Obamacare Stands

[sol740]

Employers who employ 50 or more full time employees must provide health insurance benefits that comply with the law or pay a $2,000 tax per employee. Let's face facts shall we? If the cost of paying the tax is less than providing benefits the employer will gladly pay the tax and drop your benefits. Notice also that the law stipulates full time employees. A full time employee is an employee that works less than 30 hours a week. Look for employers to cut hours and hire more part time employees. Could you get by working part time?

 

Do employers have to provide healthcare right now? To my knowledge, no. If your employer decides to cancel your benefits and opt to pay a fine (while right now they could drop you and pay nothing) find another job that provides benefits.

[wagner]

Do employers have to provide healthcare right now? To my knowledge, no. If your employer decides to cancel your benefits and opt to pay a fine (while right now they could drop you and pay nothing) find another job that provides benefits.

 

So, your employer decides to cancel benefits, and now you have to pay more to get them, how is this better for everyone?

 

I don't like the idea that I could have to pay more for the same thing (or maybe less) than what I have now, just to help "everyone".

 

Am I missing something here? Did our elected leaders just write the insurance companies a blank check to do what they want?

[wagner]

Sell me on why this is good, not this political idea fucking crap. I don't care about liberals, the GOP, tea party, or Al mother fuckin Gore, WHY is this good?

[2pointslow]

Sell me on why this is good, not this political idea fucking crap. I don't care about liberals, the GOP, tea party, or Al mother fuckin Gore, WHY is this good?

 

becuz it will help dem peoplez who are on dat der welfare.

 

 

 

America, come get your free hand outs.

[downingracing]

The problem with this whole mess is that there are people who don't want to pay for health insurance. That is OK! But they then expect to be treated for a major issue by a hospital and will freak out when that hospital asks them for a $100,000 deposit before helping them. So when they show up with issue X, the hospital helps them and never gets paid for it. Then they bill those of us with insurance more money to make up for the payments they won't get from the other folks. So what do you do?? You force everyone to have coverage. (Which is a BAD solution with all kinds of other implications that are being discussed in this thread) I would have liked to see the government add Medical debt to the list of debt that can't be charged off with bankrupcy. (I personally believe that no debt should be able to be charged off - but that is another discussion)

 

My premiums went up 30% last year and the level of coverage went down (and I work for a large corporation). along with other increases in the coverage, I'm paying about 50% more out of pocket for worse coverage. I'm expecting the same thing for 2013. There are some other limits thanks to this mess that will further limit my ability to 'plan ahead' for a major medical issue... Good times!

[copperhead]

Am I missing something here? Did our elected leaders just write the insurance companies a blank check to do what they want?

 

More or less

 

the point of this is to force people that have enough money to pay for health care out of pocket and the people that are healthy enough to not need health care to still pay for it or else pay a fine (now tax). This is pay off the insurance companies so that they can provide coverage for those that can't pay for it themselves and to cover the new requirements like preexisting conditions. Palms have to be greased, after all.

[BigOxley]

Sell me on why this is good, not this political idea fucking crap. I don't care about liberals, the GOP, tea party, or Al mother fuckin Gore, WHY is this good?

 

 

it gives health insurance companies more business and $$$$, duh. i'm not even joking.

[BigOxley]

becuz it will help dem peoplez who are on dat der welfare.

 

 

 

America, come get your free hand outs.

 

 

can you (everyone) imagine a country where they don't give money, benefits, food, healthcare to the poor? giving them money and benefits keeps the poor invested in the process. this is inherent thinking to EVERY middle eastern ruling party.

 

if they didn't give money or food to the poor, what would the poor do to sustain life? answer: they would do anything they could. they would rob, cheat, and steal from You and Yours. (and before you say they do it anyway, the vast majority don't) they wouldn't steal from the rich. the rich would have armed guards at their houses and as escorts. imagine Somalia. that's what it would look like if we didn't give them stuff.

 

it's not that the government cares. the government wants to keep a thumb on the poor.

[wagner]

can you (everyone) imagine a country where they don't give money, benefits, food, healthcare to the poor? giving them money and benefits keeps the poor invested in the process. this is inherent thinking to EVERY middle eastern ruling party.

 

if they didn't give money or food to the poor, what would the poor do to sustain life? answer: they would do anything they could. they would rob, cheat, and steal from You and Yours. (and before you say they do it anyway, the vast majority don't) they wouldn't steal from the rich. the rich would have armed guards at their houses and as escorts. imagine Somalia. that's what it would look like if we didn't give them stuff.

