RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson

RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

flcouple2009 -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 9:11:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 I thought about clicking the link for a moment. But then I noticed that one little word in the link, OPINION, and thought better of it. Can't handle the TRUTH about ObamaCare, eh? Typical liberal. It's good to know that in sock puppet land opinion equals truth. So next topic I'll go find an opinion piece which states the opposite of your position and you'll just have to accept it because as you say "opinion equals truth", right?

KenDckey -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 10:42:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl yes, you did. Requirement to offer coverage... (did you actually read it?) • Assess employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer coverage and have at least one fulltime employee who receives a premium tax credit a fee of $2,000 per full-time employee, excluding the first 30 employees from the assessment. Employers with more than 50 employees that offer coverage but have at least one full-time employee receiving a premium tax credit, will pay the lesser of $3,000 for each employee receiving a premium credit or $2,000 for each full-time employee. (Effective January 1, 2014) • Exempt employers with 50 or fewer employees from any of the above penalties. • Require employers that offer coverage to their employees to provide a free choice voucher to employees with incomes less than 400% FPL whose share of the premium exceeds 8% but is less than 9.8% of their income and who choose to enroll in a plan in the Exchange. The voucher amount is equal to what the employer would have paid to provide coverage to the employee under the employer’s plan and will be used to offset the premium costs for the plan in which the employee is enrolled. Employers providing free choice vouchers will not be subject to penalties for employees that receive premium credits in the Exchange. (Effective January 1, 2014) Other requirements • Require employers with more than 200 employees to automatically enroll employees into health insurance plans offered by the employer. Employees may opt out of coverage. (Page 1) I still don't see the mandate. Gives instructions for those that have it and incentives to have it but I just don't see the mandate. that offer doesn't substitute for shall or will.

tazzygirl -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 11:06:26 AM)
You do understand what assess means, yes? Perhaps not... hmm • Assess employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer coverage and have at least one fulltime employee who receives a premium tax credit a fee of $2,000 per full-time employee, excluding the first 30 employees from the assessment. Employers with more than 50 employees that offer coverage but have at least one full-time employee receiving a premium tax credit, will pay the lesser of $3,000 for each employee receiving a premium credit or $2,000 for each full-time employee. (Effective January 1, 2014) Ok, on this one... employer has more than 50 employees. does not offer coverage. Just one of his employees is full time... 2000 fine per full time employee... excluding the first 30... which means he pays 2000 on 20 employees simply because one of his employees gets a premium tax credit. Employers with more than 50 who also offer insurance, will be fined 3000 per employee... or, if its less, 2000 for each full time employee. Now, less than 50 employees ... exempt. 50 or more, fined. How is that different than the individual mandate?

KenDckey -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 11:12:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assesses as·sess [image]http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif[/image] /əˈsɛs/ [image]http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif[/image] Show Spelled[uh-ses] [image]http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif[/image] Show IPA –verb (used with object) 1. to estimate officially the value of (property, income, etc.) as a basis for taxation. 2. to fix or determine the amount of (damages, a tax, a fine, etc.): The hurricane damage was assessed at six million dollars. 3. to impose a tax or other charge on. 4. to estimate or judge the value, character, etc., of; evaluate: to assess one's efforts. Oh so it is a tax. I guess it is a tax payable to insurance companies or the fed. Whichever. To insurance companies would be considered unconstitutional because taxes go to the federal coffers. To the fed goes to the general fund to pay the national debt (whether it is the current bills or future ones). Still don't see it as a mandate to provide.

tazzygirl -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 11:14:12 AM)
See above.

KenDckey -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 11:17:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl You do understand what assess means, yes? Perhaps not... hmm • Assess employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer coverage and have at least one fulltime employee who receives a premium tax credit a fee of $2,000 per full-time employee, excluding the first 30 employees from the assessment. Employers with more than 50 employees that offer coverage but have at least one full-time employee receiving a premium tax credit, will pay the lesser of $3,000 for each employee receiving a premium credit or $2,000 for each full-time employee. (Effective January 1, 2014) Ok, on this one... employer has more than 50 employees. does not offer coverage. Just one of his employees is full time... 2000 fine per full time employee... excluding the first 30... which means he pays 2000 on 20 employees simply because one of his employees gets a premium tax credit. Employers with more than 50 who also offer insurance, will be fined 3000 per employee... or, if its less, 2000 for each full time employee. Now, less than 50 employees ... exempt. 50 or more, fined. How is that different than the individual mandate? Pay the fine (a tax under the definition of asses) or offer insurance is still a choice not a mandate

tazzygirl -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 11:19:06 AM)
By your definition, so is requiring people to pay a tax or buy insurance. Still no different.

KenDckey -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 11:37:59 AM)
yup as well as, assuming thiss stands, the govt can then mandate how many calories you can eat, waht those calories are made of, who you buy your car from, whether you own a housse, and that the internet is a human right

tazzygirl -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 11:40:49 AM)
They can mandate who you can buy a car from... by exclusion. They can mandate if you can own a house... through lending laws. You are harping on a term instead of the reality. Employers are mandated the same way individuals are. Employers... offer insurance... with the provisions the law has set... or face fines. Individuals... buy insurance... or face fines. There is no difference between the two.

KenDckey -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 11:44:04 AM)
And therefore no mandate

tazzygirl -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 11:45:06 AM)
Its the term you and others have used... not me.

