Originally Posted by slidecage I dont see how people can say this is a good thing SAY your making 25,000 a year working for a company that offers heath care When this goes into effect the choice for the place you work at is PAY heath care for 8,000 per person or PAY the fine for 2,000 per person and the job picks the fine Now you have to go out and BUY Heath care You either buy it at 3,000 bucks or Pay the fine at 1500 So now instead of having a job that paid 25,000 you have a job that pays 22,000 since you have to pay 3,000 for your own heath care

I think your sig says it all on this one...

Originally Posted by Soodmeg Ok. American and their selective outrage confuses me. We are all ok with Apple Inc working 3rd world workers to the point that they commit suicide on a daily basis. We were all ok when BP destroy and entire ecosystem for generations to come. We are also ok with many many Wall Street company waging war on each other at the expensive of our homes, jobs, security. All of those things we have decided that we are pretty ok with...(we dicided that by not actually taking any real action against such things) why the outrage at keeping people healthy in some way? Does it cost money? Yep but with all the things we spend money on how is health cross the line? Your ok with America building yet another super missile that they can control from a couch that cost 2.3 billion but a couple thousand for health for the population is far too costly? It makes no sense.... I am sick of people pretending America is so great and basing decision on fallacy. Yes, its better than living in a hut in Kenya but when Repubs get to talking they pretend that anyone who didnt take over then layoff 3 company while pocketing millions are "just not trying hard enough" so they dont deserve anything. American Business have huge advantages in so many ways embarrassing...non legal workers, corp loopholes, creative tax payment so being forced to get health care of your workers isnt that big of a deal. Just dont get it...being forced to help is the line we should never cross but its ok to layoff 200 workers so that your stock goes up .20 cents? Get over yourself corp America.

We were all ok when BP destroy and entire ecosystem for generations to come. LOL yea BP IS EVIL BUT It was fine when the business down their CHARGED THEM 20X the RENT FOR buidlings they needed down in the golf and they laughed about it....> Guess what... OIL has been Leaking into the ocean Long before humans were here and OIL will be leaking into the oceans LONG AFTER HUMANS are nothing more then a mere spec that noone cares about and the earth will still be here.

if you was living in a hut over in kenya 40% of the people wouldnt be sitting on their asses waiting for the goverment money coming in they have to work the land. But that is what is wrong with this country..


A women has a child... cant afford to have the child and just makes it ... what does she do has another kid just to get more money from the goverment . Hell i love to have a family as well BUT know damn well if i can afford to have a kid right now im not going to have 3 of them but Hell if the goverment wants to give you cash for having kids THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG




i love how people think that Someone can go out there RISK THEIR MONEY and make a business and turn it into a billion dollar company is EVIL

BUT they dont think the so called MOVIE stars or the SPORTS PLAYERS ARE NOT EVIL.


Ya GE makes a million bucks they did it by ripping people off
but when TIGER WOODS makes a million bucks playing a stupid game He earned it.


Already love some people being asked who are you going to vote for and you hear people go

Im going to vote for Obama cause if mitt gets in he will take our welfare away....

but back to the point

Seems noone wants to answer the question

How is this good when before i was making 25,000 with health care and now my Company dropped my heath care meaning im going to have to go buy it for 3,000 (good luck finding it for a family for 3000 a year)

now im only making 22,000

so how is this helping .

Originally Posted by slidecage now im only making 22,000

Are you still a paper boy?

where is the golf?

And are you eligible for the subsidies provided for the fed gov't since you only make 22,000?

Originally Posted by IRHari where is the golf? And are you eligible for the subsidies provided for the fed gov't since you only make 22,000?

The government poverty line is pathetically low. I don't remember the exact figure but for some reason I think it's in the 8-12k range for a single person.

The truth of the matter is that he needs to find a job in another state. I don't know where he's at but it sounds like the wages from a Southern state, possibly Texas.

So how did Pliskin get turned into a guest?

i was taking that as a 3rd person point of few


Seems noone wants to answer the question

How is this good when before i was making 25,000 with health care and now my Company dropped my heath care meaning im going to have to go buy it for 3,000 (good luck finding it for a family for 3000 a year)

now im only making 22,000

so how is this helping .
__________________----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


now for myself i easy make 30K a year working 4 hours a day what i can live on by myself and my girlfriend without a problem (around 55k between us)


POINT IS if a person is making 25 K with health care from the place they work. THE FINE is cheaper then buying health care for the workers the worker then would have to go out and PAY the cash for FINE

so if the health care cost 3k

the worker is now working the same hours for 22K instead of the 25K they were making..

BUT HELL PEOPLE THINK THIS WILL MAKE HEALTH CARE FREE FOR ALL so they dont give a rats ass

Your company reduces your total compensation, and it's the government's fault?

What was stopping your company from reducing or just dropping your health insurance benefits before this law was passed?

Originally Posted by Blaster man The government poverty line is pathetically low. I don't remember the exact figure but for some reason I think it's in the 8-12k range for a single person. The truth of the matter is that he needs to find a job in another state. I don't know where he's at but it sounds like the wages from a Southern state, possibly Texas.

