Nov 8, 2011 4:36 PM
Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, the state’s largest health insurer and one of the largest for small businesses, announced to health insurance brokers on Friday that it will eliminate most of its small group plans in the New York market effective April 1, 2012, and is slashing its financial incentives for brokers to sell those products—a move one industry insider has said would be “catastrophic” for the insurance marketplace.
In a statement, Empire, also the biggest insurer on the East End, said it will reduce the number of plans offered to small groups and will offer fewer PPO, HMO and EPO plans, but claimed it has no intention of withdrawing from the market—a point with which brokers disagree.
“The products that they’re withdrawing from the markets are the ones that were competitive.... more
In a statement, Empire, also the biggest insurer on the East End, said it will reduce the number of plans offered to small groups and will offer fewer PPO, HMO and EPO plans, but claimed it has no intention of withdrawing from the market—a point with which brokers disagree.
“The products that they’re withdrawing from the markets are the ones that were competitive.... more
Repeal Obamacare.
And now we are getting a less private and more government intervention, if the law survives. That is all. No big change, you will ...more see.
Lovely.
Patchogue Office:
31 Oak Street, Suite 20
Patchogue, NY 11772
(631) 289-6500
(631) 289-3181 (fax)
Southampton Office
137 Hampton Road
Southampton, NY 11968
(631) 259-8450
(631) 259-8451 (fax)
Washington Office:
306 Cannon H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3826
(202) 225-3143 (fax)
18% rate increases for an Oxford HSA program. I can't hire people because I can't sustain the insurance hit. Isn't Mr. Obama out there pushing a jobs bill? Perhaps he should spend a day outside of his ideological bubble and see how the real world works.
Maybe it's not the system, but the people who run it, and those who are abusive participating in it that are the problem?
As for the health care "problem" why don't you do like so many business are doing in your area... they have told employees that they will no longer carry health care and the employee must get their own from now on. That is happening all over the south and now reaching into the northeast.
ps
Insurance companies are horrible. Obamacare is new horrible. In the end it's all horrible.
A wingnut accepts a pile of garbage for another pile of garbage and defends it as progress.
the only real solution is to mandate ...more that all members of congress have the same health care and the same retirement benefits that the average American gets now, we keep allowing these elected representatives to treat themselves to a party with our tax money, Wake Up America before it is too late !
Double standard, your definition of a wingnut is right on - you have described yourself perfectly! You should be commended for your willingness to honestly define yourself.
Protecting Health Companies? Hardly. Large scale overhaul is what is needed… not more government intervention. Bush era give away to these ...more criminals - Translation, prescription drug entitlement for seniors (I guess some entitlements are ok for the left, others, not so much). Obamacare has done alot of good you say with 26 year olds now covered - say what? Who pays for it? Companies no longer drop people the way they used to do. You are correct Golden! Now they do it a different way by dropping coverage entirely. What did Obamacare solve? Nothing! WE TOLD YOU SO!
It wasn't Obama's decision to consider dropping coverage to the East End;it was a business dcision by the healthcare carrier because they couldn't make a profit.
But naturally the usual suspects line up all their sheep to chime in.
My wife and I pay roughly $1950/month for one of these plans that are not sustainable for Blue cross to continue.
How does that make sense? $23,400 for health insurance that the insurance company says isn't making enough money on. And we pay a decent amount out of pocket throughout the year
Does this make any sense to anyone? How out of whack have are health care costs become?
This was well underway before Obamacare came along, so please ...more don't give me that crap.
Why isn't there medicare available for everyone? Can anyone answer me that?
Those who didn't die off due to no healthcare.
The answer isn't eugenics for everyone,regardless of the republicn support for it.
several years ago I planned and payed cash ...more for my CLL (leukemia) treatment in Texas...I had insurance then but doing it myself was more effective and probably cheaper in the long run.
Paarl of Rhodesia
Your idea of healthcare is morally flawed.
I agree with C Law's statement above-we need Medicare for all which was taken off the table by Obama because the republicans want to kill it,just like any social safety net.
The biggest mistakes were the concessions made back in the 70's by Nixon who helped initiate ...more healthcare for profit.Tak the profit out of healthcare ad you'll see premiums drop since we won't be paying dividends to shareholders.
As for yowhat you said-" Why can't I purchase healthcare based on my needs?" you make the mistaken assumption that healthcare based on needs will b cheaper-it won't.It'll shift the cost onto those who can least afford it but need it most. won't take your bet because only a fool would bet on the future of healthcare costs given the right wings' propensity to make those in need suffer the most.Go bet someone esle who is that foolish.
Save your money and buy one.
Health care has become a privilege to those who can afford it, and that is simply unacceptable.
I believe an X-ray is about $30 these days. It only took 120 years to get it that cheap...
"Maybe it's not the system, but the people who run it, and those who are abusive participating in it that are the problem? "
+++
Absolutely. And the abuses run from insurance co's to doctors to lawyers and participants as well. How is that fixed? Who knows... maybe evolution. And I agree that healthcare should not be a for profit enterprise. I wonder how much of our insurance premiums go to actual care? I'd be willing to guess a very small amount.
My argument ...more here is not that we don't need healthcare reform, because we do. I simply do not believe Obamacare was a fix.
Some people ...more do abuse the system and some "caregivers" abuse it too.
And it makes me laugh too at all you folks that have some form of insurance now while you are young. Wait til you get to be over 70 and need help. Oh one more thing, my husband is 80 and just beginning to use health care although he has paid into all these 15 years. Any one who remembers him on the milk truck knows he is a healthy guy,never smoked and doesn't abuse adictive substances.
I do realize that ultimately we the taxpayer picks the cost up in the health care scene somehow. I do believe the Dr.s know the score and so inflate the charge; they know what they will get. Many Drs will not accept medicare patients. Many will not accept a medicare advantage patient.
It's all a game. But, I do not think Medicare is a joke. We all know we are going ...more to leave this earth sometime. I just hope I go like my female ancestors did one heart attack and its over.
We all pay into the system, as you say, but what we pay in is pennies compared to what we take out. I can pay in for a lifetime ...more but never cover what one person gets out of medicare in a years time.
You can't be serious. But sadly, you are. Obama and Democrats and none other than Tim Bishop rammed a crappy bill down the throats of America which raises costs and premiums. They are responsible. The "economic challenges facing small businesses" consists of higher health care costs for employees resulting from ...more Obamacare. Why do you think exemptions to Obamacare are being given? The reason for exemptions from the law are needed is that Obamacare forces all health insurance consumers to over-insure themselves and pay high premiums as a result. Without the waivers, companies would simply drop their health plans. In 2014 this will no longer be an option and companies will be dropping plans like hot cakes because it can no longer afford them. So while healthy 26 year olds now have health care, families who potentially have health issues will lose their coverage.
"If you like your plan you can keep it" LIAR!
Empire is structuring itself to be as lean and profitable as possible so that it bids from a position ...more of strength in merger negotiations with its mega-insurer colleagues (mutatis mutandis re current inhibitory laws.)
When that happens, the political universe will shift. Current corporate stars in overweening political influence will become peripheral players. Big Health will rule.
I'd be all for STATE plans where we all contribute to the insurance fund, all networks are the same, universal compensation for care (ie. flat fee x-rays / blood work), an end to the referral system. Doctor visits will have increased out of pocket expenses (ie. co-pay), everyone is protected against long term ...more care costs. Common illnesses are treated by PE's (the flu, a cold), blood work is done in-house and sent to labs. Etc, Etc...
In our case, if you are a legal NY state resident then you are covered under the NY State Insurance program.
Some ways to help pay for it are through employer contributions (dues), a slight increase in sales tax, higher co-pays, increased taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.
What I describe is social medicine (there, I said it) and unfortunately it is pie in the sky because it takes an overly complicated and bureaucratic system and simplifies down to addressing needs and reducing costs.
An overly simplistic view, I know. To accurately describe it would be impossible on a message baord. However, I think we need to take it apart right down to the core and just start over. As another poster mentioned (Mr. Z?) healthcare should not be a for profit enterprise. The premise of universal healthcare is not the problem, the approach is the problem.
We can fix this if we really want too.
What papers do you read? I mean besided this SH Press? Which has been Republican for over 80 years. I like the Press It's been my paper for almost 80 years.
Get used to it!
Must be a dozen or so.
I truely feel that if the adlepated right radical right wing wins in any of our debates we will be a lost country. What Alabama and Mississippi are doing to tear down women's rights is deplorable. Do you really want such uneducated people telling you what ...more to do?
As to Obamacare, if enacted it will guarantee our nation being relagated to the same status as some European, permanant endebtedness and chronic double digit unemployment.
We need the government out of the health care business, they are the source of most of the problems we aare suffering through at present, why in the world do you want to give up more control ...more of your life?
Actually you disgust me. You have no idea of a woman and her unborn baby. One only goes to that desparate measure when forced to either for medical reasons, probably beyond your comprehension, or reasons beyond her control. Like rape.. against our will. You must be like so many other uneducated folks who chose to follow Fox news. You like to be titlated by all that shouting and ranting ... leading ...more the masses to their death.
And I hate the fact that you have chosen to defame our precious resourse, Big Fresh Pond out in North Sea. I honestly do not know of any of my male friends from North Sea who would talk like you do.
If you look at the recent history of the right,it proves that their agenda is to remove rights and use big government to enforce their will-attacking women's rights,trying to limit collective bargaining,defining marriage according to their interpretation of love,deciding who should and shouldn't have healthcare,limiting voting rights-all attempts to limit ...more the rights of our citizens.
I'll take a crack at answering that... the left needs the votes. It's no different than why they are pro illegal alien, why they want to extend health care coverage to illegals, why there are overwhelming liberal support for policies such as free tuition handouts to illegals and why they support not providing photo ID or proof of citizenship at the voting polls. It embeds their allegiance to the Democratic ...more party.
The ...more right wants to skew the vote because they can't win an election fairly.
I like how you ignore facts that are uncomfortable to you ie. Solyndra, the actions of the ultra-inept Mr. Holder, the Obama admin's attack on state rights. The list goes on and on. Go on and keep your blind support and attacks on the right.
States' rights?Why do you think there are so many challenges to the redistricting plans of the deep south-because defending 'states rights' is just more right wig code talk for discriminating against minorities and women.It's the little black dress that the right wing puts on every time they want to defend their bigoted agenda.
Obamacare is a disaster and will be proven so in the not so distant future. Healthcare is still broken, it just has a new name. You applaud that. I find that funny.
You seem to hate puppetry from the right and yet you are a puppet for the left. Your hypocrisy is transparent and comical.
When America realizes that ...more Obamacare has done more harm than good I hope you will be man enough to admit to it so we can finally get around to really fixing things.
The blanket about covers it.
Hypocrisy is attacking one side and ignoring the faults and failures of another. Or perhaps that's blind faith. Maybe that's being a party puppet. Whatever... as long as the shoe fits.
Did you vote on Tuesday? If yes did you vote for a single republican? Do you already know who ...more you are voting for in 2012?
I bet you didn't and I bet you do.
It looks like you took the rest o your statements right out of John Deans book "Broken Government",where he describes how the republican congress operated under Bush.I doubt the dems did that,but I can cite the instances where the republicans did.
Remember this exchange between Romney and Gingrich from the debates?
"“ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.
GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.
GINGRICH: Wait ...more a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: And you never supported them?
GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?
GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.
ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?
ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.
GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.
ROMNEY: OK. "
Via Forbes-
"How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Invented the Individual Mandate
Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage’s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal “quality, affordable health care.”
As a junior publicist, we weren’t being paid for our personal opinions. But we are now, so you will be the first to know that when we worked at Heritage, we hated the Heritage plan, especially the individual mandate. “Universal health care” was neither already established nor inevitable, and we thought the foundation had made a serious philosophical and strategic error in accepting rather than disputing the left-liberal notion that the provision of “quality, affordable health care” to everyone was a proper role of government. As to the mandate, we remember reading about it and thinking: “I thought we were supposed to be for freedom.”
The plan was introduced in a 1989 book, “A National Health System for America” by Stuart Butler and Edmund Haislmaier. We seem to have mislaid our copy, and we couldn’t find it online, but we did track down a 1990 Backgrounder and a 1991 lecture by Butler that outline the plan. One of its two major planks, the equalization of tax treatment for individually purchased and employer-provided health insurance, seemed sensible and unobjectionable, at least in principle.
But the other was the mandate, described as a “Health Care Social Contract” and fleshed out in the lecture.
Stuart Butler’s lecture describes what the Heritage’s mandate would look like:
We would include a mandate in our proposal–not a mandate on employers, but a mandate on heads of households–to obtain at least a basic package of health insurance for themselves and their families. That would have to include, by federal law, a catastrophic provision in the form of a stop loss for a family’s total health outlays. It would have to include all members of the family, and it might also include certain very specific services, such as preventive care, well baby visits, and other items."
