Health Care Legislation: USA

[MikeW]

Originally Posted by Seakony

The thing is..he is from clintonland,,,you guys are from unionland and dirty politics chicago...I mean..Knowing where you were raised explains alot. Take california for example. Please.. take it.

Please someone take it. We can't mess it up anymore than we have, oh wait yes we can, Tuesday proved that.

[eccentrictinker]

ObamaCare - the gift that keeps on giving

Union Drops Health Coverage for Workers’ Children


One of the largest union-administered health-insurance funds in New York is dropping coverage for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants, union officials said. The union blamed financial problems it said were caused by the state’s health department and new national health-insurance requirements............

1199SEIU to Drop Health Coverage for Workers' Children - Metropolis - WSJ

On a related note...

My wife has had a wonderful Medicare policy through Medica. She was just informed the plan has been canceled.

Reason: changes required by our wonderful new 'national health care initiative' (ObamaCare). We will now be paying more for a policy with poorer coverage.

Didn't Someone tell us that our rates wouldn't go up and that we would be able to keep our coverage? Lies, lies and more lies.

Thanks for nothing, Pres. Obama!

Watch YOUR mail for exciting new changes to your health insurance rates!

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by eccentrictinker

ObamaCare - the gift that keeps on giving



1199SEIU to Drop Health Coverage for Workers' Children - Metropolis - WSJ

On a related note...

My wife has had a wonderful Medicare policy through Medica. She was just informed the plan has been canceled.

Reason: changes required by our wonderful new 'national health care initiative' (ObamaCare). We will now be paying more for a policy with poorer coverage.

Didn't Someone tell us that our rates wouldn't go up and that we would be able to keep our coverage? Lies, lies and more lies.

Thanks for nothing, Pres. Obama!

Watch YOUR mail for exciting new changes to your health insurance rates!

Surprise, surprise...this blog states that the union dropped its coverage because costs are rising rapidly....National Health care did not cause this problem...As a small business owner, I can assure you that this problem of rising costs has been affecting small business for years and is getting worse...National Health Care is needed just because we need to solve these problems in a more efficient and fair way.

[eccentrictinker]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Surprise, surprise...this blog states that the union dropped its coverage because costs are rising rapidly....National Health care did not cause this problem...As a small business owner, I can assure you that this problem of rising costs has been affecting small business for years and is getting worse...National Health Care is needed just because we need to solve these problems in a more efficient and fair way.

I think you missed a key point or two.

were caused by the state’s health department and new national health-insurance requirements.

“In addition, new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26,” Behroozi wrote in a letter to members Oct. 22. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

Your small business is about to be hit by a double-whammy.

The gift that keeps on giving.

[minnjim]

This would make a big (negative) difference in our health care costs.

Tax break for employer health plans a target again - Yahoo! News

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by eccentrictinker

I think you missed a key point or two.







Your small business is about to be hit by a double-whammy.

The gift that keeps on giving.

Perhaps (although I missed nothing in that blog entry)...but right now, I provide health insurance for my employees...we pay 70%...my competitor down the street might decide not to pay healthcare for his employees at all....that is a non-competitive advantage for someone who chooses NOT to cover their employees....

At least with national health care, whatever the price tag will be...EVERYONE will be on the same playing field paying relatively the same per employee....My steaks (and the steaks of my competitor!) may then cost you a bit more, but I like the fairness of it and the humane-ness of it and believe we can survive quite well that way. (I actually think things will be ultimately a LOT better that way)

[roni]

These stories point to the need for a strong public option or a strong single payer system

Too many of the broken parts were left alone in order to be able to pass something

[STOGEY]

Originally Posted by roni

These stories point to the need for a strong public option or a strong single payer system

Too many of the broken parts were left alone in order to be able to pass something

So you disagree with Jacko about the need for more comeptition. Plus do you think that this is just away to keep more people from taking the initiative to look for work until they're in their z30s?

[tmc]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Perhaps (although I missed nothing in that blog entry)...but right now, I provide health insurance for my employees...we pay 70%...my competitor down the street might decide not to pay healthcare for his employees at all....that is a non-competitive advantage for someone who chooses NOT to cover their employees....

