Obamacare is upheld

[The Mucca]

This.

 

If your company is using this as some kind of an excuse to gut benefits they already were giving you under no obligation, then they are a CHIPS AHOY!ty employer and are bound to lose their good employees to a better one who will run them out of business. Also, if the gut your benefits and expect anyone to stay they should at the very least increase your salary to help you buy insurance through one of the exchanges.

 

 

That may have been true 10/15 years ago, but todays business culture is a lot different. Many company's have

already frozen/adjusted pensions and 401ks in the few years, to think they will not do that with insurance is foolish.

[Chavez]

That may have been true 10/15 years ago, but todays business culture is a lot different. Many company's have

already frozen/adjusted pensions and 401ks in the few years, to think they will not do that with insurance is foolish.

 

 

Thankfully, obscenely high executive compensation remains in place, despite the horrible hurdles this economy puts in the way of numerous successful companies.

[bushwacked]

So then why didn't they withhold health insurance to you before so that they could save millions of dollars?

 

 

Because Zobama's magic secret voodoo powers are apparently as mystical as they are all powerful (or Mucca really doesn't have a clue what the health care bill entails).

[Ice1]

...so, in short, companies like yours are going to help insure that this half-assed, half-measure plan eventually turns into a single-payer system that destroys health insurance companies?

 

 

Well, bust my bumpers. America, what a country!

 

 

Not sure what our company will do but I can tell you one thing for certain, as a Medical Device Manufacture that designs products to save lives, you can imagine just how thrilled everyone is to have a draconian tax implemented regardless of corporate insurance decisions in the near future.

 

Unless you are in medical manufacturing you have no idea the cost to deal with Federal Government because of the FDA. Now with 10-15K pages of new healthcare regulations the cost of business will only increase.

 

BTW, many in business believe this is nothing more than phase one to a single payer system.

 

Personally, I hope like hell we don't drop coverage.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Ice1

[bushwacked]

Under this socialist health plan, if the company I work for decides to pay the penalty instead of insuring it's

employees, I will be paying approximately $8000.00 more a year to insure myself and my family.

If enough companies to do this, the middle class is done for sure.

 

 

I had to pay $300 a month per family member for my company insurance before the law was ever enacted. Buy I blame the black Socialist costing my company a kajillion dollars anyway.

[yo mama]

That may have been true 10/15 years ago, but todays business culture is a lot different. Many company's have

already frozen/adjusted pensions and 401ks in the few years, to think they will not do that with insurance is foolish.

 

I still don't understand. If we repeal Obamacare then compay's have promised *not* do those things and canceling your insurance will no longer save them lots of money?

[The Mucca]

I still don't understand. If we repeal Obamacare then compay's have promised *not* do those things and canceling your insurance will no longer save them lots of money?

 

 

If there was no Obamacare in the first place, company's would most likely not even be discussing their health care

options as vigorously as they are now. The options are now open like never before for these businesses.

 

Oh, and I know you're smart enough to understand.

[yo mama]

If there was no Obamacare in the first place, company's would most likely not even be discussing their health care

options as vigorously as they are now. The options are now open like never before for these businesses.

 

Oh, and I know you're smart enough to understand.

 

I understand your concern - I don't want to lose my insurance either. I just don't see the causal connection between Obamacare and the worst case scenario neither of us wants.

 

And I'm not nearly as smart as I think other people think I am.

Edited July 4, 2012 by yo mama

[bushwacked]

I answered 8 out of 10 questions correctly, better than 90% of Americans.

 

http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx

[yo mama]

I answered 8 out of 10 questions correctly, better than 90% of Americans.

 

http://healthreform....eform-quiz.aspx

 

10 out of 10, bitchpusses!!!

[westvirginia]

WV, Scott Brown was elected in January of 2010 and Obamacare was signed into law in March of 2010.

 

Care to try again?

 

 

And what did he campaign on? Being the vote that would block cloture, allowing repubs to filibuster the bill. Because of him the bill had to be passed through reconciliation rather than an actual vote.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I answered 8 out of 10 questions correctly, better than 90% of Americans.

 

http://healthreform....eform-quiz.aspx

 

 

I got them all correct. I think most astute poitical observers familiar with the language and techniques of modern push polls could do so without having any knowledge of the Act.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Ditkaless Wonders

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

10/10

[Pope Flick]

And what did he campaign on? Being the vote that would block cloture, allowing repubs to filibuster the bill. Because of him the bill had to be passed through reconciliation rather than an actual vote.

 

 

I believe one's talking senator and one's talking govnur.

[Ursa Majoris]

This is about doing what they could politically afford at this time to ensure socialized medicine in the near future.

 

[wiegie]

If there was no Obamacare in the first place, company's would most likely not even be discussing their health care

options as vigorously as they are now. The options are now open like never before for these businesses.

 

I am CERTAIN that your company has been thinking about health care for years. (I do agree though, that you are correct that the implementation of Obamacare may cause some companies to drop health care coverage... not because Obamacare will make it more expensive for them to provide health care, but rather, because they'll be able to get away with convincing their ignorant employees that Obamacare is to blame for the drop in coverage.)

[borge007]

I am CERTAIN that your company has been thinking about health care for years. (I do agree though, that you are correct that the implementation of Obamacare may cause some companies to drop health care coverage... not because Obamacare will make it more expensive for them to provide health care, but rather, because they'll be able to get away with convincing their ignorant employees that Obamacare is to blame for the drop in coverage.)

 

Well said.

[Bronco Billy]

That's counter intuitive. Why pay $750 for nothing, when you can pay $750 and get insurance? It stands to reason that if someone is really so bad off as to avoid purchasing insurance, why wouldn't they want to actually get some for the money they have to pay?

 

 

 

Could you tell me where I could get a full year's worth of health insurance for $750, and what that annual amount covers and what the deductibles are? I find it incredulous that someone would even think of proposing the argument you just made.

[Bronco Billy]

BB's talking point is dispelled.

 

 

 

Like I said, there's no point in discussing this with true believers.

[The Irish Doggy]

I am CERTAIN that your company has been thinking about health care for years. (I do agree though, that you are correct that the implementation of Obamacare may cause some companies to drop health care coverage... not because Obamacare will make it more expensive for them to provide health care, but rather, because they'll be able to get away with convincing their ignorant employees that Obamacare is to blame for the drop in coverage.)

 

 

Indeed. We have hair pulling discussions every year when it comes time to renew. Long before Obama came into office.

[Bronco Billy]

All 2700 pages? No. And neither have you.

 

Is your concern that people with insurance will drop theirs and merely opt to pay the penalty? Is that what you plan to do? Because I don't. My insurance is awesome. As far as everyone else goes (i.e., the uninsured) I'd rather get $750 a year from them rather than the $0 a year we're currently getting.

 

The law is bound to be imperfect at first but there will be time to revise and adjust. You seem so willing to quit before even giving it a chance.

 

 

I'm willing to scrap it before it takes hold for the following reasons, which happen to be part of the Act and which I have read:

 

Individuals can drop insurance coverage and absorb a $750 penalty (tax?), and then can reacquire insurance after a catastrophic health event since insurance companies can't decline people with pre-existing conditions. That plainly encourages people to drop their individual policies since $750 annually is much cheaper than carrying insurance full time, and the safety net of being able to reacquire it when needed will always be in place. It is incredibly foolish to argue that people will carry insurance full time since they'd be paying $750 to get nothing, since people who don't have to carry insurance will save many times more than $750 annually in the premiums they won't be paying.

 

Companys can drop insurance coverage for their workers and pay a $2500 annual penalty (tax?) that can ratchet up to $3000 in time, which is cheaper for many companys that do contribute to employee health coverage and then have to allocate capital/personnel to running the plan. That will drop many more people into the individual pool (see paragraph above). It is simple business - the company will save money by dumping its employees and paying the penalty, just like individuals will save money by paying the $750 annual penalty rather than paying insurance premiums. That also gives a blatant lie to the President's ridiculous statement that if you have health care you like, you'll be able to keep it.

 

Insurance companies will be forced to provide coverage to everyone - marvellous again, right? - regardless of pre-existing conditions, but will have their premiums capped by the board/czar. That means increased costs that will be temporarily offset by a larger pool of people, until people realize they can drop their coverage until they need it and simply pay the much cheaper penalty. That drives costs up substantially while reducing income, meaning insurance companies will go out of business - throwing people into the government collectives. So now the government will control that part of the equation for a very large portion, if not virtually all, of the population. That increases the Federal government's power of enforcement and control over everyone's life.

 

Health decisions will be determined by a board, and ultimately by a Presidential appointee, who willl decide what health care indivuduals will get. They will also determine how much doctors/hospitals can charge for their services, putting caps on the costs of heath care that are much lower than what those services cost right now. That may sound appealing to many until one realizes that tort reform is not included and therefore doctors/hospitals will have to pay the same for their practice insurance but will not be able to maintain their margin through the fees they currently charge. This will drive many doctors/hospitals out of the practice since they simply will not make enough money to make it fiscally desirable to remain in the business - especially given the risks they take in treating patients. That limits the numbers of providers, which means health care has to diminish. Then there is the fact that we will have another group of people making health decisions - like insurance companies do now - based upon the financial benefit of providing the care. The problem being that the fiscal resources will be much more limited over a much larger group, unlike insurance companies right now. That makes for a system that will be headed right where SS and Medicare/Medicaid is right now - fiscal insolvency, and it also makes for a board/czar that will have to make some very hard decisions as to who will/will not get what benefits.

 

The cost of this will be absorbed through taxation of everyone - not just the 1% that Obama and the progressives seem to hate so much. First off, the 1% simply does not have enough money to cover SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and now Obamacare - even if you took every penny they currently have (which would leave us with no small business owners, large business owners, and investors - and consequently no businesses). But written into Obamacare are numerous taxes to everyone (excpet the net tax receivers, of course, who will continue to bleed the system). That includes the following:

 

• 3.8 Percent Surtax on Investment Income

• Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax

• Individual Mandate Tax and Employer Mandate Tax

• Tax on Health Insurers

• Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance

• Biofuel Tax Hike

• Tax on Innovator Drug Companies

• Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers

• Increased Spending Threshold for Medical Itemized Deduction

• Savings / Health Account Taxes

• Codification of the "economic substance doctrine"

• Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2

 

So when Obama proudly stated that no one who makes less that $200K individually or $250K jointly would pay one dime more, he was blatantly lying yet again.

 

I know for a fact that all of this is written into the Act because I have read it. You can read it too if you choose to - but which apparently you do not. You're right when you say I haven't read every word of every page - but you can peruse the written document and easily extract the information above. These are the major reasons I oppose this Act. Health care accounts for 1/6th of our economy right now and the Federal government has created a fiscally insolvent system that will crash, but in the meantime will severly curtail the availibility and quality of health care while appropriating the decisions as to who will receive what quantity and quality of health care - decisions that the Constitution does not provide the Federal government the power to make. And taxes on all taxpayers go up substantially, either through direct taxation or in indirect pass-through costs as businesses cover the additional taxes they will have to pay.

 

I'll await your rebuttal, and I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't reach into bushwacked's bag of progressive tricks and defend your position with name calling and personal slurs. Use the Act itself and the language in it and show to me where any of the above is in any manner incorrect in the slightest.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Bronco Billy

[yo mama]

I'm willing to scrap it before it takes hold for the following reasons, which happen to be part of the Act and which I have read:

 

Individuals can drop insurance coverage and absorb a $750 penalty (tax?), and then can reacquire insurance after a catastrophic health event since insurance companies can't decline people with pre-existing conditions. That plainly encourages people to drop their individual policies since $750 annually is much cheaper than carrying insurance full time, and the safety net of being able to reacquire it when needed will always be in place. It is incredibly foolish to argue that people will carry insurance full time since they'd be paying $750 to get nothing, since people who don't have to carry insurance will save many times more than $750 annually in the premiums they won't be paying.