 

it's not that the government cares. the government wants to keep a thumb on the poor.

 

Have you ever seen welfare fraud in action? I have, many, many times working at a carry-out in southern ohio. Those people do not have the right to a single dime of my tax money. We as a nation support the weak and allow them to drag us down. Help those who need it, not those who do nothing but drag the rest of us down.

[2pointslow]

can you (everyone) imagine a country where they don't give money, benefits, food, healthcare to the poor? giving them money and benefits keeps the poor invested in the process. this is inherent thinking to EVERY middle eastern ruling party.

 

if they didn't give money or food to the poor, what would the poor do to sustain life? answer: they would do anything they could. they would rob, cheat, and steal from You and Yours. (and before you say they do it anyway, the vast majority don't) they wouldn't steal from the rich. the rich would have armed guards at their houses and as escorts. imagine Somalia. that's what it would look like if we didn't give them stuff.

 

it's not that the government cares. the government wants to keep a thumb on the poor.

 

So i should have to go get a 2nd job to help the people who have no job and are milking the system? People like this breed others who milk the system as well. It will continue to get worse. Fuck them, let them rot and die.

[Mowgli1647545497]

You more than likely dropped a few people that posed extremely high risk or had known conditions that drove prices high. They could have passed away, or changed jobs or a number of things.

 

Our insurance went up this year. It has nothing to do with "obamacare". It had to do with the people covered by our policy.

 

A black cat could have crossed your path the day your insurance premiums dropped....

That cat had an equivalent bearing to your new rates as this bill did...... Absolutely none

 

Dropped no-one. Added a few. Switched from Aetna to United. Three month effort-intensive, highly involved process. That we do the same every year. Alot of conversations with carriers and plan reps. We know exactly what is driving them because they tell us. There was no fluke or statistical outliers occurring.

 

Add to that that I consult to the CIO Council of the largest insurance company in town and have been in on some of the conversations at the strategy decision making level, and I'm sure of my data.

 

This bill is absolutely driving rates. Has been for the past 3 years.

 

--------------

 

Annnnnd I'm sure the court ruling will drive further rate changes (down and up) as various insurance companies exercise various degrees of kneejerk/strategy.

 

Insurance rates smell and act just like the relationship of oil futures to barrel price to pump price right now. There's no 1 to 1 in the day to day. But there is trending. There is corporate reaction. There is emotional bad decisions at the board levels. And there are calculated good decisions at the board level. Its all a big chaotic melee.

 

-------------

 

IMO we're only halfway there. We put in regulations to force the private industry to cover everyone. As is just and fair and not capitalistically-predatory-chic. Next I think we need a govt option in order to drive the private industry pricepoint.

 

Because they're sure as fuck not going to do it themselves.

[Drewhop]

Sell me on why this is good, not this political idea fucking crap. I don't care about liberals, the GOP, tea party, or Al mother fuckin Gore, WHY is this good?

 

I dont think anyone on this board can answer this question.

[iwishiwascool]

So from what I can tell (aside from those of you plotting a revolt) that the platform of your frustration is with those who abuse the social safety net system and associated fraud.

 

Is that right?

[wagner]

So from what I can tell (aside from those of you plotting a revolt) that the platform of your frustration is with those who abuse the social safety net system and associated fraud.

 

Is that right?

 

That and the .gov sticking their fingers deeper in my b-hole.

 

The federal government should be in the business of keeping Mexico and Canada from invading, leave the rest to the states.

[coltboostin]

Before I formulate an opinion- a few Q's

 

1) Companies 49 an under have NO obligation to "provide" health care-correct?

 

2) for 50 and ups' "providing" health care entails that they pay for it-correct?

 

3) The people that do not have it-and receive a tax penalty-Is this a fixed number or biased on income? Will people below the poverty line have to pay the penalty?

 

4) Will people still receive FREE health care, as millions of Americans (for better or worse) do today? I don't know why its shocking for the Government to make sure someone is paying for a service received. Free is nice, but someone always has to pay for it.

[BigOxley]

it gives health insurance companies more business and $$$$, duh. i'm not even joking.

 

I dont think anyone on this board can answer this question.

 

i did

[TTQ B4U]

So from what I can tell (aside from those of you plotting a revolt) that the platform of your frustration is with those who abuse the social safety net system and associated fraud.

