RIAs see mostly silver linings in the wake of Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare

I’d like a law forcing RIA’s to take on clients who are broke, because they need advice too. I’d also like a law that forces the law firm next door to me to pay for my staff’s health insurance. I’m also really excited about all the innovation about to occur in the health care industry. I also know that Obama was the only one to ever offer viable, market-oriented and market-tested, cost-effective, sensible way to reform health care, I mean health insurance (what’s the difference again? apparently none). Good grief.

I don’t see the silver lining. There is nothing in the bill to actually bring down the cost of delivering healthcare or improve the quality of care, unless you believe the $2 per employee per month slush fund to optimize care will actually do something. I won’t hold my breath.

We do know our clients will face higher taxes and for those of us with business owners, a vast new set of regulations, taxes, and fees to try and maneuver through. This may make the adviser more valuable, but it doesn’t help the client improve their finances or add to the economy by growing their businesses. In fact, it really incentivizes outsourcing, using part time employees and keeping companies under 50 employees. Not good for economic growth.

For my retired clients, the half trillion dollar cut to Medicare looms large as I see them having to come more out of pocket even for covered services. Their is no way to spin that as being good for them.

Great story, Lisa. Real world concerns, such as what you explained happened within your family, pack much greater impact than cold charts and studies. Our GOP friends had many years to tackle the massive health care problems the US faced, but did nothing.
The ACA went through the Congressional sausage-making process, and it is certainly not an ideal piece of legislation. But it is a start, and for the millions of families like yours, it is a vital improvement over what we had.

My suggestions for a much better law involve making the tax as big as the cost of buying catastrophic coverage and then using that revenue to actually buy the policy for the individual being taxed, but no mandate, or tax, for basic coverage. The long range solution (financial and societal) has to be changing the insurance mentality from “first dollar” to “last dollar”. Guaranteed coverage, including pre-existing conditions, can be part of that mandated catastrophic insurance package.

By the way, reports of my “retirement” are greatly exaggerated

It’s all fun and games until a hack empowered by the ACA decides Liz has lived a good life and isn’t going to experience an increase in quality of life compared to the expenses for healthcare or insuring her. Stripping Americans of their liberty has no silver lining. When these masterminds plans fail they will continue to plan. Britain’s nationalized system started by providing people who were out of work health insurance, a noble cause. The well intentioned legislation people applauded eventually ended up enslaving them.

I can empathize with the real world implications of health issues beyond peoples control. But I reject being blinded to the overreach of government in the name of a noble pursuit.

“Stripping Americans of their liberty “ “enslaving them” Nothing like a little hyperbole, eh, Joe?
All governments issue regulations. You may not agree with some, but it’s a huge stretch to equate mandating that around 1% of Americans have health insurance (and thus can’t be freeloaders in the emergency rooms) and enslavement.
And prior to ACA, if the hypothetical Liz’s of the U.S, had a serious condition that required extenesive treatment, her insurance could — and frequently did — say she reached her limit and give her no further assistance. That is a fact, while your death panel scenario is nothing more than a sophmoric slippery slope argument.

There is no shortage of hyperbole both pro and anti PPACA, and if you are going to dish it out, don’t act all aghast when others do the same. The central issue is whether the act actually will improve the healthcare system in our country and I for one, do not. In fact, I think it will vastly worsen things. While Joe’s comments may appear a bit over the top, I think he is essentially accurate. PPACA puts the country on the way to socialized care and if you look at how socialized systems distribute care, they absolutely make decisions on who will or will not receive care based on a person’s perceived value to the country.

Give me a break! “A bit over the top” you say? Yes, both sides are making claims that are difficult for any of us to evaluate. And your claims about ACA MAY be accurate. (I strongly doubt it.) But this right-wing onslaught about “enslaving” and “stripping Americans of their liberty” is way over the top, with no equivalent scare tactics on the other side.
I’m old enough to remember that similar phrases were strewn about when seat-belt laws and anti-smoking rules were enacted, and somehow we still are a nation that enjoys everything the word “liberty” stands for.

