The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 102

Thread: Individual Mandate Delayed

  1. #61
    Senior Member menmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampcollielover View Post
    But you said, you were not aware of any Republican proposals on health care....perhaps another 'Great Big Lie" from mjh345...nothing new!
    The republicans proposed it when Clinton was president.

  2. #62
    Senior Member Migillicutty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Aubrey, Tx
    Posts
    147

    Default

    So much BS in this thread from both sides. Very few of you actually understand the law which is not surprising. It's difficult to understand. However spouting talking points from your side of the aisle does not really do anything to further the conversation. I have sat through countless meetings on this piece of legislation. We have an entire legal team with decades of experience dedicated to deciphering it and briefing our teams and clients on the ramifications. But beside all the nitty gritty details of how it will effect companies and is costing them money. The biggest problem I have with it is two fold, the way it was passed and the fact that it cedes way too much power in to the seat of the federal government. It is a behemoth of a program taking over a large piece of our economy and is completely out of the scope of power enumerated to the federal government by the framers.

    That said it is not a good piece of legislation. It is not going to accomplish what it set out to accomplish. It is going to cost way too much money(already has). Remember every single dollar it has cost up to this point has been a dollar earned by a producer and spent by a government that produces nothing and to what gain? So far not much. Latest reports show less people with coverage than before. The young and healthy have even more reason to remain uninsured. Now throw in the indirect cost to businesses across this country spent mitigating the effects, the man hours spent just trying to figure out how to be in compliance. If I got in to the absurdity of the details of what is required of a company and how they can still basically offer a package they know their laborers can not afford and remain in compliance you would wonder what the heck what was the point.

    Lastly i do believe that 2014 will be a referendum on ACA and you will see the senate go back to the republicans and they will gain seats in the house. Gridlock in Washington is usually a good thing. The less they do the less they screw up.

  3. #63
    Senior Member menmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampcollielover View Post
    menmon...let me speak a bit slower...insurance companies have had Federal Government Oversight for many years. These 'rule and regulations' limited what they could do, what they could cover, etc. This has been true for over 30 years.....like everywhere else, the Federal Government has been creeping into our lives, in every aspect of our lives....we have been moving towards Socialization for over 50 years. Obamacare was just a recent acceleration of this process...being a retired banker....you of all people should know what I am speaking about, for I too spent over 10 years in banking and my late Father spent his life in banking.....
    Insurance has always been socialism.....that is why it gets abused by the doctors and hospitals....the oversight is to make sure they don't cheat the insured. With Obamacare their will be more competition and more coverage. So where an insurer would not insure a sick person because it would cut into profit, they have to now but because of the competition, they can not raise price as easily and with the mandate forcing folks to have insurance the cost overall will come down.

    Also now the insurance companies probablly will not give the doctors and hospitals as many passes.

    Bottomline is that americans should be able to have healthcare, so if it makes it possible for folks then why do you oppose it.

    nothing has changed....still the same amount of sick people....how the doctors get paid is all that has changed

  4. #64
    Senior Member Migillicutty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Aubrey, Tx
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by menmon View Post
    Insurance has always been socialism.....that is why it gets abused by the doctors and hospitals....the oversight is to make sure they don't cheat the insured. With Obamacare their will be more competition and more coverage. So where an insurer would not insure a sick person because it would cut into profit, they have to now but because of the competition, they can not raise price as easily and with the mandate forcing folks to have insurance the cost overall will come down.

    Also now the insurance companies probablly will not give the doctors and hospitals as many passes.

    Bottomline is that americans should be able to have healthcare, so if it makes it possible for folks then why do you oppose it.

    nothing has changed....still the same amount of sick people....how the doctors get paid is all that has changed

    You seriously can't believe any that.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,681

    Default

    If I got in to the absurdity of the details of what is required of a company and how they can still basically offer a package they know their laborers can not afford and remain in compliance you would wonder what the heck what was the point.
    I'm not sure an employer would want to do that. The cost of the employee share cannot exceed (I believe) 10% of their wage. Employees of companies required to provide health insurance can not get subsidies on exchanges (we'll just have to wait until Obama figures out that won't work real well; and he'll change that, too, I guess). So, the employees are in a trap ... unless they quit (and maybe become artists, as Pelosi suggests). Would an employer really want his whole workforce quitting the same day? Or, in the present job market, would the employees just reduce their standard of living further in the fear they cannot get another job? I admit I don't know the text of the law, but while an employer might do that, it doesn't seem like a reasonable course for the employer ... I suppose he could re-hire the key employees, and let the least valuable go elsewhere. Again, the low-skill worker is the one who gets hurt most.

    Menmom,
    ... with Obamacare their will be more competition and more coverage.
    I think both those premises, in actual practice, are proving incorrect. Less competition as many insurors have decided simply to not offer policies at all. Less coverage, when certain drugs are excluded, and certain doctors and hospitals are also excluded from the networks.

    If the remaining insurors find they cannot survive when losses become insurmountable, more insurors will drop out of the system. Voila ... single-payer. And the govt dictates everything in health care, as they do in other single-payer systems.

    Do you note what's happening in the UK. The original premise was that everyone got their health care through the system. The doctors and hospitals became "employees" of the govt; prices for procedures mandated; and govt decides which people can get which procedures. The govt has now come to the point of suggesting that individuals pay for health care privately. Those that can do so financially, do that. Guess what has happened with that change? Private health insurance has been resurrected so that those who choose private health care can limit their costs? Full circle?

    Single payer greatly favors the 1% who have the resources to get care that the govt decides is not appropriate due to age or disease. That 1% can go wherever they want to purchase their health care. $ talks.

