Slashdot Mirror
Obamacare Could Help Fuel a Tech Start-Up Boom
dcblogs writes "The arrival of Obamacare may make it easier for some employees to quit their full-time jobs to launch tech start-ups, work as a freelance consultant, or pursue some other solo career path. Most tech start-up founders are older and need health insurance. 'The average age of people who create a tech start-up is 39, and not 20-something,' said Bruce Bachenheimer, who heads Pace University's Entrepreneurship Lab. Entrepreneurs are willing to take on risks, but health care is not a manageable risk, he said. 'There is a big difference between mortgaging your house on something you can control, and risking going bankrupt by an illness because of something you can't control,' said Bachenheimer. Donna Harris, the co-founder of the 1776 incubation platform in Washington, believes the healthcare law will encourage more start-ups. 'You have to know that there are millions of Americans who might be fantastic and highly successful entrepreneurs who are not pursuing that path because of how healthcare is structured,' said Harris"
Bachmann said Job Killing Regulations!
If th e US has a civilized Health Care system, I would start my own business much easier. Or join a start up without worrying about health care.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
One of the things the haters don't get is how big an implicit tax we pay because we don't have universal health care. Other countries pay far less per person, with far less risk. You may not be thinking about it when you're 20 something and healthy, but in a moment you can lose everything because you're not covered.
I've worked in the medical device start-up world for about 10 years now. The 2.3% tax imposed by Obamacare has really hurt. Because it's a tax on gross, not net, it makes it much harder for small companies to turn a profit. So funding has been drying up.
At least in the US. Because of the way the tax is calculated, imported products have an advantage. So funding is shifting OUS.
That simply doesn't wash. While I certainly want everyone to have coverage and to get the best treatment, the fact is, BY LAW in the United States, no hospital can refuse to provide essential care. I have a friend who had breast cancer, and who went through the entire course of treatment without paying a penny. I have another who suffered kidney failure and went through years of dialysis -- without paying a dime.
The real killer is *being*out*of*work. You're so sick, you can't work, so you have no income. For that, health insurance (whether Obamacare or something else) doesn't do a thing. You need coverage to pay the bills while you're out of work.
THAT'S why people go bankrupt.
Not taking sides either way, I'm just pointing that out. The fact is, also under the law, even if you have assets, as long as you pay the hospital what you can afford (even if it's only $5 a week), they can't do anything to you. If they take you to court, you can tell the judge: I was out of work for a year, I can afford to pay them $25 a month and that's it. The judge will almost always agree.
I've been in court and have watched it happen.
Again: you can make an argument for universal health care. But I just wanted to set the record straight about that.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
I can't begin to imagine how many people I've worked with over the years that have only worked somewhere because of the health benefits. Make the health benefits no longer an issue and you gain better competition in the market for where people can work. Remove the barrier and all of a sudden a lot of places that previously would not have attracted enterprise class talent open up.
The fact that some of these places are starts ups is largely incidental. Think of it this way, something like 40% of fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants. Why? Because they were hardworking and didn't have anything holding them back.
I know I've turned down employment opportunities for a lack of viable health insurance for my family, I have to imagine that I'm far from the only one. What happens when people are no longer held back by this very practical concern and can go for broke like the immigrant entrepreneur?
Ok, I almost need healthcare after trying to read this.
true, but they are specifically target a demographic that has traditionally been held back by needing health care.
Frankly, I suspect its' why large corporations don't get behind universal health care. They can't trap employees. At least that's the only reason I can think of since a good national health care system would save them money, and be consist and predicable in the books.
Obviously there could be another reason and I simple didn't find it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/dec2010/sb20101210_839038.htm
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
It's hard to know where best to direct criticism of this arrant, political nonsense. Obamacare, at least for the specious reasons given above, will have zero net effect on people in their late 30s deciding whether or no to begin a startup. MANY startups operate with no health insurance right now,
I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Are you saying because there are many startups with no health insurance the number of startups will not increase if people have access to health insurance?
Wir sind geboren, um frei zu sein - Rio Reiser
Oh, sure. And we had prosperous booms without computers, too. That people succeeded without something isn't evidence that having it won't help them.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
If the VCs said they were interested but didn't put any money down, it's because they weren't really interested. Canadian politeness, eh?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
That is a load of bull. Any startup would have to have 50+ employees before being required to offer health care. And then the cost under ACA is much less. Stop spreading your misinformed lies.
You are dumb. For every startup you see where someone was willing to go without insurance or try to foot the bill for an expensive plan, there are 5 more considering it and choosing to wait because of health concerns.
You're anecdotal experience is just that. Anecdotal.
Like any other form of tax, Obamacare's net results will be negative in employment
As a truism, that's bullshit. And it's not even entertaining bullshit.
Let's pretend it was taken to it's logical extreme, aka a society with zero taxes. Also known as a society with no roads, no enforced laws, no food inspection, no building codes, etc. You really thing that's a better functioning society with increased employment? Now, obviously a society at the other extreme (100% taxes) is equally dysfunctional. Arguments can be made for lower taxes (and certainly better spent taxes), and arguments can be made for raising taxes in some circumstances (certainly worked in California lately), but to say lower taxes are always better is so stupid it's not even wrong.
Never mind. It's not. In which case, neither will it "fuel" anything. Obama didn't build that.
If you say, have some disease, and it is cured, and you want health coverage, you are stuck in your present job with it's present health coverage. Change jobs, and ooopsies, it's a preexisting condition. So a friend of my spouse who had breast cancer, is stuck in her job. Because if it recurs, which isn't likely at this point, but possible, she is bankrupt.
And despite all the hate, there is a lit fuse in the present system. People without health care do get treatment for their illnesses and minor issues. They go to the Emergency room. There, they get the most expensive treatment available to people - emergency room care. Before my father passed away last year, he was in the emergency room three times. And it was a little strange. Most of the people there just seemed to have minor problems, like sore throats, colds, sick kids. I'd asked about that, and the eanswer was "it's poor folk with no insurance." But rest assured that it is paid for, by your's and my premiums, and by Government.