This came right from the heritage Foundation,when they hosted Mitt Romney to talk about his plan for Massachussetts-
"Location: The Heritage Foundation's Allison Auditorium
Governor Mitt Romney has been working with the Massachusetts Legislature to pass a comprehensive, market-based reform program for health care. This Plan creatively uses an 1115 Waiver to bring affordable private health insurance products to all uninsured residents of the Commonwealth. The cornerstone for this reform is a personal responsibility principle. The Plan establishes a health insurance exchange to enable individuals to purchase health insurance on a pre-tax basis. The Plan also focuses on restraining the growth in heath care costs by empowering consumers and making healthcare service and cost information more easily available. Please join us as Governor Romney reviews this transformative Massachusetts health care reform plan."
The Heritage Foundations own call for Healthcare reform,which recommended an individual mandate-
"Why Conservatives Need a National Health Care Plan
....
The second element in our proposal is a requirement on Americans to obtain at least a basic package of health care insurance for themselves and their dependents. You can appreciate that this is something which we as conservatives thought about long and hard.We are not exactly inclined to put legal requirements on people.
The reason we decided to include this is to protect society from citizens who would try to exploit the good nature of ordinary Americans. We are a decent, humane people. The fact is that if somebody with the means to do so does not protect himself with insurance against the huge costs of a med i cal calamity we still make sure that he or she is treated and the rest of us pick up the tab. So if this person chooses to spend money on a vacation instead of on insuring the health of their kids, and the child has a serious illness, we take the child in to a hospital and we treat him. If the family can't afford the cost, somebody else pays for it.
Thus, the insurance requirement is a protection for the rest of us against those who would exploit our good nature, forcing us to carry the risk that they should be responsible for as citizens in a society. So our mandate is not designed to micro-manage people's lives. It is designed to make sure that we, who do take responsibility for our lives, are not stuck with a tab for those who refuse to do so.
Taking all these elements together, the Heritage proposal clearly meets the criteria of a conservative approach to health cam reform.
First, the Heritage proposal captures the political initiative. Some other, more limited proposals conservatives have put forward do not do so-even if they may deal with one part o f the health care problem. The Heritage plan takes the initiative by dealing with all the major concerns expressed about the current system. It is universal, in that it covers everybody without access or protection today; it would bring costs under control; and it assures portability."
They even called it 'The Heritage Plan'
.
They were for an individul mandate before they were against it.
Other recent headlines: Since Obamacare’s Passage, Millions Have Lost Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance. Republicans also wanted universal health care in the Nixon era, but the Democrats killed it. They were different times. Perhaps back in 1974 universal health careit would have been a good thing. Today in 2011, for those interested in current events, not so much.
So in addition to costing about $2.5 trillion over its real first decade (2014 to 2023), looting nearly $1 trillion from Medicare over that time (according to the CBO), forcing Americans to buy government-approved health insurance under penalty of law, and amassing unprecedented power and money in Washington at the expense of Americans’ liberty — if Obamacare stays on the books, you may like your health care plan, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you can keep your health care plan.
Did or did not the heritage Foundation originate the idea of an individul mante,which was the basis of Romneycare which was then adopted for the ACA?
Was or was not the Heritage Foundation for a mandate bfore they were against it?
The individual mandate originated with the right and the republican party.I posted the info directly from the sources above.Spin all you want,the info is accurate and I proved my point.
Don't go hysterical trying to deny it.
You are muddying the waters - and rather clumsily. The question posed was whether The Heritage Foundation originated the concept of the individual mandate. Yes or No?
That the Affordable Care act didn't exist in 1980 is irrelevant, as is whether or not the Heritage Foundation supports its principles, as is the fact that the Heritage Foundation may have "changed its mind". The question remains: Did the Heritage Foundation first propose the individual mandate?
You ...more accuse the poster of being misleading when your entire reply is obfuscatory.
Stop tap dancing and answer the question. (I suggest that you begin thusly, "Yes, but. . . ")
Phil's original quote is "We need o rember that 'OBAMACARE' is the Heritage Foundations plan.It's a conservative ...more healthcare plan." With every Republican voting against Obamacare, Phil's quote is misleading and intended to salvage support for a disasterous bill passed by a Democratic Congress in 2009. Sorry, Democrats own it. Period.
P.S. Heritage is a think tank... they get paid to think, and other than information from a blog, I have yet to see any evidence that Heritage specifically supported the individual mandate back in the 80s. We know the Republicans supported it in 1974. But again, that's not what Phil referenced.
He was for personal responsibility before he was against it.
Answer once again, No! The individual mandate was around during the Nixon years, some ten years earlier than the 1980s. Get your facts straight fellas.
The question was did Romney base his plan on the Heritage Foundations plan which recommended the individual mandate thereby opening the door for the ACA to be designed around the same idea.
The individual mandate was a republican plan;make people take personal responsibility for their own insurance.
Are you against taking personal responsibility now?
The spin you're now putting on it (personal responsibility) is how Romney ...more also described his plan for Mass. The problem, it's not working-which is why he is probably against Obamacare. The uncompensated care problem has gone up drastically in Mass. Uncompensated care in the state's hospital system rose five percent between 2008 and 2009. The following year, it rose 15 percent. Mass. has already spent hundreds of millions expanding insurance coverage in hopes of solving the uncompensated care problem but the problem is still growing. Translate this to a national level, and it well bury us.
" I've never disputed the facts.."
But in his post at Nov 11, 11 11:43 AM
"Obamacare is a Heritage Plan, really?"
Really.Romney and Gingrich talked about it in the debate.See my post where I quoted the dialogue from the debate. Obama based his plan on Romneycare,which came from a plan proposed by the right wing Heritage foundation.
Cappie also said-
"Yes Heritage supported Romneycare."
But that was after he flip-flopped denying that Romneycare was from ...more a Heritage plan
"Phil, you’re just plain hysterical. You go from stating ""Obamacare" is the Heritage Foundations plan" to referencing something they supported in the 1980s "
Yes,once again the republicans flip-flopped to oppose an idea they came up with because it is now supported by a democrat.
"No, it is not accurate to say Obamacare is the Heritage Foundation Plan."
But it is because it is almost the same plan that Romney implemented in Massachussetts.
And that plan was based on the Heritage foundation plan that republicans now oppose because the dems have embraced it.
Cappie,you've been all over the place trying to confuse the issue;you first stated that there as no heritage Foundation plan,then that Romneycare wasn't based on it (despite the fact that Romney and Gingrich both said it was in a recent debate).
Are you against people aking personal responsibility for their own healthcare or not? Isn't personal responsibility a plank in the republican platform,an if so,why are republicans suddenly against it?
WRONG. It may contain (unproven?) principles supported by Heritage 30 years ago, but in 2011, it is NOT a conservative Heritage plan. And other than discussion in a debate, no evidence to support the Heritage support in the 1980s has been shown here. Until then, this aspect is also unproven.