 

Companys can drop insurance coverage for their workers and pay a $2500 annual penalty (tax?) that can ratchet up to $3000 in time, which is cheaper for many companys that do contribute to employee health coverage and then have to allocate capital/personnel to running the plan. That will drop many more people into the individual pool (see paragraph above). It is simple business - the company will save money by dumping its employees and paying the penalty, just like individuals will save money by paying the $750 annual penalty rather than paying insurance premiums. That also gives a blatant lie to the President's ridiculous statement that if you have health care you like, you'll be able to keep it.

 

Health decisions will be determined by a board, and ultimately by a Presidential appointee, who willl decide what health care indivuduals will get. They will also determine how much doctors/hospitals can charge for their services, putting caps on the costs of heath care that are much lower than what those services cost right now. That may sound appealing to many until one realizes that tort reform is not included and therefore doctors/hospitals will have to pay the same for their practice insurance but will not be able to maintain their margin through the fees they currently charge. This will drive many doctors/hospitals out of the practice since they simply will not make enough money to make it fiscally desirable to remain in the business - especially given the risks they take in treating patients. That limits the numbers of providers, which means health care has to diminish. Then there is the fact that we will have another group of people making health decisions - like insurance companies do now - based upon the financial benefit of providing the care. The problem being that the fiscal resources will be much more limited over a much larger group, unlike insurance companies right now. That makes for a system that will be headed right where SS and Medicare/Medicaid is right now - fiscal insolvency, and it also makes for a board/czar that will have to make some very hard decisions as to who will/will not get what benefits.

 

The cost of this will be absorbed through taxation of everyone - not just the 1% that Obama and the progressives seem to hate so much. First off, the 1% simply does not have enough money to cover SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and now Obamacare - even if you took every penny they currently have (which would leave us with no small business owners, large business owners, and investors - and consequently no businesses). But written into Obamacare are numerous taxes to everyone (excpet the net tax receivers, of course, who will continue to bleed the system). That includes the following:

• 3.8 Percent Surtax on Investment Income

• Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax

• Individual Mandate Tax and Employer Mandate Tax

• Tax on Health Insurers

• Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance

• Biofuel Tax Hike

• Tax on Innovator Drug Companies

• Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers

• Increased Spending Threshold for Medical Itemized Deduction

• Savings / Health Account Taxes

• Codification of the "economic substance doctrine"

• Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2

 

So when Obama proudly stated that no one who makes less that $200K individually or $250K jointly would pay one dime more, he was blatantly lying yet again.

 

I know for a fact that all of this is written into the Act because I have read it. You can read it too if you choose to - but which apparently you do not. You're right when you say I haven't read every word of every page - but you can peruse the written document and easily extract the information above. These are the major reasons I oppose this Act. Health care accounts for 1/6th of our economy right now and the Federal government has created a fiscally insolvent system that will crash, but in the meantime will severly curtail the availibility and quality of health care while appropriating the decisions as to who will receive what quantity and quality of health care - decisions that the Constitution does not provide the Federal government the power to make. And taxes on all taxpayers go up substantially, either through direct taxation or in indirect pass-through costs as businesses cover the additional taxes they will have to pay.

 

I'll await your rebuttal, and I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't reach into bushwacked's bag of progressive tricks and defend your position with name calling and personal slurs. Use the Act itself and the language in it and show to me where any of the above is in any manner incorrect in the slightest.

 

Do you play chess?

[Bronco Billy]

Do you play chess?

 

 

No.

 

Is that your rebuttal?

[yo mama]

No.

 

Is that your rebuttal?

 

Rebuttals occur in arguments. I am not arguing with you.

 

I did ask you a fairly simple question, though: are you canceling your insurance?

[Bronco Billy]

Rebuttals occur in arguments. I am not arguing with you.

 

I did ask you a fairly simple question, though: are you canceling your insurance?

 

 

No. Is that your idea of a rebuttal? An anecdotal event prior to the impact of the legislation setting in?

 

Let me ask you a simple question: Do you only make extremely important decisions based uponthe immediate impact feeling good to you, or do you think through highly probable likely long term consequences that those decisions would entail?