The problem is, as insurance costs go up, and people drop off the rolls, the emergency room will become more and more used for more and more people. A real positive feedback loop, Eventually no one except people who can pay for their medical bills out of hand will afford health insurance. Then, unless we are going to force peole to go without medical treatment, we'll have a bizzare form of universal coverage. Not a good idea at all.
Reading the opposition plan, it is some bafflegab about doing the same thing as we are doing now, except for more bafflegab about affordability.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If you have a stable job, don't burn any bridges too soon. The two paths this will take will be vaporware or custerfluck. Neither of which are desireable options for the dutifully-employed.
If you're unemployed, can code, and don't already do consulting for scraps - make sure the scope of what you take on is well defined. This behemoth will not be easily scoped or contained.
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
I had to come to the USA to see people worried about changing jobs because of loss of healthcare. Just because YOU were in a startup without healthcare doesn't mean a damn thing really, mostly it doesn't mean others are willing to make the same risks. Much less, this is a fucking tech website, so chances are that the startup was still a relatively well paying job... where this is REALLY going to help is startups for jobs that don't pay as well, it will be easier to create a startup for companies with manual labor jobs (stacking boxes in a warehouse, digging ditches, whatever) where you would not otherwise be able to get your employees healthcare for whom they have probably been stuck 10 years working at a walmart distribution center simply because they can't lose their totally shitty healthcare.
any idiot who cannot see the benefit of this legislation is both ignorant to the benefits that it creates a benefit at the grass roots level, AND is probably selling something.
People who start tech companies is 39 is because they get laid off and replaced with a know-nothing 23-year-old when they are 38.
You're example is rare, and I doubt they had young kids..
I would risk no health care and a start up if 3 people didn't depend on my to survive.
Whats wrong with statism**?
Something do not work in a market becasue there is no really competition, like, say, healthcare.
Check out the hospitals and health care in countries where there is no regulation of a healthcare policy. Just be careful, you might trip of the people dying in the street.
"Like any other form of tax,
the idea that a tax means less employment is faulty.*
*which is a kind way of me telling you you're an ignorant SOB with no clue what you are talking about. But I'm to polite to say that.
**I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt abs assume you actually know what statism is and you aren't actually talking about authoritarianism.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yep:
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/dec2010/sb20101210_839038.htm
And I've personally known many people who decided not to build a business because they couldn't afford to be without health insurance. I know even more who decided to take a job at a stable company rather than a startup for that reason. It will absolutely make more people give it a shot, because it lowers the risks involved. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something- most likely the world's most morally bankrupt philosophy libertarianism.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Healthcare is one major reason I decided to move back to Canada and work in a self employed situation. Here people can work two part time jobs if they want, or start a business and not worry about having to buy into basic health care plans. Many companies do offer supplementary insurance though. Even our own family company is thinking of doing that.
Obviously freedom means different things to different people. Guess at least half the republican party sees things differently.
lol at this quote from your article:
So what's different in Europe that might account for the better relative performance of small business? First, taxes are lower. After Japan, the U.S. has the next highest corporate tax rate among industrialized nations and a higher rate than all of Europe.
The paranoia certainly has fueled profits for right-wing talk and "news" shows.
Table-ized A.I.
Wouldn't that be "broken spleen fallacy"?
Table-ized A.I.
What exactly do they mean by tech startup? The 40 year old project manager for a software company that leaves to consult with an existing customer base to increase freedom/pay? Or the Elon Musk starting a new billion dollar venture? I guess they're both tech, and they're both startups, but the current industry definition of tech startup only really applies to the latter, while the age of the people being mentioned are the people that go into small time consulting after they're tired of the corporate world and realize that the company is charging the customer $200/hr while you're being paid $50/hr to render service
The article you linked to makes no mention of healthcare being a factor, but *gasp* lower taxes, lower regulatory barriers, and better access to capital.
You may want to read things before using them to justify your position, or you end up looking silly.
Read the laws again. The law merely requires facilities that accept Medicare and provide emergency care to provide "stabilizing" treatment to emergency conditions without regard to ability to pay. Once you are stable, it is perfectly legal to toss you out the door. Your friend likely found a facility that was willing to cover her cancer under their charitable care program (some level of unpaid care is required in most states for non-profit hospitals.) If your friend had needed a transplant, she would have discovered the limits of that care. (People routinely die due to inability to get transplants covered; they are just too expensive for most hospitals to write off.) Dialysis is ALWAYS covered by Medicare as soon as four months elapse, no matter your age. But you need to find somebody to cover those four months, unless you want to head to the ER every time you crash. This is by no means guaranteed. You most certainly can be refused "essential" care, as long as you are not in danger of dying right there in the lobby. (As in, they'll treat you if you are about to fall into a diabetic coma, but aren't at all required to provide you with a monitor and strips (much less insulin) long-term to keep it from happening again.)
Next, there is no law saying that hospitals (or anybody) cannot collect on debt as long as you are making minimal payments. They can pursue debt collection equal to the efforts of any other unsecured creditor. And yes, if you show up and offer up what you can, the judge may take you up on your payment plan... but that's not set in stone and varies widely by state.
And yes, being out of work drives people to bankruptcy, but so do unaffordable co-pays and deductibles, policies with horrible annual limits, policies with limited coverage, unaffordable drugs, sudden catastrophe without insurance (it doesn't take much), etc. The paths to medical bankruptcy are many.
If you have a "serious" pre-existing condition (and the criteria for what that means is VERY broad), absent Obamacare, it's VERY difficult (and in many cases impossible) to obtain insurance. And what insurance is available is often utterly unaffordable and or horrible. (Any pre-existing condition you have will usually be outright excluded, along with childbirth.)
With Obamacare, those in excellent health will indeed pay more for coverage, but those in anything less than excellent health will now be able to obtain usable insurance outside of an employer group plan.
