Who makes money with Obama Care?

Wow! You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Not tri. wrote:

Good one. You mean...Tax breaks to try to offset a portion of the massive premium increases and additional mandated "administrative" taxes that will be levied on them.

I was under the impression that millions upon millions of American didn't have any coverage. I thought that was the point of Obamacare. So I guess no one is currently paying for it because they do not have free coverage now.

Also in reference to my earlier point when I was being contradictory-

People kept throwing around that small businesses will be getting these great tax breaks because they offer coverage for their employees. These tax breaks will not even come close to offsetting the premium increases (to both the employer and employee) and the administrative tax that is being mandated on small businesses starting January 1st. Small companies will have a 4.5 percent "administrative" tax levied on them because someone has to pay for ACA. We were originally told that Obamacare would pay for itself but when reality hit they are now mandating this new tax. So say a small business owner is paying $10,000 per month in premiums for his/her employees, they can now expect to pay the Feds $450 extra a month. So over $5000 per year in extra taxes just so the government can administer Obamacare even though none of the company employees in this example are even using the exchanges or anything.

Next lesson I will teach about the new community rating system that will screw over a lot of small companies that that the government is getting rid of the RAF ratings. I get paid a lot of money to talk about and educate small business owners about the pros and mostly cons of the ACA.

Not tri. wrote:

I was under the impression that millions upon millions of American didn't have any coverage. I thought that was the point of Obamacare. So I guess no one is currently paying for it because they do not have free coverage now.

You are naive. Everyone currently has coverage. Those without insurance have their care paid for by taxpayers and those with insurance. Obamacare gets some of the freeloaders to contribute something.

ObamaCare wrote:

The insured? Insurers? The government? Who's getting paid?

Pretty sure Kevorkian, marijuana producers, abortionists, and the gays will be making money off of this - after all, it is Obama-care, and those are Obama's friends.

TonyWNYCmayor wrote:

Pretty sure Kevorkian, marijuana producers, abortionists, and the gays will be making money off of this - after all, it is Obama-care, and those are Obama's friends.

Kervorkian's dead, moron. Try to keep up.

this is the real answer wrote:

Portly middle-aged women of about average intelligence with titles like Evidence-based nursing supervisor, physician accountability manager, and healthy lifestyle coach.

This. White Collar Welfare for everyone.

The US economy consists mainly of the production and trade of useless and harmful commodities. Even useful commodities are often created merely to offset useless or harmful ones.

In health care, for example, the lucrative field of cardiac surgery has boomed in response to the sale and consumption of things like hamburgers and cars. Oncology has boomed in response to the success of cardiac surgery. Psychiatry has boomed due to the public's eagerness to consume its useless and harmful pharmaceuticals.

Even useful things produce harmful results. Farmers save a ton of money by hiring illegal immigrant labor for a dollar an hour, but hospital emergency rooms lose a ton of money treating them. What is the good of a cheaply produced farm commodity if the price is higher medical bills, not to mention unemployed US citizens?

Left to its own devices, the medical industry focuses on lucrative things like surgery and expensive machines, while insurers focus on collecting money from wealthy people. Neither has much incentive to support expansive access to reasonably priced primary and preventive care because it's not profitable. This lack of expansive access makes the overall product of the medical sector as harmful as it is useful. This has gotten unpopular lately which is why people now support regulation over laisse-faire. Nobody cares who gets the money.

This is actually a good question.

Since regulations are set up, there is going to be some transfer of wealth.

And there isn't a clear answer.

Hospitals will gain some because almost everyone that comes in will have an insurance plan that will pay for their emergency care.

Before, they would just eat these costs or effectively have to charge more for paying customers.

But newly covered people may go to the hospital more quickly than before, causing higher staffing needs.

Insurance companies will have pluses and minuses.

They get more customers which is usually a good thing.

They will lose money on some of the customers and have bigger margins on others. It depends on how many pre-existing sick people they get vs. healthy people.

The government has costs of setting up the exchanges and providing subsidies. But they will save with more people paying in and not having to subsidize uncovered people.

I think the currently insured will be better off with a larger pool of insured people to spread the costs.

Current sick people are "making money" on this as they now can get coverage that means they won't go bankrupt with out of pocket expenses.

I think employers on average will make money on this if premiums go down because of more wide spread coverage.

There will be a large focus on the minority of businesses that may have higher costs because of this.

And healthy young people that weren't paying for insurance will be financial losers short term. But they will get older and benefit long term.

