Objma's signature legacy disaster, other then the Iran nuclear deal, or his foreign policy of retreat, is ObjamCare which systematically destroys individual and family heath care. This is just the politics of "fundamental change" that was heralded as providing health care for everyone no matter who you are or what you do.
Objma's sweet talk to the nation on how we all will benefit from agreeing to accept ObjmaCare as our national health care system was like the Venus Fly Trap plant that sways in the wind, luring the fly closer and closer until it's caught it's promised sweetness and devoured.
Who actually voted twice to make this happen?? Yeah, you know who you are but don't have the willingness to accept the fact you have made a catastrophic mistake, but at the same time do not have the ability to recognize it was your vote for the democrats that was the turning points in 2008 and 2012 elections, and now, apparently, given all the high fives and arm waving for Hillary, are still willing to vote again to make sure the death of our heath are system is complete.
Will those voters make the switch in 2016, doubtful.
Who Pays Obamacare’s “Slacker Mandate”? Workers with No Kids!
By John R. Graham
The “slacker mandate” is the provision in Obamacare requiring employer-based health plans to offer benefits to adult dependents of their workers, up to age 26.
I previously discussed research showing the mandate reduced work among adults, aged 19 to 26, and increased the time they spend socializing, sleeping, and exercising. What about the financial costs of the mandate? Speak to an insurance agent or benefits consultant and they will tell you the cost are fully borne by working parents.
In the old days, employer-based health insurance was offered to workers in three sizes: Single, couple, or family. It did not matter how many kids you had. Today, each dependent adds to the premium. So, the “slacker mandate” is paid for by the working parents. That is not really a problem for society. However, there is more to the story. A remarkable study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research concludes this happened.
The slacker mandate reduced wages among workers without children by $211 a month, but did not reduce wages among workers with children (either minor or adult) by a statistically significant amount. It answers the question: Why mandate slacker coverage? Parents were always free to help their adult children pay for health insurance, just like they can help with rent or car loans. The only government-imposed discrimination was that premiums paid for minor children on employer-based health plans were exempt from taxable income, but if a parent wanted to buy health insurance for an older dependent, he used after-tax dollars. This could easily be remedied by a simple change in the tax code, instead of a mandate.
The only reason for a mandate would be for politicians to transfer the cost of adult dependents’ health insurance from parents to non-parents, in order to promote a “free” benefit to the parents. If working-age parents are more likely to be politically involved than working-age non-parents (a reasonable claim), the mandate clearly benefits politicians. The latter result makes sense, because the working parents simply paid higher premiums to keep their adult dependents on their employer-based plans.
The former result is shocking. How to explain it? I suspect it is easy to impose these costs on workers without kids in the short term because of the high information and friction costs to those workers of learning the cost of the mandate and responding to it. In the long term, they can respond, but that adjustment would result in an equilibrium where some companies had only workers with kids and other companies had only workers without kids, and there are surely many other costs that would inhibit such an equilibrium.
Objma's sweet talk to the nation on how we all will benefit from agreeing to accept ObjmaCare as our national health care system was like the Venus Fly Trap plant that sways in the wind, luring the fly closer and closer until it's caught it's promised sweetness and devoured.
Who actually voted twice to make this happen?? Yeah, you know who you are but don't have the willingness to accept the fact you have made a catastrophic mistake, but at the same time do not have the ability to recognize it was your vote for the democrats that was the turning points in 2008 and 2012 elections, and now, apparently, given all the high fives and arm waving for Hillary, are still willing to vote again to make sure the death of our heath are system is complete.
Will those voters make the switch in 2016, doubtful.
Who Pays Obamacare’s “Slacker Mandate”? Workers with No Kids!
By John R. Graham
The “slacker mandate” is the provision in Obamacare requiring employer-based health plans to offer benefits to adult dependents of their workers, up to age 26.
I previously discussed research showing the mandate reduced work among adults, aged 19 to 26, and increased the time they spend socializing, sleeping, and exercising. What about the financial costs of the mandate? Speak to an insurance agent or benefits consultant and they will tell you the cost are fully borne by working parents.
In the old days, employer-based health insurance was offered to workers in three sizes: Single, couple, or family. It did not matter how many kids you had. Today, each dependent adds to the premium. So, the “slacker mandate” is paid for by the working parents. That is not really a problem for society. However, there is more to the story. A remarkable study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research concludes this happened.
The slacker mandate reduced wages among workers without children by $211 a month, but did not reduce wages among workers with children (either minor or adult) by a statistically significant amount. It answers the question: Why mandate slacker coverage? Parents were always free to help their adult children pay for health insurance, just like they can help with rent or car loans. The only government-imposed discrimination was that premiums paid for minor children on employer-based health plans were exempt from taxable income, but if a parent wanted to buy health insurance for an older dependent, he used after-tax dollars. This could easily be remedied by a simple change in the tax code, instead of a mandate.
The only reason for a mandate would be for politicians to transfer the cost of adult dependents’ health insurance from parents to non-parents, in order to promote a “free” benefit to the parents. If working-age parents are more likely to be politically involved than working-age non-parents (a reasonable claim), the mandate clearly benefits politicians. The latter result makes sense, because the working parents simply paid higher premiums to keep their adult dependents on their employer-based plans.
The former result is shocking. How to explain it? I suspect it is easy to impose these costs on workers without kids in the short term because of the high information and friction costs to those workers of learning the cost of the mandate and responding to it. In the long term, they can respond, but that adjustment would result in an equilibrium where some companies had only workers with kids and other companies had only workers without kids, and there are surely many other costs that would inhibit such an equilibrium.
No comments:
Post a Comment