 

Is that right?

 

 

My beef is that Gov't can't manage shit so keep them out of healthcare.

This bill does extend the social support to more freeloaders and in fact mandates it.

This bill will be paid for by me the taxpayers and I'm fucking tire of giving more of my money to those that need to go make their own and use it to support themselves.

There are tons of other reasons this bill needs to be shot down but in the end the biggest one is yes, I'm tired of free loaders and the gov't not thinking through plans that benefit this country in a way that holds people accountable and raises the bar.

 

No one is saying people aren't deserving of healthcare but fuck this entitlement bullshit that requires the greater good to pay for it. Life isn't fair and dragging dead weight isn't what makes us better. Stop lowering the bar.

 

• Want gov't support? Fine, but it's not FREE and in turn YOU the person benefiting will ultimately be the one to carry the costs of this loan.
  
• Want gov't support? Then you better be drug free and not fucking Obese.
  
• Want better rates on insurance, then don't smoke and again, put the fucking Twinkies down or you SHOULD pay more.
  

Choices and accountability.

[Guest Hal]

Hasn't a "state or war" been reinterpreted once or twice since WWII.

 

My American Flag emblazoned bottle of Sweedish Vodka (Irony!) is dry. I'm done. My debate skills are better when there is an articulated starting point. Usually the starting point is a bit later than 1776.

 

I can argue that regardless of one's Libertarian views (which I understand, I really do) there are certain realities that exist in our medical system:

 

1.) The Hippocratic Oath and Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 require medical providers to render care.

2.) Number one creates free loaders who wait to enter into the system until their medical need is acute.

3.) We as tax payers and insurance carriers pay for these freeloaders already

4a.) Pre-existing condition clauses suck -especially if you or someone you love has been denied coverage because of one.

4b.) lifetime limits and abrupt dropages suck -especially if you or someone you love has been denied coverage because of one.

5.) Mandating number 4 while still caring for number 2 would allow people to only get coverage when they have a condition and exponentially increase costs.

6.) Nobody want's to pay for freeloaders.

 

So how do we promise all of 4, continue to allow 2, and prevent 5 without exponentially increasing costs to insurance carriers? Mitt dedicated to keep all of the parts of the bill that people like but vowed to eliminate the piece that payed for it.

 

How do any of you constitutional fundamentalists suggest we accomplish this with anything other than an individual mandate or a single payer system?

I would say the problem is that you presuppose that the constitutional fundamentalists even want to accomplish your argument. The thought, which I agree with, is that this type of stuff is beyond the reach of the federal government.

 

P.S. There's nothing wrong with a 1776, or earlier, starting point. History makes things more fun.

 

P.P.S. This is far less interesting when not drinking.

[smokinHawk1647545499]

to fix this issue vote obama out, vote Sherrod Brown out

dont forget!

[2pointslow]

to fix this issue vote obama out, vote Sherrod Brown out

dont forget!

 

lol'd at voting, as if it actually means anything.

[coltboostin]

Life isn't fair and dragging dead weight isn't what makes us better. Stop lowering the bar.

 

• Want gov't support? Fine, but it's not FREE and in turn YOU the person benefiting will ultimately be the one to carry the costs of this loan.
  
• Want gov't support? Then you better be drug free and not fucking Obese.
  
• Want better rates on insurance, then don't smoke and again, put the fucking Twinkies down or you SHOULD pay more.
  

Choices and accountability.

 

 

 

So-take away Freedoms from people whom you feel don't deserve it because they are at a lower Median income than yourself?

 

Right. Got it.

[2highpsi]

This just feels relevant here:

 

[RyM3rC]

lol'd at voting, as if it actually means anything.

 

Is this where I insert a generic Ron Paul statement?

[TTQ B4U]

So-take away Freedoms from people whom you feel don't deserve it because they are at a lower Median income than yourself?

 

Right. Got it.

 

 

How is what I said taking away freedoms? People are free to do what they like. That's why I put the last statement in my post. It's about choices and accountability. You want to eat like shit and be fat then pay more for healthcare and own up to being accountable to how you live. I shouldn't have to pay for it.

[wagner]

Still waiting to hear why this is so great. CNN has a story about home some of the poor will be left out in the cold on this, thought this was supposed to help them, or just some of them?

 

All these new great taxes make sense too, again I think I remember hearing about some people that revolted against taxes a while back...