Basically it will be like a forced savings plan that leaves them cash strapped now, but gives a return in the future.

[quote]X-Runner wrote:

This is actually a good question.

Since regulations are set up, there is going to be some transfer of wealth.

And there isn't a clear answer.

Hospitals will gain some because almost everyone that comes in will have an insurance plan that will pay for their emergency care.

Before, they would just eat these costs or effectively have to charge more for paying customers.

But newly covered people may go to the hospital more quickly than before, causing higher staffing needs.

Insurance companies will have pluses and minuses.

They get more customers which is usually a good thing.

They will lose money on some of the customers and have bigger margins on others. It depends on how many pre-existing sick people they get vs. healthy people.

The government has costs of setting up the exchanges and providing subsidies. But they will save with more people paying in and not having to subsidize uncovered people.

I think the currently insured will be better off with a larger pool of insured people to spread the costs.

Current sick people are "making money" on this as they now can get coverage that means they won't go bankrupt with out of pocket expenses.

I think employers on average will make money on this if premiums go down because of more wide spread coverage.

There will be a large focus on the minority of businesses that may have higher costs because of this.

Hospitals are not adding staff, cut cutting staff. Have you not been keeping up with all the cuts. Secondly, insurance companies will simply raise premiums to cover all those pre-exisitng conditions - nothing is free.

Less people are applying to medical school - meaning the quality of care will decrease - why would any brilliant person spend all those years in medical school, incurring hundreds of thousands of debt to enter this mess.

The medical device tax will cause less research and development to occur, therefore, slowing new innovations.

Agree that healthy young people will pay the brunt of the increase. Their premiums will skyrocket.

My brother works for BC/BS and has had to deal with ACA's implementation. It has been a nightmare from an IT standpoint - the Obama administration doesn't have a clue what they are doing. The reason the insurance companies had such a difficult time getting their systems ready is because the Obama administration kept stalling and changing their minds as to the rules. He was not at all surprised that the national website has been a disaster.

In addition, the real premium increases are coming next year when the delayed employer mandate takes effect. I have no idea why you think premiums will go down for employers. You are living in a fantasy land if you really believe that. Just the opposite is going to take place.

You need to do a better job with the quote button so we can see where your comments start.

This hasn't gone into effect yet so you can't say any current cuts are a reaction to how things will be effected.

Everything you posted is your speculation.

As I wrote my speculation.

The pre-existing condition cost:

The costs are still there now. Who pays for them?

The individual bears the cost, in that the person owes money.

But they can't really pay for it, can they?

So doctors and hospitals are providing some treatment for them at their own expense, really.

So as that total adds to hospital costs it gets averaged into costs that go into deciding costs to other paying patients. But it is the insurance companies paying. So it effects their premiums anyway.

But ... having healthy people paying in that weren't paying before and don't add costs, would seem to lend to lower premiums.

good while it lasted wrote:

ObamaCare wrote:

The insured? Insurers? The government? Who's getting paid?

The gov't. Because the insurers have refused to cover those most in need of their services and the poorest people who have no coverage, the gov't has been subsidizing the care that is provided to them. By forcing the insurers to cover more people and forcing those able to buy insurance that don't have it, the gov't will be able to spend less on subsidies and shift that focus to more important things like eradicating global warming.

The gov't is losing money on it. The ones making the money would be the POTUS and the pols that have been bribed to pass the law.

Steve Martin wrote:

good while it lasted wrote:

The gov't. Because the insurers have refused to cover those most in need of their services and the poorest people who have no coverage, the gov't has been subsidizing the care that is provided to them. By forcing the insurers to cover more people and forcing those able to buy insurance that don't have it, the gov't will be able to spend less on subsidies and shift that focus to more important things like eradicating global warming.

The gov't is losing money on it. The ones making the money would be the POTUS and the pols that have been bribed to pass the law.

This is so true; the president is making a fortune off of the ACA. There is a special clause hidden in the ACA (which no one had read, btw) and which sends 1% of all insurance premiums straight to Obama's private bank account. Have you seen his tax returns? It's in there. Follow the money you numbskulls!

I'll tell you who's going to lose money on Obamacare. The companies that put vending machines in ER waiting rooms. It's a fu\cking outrage. Now that all those previously uninsured people can go to the doctor and receive preventive care and early treatment it'll just be crickets in the ER. Seriously, who's looking out for those vendors? Just more proof that Obama hates business because he's a Communist.

ObamaCare wrote:

The insured? Insurers? The government? Who's getting paid?

teachers - even during the summer.