For further reading I'd suggest looking up slidecage's other posts, it might make things more clear. Or it might make you even more confused and cross-eyed.

Originally Posted by chiwii Your company reduces your total compensation, and it's the government's fault? What was stopping your company from reducing or just dropping your health insurance benefits before this law was passed?

the POINT IS THIS

everyone says O this is going to be so freaking great ... the truth is the rates are going to go up so

The company person a is working right now


PERSON A works at a company that give them health care

the company can either GIVE Them health care at 5,000 per pop or pay 1,000 per pop fine so they pick the fine... The person can find heath care on their own but will cost them 3,000 bucks

SO the person who was making 25,000 before NOW only makes 22,000 cause they have to buy their own health care

so what makes this so great the simple point is NOTHING Cause the fools who are so happy about this think they are getting FREE HEALTH CARE then again everything else to them is free so why shouldnt they think this is going to be free as well


if you think your rates are not going to go up your a fool....

if someone never paid a penny into the health care system and then goes out and buys it for 3000 a year and turns around and goes i need a 100,000 in health care and pills where the hell do you think that other 97,000 is going to come from...

THE OTHER PEOPLES BILLS GOING UP TO COVER THEM.

I might be re-using this later.

Originally Posted by slidecage the POINT IS THIS everyone says O this is going to be so freaking great ... the truth is the rates are going to go up so The company person a is working right now PERSON A works at a company that give them health care the company can either GIVE Them health care at 5,000 per pop or pay 1,000 per pop fine so they pick the fine... The person can find heath care on their own but will cost them 3,000 bucks SO the person who was making 25,000 before NOW only makes 22,000 cause they have to buy their own health care so what makes this so great the simple point is NOTHING Cause the fools who are so happy about this think they are getting FREE HEALTH CARE then again everything else to them is free so why shouldnt they think this is going to be free as well if you think your rates are not going to go up your a fool.... if someone never paid a penny into the health care system and then goes out and buys it for 3000 a year and turns around and goes i need a 100,000 in health care and pills where the hell do you think that other 97,000 is going to come from... THE OTHER PEOPLES BILLS GOING UP TO COVER THEM.

Let's say that the bill wasn't passed. The company has the choice to pay $8,000 a year for an employee's health insurance, or pay $0 for the employee's health insurance and let the employee find their own insurance. Why would they even offer it at all? They offer health insurance to attract good employees. The law doesn't change that. It does encourage employers that previously did not offer health insurance benefits to start doing so.

You're right that some people wrongly believe that health care will be free, but I don't think anyone here has said that.

In your example of the person who needs $100,000 in care after only paying $3,000 in premiums - what would have happened if that person needed $100,000 in care before the the law passed? Either that person would die, or they would still get the required care. If they recieved the care and couldn't pay, they still would leave the rest of us with the bill.

Premiums have been going up drastically for years. Yes, premiums will go up. How much of the increase will be due to the law? I have no idea. The new law does require that insurance companies justify premium increases if they are over a certain percentage. It also requires that a certain percentage of premiums be spent on healthcare (vs. admin costs), so that's something. Even so, there is still a lot of work to be done to control healthcare and insurance costs.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by fullmetalfan720 The argument over whether the debate was bipartisan is largely irreverent. Its something that might have mattered when the bill was still being debated. The whole problem now is that so many people have bought into a bill that is essentially a bailout to the health insurance industry. It forces the poor and middle-class to buy health care they cannot necessarily afford. These people receive a subsidy, yes, but they still end up paying a significant amount for health care. There's no negotiation of drug prices. And of course, the Supreme Court ruling shows that the federal government has unlimited taxing power. (Other bad Supreme Court rulings: Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, Plessy v. Ferguson.) Considering that the president now has nearly unlimited power to wage wars, surveil and kill people without due process, I'm starting to wonder if anyone cares about limitation of powers or the Constitution anymore.

Thank you for providing a voice of reason.

This is not "healthcare reform," but rather "health insurance reform." It does not address any of the perverse incentives in our system or patient/physician attitudes that mainly drive our costs (granted, Medicare is slowly working on that). I can tell you from experience that having more access to health care can be a bad thing. The main problem, as I perceive it, is that people are comforted by not taking personal responsibility for their health and seek to look for external solutions or external forces that they can blame... rather than taking responsibility and exercising, eating right, and becoming psychologically healthy. Stanton Peele, one of my favorite psychologists, recently had a great blog post about the healthcare issue: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ed-health-care

Originally Posted by chiwii Let's say that the bill wasn't passed. The company has the choice to pay $8,000 a year for an employee's health insurance, or pay $0 for the employee's health insurance and let the employee find their own insurance. Why would they even offer it at all?

Whether the company or the employee pays for health care, it has the same effect on the labor market. This is similar to payroll taxes. It doesn't matter if the employer or the employee pays it. That the worker pays half of the payroll taxes and the company pays half is immaterial to the effect it has on the supply and demand of labor. Mandated benefits work in a similar way, but can have less severe effects than payroll taxes if certain conditions are met. Of course, this assumes mandated benefits in lieu of payroll taxes.

