»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Something about poetic justice comes to mind
| The Alley |
|
Something about poetic justice comes to mind |
|
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes 
|
quote: Everyone opposed to the bill was screaming about the fact that it was over 2000 pages and there was no way Congress could know what was in it, and how it would affect everyone... I guess we were all right. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
| © Copyright 2010 Bradly Stott - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Don't worry, Ringo. They will find a way to reword it or change it to their advantage...have faith in your government! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Repeal & Replace! Repeal & Replace! |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: They don’t actually need to reword it Mike, there’s a section that exempts all existing policies and new policies only need to be purchased through the new exchanges once they’re in place. It’s all there in black and white if you care to read it. Repeal and replace? That’s a risky strategy for the Republicans Denise, on two counts, the first is trying to convince all the people who benefit from the reform to give up what they’ve gained isn't a vote winner and the second is that the Republicans haven’t suggested anything viable to replace it with. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
But it might be good for the Democrats if she keeps up the chant. It will remind people of how the Republicans have tried to block and stall everything going through congress throughout the entire congressional term, and it will give them a chance to consider if they want another two years of gridlock in Washington while attempts to tackle the economy and health care and issues of wear and peace are continually frozen by the party of "Not just No but 'Pip-Won't-Print-The-Word' No." I say Denise should say the word all she wants! Un-huh! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
attempts to tackle the economy and health care and issues of wear and peace are continually frozen by the party of "Not just No but 'Pip-Won't-Print-The-Word' No." I'd like to know what "wear and peace" bills they shot down!  Only kidding, Bob. Everyone is entitled to an occasional miststroke...but it WAS a funny one.  Actually, their refusal to join in was because they felt the bills were bad. The health care bill will be a disaster. The bills to tackle the economy have simply put us into an impossible debt situation and has not helped the unemployment rate one percentage point. You may think it will work against the republicans for not joining in? Perhaps....and perhaps, as things get worse from things being passed through back door methods that the republicans did not have a part in, people will come to realize that the republicans are not the Party of No - they are the Party of KNOW. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I like the "wear and peace," now that you've pointed it out, and I thank you for doing so. Mis-types sometimes make good poem material and material for line breaks. It's one of the upsides of ADHD. The "sliver" lining to the dark cloud, as it were. And your political calculations may well be right. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I believe that Republicans have previously shared alternative options, Grinch. I've shared some links in the past about those options. I see them as viable and you don't. Maybe the Republicans wouldn't have had to attempt to block and stall everything going through Congress if everything that the Democrats have attempted to push through Congress weren't pro-big-government, pro-socialist and Progressive agenda items, Bob. Since Republicans are historically smaller-government advocates, wouldn't it have been hypocritcal of them to vote for the Progressive agenda? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s because none of them, so far, have been viable Denise. Don’t get me wrong the current situation isn’t viable in the long term either but if you want an affordable health care system for all it’s a small step in the right direction. If you were to say that you don’t want affordable health care for all and you wanted to repeal the health care bill and replace it with legislation that abolishes all forms of social health care I could understand and see the sense in that idea – is that what you’re saying? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, we'll always have those who need government subsidised healthcare. And the government should probably play a role in making healthcare available to those who currently can't get healthcare due to pre-existing conditions, through high-risk pools, etc. But the current law has given the government too much control over the system, and far from making health care affordable it will lead to higher costs, less choice, and eventual rationing to help contain costs. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Of course it will Denise, anyone who thinks that it won’t is an idiot, this bill, at best, has simply extended the inevitable – everything you say is going to happen was going to happen before the bill was enacted. This bill is a sticking plaster on a bullet wound that will require additional reform somewhere down the line. quote: That was the problem before the bill was enacted Denise, America couldn’t afford to pay for the number of people who qualified for government subsidised healthcare. The options were to abolish the socialist schemes you had in place, extend them to raise revenue or ration the health care the government supplies to minimise expenditure. The Republicans wanted the first option, the Dems the second and what you’ve ended up with is the third. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It was the exact opposite of how Obama portrayed it: It will bring down costs, you can keep your plan and doctor, no rationing and no bureaucratic panels making life and death decisions, blah, blah, blah. No surprise there. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: He wasn’t telling any lies Denise, you can keep your plan and your doctor and there’ll be no rationing or death panels beyond the ones already in place. It should also bring down costs but not nearly enough, to do that, and maintain a reasonable level of coverage would require a non-profit option with sufficient subscription to cover costs. However, in the next ten years, regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats are running things, America is going to face that choice I mentioned earlier all over again, only next time the sticking plaster is going to be a far less palatable option. You’ll have to decide whether you want to maintain your socialist health care systems and if so at what level, or whether to abolish them entirely. It was the same choice you had this time Denise only you decided to defer it, next time deferring the choice won’t be an option. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I wish you were right, but no, we can't keep our plan and doctors if our employers choose to discontinue health coverage as an employement benefit, Grinch, which many would since the penalty would be less than providing coverage as they are now. What is so hard to understand about that? I will be one of those estimated 12 million who will fall into that category, as reported by Richard Foster, Chief Actuary for the Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. You can download his full report at this link: http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2009/10/23/hhs-chief-actuary-on-obamacare-total-health-care-spending-will-go-up-not-down/ With costs going up, resources stretched to the limit by increased demand with no corresponding increase in providers, rationing will be a reality. Rationing will include bureaucrats making life and death decisions on treatment options. How could it not? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s not your plan Denise it’s a contract between your employer and the health insurance company to purchase health cover on your behalf, your employer has decided not to keep it. Under the new law or even before the new law they could just as easily have decide to keep it, in this case your beef should be with your employer, they’re the ones who have said that you can’t keep your plan. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The beef is with the employer, grinch? Well, you may be right but what exactly do you think employers would do under these circumstances? You have one hundred employees. You can pay 100 dollars per month each for their health insurance or 10 dollars a month for a fine of not providing them health care benefits. Which choice would you think employers would take? Obaama knew that when he set it up that way. All the while of claiming how people could keep their same health care, he set it up where employers would follow that exact path....and then he and you could both say blame the employers. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
You make it sound like the employer couldn’t have made that decision before the bill was passed Mike, that somehow the bill allows them to do it, that’s simply not true. Employers were cancelling health care benefits left right and centre before the bill was passed to due to spiralling costs, only before the bill it cost them nothing to do it. Now there is a penalty to deter them and you think that’s a bad idea? The sad thing is that if the Dems had left the original level of fine in place instead of bending to whines and complaints of Republicans it would have cost the employer the same whether they kept the benefits in place or kicked them into touch and Denise would probably still have the plan subsidised by her employer. That’s really ironic when you think about it. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I suppose that companies could at any time have cancelled health coverage as a job benefit for their employees prior to the new law. But, wholsale, most didn't. Why? I don't know, maybe they have more concern for their employees than they are usually given credit for than to leave them without coverage? They made changes, perhaps increasing co-premiums and co-payments, choosing plans that covered less, but they didn't discontinue coverage. The new law gives them an alternative, an economic incentive, to drop coverage, knowing that the employees will still have coverage through a government exchange. The plan I currently have costs my employer about $4,000 per year for myself and my husband, of which I pay out of payroll deductions about $400. per year. Under the new exchanges the cheapest plan is estimated at $5,000 per year per person. I didn't see an estimate for the cost of a couple, but assuming that it is priced as insurers typically price it, it would probably be about $8,000. If not it would cost us $10,000 per year. Not only can I not keep my current plan, but we will be forced under penalty of law to pay this exhorbitant increase out of our budget, which we don't have. That's like having an additional mortgage payment for us. Where does the government think that lower middle class people are supposed to get that kind of money? We may qualify for some government subsidy, although our income level has never qualified us for any type of government subsidy in the past, but certainly not enough to cover a significant portion of the increase. We always seem to be a few dollars above the threshold for any type of assistance. Maybe this will be different? Who knows. I guess time will tell. In any event, I can't keep my current plan, have no guarantee that my doctor will be in any plan that I can afford, and it will cost us much more. So yeah, I feel that Obama lied and knew exactly what he was doing and what the ramifications would be. This is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth scheme on his part, in my opinion. I agree, the fines should have been much higher, or something should have been written into the bill that would not allow businesses who currently offer coverage as a benefit to drop it in lieu of a fine. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, I’m curious, when exactly is your employer cancelling the plan? Presumably it’s in 2014 when the exchanges are due to be in place and the fines kick in. If it’s before then your employer is using the bill as an excuse and simply wants to avoid paying for your insurance before the fines start. If there are more than 50 people where you work then when they do cancel your company plan ask them for a ‘Free choice voucher’, they are required under the new law to supply you one to the value of the amount that they would have paid towards your insurance. If they don’t pay it the government will subsidise your insurance in lieu of the payment and fine your employer to recoup the money. Either way you’ll not lose out. The government will also add an additional subsidy to ensure that you are only paying somewhere between 3 and 8% of your income depending on your earnings. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yes, it will take effect when the exhanges are set up. Well if that's the way it will work it's not as expensive as I thought. Do you have a section and page number in the law for that provision? I found something online about the voucher that said that employers would be responsible for 70% of the cost of the premium. I still won't get a government subsidy even if I am calculated at 3%. I just miss the threshold. No surprise there. These folks sure do know how to work the numbers! Given that I am understanding this correctly, my portion will triple under this new plan. That still doesn't make me happy. It won't bankrupt me as it would if I had to pay the entire premium, but it still isn't right. The comapnies save money, and now in addition to the insurance companies, the government gets to call the shots concerning our healthcare decisions. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
