It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Would Refuse To Join ObamaCare The $64,000 question finally asked

page: 3
56
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I love it how when you present people with facts right from the horses mouth, instead of admitting they were wrong, they either just stop responding or totally ignore your statements and move on to something else.




posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
So it's been over an hour and i guess all the people screaming foul saying we can keep our private insurance must of all logged off for the day?


Nice work great research Manbehindthemask



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Excellent thread. Excellent discussion. It belongs on the front page of this site.

Obama is elite and won't touch this because he knows it's garbage.
He won't answer the 'yes or no' question because he's a typical politician.
No change. No hope. No unity. No transparency.
Just more of the same - Politicians screwing the American public.


No change. No hope. No unity. No transparency.
Just more of the same - Politicians screwing the American public

I don't agree with republicans or democrats but as long as I have been alive this has been a common theme.

Ask yourself "when is the last time a government decision has affected me directly and positively" I applied for food stamps once when I got laid off from my job. They approved me for $10 per month. What about the other 30 days? I feel like the health care reform could potentially turn out like that.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


No I have read that part, since that is what I am talking about. again I think you do not understand what it is saying.

Here is what this means, and this is fact btw. Now after explaining you still feel the same , then I agree to disagree =)

This has NOTHING to do with you and your choice of health plan. Here is where the misconception is:

This is for your Health Insurance provider not you. It says THEY cannot raise your rates, change your plan to not cover, etc IF they do these things, then they will have to meet or exceed the Governments plan. That's the grandfathered part. New applicants , will have to have a policy that meets or exceeds this plan of acceptable insurance coverage. NO WHERE does it say you as an individual cannot choose a health plan of your own. It just says Insurance providers need to provide a certain , Quality, coverage and cost.

So is it insurance regulation? yes. Is there an argument there... Sure is.

I personally think insurance should be regulated not to take advantage.
But thats is a matter of opinion.

Could it put certain companies out of buiness? Perhaps. and again another valid argument. But I think they will manage lol. My guess is they will work to get the costs they pay down.
it costs 12K for a 40 mile ambulance ride. The costs involved in health care is the real issue
IMHO



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


Had to go to the store read above..

=)



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
The company I work for has about 200 employees. My boss has already informed us that, given the opportunity, he will drop our current health insurance and thus force the employee to go on the public option or buy their own.

Any fine or extra taxes the government imposes will be recouped by cutting our end of the year bonus's. I got $15,000 for my bonus last year. I am sure that this is going to be drastically reduced.

Make no mistake about it, the employees will bear the brunt of this. They are going to be taxed by the gov't, get less in the way of pay raises & bonus's, see vacation time reduced or eliminated.

Like my uncle the plumber says, "Sh*t always rolls downhill".



[edit on 8/15/2009 by Sparky63]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Amazing there are so many people on these boards that apparently are willing to believe lies from greedy insurance companies lobbyists...

Guess it doesn't matter how many times you hear the facts: No one is forcing you to choose a public plan rather than a private one.

If you think a private insurance company care more about you than their profits or CEO bonuses feel free to keep it. You might regret it when you get sick though and doesn't get health care because of a pre-existing condition bull# bureaucratic reason..

If you're paranoid enough to think the democrats are pushing a public insurance plan to screw you over in some illogical way, keep your old insurance.

I am getting so tired of all this crap.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


Just FYI
Not that I do not see problems with this.. My question with the below is. What plans are in my area that would compare cost and quality wise to what my employer provided. Though Insurance companies will have to compete with Government health care to accept new enrolls, so the cost may be reduced to have private individual insurance.

Taken from the Myth and fact sheet

"Right now, there is nothing to stop your employer from dropping you from your current plan, but under the House bill employers who drop their workers’ coverage will be assessed an 8% fine. This means you are actually less likely to lose your employer-based insurance as a result of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, even if your employer did choose to drop your coverage and pay the 8% fine, you would be able to choose any of the plans available in your area and you would not be forced onto the government plan"



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ShiftTrio
 



Well, thanks for taking the time to offer your interpretation.

But the section does several things:

* Defines 'grandfathered health insurance'

and *then* defines and imposes

*Limits on new enrollments

and specifically disallows the insco from obtaining new enrollees. Thus, their customer base is limited to currently grandfathered individuals and their dependents.

The gov't has in mind a "Health Care Exchange" that is a handful of inscos that they will choose. This exchange is, in effect, your available choices for health insurance. I'm sure the criteria will be that they will be subject to meet the gov't plan.

At least that's how I read it.

We can agree to disagree.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


What I want to know is "what are the insurance companies getting out of this" ... it seems preposterous that their lobbyist would allow this to happen.. these institutions are among the oldest and wealthiest in the country! Surely they wouldn't roll over and die just because the Gov said so..

Maybe I am missing something?



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 

Fair enough my friend..

The bill will get passed and I imagine only then we can read through the leagleeze. But I am pretty sure its more about health insurance reform I have done a ton of research on this particular point and i have not seen where it says that . I just see them semi forcing insurance to lower the payments on new enrolls. They are not saying they cannot take new people, its just it have to conform to what the government is saying is acceptable policy in fact the grandfather clause was to keep the insurance companies in check. But give them a little something on the people they already screw over lol. IMHO

[edit on 15-8-2009 by ShiftTrio]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I don't know what's in it for the inscos. But to hear Obama talk, he says they love it because the public option will help to create efficiencies (because of economies of scale) that will result in lower overall costs, and the inscos will participate in these savings.

I'm kind of skeptical about that claim that the inscos love it. According to Obama, AARP was fully on board with the plan too, which turned out to be not true. And especially in light of the fact that Pelosi, speaking of the inscos, said their "glory days are over".



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
My boss and the the other presidents of the companies that make up our Corporation have already met and weighed the costs of the fine. They are positive that they will be better off financially paying the fine and dropping our employer based coverage. The cost of the fines will be made up in the ways I have already outlined.

Without my employer covering providing his share of the costs of our Humana plan, there would be no way I would be able to pay for a similar plan that would cover me and my family. That's the bottom line.

So what would my options be? I believe that given this set of circumstances the Government option will be the only reasonable offer.

After all, what new policy is going to cover pre-existing conditions and still be affordable?

Let's be practical. I don't know what the government plan will eventually morph into by the time this is all said and done. It might be comparable with what I already have.

The problem is that no one knows. And no one can authoritatively say that the opposers to this plan are wrong. I was raised & taught to never trust a politician and to hold on to my wallet whenever that say they are trying to help me.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


This fine, or penalty, is it a one-time shot?

And how much will it be? I've heard a figure of 8%, but 8% of what?

Btw, I think we'll see a lot of small companies following your lead in this. It's only business. They are not given much choice here.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
To me, The fact that recent polls that I have seen are showing that the majority of people are not for this particular reform, and even most of the garbage the white house is spewing out says many of these problems people have (with rationing and such) with the bill are already occurring in the current system. Why in hell should this thing pass? We're spending outrageous amounts of money on this thing, to give the government more power, institute a program that apparently "Occurs in the current system already", eliminate private insurers, and the Majority of the American People are AGAINST it. To quote a very wise wizard friend of mine named Gandalf, this bill "SHALL NOT PASS!!!".

And to the same effect, Why the hell do we need to reform the ENTIRE system? If it's about lowering the cost of health insurance, there are simple little changes that can be made at only the expense of the paper and ink it takes to write the bill on to do that. What about eliminating state regulations and requiring insurers to compete on a national level? Make it so you can buy your health insurance online just like your car insurance. Improvements that can be made at virtually no cost. (This is an idea that my brother who currently has a PhD in Economics presented to me.)



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


What I am then inclined to believe is that the Feds would resort to using a few mega corporations to actually facilitate the insurance to the people, and the Government subsidizes/pays them .. much like some states do with Anthem/Bluecross/shield. Which would mean lower insurance prices, higher taxes, but worse coverage for the dollar.

Otherwise I cannot imagine how some of these institutions are not up in arms over this plan. Of course, most other insurance including investment vehicles will not be effected .. and as far as I have found out, life insurance + annuities are the real profit winners.

Just smells of collaborated corruption..



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Sparky63
 


This fine, or penalty, is it a one-time shot?

And how much will it be? I've heard a figure of 8%, but 8% of what?

Btw, I think we'll see a lot of small companies following your lead in this. It's only business. They are not given much choice here.


The fine is an 8% tax on profit (annually) .. this isn't a one time fee, it's an actual income tax for the small business. The real winners will be folks who own LLC's as technically speaking, they are only taxed once.. they can probably find a loophole around the main income tax on individuals and simply pay the 8% tax and still get covered. Something I am trying to look into, though it's hard without there being an official bill being voted on.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Playing the devil's advocate, I wonder if -

insurance companies will cut their costs to make sure everyone has a slice. Pills for half price, and make sure 85% of the public and upward are taking at least one kind.

Zombie nation. Everyone on something, the public pretty well doped and asleep. Would work for the govt - they seem to like their citizens asleep and unaware - and the insurance co. makes out well by performing a service.

IMO, if it didn't work out to favor both, neither would be pushing so hard.

Who, benefits, how and why? That's the bottom line. It always is.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Sparky63
 


This fine, or penalty, is it a one-time shot?

And how much will it be? I've heard a figure of 8%, but 8% of what?

Btw, I think we'll see a lot of small companies following your lead in this. It's only business. They are not given much choice here.


Sure they have a choice, to do business as they have been .. So we don't pass the bill, and they go on with out dropping? Seems to me, the greed has said we can cut our bottom line now .. so screw everyone and we will make them pay for our 8%.. The problem is the company.. I mean it does not cost them more to keep it? this bill doesn't change that.

Though I will admit it is ironic, that we are arguing about choice, and they did make a choice. To screw their employees ugggh.

There should be something in the bill to prevent this type of thing. Perhaps fines for passing the dollar down to cover the fine. That's just disgusting. Because I am afraid one thing you can count on is greed.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by ShiftTrio]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 



What I am then inclined to believe is that the Feds would resort to using a few mega corporations to actually facilitate the insurance to the people, and the Government subsidizes/pays them .. much like some states do with Anthem/Bluecross/shield. Which would mean lower insurance prices, higher taxes, but worse coverage for the dollar.


And you would be correct. Obama refers to it as the "Health Insurance Exchange". It will be your "marketplace for health care options", according to him.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by jsobecky]



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join