    It becomes real logical to me why some Euro countries are now turning more into favor of euthanasia of infants & children with terrible diseases, and also for elderly. Since denial of benefits in single-payer systems have already been doing that (without admitting to the term of euthanasia), the next step toward calling euthanasia "care" is not a big one. While it may seem appropriate for sick, elderly to make those voluntary decisions for themselves, I'm not so sure about children. we have seen human spirit overcome deformities in ways we never imagined.

    If the govt can dictate the benefits that a health plan can offer (as O-care does), then it has the power to deny benefits or set maximum payment amounts that can be allocated toward those benefits. While O-care supposedly does not allow the insurors to set lifetime maximums (and maybe yearly maximums?), what stops Obama (or his successor) from making executive changes to those details? He's already done that with other details.

    First O-care has to get everybody signed up. Once everyone is dependent upon govt mandate for health care, then who will be able to challenge the change in the rules? The 1% won't care since they can get whatever health care they need by directly paying for it. I'm not begrudging the 1% their $. What does bother me is when the govt promotes doing what is best for "the greater good", but ends up creating "the greater bad" for many more people who had some "good" before.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #66
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    I'm not sure an employer would want to do that. The cost of the employee share cannot exceed (I believe) 10% of their wage. Employees of companies required to provide health insurance can not get subsidies on exchanges (we'll just have to wait until Obama figures out that won't work real well; and he'll change that, too, I guess). So, the employees are in a trap ... unless they quit (and maybe become artists, as Pelosi suggests). Would an employer really want his whole workforce quitting the same day? Or, in the present job market, would the employees just reduce their standard of living further in the fear they cannot get another job? I admit I don't know the text of the law, but while an employer might do that, it doesn't seem like a reasonable course for the employer ... I suppose he could re-hire the key employees, and let the least valuable go elsewhere. Again, the low-skill worker is the one who gets hurt most.

    Menmom, I think both those premises, in actual practice, are proving incorrect. Less competition as many insurors have decided simply to not offer policies at all. Less coverage, when certain drugs are excluded, and certain doctors and hospitals are also excluded from the networks.

    If the remaining insurors find they cannot survive when losses become insurmountable, more insurors will drop out of the system. Voila ... single-payer. And the govt dictates everything in health care, as they do in other single-payer systems.

    Do you note what's happening in the UK. The original premise was that everyone got their health care through the system. The doctors and hospitals became "employees" of the govt; prices for procedures mandated; and govt decides which people can get which procedures. The govt has now come to the point of suggesting that individuals pay for health care privately. Those that can do so financially, do that. Guess what has happened with that change? Private health insurance has been resurrected so that those who choose private health care can limit their costs? Full circle?

    Single payer greatly favors the 1% who have the resources to get care that the govt decides is not appropriate due to age or disease. That 1% can go wherever they want to purchase their health care. $ talks.

    It becomes real logical to me why some Euro countries are now turning more into favor of euthanasia of infants & children with terrible diseases, and also for elderly. Since denial of benefits in single-payer systems have already been doing that (without admitting to the term of euthanasia), the next step toward calling euthanasia "care" is not a big one. While it may seem appropriate for sick, elderly to make those voluntary decisions for themselves, I'm not so sure about children. we have seen human spirit overcome deformities in ways we never imagined.

    If the govt can dictate the benefits that a health plan can offer (as O-care does), then it has the power to deny benefits or set maximum payment amounts that can be allocated toward those benefits. While O-care supposedly does not allow the insurors to set lifetime maximums (and maybe yearly maximums?), what stops Obama (or his successor) from making executive changes to those details? He's already done that with other details.

    First O-care has to get everybody signed up. Once everyone is dependent upon govt mandate for health care, then who will be able to challenge the change in the rules? The 1% won't care since they can get whatever health care they need by directly paying for it. I'm not begrudging the 1% their $. What does bother me is when the govt promotes doing what is best for "the greater good", but ends up creating "the greater bad" for many more people who had some "good" before.
    Gerry, you are wasting your time.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  7. #67
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Migillicutty View Post
    You seriously can't believe any that.
    You must be new..............

  8. #68
    Senior Member menmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Migillicutty View Post
    You seriously can't believe any that.
    Your lead in to your earlier post was intended to make you an authoritarian, then you spewed the right;s campaign slogan. At least the rest of the folks don’t pretend to be something they are not.
    EXXON, ATT, DOW, FORD, etc have no impact from the law.
    Companies are required to offer insurance to their employees….what is wrong with that?
    Individuals are required to have it or both are taxed. What is wrong with them having to pay for insurance like me?
    Using the exchange matches insurer with insure…money changes hands between the two.
    Doctor bills insurer and insurer pays doctor.
    Now anywhere did you see money changing hands with the government other than collecting taxes? Sounds like government might make money from this to pay for the folks that can’t afford insurance.

  9. #69
    Senior Member GaryJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Well one thing is for sure. We are still trillions in debt and it isn't going to get better anytime soon. I am just not seeing how the how government is going to make money in this.
    What if all we have today is what we gave thanks for yesterday?

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.E. Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by menmon View Post
    See obamacare is not like medicare....the people that use obamacare buy insurance so an insurance company pays the doctor.
    Both are government controlled............we pay each month for our medicare plus another insurance. I wish that the government had never started medicare so we could go back to buying our insurance from a company that we liked.
    So explain again about the difference.
    charly

    There ought to be one day -- just one -- when there is open season on Congressmen.
    ~Will Rogers~

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •