Obamacare fee to offset costs of pre-existing conditions

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


true and thats always good but its the fact that you find it to be a reputable source of information and apparently frequent the site that is telling
the same way its telling when people frequently check msnbc for news (though in a different but equally disturbing way) anything good youll find elsewhere so there must be another reason to use that particular source no?

ok so lets not get to far off topic what are the additional costs associated with treating people who reach a point where it is absolutely necessary to maintain their life and who do not have insurance because they cant afford it due to preexisting conditions? and what is the additional cost for insurance coverage on an individual basis through a private insurer? is this lower than $63 a head or more?
edit on 11-12-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
so there must be another reason to use that particular source no?
Yep, great reason. It was #1 when I did a google search on the topic.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


What do you expect from a bill that was written by lobbying groups from the private insurance companies with their cronies the big pharma

We told you so, but as usual people still think that Obama is going to send them checks in the mail to cover the extra cost

That is what happen to Massachusetts, the insurance is forced into the people, no regulations on out of pocket expenses and hidden fees made impossible for working families to even use the darn insurance.

But hey everything is good, nothing to see here, Obama needs money for his monstrosity, big insurance wants their profits, and we all are going to pay one way or the other

Everybody else, welcome to the growing Medicaid lines



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 

I didn't expect anything else. This whole thing is just welfare for insurance companies. It needs to be repealed immediately.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by solidguy
 


We here in ATS dissected the darn bill to the ground, no only the taxes on everybody is going on, starting next year, but also the health care itself is not free, never was intended to be free and about anybody that makes a living will be forced to buy it, and when something is forced by law, guess what the crocks behind it will be dancing all the way to the bank while people will be left with no options.

Only those that wanted to be blind to what the so call deceiving Obamacare is all about are the ones now wondering what happen.

63 dollars fees seems like nothing by itself but add that to all the other expenses, taxes, out of pocket fees and the cost per family and you will be lucky to have anything left to buy food, as a working class poor



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


It bothers me, you know why? because we here in ATS took the time to dissect the darn thing, and it was not good and it was no pretty specially because the taxes involved were not explicit and neither the total cost per family at the end of the darn thing is fulling implemented.

But as usual people only want to hear or see what they want.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Unfortunately, the bulk of our citizenry are either dumbed down or distracted by other things. Either way, the republic is dead.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Is a reason why Obama wanted to force by mandate the individual states to come out with increases on Medicaid benefits, but that also would have mean more taxes at state level.

At least the Supreme court felt that when it comes to states, is for individual states to decide meaning that the state can or not enforce Obama care as by choice.

edit on 11-12-2012 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


the republic needs to die
we need a true democracy and not this partisan charade (not a viable option when it took months to send information from one end of the country to the other but theres no reason the populace shouldnt be informed and capable of making decisions in the world we live in now)
edit on 11-12-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sirhumperdink
 

Be serious. A democracy is the absolute worst form of government. Think about it logically for a moment. A democracy would never have freed the slaves. It never would have given women the right to vote. There are many bad points to a democracy.

From my point of view, there would be some good points to a democracy. No PC crap to deal with. No gay marriage, no abortion, no threat of islamofascism here in the USA.

Democracy is great while you hold the majority, for individuals and minorities; not so much.
edit on 11-12-2012 by DarthMuerte because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. It's a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers. Employee benefits lawyer Chantel Sheaks calls it a "sleeper issue" with significant financial consequences, particularly for large employers.


There you go. Everybody thought that this no pre-existing condition thing would be a freebie. There are no freebies liberals.


Nope, there are no freebies.

People with pre-existing conditions without good regular primary medical care end up in ER's, get charged huge amounts, can't pay the bill and stick it to local taxpayers. People with pre-existing conditions who progress can't be productive at work and they end up on unemployment and employer and government paid disability.

People with pre-existing conditions have a spike of health care costs when they can finally go on Medicare.

There are no freebies.


Just another reason for employers to cut fulltime positions and reduce staffing overall. When will liberals learn?


Indeed, the mistake was agreeing to a 30 hour per week cutoff. That was not a liberal idea. FICA and Social Security taxes are sliding. If an employer hires 30 hrs a week instead of 40, the employer and employee pay 3/4ths of the tax not zero. This is how it should be.


Everything has a cost. How many jobs will this cost? If they do not cut jobs over this, the employers will pass the cost along.


How old are you?

I would gladly lose that money from my paycheck (no freebies, remember!), if in return, I can be guaranteed that if I am laid off involuntarily at say age 55 and at age 54 I got a serious chronic condition, I can get a reasonable health plan until age 65.

Before this legislation, there was no voluntary way to make that choice. I would have done so from my first job.


I will not participate in this non-sense. I am "Going Galt".


It is the attitude of a child.
edit on 11-12-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by sirhumperdink
 

Be serious. A democracy is the absolute worst form of government. Think about it logically for a moment. A democracy would never have freed the slaves. It never would have given women the right to vote. There are many bad points to a democracy.

From my point of view, there would be some good points to a democracy. No PC crap to deal with. No gy marriage, no abortion, no threat of islamofascism here in the USA.

Democracy is great while you hold the majority, for individuals and minorities; not so much.

and how is this different than a republic except for the fact the people do not vote on the issues directly but rather a representative (who must appeal to them or lose office)?
ending slavery and women voting did have popular support thats how those laws were passed sure there were many who didnt support them and there were many in office who did not support them but they passed because you did have a majority in support
if you have some figures that prove otherwise i would like to see them
as it stands now you have people voting for someone and defending their actions simply because of the letter by their name if people were to vote on issues directly the results would be far more moderate as you dont have to cater to extremists to garner votes (in fact many people only hold a position because it is the position of the party and they want to belong)
real mob mentality is forming tight knit groups that collaborate to achieve an end regardless of what ideals they must personally compromise for the success
rebloodicans and democryps (and they cooperate to prevent rival gangs from forming while at the same time trying to rob each other of control)

so how is the great republic working out for those holding positions in the minority or the individual? i dont see too many people happy with the results do you?
edit on 11-12-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
I will not participate in this non-sense. I am "Going Galt".


Except...that in the book John Galt was symbolic of intelligence and prosperity. In this case the statistical reality is that average supporter of ObamaCare is more educated, has a higher net worth, is more likely to be employed, and has a higher IQ.

There goes that idea, huh? The "John Galt's" of the world largely want to increase taxes on the wealthy, provide universal healthcare, and to raise the debt ceiling as soon as possible.

By and large the people who DON'T want these things are either uneducated, no-talent spoiled brats who inherited their stations from mommy and daddy (such as the Koch brothers, Romney, Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, etc), or simply vote whichever way their religious leader instructs them to like a good sheep.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
I will not participate in this non-sense. I am "Going Galt".


Except...that in the book John Galt was symbolic of intelligence and prosperity. In this case the statistical reality is that average supporter of ObamaCare is more educated, has a higher net worth, is more likely to be employed, and has a higher IQ.

There goes that idea, huh? The "John Galt's" of the world largely want to increase taxes on the wealthy, provide universal healthcare, and to raise the debt ceiling as soon as possible.

By and large the people who DON'T want these things are either uneducated, no-talent spoiled brats who inherited their stations from mommy and daddy (such as the Koch brothers, Romney, Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, etc), or simply vote whichever way their religious leader instructs them to like a good sheep.



Source?

Or is this a "butt" quote?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
I will not participate in this non-sense. I am "Going Galt".


Except...that in the book John Galt was symbolic of intelligence and prosperity. In this case the statistical reality is that average supporter of ObamaCare is more educated, has a higher net worth, is more likely to be employed, and has a higher IQ.

There goes that idea, huh? The "John Galt's" of the world largely want to increase taxes on the wealthy, provide universal healthcare, and to raise the debt ceiling as soon as possible.

By and large the people who DON'T want these things are either uneducated, no-talent spoiled brats who inherited their stations from mommy and daddy (such as the Koch brothers, Romney, Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, etc), or simply vote whichever way their religious leader instructs them to like a good sheep.



Since you're obviously so much more intelligent and educated than Romney and Donald Trump then you should have no problem pledging the greater part of your millions to ObamaCare, eh?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by sirhumperdink
 

Be serious. A democracy is the absolute worst form of government. Think about it logically for a moment. A democracy would never have freed the slaves. It never would have given women the right to vote. There are many bad points to a democracy.

From my point of view, there would be some good points to a democracy. No PC crap to deal with. No gay marriage, no abortion, no threat of islamofascism here in the USA.

