What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

No public health care = no change

  • #61
The other real concern is that some companies will simply drop their private medical coverage for their employees, in the face of a cheaper government option; in which case, the notion of any real choice for many becomes a moot point.

Lastly, how is this going to ever be realistically funded, in an economy that is tanking?

The bill realizes your first concern and will enact laws to make what you mentioned illegal. If you like your current private insurance, you can't be forced to drop it.

As for funding, over 2/3 of the bill can be funded without out-of-pocket expense on our part. I forget the ins and outs of that, but I know it's at least 2/3. The rest, yes, will be coming out of our pocket. However, it's over a long period of time, and is about the same as what we've been spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jason
 
  • #62
The bill realizes your first concern and will enact laws to make what you mentioned illegal. If you like your current private insurance, you can't be forced to drop it.

As for funding, over 2/3 of the bill can be funded without out-of-pocket expense on our part. I forget the ins and outs of that, but I know it's at least 2/3. The rest, yes, will be coming out of our pocket. However, it's over a long period of time, and is about the same as what we've been spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jason

dude.....DC has been pushing us into the red farther and farther every year......there is no way it is not going to ALL come out of our pocket at some point.......even with all the current taxes they take in they cant run a balanced budget....you want to add the debt load of adding a state sponsered medical insurance? if DC was a private company they would have been bankrupt and out of business YEARS ago.......
 
  • #63
depends on what version gets passed.....at one point there was language in the bill stating that private insurance companies could not take on new clients.......in effect that would get rid of private insurance before long......

Anything you heard like that was false. Even the most liberal plans considered did not nix private healthcare. The ultimate goals of this bill are to A. make sure everyone has healthcare, and B. introduce competition back into the insurance companies. Obama would not sign a bill to cripple the private industry.

Jason

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

there is no way it is not going to ALL come out of our pocket at some point.......even with all the current taxes they take in they cant run a balanced budget....you want to add the debt load of adding a state sponsered medical insurance? if DC was a private company they would have been bankrupt and out of business YEARS ago.......

That 2/3 is money we're already spending. It's just going to be moved around. The last 1/3 is not a whole lot in the long run. The US can't grind to a halt every time there's a budget problem. If we reduce costs for those people with healthcare, that's more money pumped back into our economy. If we can reduce the obesity rate, that's more money pumped into our economy. This is a bill concerned with the long term stability of the country. We can't be afraid of it because we'll have to pay a little extra for a few years.

Jason
 
  • #64
The bill realizes your first concern and will enact laws to make what you mentioned illegal. If you like your current private insurance, you can't be forced to drop it.

As for funding, over 2/3 of the bill can be funded without out-of-pocket expense on our part. I forget the ins and outs of that, but I know it's at least 2/3. The rest, yes, will be coming out of our pocket. However, it's over a long period of time, and is about the same as what we've been spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jason


What makes you think for a moment that employers abide by that? Medical insurance is, by definition, part of a fringe benefits package and can be altered or withdrawn at any time. It is entirely the purview of private employers what they do and do not offer.

I've worked for companies in the past that, arbitrarily, decided to treat everyone as independent contractors; it was either that sudden option or unemployment. Insurances became too high and it became our responsibility to seek out our own benefits. Suck it up and do it.

The cost? Only what we've been spending in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, is that all?

Crap, I have nothing to worry about . . .
 
  • #65
Jason....im concerned about the long term stability of our country........show me where the screwballs in DC have cut spending at any point....every year the budget deficit gets bigger and bigger.......between the last few months of Bush and first few of Obama its grown damn near at an unheard of exponential rate.......they aint going to shuffle crap around....they will keep piling more and more on until the whole thing collapses.....
 
  • #66
The same people who complain about “big, bloated government” are the ones who oppose a public option based on the argument that the government health care insurance program would unfairly compete against private health care insurance companies. But I think it’s a fair fight to pit a “big, bloated government health care insurance program” against “slim, sleek, efficient private health care insurance companies.” In theory, at least, the private health care insurance companies would be able to make a profit equivalent to the “bloatedness” of government and still stay competitive.
 
  • #67
The cost? Only what we've been spending in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, is that all?

Crap, I have nothing to worry about . . .