Yeah, just like Buffett's line of (paraphrased) "Nobody ever decided not to earn another dollar because they would have to pay tax on it".
And, of course, sick people being fucked over by the current system.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
At a state level, Nevada, where I live, is ranked third by the Tax Foundation in "state business tax climate" for 2013, and conversely 47th in tax collected per person. We have no corporate income tax, no personal state income tax. We ranked 46th in federal aid in 2011 (same source), so it's not like Nevada is a "donor" state.
So, free of all of those taxes, Nevada's unemployment rates should be pretty good, because taxes are the worst thing for a regional economy, right? Except, in August, the state had the highest unemployment rate in the nation according to the BLS.
Yes, there are other factors besides taxation. There is regulation, of course, but it doesn't seem that much worse here than in California where I used to live. We have the double whammy of underfunded schools with a very strong teachers union, which pretty makes any improvement in education impossible. Our state legislature meets only every two years, and seems to function about on par with our federal legislature, so getting anything done from a legislative perspective is difficult. It gets really hot here about 1/3 of the year (although not much in the way of earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. - pick your poison I guess)
In my case, I was drawn to Nevada by the low taxation, but businesses are not crashing the boarders. Taxation is not everything. There is a balance to be had between taxes and other quality of life factors, some of which you need government actively involved with. Education, infrastructure, utility price stability also count.
Go on then - tell us what your interpretation of the doubleplusgood Randian word "statism" means in equivalent English. Feel free to use big words like "authoritarianism" or "philosophy" if you've picked them up since graduation from every child wins a prize school.
I'm sick of personal definitions that can even go as far as reverse meanings for the same thing elsewhere. If you are going to shove such a thing in somebodies face, expect them to guess how it's been twisted this time, and then have a go at them for not picking up the twist by telepathy then expect to be called out on it until you explain what you actually mean. Such petty bullying is annoying but you were hoping it would only be read by people with zero self esteem didn't you?
The level of the taxes is not really important. What is at stake is what you get for the taxes. If taxes pay for education and healthcare, businesses get educated and healthy workers. If it pays a war in Iraq, it just benefits businesses linked to defense (well.. I should say war instead of defense).
Obamacare slightly reduces the cost of insurance for older people (like me) but then materially increases the cost for young males and in other ways in practice. Ever look at the demographics of a tech startup beyond a founder? At my startup, we pay for good insurance for our employees and while maybe my individual insurance is slightly cheaper, that is apparently buried in the noise floor of the increasing costs for the total employee pool. And the small difference in individual cost for older individuals does not materially alter the risk calculus for the individual in terms of whether they'll start a tech company.
It would be nice to see a little honesty that the law as written will be terrible for a lot of people. Including, empirically, tech startups. The percentage increases per employee are not small at all going forward and I know a lot of tech startups that are trying figure out if and how they can bury those new costs. I'm sure there are many policies that would reduce the direct costs for startups but this wasn't it, and predictably so. Perhaps media spin artists can contrive politically palatable scenarios where it reduces some startup's cost slightly while out here in the real world there has been a substantial increase in the cost of providing health insurance at tech startups.
Consequently, the idea that this reality will fuel a tech startup boom is some pretty strained reasoning. It may have some benefits but this won't be one of them. Obamacare might have helped some people but tech startups do not seem to be among them.
First, it is unclear how taxes effect the economy. We know that Reagan lowered taxes, but it is also arguable that his military deficiet spending, like W, was the real cause of the economic expansion. We know that when Bush 'read my lips' raised taxes, and when that lead to a growing economy that was not dependent on military spending, we got all sorts of great things out of it under Clinton. Form a business perspective, on e problem is that are many people who government jobs because of healthcare. On a purely labor basis, for example, the military removes a huge potential workforce from the labor pool. How can a start up who needs basic labor compete with above minimum wage, a housing allowance, a subsistence allowance and health care. I talk to kids who are joining the military simply because they cannot figure another way to live, and see the benefits. If healthcare were less complicated, these kids might work for someone, learn some stuff, and get a legitimate job like I did. I was able to because I was in college and had health insurance through that, so I was free to explore and learn from experienced business people who employed me to do various IT tasks. I also know many people who hold down uninteresting corporate of government jobs for the health insurance. At the end of the day, they don't bring home that much money. I know many people who have real skills, and would love to go out and sell those skills in the entrepreneurial market, or some who would simply work to make the family business more successful. They cannot go out and innovate, however, because the risk of a health care crisis is too high. I imagine in the next few years we might see a lot of people leave their relatively unproductive jobs and go out and innovate. Or young people who realize they can get subsidized health insurance while the try to find their place in life which is not a government job. What I find annoying about all the people who take about how bad government healthcare is, is that so many are on it, and don't see to realize how much money the US is wasting by making a government job the only possible reality for so many people. Over the past few years the number of government jobs has been slashed, and the best outcome of the ACA is that we continue see people support themselves rather than depending on the dole.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Well he IS called Scareduck afterall.....
I can't wait. I have spent a decade without it, with no employer willing to fund it. Changing jobs, working more hours, additional education, more years of experience, etc. never helped. Save for a few months years ago, I have not been able to afford the self insurance premiums.
Tomorrow I can.
They/we may need medical insurance but this isn't it. Just because I'm dying of thirst in the desert doesn't mean that I am going to drink the glycol with water out of the radiator.
--------
The problem is the medical system itself uses corrupted, ineffective and extraordinarily cost inefficient methods favored by certain suppliers e.g. the pharmaceuticals.
I have a family member with stage IV cancer, once considered truly hopeless. Cost at this point is normally $1-2 million and certain death, usually gone 1-2 years ago. We used family science capabilities to identify, choose and use foreign, off-label and natural treatments. Some are not even allowed in the USA because, get this, they were not toxic enough for FDA approval !! Our cost to date? Under $40,000, alive and doing well several years later.
How much is Obamacare worth to us? Nothing, wouldn't pay most bills, so actually a negative value, subsidizing insistently dangerous interference. Better to just pay cash.
