40
   

Congrats USA! Health care for all!! ??

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 07:04 am
@georgeob1,
That's funny george. You try to argue something on the same day that an Appeals court rules the opposite.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 08:43 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

That's funny george. You try to argue something on the same day that an Appeals court rules the opposite.


This is what I wrote;
"Federal Law trumps state law only if the Federal law itself derives from the enumerated powers provided to the Federal government by the constitution. The powers of the state governments, according to our constitution, are broader and more fundamental than those of the Federal government. With respect to Obamacare, there are indeed issues relating to the constitutionality of some aspects of this little read and grotesque legislation now before the courts.

In short the argument you are making is superficial and ignores valid issues now before the courts. "

It remains true. I believe it is clear that the issue of the requirement in the law to purchase insurance will make it to the Supreme Court. I believe recent USSC precedents suggest they will overturn that aspect of Obamacare.

Meanwhile theDemocrat manufactured illusion that obamacare will produce cost savings of any kind is itself crumbling before our eyes.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 08:50 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I believe recent USSC precedents suggest they will overturn that aspect of Obamacare.


Laughing

Quote:
Meanwhile theDemocrat manufactured illusion that obamacare will produce cost savings of any kind is itself crumbling before our eyes.


Double Laughing

You're just an assertion factory, aintcha? And we know better than to ask for specifics, unless it's some sort of specific derision you're handing out.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 08:52 am
@georgeob1,
All "Obama care" did was to try to cover everyone in the U.S. so that we all had access to medical care. The republicans and conserative democrats who were bought by these same medical companies made sure that the right of business to raise the rates on anything medical werent compromised by government. The law dose little to control costs.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 11:48 pm
Quote:
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- Nearly one of every 10 midsized or big employers expects to stop offering health coverage to workers after insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014 as part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, according to a survey by a major benefits consultant.

Towers Watson also found in its July survey that another one in five companies are unsure about what they will do after 2014. Another big benefits consultant, Mercer, found in a June survey of large and smaller employers that 8 percent are either "likely" or "very likely" to end health benefits after the exchanges start.

The surveys, which involved more than 1,200 companies, suggest that some businesses feel they will be better off dropping health insurance coverage once the exchanges start, even though they could face fines and tax headaches. The percentage of companies that are already saying they expect to do this surprised some experts, and if they follow through, it could start a trend that chips away at employer-sponsored health coverage, a long-standing pillar of the nation's health system.

"If one employer does it, others likely will follow," said Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute. "You would see this playing out over the course of years, not months.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Survey-Overhaul-may-push-apf-4875845.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=

OOPS!
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2011 05:40 am

All aspects of Obamacare need to be totally purged from US law.
eurocelticyankee
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2011 05:55 am
@H2O MAN,
You need to be purged from the internet!
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2011 02:35 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Nearly one of every 10 midsized or big employers expects to stop offering health coverage to workers after insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014 as part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, according to a survey by a major benefits consultant.


This is good news. It will improve competition within the insurance exchanges to offer better plan flexibility. Employees will be able to cherry pick among the various benefit plan configurations and pay for only what applies to their needs. They won't be stuck with one-size fits most plans the HR department and bean counters choose for them.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2011 02:53 pm
@Butrflynet,
I think it's great news. Health care should absolutely be decoupled from employment.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2011 02:57 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

I think it's great news. Health care should absolutely be decoupled from employment.
regardles, if Obamacare does not operate as advertised then trust in government will slip even more. Plus, I see no way that employers dropping healthcare does not result in taxpayers picking up the tab. Employers have long argued that they should not have to pay for healthcare, that this is the governments job, so any move away from employer plans is cause for concern given that the government is already massively overspending, and overspending for healthcare via medicaid and medicare....
JPB
 
  3  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2011 03:41 pm
@hawkeye10,
Taxpayers should pick up the tab. Each and every one of them. I think we will quickly acheive major health care reforms once everyone starts paying for their own insurance
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2011 03:44 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
Taxpayers should pick up the tab. Each and every one of them.
Have the american people agreed to this? I think we had enough of those in power lying to us to get what they want with the invasion of Iraq, so lets not move to government financed health care until and unless the citizens consent after an honest debate, MKay?
JPB
 
  3  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2011 03:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
I wasn't talking about government financed healthcare. I was talking about individual taxpayer financed healthcare. I think if folks had to pay the cost of their insuance/healthcare for a while we would very quickly settle on a single payer model. Whether that single payer became the government is a different question.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2011 04:03 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

I wasn't talking about government financed healthcare. I was talking about individual taxpayer financed healthcare. I think if folks had to pay the cost of their insuance/healthcare for a while we would very quickly settle on a single payer model. Whether that single payer became the government is a different question.
IDK about that, but we would certainly cut down on all the money the health care system wastes, as well as put pressure on all of the profiteering. The whacked out incentives in our healthcare system are a major reason why it costs so much and does such a poor job....
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 02:12 pm


Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It's in the health care bill and goes into effect in 2013.

Why 2013? Could it be to come to light AFTER the 2012 elections? So, this is "change you can believe in"?
Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax.

If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November and 2012 vote more important?

Oh, you weren't aware this was in the Obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren't alone.
There are more than a few members of Congress that aren't aware of it either.

http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 02:50 pm
@H2O MAN,
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/feb/01/3-8-percent-sales-tax-real-estate-health-care/

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-pantsonfire.gif

Quote:
It's an e-mail that's been popping up in our inbox again and again lately, with readers all asking the same question: "Can this possibly be true?"

The chain e-mail claims that real estate transactions will be taxed to pay for the new health care law supported by President Barack Obama and other Democrats.

"Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home etc. When did this happen? It's in the health care bill. Just thought you should know. ...

"The bulk of these new taxes don't kick in until 2013. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes."

The e-mail then urges you to click over to a blog entry from the Republicans in Congress from back in April that makes a similar argument.

We've seen and ruled on this e-mail before, but because it continues to bubble up, we thought it would be useful to reiterate our earlier ruling.

Both the chain e-mail and the blog post are deceptive, and here's why:


Click the link to read the rest.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 05:11 pm
@JPB,
I agree completely. Healthcare's true costs have been hidden from every person on employer coverage. Once we all know how much we pay, it will drive change.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 05:24 pm
@Butrflynet,
Now, how's that for finding a silver lining?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2011 05:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
Mindless consumption is another major reason.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Sep, 2011 06:59 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

I wasn't talking about government financed healthcare. I was talking about individual taxpayer financed healthcare. I think if folks had to pay the cost of their insuance/healthcare for a while we would very quickly settle on a single payer model. Whether that single payer became the government is a different question.


Who else might the "single payer" be?

Your logic is twisted.

If folks had to pay for 100% of their healthcare, they might very well reduce frivilous usage and they might long for a "single payer" to cover the cost for them, but once they had the latter, they would certainly give up on the former.

 

Related Topics

Cold vs. Allergy - Question by gollum
Health & Nursing - Question by inhomecaretx
Lets fight fat people! - Discussion by shewolfnm
here's hoping health care reform fails - Discussion by dyslexia
IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE - Discussion by Advocate
A NEW MODEST PROPOSAL - Discussion by Frank Apisa
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 04/24/2014 at 01:52:03