Abortion is the murder of an unborn person, not a 'MEDICAL PROCEDURE".
And scientifically and medically describe exactly when life begins.I'm not talking about a zygote,I mean the awareness of self.
But we already suspect that you want to deny that right to them-since most of hem will vote democrat.
In case y'all don't know whenever anyone goes to the emergency room the hospital the dr's and nurse's duty is to care for the patient. They do not play favorites in the ER with the exception to the degree of injury.
So who pays... you and me through a variety of ways.
And do not bring up the illegal bit... I know of a local since ...more 1640, family living in Hampton Bays that do not have insurance because of the cost and they do have to go to emergency care. They also have two jobs but they are listed as part time so no insurance is offered to them. But on the other hand they vote Democrat.
He's got a real scorcher penned for the Thanksgiving issue of Rolling Stone.
All the Reaganites will absolutely LOVE the opening salvo...
By the way,which of the regular posters are you?It isn't like some of them haven't made up sockpuppets to attack me or any one else here before.
Did you even read the article? Some of the people who designed Reagan's policy are quoted in it. Even they say that the GOP are a bunch of obstinate, intrasigent, oligarchic morons of the nth degree.
Whatever you're smoking, I don't wany any...
Requiring a photo ID should be the law of the land, there is no RATIONAL reason not to.
The GOP isn't the party of the rich, it's the party ...more that stands up for the productive members of society as opposed to the Demokratz who are for giving away as much as possible in return for votes from the parasites of society.
Looks like we have someone here who would like to see a return to Jim Crow
P.S. You'll be happy to know that Heritage Foundation research has shown that requiring photo ID to register and vote has had no affect on voter turn out.
Requiring a voter id would qualify as a devie that suppresses the opportuniy to vote,as I stated before,because it places hardship on voters to meet extraordinary requirements that are beyond what most others arerequired to meet.Making registering and voting difficult is exactly why no chnges in voting law may take place before it is reviewed by either or both the AG or the SCOTUS.
But we'll just say ...more for the record that your for a return to Jim Crow
So translating that to their position on the individual mandate and support of Romneycare whcih you appear to embrace, Heritage must have been wrong in their support and unreliable in their position. I can live with that because Obamacare which was modeled after Romneycare will cause irreparable damage to the economy.
Source: Obamacare: A Budget-Busting, Job-Killing Health Care Law / A REPORT ON THE ECONOMIC AND FISCAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (PUBLIC LAW 111-148) & THE HEALTH CARE ...more AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT (PUBLIC LAW 111-152)
Independent analyses have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy: the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the law will reduce the “amount of labor used in the economy by … roughly half a percent...,” an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost.
A study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the nation‟s largest small business association, found that an employer mandate alone could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses.ii By comparison, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stated that “in its life,” the health care law would “create 4 million jobs – 400,000 jobs almost immediately.
According to an analysis by House Budget Committee Republicans, the health care law will cost the nation $2.6 trillion when fully implemented, and add $701 billion to the deficit in its first ten years.iv By comparison, President Obama stated during a joint session of Congress on September 9, 2009 that he would not sign health care reform that “adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future.”
The bill raises taxes by almost $500 billion over ten years. A significant portion of these tax increases will fall on small business owners, reducing capital and limiting economic growth and hiring.
Penalizes employers for failing to offer coverage deemed acceptable by the government;
An increase in the Medicare payroll tax included in the bill will affect small businesses employing millions of Americans. Over time, higher payroll taxes will decrease wages for these employees. And a new Medicare tax on investment income such as interest, dividends, and capital gains proposed by President Obama and likely included in the bill will threaten jobs and decrease economic growth.
The bill will impose a tax of $2,000 per employee on employers with more than 50 employees that do not provide health insurance. The bill will also tax employers that offer health coverage deemed „unaffordable‟ by the government. These new taxes on employers will reduce employment or be passed on to workers in the form of lower wages or reduced hours.”
Evidence indicates that the health care law is likely to affect low-wage workers more than other workers. By discouraging the hiring of new employees, the law is pushing employers and entrepreneurs to find new ways to save on costs.
CBO has specifically noted how the employer mandate will disproportionately affect low-wage workers: “Those penalties, whose amounts are based on the number of full-time workers in the firm, will, over time, generally be passed on to workers through reductions in wages or other forms of compensation. However, firms generally cannot reduce workers‟ wages below the minimum wage, which will probably cause some employers to respond by hiring fewer low-wage workers. Alternatively, because firms are penalized only if their full-time employees receive subsidies from exchanges, some firms may instead hire more part-time or seasonal employees
Imposes burdensome mandates on small businesses, including new paperwork requirements; and compounds the uncertainty employers and entrepreneurs are facing amid a challenging economic climate.
FCMcmann asked for factual data,not skewed BS from some wingnut site.
How, then, does the ACA magically convert $1 trillion in new spending ...more into painless deficit reduction? It's all about budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting, and implausible assumptions used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline.
For starters, that $1 trillion price is a low-ball estimate, covering only six – not ten – years of subsidies that don't begin until 2014. The uninsured were clearly less of a priority than the deception of making the law look less expensive than it really is over its first decade. Over ten years of full implementation, it's more like $2.3 trillion
Ronald Reagan wouyldn't survive todays republican primaries.
…the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out. In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion….
WSJ OCTOBER 18, 2011 ObamaCare Starts to Unravel
Now that one of ObamaCare's major new benefit programs has been scrapped, liberals are trying to make stone soup by claiming that the Obama Administration merely committed an act of "good government." They claim that when this long-term care insurance program proved to be unworkable, the Administration conceded as much, and now it's gone. So let's review the evidence, not least because it so perfectly illustrates the ...more recklessness that produced the Affordable Care Act.
When Democrats were pasting it together in 2009 and 2010, the immediate attraction of the program known by the acronym Class was that its finances could be gamed to create the illusion that a new entitlement would reduce the deficit. Ending the complicated Class budget gimmick erases the better part of ObamaCare's purported "savings," but it's also worth focusing on the program's long-run political goals.
For decades Democrats have been trying to put government on the hook for middle-class costs like home health services ($1,800 a month on average) and nursing homes ($70,000 to $80,000 per year). On paper, Class was supposed to be like normal insurance, funding benefits through premiums with no subsidy. But since the budget gimmick and the program's larger structure meant that premiums could never cover benefits, Democrats were trying to force a future Congress to prevent a Class bankruptcy using taxpayer dollars.
