mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Obama Care Could Be Deadly
- Thread starter gmsisko1
- Start date
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
(2) applied the Ryan reforms to Medicare and Medicaid (or, alternatively, folded in Medicare and Medicaid acute-care into the PPACA exchanges); (3) equalized the tax treatment of employer-sponsored and individually-purchased insurance; and (4) not increase taxes or the deficit.
That's the problem right there and exactly what I was referring to. There can be no bipartisan bill when one person wants fire and the other person wants water.
That's the problem right there and exactly what I was referring to. There can be no bipartisan bill when one person wants fire and the other person wants water.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='Blaster man'](2) applied the Ryan reforms to Medicare and Medicaid (or, alternatively, folded in Medicare and Medicaid acute-care into the PPACA exchanges); (3) equalized the tax treatment of employer-sponsored and individually-purchased insurance; and (4) not increase taxes or the deficit.
That's the problem right there and exactly what I was referring to. There can be no bipartisan bill when one person wants fire and the other person wants water.[/QUOTE]
Your original point was that republicans refused to participate and I argued that was not true. You put blame on the republicans and I disproved that. Again this was a partisan bill with no compromise by the democrats that had all the power. It was a democrat act ram rodded through. I posted the article because it again disproves your original point. Now if you want to change it and say they did try to participate but you just didn't LIKE a comprised bill and the shit pile democrat bill was better than a compromised bill that accomplishes much more and isn't mostlyl shit like the democrats one...that is another story altogether.
I for one like parts of the democrat and the republican plans and believe a better non-partisan act could have been passed. But since the democrats had the power and wanted it ALL their way that didn't happen.
And your argument that somehow those that had all the power are not to blame boggles the mind. How do you compromise with the democrats who have all the power know it and think that only their plan is the shiznet and refuse to represent all the people and do a bi-partisan bill? The democrats used their power and in a bad way and forced their self-righteous plan on everyone else...why becasue they could.
You lost on your point as it was not true.
edit: again they could not and were not allowed to partcipate.
That's the problem right there and exactly what I was referring to. There can be no bipartisan bill when one person wants fire and the other person wants water.[/QUOTE]
Your original point was that republicans refused to participate and I argued that was not true. You put blame on the republicans and I disproved that. Again this was a partisan bill with no compromise by the democrats that had all the power. It was a democrat act ram rodded through. I posted the article because it again disproves your original point. Now if you want to change it and say they did try to participate but you just didn't LIKE a comprised bill and the shit pile democrat bill was better than a compromised bill that accomplishes much more and isn't mostlyl shit like the democrats one...that is another story altogether.
I for one like parts of the democrat and the republican plans and believe a better non-partisan act could have been passed. But since the democrats had the power and wanted it ALL their way that didn't happen.
And your argument that somehow those that had all the power are not to blame boggles the mind. How do you compromise with the democrats who have all the power know it and think that only their plan is the shiznet and refuse to represent all the people and do a bi-partisan bill? The democrats used their power and in a bad way and forced their self-righteous plan on everyone else...why becasue they could.
You lost on your point as it was not true.
edit: again they could not and were not allowed to partcipate.
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='Pliskin101']Your original point was that republicans refused to participate and I argued that was not true. You put blame on the republicans and I disproved that. Again this was a partisan bill with no compromise by the democrats that had all the power. It was a democrat act ram rodded through. I posted the article because it again disproves your original point. Now if you want to change it and say they did try to participate but you just didn't LIKE a comprised bill and the shit pile democrat bill was better than a compromised bill that accomplishes much more and isn't mostlyl shit like the democrats one...that is another story altogether.
I for one like parts of the democrat and the republican plans and believe a better non-partisan act could have been passed. But since the democrats had the power and wanted it ALL their way that didn't happen.
And your argument that somehow those that had all the power are not to blame boggles the mind. How do you compromise with the democrats who have all the power know it and think that only their plan is the shiznet and refuse to represent all the people and do a bi-partisan bill? The democrats used their power and in a bad way and forced their self-righteous plan on everyone else...why becasue they could.
You lost on your point as it was not true.
edit: again they could not and were not allowed to partcipate.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Blaster man']Pliskin, I'm not going to quote your post because most of it is irrelevant insults. Instead I will say this, the Democrats tried working with Republicans but you don't seem to want to accept this. The fact is, the Republicans didn't have anything to contribute other than cuts and rolling back Medicare. Note that the Medicare rollback comes with tax cuts which means that it wouldn't even save money which is supposedly what they care about.[/QUOTE]
Really? Exactly as I said. The Republican's won't participate in a bipartisan manner. All they will do is make unrealistic demands to disband government. You can argue all you want about this nonsense but most people don't think medicare should be gone and the democrats will never allow it to happen. In fact, the republican's won't either but they pushed this plan because they thought it would get them votes.
Anyway, arguing with you is pointless. You don't want to admit that the Republican's chose to push plans that they knew were unacceptable to Democrats. Maybe the Republican house has a plan to increase military spending and the Democrats put out a plan to completely eliminate the military. Well gee, why the hell won't the Republican's work in a bipartisan manner? You really don't seem to get it so I'm not going to bother discussing this issue anymore.
Moving on, it's Constitutional and I love it. Now it will be around forever.
I for one like parts of the democrat and the republican plans and believe a better non-partisan act could have been passed. But since the democrats had the power and wanted it ALL their way that didn't happen.
And your argument that somehow those that had all the power are not to blame boggles the mind. How do you compromise with the democrats who have all the power know it and think that only their plan is the shiznet and refuse to represent all the people and do a bi-partisan bill? The democrats used their power and in a bad way and forced their self-righteous plan on everyone else...why becasue they could.
You lost on your point as it was not true.
edit: again they could not and were not allowed to partcipate.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Blaster man']Pliskin, I'm not going to quote your post because most of it is irrelevant insults. Instead I will say this, the Democrats tried working with Republicans but you don't seem to want to accept this. The fact is, the Republicans didn't have anything to contribute other than cuts and rolling back Medicare. Note that the Medicare rollback comes with tax cuts which means that it wouldn't even save money which is supposedly what they care about.[/QUOTE]
Really? Exactly as I said. The Republican's won't participate in a bipartisan manner. All they will do is make unrealistic demands to disband government. You can argue all you want about this nonsense but most people don't think medicare should be gone and the democrats will never allow it to happen. In fact, the republican's won't either but they pushed this plan because they thought it would get them votes.
Anyway, arguing with you is pointless. You don't want to admit that the Republican's chose to push plans that they knew were unacceptable to Democrats. Maybe the Republican house has a plan to increase military spending and the Democrats put out a plan to completely eliminate the military. Well gee, why the hell won't the Republican's work in a bipartisan manner? You really don't seem to get it so I'm not going to bother discussing this issue anymore.
Moving on, it's Constitutional and I love it. Now it will be around forever.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='Blaster man']There was no trickery in Congress. It was the Senate's bill, not Obama's bill. The republicans had a chance to participate but chose to be as partisan as possible. They KNEW this outcome was possible yet still refused to participate because of extremist tea bangers. [/QUOTE]
As I said, you said: refused to work with and that it was the republicans fault. When I addressed that then you said in the next post a "few republicans" and then you changed it after that to well I didn't like what they were offering.
Guess what you were wrong pal. I addressed you and disproved your claim and then you change it to.... well I didn't like what they offered ... that isn't the same as well they offered nothing now is it?
So bottom line again is the democrats had a super majority REFUSED to have the bill any other way or bi-partisan. They wanted it all their way and because they could have it all their way THEY DID. Well their bill ALL THEIR WAY is a pile of shit with a few chocolate chips in it and there in no one else to blame for this CRAP then the idiot democrats who think that they know everything and what is best for EVERYONE regardless of what other people say or want.
As I said this is a great lesson why one political party should never have all legislative and executive power. No one special interest should ever have so much power. They did and they used it in a destructive selfish self-righteous manner.
As I said, you said: refused to work with and that it was the republicans fault. When I addressed that then you said in the next post a "few republicans" and then you changed it after that to well I didn't like what they were offering.
Guess what you were wrong pal. I addressed you and disproved your claim and then you change it to.... well I didn't like what they offered ... that isn't the same as well they offered nothing now is it?
So bottom line again is the democrats had a super majority REFUSED to have the bill any other way or bi-partisan. They wanted it all their way and because they could have it all their way THEY DID. Well their bill ALL THEIR WAY is a pile of shit with a few chocolate chips in it and there in no one else to blame for this CRAP then the idiot democrats who think that they know everything and what is best for EVERYONE regardless of what other people say or want.