This is just another case of conservatives (this time the slashdot variety, but that isn't terribly important) trying to jockey for position to take credit if the Health Insurance Company Bailout Act of 2010 works out well for anyone beyond just the insurance industry. They are planting the ideas of possible potential benefits so that they can say "we told you so" if they pan out. As much as they are bitching (read: exhibiting massive grandstanding) on capital hill right now, the conservatives put themselves in the ultimate can't-lose position here; if it works they can say it was based on what Romney did and if it doesn't they can say it was overreaching.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Nevada is a poor example. Their taxes are low because the tourism industry heavily subsidizes the entire state budget. Tax collection is quite high, but it's not coming out of the pockets of the residents of the state. Sales tax and vehicle registration taxes are also quite high. As far as unemployment, Nevada (especially Las Vegas), has a very uneducated, unhealthy, and transient population. Many people moved there during the construction boom, and the economy of the state is not diverse enough to accommodate the bust.
Scott
By keeping workers as serfs to their and their children's medical needs the capitalists have kept wages down and mobility on their side, even during the tech boom, how much knowledge and experience was kept in billion dollar corporate hands instead of joining a startup or founding a company not due to free choice but rather the need to make sure little timmy got his braces and little Susie got her insulin pump.
job security is already a goner, pensions are an endangered species in the private sector and the oblong box in the corner of the room keeps the people mystified and jealous of public workers who hung on to their pensions and insurance instead of being pissed that theirs were stolen to buy another private island for the CEO.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Health is a risk for any entrepreneur and their family. If we could spread that risk across everyone for potential entrepreneurs (i.e. Insurance), we cultivate entrepreneurs. In my management class 101 (if my education is relevant), there are the traditional 3 resources: land, labor, & capital. The fourth is entrepreneurship. Cultivating entrepreneurs is like growing a garden, stewarding land, enabling labor, and freeing up capital. Here are the risks: environment (hurricanes or blight for example), disease (think of plague, cancer), lack of investment markets (think of safety, information honesty, insider trading), and health to entrepreneurs (among other things). But, the question remains, does healthcare improve health? What is health anyway? Isn't prevention of health issues the goal (think of entropy, the body never heals back to the same way even if it can heal). As a very seasoned and young developer, it comes down to tip-toeing up to the problem. It's not a good idea to declare widespread solutions without empirical evidence. You creep up on it. That means, the Affordable Care Act, though it may be beneficial, needs to be tested in more places than Massachusetts (sp?) before you should install it on larger systems.
HIPAA which passed in 1997 made it so that no insurance could consider something a pre existing condition if you've had less than 63 days since you last had health insurance. You're hyperbolic example has been false for 15 years.
15 years and 63 days.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Tech start-ups in the US? Really? Why would any country use American technology now that the NSA has their fingers in everything? I don't think the ease of creating start-ups will offset the amount of market our paranoid government has pissed away.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The theory is: We already subsidize health care for everyone. Get sick and collapse on the sidewalk? They take you to the hospital. If you have money or insurance, you pay. If you are a homeless person with nothing, the hospital eats the cost. Well, they actually spread the expense across all the paying customers.
Wandering in (or being carried into) an ER is an extremely inefficient way to handle most medical issues. It would be more efficient to get people into a clinic for some treatment before they become an emergency. So Obamacare is aimed at getting the above subsidy to the people at a point that would buy them better and cheaper care.
Now, the reality is that every special interest has gotten their fingers in the legislation. So its probably rife with loopholes and opportunities for abuse. We will have to audit it carefully, plug the loopholes as they are discovered and throw some scam artists in prison to keep the program from bleeding money. It can be done, but only by people willing to work on it. Jumping up and down and whining will just play into the hands of the crooks.
Have gnu, will travel.
The think of it like this:
Taxing and spending are like a two-sided scale.
Taxing decreases the economy and employment (more or less, depending on how exactly the taxes are obtained).
Spending increases the economy and employment (more or less, depending on how exactly the money is spent).
The trick is to make sure you are spending on things that increase the economy more than you hurt the economy with taxes. It's not always possible but sometimes we have other goals besides increasing the economy............
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There's one born every minute.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"People who get sick' aren't really a small subset.
How many people do you think live to old age without ever having to see a doctor?
And yet, the "younger crowd" seem to support Obamacare. Either they're wrong or you are. PPP shows that the 18-34 group are most likely to support Obamacare of all age demos.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Reagan and Bush both proved that taxes are already too high. They both lowered taxes and the result was an increase in funding to the government.
Only in your imagination. The only time the deficit has gone down (in fact completely eliminated) was during the high tax years of Clinton. The economy did great and unemployment went to a record low.
Most people are healthy and only need to learn to stay healthy. Most are better off with a medical savings account than with medical insurance. Why give money away for someone else to make billions off of it while you get little more than weak promises that in the event something bad happens, you might get minimal care?
We live in such a debt financing society we've all completely forgotten how to save money for bad days. Does a credit card really substitute for a savings?
The cut back in coverage started around 2000. Obama was a Senator then for god's sake. The part time work started after the banks exploded from the mortgage bubble.
My HSA is still tax free. 1099s are mostly a tax dodge, taking advantage of desperate people or both. Companies hire 1099s for what's really full time continuous work and call them 'contractors'. The taxes are lower because you're not hiring an employee you're paying for work. The reason you can't get a 1099 is the gov't is cracking down on that. It's only good for you in the short run. In the long run they'll cut your wages and benefits while underfunding the safety net you'll need sooner or later.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Ok, I almost need healthcare after trying to read this.
NO Shit ^Wstuff!
Like any other form of tax, Obamacare's net results will be negative in employment, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something - likely, statism.
If Obamacare ends up costing money, then I agree. However, I believe it is entirely possible that it will be a net savings. There are some major inefficiencies in the health care system. A glaring one is the use of the ER as primary care for millions of uninsured. This is probably the most expensive way to treat people, and yet we've been doing it for 30 years thanks to a government regulation put into place under Reagan prohibiting ERs from turning away emergencies for reasons of payment.