As the costs to the federal fisc continued to climb, the Democratic gambit was that Class would gradually morph into another part of Medicare. Insurance depends on younger, healthier people signing up to cross-subsidize the older and sicker, but under the Class program as written almost all of its enrollees would soon also be beneficiaries.
So to fix this "adverse selection," the plan was for Congress to eventually make participation mandatory, with the so-called premiums converted into another payroll tax and the benefits into another entitlement. Former White House budget director Peter Orszag has been writing that the long-term care insurance market can't function without a mandate, while HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius declined to rule one out at a Senate hearing in February. Now they tell us.
Just more proof that the right is willing to throw the poor and middle class under the bus to preserve the top 1% tax cuts.
The GOP
Guardians Of Privelege.They feel no responsibility to their fellow citzens.
Repeal Obamacare.
1. It will be rejected by the majority and voted to its death.
2. It will be accepted at the polls and the subsequent policies will destroy the economy. End result is it dies.
Obamacare will be repealed or it will fail.
Look at the results. Look at where we are going. Keep convincing yourself that it's worth supporting. Put Obamacare to a general election and it is history.
It's being shoved down our throats in one example by forcing employers to insure their workers, thereby forcing the employer to hire less workers due to cost. This continues the employment problem we face.
Get it?
They are PROFITING off of pain and suffering.
Other than that, not much.
Whose back do you have to dance on to bleed that much money from the people?
From AARP:
Q. We own a small business and can’t afford health insurance for our employees. Will health care reform make things even tougher by making us pay for their health coverage?
A. The law does not require businesses to provide ...more health insurance (although large companies can be assessed a penalty if they don’t). But if you offer coverage, as a small company, you can receive tax credits worth up to 35 percent of the cost of that insurance for tax years 2010 to 2013, and up to 25 percent for nonprofit organizations. In 2014, the credit rises to 50 percent, and 35 percent for nonprofits. More than 4 million businesses and nonprofits offer employee health coverage and are eligible for the tax credit.
Small businesses pay an average of 18 percent more than large companies for similar coverage. That’s because they don’t have as much purchasing power to negotiate lower rates, and one or two workers with high medical costs are not balanced out by a larger number of healthy employees. Once the law’s state-based insurance-purchasing exchanges begin operating in 2014, companies with 100 or fewer employees will be able to use their collective bargaining power to buy less-expensive coverage through this competitive marketplace.
To shop for the best coverage now, small businesses and individuals can use a new government website that provides comparative information about private insurance plans as well as details of the health care reform law that may affect them.
How it works
Companies qualify for the full 35 percent credit if they (1) pay for at least half of the cost of employee coverage, (2) pay average wages below $25,000 and (3) employ fewer than 10 full-time workers. The credit decreases as company size and average wage rise, until it is completely phased out for employers that have the equivalent of 25 full-time workers or more and that pay average wages of $50,000 a year or more.
Higher Premiums. Over the past decade, we have seen the insurance premiums double. Unfortunately, introducing an additional 30 million people into the insurance pool will result in much higher insurance premiums for the 80% of Americans that currently have health insurance. The average person could see a premium increase of 8-12% each year due to the healthcare reform bill.
Higher Taxes. Most businesses and high net worth individuals and families earning over ...more $250,000 per year will see their Medicare taxes increase in an effort to support some of the costs of this health care reform law. Apparently, one will be punished for being successful while most illegals without insurance continue to fill the emergency rooms as they find convenient. Medical device makers will face a new 2.9% excise tax.
Medicare Cuts. Seniors will see their benefits change dramatically. Congress is reducing Medicare benefits by $500 billion. This is particularly concerning for about 76 million baby boomers about to hit retirement over the next decade.
Individual Mandates. Beginning 2014, the U.S. government will require each individual to purchase basic health insurance or pay an income tax penalty. The people who do not carry health insurance will pay $695 as fines every year with the exception of some low-income individuals. Many states have filed lawsuits stating that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to require individuals to purchase insurance
Excise Tax on Cadillac Health Plans. Many large employers offer the so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans -- those with a value of $10,200 or more for an individual and $27,500 for a family. Beginning 2018, these employers will be forced to reduce these benefits as they will be charged a 40% excise tax for offering these plans. This will lead companies to reduce their insurance offerings to avoid these taxes.
Employer Mandates. Many employers are concerned as by 2014, employers are required to offer health plans to all employees who work more than 30 hours per week, or pay a $2,000 per employee penalty to the government. Many companies I work with have been telling me that they will not be able to afford this and may end up closing locations or laying-off people.
HSA Withdrawal Tax. For the past decade, Health Savings plan have gained popularity. Government has decided to increase the penalty from 10% to 20% for any withdrawals made for non-health expenses.
But thanks for pointing that out,it does fit with their policies of disenfranchising voters.
Just an added bonus.
You know what you posted. You are backpedaling now because it shows your true colors. Note that each of your subsequent posts added an end line that validated your kkk reference.
Oops.
But this is typical of the left-wing. If their arguement is not credible, let's just play the race card. A disgusting tactic that spits in the eye of minorties who actually ...more have to worry about racism. Isn't that actually racist in itself?
Are you going to defend Phil's kkk remark or not? Just say it. What's on your mind? Be clear and concise.
I'll go first - Phil likened the republican candidates to the kkk. He sort of backpedaled, but not really. Read his posts.
Now you go.
You do appear to be consumed by a perceved comparison of present day republicanism to conservative ideologies of the past.Maybe you need to examine what policies the past conservatives pursued as compared to ...more the present day conservative movement-limiting voting rights,isolating minorities,supporting corporate power and wealth,opposing social change,promoting speculation,opposing workers rights-are there any similarities? You tell us.
While you stew over it,the rest of us will be moving on to discuss
more progressive topics that relate to todays issues.
You seem angry.
It wasn't really an error was it?
And if you can't decipher my post, try putting in the commas where I forgot to do so in my haste to get on line.
Back in October, we coined the term ‘Plutonomy’ (The Global Investigator, Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances, October 14 2005). Our thesis is that the rich are the dominant drivers of demand in many economies around the world (the US, UK, Canada ...more and Australia). These economies have seen the rich take an increasing share of income and wealth over the last 20 years, to the extent that the rich now dominate income, wealth and spending in these countries. Asset booms, a rising profit share and favourable treatment by market-friendly governments have allowed the rich to prosper and become a greater share of the economy in the plutonomy countries. Also, new media dissemination technologies like internet downloading, cable and satellite TV, have disproportionately increased the audiences, and hence gains to “superstars” – think golf, soccer, and baseball players, music/TV and movie icons, fashion models, designers, celebrity chefs etc. These “content” providers, the tech whizzes who own the pipes and distribution, the lawyers and bankers who intermediate globalization and productivity, the CEOs who lead the charge in converting globalization and technology to increase the profit share of the economy at the expense of labor, all contribute to plutonomy. Indeed, David Gordon and Ian Dew-Becker of the NBER demonstrate that the top 10%, particularly the top 1% of the US – the plutonomists in our parlance – have benefited disproportionately from the recent productivity surge in the US."