It would probably be better to simply get the $8,000 added to your salary for you to spend as you please, either on health insurance, something else or some combination or the two, but workers like the idea of "benefits." You should probably be indifferent, however, between a job that pays $60k with $8k worth of benefits and a job that pays $68k with no benefits.

They offer health insurance to attract good employees. The law doesn't change that. It does encourage employers that previously did not offer health insurance benefits to start doing so.

Not necessarily. The penalty might increase the cost of hiring, which would reduce the the amount of labor demanded. Many jobs don't "deserve," for lack of a better word, health benefits. These are often part-time, menial jobs. There may be less of them, which would hurt the poorest, lowest skilled workers. The only way to mitigate this is if health care costs go down overall. However, extending any amount of health care in jobs that previously offered zero benefits will still raise the cost of labor. So a restaurant may start offering health insurance to all employees if they are required to do so but may also get rid of a few employees to pay for it. Any increased costs will be passed on to the consumer, which may have effects throughout the industry. If consumers decide they do not want to pay, restaurants will close, resulting in lost jobs anyway. Or employment may stay the same while wages go down, unless wages are already at the minimum wage.

I don't think it'll have much effect on salaried professionals, who probably won't lose their plans for the reason you stated, to retain talent.

Originally Posted by chiwii Let's say that the bill wasn't passed. The company has the choice to pay $8,000 a year for an employee's health insurance, or pay $0 for the employee's health insurance and let the employee find their own insurance. Why would they even offer it at all? They offer health insurance to attract good employees. The law doesn't change that. It does encourage employers that previously did not offer health insurance benefits to start doing so. You're right that some people wrongly believe that health care will be free, but I don't think anyone here has said that. In your example of the person who needs $100,000 in care after only paying $3,000 in premiums - what would have happened if that person needed $100,000 in care before the the law passed? Either that person would die, or they would still get the required care. If they recieved the care and couldn't pay, they still would leave the rest of us with the bill. Premiums have been going up drastically for years. Yes, premiums will go up. How much of the increase will be due to the law? I have no idea. The new law does require that insurance companies justify premium increases if they are over a certain percentage. It also requires that a certain percentage of premiums be spent on healthcare (vs. admin costs), so that's something. Even so, there is still a lot of work to be done to control healthcare and insurance costs.

point is this bill is going to force the prices way up

so a company who offers it now may be paying 7,000 per worker but will not pay 10,000 per worker

but like i said 90% of the people think this means FREE HEALTHCARE and they will vote for him to stay as prez.

if the bill is so good why does it take 2 years to take effect and why does it take around 5 years for the fine to be higher then health care

Cause they want to force out all of the insurance companies and force people to go onto the goverment plan

but like i said who cares anymore cause as long as they keep getting free stuff they will vote for the person who gives it to them

Originally Posted by BigT This is not "healthcare reform," but rather "health insurance reform."

I will not disagree with anyone who wants to argue that Washington is more than happy to put party politics aside and move us further into an Oligarchy to the point that it's almost more accurate to call it a Kakistocracy.

But when we acknowledge the extent to which monied interests interfere with and control the shape and direction of our policies, the weaker become any claims of "socialism." Or, hell, even "liberalism."

Originally Posted by BigT Thank you for providing a voice of reason. This is not "healthcare reform," but rather "health insurance reform." It does not address any of the perverse incentives in our system or patient/physician attitudes that mainly drive our costs (granted, Medicare is slowly working on that). I can tell you from experience that having more access to health care can be a bad thing. The main problem, as I perceive it, is that people are comforted by not taking personal responsibility for their health and seek to look for external solutions or external forces that they can blame... rather than taking responsibility and exercising, eating right, and becoming psychologically healthy. Stanton Peele, one of my favorite psychologists, recently had a great blog post about the healthcare issue: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ed-health-care

Peele could have saved himself time if he'd just written "People in this country are stupid". Look as this forum alone, proof and evidence be dammed, it means nothing to most people. It isn't even an issue of addiction like he claims, it's just simply that people get scared of things and when they do, they ignore evidence. Evidence may show that getting a prostate exam would do no good for a man, but then he reads or sees something on TV about it, gets sacred, and he's in the office the next day getting the exam.

What a terrible, undersourced, internally contradictory op-ed.

Originally Posted by Spokker Many jobs don't "deserve," for lack of a better word, health benefits. These are often part-time, menial jobs.

So you believe that if working folks get sick, they don't deserve the care they need to get better. You believe they deserve to die.

If you think about all the honest working folks, doesn't that bother you a little? Doesn't that seem morally wrong to you?

Originally Posted by camoor So you believe that if working folks get sick, they don't deserve the care they need to get better. You believe they deserve to die. If you think about all the honest working folks, doesn't that bother you a little? Doesn't that seem morally wrong to you?

I know you're not seriously asking, but still, look who you're asking here.