In other words, it is entirely possible that the ER mandate was such a horribly thought-out goverment regulation that the mess that is Obamacare could actually be more efficient. It may very well be a better set of regulations than what we had before.
And that's without factoring in the perverse set of "incentives" that we had been giving employers to insulate us from real health care costs. It's so set in our mind that "healthcare" is part of employment that we don't even include it in our salaries!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"People who get sick' aren't really a small subset.
How many people do you think live to old age without ever having to see a doctor?
And yet, the "younger crowd" seem to support Obamacare. Either they're wrong or you are. PPP shows that the 18-34 group are most likely to support Obamacare of all age demos.
What does that have to do with any of this? Again, how does making insurance more expensive incentivize people to quit their jobs, forgo their employer coverage, and found a startup?
I am 35, healthy, and actually founded a startup last year. In 2012, I paid $187 a month for good individual coverage. This year that coverage went up to $200 a month. I just got a letter from my insurer, offering to change the date of my insurance year to begin on Dec 1st. I can renew my current plan at $223 a month. They warned me that if I renew normally next March, my insurance will be considerably more expensive because the ACA rules will be in effect. In Wisconsin, estimates are that individual coverage for a 35 year old healthy male will increase %80. I fit the criteria of someone who is most harmed by the effects of this law.
Of course they told me that I can buy insurance on the Exchange, but rates and coverage options are not available yet. I'm sorry, I thought someone told me that I could keep my insurance if I like it. That someone forget to say that it would become so expensive that I won't be able to afford it. To all you people who supported this law, knowing that it wouldn't affect you, go to hell.
You might want to read today's Wall Street Journal report on startup investing. The SEC regulations for VC funding have become much more onerous that many angel investors are getting out of the game. You have to be an "accredited" investor and you have to be able to prove that fact. Startups have to do a lot more work to ensure that they are only getting funding from accredited investors.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323309404578611543232094874.html
..speaking of which, does TFA bother to address what happens to costs once the start-up grows beyond 49 employees?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Whats wrong with statism**?
[...]
**I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt abs assume you actually know what statism is and you aren't actually talking about authoritarianism.
What's wrong with it is that there's no proven or practical way to prevent it from becoming authoritarianism.
Alas, there aren't really any other systems which don't tend in that direction either. People who seek power are generally the ones who can't be trusted with it.
-- Alastair
Well that's absolute proof then, that the program that starts tomorrow is so bad that it went back in time and caused your insurance company to raise your rates. Because insurance rates never went up until Obamacare was passed.
I feel your pain. My dog never had worms before and now he's got worms. Goddamn Obama...
Because you live in a state where the governor and legislature put their fingers in their ears since 2010 and said, "We're not going to obey the law". First they were waiting for the Supreme Court, and then they were waiting for Romney to get elected so it could be repealed.
Call your governor and ask why they haven't set up the exchanges yet. If you lived in my state, you'd be able to go sign up for care at less than your $187/month tomorrow morning.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The ACA made it entirely optional for states to set up exchanges. In cases where states choose not to create an exchange, the ACA created a federal exchange as an alternative. They have now had 3.5 years to create that exchange. I don't want a shitty exchange health plan. I want to keep my current coverage. After doing a little more research it turns out some are predicting that an individual plan in Wisconsin, for a healthy young male could triple. Again, go to hell.
Not necessarily, but his point might be that there's certainly no guarantee that without Obamacare they wouldn't start and that anyone saying it will encourage startups is simply guessing, which would be correct.
Well that's absolute proof then, that the program that starts tomorrow is so bad that it went back in time and caused your insurance company to raise your rates. Because insurance rates never went up until Obamacare was passed.
I feel your pain. My dog never had worms before and now he's got worms. Goddamn Obama...
In the period leading up to the passage of the ACA in march 2010, were we not told repeatedly that coverage would be better, and less expensive? Fuck you.
Unmitigated bullshit, hold up a mirror. You provide personal anecdote laced with highly biased language without any form of support and then drop into ad hominem. Not sure I believe your post.
you speak common sense and that's why it will go overlooked. Health care is pricey and the way the medical industry wrote the law ("We'll televise the health care meetings on CSPAN" never did happen since it would have looked bad with the insurance and medical companies writing everything) there is no chance it will get cheaper. I've been seeing my local area have lots of people hired under 30 hours for awhile now. I know people who work at places like Walmart, other retail and Casinos who can not get 30 hours.
The law also doesn't require coverage for employees unless the company has more than 50 employees. The small businesses out there are already stretched and if they haven't been offering health insurance they sure won't start now. Means more out of pocket for the working schmuck,a new tax with the IRS in charge of enforcement.
Not a single person will lose insurance due to this law. Blatant fearmongering.
You are blatantly incorrect. Scores of thousands have already lost their insurance due to this law:
Ten states where Obamacare wipes out existing health care plans
Trader Joe's Invites Part-Timers Losing Company Coverage To Seek Additional Obamacare Subsidy
Despite Obama Promise, Many Coloradans Losing Their Health Insurance Plans
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
He said increase in funding, not reduction of deficit. They're related, but not the same thing.
Reagan and Bush both proved that taxes are already too high. They both lowered taxes and the result was an increase in funding to the government.
Only in your imagination.
No, the original comment was correct. Federal revenue did go up... but spending went up even more.
The only time the deficit has gone down (in fact completely eliminated) was during the high tax years of Clinton. The economy did great and unemployment went to a record low.
Don't forget that those were also the years when the GOP took over Congress and restrained spending, a little bit, for a little while.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let met tell you how it works in Australia. People don't worry about the cost of treatment when they are really sick
Before my son was 5 he managed to cut himself 4 times requiring 2-5 stitches each time and broke his finger. Each time we took him to the emergency department at the local public hospital waited less than an hour to be seen and were out of the hospital within 2 hours. That hospital provides the best healthcare for kids in the city. Total cost: $0. All I need to do was show my medicare card.