~ Citibank "Plutonomy Revisited", 2006
Put that in your pipe, and smoke it. It's a clear, and concise display of their intent to profit at the "expense of labor", a.k.a. the general populace, no matter the cost.
You're a fool, and you have my pity whether you like it, or not.
Philathome - "They won't get it,5351.They rail against liberalism while their own party is collapsing around them.I'll admit that Obama is vulnerable,but he looks like teflon next to this klown karload of kandidates. "
Nobody is going to say anything about that, right? Question Obamacare and you are a racist, and idiot, and a the list goes on....
Yet ignore something so ridiculous as the post above. What a group.
“We should never demonize those who are successful. Nor should we pamper them with unnecessary welfare to create an appearance everyone is benefiting from federal programs.” the system has produced a “reverse Robin Hood style of wealth ...more distribution” because of “an intentional effort to get all Americans bought into a system where everyone appears to benefit.”
Who said this? Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Tim Bishop?
No. This rare bit of sanity came from Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. That's right, the Republican Senator from Oklahoma Mr. Tom Coburn.
What a ****** joke...
Talk about the pot, and the kettle folks!!!!
Cap'n, though I laud his fervor over Solyndra, the company most likely would not have failed if the Chinese didn't flood the market with a much cheaper alternative. I don't think anyone could have predicted that. Darrell Issa is one of the LAST men on Earth qualified to lecture ANYONE on personal, political, or ...more business ethics
And that thing about Solyndra MOST LIKELY (nice hedge) not failing if the Chinese didn't flood the market with a much cheaper alternative… that qualifies for the excuse of the day. Had the Obama administration not had such close ties to Solyndra, they may have taken an unbiased look at the merits of the loan and said, hmmm, maybe this isn’t such a good idea. It was doomed for failure from the get go, event he employees knew it. If it’s protectionism you’re looking for, that can have long-term consequences in the marketplace. And to say the Obama Administration didn’t see Chinese competition coming is an even bigger indictment of the Obama administration's incompetence than even I would have made. Hello, China… second biggest trading partner… Solyndra and Evergreen are classic cases of why government and private business shouldn’t mix. To see Obama’s link to Solyndra you need to look no further than Steve Spinner, Energy Department Advisor former fundraiser for President Barack Obama pushed for Solyndra to receive a half-billion federal loan. From the Huffington Post on 10/7/11, “emails show that Steve Spinner, a former Obama fundraiser who helped monitor a clean energy loan guarantee program, was more actively involved in a loan for Solyndra LLC than administration officials have acknowledged.”
There are plenty of "illegal contributions", or suspicions thereof to go around. When I said it's like the pot calling the kettle black, I meant it. Look at politicians like Chuck Schumer. Like all good "Janus" types, there's a public face, and the self serving face.
To say that the Federal Government can't ...more provide jobs, well, I've got a few examples for you:
1. Hoover Dam
2, Eisenhower Interstate System.
3. Cumberland Road
4. Erie Canal
5. Railroads
6. Sanitation, and sewage
The only problem that commonly occurs is greed when it comes to getting the project done. Cost overruns, kickbacks, corruption, the "whole nine". You get that in the private sector as well. When there is that much money "free flowing", it can bring out the worst in people. Shady account practices, like "off book accounting" ruin the best of intentions.
Non-patronage "watchdogs", who can't be bought most likely are the answer. Hopefully, they don't end up "disappeared". The position probably should qualify for "hazard pay"...
No one questioned him for no, of visits Since Feb, 2010 I have had a case of Fraud, which is still being "investigated". How does an obvious lie get "investigated?" Multiply his 2 visits , by no, of visits, by no of patients, ...more by no, of drs, who do this, all easily as a matter of habit, by fraud not being attended to, and Medicare would have no problem. Everyone is overlookiung the simple obvious.
Sharing your knowledge with the world, instead of exploiting it, it's resources, and it's people for personal gain, and profit. We are where we are in society today, because there are far too many people, who believe they are worth far too much. Narcissism has a VERY ugly side when pathological in nature.
For reference, Jonas Salk always has been one of my personal heroes.
Brokering society into poverty, and breaking the back of your "middle class", that's another.
Maybe you have failed to notice it, but there are a few MILLION people who used to have great jobs that paid high five figures, who now work for $12/hr. in retail. And it's not because they want to, it's because that's the opportunity available to them.
Not everyone is gifted with vision, or ambition, or the intelligence to be "successful". Some people ...more only have the capapbility to work 60+ hours a week for people like you assume yourself to be.
I guess we should condemn them to a life of poverty, because of it, eh?
Maybe, just maybe, he isn't afraid to walk through life with mama govt holding his hand. You know... America. Maybe he's an American.
The more you give, the more they take, the more they waste, the more you have to give.
NEXT...
We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, burdensome regulations on business and the looming implimentation of Obamacare. All of these problems have led to a loss of jobs and the unwillingness of employers to hire due to the uncertainty of what the costs ...more will be.
Razzzz, the average Joe makes this country run, wait let me rephrase that, the average WORKING Joe makes this country run. What benefits them benefits the country.
Define "corporat facism" will you? Corporations employ a lot of people and pay a pile in taxes, what's your problem with that?!
False: The Community Reinvestment Act had absolutely NOTHING to do with the housing bubble. Look to the unregulated derivatives market that pumped trillions into the market, driving up prices. Also, look to greed on the part of the banks who pocketed BILLIONS in fees for making sub-prime loans. There was PLENTY of incentive to push them through, with promises of later refinance. Also, factor in the LIARS who sold fixed rate loans, ...more and set up ARMs for the client instead. For reference, a derivative is a bet placed on a market to perform, or fail. Sort of like craps with extra levels of side bets (derivatives squared).
Urban legend #2: Obama is to blame for job losses.
False: The economy was tanked by a combination of an unregulated derivatives market, corporate welfare, a corporate "tax holiday", the GLBA, and the CFMA. Corporations were given a "gift" in 2004 to bring in offshore profits at 5%, then pocketed the money, and CREATED NO JOBS. The GLBA allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to not only consolidate, but also legalized Citigroup ex post facto. Such consolodation was not only illegal for over sixty years, it was illegal for good reason. It led a sharing of information inside the institution which may as well be insider trading.
