Sauce, goose, gander

A panel appointed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel to review taxpayer-subsidized health insurance for retired government workers suggested the city [Chicago] could drop coverage to help erase a financial shortfall…

Phasing out coverage for most retired city workers would leave the bulk of retirees dependent on the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Here is more, and for the pointer I thank The Wisdom of Garett Jones.

Comments

Somethin' in the water round here...

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21570733-illinois-lawmakers-fail-tackle-states-pension-crisis-squeezed

Left unsaid is who underfunded the pensions in the first place. Proving of course that government is the ultimate TBTF.

TBTF = Too Big To Fail. No idea why it's been reduced to an acronym other than to confuse people like me.

In other words, some people who are "retired" and aren't old enough for Medicare currently get their insurance subsidized by the city. They might lose this. Pre-Obamacare, that would mean they either have to go find another job to get employer-sponsored health insurance, or go on the individual market where they'll pay, according to the article, up to $9,000 a year (or $750/mo) for health insurance. Now, because of Obamacare they can instead do....what?! I don't think the exchanges or subsidies are set up yet....so what exactly are they now dependent on?

Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe they are now "dependent on" some aspect of Obamacare to be able to maintain health insurance coverage. But if so, isn't that sort of the point? So that people who otherwise fell through the cracks of the system and couldn't get coverage can now be covered?

What's the unspoken irony here? "Former Obama staff member wants to cut benefits to union workers who likely supported Obama." yeah, I'm sure they're mad about that, but all it really means is that Obama allies aren't the big gov't union-loving liberals they're painted to be. I think a lot of progressives who wish they were a little more like that could've told you that a long time ago.

+1

I genuinely don't understand the irony here, other than the fact that Rahm Emmanuel is sticking it to the unions. But of course that's no surprise either.

They will be dependent on the exchanges. It is sooo terrible when private firms drop their coverage and make their employees rely on Obamacare, but oh look Obama's closest cronies in government are doing the exact same thing.

You couldn't come up with that on your own?

Weakening the link between employer "provision" and health insurance is the point of ACA.

The ACA was certainly never 'sold' as a way for local governments to shift their health care costs to the Federal government.

I'm unclear on the whole "shift their health care costs to the Federal government" thing.

Won't the retirees have to buy their health insurance now? What am I missing?

No, it was "sold as" a way to increase the number of people who have health insurance. Most of that comes from whose who had no employer "provided" insurance and to provide an alternative way for people to access the subsidy for purchasing health insurance, so the effect is to weaken the employment - insurance link. It is a happy consequence for employees whose employers break promises of future health insurance in return for lower cash wages.

Conservatives should love this. The conspiracy between public sector unions and low-accountability politicians has resulted in strained public budgets and a government worker class who are living high on the hog, right? This is Obamacare doing what it is supposed to do and a politician is proposing to actually deal with budget issues.

This is not what ACA was sold to do. OTOH, Rahm having to strong-arm unions is a bit of alright.

Why is it great he's "strong-arm[ing]" unions?

To expound- it cannot be that ACA is doing what it was sold to do if that is to worsen the Federal budget when state politicians shift their costs to it. Rahm is not really dealing with his budget issues, he's seeking a Federal bailout and/or reneging on his promises.

These retired people will pay a much larger share of their health care premiums, and probably buy less-fancy plans, than would be the case if their former employer were to maintain the status quo.

Nothing has actually happened yet, for one thing. At this point, it's merely been suggested.

Now, as for your statement, it isn't entirely unexpected, if true. So why was the suggestion that it might happen so filled with wisdom?

Tyler is mandated by his Koch funding to post some kind of vague anti-Democrat thing that somehow makes either Obama or healthcare look bad. Gotta do what you gotta do to keep the lights on, centers of libertarian thought that cant function outside of the free market dont just pay for themselves.

I thought at first your comment was parody, but I read it again and changed my mind.

So, the Kochs made these democats assholes? How did they do that?

Sarcasm?

I believe the irony is that ACA advocates like Rahm assured us that employers would not drop health insurance in response to the ACA. Now that he's not making policy anymore, but living with it, he appears to have done the arithmetic and noticed that as for many employers the ACA provides a way to shift costs to the government.

