Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » How much will ObamaCare cost? (Page 9)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 20 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  18  19  20   
Author Topic: How much will ObamaCare cost?
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, requiring them to pay for their own insurance, just like the rest of us, ridiculous!
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The rest of whom? The vast majority of Americans have employer-subsidized insurance.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
About 75 percent have some sort of subsidized health insurance.

quote:
Folks with health coverage through their employers (55 percent), through government programs such as Medicaid (17 percent) and Medicare (15 percent), through policies they buy themselves (10 percent) and through the military (4 percent).

(Those numbers add up to more than 85 percent because the categories aren’t exclusive — some people have more than one kind of coverage.)

So if by "the rest of us" you mean "those who are left over from the vast majority" (about 10 percent of the population), then yes. But, then, what's your point? [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How many of those employer-subsidized insurance plans have been given out in lieu of money/raise?

That is, my boss gave me health insurance one year instead of a raise. So "I" do in fact pay for my insurance. I don't have the numbers, but when you say 75 percent of some sort of subsizided health care, that doesn't mean 75 percent are getting health care at 0 cost.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, but G3 was specifically talking about people who did not have employer subsidies at all.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nobody gets health insurance at $0 cost. You do get the benefit of the coverage and group rate your employer negotiates.

[ August 02, 2013, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Py

Regarding your anecdotes vs mine. Mine seem to be the pattern that keeps making new rounds in the media. Your anecdotes seem to be only circulating in democrat talking point memos.

I mean I'm sorry but even the unions are repeating the anecdotal information I have seen personally.

I'm sorry but you appear to be divorced from reality.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Nobody gets health insurance at $0 cost. You do get the benefit of the coverage and group rate your employer negotiates.
Then why is G3 being criticized (and mocked) for saying..."Yeah, requiring them to pay for their own insurance, just like the rest of us, ridiculous!"?
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because they are paid a lower wage *and* forced to buy their own health care insurance at a higher cost than it would cost their employer, not to mention paying taxes on the premiums they pay because they are spent out of post tax income. The employer, otoh, would get a tax *writeoff* for the cost of their employee insurance.

Not paying for employee health care insurance in today's business world is both greedy and disloyal to the employees.

There are likely other unintended downstream costs to the employer, such as excess sick time because employees won't use their doctors to prevent or treat illness until it is acute and they are forced to take time off, making other employees sick because they don't take time off when they should, etc.

The bottom line is that if you treat your employees as 3rd world commodity labor, as G3 (and you) apparently thinks is appropriate, then your workers will resemble 3rd world laborers.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't say anything along the lines of what you just said.

G3 said what he said, and the responses were directly and indirectly saying that not everyone pays for their own health insurance. My point, which you agreed to, is that everyone does pay for their own health insurance. Therefore G3's point hasn't been refuted. That's all.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My point, which you agreed to, is that everyone does pay for their own health insurance. Therefore G3's point hasn't been refuted.
G3's statement glossed over the fact that, as was also noted, when just about anyone else similarly situated pays for their insurance by way of employer contributions on their behalf, that contribution is, as noted, in lieu of direct compensation. In this case, however, they are being asked to cover the full expense on on their own, without having the employer contribution that everyone else employs first added back into their nominal wages. That critical loss of what is currently part of their compensation package in the process of being expected to pay full freight on their own results in them being very distinctly unlike the vast majority of the population; the interpretation of the lay that effectively blocks employer contributions on their behalf or adding that effective amount back into their paychecks amounts, in fact, to a special onus that only they have to bear the cost of.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It also establishes a new compensation norm for an industry/worker. If the salary is $50,000 with insurance, the employer cost is substantially higher than paying someone $50,000 and not providing insurance. If the employees rise up and demand insurance coverage, the employer is in a position to lower their salary to $40,000 to cover their increased compensation burden. That's why I say that employers who don't pay for their workers' health insurance are driving their employees toward becoming a 3rd world workforce.

Pay as little as possible is a dangerously slippery slope.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No it's not. That's like saying paying as much as possible is a slippery slope. It's just not.

Don't you pay as little as possible when you go shopping, Al? Is that a "slippery slope"? Are you driving all the people who produce for your shopping needs towards a 3rd world production force?

quote:
G3's statement glossed over the fact that, as was also noted, when just about anyone else similarly situated pays for their insurance by way of employer contributions on their behalf, that contribution is, as noted, in lieu of direct compensation
No it didn't. It wasn't "glossed over". It just wasn't brought up because it's irrelevant to his point. He was saying that it shouldn't be odd that we expect one group of people to pay for their health insurance because everyone else does. Then Tom and Wayward tried to refute that particular point by saying "The rest of whom? The vast majority of Americans have employer-subsidized insurance." and "So if by 'the rest of us' you mean 'those who are left over from the vast majority' (about 10 percent of the population), then yes. But, then, what's your point?" implying that only 10 percent of the country pays for their own insurance, which is false, and therefore does not refute his point.

