Republican controlled house says.."DEFUND Obamacare, or we're SHUTTING the GOVT. DOWN "

[delldude]

Yeah dell....there's a problem there with the unions. Last time I worked for a union was in 1981. Back then, I didn't pay a dime for insurance. It was in our contract. But today....people who are used to paying nothing towards their health insurance are now being asked to pay a portion of the premium....much as I have done for the past 33 years. It's easy to see why they'd be pissed.

That's not the reason unions are flipping. Under ACA an employer pays maybe 10k for each workers health insurance. If he doesn't provide coverage under ACA, he is fined $2000 per employee. $2000 per employee or $10,000 per employee......wonder which way he'd go?

 

[southwind]

That's not the reason unions are flipping. Under ACA an employer pays maybe 10k for each workers health insurance. If he doesn't provide coverage under ACA, he is fined $2000 per employee. $2000 per employee or $10,000 per employee......wonder which way he'd go?

The majority of Americans, who don't suffer from BaRack Tingleyitis, figured this one out years ago !

 

[Ms Tree]

It's almost as though you think "preexisting conditions" coverage and "insurance" are compatible things, as though you can "insure" something that already happened.

Stop calling it "insurance," it's class warfare wealth-spreading. If you can't even acknowledge (and actively avoid) the nature of your favored legislative program, you implicitly admit that it is corrupt and wrong.

Cancer or any other disease that went into remission? Someone with an existing condition that wants a better rate or who switches jobs. How about someone who adopts a child who is ill? There are countless examples.

We have been redistributing wealth upward to the insurance companies, hospitals, pharmacies for decades. You can call it what ever you want. I call it a small step in the right direction. I would have rather had single payer like the Heritage Foundation came up with but this is the first step in what will hopefully provide birth to death health coverage for all US citizens.

 

[delldude]

Isn't that a nanny state?

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

I gotta' admit that the Teamsters (so far) are taking UPS's action to cut spousal benefits...'Lying-Down'.

With that said, it will be Interesting to SEE if the Railroads or Longshoremen 'put up with' that kind of CRAP.
I mean those containers filled in Boston...Must arrive in Seattle, so as NOT to miss that departing ship bound for Shanghi (SP?), or those Toyotas that are still onboard a Jap ship in Long Beach that are bound for Chicago.

But, then again, if you take our spousal coverage away, then it will COST MORE in hourly wage increases (over -and-above) , come next contract.

EVERYTHING has a Price. 'You can pay me now, or you can pay me later' !

(southwind, this is UNION TALK, ...so theres Nothing for YOU to see here...............MOVE ALONG) !

 

[delldude]

I gotta' admit that the Teamsters (so far) are taking UPS's action to cut spousal benefits...'Lying-Down'.

With that said, it will be Interesting to SEE if the Railroads or Longshoremen 'put up with' that kind of CRAP.
I mean those containers filled in Boston...Must arrive in Seattle, so as NOT to miss that departing ship bound for Shanghi (SP?), or those Toyotas that are still onboard a Jap ship in Long Beach that are bound for Chicago.

But, then again, if you take our spousal coverage away, then it will COST MORE in hourly wage increases (over -and-above) , come next contract.

EVERYTHING has a Price. 'You can pay me now, or you can pay me later' !

(southwind, this is UNION TALK, ...so theres Nothing for YOU to see here...............MOVE ALONG) !

Don't forget your pal Obama taxing your Cadillac HC benefit.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Cancer or any other disease that went into remission? Someone with an existing condition that wants a better rate or who switches jobs. How about someone who adopts a child who is ill? There are countless examples.

We have been redistributing wealth upward to the insurance companies, hospitals, pharmacies for decades. You can call it what ever you want. I call it a small step in the right direction. I would have rather had single payer like the Heritage Foundation came up with but this is the first step in what will hopefully provide birth to death health coverage for all US citizens.

Guess you don't understand the unintended consequences associated with the "individual" mandate. That's why your examples don't hold water.

"You might be paying $100/mo. for your own employer-provided insurance, but you might also have to pay $1200/mo. to ensure your spouse and children. For the purposes of calculating the subsidy (if any), all that matters is whether your own personal employer-provided insurance is "affordable." Insurance for any dependents you might have doesn't figure in the calculation.

