read the WHOLE article, not just what "seems" to fit your needs to bash Obama (as usual!):

In fact, Gallup appears to have come to the same conclusion I have. . .

At least 45% of Americans got their health insurance from an employer in every month in 2010, compared with more than 46% in 2009 and more than 48% in 2008. Initially, the percentage reporting they have employer-based health insurance seemed to be decreasing as unemployment and underemployment increased. (As I suggested) However, it is likely that other factors -- including fewer employers offering health insurance -- (Also as I suggested) are also contributing to this trend.

The percentage of adults with no health insurance has been increasing in 2011, with the 17.3% who were uninsured last quarter statistically tying the second quarter of this year for the highest on record. The increase in the percentage of uninsured Americans in the second quarter of 2011 coincides with Gallup's decision to include surveying more cell phone-only respondents in the U.S. beginning April 1. Thus, some of the increase in the uninsured could reflect the greater representation of cell phone-only respondents -- who tend to be younger (young adults are more likely to be uninsured) -- in Gallup samples. (I didn't think of that!)

While the percentage of 18- to 26-year-olds who lack health insurance has declined, (thanks to Obama Care who allows young adults to be covered under their parents' policy until the age of 26) there has been an increase among 25- to- 64-year-olds -- who make up a much larger segment of the population -- without health insurance. Young adults are likely benefiting from the provision in the new healthcare law that lets them stay on their parents' health plans until age 26. However, none of the other components of the health law that have already been implemented -- tax credits to help small businesses provide health insurance to their employees and the establishment of a Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan among several others -- appear to be affecting coverage for older adults.

Gallup initially found an increase in the percentage of Americans who were uninsured in the fourth quarter of 2008, as the effects of the financial crisis took hold and unemployment began to rise. Since then, the uninsured rate has remained elevated

Now. . .you probably won't even acknowledge that you gave a "spin" to "GALLOP" data. . .
This is what usually happen. . . when someone calls one of the Republicans in this forum on FALSE information, the thread just "dies off" misteriously. . .rather than admitting your mistake!

A very mature and honest attitude! (NOT!)
 
I know, lets pretend like people losing health care is all of the sudden something we care about...yet fight against any idea that actually is there to help others get it..

Also lets just forget little facts like half of the Obama health care Bill plan are not even in effect yet...just pretend it is.

I thought before some of you republicans claimed that evryone has health care in the US, so what do you care?

Come to think of it, why do you guys pay for it, if its free for all?
 
I know, lets pretend like people losing health care is all of the sudden something we care about...yet fight against any idea that actually is there to help others get it..

Also lets just forget little facts like half of the Obama health care Bill plan are not even in effect yet...just pretend it is.

I thought before some of you republicans claimed that evryone has health care in the US, so what do you care?

Come to think of it, why do you guys pay for it, if its free for all?

Yes, Pocket. . .you may want to read my edited post again, because even the data given by Doggie had a spin on it. . . "cleverly" provided by the Dog himself!
 
I'm not sure if GALLOP does that for a living. . .
But you may try GALLUP? :rolleyes

But if you do try GALLUP. . .you should read the WHOLE article, not just what "seems" to fit your needs to bash Obama (as usual!):

In fact, Gallup appears to have come to the same conclusion I have. . .



Now. . .you probably won't even acknowledge that you gave a "spin" to "GALLOP" data. . .
This is what usually happen. . . when someone calls one of the Republicans in this forum on FALSE information, the thread just "dies off" misteriously. . .rather than admitting your mistake!

A very mature and honest attitude! (NOT!)



so do plan on pointing out all of my spelling errors henceforth ?

However, it is likely that other factors -- including fewer employers offering health insurance

which was he observation being made in the OP.
 
so do plan on pointing out all of my spelling errors henceforth ?



which was he observation being made in the OP.

Amongother things! and nothing says that fewer employers offer health insurance BECAUSE of the Obama AHC!

And, no, I don't have the time or inclination to point out to ALL your typos. I had noticed several times that you called GALLUP. GALLOP.

I thought it was time to point it out. . . Since you read Gallup with such careful attention to "details" andfor full comprehension only! :rolleyes: :D
 
Amongother things! and nothing says that fewer employers offer health insurance BECAUSE of the Obama AHC!

And, no, I don't have the time or inclination to point out to ALL your typos. I had noticed several times that you called GALLUP. GALLOP.

I thought it was time to point it out. . . Since you read Gallup with such careful attention to "details" andfor full comprehension only! :rolleyes: :D


nothing except for all the companies who stated that in their press releases on the subject.
 
nothing except for all the companies who stated that in their press releases on the subject.

sure, it's easy to use a scapegoat, especialy when the cost of private, for profit insurance keeps on increasing at a much faster rate in this country than in other developped nations!

And. . . This is why the propaganda about universal health care is "bad" for industry isso ridiculous! If there was a government option opened to everyone who CHOOSES to take that option, industries would be able to rely on that much lower cost as their basic health insurance offering, pay a contibution per employe for their share of the cost, and employees would not have to worry about losing their insurance if they lost their job!

By the way, nice of you to point out my typos, but at least these are not misspellings, and I don't butcher the name of my sources. This (many) typos are the results of my typing on my I-pad, which, as BigRob is also experiencing, is not as "precise" as a conventional keyboard.
 
Werbung:
sure, it's easy to use a scapegoat, especialy when the cost of private, for profit insurance keeps on increasing at a much faster rate in this country than in other developped nations!

Link ? Not sure I accept this on your say so.

And. . . This is why the propaganda about universal health care is "bad" for industry isso ridiculous! If there was a government option opened to everyone who CHOOSES to take that option, industries would be able to rely on that much lower cost as their basic health insurance offering, pay a contibution per employe for their share of the cost, and employees would not have to worry about losing their insurance if they lost their job!

link ? and is the cost lower or does the govt not intend to cover expenses ? nothing has changed to lower the cost of care.

By the way, nice of you to point out my typos, but at least these are not misspellings, and I don't butcher the name of my sources. This (many) typos are the results of my typing on my I-pad, which, as BigRob is also experiencing, is not as "precise" as a conventional keyboard.

I understand its possible to make corrections as needed but feel free to blame Mr Job's faulty product if you wish.
 
Back
Top