As I said this is a great lesson why one political party should never have all legislative and executive power. No one special interest should ever have so much power. They did and they used it in a destructive selfish self-righteous manner.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='Blaster man']
Moving on, it's Constitutional and I love it. Now it will be around forever.[/QUOTE]
What makes you think or even want the whole thing in all it's crapness to be around forever? You are happy with ALL of it?
"FOREVER" LMAO
Get another thing....it is upheld by the consitution the same consitution that allows this to be repealed and changed. So the ruling does not make it set in stone forever. Thank goodness.
It should and will be changed. Have no doubt that it will be changed for the better. Not left in it's entirty of crapness that the democrats forced on everyone.
Moving on, it's Constitutional and I love it. Now it will be around forever.
[/QUOTE]What makes you think or even want the whole thing in all it's crapness to be around forever? You are happy with ALL of it?
"FOREVER" LMAO
Get another thing....it is upheld by the consitution the same consitution that allows this to be repealed and changed. So the ruling does not make it set in stone forever. Thank goodness.
It should and will be changed. Have no doubt that it will be changed for the better. Not left in it's entirty of crapness that the democrats forced on everyone.
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='Pliskin101']As I said, you said: refused to work with and that it was the republicans fault. When I addressed that then you said in the next post a "few republicans" and then you changed it after that to well I didn't like what they were offering.
Guess what you were wrong pal. I addressed you and disproved your claim and then you change it to.... well I didn't like what they offered ... that isn't the same as well they offered nothing now is it?
So bottom line again is the democrats had a super majority REFUSED to have the bill any other way or bi-partisan. They wanted it all their way and because they could have it all their way THEY DID. Well their bill ALL THEIR WAY is a pile of shit with a few chocolate chips in it and there in no one else to blame for this CRAP then the idiot democrats who think that they know everything and what is best for EVERYONE regardless of what other people say or want.
As I said this is a great lesson why one political party should never have all legislative and executive power. No one special interest should ever have so much power. They did and they used it in a destructive selfish self-righteous manner.[/QUOTE]
I have no idea what you're going on about. You seem to be self-righteous here. I don't give a shit what my first post said. You can go back to the first post after the discussion progresses if you chose to do so but I'm not an English professor and I have no intention of arguing plurals or tenses with you. You can feel like you "won" the internet argument if you wish but everyone knows that the republican's did not put forth a plan, they put forth a joke equivalent to the democrats putting out a military budget of zero and asking why the republican's won't work with them. So yes, you WIN, they put out a bill if you consider that a bipartisan attempt. In the real world, such an attempt is all grand-standing when they know it has issues that make it 100% unacceptable. They created that bill in order to say they put something out there knowing that the Democrats wouldn't accept it.
If the Democrats put out a plan to zero out the military budget, does that make their bill a bipartisan attempt? Give me a
ing break. Go act all high and mighty with someone else because I don't fall for that bullshit like you do.
It's goddamn pathetic when you're arguing politics and you don't know jack shit about it. Claiming this bill that the Republican's put out there was a bipartisan effort is either completely disingenuous (probably the case) or you need to go actually learn about politics and stop believing whatever shit you heard in the media. This is what's wrong with this country. There's too many people that believe lip service is real bipartisanship. There is no bipartisanship in this country anymore. The Democrats would have bent over backwards to get just ONE republican sign on.
Guess what you were wrong pal. I addressed you and disproved your claim and then you change it to.... well I didn't like what they offered ... that isn't the same as well they offered nothing now is it?
So bottom line again is the democrats had a super majority REFUSED to have the bill any other way or bi-partisan. They wanted it all their way and because they could have it all their way THEY DID. Well their bill ALL THEIR WAY is a pile of shit with a few chocolate chips in it and there in no one else to blame for this CRAP then the idiot democrats who think that they know everything and what is best for EVERYONE regardless of what other people say or want.
As I said this is a great lesson why one political party should never have all legislative and executive power. No one special interest should ever have so much power. They did and they used it in a destructive selfish self-righteous manner.[/QUOTE]
I have no idea what you're going on about. You seem to be self-righteous here. I don't give a shit what my first post said. You can go back to the first post after the discussion progresses if you chose to do so but I'm not an English professor and I have no intention of arguing plurals or tenses with you. You can feel like you "won" the internet argument if you wish but everyone knows that the republican's did not put forth a plan, they put forth a joke equivalent to the democrats putting out a military budget of zero and asking why the republican's won't work with them. So yes, you WIN, they put out a bill if you consider that a bipartisan attempt. In the real world, such an attempt is all grand-standing when they know it has issues that make it 100% unacceptable. They created that bill in order to say they put something out there knowing that the Democrats wouldn't accept it.
If the Democrats put out a plan to zero out the military budget, does that make their bill a bipartisan attempt? Give me a
ing break. Go act all high and mighty with someone else because I don't fall for that bullshit like you do.It's goddamn pathetic when you're arguing politics and you don't know jack shit about it. Claiming this bill that the Republican's put out there was a bipartisan effort is either completely disingenuous (probably the case) or you need to go actually learn about politics and stop believing whatever shit you heard in the media. This is what's wrong with this country. There's too many people that believe lip service is real bipartisanship. There is no bipartisanship in this country anymore. The Democrats would have bent over backwards to get just ONE republican sign on.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
You are a idiot... you don't understand bipartisan at all that is painfully obvious.
The democrats did not bend over backwards not even close and in fact it was just the opposite and that has been proved....and is a well known FACT.
You are just making up shit now and were then.
You are just rambling off BS to ramble off BS.
I am just amazed how stupid you are. Take your own advice and go learn something about politics you might want to start with the word bipartisan...here I will help you..
"representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions: Government leaders hope to achieve a bipartisan foreign policy."
The democrats did not bend over backwards not even close and in fact it was just the opposite and that has been proved....and is a well known FACT.
You are just making up shit now and were then.
You are just rambling off BS to ramble off BS.
I am just amazed how stupid you are. Take your own advice and go learn something about politics you might want to start with the word bipartisan...here I will help you..
"representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions: Government leaders hope to achieve a bipartisan foreign policy."
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
There you go using definitions to claim that proves your point instead of using common sense. Next time the military budget is up, if the Democrats propose to zero it out and shut it down completely, that's a bipartisan effort. Got it.
I'm done hitting my head against a wall trying to explain common sense to someone that only reads the dictionary for fun. Okay you WIN, the republicans are completely bipartisan. They try to work with the democrats on EVERYTHING. In fact, they're as centrist as you can come. Hell, when you look up "centrist" I bet boners's picture is right there (beside yours). Good job on your victory. You've proven to everyone on CAG that the republicans were trying to legitimately work with the democrats. I congratulate you on your victory.
I'm done hitting my head against a wall trying to explain common sense to someone that only reads the dictionary for fun. Okay you WIN, the republicans are completely bipartisan. They try to work with the democrats on EVERYTHING. In fact, they're as centrist as you can come. Hell, when you look up "centrist" I bet boners's picture is right there (beside yours). Good job on your victory. You've proven to everyone on CAG that the republicans were trying to legitimately work with the democrats. I congratulate you on your victory.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='Blaster man']There you go using definitions to claim that proves your point instead of using common sense. Next time the military budget is up, if the Democrats propose to zero it out and shut it down completely, that's a bipartisan effort. Got it.
I'm done hitting my head against a wall trying to explain common sense to someone that only reads the dictionary for fun. Okay you WIN, the republicans are completely bipartisan. They try to work with the democrats on EVERYTHING. In fact, they're as centrist as you can come. Hell, when you look up "centrist" I bet boners's picture is right there (beside yours). Good job on your victory. You've proven to everyone on CAG that the republicans were trying to legitimately work with the democrats. I congratulate you on your victory.[/QUOTE]
I never said the republicans are completely bipartisan NEVER. There you go making up shit again.
I'm done hitting my head against a wall trying to explain common sense to someone that only reads the dictionary for fun. Okay you WIN, the republicans are completely bipartisan. They try to work with the democrats on EVERYTHING. In fact, they're as centrist as you can come. Hell, when you look up "centrist" I bet boners's picture is right there (beside yours). Good job on your victory. You've proven to everyone on CAG that the republicans were trying to legitimately work with the democrats. I congratulate you on your victory.[/QUOTE]
I never said the republicans are completely bipartisan NEVER. There you go making up shit again.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
I am asking cag to ban me so you all can celebrate...take care
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
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.
Soodmeg
CAGiversary!