Urban legend #3: We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
True, but False: It's true that we have the highest BASE corporate tax rate in the free world. HOWEVER, we also have the IRS tax code. By the time you factor in deductions, write-offs, government subsidies, and offshore stashing of profits (think Caymans) where applicable, the effective tax rates for corporations end up below 20%, if they pay any taxes at all.
In summation, though it may be true that corporations "employ alot of people", the largest corporate employers in the U.S. are the retail industry. That's right RETAIL. The average retail worker's salary is between $9 and $12 dollars an hour. That $12/hr. is only if you are a Department Lead (Dept. manager) in the store. That translates to about 20K a year. Corporations also engage in a despicable practice of "dead peasant's insurance" and in the past have turned a hefty profit on someone they paid less than 20k per year. This practice was done clandestinely, especially before 2006, and named the corporation as the sole beneficiary in the event of an employees death.
Corporate Fascism is pretty easy to define. As soon as you walk through the door in their employ, you lose your First Amendment rights under the terms of your employment.
Sorry bf, but you really don't have a broad, well informed view of this world, AND I SERIOUSLY DOUBT you have EVER worked for a major corporation in your life. Even if you did, you obviously learned nothing of it's operation, and infrastructure.
Everything you've spouted sounds parroted from the mouths of people who are full of S**T, and hold this country hostage for profit with their rhetoric.
"Democracy Incorporated", the "History of Greed", "The Great American Stick-up", "All the Devils are Here", "Third World America", "Tomatoland", and yes, even "Griftopia".
You can also check out "The Great Derangement".
You see, dollars, and cents are simply additive. Basic math. Money comes, money goes. They turned it into calculus, then broke the bank.
We should all go out to lunch and argue over ...more who's going to pick up the check. Who do you think will offer and who do you think will expect you to offer?
Unfortunately, there is more gray than is realized.
For that matter, who looks the most like Mr. Pink?
And most of all if someone puts a shiny "New and improved" sticker on something like, uh, healthcare, it doesn't mean I have to believe that it is new and improved. It just means that there is a new sticker on it. Is that too black and white for ya?
There are pros, and cons throughout the package. The cons mostly being about providers actually providing care that costs them money, and most likely would save a life.
Maybe someday, should you have a disability, an illness that is potentially ...more terminal, and you can't get the care you pay premiums for, your tune may differ.
I put in my standard 65+ hour weeks no matter the season, be it on the road, on the linoleum, or in front of the keyboard. I'm like the "Shell answer man" at my retail job. Some of my friends even call me "The Professor". Well, that and "Hellboy".
Somehow it's just never enough, because it seems like someone else's ambition is used to take more from society than I am in a position to. Problem is, my ethics outweigh my ambition. My ambition is geared toward acquiring knowledge, not material wealth.
But, I will say that it would be nice if other's greed driven ambition didn't rob from the rest of us the chance to simply have security.
As to your question regarding how it can help your small business, I have no doubt ...more you will dispute or outright deny every single fact pointed out to you, but you asked for it:
Benefits For Small Businesses In The Affordable Care Act
March 23rd marks the one-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act being signed into law, bringing with it many new benefits for small businesses. In particular, the law provides tax credits to make it more affordable for small businesses to provide health coverage to their employees while still allowing them the flexibility they need to compete in the economy. It also gives small businesses the choice and freedom to come together to leverage their purchasing power. Additionally, provisions in the law prevent health insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions, which helps prevent job lock and encourages entrepreneurship. These benefits give small businesses the level playing field they need to compete.
The Affordable Care Act Lowers Costs For Small Businesses
The Affordable Care Act Provides Tax Credits For Small Employers To Use To Purchase Health Insurance For Workers. According to the Small Business Majority: "In the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Congress and the President recognized that small businesses, particularly those with 10 or fewer workers, struggle to provide health insurance for their workers, and that some cannot afford to provide it at all. Legislators therefore included many provisions in the law to help small employers and their workers obtain high-quality, affordable coverage. One of these important provisions is a program to provide tax credits that small employers can use toward the purchase of health insurance for their workers." [Small Business Majority, July 2010]
Tax Credits Work On A Sliding Scale Up To 50 Percent Of Employer's Cost In 2014. According to the Small Business Majority: "Small employers (those with up to 25 workers) who offer coverage can receive a tax credit for up to 35 percent (or 25 percent for nonprofits) of the average cost of a small group plan in their state, starting in the 2010 tax year. To qualify for tax credits, businesses must cover at least 50 percent of each employee's health insurance premiums. Small employers are eligible for the tax credit even if they already receive assistance from their state to help them buy coverage for their workers. In 2014, once the state health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals are up and running, small employers will be eligible for tax credits of up to 50 percent (or 35 percent for nonprofits) of the costs of covering their workers through the exchanges." [Small Business Majority, July 2010]
More Than 4 Million Small Businesses Are Eligible To Receive Tax Credits. According to the Small Business Majority: "More than 4 million (4,015,300) small businesses will be eligible to receive a tax credit for the purchase of employee health insurance in 2010. That's 83.7 percent of all small businesses in the country." [Small Business Majority, July 2010, footnote removed for clarity]
Over 1 Million Small Businesses Will Be Eligible To Receive The Maximum Tax Credit. According to the Small Business Majority: "Approximately 1,198,700 American small businesses will be eligible to receive the maximum tax credit in 2010." [Small Business Majority, July 2010]
In Addition To Full-Time Workers, Part-Time Employees Benefit From Small Business Tax Credits. According to the Small Business Majority: "The eligibility limits for employers with up to 25 workers include the hours of part-time employees, who will be counted as 'full-time equivalents.' For example, two half-time workers count as one full-time worker for the purpose of calculating tax credit eligibility. This means that part-time workers, who are more likely to be uninsured than their full-time counterparts, may finally be able to obtain job-based health insurance with the help of the small business tax credits." [Small Business Majority, July 2010, footnote removed for clarity]
In 11 States, Over 90 Percent Of Small Businesses Are Eligible To Receive A Tax Credit. According to the Small Business Majority: "In 11 states, more than 90 percent of small businesses will be eligible to receive a tax credit in 2010. These states are Arkansas (94.2 percent), Montana (94.0 percent), Nebraska (93.8 percent), South Dakota (93.6 percent), Mississippi (93.2 percent), Indiana (92.9 percent), North Dakota (91.9 percent), Missouri (91.8 percent), Iowa (90.8 percent), West Virginia (90.3 percent), and Maine (90.1 percent)." [Small Business Majority, July 2010]