This should suggest that the CBO indeed erred when it assumed negligible shift from employer-subsidized coverage to government-subsidized coverage, and thus will have underestimated the costs of the ACA in its projections.

In the same vein, I read that health insurers are now lobbying hard for increased penalties for not buying coverage, as well as waiting periods to prevent someone from signing up for coverage and immediately getting treated. Neither of these provisions were politically feasible at the time the ACA was passed. The insurers accurately calculate that the penalty in the law is a pittance compared to the cost of health insurance, and if one can enroll (and drop) coverage at will, there's a strong financial incentive for many people to discard insurance and only sign up for it when they need treatment. The CBO's cost projections, again, would be substantially understated if this is the case.

No, that's not it. What it is is Rahm is not an asshole because the Kochs told me that. Otherwise I wouldn't know that. But I know Rahm is not an asshole because the Kochs told me he was an asshole.

"...read that health insurers are now lobbying hard for increased penalties taxesfor not buying coverage..."

Employers have never subsidized health insurance. It is a tax-favored form of wage payment. ACA shifts the incentives toward people buying explicitly government subsiized insurance and away from accessing the subsidy only through employment.

It changes the nature and effect of the 'subsidy' in myriad ways as well. But that aside, I'm all for getting employers out of the game of selecting health insurance for their employees. (I say that as both an employer and an employee.) I just wish the alternative weren't putting government into the same game. Putting large institutions who have little understanding of my medical needs and preferences and essentially no control over quality and cost of care in between me and my care seems unsatisfactory in so many dimensions - and seems likely to drive continued rapid expansion of health care costs relative to outcomes, as well.

It's sort of like Gresham's Law, but in health care.

I think that Barry and Rahm should hold a joint press conference to publicize this feature of Obamacare. Jerry Brown should know about this.

I get the "goose, gander" reference in the title of this post. What does "sauce" reference?

what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...

Except the phrase is "good," not "sauce." I've never heard it the other way. Where is it from?

Or, in internet parlance, sauce?

creeping Anglicization. I blame the Economist. I find myself falling into this in many ways: "rally round", "half again as much" "whinge" are three current examples that jump to the top of my mind. Maybe blame isn't the right word.

Brilliant, wot?

Are “rally round” and “half again as much” really Anglicisms? They seem like perfectly good American to me. Definitely, “whinge” is an Anglicism. Is it pronounced like "whine" or rhyming with "hinge"?

I surprised some chemists in the sci.chem newsgroup when I mentioned that the common radicals "methyl" and "ethyl" are pronounced "mee-thigh-el" and "ee-thigh-el" in the UK. Very few American chemists are aware of that.

You'll have got it right when you talk about shutting the stable door rather than the barn door.

Today Chicago, tomorrow the U.S. Department of Defense.

Department of Unintended Consequences?

BARCLAYS
Registered No – 1026167
Registered office
1 Churchill Place,
London E14 5HP.
barclaysloan@admin.in.th

Barclays is a trading name of Barclays Bank PLC and its subsidiaries. Barclays Bank PLC is registered in England and authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA No. 122702). We’re one of the largest financial services providers in the world, Also we engage in retail banking, credit cards, corporate and investment banking, wealth and investment management.

We are here to introduce a loan program that will help improve you financially and our only focus is on providing you with great service and helping you meet your financial needs.

We offer a low rate at 2% interest. We do however receive commission from payday lenders and brokers when customers enter into a consumer credit agreement with them, having been introduced via our service.

SPECIALIZE IN OFFERING:

*Home Owner Loans
*Graduate Loan
*Debt Consolidation
*Professional and Career Loan

Applicants interested in this loan offer are to SEND the details information to the account overleaf.

ELEMENTARY WAY TO APPLY:

Full Name:
Loan Amount Needed:
Duration of Repayment:
Country:
Marital Status:
Gender:
Age:
Occupation:
Mobile:

Email: barclaysloan@admin.in.th
Enjoy Best Services Online with Barclays.

Comments for this post are closed