I always find it funny when the argument is both sides do it, but the other side is much worse.

Nope. Didn’t say that. Both sides have valid arguments about the pros and cons of ACA. But only one side uses rhetoric that goes beyond rational discourse.

A pro-Obamacare Democrat said on the floor of congress that Republicans just want poor people to die. If one side goes beyond the rational discourse, it has to be the side with people making statements like that.

That’s right. That happened a year or two ago. Once. And that Florida congressman was roundly criticized by many on the left. He was subsequently defeated when he ran for re-election because much of the Democratic establishment walked away from him. If only the other side did the same to their crazies.

I get it, so every time someone on the left says something extreme it is an outlier and doesn’t count, but when someone on the right does it, it is standard procedure and should be roundly criticized.

“ ...when someone on the right does it, it is standard procedure.” Excellent, Larry! You got it!
To recap — your example was from Sep 29, 2009. My examples of over-the-top scare tactics are from THIS VERY THREAD! And there are more on Faux News every single day.
Whew. I’d thought we’d never agree on anything.

Ken, obviously I was making fun of your hypocrisy and this is a great teachable moment. Rather debating the merits of the legislation, you attack the people criticizing it over their choice of language. The fact is that your point of view uses the same tactics and language, which you dismiss. Then you go on to continue the attack using the hyperbole of “faux news”, demonstrating the very thing you criticize conservatives for and claim the left doesn’t do. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.

Drat! I gave you an opening with “Faux News.”
But if you are equating that sarcastic quip with the horrific “Stripping Americans of their liberty “ and “enslaving them,” well then, my friend, we not likely to find common ground.
As I said early on, “your claims about ACA MAY be accurate.” All I was asking for was a reasonable, rational airing of views.
Since at this point no one is reading this except you, me and the poor RIA Biz editors, I cede the final anwer to you.

Well, I’m glad when a little humor can be injected into these comments — and that the comments stay civil and thoughtful. It means I don’t have to face any thorny questions about deleting entries.

I find our readers are as divided as the general populace on political issues but they are, by and large, united about issues relating to fiduciary care and financial advice. What standard of care should be applied to people with pre-existing conditions is another matter.

Brooke

Ken, who gets to decide where the line is you can not cross between denigrating Fox News and using the term “enslaving”? Who gets to determine what is reasonable and rational? It goes back to my prior point that people on both sides like to accuse the other of going over the line and then when someone on their side does it. they call it an aberration. None of that gets to the heart of the debate.

The problem I have with how you responded is rather than debate the actual points Joe Regenstein made, you attacked the language. I gave you a second opportunity to debate his point by stripping out the hyperbole, but instead you made the ridiculous allegation that the pro PPACA side never stoops to such tactics and then went on to do the very thing you claimed the pro people never do, and then said when you did it it was ok because it was sarcastic.

My point is that we can not have an honest debate when instead of debating you quibble over language and tactics everybody is using. their is no moral high ground on this legislation, there is only the facts on the ground of how this is going to effect real people with real problems.

Brooke, I saw your comments after I posted mine. I don’t think we are united on fiduciary vs. suitability either, at least not if you read the article from a couple months ago I was quoted in, LOL:)

As for pre-existing conditions, I have that issue personally and it is no fun. I just know it will do me no good if suddenly I have additional avenues to get insured but they are so expensive I can’t afford them.

Yuck! I don’t this is getting us anywhere. My thoughts have always been that we need an effective alternative to ACA that most of the American people…from the center out to both left and right, can unite around. I think ACA is terrible and would like to see it gone…but doing nothing in its stead is also terrible. The solution is going to take leadership (and our current ideologue President is not going to provide it, so I hope he is defeated in November) and compromise (so, please!, let’s elect more centrists to Congress).