Moonhead -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 11:46:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey yup as well as, assuming this stands, the gov't can then mandate how many calories you can eat, what those calories are made of... If they could mandate that, do you think that you'd still have these steadily escalating rates of obesity and type ii diabetes in your country? Would so much of your food be pumped full of high fructose corn syrup? I suppose, in theory, an American government could mandate what goes in your food, but that's about as likely as them mandating that the second amendment only covers smoothbore muskets.

KenDckey -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 11:50:01 AM)
They are allowed to mandate taxes. They are allowed to set standards, usually those set by industry before they become law, although not always (for industrial things). And social behavorial things like murder, etc. But to mandate how I spend my money is wrong. I don't believe they have that legal authority. Now when SCOTUS says otherwise (assuming that they do) then I guess i would be wrong. Till then, I believe that mandating insurance is unconstitutional and intrusion into my left hip pocket.

Lucylastic -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 11:50:04 AM)
nah you cant mess with free market...companies and lobbyists and insurance companies can do what they like to your food, your water, everything around you but.. the big bad govmnt is after YOU

tazzygirl -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 11:51:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey They are allowed to mandate taxes. They are allowed to set standards, usually those set by industry before they become law, although not always (for industrial things). And social behavorial things like murder, etc. But to mandate how I spend my money is wrong. I don't believe they have that legal authority. Now when SCOTUS says otherwise (assuming that they do) then I guess i would be wrong. Till then, I believe that mandating insurance is unconstitutional and intrusion into my left hip pocket. Its no different than mandating you buy an Identification card in order to fly, cash a check, rent a car... ect ect ect. Mandate means a requirement.

popeye1250 -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 5:46:26 PM)
Opinion? How about a math question then, how are low wage people supposed to be able to afford even $400 a month for healthcare? I've heard some people in this site say they pay $800-$1,200 a month for healthcare. I had a math professor in college who said, "mathematics is not an opinion."

joether -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 6:32:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Opinion? How about a math question then, how are low wage people supposed to be able to afford even $400 a month for healthcare? I've heard some people in this site say they pay $800-$1,200 a month for healthcare. If we dont have good healthcare coverage for all Americans, that will be pretty tough to accomplish. 'Fortunately' we have conservative Republicans fighting every day to remove the ACA, so everyone can enjoy paying MORE money to the health insurance companies while getting less/no coverage. Because killing the ACA is the Republican's #1 job right now. Oh? You need a job and have been on unemployment for 6+ months? That's not the Republican's problem, now is it? The ACA prevents the people who hold the GOP's leash (that's no you, but big business) from making staggering profits from your suffering. I cant speak for other states of the Union, but here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we take care of our citizens. Only costs our yearly budget a mere 2.7% to cover 98% of the citizens. The ACA costs Americans $89.8 Billion a year. Yet, we have conservatives state we cant pay that amount, but then, fail to explain why we can pay $826 Billion on Defense. The failure is which is the bigger number (mathematically speaking). According to conservatives, its the $89.8 billion, NOT, the $826 billion. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I had a math professor in college who said, "mathematics is not an opinion." Nor is it set up to explain things on its own. Its just a tool, like a shovel, the internet, and chemistry. On its own, it does not explain anything; but when combined with other tools, it helps us humans understand reality. For instance: 364 + 24 = 1. That doesn't look like a correct mathematical expression, correct? And that's because, I've left out on purpose, what the numbers are referring to. Now, if I entered how the math was being applied: (364 days) + (24 hours) = (1 year); you arrive at the correct understanding.

KenDckey -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 6:56:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey They are allowed to mandate taxes. They are allowed to set standards, usually those set by industry before they become law, although not always (for industrial things). And social behavorial things like murder, etc. But to mandate how I spend my money is wrong. I don't believe they have that legal authority. Now when SCOTUS says otherwise (assuming that they do) then I guess i would be wrong. Till then, I believe that mandating insurance is unconstitutional and intrusion into my left hip pocket. Its no different than mandating you buy an Identification card in order to fly, cash a check, rent a car... ect ect ect. Mandate means a requirement. The ID card requirement to fly might be federal not sure. the ID card to cash a check or rent a car isn't. They are company driven for risk reasons. But not in all cases. I don't have to give my utility company a copy of my ID everytime I pay a bill is an example there. And I have rented vehicles but the only ID I had to provide was the drivers license of the authorized driver cause it weren't me.

joether -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 8:00:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey The ID card requirement to fly might be federal not sure. the ID card to cash a check or rent a car isn't. They are company driven for risk reasons. But not in all cases. I don't have to give my utility company a copy of my ID everytime I pay a bill is an example there. And I have rented vehicles but the only ID I had to provide was the drivers license of the authorized driver cause it weren't me. It is a require for you to show your ID/Passport to fly on domestic flights. Depends on the bank, but for the most part, any check over $10K is required to show ID/Papers (i.e. Power of Attorney).

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: McDonald's gives an ObamaCare Lesson (2/5/2011 8:12:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey But to mandate how I spend my money is wrong. I don't believe they have that legal authority. Now when SCOTUS says otherwise (assuming that they do) then I guess i would be wrong. Till then, I believe that mandating insurance is unconstitutional and intrusion into my left hip pocket. I'm not so sure which side of the fence the Supremes are going to come down on. Not so sure at all. I think there's a very good chance they throw it out, and the whole thing goes back to Square One for the next 20 fucking years.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625