At least with national health care, whatever the price tag will be...EVERYONE will be on the same playing field paying relatively the same per employee....My steaks (and the steaks of my competitor!) may then cost you a bit more, but I like the fairness of it and the humane-ness of it and believe we can survive quite well that way. (I actually think things will be ultimately a LOT better that way)

Your statement is categorically false, witness the waivers granted to over 100 large organizations as of today. If this, along with the rest of the fallout from this ill-conceived monstrosity, isn't sufficient proof to demonstrate that the entire plan as hatched by the Democratic majority of yore was at best a half-cocked effort, and in reality, a complete fiasco, well, some people still believe in fairy tales, I guess. The idea that all would play by the same rules has quickly gone by the boards; in the Obama world of crony capitalism the favored companies and unions get waivers from the onerous rules promulgated by the wretches in DC, the regular folks get the shaft. Mr. Obama's rush to make a deal with Mr. Putin is making more and more sense with each passing day, as he has a kindred spirit in the Russian thug; he isn't promoting a plutocracy, it is becoming more a kleptocracy.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by tmc

Your statement is categorically false, witness the waivers granted to over 100 large organizations as of today. If this, along with the rest of the fallout from this ill-conceived monstrosity, isn't sufficient proof to demonstrate that the entire plan as hatched by the Democratic majority of yore was at best a half-cocked effort, and in reality, a complete fiasco, well, some people still believe in fairy tales, I guess. The idea that all would play by the same rules has quickly gone by the boards; in the Obama world of crony capitalism the favored companies and unions get waivers from the onerous rules promulgated by the wretches in DC, the regular folks get the shaft. Mr. Obama's rush to make a deal with Mr. Putin is making more and more sense with each passing day, as he has a kindred spirit in the Russian thug; he isn't promoting a plutocracy, it is becoming more a kleptocracy.

I do agree the plan was raped by special interests and conservative narrow-mindedness and unimaginative thinking. Even by nonconstructive timidness by the Democrats and our President....It would have been much better with the public option......still..we are engaged on a long road and first steps must be taken if we are ever to reach a better destination.

Only 100 large corporation "waivers"? If you were truly concerned about the "favored" companies, you would be focusing on the much larger pool of companies that do not today provide ANY health care to their employees, as well as financially well-off individuals who feel they do not need health insurance and only feed off the rest of us when they need health care in an emergency room.......they are the ones operating with an unfair, and socially unsustainable competitive advantage.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I do agree the plan was raped by special interests and conservative narrow-mindedness and unimaginative thinking. Even by nonconstructive timidness by the Democrats and our President....It would have been much better with the public option......still..we are engaged on a long road and first steps must be taken if we are ever to reach a better destination.

Only 100 large corporation "waivers"? If you were truly concerned about the "favored" companies, you would be focusing on the much larger pool of companies that do not today provide ANY health care to their employees, as well as financially well-off individuals who feel they do not need health insurance and only feed off the rest of us when they need health care in an emergency room.......they are the ones operating with an unfair, and socially unsustainable competitive advantage.

Your original statement was categorically false, I just was kind enough to point that out. As for the favored companies, how many people are represented by those 100-odd organizations? Many will lose health care benefits, sans waivers, that they enjoyed prior to the passage of the new law, how is that helpful? Do you not think that if the largest and most profitable companies and unions in the country are unable to comply with the new law as written that there may be other smaller, less capitalized companies forced to curtail their insurance plans? The entire point of the granting of waivers is that it proves the system unsustainable.

On what basis are the waivers granted, what are the criteria by which one "qualifies" for a waiver, how many are to be dispensed, can everyone get one, if not, why not? Can your competitor down the road meet with his US senator and convince him to get him a waiver; how well does that bode for your competitive stance? The entire notion of crony capitalism should be abhorrent to you, yet you seem to take it in stride; the idea that a privileged few can extract such benefits from the government, to the detriment of all others, was one concept I thought you would protest.

You talk about "unimaginative thinking"; I, and others, offered other options that would have had a much better chance of success; the fact that the Democrats in DC chose not to listen is being played out now; the worst is yet to come. The ideas in the plan as passed utilized the least of the creative genius this country has to offer, a Bartelby could have come up with better.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by tmc

Your original statement was categorically false, I just was kind enough to point that out. ....

Of course you are wrong, but thanks for your kindness and humility...it never ceases to amaze me.

[Mr Cancun]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Thanks for your kindness and humility...it never ceases to amaze me.

Need a life jacket?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Mr Cancun

Need a life jacket?

Not at all...but thanks for the offer...

[tmc]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Of course you are wrong, but thanks for your kindness and humility...it never ceases to amaze me.

Really; please demonstrate, with specific examples, that the following statement is true (especially in light of the waivers granted):

"At least with national health care, whatever the price tag will be...EVERYONE will be on the same playing field paying relatively the same per employee.."-Jacko

You did not answer any of my other questions yet.