Page 12 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2789101112131415161722 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 726
  1. #221  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Do you have any proof of this or is it just your speculation? In regards to McDonald's, they employ mostly part-time and pay minimum wage. How many other companies do know of that do that AND offer any kind of insurance? Pointing out the ONE company that does, and may cease to do so, is not an accurate reflection of the upcoming health bill. You are grasping at super-sized straws here...
    LOL....I like the "super-sized straws" reference....good one Anyway, yes, this issue is not resolved: Health care law may hamper limited insurance plans - Yahoo! News

    The HHS is not denying that something is up, and have said that Sebelius will "exercise her discretion" in enforcing a new health-law requirement. I guess this means if said companies donate enough to the democrats things can be worked out....wink, wink. This comes from a right wing website, but you can search for other links I'm sure: White House Pledges Flexibility on McDonald's Health Plan - WSJ.com

    By the way....I'm not upset at McDonald's and hope they can work this out to allow them to continue to provide these "mini" plans. I think it would be wrong, however, to allow some companies a waiver on this and not others.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  2. #222  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    By the way....I'm not upset at McDonald's and hope they can work this out to allow them to continue to provide these "mini" plans. I think it would be wrong, however, to allow some companies a waiver on this and not others.
    I don't know that I'd agree with that. If these 'mini' plan are actually operating as intended, giving an affordable coverage option to a transient population then an exception should be considered. The whole point of regulating insurance companies was to make sure they worked in the best interest of the people they are selling policies too. If these 'mini' plans were and still are doing this then that's one group that could be allowed to continue as-is for the time being.
  3. #223  
    I guess why I really don't like the bill is that it will be enforced by the IRS, it is a tax, and you will go to jail if you do not comply with it or associated fines. I guess I just don't like being told what to buy under duress / coercion.

    edit, this topic got me thinking and so i queried the great oracle named The Google. She showed me this: H.R.2629 - Coercion is Not Health Care Act
    endorsed by Ron Paul. I guess he feels the same way about it as I do.
    Last edited by konsole; 10/01/2010 at 12:01 PM.
  4.    #224  
    Quote Originally Posted by konsole View Post
    I guess why I really don't like the bill is that it will be enforced by the IRS, it is a tax, and you will go to jail if you do not comply with it or associated fines. I guess I just don't like being told what to buy under duress / coercion.

    edit, this topic got me thinking and so i queried the great oracle named The Google. She showed me this: H.R.2629 - Coercion is Not Health Care Act
    endorsed by Ron Paul. I guess he feels the same way about it as I do.
    Do you agree with everything the government now spends your tax money on?

    I agree, the ideal bill would not force anyone to "buy" anything, including employers. It should just have provided Medicare to everyone who wants it, and taxed everyone to help pay for it. In other words, a single payor system with options for those who want more care.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #225  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Do you agree with everything the government now spends your tax money on?

    I agree, the ideal bill would not force anyone to "buy" anything, including employers. It should just have provided Medicare to everyone who wants it, and taxed everyone to help pay for it. In other words, a single payor system with options for those who want more care.
    I'm confused (I know that you already knew that!). You don't want to force anyone to "buy" anything, but on the other hand you want to "tax" everyone to pay for a single payor system.

    Will someone please explain to me the difference between "forcing everyone to buy" a plan to cover healthcare, and "forcing everyone to pay a tax" to pay for a single plan that covers healthcare?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6.    #226  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I'm confused (I know that you already knew that!). You don't want to force anyone to "buy" anything, but on the other hand you want to "tax" everyone to pay for a single payor system.

    Will someone please explain to me the difference between "forcing everyone to buy" a plan to cover healthcare, and "forcing everyone to pay a tax" to pay for a single plan that covers healthcare?
    Do you consider the government to be forcing you to buy tanks and nuclear weapons? How about forcing you to pay money to support multiple wars? You are already being "forced to buy" health care for every eligible person in the country over the age of 65 or with a disability....right? I'm just talking about expanding that program. Of course, you're also being forced to buy health care for veterans and for Congress.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #227  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Do you consider the government to be forcing you to buy tanks and nuclear weapons? How about forcing you to pay money to support multiple wars? You are already being "forced to buy" health care for every eligible person in the country over the age of 65 or with a disability....right? I'm just talking about expanding that program. Of course, you're also being forced to buy health care for veterans and for Congress.
    No, I look at it totally 180 out from that view (surprise?). I consider that *I* force the government to buy tanks and weapons, as it's the role of government to maintain a military to protect us from attack or invasion.

    For the people, BY the people, remember? You can vote in your preference if you don't agree with said wars. Last election was partly about that, though he's backtracked on some of those promises. Remember gitmo?

    The since we have a government run military, we should have a government run healthcare doesn't follow. Where in the constitution or bill or rights does it say that the government shall control the healthcare you recieve (by forcing you to pay for it).

    PS) I noticed that you didn't answer my question.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. #228  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I'm confused (I know that you already knew that!). You don't want to force anyone to "buy" anything, but on the other hand you want to "tax" everyone to pay for a single payor system.

    Will someone please explain to me the difference between "forcing everyone to buy" a plan to cover healthcare, and "forcing everyone to pay a tax" to pay for a single plan that covers healthcare?
    They are exactly the same.

    unless someone thinks in the case of obamacare, the slight difference is that it's all being funded with borrowed money, so it's really being paid for by china.
  9.    #229  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    No, I look at it totally 180 out from that view (surprise?). I consider that *I* force the government to buy tanks and weapons, as it's the role of government to maintain a military to protect us from attack or invasion.

    For the people, BY the people, remember? You can vote in your preference if you don't agree with said wars. Last election was partly about that, though he's backtracked on some of those promises. Remember gitmo?

    The since we have a government run military, we should have a government run healthcare doesn't follow. Where in the constitution or bill or rights does it say that the government shall control the healthcare you recieve (by forcing you to pay for it).

    PS) I noticed that you didn't answer my question.
    Yep. And you can vote against the VA and Medicare as well, can't you? I notice you didn't include those things in your comments. Or Social Security, for that matter. Specifically, do you feel forced to pay Social Security and do you want it repealed? And Medicare? Are employers "forced" to buy health insurance for their employees? Should they be?

    The answer to your question is that a tax that "forces" everyone to participate in supporting the health care of the nation appears fairer to me than the current bill, and I consider doing nothing not a viable alternative. A single payor plan will free any corporation or business from having to pay for health care for their employees. It will not select out those young workers who don't have employee sponsored plans and mandate them to buy a specific plan, with profits going to the insurance companies. That is not an ideal plan; it's just better than no plan at all. But don't worry. We will get there.
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #230  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yep. And you can vote against the VA and Medicare as well, can't you? I notice you didn't include those things in your comments. Or Social Security, for that matter. Specifically, do you feel forced to pay Social Security and do you want it repealed?
    Social security was never intended to be what it became, and it's already doomed. Repealing it isn't a viable option, as it's on a crash trajectory.
    And Medicare? Are employers "forced" to buy health insurance for their employees? Should they be?
    Nope. It should be a benefit they offer, or don't. I can choose to work there, or somewhere else.

    I don't believe that healthcare should be a government supplied "right".
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. #231  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Do you agree with everything the government now spends your tax money on?

    I agree, the ideal bill would not force anyone to "buy" anything, including employers. It should just have provided Medicare to everyone who wants it, and taxed everyone to help pay for it. In other words, a single payor system with options for those who want more care.
    The states can mandate it.....I hate the government forcing anyone to buy a product. But, I see no way around this fact if we are to keep insurance companies involved.....to require them to cover the unhealthy, they must also get the healthy folks. In my opinion (and hopefully the Supreme Court's) the Fed Govt simply cannot require you to purchase a product...but...individual states can. As I've said before....this requirement helps the unhealthy person who can afford health insurance, but doesn't help the healthy person who simply can't afford it. Therefore, each state could form a fund, funded by something like a gas tax or sales tax to offer a way to subsidize those that can't afford coverage. A person making less than $25k, for example, might get a 90% subsidy....someone makeing $25k to $50k, maybe a 75% subsidy....and so on. A person making $200k would obviously not get any type of health care subsidy. I would have no problem paying an amount (5 or 8 cents per gallon?) at the gas pump to help people have coverage. In this manner....EVERYONE, except someone who doesn't drive....would be supporting the plan. The tough part would be keeping government hands off this money.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  12. #232  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Do you consider the government to be forcing you to buy tanks and nuclear weapons? How about forcing you to pay money to support multiple wars? You are already being "forced to buy" health care for every eligible person in the country over the age of 65 or with a disability....right? I'm just talking about expanding that program. Of course, you're also being forced to buy health care for veterans and for Congress.
    Psssssst.....it's in the Constitution....you know....to protect us? As for Veterans, I feel they have earned the right for us to protect them because they protected us. Congress' health care plan, take the darn thing away from them and let them get it through what should be their full time job. And while you're at it, would you please take away that mighty nice pension they voted for themselves?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  13.    #233  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Psssssst.....it's in the Constitution....you know....to protect us? As for Veterans, I feel they have earned the right for us to protect them because they protected us. Congress' health care plan, take the darn thing away from them and let them get it through what should be their full time job. And while you're at it, would you please take away that mighty nice pension they voted for themselves?
    So...let me get this straight. You are willing to go against your philosophy about providing free care in the case of veterans, because you think they have earned the right. But you also think they must be getting suboptimal care, because it's provided by the government. Do I have that right? Of course, I've posted numerous links that show they get excellent care and they are more satisfied with it than your customers are with their health care. But...it's the government so it must be bad. Please clear this up; I wouldn't want to get confused about what you really think.
  14.    #234  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    The states can mandate it.....I hate the government forcing anyone to buy a product. But, I see no way around this fact if we are to keep insurance companies involved.....to require them to cover the unhealthy, they must also get the healthy folks. In my opinion (and hopefully the Supreme Court's) the Fed Govt simply cannot require you to purchase a product...but...individual states can. As I've said before....this requirement helps the unhealthy person who can afford health insurance, but doesn't help the healthy person who simply can't afford it. Therefore, each state could form a fund, funded by something like a gas tax or sales tax to offer a way to subsidize those that can't afford coverage. A person making less than $25k, for example, might get a 90% subsidy....someone makeing $25k to $50k, maybe a 75% subsidy....and so on. A person making $200k would obviously not get any type of health care subsidy. I would have no problem paying an amount (5 or 8 cents per gallon?) at the gas pump to help people have coverage. In this manner....EVERYONE, except someone who doesn't drive....would be supporting the plan. The tough part would be keeping government hands off this money.
    Hey...you know what? The states have ALREADY done that, without the extra funding, just using taxes. It's called Medicaid. And you know that health care reform bill you hate? That's how it intends to provide care to the uninsured....by expanding Medicaid. The only difference is that the tax money goes to the state (not the feds or a private insurer) and the states determine Medicaid policy.

    So now do you think it makes sense?
  15. #235  
    I'm opposed b/c this crap of "u can keep your plan" is a lie. Well, not directly, but w/ all the rules & forced coverage will increase premiums. Then mama gov't will have low cost crap options, then ppl leave for the 'cheap' insurance (think wal-mart), then private insurance goes tango uniform.

    so, "u can keep your insurance" should be "u can keep ur insurance...but we'll offer a really low priced plan...and you'll come over to our control" Yes, control.

    oh, plus health care insurance is not a right. Quit keeping up w/ the Jonses & take care of YOURSELF!
  16. #236  
    tango uniform?
  17. #237  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    So...let me get this straight. You are willing to go against your philosophy about providing free care in the case of veterans, because you think they have earned the right. But you also think they must be getting suboptimal care, because it's provided by the government. Do I have that right? Of course, I've posted numerous links that show they get excellent care and they are more satisfied with it than your customers are with their health care. But...it's the government so it must be bad. Please clear this up; I wouldn't want to get confused about what you really think.
    2 things:

    1. It isn't free to veterans. They paid for it, and they paid a high price. Some paid with limbs or worse. It was earned, it is not free. That had to be said.

    2. I don't know if their care is better or worse, but wasn't their a major issue of quality that blew up at Walter Reed a few years ago? Just sayin.
  18.    #238  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    2 things:

    1. It isn't free to veterans. They paid for it, and they paid a high price. Some paid with limbs or worse. It was earned, it is not free. That had to be said.

    2. I don't know if their care is better or worse, but wasn't their a major issue of quality that blew up at Walter Reed a few years ago? Just sayin.

    1. Veterans indeed earned it. I never said they didn't.
    2. As such, they deserve the best in care, don't you think? For some reason I have to keep posting this link because people just don't pay attention because they don't want to believe that the government can be responsible for excellent, high-qualilty, cost-effective care. If you want to use one example years ago about poor quality care in an outpatient clinic in DC, there are many more examples in private care.

    How Veterans' Hospitals Became the Best in Health Care - TIME
  19. #239  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Hey...you know what? The states have ALREADY done that, without the extra funding, just using taxes. It's called Medicaid. And you know that health care reform bill you hate? That's how it intends to provide care to the uninsured....by expanding Medicaid. The only difference is that the tax money goes to the state (not the feds or a private insurer) and the states determine Medicaid policy.

    So now do you think it makes sense?
    I didn't say that the government should be running the healthcare plans, HUGE difference in what you advocate.....there would still be the insurance companies providing policies, it's just a reimbursement program that the government would be involved with. The states will know your income when you file your tax return, so they would already know what % you qualify for. The individuals would still be paying their premiums. If their employer pays 1/2 of their premium through group coverage, they would only get reimbursed for the portion that they actually pay. The healthcare bill will start requiring ERs to start reporting on employees W-2s the amount they pay towards healthcare in 2011, so that part is already underway. Why must you be so determined to have the government run even more of our lives? Why? Why? Why? Why are you so confident in the government running anything when they have proven time and time again that they can't do it efficiently?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  20. #240  
    still no explanation of what happened at walter reed...

Posting Permissions