If your employee contribution is more than ~9% of your household income, you can get subsidies to buy on the exchange instead. The problem is the bill specifies "individual" plan, which leave out "family" plans. So if your employee contribution to your family plan is more than ~9% of your household income, you aren't eligible for subsidies."

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

I like the framing exhibited by the term "defund." As if a government program inherently starts with funding, and then Congress might take it away. Of course, they're not "defunding" it; they're just not funding it.

Actually the way the law was written, it is automatically funded unless taken out by an act of congress that makes "defunding" it law.

Even a government shutdown would not stop Obamacare due to the way it is written into appropriations. You can check the CRS or Heritage if you want to confirm that.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

As I understand it, the "glitch" is that if your employer covers you yourself at an "affordable" rate, but doesn't cover your spouse or children at all, you are deemed to have "affordable" coverage from your employer, and therefore aren't eligible for subsidies, even if the required insurance for your spouse and children might be anything but "affordable."

You might be paying $100/mo. for your own employer-provided insurance, but you might also have to pay $1200/mo. to ensure your spouse and children. For the purposes of calculating the subsidy (if any), all that matters is whether your own personal employer-provided insurance is "affordable." Insurance for any dependents you might have doesn't figure in the calculation.

If your employee contribution is more than ~9% of your household income, you can get subsidies to buy on the exchange instead. The problem is the bill specifies "individual" plan, which leave out "family" plans. So if your employee contribution to your family plan is more than ~9% of your household income, you aren't eligible for subsidies.

I don't think you have a complete understanding of the law as it is written and certainly not enough to proclaim that everyone will benefit from the bill or that it will be "popular". There will be large numbers of people who could not afford insurance to begin with but now are being fined for not having insurance they can't afford, exchange or no exchange.

Maybe instead of trying to kill the elephant with a sore toe, they could just focus on healing what ails it?

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Maybe instead of trying to kill the elephant with a sore toe, they could just focus on healing what ails it?

They tried. It tripled the cost to implement the bill.

 

[delldude]

Maybe instead of trying to kill the elephant with a sore toe, they could just focus on healing what ails it?

Fix it? They can't even get it running.

Gonna be lots of fix it once America gets it stuck in their butt.

Be the new campaign mantra for the next two cycles.

You come across like this is a good thing.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Fix it? They can't even get it running.

Gonna be lots of fix it once America gets it stuck in their butt.

Be the new campaign mantra for the next two cycles.

You come across like this is a good thing.

I guess there is a certain undisclosed level of popularity the ACA must reach before members of Congress and the Obama family sign up. Don't hold your breath.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

There are many pieces of government initiative, laws, programs, policies, that require amending after initial implementation.

Can you think of one major piece of legislation passed that has never been amended?

Of course you could say we should have thrown out the constitution since it was flawed from the start. Instead, they amended it...many times.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

I guess there is a certain undisclosed level of popularity the ACA must reach before members of Congress and the Obama family sign up. Don't hold your breath.

The FEHB Program (that Congress is part of) is already on an exchange with the employer making a contribution and the employee choosing what level of plan, and what company they want to go with.

 

[Ms Tree]

Guess you don't understand the unintended consequences associated with the "individual" mandate. That's why your examples don't hold water.

"You might be paying $100/mo. for your own employer-provided insurance, but you might also have to pay $1200/mo. to ensure your spouse and children. For the purposes of calculating the subsidy (if any), all that matters is whether your own personal employer-provided insurance is "affordable." Insurance for any dependents you might have doesn't figure in the calculation.

If your employee contribution is more than ~9% of your household income, you can get subsidies to buy on the exchange instead. The problem is the bill specifies "individual" plan, which leave out "family" plans. So if your employee contribution to your family plan is more than ~9% of your household income, you aren't eligible for subsidies."

I do not recall mentioning anything about the individual mandate. All I addressed was the pre-existing condition issue that you brought up and the fact that I would have preferred a single payer health plan that would eventually provide universal health care to all from birth to death with out having to worry about going bankrupt when a severe medical crisis develop.