So seriously, can someone explain this to me in a non crazy way.
I thought that, like everyone other product or service on the planet, if everyone has access to it the price come down overall. If everyone has health insurance then there is less need to charge 2 times the actually amount because you are more likely to receive payment correct?
I am not getting this at all.
Also, repubs seem to bank on the fact that big business has a heart when it has been proven time and time again that they dont. I actually do not like big government I would rather have the market work itself out...but that only works when humans stop acting like human and actually care about one another which is almost impossible.
If business really cared about health care they would have naturally done something about it themselves a long time ago.
I thought that, like everyone other product or service on the planet, if everyone has access to it the price come down overall. If everyone has health insurance then there is less need to charge 2 times the actually amount because you are more likely to receive payment correct?
I am not getting this at all.
Also, repubs seem to bank on the fact that big business has a heart when it has been proven time and time again that they dont. I actually do not like big government I would rather have the market work itself out...but that only works when humans stop acting like human and actually care about one another which is almost impossible.
If business really cared about health care they would have naturally done something about it themselves a long time ago.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Soodmeg']So seriously, can someone explain this to me in a non crazy way.
I thought that, like everyone other product or service on the planet, if everyone has access to it the price come down overall. If everyone has health insurance then there is less need to charge 2 times the actually amount because you are more likely to receive payment correct?
I am not getting this at all.
Also, repubs seem to bank on the fact that big business has a heart when it has been proven time and time again that they dont. I actually do not like big government I would rather have the market work itself out...but that only works when humans stop acting like human and actually care about one another which is almost impossible.
If business really cared about health care they would have naturally done something about it themselves a long time ago.[/QUOTE]
Sounds to me like you understand it fine.
I thought that, like everyone other product or service on the planet, if everyone has access to it the price come down overall. If everyone has health insurance then there is less need to charge 2 times the actually amount because you are more likely to receive payment correct?
I am not getting this at all.
Also, repubs seem to bank on the fact that big business has a heart when it has been proven time and time again that they dont. I actually do not like big government I would rather have the market work itself out...but that only works when humans stop acting like human and actually care about one another which is almost impossible.
If business really cared about health care they would have naturally done something about it themselves a long time ago.[/QUOTE]
Sounds to me like you understand it fine.
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
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
More on this 'crappy' bill....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EtwwTScsFI&feature=relmfu
Highlights from this... The PENALTY (not tax) will affect 2-3% of Americans... and at worst, cost you 1-2.5% of your income. Granted, it's my favorite liberal Cenk Uygur, but he's always atleast accurate and is actually firing back at Conservative Jabba the Hut Rush Limbaugh's ridiculous partisanship.
LOL at all the conservative "Middle class got FUUUUUU' in this thread :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EtwwTScsFI&feature=relmfu
Highlights from this... The PENALTY (not tax) will affect 2-3% of Americans... and at worst, cost you 1-2.5% of your income. Granted, it's my favorite liberal Cenk Uygur, but he's always atleast accurate and is actually firing back at Conservative Jabba the Hut Rush Limbaugh's ridiculous partisanship.
LOL at all the conservative "Middle class got FUUUUUU' in this thread :lol:
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='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[/QUOTE]
I think your sig says it all on this one...
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[/QUOTE]
I think your sig says it all on this one...
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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 .
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.[/QUOTE]
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 .
cochesecochese
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='slidecage']now im only making 22,000[/QUOTE]
Are you still a paper boy?
Are you still a paper boy?
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='IRHari']where is the golf?
And are you eligible for the subsidies provided for the fed gov't since you only make 22,000?[/QUOTE]
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.
And are you eligible for the subsidies provided for the fed gov't since you only make 22,000?[/QUOTE]
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.
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
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
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='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?[/QUOTE]
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.
What was stopping your company from reducing or just dropping your health insurance benefits before this law was passed?[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
BigT
CAGiversary!
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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/addiction-in-society/201206/addicted-health-care
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/addiction-in-society/201206/addicted-health-care
[quote name='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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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
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.[/QUOTE]
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
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='BigT']This is not "healthcare reform," but rather "health insurance reform."[/QUOTE]
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."
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."
[quote name='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/addiction-in-society/201206/addicted-health-care[/QUOTE]
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.
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/addiction-in-society/201206/addicted-health-care[/QUOTE]
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.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
What a terrible, undersourced, internally contradictory op-ed.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Spokker']Many jobs don't "deserve," for lack of a better word, health benefits. These are often part-time, menial jobs.[/QUOTE]
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?
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?
[quote name='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?[/QUOTE]
I know you're not seriously asking, but still, look who you're asking here.
If you think about all the honest working folks, doesn't that bother you a little? Doesn't that seem morally wrong to you?[/QUOTE]
I know you're not seriously asking, but still, look who you're asking here.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']I know you're not seriously asking, but still, look who you're asking here.[/QUOTE]
I actually am seriously asking, I think most folks want to do the right thing.
I actually am seriously asking, I think most folks want to do the right thing.
[quote name='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.[/quote]Let's just say that I have a lot of respect for people who have the difficult job of working out the statistical value of a life and things along those lines. If resources were infinite, we would not need them.
In any case, the burden will not be shouldered by the small business owner, who can neither afford to pay the penalty or provide the insurance. It will fall on the government, and taxpayers, to insure those who may lose their jobs as the labor market adjusts to the new regulations. The best way to mitigate this, I think, is to cut payroll taxes. I prefer mandated benefits over payroll taxes, generally speaking. As long as the worker places some value on the mandated benefits, it is more efficient than the payroll tax.
In any case, the burden will not be shouldered by the small business owner, who can neither afford to pay the penalty or provide the insurance. It will fall on the government, and taxpayers, to insure those who may lose their jobs as the labor market adjusts to the new regulations. The best way to mitigate this, I think, is to cut payroll taxes. I prefer mandated benefits over payroll taxes, generally speaking. As long as the worker places some value on the mandated benefits, it is more efficient than the payroll tax.
onetrackmind
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 81 (100%)
[quote name='slidecage']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 .[/QUOTE]
The obvious answer is if your company was already providing insurance to its employees before ObamaCare, then why would they choose to no longer offer the insurance after the fact. Your question doesn't make any sense. Certain companies offer benefits in an attempt to get better workers.
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 .[/QUOTE]
The obvious answer is if your company was already providing insurance to its employees before ObamaCare, then why would they choose to no longer offer the insurance after the fact. Your question doesn't make any sense. Certain companies offer benefits in an attempt to get better workers.
[quote name='camoor']I actually am seriously asking, I think most folks want to do the right thing.[/QUOTE]
"The right thing" is subjective. Everyone thinks they're doing the right thing. Mitt Romney thinks he's righteous as, do you? Do you really think that any answer that comes out of Spokker's brain is going to be what you'd consider morally right?
"The right thing" is subjective. Everyone thinks they're doing the right thing. Mitt Romney thinks he's righteous as
, do you? Do you really think that any answer that comes out of Spokker's brain is going to be what you'd consider morally right?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Spokker']Let's just say that I have a lot of respect for people who have the difficult job of working out the statistical value of a life and things along those lines. If resources were infinite, we would not need them.
In any case, the burden will not be shouldered by the small business owner, who can neither afford to pay the penalty or provide the insurance. It will fall on the government, and taxpayers, to insure those who may lose their jobs as the labor market adjusts to the new regulations. The best way to mitigate this, I think, is to cut payroll taxes. I prefer mandated benefits over payroll taxes, generally speaking. As long as the worker places some value on the mandated benefits, it is more efficient than the payroll tax.[/QUOTE]
Your respect is misplaced. Capitalism is ruthlessly efficient, anyone who has a heart would be axed for the guy who can bring in more profits.
The solution is to pay working folks a living wage instead of the unsustainable situation we're in now where we continue to widening gap between the superrich and the poor.
That's a pipe dream but I can still celebrate the little victories like the passage of Obamacare.
In any case, the burden will not be shouldered by the small business owner, who can neither afford to pay the penalty or provide the insurance. It will fall on the government, and taxpayers, to insure those who may lose their jobs as the labor market adjusts to the new regulations. The best way to mitigate this, I think, is to cut payroll taxes. I prefer mandated benefits over payroll taxes, generally speaking. As long as the worker places some value on the mandated benefits, it is more efficient than the payroll tax.[/QUOTE]
Your respect is misplaced. Capitalism is ruthlessly efficient, anyone who has a heart would be axed for the guy who can bring in more profits.
The solution is to pay working folks a living wage instead of the unsustainable situation we're in now where we continue to widening gap between the superrich and the poor.
