Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Rand Paul to introduce amendment to Obamacare, removing exemption for government employees.

page: 4
50
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


Yes.

Please post the details. All of them.

Now is the time.

Interesting theory.




posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   

kimish
I hope more politicians follow the Rand bandwagon.


you could call it.....a randwagon!


haha no I joke!

but seriously..the guy speaks sense
edit on 26-9-2013 by Silicis n Volvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 



I am truly lost by this line of thinking............
In your honest opinion they passed a 2000+ page bill that only says "if you don't have insurance, you will have to buy it or be fined"
Really?
I have read parts of it (probably more than anyone in congress).
If you want to know what's in it, don't listen to Nancy, actually read it. You may be in for a "surprise" though.
Quad


I'm speaking specifically to Rand saying that he wants federal employees to "sign up for Obamacare".

If you have read most of the legislation, you should know that this is a non-sense statement.

However, if you agree, please tell me exactly what he wants them to "sign up" for.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Octave
 


First off, Ben Swan is an idiot and full of crap. He has a target audience, conspiracy theorists, and he exploits them with his paranoid reporting. If Ben Swan was correct about anything, Ron Paul would be President and Obama would be impeached...but of course, we know both of those are not true.

Second, It's nice how Ben doesn't site which parts of the ACA says any of this. He says, with a straight face, that they will have EVERY BIT of your personal information...yet he doesn't say how they get it. I can tell you 100% that most hospitals are currently not set up to transfer any data to the government for the ACA...I know this for a fact and I am 100% confident about that.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
You guys are going to hate me for this but Obama-care reminds me of the mark of the beast

“He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.

Oct. 1, 2013, will mark an important compliance deadline

www.latimes.com...

nation.time.com...

There is not a word in any language to express where this forced insurance over health care will find us, this is only the tip of the iceberg.

This is a mater of life and death.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

AlienScience
reply to post by Octave
 


First off, Ben Swan is an idiot and full of crap. He has a target audience, conspiracy theorists, and he exploits them with his paranoid reporting. If Ben Swan was correct about anything, Ron Paul would be President and Obama would be impeached...but of course, we know both of those are not true.

Second, It's nice how Ben doesn't site which parts of the ACA says any of this. He says, with a straight face, that they will have EVERY BIT of your personal information...yet he doesn't say how they get it. I can tell you 100% that most hospitals are currently not set up to transfer any data to the government for the ACA...I know this for a fact and I am 100% confident about that.


The way you twist things gives me zero faith in your "100% confidence" with the pseudo facts you believe in.

Congratulations, you lost your own credibility.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I think part of the problem with the whole health care issue is the fact that hospitals have to treat people regardless of their ability to pay.
I lived in Vegas and one hospital there was bankrupt, laying off nurses and doctors yet spending 20 million dollars a year on kidney dialysis for people that could not and will not pay. recently was an article on illegal immigrants protesting, DEMANDING free organ transplants.

Hunger is a big issue in this country yet Denny's isn't required to feed the hungry regardless of ability to pay.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Hey everyone, as promised, please find the wording of the memo sent out to Federal Civilian Employees that must be endorsed by 30SEP13. Federal employees are NOT exempted from this Healthcare Act, but, since they already have insurance, don't have to buy more insurance.

I would think the Tea Partiers and conservatives would like this Act since it is requiring people to pay for their own health insurance instead of leeching off the workers.

Enjoy. If you have any questions or need further information, please let me know.


