|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 6, 2013 4:27:12 GMT
You seem to be missing a few important pieces here. First of all......Obamacare and the exchanges are for those who don't have insurance through their companies....their PRIVATE employers. The federal gov't is NOT a private company employer.......and when they heavily subsidize their employees, it's really the tax payers subsidizing them. And guess what? They are getting "gold plans"....THE most expensive plans; the BEST plans; the top-of-the-line plans....again heavily subsidized by us, the taxpayers. Point is.....do not subsidize them with OUR money. Let them purchase from the exchanges what they can afford based on their salaries or their families income. After all...that is what other Americans are being required to do. And IF their salary is so low as to qualify for subsidies, then so be it. But I doubt most of them are paid that low that they would qualify.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 6, 2013 11:22:52 GMT
How about a novel approach. Let's just require all private enterprises to provide either health insurance or a subsidy for the employee to purchase health insurance? It can be pro-rated based so that even a part time employee working two 20-hr jobs would have enough of a subsidy to afford health insurance.
And don't give me this crap that even small employers can't afford it. I've owned small businesses as well as having worked at a couple and they can afford it. Realizing that it would be required for all enterprises it also imposes the same cost of labor on every enterprise so if a small increase in pricing is necessary the "playing field" is still level which is all that we need to ensure.
How about setting the "subsidy" amount at $1.50/hr? That's roughly $3,000 for a standard work-year (a standard work-year is 2,080 hours).
Problem solved for most working Americans.
BTW I've heard, but not read, that 98% of private enterprises already comply with the Affordable Care Act. Does anyone have documented confirmation or rebuttal of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 6, 2013 15:06:03 GMT
How about a novel approach. Let's just require all private enterprises to provide either health insurance or a subsidy for the employee to purchase health insurance? It can be pro-rated based so that even a part time employee working two 20-hr jobs would have enough of a subsidy to afford health insurance.
And don't give me this crap that even small employers can't afford it. I've owned small businesses as well as having worked at a couple and they can afford it. Realizing that it would be required for all enterprises it also imposes the same cost of labor on every enterprise so if a small increase in pricing is necessary the "playing field" is still level which is all that we need to ensure.
How about setting the "subsidy" amount at $1.50/hr? That's roughly $3,000 for a standard work-year (a standard work-year is 2,080 hours).
Problem solved for most working Americans.
BTW I've heard, but not read, that 98% of private enterprises already comply with the Affordable Care Act. Does anyone have documented confirmation or rebuttal of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 8, 2013 7:06:42 GMT
Oh I see. So....you are like Obama; you want to make the changes to Obamacare yourselves without any input or bills coming from the Congress. "Requiring companies to do something" is yours and Obama's entire problem. That's the way dictatorships work.
Additionally Republicans should propose and fund Medicaid to furnish health services for those that still can't obtain insurance such as the disabled that can't work or those with pre-existing conditions. The Mission Statement of Medicaid in the 1960's was to provide the health services necessary for those that couldn't afford those medical services but it has never been adequately funded to accomplish that.
I propose that Congress make these changes because it would replace the Affordable Care Act with a program that covers ALL Americans predominately through private enterprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Oct 8, 2013 16:24:17 GMT
Oh I see. So....you are like Obama; you want to make the changes to Obamacare yourselves without any input or bills coming from the Congress. "Requiring companies to do something" is yours and Obama's entire problem. That's the way dictatorships work.
Additionally Republicans should propose and fund Medicaid to furnish health services for those that still can't obtain insurance such as the disabled that can't work or those with pre-existing conditions. The Mission Statement of Medicaid in the 1960's was to provide the health services necessary for those that couldn't afford those medical services but it has never been adequately funded to accomplish that.
I propose that Congress make these changes because it would replace the Affordable Care Act with a program that covers ALL Americans predominately through private enterprise.
basically your waffling with a bunch of proposals here.. admit it...you got the whole thing wrong and the republicans are doing the right thing for america the republicans are right...i was wrong |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 9, 2013 3:05:13 GMT
"President Obama has made many promises about his signature health care plan, but one of the simplest was an assurance that it would lower national health care spending and save every family thousands of dollars.
For example, in May 2009 he hailed "comprehensive health care reform -- so that we can do what I pledged to do as a candidate and save a typical family an average of $2,500 on their health care costs in the coming years."
But now government actuaries have reached a different conclusion, finding that ObamaCare will actually increase health care spending by $621 billion over the next 10 years.
Doug Holtz-Eakin, the former head of the Congressional Budget Office, says, "now we're seeing the official scorekeepers of health spending say 'hey it's going up, not down.' That's going to be a mark against the program no matter what."