That's a pipe dream but I can still celebrate the little victories like the passage of Obamacare.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']"The right thing" is subjective. Everyone thinks they're doing the right thing. Mitt Romney thinks he's righteous as , do you? Do you really think that any answer that comes out of Spokker's brain is going to be what you'd consider morally right?[/QUOTE]
Spokker is being honest and I appreciate that. I may disagree but I give him credit for laying his beliefs on the table instead of hiding behind rhetoric.
, do you? Do you really think that any answer that comes out of Spokker's brain is going to be what you'd consider morally right?[/QUOTE]Spokker is being honest and I appreciate that. I may disagree but I give him credit for laying his beliefs on the table instead of hiding behind rhetoric.
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='slidecage']
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.
[/QUOTE]
GE DOESN'T PAY TAXES. NEITHER DOES ANY OTHER COMPANY OF THAT SIZE.
[quote name='slidecage']
but like i said 90% of the people think this means FREE HEALTHCARE and they will vote for him to stay as prez.
[/QUOTE]
[quote name='mykevermin']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."[/QUOTE]
On a certain level, Obamacare masquerades as socialism. I'm sure there are some supporters out there who think it means free health care. Likewise there are probably those on the right who hate it because its "free health care/socialism". Of course these people don't see the bill through reality, and thus think, "socialism". The reality is of course that there is no free health care. Even if you make 15-20k a year you're paying a large chunk of money for insurance. (I don't know about you guys, but here in Minnesota Medicaid costs money.) There is no mythical socialism (which I suppose would be Medicare for all) but rather another instance of corporatism.
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
But as we know, many companies love to cut costs. An easy way to do this under the bill is to pay the $2,000 fine and dump your workers onto a state-exchange. You aren't harming them in any way, as they still have health care. And now the government gets to subsidize it. How fun. (This works very well for new businesses too. They can just decide never to offer health care.)
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.
[/QUOTE]
GE DOESN'T PAY TAXES. NEITHER DOES ANY OTHER COMPANY OF THAT SIZE.
[quote name='slidecage']
but like i said 90% of the people think this means FREE HEALTHCARE and they will vote for him to stay as prez.
[/QUOTE]
[quote name='mykevermin']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."[/QUOTE]
On a certain level, Obamacare masquerades as socialism. I'm sure there are some supporters out there who think it means free health care. Likewise there are probably those on the right who hate it because its "free health care/socialism". Of course these people don't see the bill through reality, and thus think, "socialism". The reality is of course that there is no free health care. Even if you make 15-20k a year you're paying a large chunk of money for insurance. (I don't know about you guys, but here in Minnesota Medicaid costs money.) There is no mythical socialism (which I suppose would be Medicare for all) but rather another instance of corporatism.
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
But as we know, many companies love to cut costs. An easy way to do this under the bill is to pay the $2,000 fine and dump your workers onto a state-exchange. You aren't harming them in any way, as they still have health care. And now the government gets to subsidize it. How fun. (This works very well for new businesses too. They can just decide never to offer health care.)
RACE TO THE BOTTOM GUYS!
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
Oh, and to the guy who asked if prices were supposed to go down with the bill, well it depends. If you require people to buy health care from a private company and there are no safe guards, its can raise prices as there is now a forced demand, and those guys control the supply. Also, just remember that there's gonna be cuts in Medicare payments to pay for the law, (thus making Medicare even less economically friendly for care providers.) And, there's not gonna be any negotiation of drug prices, so there's another monopoly economy.
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
So you are arguing a hypothetical person in a position that has health insurance but will lose it because of the law? Why in the world would a company suddenly stop providing the benefit? It makes no sense as the only reason for benefits is to retain employees that you need. If they are highly skilled and your competitor has health insurance then you must also have insurance. This law changes nothing for this person. Any true capitalist would know this.
I could make up any number of hypothetical people but what's the point? It's not real.
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.[/QUOTE]
So you are arguing a hypothetical person in a position that has health insurance but will lose it because of the law? Why in the world would a company suddenly stop providing the benefit? It makes no sense as the only reason for benefits is to retain employees that you need. If they are highly skilled and your competitor has health insurance then you must also have insurance. This law changes nothing for this person. Any true capitalist would know this.
I could make up any number of hypothetical people but what's the point? It's not real.
bread's done