If that 80 million is correct (assuming that includes their spouses and 1.8 children), and they enroll in the ACA plans and you add in 62 million (probably way low estimate now) Medicaid folks, 49 million Medicare recipients, 8 million government workers most of whom have govt. sponsored healthcare, plus government retirees not yet in Medicare, etc- a total of at least 200 million on government care.
The savings government can then realize by dumping insurance companies and their 20% overhead (yes the additional govt employees needed will reduce the savings), by going to single payer will be a no brainer.

just reporting the administrations own estimates .....

Quote:

---

The Departments' mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

---

Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Forbes

Avik Roy of Forbes writes that he got these estimates right out of the Federal Register .

Robert Samuelson of the Washington Compost goes conservative in his estimate and says the people who will lose their insurance who get theirs from their employer will be 25-50 million people ...mostly from small firms.
Obama's Lie About Letting People Keep Insurance Was Worse Than Expected - Investors.com

Quote:

---

If that 80 million is correct (assuming that includes their spouses and 1.8 children), and they enroll in the ACA plans and you add in 62 million (probably way low estimate now) Medicaid folks, 49 million Medicare recipients, 8 million government workers most of whom have govt. sponsored healthcare, plus government retirees not yet in Medicare, etc- a total of at least 200 million on government care.
The savings government can then realize by dumping insurance companies and their 20% overhead (yes the additional govt employees needed will reduce the savings), by going to single payer will be a no brainer.

---

at last, some common sense, and won't premiums come down for the rest once insurance companies realise they are under threat? It is flawed logic to think the private sector can provide public health initiatives

No premiums wont come down. They are going to go sky high. And if you dont pay the government can take it from you directly. Not sure how insurance works in your country but here there is a pool of money that is set by the government to offset any liability incurred. That pool varies in size depending on risk. By the government forcing insurance to take on high risk that pool of money has to increase to meet the mandate. So its not going to get any cheaper soon.

Quote:

---

No premiums wont come down. They are going to go sky high. And if you dont pay the government can take it from you directly. Not sure how insurance works in your country but here there is a pool of money that is set by the government to offset any liability incurred. That pool varies in size depending on risk. By the government forcing insurance to take on high risk that pool of money has to increase to meet the mandate. So its not going to get any cheaper soon.

---

There is full seperation of public and private provision of services. Government does subsidise some health insurance but maintains control over premiums. We have a system where every individual can obtain basic health care and receive a benefit from the government to pay for or offset at least in part the costs. Doctors can opt to accept payment directly from the government or charge the patient and allow the patient to recoup the benefit from the government or a hybrid arrangement of a co-payment. Beyond that individuals may have health insurance which is mainly directed at hospital costs and ancilliary services. The government regulates the cost of pharmeuticals. The health insurers offer various policies which have various exclusions and benefits. I have noted that there are wide discrepancies in the costs of cover

No sir, premiums will not go up and people with employer based insurance won't lose it.

Good Grief… Woman From WH Obamacare Ad Forced to Drop Health Insurance for Employees (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

But hey, she still believes in obamacare. Not so sure her employees do.

Quote:

---

When Anthem told Clark premiums for her eight employees would go up 39 percent in 2014, she checked out the plans available through the Small Business Health Options Program, where companies with fewer than 50 employees can shop for group coverage. Those plans were less expensive, but would still increase Clark’s premiums by 14 percent.

Clark then compared the price of individual policies available at Healthcare.gov to what she currently offers. She figured she could save 13 percent, or about $15,000, by discontinuing her group plan. She told her employees to pick a policy offered on the marketplace, and she’ll increase their pay to cover half the cost of the premiums.

---

As a small business she wasn't affected by Obama Care, but she has options under the ACA against rising costs which she was having before the ACA.

Quote:

---

She’s always offered health insurance to employees and their families, even as premiums increased by double digits every year.
“We’ve turned down the heat, the lights,” she says. “But we never, ever took health care off the table.

Until now.

When Anthem told Clark premiums for her eight employees would go up 39 percent in 2014, she checked out the plans available through the Small Business Health Options Program, where companies with fewer than 50 employees can shop for group coverage. Those plans were less expensive, but would still increase Clark’s premiums by 14 percent.

---

39% to 14%, but she solved the problem by letting the employees get their own insurance and paying half with a raise. People before profits. I don't know the salary ranges, but maybe an additional subsidy is also in the mix.

We don't know right now but by her doing her homework and keeping her employees in mind she found a way to mitigate the increases by the insurance companies.

You keep forgetting the for profit insurance company's set prices, not government, and its whatever the market will bear, and like everything else the costs go up. Funny how that's been happening for decades but now you are pissed.

Quote:

---

Not so sure her employees do.

---

Nobody bothered to get that side of the story, so in fact we don't have the whole story, just the part you want to spin the negatives. That makes your spin inconclusive.

Tal, get your head out of the sand.

Sorry Speech that's a non reply. All I want to hear is the rest of the story. If you can't deliver that, you got nothing.

Tal, the story is the lady in the Obamacare ad being priced out of providing insurance for her employees. The rest is me wondering if her employees still support obamacare as she does. I made no conclusion one way or another on that, but I'm guessing they would rather not be tossed into the exchange like so many more will be thanks to this ill conceived law.

Don't assume, and the changes are inevitable in many cases but a raise and covering half the costs whatever they are can't make workers mad. I have been asking that question and been ignored so far, but if your boss cuts your benefits, does he have to compensate you for the loss?

Glad we both agree single payer is the way to go because then if you get laid off or fired you don't lose your health insurance too.

Quote:

---

Glad we both agree single payer is the way to go because then if you get laid off or fired you don't lose your health insurance too.

---

It is so obvious I can't think why it hasn't occured to anyone until now and best of all it cuts out the profit taking middle man

blah blah blah. The Dems talk a good game about single payer ;but they never put that proposal on the floor .

What's the point in it, when we know we don't have the votes we compromise a solution. Yes dems did compromise with repubs and I have documented the amendments with a link.

Quote:

---

blah blah blah. The Dems talk a good game about single payer ;but they never put that proposal on the floor .

---

What you don't admit or even realise Tom is that it is a solution that works. Everyone plays by the same rules, the costs are known and uniform

in your dream .Almost half the people here pay no effective income tax . So you over tax half the population to give freebees. So much for your 'Everyone plays by the same rules' lie.

I will never agree your ideas of single payer is the way.

Quote:

---

in your dream .Almost half the people here pay no effective income tax . So you over tax half the population to give freebees. So much for your 'Everyone plays by the same rules' lie.

---

Half the large companies and the rich don't pay taxes either. At least the poor have an excuse, they ain't got enough money to tax. But I know, righties think rich guys shouldn't pay taxes, but the poor should. That's pretty screwed up but understandable for those that worship the dollar and value profits over people.

Quote:

---

I will never agree your ideas of single payer is the way.

---

This is America, we don't have to agree.

Let's divorce the income tax questions from the health care questions since the level of income tax is not a valid argument against it.

The people pay the amount of tax appropriate to their circumstance according to existing laws. Some part of that tax might be used to finance health care. It is apparent that it is also financed by impositions made on employers as well as personal contributions.

the provision of health care through insurance is neither a reason for increased taxation or a reason for exclusion of parts of the population by reason of income or circumstance.

according to your theorm, only taxpayers are entitled to participate in government benefits, so therefore citizenship means nothing