Democracy is great while you hold the majority, for individuals and minorities; not so much.
edit on 11-12-2012 by DarthMuerte because: (no reason given)


That's why we are SUPPOSED to have a democratically-inspired republican form of government. In the Roman Republic the "representatives" were NOT elected by the people. They were a privileged class of obscenely wealthy plutocrats and generals who largely inherited their stations in life and then simply bribed, extorted, and blackmailed their way up the ladder from there.

Traditionally America has had BOTH "democratic" and "republican" elements to it...that's what made it the "Great Experiment"...if it was JUST a republic there would have been nothing experimental or particularly innovative about it at all.

"pure" democracy is as backwards as a "pure" republic....but the problem CERTAINLY hasn't been that PEOPLE have too much power the last 30 years or so. SPECIAL INTERESTS have destroyed this country...not your uncle Bob's interests.
edit on 11-12-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cabalis

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
I will not participate in this non-sense. I am "Going Galt".


Except...that in the book John Galt was symbolic of intelligence and prosperity. In this case the statistical reality is that average supporter of ObamaCare is more educated, has a higher net worth, is more likely to be employed, and has a higher IQ.

There goes that idea, huh? The "John Galt's" of the world largely want to increase taxes on the wealthy, provide universal healthcare, and to raise the debt ceiling as soon as possible.

By and large the people who DON'T want these things are either uneducated, no-talent spoiled brats who inherited their stations from mommy and daddy (such as the Koch brothers, Romney, Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, etc), or simply vote whichever way their religious leader instructs them to like a good sheep.



Since you're obviously so much more intelligent and educated than Romney and Donald Trump then you should have no problem pledging the greater part of your millions to ObamaCare, eh?


Huh? Net worth is not a function of intelligence. That's the whole point...we are so far away from wealth being determined by merit that we can't even see it on the horizon.

Donald Trump has failed miserably at virtually every endeavor he has attempted...but he's STILL loaded beyond belief. And Romney? Seriously? When I think of the word "intelligent"...Romney doesn't come to mind.

...assuming we aren't setting the bar at Sarah Palin, that is.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by Cabalis

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
I will not participate in this non-sense. I am "Going Galt".


Except...that in the book John Galt was symbolic of intelligence and prosperity. In this case the statistical reality is that average supporter of ObamaCare is more educated, has a higher net worth, is more likely to be employed, and has a higher IQ.

There goes that idea, huh? The "John Galt's" of the world largely want to increase taxes on the wealthy, provide universal healthcare, and to raise the debt ceiling as soon as possible.

By and large the people who DON'T want these things are either uneducated, no-talent spoiled brats who inherited their stations from mommy and daddy (such as the Koch brothers, Romney, Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, etc), or simply vote whichever way their religious leader instructs them to like a good sheep.



Since you're obviously so much more intelligent and educated than Romney and Donald Trump then you should have no problem pledging the greater part of your millions to ObamaCare, eh?


Huh? Net worth is not a function of intelligence. That's the whole point...we are so far away from wealth being determined by merit that we can't even see it on the horizon.

Donald Trump has failed miserably at virtually every endeavor he has attempted...but he's STILL loaded beyond belief. And Romney? Seriously? When I think of the word "intelligent"...Romney doesn't come to mind.

...assuming we aren't setting the bar at Sarah Palin, that is.


You said it yourself. John Galt is symbolic of intelligence AND (a grammatical conjunction connecting the two words) prosperity. As for Trump, not every business endeavor is going to succeed. Well I'd gather that Romney is far more intelligent than you are considering he's done very well as a successful businessman.

Why don't we set the bar at Obama? Because he's done such a wonderful job so far.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


good thread, and good responses to the .......trolls...
just facts and no attacks..well done...
(end response)

and now....'i told you so!!!!' and everybody thought the great messiah was gunna give everybody 'free' health care.....ha !! the politicians didnt read the bills and why would the people do so? all this makes me wonder what else is hidden in the bill??!!? how long did it take this new hidden fee to amerge? what other hidden fees will emerge?

and as some posters have obviously missed the point....the govt lied!!! again!! egads people.....



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


the republic needs to die
we need a true democracy and not this partisan charade (not a viable option when it took months to send information from one end of the country to the other but theres no reason the populace shouldnt be informed and capable of making decisions in the world we live in now)
edit on 11-12-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)


You do realize that we haven't been a Republic in a while don't you? There are no minorities in a Republic, because everyone is an individual. In a Democrazy, yes I spelled it that way with intent, the minority gets screwed. Guess who the minority is?





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join