96 Percent Of Small Businesses Are Exempt From Fines On Employers For Not Providing Health Insurance. According to PolitiFact.com: "Their research shows that the vast majority of businesses in the United States have fewer than 50 employees. In 2007, 5,814,584 firms had fewer than 50 employees, compared with a total just over 6,049,655 firms. In other words, 96 percent of U.S. small businesses are specifically exempted from fines on employers who don't insure their employees." [PolitiFact.com, 10/5/10]
The Affordable Care Act Increases Flexibility For Small Businesses
The Affordable Care Act Allows Small Businesses To Band Together To Purchase Health Insurance In Exchanges. According to the Center for American Progress: "Repeal would mean that small businesses ... would lose the ability to purchase health insurance through the reform law's 'insurance exchange' that will allow them to choose among a variety of plans that provide better coverage at lower costs than those in the current small group market." [Center for American Progress, 7/23/10]
Health Insurance Exchanges Help Small Businesses Provide Coverage. From the Small Business Majority: "A health insurance exchange will create a pool of small businesses with up to 100 employees and the self-employed to leverage purchasing power. An exchange will enable insurers to offer lower premiums as a result of lower administrative costs and spreading risk across a larger population. Insurers will have to offer standardized benefits packages within the exchange, so competition will be based on price and quality, not benefit design. The larger pool will also dampen the annual volatility of premiums. Combined with insurance reform, the exchange will offer small business owners and the self-employed access to stable, affordable coverage year after year." [Small Business Majority, 8/12/10]
The Affordable Care Act Helps Promote Entrepreneurship By Reducing Job Lock. The Washington Post's Ezra Klein wrote: "One of the theoretical problems with our health-care system is that it discourages entrepreneurship. We get health care at a subsidized rate, with no discrimination for preexisting conditions, from our employers. But if we leave our jobs, we lose that health care. And buying our own health care is expensive, and occasionally impossible: Plans sold to individuals cost $2,000 more than equivalent plans sold to businesses, the employer subsidy (and the tax break underpinning it) vanish, and we can be turned away because of back pain that got resolved a decade ago. So a lot of people decide to stick with their employer and forgo starting that business. It's the responsible thing to do, particularly if you have a family. ... The Affordable Care Act will help solve this problem." [Washington Post, 2/25/11]
The Affordable Care Act Prohibits Insurers From Denying Coverage To Individuals With Pre-existing Conditions. From the Center for American Progress: "Job lock arises when people, especially those with pre-existing conditions, are fearful of changing jobs and losing their health insurance coverage. The new law prohibits insurers from excluding individuals with pre-existing conditions from coverage, from refusing to cover specific health problems, or from charging these individuals more for insurance. These changes will enable individuals and families to purchase health coverage at an affordable rate, likely bringing the new rate of job lock close to zero." [Center for American Progress, 7/23/10]
Businesses With Up To 100 Workers Can Purchase Insurance Through The State-Based Health Insurance Exchanges. According to AARP: "Starting in 2014, businesses with up to 100 workers may be able to buy health insurance for their employees through state-based purchasing pools called exchanges. The exchanges will offer a range of health plans, all of which must include standard benefits, such as medical, mental health, prescription drug and rehabilitation services." [AARP, June 2010]
The official explanation on the plan literature as to why my health plan increased $755 this year includes an increase in medical costs charged ...more by providers — hospitals, doctors and pharmaceuticals — COST-SHIFTING BY THE GOVERNMENT, taxes, unhealthy lifestyles and adverse selection.
Looking at these statistics something if far more wrong with health care than Obamacare could ever address and doesn't even touch on.
4.4% – Profit Margin of the U.S. health insurance industry. (Yahoo! Finance) (yet costs and premiums continue to rise)
#86 — Rank of the industry’s profit margins among all industries. (Yahoo! Finance)
2 — Number of days of U.S. health care you could pay for if you confiscated the entire 2009 profit of the health insurance industry. (The Wall Street Journal)
47% — Federal, state and local governments’ share of all health care expenditures in the United States in 2008. (CMS, National Health Expenditures, 2008) (and yet costs and premiums continue to rise)
They tell you it's 4.4%, but they don't tell you 4.4% of HOW MUCH.
How about a real number?
Maybe you should go to Factcheck,politifact or on of the other non-partisan fact checking sites and you'll find that the overall cost of healthcare rose because of actual costs;the rise caused by the ACA is right in line with what the CBO predicted.
But don't let facts stand in the way of your RW propaganda.
Obamacare is so great, last year, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, spearheaded efforts to have all Americans included in the plan, but he ran into heavy opposition from unions representing federal workers - the same unions that were pro-Obamacare stalwarts. In September, the Senate approved a scaled-down amendment that covered members of Congress and their staff. When this provision later emerged from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office, the leadership and committee staff loophole had appeared. A move in December by Mr. Grassley and Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, to close this loophole and to extend the law to senior members of the executive branch - including the president, vice president and Cabinet members - was blocked by Senate Democratic leaders.
As usual,you cite the republicans who have obstructed everything that would support the middleclass,working people and the poor-the people who they want to ber the brunt of sacrifice while the republicans give the rich and corporations a free pass.
It's the right that allows freeloading by the rich while attacking everything that helps working people.It's time for the freeloaders to pay up.
It's the left that enslaves generations of individuals by making them dependent on government, It's time once again for ...more individual liberty to reign supreme to empower all individuals. This is what freedom looks like.
I'm sure many recognise your self-serving attitude (except for the usual far right wing apologists) and agree that this is the very essence of today's protests-the far rights' ...more selfshness,lack of empathy and unwillingness to mae sacrifices for the good of the country.You make a great example of it.
Exactly!!!
Yet the radical liberal group is convinced that it will and that if you question it you are some kind of evil, corporate monster.
Since the comparison has been made, how many of these same angry libs here would defend Obamacare if it was penned by Romney? Yet, the knock on Romney is Romneycare. Healthcare has become a political debate, and that is just plain stupidity.
Think about it and maybe you will understand.
As for Healthcare,create a system like Canada's or the U.K.
I heard Japan has the best system currently,we shouild look at it and see how they do it.Everybody needs healthcare-everybody.The way it's opposed it makes it look like some beleive that ...more only the priveleged should have it;equality should dictate that everyone has it as a basic ecessity so health issues don't create a class of people dependent because of issues beyond their control.
BF wrote his own DNA! That's righ! He's designed himself to be invulnerable to the maladies all others can suffer. He's the superior, new evolution, alpha male! He only needs catastrophic care insurance because the only kind of risks he faces are if he should he fall off a cliff, or end up in a serious wreck! No incurable diseases, or disability for him!!
That probably was not funny. At all...