We also have private health insurance. Total cost is ~$4,000 year for top level cost (80% of most bills and no costs for hospital). My youngest daughter was born 8 weeks premature and we chose to be treated as a private patient in the public children's hospital. The total bill was around $15,000 of which we paid a few hundred. We could have opted to be admitted as a public patient and the only changes in treatment would have been that the duty registrar would have been the primary contact rather than the private specialist and my wife would have shared a room. If our daughter had been seriously ill, then the specialist would have looked after her anyway. There were babies next to us who were being treated as public patients who received much more expensive treatments at no cost.
The public hospital system falls down when you have a problem requiring "elective surgery" (e.g. hip or knee replacement) where the waiting times can be up to 18 months versus weeks as a private patient. The other deficiency is paying for equipment such as wheelchairs etc. may not be covered by the public system.
If I want to see my local GP, I have to pay a gap of around $20-$30, however if I have a concession card there is typically no gap. To fill a prescription costs either at most $30 or under $6 if you have a concession. Spend more than $1000 in a year and the government covers the rest.
We look at the USA and wonder with so much wealth, how can you be so uncaring?
Let's pretend it was taken to it's logical extreme, aka a society with zero taxes. Also known as a society with no roads, no enforced laws, no food inspection, no building codes, etc.
You're describing a libertarian government-free paradise known as "Somalia" (warlords and pirates are a feature of such a society).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
It's not voters, but those that really control the republic. That's exactly what is happening with the too-big-to-fail bailouts and other recent instances of corporate welfare.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
what's up with this?
it's tongue in cheek, obviously...but re-read it...tongue in cheek to who?
as evidenced by this thread many /.'ers *hate* Obamacare/ACA and Obama in general...based on the stupid misunderstanding of the notion of 'communism'
this is where Michelle Bachmann comes in...and the 'tea party' or w/e you want to call ignorant/easily manipulated white people
no one who understands the concept of 'communism' would call Obamacare 'communism'...communism is essentially a highly totalitarian regime that uses 'leftist' rhetoric
the key is "totalitarian"
Obama and America in general is absolutely not "totalitarian" (trolls engage!)
that's the problem...I think /. is biased to be contrarian to a fault...it's time to call a spade a spade...or in this case...call Obamacare 'socialism' and not 'communism'
got it /. rulers?
Thank you Dave Raggett
Government shuts down at midnight on Monday, but Obamacare will be open online (and open with phonelines as well).
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Mega corps love corporate tax rates in the US because only the little guy pays them. It helps keep competition down.
Play Command HQ online
All of you guys arguing about a system that makes healthcare available to those who don't have it - assume the vulnerable as it seems they are most likely to benefit - sounds like base savagery. I can't begin to imagine that you think the free market is a better fit for such a basic human requirement.
A frequent post industrial, lack of real experimental science background to contradictory information. Or just a tightly closed mind. A self awarded Darwin award might come your way someday doing that.
> After doing a little more research it turns out some are predicting that an individual plan in Wisconsin, for a healthy young male could triple. Again, go to hell.
The world could end on Jan 1st, 2014. People like Harold Camping *predict* this sort of thing all the time. Should we start planning for this soon?
Instead, we got ourselves a government shut down! THANKS OBAMA!
> In the period leading up to the passage of the ACA in march 2010, were we not told repeatedly that coverage would be better, and less expensive? Fuck you.
It appears that you have made up your mind, well before the final details of the various new plan options are made available to everybody. Not only have you closed your mind to new ideas and information, you have been cursing like a sailor on this page. Is it yet time to grow up?
Your plan cost went from $187 to $200. And you are blaming this on Obama? Have you been sleeping through the Bush years?
Also, as I have said in previous posts. Please tell us what plan (company name and policy) you have so that we can do a proper apples to apples comparison. If Obamacare is really putting the hurt on you, please provide some verifiable details instead of getting your panties in a twist.
Just one reason.
I know there are others.
Having had a serious illness in the past, I was very aware of the "wage slavery" aspect of an employer insurance model.
So I've suspected for a while that one group of businesses are fighting the ACA very hard because it means their employees will be free to retire or start their own businesses.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Same thing, total take either in dollars or as %GDP was higher during Clinton.
No, the original comment was correct. Federal revenue did go up... b
Are you and I looking at the same graph? I see a huge dip in the revenue side after Reagan takes over and then mild growth which is completely attributable to economic growth and somewhat below trend compared to all administrations.
Don't forget that those were also the years when the GOP took over Congress and restrained spending, a little bit, for a little while.
Again refer to your chart. The gap between spending and revenues in the Clinton years looks good from the get go. The GOP took over Congress only in his last term.
Here's a list of what can put you in that "small subset":
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/medicine/pre-existing-conditions.htm
It includes just about any diagnosed mental illness, high blood pressure, diabetes, excess weight, asthma, etc.
Oh, and don't forget that horrible malady of having a functioning female reproductive system. You can either pay through the nose for a horrible childbirth rider, or you can risk being driven to bankruptcy if you get pregnant.
Do you really think that a society that doesn't pay taxes, in other words without government, can't have roads, laws, food inspection and building codes? I would argue that all of these things could not only exist without a government but also be provided at better value.
ayottesoftware.com
And how do you know exchange plans are "shitty"? Talk to someone who has medicare and ask them if they want to give up their "shitty" medicare.
And "some are predicting" that the overall price curve will be bent downward. You've been around long enough to know that "some are predicting" is Latin for "I'm pulling this outta my ass."
You are welcome on my lawn.
Severing the employment/health insurance link once and for all is the only way the USA will get the business fluidity needed to compete in the modern world. Why should the executive of a startup, or any other company, have to waste bandwidth thinking about employee health care, or child care, or transportation, or retirement plans? Those are issues for society at large and should be resolved by society at large, not the business exec (who BTW is imminently under-qualified to make such decisions). He/She has a business to run, right? with enough product/marketing/financing decisions to fill the day.