To: Federal Civilian Employees
Subj: NOTICE OF HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETPLACE COVERAGE OPTIONS
Ref: (a) The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148
(b) The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152
(c) Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Affordable Care Act, Section 18B
1. Reference (a) and (b), collectively, the Affordable Care Act, establishes the Health Insurance Marketplace under Section 1311(b).
2. In accordance with reference (c), all Coast Guard Federal civilian employees require notification of coverage options available through the Health Insurance Marketplace, please see the enclosed overview document for more information. It is important to note that the Health Insurance Marketplace does not affect the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHB).
3. If you are ineligible to enroll in the FEHB Program or if you are eligible to enroll in the FEHB Program but you are not enrolled due to affordability issues or concerns or if you are enrolled in the FEHB Program and have affordability issues or concerns, then you may wish to visit the Health Insurance Marketplace to review marketplace coverage options at www.healthcare.gov. Please be aware that there is no government or employer contribution to the premiums for Health Insurance Marketplace plans. Also, premiums are paid on an after-tax basis for Health Insurance Marketplace plans.
4. The Affordable Care Act establishes a minimum value standard of benefits for employer-sponsored health plans. All health plans in the FEHB Program are eligible employer-sponsored health plans. An employer-sponsored health plan meets the “minimum value standard” if the plan’s share of the total allowed benefit costs covered by the plan is no less than 60 percent of such costs. Therefore, the minimum value standard is 60% (actuarial value). The health coverage of all the plans in the FEHB Program meets the Affordable Care Act’s minimum value standard for the benefits that each FEHB plan provides.
5. As a comparison point, the actuarial value of most FEHB plans meets or exceeds the actuarial value of the Silver Plan in the Health Insurance Marketplace.
6. If you are a Federal employee who is eligible to enroll in the FEHB Program but you do not enroll or if you cancel your FEHB enrollment, you should be aware of the consequences of such actions including the following but not limited to:
 If you die, you will not have an FEHB Self and Family enrollment for your survivor to continue, even if they are eligible for a survivor annuity.
 If you retire, you will not have an FEHB enrollment to continue into retirement. Also, to be eligible to continue FEHB coverage after retirement, a retiring employee must be enrolled or covered under the FEHB Program for the five years of service immediately before retirement, or, if less than five years, for all service since the first opportunity to enroll. Employees can count their coverage under TRICARE toward meeting this
requirement. However, the employee must be enrolled in an FEHB health plan on the date of retirement to continue coverage.
7. For more information about your FEHB health insurance coverage, please visit www.opm.gov/insure or contact your Command Staff Advisor.
8. In accordance with reference (a), employees are required to acknowledge receipt of this notification by providing their immediate supervisor a signed copy of enclosure (2).
#
Enclosure (1): New Health Insurance Marketplace Coverage Options and Your Health Coverage
(2): Acknowledgement Memo to Management



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   


He's right government employees should be placed on Obamacare. If it's good enough for the American people then shouldn't it be good enough for those that represent the people?
reply to post by buster2010
 


You would think? I can't believe government employees can be exempt from ANY law that is passed. It sends a clear message to the American people that politicians and government employees are above the law! How can we expect them to work for us, when they can pick and choose what laws they want to follow.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


Government workers are NOT immune or exempt from Obamacare! People who already have health insurance are exempt from Obamacare because they already have insurance. Since Government workers have health insurance, they don't have to get insurance because they already have insurance.

This is about ensuring people have health insurance so that when they get sick they will have insurance to help pay for it. Otherwise, people who get sick go to the emergency room and get treatment for "free." The word FREE is in quotation marks because it isn't free, it causes health care costs to increase for the folks who have health insurance.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   

six67seven
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Rand said, "People want us to stand up and fight Obamacare, and we should."

Exactly, thank you Rand.

Our voices are about all we have at this point, be sure to exercise it!


Not me - I don't want Obamacare dismatled before it has a chance - in fact I want a public option.

All in for Socialized Healthcare (like the rest of the world).



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   

AlienScience

First off, Ben Swan is an idiot and full of crap. He has a target audience, conspiracy theorists, and he exploits them with his paranoid reporting. If Ben Swan was correct about anything, Ron Paul would be President and Obama would be impeached...but of course, we know both of those are not true.



Your attack on Ben Swann is childish.

And by association, you are attacking many here on ATS by your second claim, in a passive-aggressive manner.

You mince and mix words to get your agenda across, by logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks.

Not impressed.

edit on 26-9-2013 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

xuenchen
reply to post by Aazadan
 


Yes.

Please post the details. All of them.

Now is the time.

Interesting theory.



thinkprogress.org...

Here's one. These links are harder to find now than they were a couple years ago because of everything that has been written on both sides, this one was easier to find since the article was written this year. In this one it points out that Paul Ryan submitted a bill in 2009 with several of the exact same provisions as the ACA. And the high risk insurance pools were McCains idea during the 2008 election.

thinkprogress.org...

You can read a summary there. Sound familiar?



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


Thanks for those links.

Yes, the Republicans proposed alternatives to the Democrat plans.

It seems the similarities are there, but not the same end result.

The R plans seemed to address specific problems and the D's inflated the whole thing into the monstrosity we now see.

The R's had much less Federal level authority. Authority like what the PPACA gives to the IRS and HHS in actually writing (and changing) specific regulations.

Another big difference is the Health Savings Accounts. PPACA has eliminated that all together ( I think ?).

Perhaps the big-punch differences are the reasons all R's voted against the PPACA.

More comparisons later ......

So far, the Democrats still own PPACA 100%.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Here's more for you. From election time:
www.nytimes.com...

www.nytimes.com...