That's government actuaries, folks. We were sold a bad bill of good.....and told we'd have to pass it before finding out what's in it.
www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/08/gov-actuaries-say-obamacare-will-increase-health-care-spending-by-621-billion/?intcmp=latestnews
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 9, 2013 12:16:47 GMT
"President Obama has made many promises about his signature health care plan, but one of the simplest was an assurance that it would lower national health care spending and save every family thousands of dollars.
For example, in May 2009 he hailed "comprehensive health care reform -- so that we can do what I pledged to do as a candidate and save a typical family an average of $2,500 on their health care costs in the coming years."
But now government actuaries have reached a different conclusion, finding that ObamaCare will actually increase health care spending by $621 billion over the next 10 years.
Doug Holtz-Eakin, the former head of the Congressional Budget Office, says, "now we're seeing the official scorekeepers of health spending say 'hey it's going up, not down.' That's going to be a mark against the program no matter what."
That's government actuaries, folks. We were sold a bad bill of good.....and told we'd have to pass it before finding out what's in it.
www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/08/gov-actuaries-say-obamacare-will-increase-health-care-spending-by-621-billion/?intcmp=latestnews
We all know about the mythical promises made by politicians because they're based upon hypotheticals where the hypotheticals can be changed.
For example, let's assume an average cost of $5,000/yr in medical expenditures in 2009. Those costs go up over time but how much they could possibly go up is pure speculation. Let's assume that by 2019 the costs actually increase to $7.500 a politician can simply state, "It would have been $10,000 and you saved $2.500 because of this legislation."
President Obama pulled this same BS related to the "Stimulus" bill where he later claimed that 2 million jobs were created or "saved" because of the legislation. That was pure speculation that couldn't be supported one way or the other. It's all political BS and we know it. Both sides engage in this type of rhetoric so if we want to blame one side then in all honesty we need to blame both sides.
On a final note it must also be noted that the Supreme Court decision on the ACA changed a lot of things. For example the States are not obligated to accept the increase in Medicaid benefits. The ACA assumed that millions of low income Americans would be covered by Medicaid (that they don't directly pay for) and there are no ACA federal subsidies below a certain income level. With several Republican controlled states refusing the increases in Medicaid it leaves low income families with the financial obligation to pay the full cost of insurance on the Exchanges. They would have had "free" coverage under Medicaid but now have to purchase it a "retail" prices increasing the average cost per family. In a very real sense by Republican states refusing to increase the Medicaid benefits they're also responsible for part of the increase in the average out of pocket cost of insurance for Americans.
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Oct 9, 2013 17:02:49 GMT
President Obama pulled this same BS related to the "Stimulus" bill where he later claimed that 2 million jobs were created or "saved" because of the legislation. That was pure speculation that couldn't be supported one way or the other. It's all political BS and we know it.
it's nice to watch JP5 have an effect in his education of the masses not only affecting moi.  It started with you waffleing a little and now he seems to have broken you down...no more die hard anti republican from you the last few days... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 10, 2013 11:38:28 GMT
President Obama pulled this same BS related to the "Stimulus" bill where he later claimed that 2 million jobs were created or "saved" because of the legislation. That was pure speculation that couldn't be supported one way or the other. It's all political BS and we know it.
it's nice to watch JP5 have an effect in his education of the masses not only affecting moi. It started with you waffleing a little and now he seems to have broken you down...no more die hard anti republican from you the last few days...
The problem is that JP5 has falsely accused of supporting President Obama when that has never been the case. I've openly condemned President Obama on numerous occasions on different issues. When President Obama is correct on an issue then I support him. In this case the House Republican proposed repelling "Obamacare" and then delaying implementation of "Obamacare" without providing any reason to do so. They don't propose something better and they don't provide a logical reason for delaying implementation. President Obama is correct in demanding that Congress fund the government immediately and that the debt ceiling be raised immediately.
Negotiations on deficit reduction need to wait until after these to matters are resolved as it will require both increased taxation and reduced spending to eliminate deficits and Congress seems unwilling to include both spending cuts and increased taxation to eliminate the deficits. Both Democrats and Republicans are going to have to compromise to end deficit spending but currently both seem disinclined to compromise on anything. Until they are willing to compromise the government must continue to operate. Yes, Congress is digging a deeper and deeper hole by increasing the national debt in the meantime and that's hurting the US economy but we need to lay blame where it belongs and that is on the Congress, not the President, because Congress controls taxes and expenditures. |
|