"If you're not passionate about your operating system, you're married to the wrong one."
The average age of people who create a tech start-up is 39, and not 20-something,' said Bruce Bachenheimer
Source? I find this hard to believe. Does this include every unregistered business, including the ones that fail? Or are talking only about people filing incorporation paperwork? And are we only looking at the age of the peopel filing the incorporation paperwork, or the average age of the employees in the startup?
You don't need the IRS to tell you if you are sick or not.
Good news! They still don't. The premise is just that everyone needs healthcare at some point in their life, so we should all carry insurance. Just like you are required to carry auto insurance.
Furthermore, there is not enough doctors, by any measure of the term, to do anything
Agreed, we need many many more healthcare professionals. But we need that regardless of Obamacare or not.
If this so called Health Care Law has anything to do with your health, it would address the enourmous shortage of facilities and doctors to care for the gigantic intake of patients that are going to come streaming into the hospitals from not just in the USA, but in Canada and Mexico for certain procedures.
Well, it does? The idea is that healthcare is expensive because so much of it is unfunded debt from unpaid healthcare. If everyone carries insurance, we won't have any unpaid healthcare so there's more money available to hire doctors. That's the theory anyway.
With the stroke of a Pen, it is now impossible not to be in debt
Oh you're one of those people who pretends like you can function disconnected from modern society.
Then you kind of devolve into a rant about evil scary government that wants to take your things and there isn't much to address.
Both terse and wise. Not surprised it's from Seebs. :) Fram fram, bubba.
right...i get where you are coming from (sounds like we'd use similar definitions for these terms)
here's the thing: any fault in the ACA is due to the GOP obstruction in the face of democracy...it's been tested...the people want it
it's not just this *one* time...for *years* the GOP has used every roadblock and systemic stop imaginable, made a few up, even opposed their own bills that they put up!
Republicans are protecting the insurance companies...that's who is doing it...look at the votes. Don't blame Obama for their behavior.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Are you and I looking at the same graph? I see a huge dip in the revenue side after Reagan takes over and then mild growth which is completely attributable to economic growth and somewhat below trend compared to all administrations.
The dip in revenue after Reagan took over was the end of Carter-era inflation. The tax cuts then took a few years to have an effect on the economy, and then revenue went up.
The gap between spending and revenues in the Clinton years looks good from the get go.
Yes, he inherited a pretty healthy economy.
The GOP took over Congress only in his last term.
Nope, it was in 1994, two years into his first term.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Except taxes went up (including investment taxes) so there is less money for investment.
...since I'll be subsidizing their start up costs.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
My Mother-in-law was diagnosed with esophageal cancer 10 months ago. She had recently lost her job, and with it her insurance. We immediately applied for FMIP–put in place by the ACA as a stop-gap before the exchanges become available. She was denied on the grounds that the government "could not verify her citizenship through publicly available records". They had copies of her birth certificate, passport, and Oregon Driver's License. When we pressed FMIP on the denial, they replied that the problem wasn't with her application, or that her citizenship wasn't _verifiable_, but merely that they hadn't gotten around to verifying it.
Her cancer treatment was 100% covered by a local hospital charity. Donations to that charity have dried up in the wake of Obamacare, because who needs charity when you can count on the government to care of everybody?
Here's how it works.
Dems propose some outrageous spending program. Republicans oppose. Dems call for compromise and idiot Republicans agree to part of the outrageous program.
Result is there is a new program where there was none before.
Then, a year later Dems call for increased spending ( above the already scheduled increase due to Baseline Budgeting). Republicans opposed. Dems call them cold hearted and baby killers. Republicans get hurt feelings and agree to a small increase.
Result, program cots rise above inflation costs and the basis for next years spending increases yet again.
This is how we get 17 trillion dollars in debt.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
now i will be the first to say that most people calling themselves libertarians are not, and are simply trying to distance themselves re-brand themselves.
but before you start ascribing more things to libertarians, you, like most /.'ers, needs to educate yourself.
because that is NOT a goal of libertarians, and to say so marks you as ignorant and uninformed.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I've already received multiple java related errors today on my state's obamacare portal, this being the most recent.
Error 500: org.springframework.core.task.TaskRejectedException: Executor [java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor@aee9ec22] did not accept task: org.springframework.context.event.SimpleApplicationEventMulticaster$1@6ae3d673
If they had used COBOL things would have 'just worked'
really?
by whom exactly?
so what happens when you stop paying your road bill? do they tear up your driveway?
do the rent a cops let you die when youre late on your protection payments?
food inspection as a private for profit business? ya that wont lead to bribery and corruption....and you aware that that very thing causing people to die is the exact reason why we have an FDA right?
laws without governemnt? really? stop talking.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Do you really think that a society that doesn't pay taxes, in other words without government, can't have roads, laws, food inspection and building codes? I would argue that all of these things could not only exist without a government but also be provided at better value.
'Value' is not an absolute quantity though, particularly in this context. For a democratic regulatory agency, *in theory* the "customers" are the taxpaying citizens. They have a monopoly, which sucks for the customer, but we're still the customer. Note that, once corporate powers seize control of these agencies (as I, and many others, would argue is largely the case in the US at least) they cease to be democratic.
For a free-market regulatory agency, the customers are *the corporations they are regulating*. We have numerous such agencies already, and in general it's been my experience that the majority tend to be failures.
So, in the first case where the customers are the general public, the greatest value is for the agencies to reject any suspicious products in order to protect the public health, saving these citizens money on healthcare costs and just general pain and suffering. When the customers are the corporations themselves, the greatest value lies in permitting as many low-level violations as possible to reduce the quality control costs to the corporation. Granted, they can't just scrap all quality control entirely or people will stop buying, but their maximum value is as many problems as you'll tolerate. And the harder an issue is for a private citizen to trace (if you got food poisoning, could you be 100% sure exactly where it came from?), the less incentive they have to look for it.
