RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (Full Version)

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



Message


JstAnotherSub -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (6/29/2012 3:06:36 PM)

quote:

Like many Republicans, Stephen Colbert


He is a republican? Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit. Ida never ever thought that to be so.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (6/29/2012 7:11:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I'm going to greatly enjoy watching everyone who is dancing in the streets today finding out that the waiting list for them to be treated for their problems keeping them from getting treated..


I waited 5 months to see my foot and ankle surgeon.. well worth the wait.

Depending on where you live, you may have wait time, you may not.

quote:

I've lived without insurance for about 8 years now, and I've paid cash for whatever medical I needed. ($6k once for a nice MRSA staph infection...the kind you probably get sitting in a Doctor's office with a bunch of sick people) It's encouraged me to stay healthier and live healthier. Now I grow an increasing percentage of what I eat, sans the GMOs, pesticides and other garbage in commercially grown food. No colds or flus in 12 years.


Good for you! I mean that.

And its good that you had 6K to pay.... and some dont. Who doesnt have insurance? Those who believe they will never get sick... and those who cant afford it.

It only takes one illness to wipe out everything you own.


Tazzy...why did you have to wait that long to get served?




LookieNoNookie -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (6/29/2012 7:12:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Its not mandatory insurance and its not a penalty. It's a composite tax, crafted from the memories of other taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome

HELLO MANDATORY INSURANCE (for all Americans who aren't under the poverty level)(for those of you under the poverty level, its free courtesy of your neighbor's tax money)





Hmmmm?




erieangel -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (6/29/2012 9:28:33 PM)

4 years ago I started working at my current position, at that time, I was offered health insurance. Out of several Highmark plans that were available to me, I chose a PPO with no deductible that cost me $86 per month.

The following year, the non-profit for which I work saw an increase in premiums and had to revamp their insurance options. The organization dropped the HMO options and basically offered several levels of the same PPO plan--no deductible (single/family), $250/$500 deductible (single/family), and $500/$1000 deductible (single/family). The organization did briefly consider self-funding health insurance like they do for dental and eye, but in the end decided to stay with Highmark. I decided to stay with no deductible and my premiums went up to $120 per month.

Last year, premiums rose again, at such a rate that I was forced to chose a $500 deductible for a single person policy. But I figured I could quickly have what I saved in premiums to cover the cost of the deductible, which I did as my premiums were then only $24 per month.

This year, rates rose again, but at such a negligible percentage that the organization has announced a week ago that they can absorb this price increase on their end rather than passing the increase onto the employees. And this despite cuts in social services funding from the state.

Is there any wonder I work for 1 of the 50 best businesses to work in PA?




Sanity -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (6/30/2012 12:22:18 AM)


A joke loses something if you have to explain it... but here you go anyway

Since you asked so nicely

Obama: 'New York girlfriend' was composite - POLITICO.com

Is Obamacare a penalty, or a tax, or some composite? That depends entirely on what Obama considers politically expedient at the moment...

Like I wrote though... it loses something

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Its not mandatory insurance and its not a penalty. It's a composite tax, crafted from the memories of other taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome

HELLO MANDATORY INSURANCE (for all Americans who aren't under the poverty level)(for those of you under the poverty level, its free courtesy of your neighbor's tax money)





Hmmmm?





Nosathro -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/1/2012 11:10:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

quote:

Either way, OBAMACARE PASSES SUPREME COURT TEST AND MILLIONS BENEFIT.

Not a bad headline going into the election cycle, is it?


Except for those that will prefer the "I am Mitt Romney, and I pledge to make repeal of Obamacare my #1 priority when elected" headline.

It is damn sure gonna be fun to watch though.


Romeny as Mass Governor enacted a health plan simular to Obamacare, it is failing...so he has some experience about this sort of thing. Mind you I am not endorsing Romeny.




tazzygirl -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/1/2012 12:15:25 PM)

quote:

Tazzy...why did you have to wait that long to get served?


Because he is the best at what he does in a community that has some of the best in medicine.

I wait a month for my PCP... I waited 2 months to see a podiatrist.

There are "waiting lines" already... they had nothing to do with the ACA.




tazzygirl -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/1/2012 12:17:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

quote:

Either way, OBAMACARE PASSES SUPREME COURT TEST AND MILLIONS BENEFIT.

Not a bad headline going into the election cycle, is it?


Except for those that will prefer the "I am Mitt Romney, and I pledge to make repeal of Obamacare my #1 priority when elected" headline.

It is damn sure gonna be fun to watch though.


Romeny as Mass Governor enacted a health plan simular to Obamacare, it is failing...so he has some experience about this sort of thing. Mind you I am not endorsing Romeny.


And how is it failing? Please, go point by point. Should make for an interesting read.




Yachtie -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/1/2012 2:36:44 PM)

What's more cost effective? Buy the insurance or pay the fine till medical care is needed then buy the insurance as one cannot be denied for any reason, including what would now be pre-existing?
As an employer, is it more cost effective to pay the fine and drop employee insurance, especially where employees number 50 or more.

Costs will skyrocket, demanding government intervention to a problem created by government. But for those who believe in Universal Health Care, what problem?




Sanity -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/1/2012 2:44:30 PM)


As I am sure you know, this is by design. They passed it, now we are finding out what is in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

What's more cost effective? Buy the insurance or pay the fine till medical care is needed then buy the insurance as one cannot be denied for any reason, including what would now be pre-existing?
As an employer, is it more cost effective to pay the fine and drop employee insurance, especially where employees number 50 or more.

Costs will skyrocket, demanding government intervention to a problem created by government. But for those who believe in Universal Health Care, what problem?





DomKen -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/1/2012 4:20:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

What's more cost effective? Buy the insurance or pay the fine till medical care is needed then buy the insurance as one cannot be denied for any reason, including what would now be pre-existing?
As an employer, is it more cost effective to pay the fine and drop employee insurance, especially where employees number 50 or more.

Costs will skyrocket, demanding government intervention to a problem created by government. But for those who believe in Universal Health Care, what problem?

Because you'll still be on the hook for any and all medical bills incurred before you can get enrolled. And since there is no reasonable justification for not having HI you won't get the bills wrote off which means you'll lose everything just to save a few bucks on insurance premiums.

I recommend you give it a try.




tazzygirl -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/1/2012 8:43:07 PM)

quote:

What's more cost effective? Buy the insurance or pay the fine till medical care is needed then buy the insurance as one cannot be denied for any reason, including what would now be pre-existing?


Its not quite that easy. You need to look up the rules once again.




vincentML -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/2/2012 8:33:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

What's more cost effective? Buy the insurance or pay the fine till medical care is needed then buy the insurance as one cannot be denied for any reason, including what would now be pre-existing?


Its not quite that easy. You need to look up the rules once again.


~FR~
Morally, I favor universal health care. I accept until shown otherwise that $1000 a year is cost shifted to insureds in order to compensate hospitals and doctors for ER care of the uninsured. I am troubled however by the economic argument that favors the abandonment of health care by employers. The first fifty employees let loose exempts the Corporation from any fine. Thereafter the penalty is only $2000 per employee no longer insured plus loss of the tax deduction the Employer enjoyed. But hc costs are over $9K per employee. Employer provided hc was born during WWII when factory wages were ceilinged and there was a shortage of labor, so it was an inducement for employees to work for the company providing good healthcare insurance. What is the disincentive for large companies to stop offering healthcare insurance? It is not sacred. Do they lose a competitive edge? Maybe in the hi tech fields they do? Or maybe they offer it selectively for engineers and other more valued employees. IDK. just asking.




Musicmystery -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/2/2012 8:46:04 AM)

Once employees have options, businesses can look at whether health care is a perk.

Employees also will have more options--many 50-somethings are still working ONLY for the health care benefits. Once they can leave and still get affordable health care, both quality of life and employment opportunities will unfold.

Those who still work will follow things for which they have a passion, resulting in better businesses as well.




tazzygirl -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/2/2012 9:16:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

What's more cost effective? Buy the insurance or pay the fine till medical care is needed then buy the insurance as one cannot be denied for any reason, including what would now be pre-existing?


Its not quite that easy. You need to look up the rules once again.


~FR~
Morally, I favor universal health care. I accept until shown otherwise that $1000 a year is cost shifted to insureds in order to compensate hospitals and doctors for ER care of the uninsured. I am troubled however by the economic argument that favors the abandonment of health care by employers. The first fifty employees let loose exempts the Corporation from any fine. Thereafter the penalty is only $2000 per employee no longer insured plus loss of the tax deduction the Employer enjoyed. But hc costs are over $9K per employee. Employer provided hc was born during WWII when factory wages were ceilinged and there was a shortage of labor, so it was an inducement for employees to work for the company providing good healthcare insurance. What is the disincentive for large companies to stop offering healthcare insurance? It is not sacred. Do they lose a competitive edge? Maybe in the hi tech fields they do? Or maybe they offer it selectively for engineers and other more valued employees. IDK. just asking.



http://beyondhealthcarereform.com/2011/03/health-care-reform-looking-ahead-to-2014-employer-mandate-part-i-pay-or-play-and-free-rider-penalties/

The employer penalties are based on the government subsidies. As we discussed in our earlier post, government subsidies are not available unless an individual’s household income is less than 400% of the federal poverty level ($89,400 for a family of four in 2011). If all employees of an employer have a household income greater than 400% of the federal poverty level, then these penalties would not apply. But, in reality, almost every employer will have at least one employee whose household income is less than 400%. The rest of this post assumes that an employer would have at least one such employee.

No Coverage Penalty (also known as “Pay or Play”)
If an employer does not offer full-time employees, and their dependents, an opportunity to enroll in employer coverage, and at least one full-time employee enrolls in the Exchange and the employee receives government subsidies to pay for Exchange coverage, then the employer is subject to this penalty. The penalty is $2,000 for each of an employer’s full-time employees. (In calculating the penalty, however, the first 30 employees are excluded). Employers can avoid this penalty by offering health coverage to full-time employees. However, the Unaffordable Coverage penalty may apply.

Unaffordable Coverage (also known as “Free Rider”)
If an employer offers full-time employees, and their dependents, an opportunity to enroll in employer coverage, that alone will not necessarily avoid penalties. Rather, the coverage offered must be both affordable and valuable. If at least one full-time employee enrolls in the Exchange and is certified to receive government subsidies because the employer’s coverage is considered either unaffordable or low-value, then the employer is subject to this penalty. The penalty is $3,000 for each full-time employee who is certified to receive government subsidies. (Unlike the no coverage penalty, this one is not based on all full-time employees.)

Synthesizing the government subsidies with the employer penalties, employers will need to offer coverage that is both affordable and high-value to avoid the employer penalties altogether. But doing so also means that the employees will not be eligible for government subsidies. Employers may want to consider whether their employee population would be better served in the Exchange with government subsidies or with affordable, valuable, employer-provided coverage. Employers will also want to consider how vouchers work, which we’ll discuss in our next post.



And then there are penalties that add up each day, per employee.... its not that simple for a business to get around.

Its scary how many dont get it.. or havent even read it.




vincentML -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/2/2012 9:34:01 AM)

quote:

Employers may want to consider whether their employee population would be better served in the Exchange with government subsidies or with affordable, valuable, employer-provided coverage.


So, yes tazzy, I get that. But what is missing is that the employer may decide that precedence be given to what is better for the company's bottom line. What is the cost of healthcare insurance to the employer? That doesn't seem to be addressed. The statement quoted assumes employers are benevolent.




tazzygirl -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/2/2012 10:29:38 AM)

They arent... and employees are tired of being locked into a job because of their insurance. This law is making the path to cut that tie.

Pulling one piece of the puzzle out doesnt cut it. If you look at the whole picture, instead of it through fragments, you might see what I am seeing.. and what many others see as well.

This is the first in an attempt of breaking the insurance strong hold. This wont be the last.




vincentML -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/2/2012 12:11:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

They arent... and employees are tired of being locked into a job because of their insurance. This law is making the path to cut that tie.

Pulling one piece of the puzzle out doesnt cut it. If you look at the whole picture, instead of it through fragments, you might see what I am seeing.. and what many others see as well.

This is the first in an attempt of breaking the insurance strong hold. This wont be the last.


I hope you're right [:)]




LookieNoNookie -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/2/2012 6:15:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, now we're going to be all TAXED for our mandatory healthcare benefit, and that means...

MEDICARE FOR EVERYONE!



Of course.....and?




vincentML -> RE: HELLO UNIVERSAL MEDICARE! (7/2/2012 7:09:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, now we're going to be all TAXED for our mandatory healthcare benefit, and that means...

MEDICARE FOR EVERYONE!



Of course.....and?


Just not true.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875