The entire thing is Republican ideas. They proposed them, Democrats put them into legislation, then the Republicans went against their own ideas. They wanted an issue, not a solution (well, they do want a solution but they want it to be wholly theirs for political value).

Don't be blinded by party politics. That's all the shouting is on both sides. Republicans needed an issue, Democrats want a victory on a major issue. Neither side actually cares about what's in it, and it's in their interests if the legislation is bad (that way they can get credit for fixing it later).

Actually cheering the Republicans for fighting against the ACA is simply rewarding them for what they did.

You wanted names, Paul Ryan and Newt Gingrich those are two Republicans whose ideas are all over the ACA.

Heritage Foundation 1989

There's the Heritage Foundation. They advocate individual mandates, exactly the same as the ACA does. They explicitly state they're against government funded systems like in the UK, and they're against business mandates where the company provides insurance for the individual. Infact the only thing they say will work is an individual mandate. Here's their bullet point list:
End the tax credits to employers providing health care. Instead give tax credits to citizens to purchase their own.
Mandate all households to maintain adequate insurance.
Subsidize high risk pools with tax dollars
Allow conversion of retirement and long term care funds into insurance policies.

Like I said, Republican ideas. Parties just like to flip flop on things.
edit on 26-9-2013 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Give just due! My man Mr. David Vitter, Louisiana wrote that.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   

AlienScience
reply to post by Octave
 


First off, Ben Swan is an idiot and full of crap. He has a target audience, conspiracy theorists, and he exploits them with his paranoid reporting. If Ben Swan was correct about anything, Ron Paul would be President and Obama would be impeached...but of course, we know both of those are not true.

Second, It's nice how Ben doesn't site which parts of the ACA says any of this. He says, with a straight face, that they will have EVERY BIT of your personal information...yet he doesn't say how they get it. I can tell you 100% that most hospitals are currently not set up to transfer any data to the government for the ACA...I know this for a fact and I am 100% confident about that.



First of all, Ben Swann is not an idiot nor is he full of crap. In fact he's a very intelligent, well educated, well articulated professional journalist.

You're absolutely right in that he does have a target audience. His audience consists of open minded, intelligent individuals who are fed up with the liberal left MSM spoon fed government sponsored propaganda bull# lies and garbage that they have been fed and they are ready for a change.

What is clear is that the one audience that does not like him is the narrow minded extreme liberal left, I have found that when I try to get my incredibly narrow minded extreme liberal left friends to watch any of his videos they either will not watch them or their reactions are exactly the same as your reaction.

Your behavior is bordering on hysterical, I would like for you to present your 100% proof please. Thank you.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 

Your health history is available to anyone in govt. as it is to insurance companies. If you honestly believe otherwise, than i have a bridge to sell you. The MIB ( Medical Information Bureau ) is a enterprise, like credit bureaus,... that collects all information concerning you're health care history and diagnoses. The information is supplied by your doctor(s) to be used by health care Ins.co.'s to determine if you are insurable.

They claim they only share that information according to law. However, request you're file and see if they cooperate.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Octave
 

Hold on here. Swann is as you say, however i smell a political rat in what he says and also your response.

First of all...

1: Of course the Govt. will require information on a individual to assess their eligibility to receive a govt.
subsidy. VA requires a annual means test for their services as well. So,...nothing new there.

2: He states there is no "opt out" when it's obvious the govt. only require you show proof of insurance. If you
satisfy that requirement nothing else is needed.

3: If you buy Ins. and for whatever reason refuse the subsidy, no other info is required.

4: If you are employed and you receive health benefits, again...nothing else is required.

5: When he discusses these "Navigators" he implies use all info is used to register you to vote. Personally i
think they may be required to "offer" the registration however i do not believe it's a requirement to
receive the subsidy.

Also, your response indicates the possibility that you don't like govt. agencies offering voting registration. If so, why? Is it possible that you, like many of my GOP friends, fear the underclass vote?

Now, lets not sh!t each other. I'm sure you are aware that the govt. has any and all info on you as Mr. Snowden implies. Like you, I don't like it either. I think the govt. is criminal in their activities. As far as i can figure, I see HHS covering the govt. ass in that if...you...commit fraud to gain the subsidy, this data-bank can be used against you whereas if using info they have through other channels could be barred in their effort to prosecute you for the crime. What say you?



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by dagann
 


I just wonder if you get the gov't subsidy cause you don't have insurance if the gov't can require you to get vaccinated and if you don't start threatening to take your children as a new means of coercion. I see this as just another step in the tyranny dance, and the gov't has no business telling me what to buy.





new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join