Now, you can set up independent regulatory agencies as well...but where's the benefit? Either they're independent and still paid by the corporations (in which case they become a form of advertising, and if the regulation is too strict the corporation may decide TV ads are a better value) or they're a sort of general membership club. If they're a membership club, either they allow their approval to be stamped directly on products (in which case, why pay the membership when I get the product anyway?) or they just give you a big list of approved products (in which case, I'm sure not gonna join because I don't have time for that crap -- who does?)
1: no they didnt. that patently false
2: no they werent, and until the 1920s hospitals where were you went to die. id like to think we've improved since then.
3: no it hasnt been proven time and again, actually its the opposite.
please, whatever you are smokin, puff puff pass dude.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
its a graph from the heritage group. that means its already suspect.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The tax cuts then took a few years to have an effect on the economy, and then revenue went up.
As they do when the economy is growing, lower or higher taxes. You have yet to show that revenues increased above what they would have just by itself, and your graph shows subpar compared-to-trend growth.
(Hint: you won't be able to give any, reputable economists including those from the right now agree that we are on the left side of the Laffer curve, ie. lower taxes == lower revenues. There might be many reasons why we prefer lower taxes, but certainly not because they would cause increased revenues at the present level.)
don't come here on this thread talking that same, tired old bullshit argument about 'spending' and 'budget crisis'
it's bunk...our country is the **richest the world has ever known**
your whole "Repub's do THIS" while "Dem's do THAT" is reductive and stupid...
you have an infantile understanding of 'debt' and macroeconmics...read up and maybe you can participate in this discussion
Thank you Dave Raggett
*Corporations* always want free shit. *Corporations* always want other people to pay for their shit. *Corporations* always want to borrow money from China, leave the debt to **our** kids, and enjoy an inflated lifestyle.
Which is why the US is a Oligarchy , not a Democracy. The greedy bastards outnumber the normal people now, so of course "the people" demand economic justice. A spoonfull of GREED can corrupt a whole sea of democracy as soon as *Corporations* figure out they can bribe politicians to get legislation passed no matter how it effects the citizenry.
One day, you'll run out of people willing put up with BULLSHIT REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS
Thank you Dave Raggett
i'll keep going Huckleberry/troll
go ahead, make one coherent point...preferrablly with evidence (and not BS GOP talking points about 'debt crisis' voodoo)...
if you are **so sure** you are right then a link should be easy to find to bolster your point
#2 use quotations of what point you are countering from my comment....like this:
editorializations aside, the core of that fragment is correct
if you think you can stop trolling and actually *WIN* this debate using logic, facts, evidence by directly clashing my points then bring it on fuckwad
Thank you Dave Raggett
My company, which has specialized in electronic medical records software for 20 years, has been gearing up for Obamacare for years already. Pieces of the legislation have already gone into effect, such as "meaningful use" standards. Doctors and hospitals have been scrambling to comply with all of the new regulations, and that means lots of business for companies like ours.
If you're just now thinking of starting a company to capitalize on Obamacare, you're already late to the party!
How far will they reach to spin this abomination into a positive?
Does your new beta have a way for me to filter out comments with such useless sexual insults? Well, useless except as a diagnostic tool.
Lol.
Social Studies.
I almost read your whole post. But you saved me.
THL phish sticks
yeah...Social Studies...
the subject where you learn what 'Capitalism' and 'Communism' mean
you obviously didn't take it, b/c in your last post, you said this:
gandhi_2 or gandhi_2 is an idiot...
or the EXACT opposite
one or the other is true
Thank you Dave Raggett
I call B.S. on your post, AC...
you took the time to type that out when you could have made a contribution to the discussion...
What does that make you?
Like I said, this thread is here for anyone to read from the beginning and I'm fine with letting /. judge
Thank you Dave Raggett
look, re-read the thread...I blame the responsible party...my language in the post you responded to was actually me quoting another user mocking his enflamed tone
again, I blame the responsible party...whoever that is...what other way is there?
do you have a point to make?
i won't respond to GOP talking points
Thank you Dave Raggett
While my 'insults' are based on easily disprovable 'facts', yours seem more to be delusions based on your warped perceptions.
Here is a whole bunch of stuff for you to disprove.
My investigations show present pre-existing exclusionary periods all over the map. Indiana is 10 years. Some have unlimited exclusion riders. More on that below. Alabama places no restrictions on the amount an insurance company can charge you - effectly an exclusion. Oklahoma insurance companies are allowed permanent exclusion on any condition, defined as any illness or any injury that occured any time before the insurance policy was taken out. The only protection there is that as long as the insured keeps up their policy payments, the company cannot refuse to renew.
Montana allows for elimination riders. These permit companies to avoid the 12-month look back limit by permanently excluding a pre-existing condition from coverage.
http://www.healthinsurancequotes.com/2012/02/an-overview-of-montana-state-health-insurance-laws/ Link provided as info on th epermanent exclusionary rider.
So do 37 other states. Georgia, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Deleware Note, Indiana can not make permanent exclusion riders, but they can refuse coverage for a Pre-existing condition for ten years.
Info:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/individual-market-portability-rules/
From the web page, in case people don't want to read the link (though I highly suggest it)
Elimination Rider: In many states, health problems disclosed at the time of application may be permanently excluded from coverage by an amendment to the individual health insurance contract called an elimination rider. Once coverage begins, a consumer who makes claims under the policy may be investigated to see whether the health problem was pre-existing. In many states, it is not necessary for a health condition to have been diagnosed prior to the purchase of coverage for it to be considered pre-existing. Depending on state law, insurers can look back months or years prior to the policy's purchase for evidence of a pre-existing condition. This process is sometimes called post-claims underwriting.
There might be some confusion between HIPPA - non group coverage, and non HIPPA coverage.
But there is no question whatsoever that in many cases, a Helath insurance company can include a rider that says they will not pay for a pre-existing condition
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.