Actually, I was mistaken. The total cost is the amount we're spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. 2/3 of that is already covered. Here's a video from yesterday that covers all the points you have brought up.

Skip to 55:30 and watch from there.
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AdrXh7wunMM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AdrXh7wunMM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Jason
 
  • #68
The same people who complain about “big, bloated government” are the ones who oppose a public option based on the argument that the government health care insurance program would unfairly compete against private health care insurance companies. But I think it’s a fair fight to pit a “big, bloated government health care insurance program” against “slim, sleek, efficient private health care insurance companies.” In theory, at least, the private health care insurance companies would be able to make a profit equivalent to the “bloatedness” of government and still stay competitive.

i dont want a big bloated government....they should have to run a balanced budget like my state government does........

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------

and i dont belive a damn thing Obama says:

note Petrobras reported a net income last year of $15.3 BILLION....why are we giving them a loan?

U.S. Loan to Brazilian Oil Company Riles Conservatives in Favor of Offshore Drilling
Some see a contradiction in an executive-branch agency facilitating abroad the very kind of energy exploration President Obama opposes domestically.

By James Rosen

FOXNews.com

President Obama has opposed any expanded oil drilling off American shores largely on environmental grounds, turning a deaf ear to conservative cries of "Drill, Baby, Drill."

But now Obama may start hearing cries of "foul" after the U.S. Export-Import Bank promised Petrobras, Brazil's state-owned oil company, $2 billion in loan guarantees to help finance lucrative drilling off the shores of Rio De Janeiro.

Some see a contradiction in an executive branch agency, independent but with board members appointed by the president, facilitating abroad the very kind of energy exploration Obama opposes domestically.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday he wasn't prepared to address the issue.

"I have not seen the story," he said. "I'd have to take a look."

But former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a vocal proponent of offshore drilling, had plenty to say.

"So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than $2 billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation's state-owned oil company, Petrobas, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources?" she asked on her Facebook page.

In fact, the Export-Import bank receives no appropriations from Congress and thus does not rely on American taxpayer dollars and is also not "sending" $2 billion to the Brazilian company but offering lines of credit to U.S. firms so they can compete to land contracts as part of Petrobras' drilling operations.

The $2 billion "preliminary commitment" by the Export-Import Bank to Petrobras is expected to grow, as the U.S. competes on behalf of American exporters of goods and services against those from China. Beijing has extended a commitment of $10 billion -- but the Brazilians are said to prefer U.S. management and technology.

Then there is the George Soros angle.

The New York-based hedge fund firm controlled by the billionaire philanthropist and backer of Democratic causes and campaigns bought and sold millions of shares in Petrobras -- the largest of the firm's holdings -- prior to public disclosure of the Export-Import bank's offer of new credit guarantees to the Brazilian energy giant.

No one has accused Soros of wrongdoing, but some say the transactions do not pass the "smell test."
 
  • #69
You don't have to believe what he says. Here's part of the bill that talks about the employee coverage:
(1) IN GENERAL.—The requirement of this subsection with respect to an employer and an employee is that the employer automatically enroll suchs employee into the employment-based health benefits plan for individual coverage under the plan option with the lowest applicable employee premium.
(2) OPT-OUT.—In no case may an employer automatically enroll an employee in a plan under paragraph (1) if such employee makes an affirmative election to opt out of such plan or to elect coverage under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer. An employer shall provide an employee with a 30-day period to make such an affirmative election before the employer may automatically enroll the employee in such a plan.

And come on man, you can't seriously put a Fox News story up and say you think that is more truthful than the leader of the free world.

Jason
 
  • #70
as an employer it is my choice whether i offer my employees health insurance as a benefits package....as an employer it is my right to discontinue any benefits if i so choose.......my employees are free at anytime to jump ship if what i offer isnt attractive to them.......the Federal gov has no business telling me what i can and cant do.....im sure they would rather i quit offering health insurance rather than firing one of them to cut costs.....

granted there is opinion in that piece but the facts are fine.......why are we giving a loan to a another countries business to drill for oil off their shores but Obama says we cant drill off ours?
 
  • #71
But former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a vocal proponent of offshore drilling, had plenty to say.

The only people who listen seriously to Sarah Palin are the same people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. The remaining 90% of the population listen to her only for comic relief.
 
Back
Top