I am NOT saying I agree with G3, I am NOT saying these people should certainly have to pay for their own health insurance, I am NOT saying we should treat people like 3rd world country people (and neither is G3).

Edited to add: It's ridiculous that I have to add what I am NOT saying in my argument.

[ August 03, 2013, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: edgmatt ]

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Don't you pay as little as possible when you go shopping, Al?"

When the commodity can be gotten anywhere and I don't care where I get it from, sure. But, if I anticipate needing something further and expect to have an ongoing relationship with the seller, I evaluate them as much as the product. In that equation, price is only one factor. I have many times left price up to the seller and not quibbled. If you think that makes me an idiot, so be it.

I've started a few software companies, and gotten in on the ground floor and helped build a couple of others. My guiding principle regarding the workforce is that people are the most important ingredient in the product. Hiring the cheapest programmers is the worst possible way to go about it. That rule applied to the non-technical staff, as well, even though salary was usually much less of a concern.

If you treat your workers well and with respect, they'll treat you and the product they build well in return. If you treat them as the lowest-cost part, then you will need to lock the supply room and maybe patrol the perimeter to keep them from escaping.

[ August 04, 2013, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not arguing against any of that, and I don't know why you keep putting words in my mouth. Never have I ever called or implied that you are an idiot.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If that wasn't a response to what you were saying, then I don't understand what you were saying in your previous post. Perhaps you should clarify.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
I'm not arguing against any of that, and I don't know why you keep putting words in my mouth. Never have I ever called or implied that you are an idiot.

You did disagree with him though. And that is evidence in his favor. [Wink]

Various funnies on the Affordable Care Act follow:

"The new healthcare bill passed. The bill has a 10 percent tax on tanning booths. Very convenient for a black President!" --Jimmy Kimmel

"Well, as you know, healthcare reform was passed by the House last night. Supporters of the bill say the American people now get the same health benefits that members of Congress get. Now, if we can just get some of their other perks: free travel, envelopes with cash, get-out-of-jail-free cards..." --Jay Leno

"It looks like Democrats have their 60 votes for healthcare. Harry Reid said the bill will save us hundreds of millions of dollars. Well, it would have, except for the hundreds of millions of dollars we had to pay to buy the 60 votes." –Jay Leno

"President Obama says that Congress is very close to getting a new health care plan, but due to compromises, it 'won't include everything that everybody wants.' For instance, it covers everything except trips to the doctor or the hospital." –Conan O'Brien

"President Obama says he will not support a health-care plan where the government gets to decide whether to, quote, 'pull the plug on Grandma.' Apparently, Obama's plan calls for the much quicker pillow option." --Conan O'Brien


Pure funny, or actual big nuggets of truth up on there? Keep it funky fresh.

[ August 04, 2013, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No it's not. That's like saying paying as much as possible is a slippery slope. It's just not.
Both are bad, rather than seeking to pay in proportion to value produced relative to the cost of living. Both can nod toward the notion of a slippery slope in their own ways, but overpaying is generally harder to sustain in the private sector, while underpaying forces competitors to underpay as well in order to remain competitive, even though all businesses ultimately take a significant hit to their revenue by doing so, underpayment causes disposable income to fall, and their customer base to shrink along with it.

quote:
Don't you pay as little as possible when you go shopping, Al?
I balance price with quality and the upstream effects of what I'm paying for. If I settle for shoddy goods or supporting pernicious behavior by simply seeking to pay as little as possible, I hurt my self in the short run, due to the lower net value for what I've bought, and in the long run, by helping to shrink the market for better quality and more ethical practices.

quote:
Is that a "slippery slope"? Are you driving all the people who produce for your shopping needs towards a 3rd world production force?
The market uses consumer behavior as the leading signal for where to direct investment. If you only prioritize price and do not take the fact that by paying that lower price, you are choosing to reward exploitation companies that are able to extort workers into taking a less than equitable share of the revenue they help generate, then you absolutely are signalling your desire for just such an impoverished labor force.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
the fact that by paying that lower price, you are choosing to reward exploitation companies that are able to extort workers into taking a less than equitable share of the revenue they help generate
Nonsense.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Edgmatt, if you can get everyone to continue to do their jobs for half their pay, will they (and all of us) be as prosperous as we are today? How much do you have to lower the wages so that people will have to sacrifice their present lifestyles in order to make ends meet?

[ August 04, 2013, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If you can get..."

I cannot.

"How much do you have to lower the wages..."

I don't know.

I do know that me buying stuff at a lower price when I can get it doesn't reward exploitation companies.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I do know that me buying stuff at a lower price when I can get it doesn't reward exploitation companies.
How do you know that?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
"If you can get..."

I cannot.

"How much do you have to lower the wages..."

I don't know.

I do know that me buying stuff at a lower price when I can get it doesn't reward exploitation companies.

You have said lower prices is a good thing, never a bad thing. Step up and say if there really is a limit of some kind after which it really is bad.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I do know that me buying stuff at a lower price when I can get it doesn't reward exploitation companies.
So, if you buy stuff at a lower price from a company that is exploiting its workers and the marketplace, this does not reward the company you purchased the product from? This is really what you are saying?
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He was saying that it shouldn't be odd that we expect one group of people to pay for their health insurance because everyone else does. Then Tom and Wayward tried to refute that particular point by saying "The rest of whom? The vast majority of Americans have employer-subsidized insurance." and "So if by 'the rest of us' you mean 'those who are left over from the vast majority' (about 10 percent of the population), then yes. But, then, what's your point?" implying that only 10 percent of the country pays for their own insurance, which is false, and therefore does not refute his point.
To clarify what I was saying, edgemont:

G3 basically said, "What's the big deal? Everyone else has to pay for their health insurance. Why shouldn't these government workers?"

What G3 was ignoring was that, previously, their health insurance was partially or wholly subsidized by their employer (the government) just like 85 percent of workers. Only a mere 10 percent have to shoulder their entire health care from their salaries.

By suddenly cutting off their health care subsidy, without increasing their compensation, is in effect a huge pay cut. That's what the unions are complaining about, not Obamacare.

G3 made it sound like these workers aren't paying for their health insurance now.
It is part of their compensation and they earn it through their work. Just like I do. Just like a majority of workers do. They pay for it the same way they pay for their salary.

Companies, including the U.S. government, don't give health insurance to their workers as an act of charity. They do it to compensate their workers for the work they do. It was factually wrong to imply that a majority of workers "pay" for their health insurance while these guys don't. Every worker pays for his health insurance. How much is deducted from the paycheck, and how much is paid by the company before it appears on the paycheck, is irrelevant. Both are paid by the worker by the work that he or she does. The only ones who pay completely for their health insurance from their paychecks are those who get no health insurance from their company. Which is a small minority of the population (about 10 percent).

Understand my point?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You have said lower prices is a good thing, never a bad thing.
Show me where I said that.

quote:
Step up and say if there really is a limit of some kind after which it really is bad.
Step up? I started a thread a few years ago titled "It's and ill wind indeed that blows no one any good". (although I think I misspelled a word in the title and it had a sexual connotation) that specifically and directly discussed the fact that nothing is completely bad or good.

An important concept that ought to be considered is that artificial price changes tend to be a net bad.

Wayward - thanks for that clarification, and yes I understand your point. That's different than what I think Tom and you originally meant, but I'll ignore that and take this explanation as what you actually meant.

Tom - I knew as soon as I responded that I was set up for a trap. Let me go back and rephrase:

Pyrtolin said:

quote:
If you only prioritize price and do not take the fact that by paying that lower price, you are choosing to reward exploitation companies that are able to extort workers into taking a less than equitable share of the revenue they help generate, then you absolutely are signalling your desire for just such an impoverished labor force.
This directly says that any and every time I see two identical products with different prices*, and I choose the cheaper of the two, I am making a conscious decision to reward the extortion of workers, and signalling a desire for an impoverished workforce. I think this is poppycock.

I will concede that I imagine that somewhere, there is a company that extorts its workers, and therefore has cheaper prices than a company that produces the same product but does not "extort".

*As opposed to two products where one is superior to the other, and therefore more expensive.

Edited to add: I don't know how many times my name has been misspelled, either by accident or deliberately, but it's getting ridiculous.

[ August 05, 2013, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: edgmatt ]

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am making a conscious decision
I think that's where the confusion lies. I don't think Pyrtolin was asserting that you were consciously choosing to reward someone for exploitation; he was saying that's the impact of your choice. I think your objection is fair, however, and not just because one can quibble over whether there is in fact as direct a relationship as is asserted between profit and exploitation.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why else, then?
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because you can even agree that there are direct relationships between profit and reward and margins and exploitation and be ignorant of the fact that buying from a specific company because its pricing is good rewards that company for specific acts of exploitation, simply by being ignorant of those acts and the ways in which that company has shaved costs.

I know that I certainly buy from exploitative companies, not least because it's almost impossible to locate companies that are not exploitative; they almost all attempt to conceal it to some degree. Heck, I remember the wails of anguish from some of my crunchier friends when they learned the truth about Ben and Jerry's.

[ August 05, 2013, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Because they are paid a lower wage *and* forced to buy their own health care insurance at a higher cost than it would cost their employer, not to mention paying taxes on the premiums they pay because they are spent out of post tax income. The employer, otoh, would get a tax *writeoff* for the cost of their employee insurance.

Wouldn't a simpler solution have been to require that Insurance companies post the plans, their details and the fully loaded costs actually paid by their corporate customers and then require them to allow others to opt in. The real issue is that health insurance plans have been massively distorted by years of government medling and tax incentives and the "corporate" version and the private version have been allowed to get too far apart. This kind of revision would quickly force the plans onto standard terms for everyone.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wouldn't a simpler solution have been to require that Insurance companies post the plans, their details and the fully loaded costs actually paid by their corporate customers and then require them to allow others to opt in.
There is no way on God's green Earth that insurance companies would agree to that. You have no idea how panicked that would have made them.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bring back the USSR so that we are all equal then. I'm sick of the death by a thousand paper cuts.

My health coverages went down and my costs have gone up. This I can confirm both from the declaration sheets and from the obamacare mandated explanatory letter provided by my insurer.

I have been told by my insurer that it is more than likely that my plan will be considered by the law to be a Cadillac plan and likely subject to the luxury tax.

I had to wait to see my doctor for a normal wellness visit. And was told by my doctor that this is a direct result of the obamacare law.

Yet I have people here telling me that its not possible for the above to be true.

I'm going to suggest something to everyone. If you think the healthcare law is good- live with it for a few years. It has become very obvious on this thread that criticism of the law and issues with its implementation are simply the cries of republicans hostile to anything Obama does.

To those criticizing the law- stop. There is no plausible way the law will be repealed or your complaints about it addressed.

It is very likely going to help the poor with more health access. It is likely not going to in any way reduce costs or result in a healthier population. Those of us who formerly self insured, purchased supplemental policies, or achieved very comprehensive coverage as a result of our employment compensation will have to accept that personal responsibility nor accomplishment will have any future effect on your healthcare choices.

Those on the left will not understand.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"The new healthcare bill passed. The bill has a 10 percent tax on tanning booths. Very convenient for a black President!" --Jimmy Kimmel
Little did you realize, DJ, that some people don't know that's a joke. [Eek!]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-13876.pdf
Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RedVW on a Laptop:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-13876.pdf

22 (really 21) pages... I gave up after a few. Maybe that is what they want. So tedious and mundane...

[ August 05, 2013, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: DarkJello ]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The law isn't a joke, but the idea that it's "racist" is a joke. Cigarette taxes aren't racist either, even if the impact racial minorities more than white people.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So 20% of whites smoke. And whites are how much of the population? And whites make up how much of the population? Just looking at CDC data...
Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A number of companies are claiming that Obamacare is the reason why costs are going up. Even my own employer sent out a note to all 100,000+ employees that costs of insurance were being increased by Obamacare provisions, and in particular they cited free birth control (which struck me as implausible, as the actuarial value of medical care expenses associated with a single additional pregnancy, birth, and child seem to outweigh the costs of birth control for a very large group of women).
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And here we go, proving me right again. It's my burden.

quote:
And now the White House is suspending the law to create a double standard. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that runs federal benefits will release regulatory details this week, but leaks to the press suggest that Congress will receive extra payments based on the FEHBP defined-contribution formula, which covers about 75% of the cost of the average insurance plan. For 2013, that's about $4,900 for individuals and $10,000 for families.

How OPM will pull this off is worth watching. Is OPM simply going to cut checks, akin to "cashing out" fringe benefits and increasing wages? Or will OPM cover 75% of the cost of the ObamaCare plan the worker chooses—which could well be costlier than what the feds now contribute via current FEHBP plans? In any case the carve-out for Congress creates a two-tier exchange system, one for the great unwashed and another for the politically connected.

See, these guys make $174,000 a year or more. No way they could afford this crap sandwich. Anyone else making that much, of corse they could but we're talking about the inner party, they need this to, you know, do the work of the people. In a relate development, no animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
quote:

This latest White House night at the improv is also illegal. OPM has no authority to pay for insurance plans that lack FEHBP contracts, nor does the Affordable Care Act permit either exchange contributions or a unilateral bump in congressional pay in return for less overall compensation. Those things require appropriations bills passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Laws, how quaint a notion is that? Laws, you'd think a nation would use them as a foundational system of governance but that's uninformed and lacking nuance..
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm curious, G3: do you think the Republicans who initially forced Congress onto these plans intended for their staffers and interns to do without subsidized insurance? Should those staffers lose access to insurance because Republicans failed to anticipate this result?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 20 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  18  19  20   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1