I did not know there was a surplus of doctors waiting in the wings for those lower incomes. What I do know is that doctors have to staff their offices like a corporation to handle the volumes of paper work required to service their patients. I also know that doctors have to have retainers for defense lawyers to deal with the tort. They also have to have fancy accountants if all they want to do is actually practice their profession ;that they went to expensive schools for years to earn.
Not only that.. already GP income does not cover ,or barely covers expenses... so while 17,364 new doctors emerged from the country's medical schools in 2011 ,only 5,746 went into GP... the rest opting for higher paying specialists .
And the demand of course is going to increase as the country ages . I've already heard people float the idea of non-physician medical professionals, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants becoming the primary care providers . That will probably be the Obamacare way.

What I DO know, is that we'll NEVER go back to a time when people died because they had no insurance and/or went bankrupt because they were sick.

Excon

There will be other worse access issues due to service shortage.

Hello again, wingers - and you too smear:

First off, Obamacare isn't even fully implemented yet. Secondly, it's only the FIRST attempt. It'll NEED revision. It doesn't address rising costs. We've ONLY just begun this process. It's gonna take a few years to get it right.

Exactly, it pretty much doesn't do much of anything Obama said it would, especially bend the cost curve downward. But that's what you get when you have to pass legislation before knowing what's in it.

You righties act like there was no problem before Obama Care. There was, and nobody did anything about it. The gloom and doom you forecast is a bit premature.

You righties act like there was no problem before Obama Care. There was, and nobody did anything about it. The gloom and doom you forecast is a bit premature.

Don't get on to us for publicizing the 'unintended' consequences that keep surfacing. People need to know what you've done to us.

You didn't give a rats patoot before Obama was elected? Now everything is wrong and its his fault.

You didn't give a rats patoot before Obama was elected? Now everything is wrong and it his fault.

On the contrary... I've been calling for tort reform for years.

You didn't give a rats patoot before Obama was elected?

Of course I did.


Now everything is wrong and its his fault.

If the shoe fits.

I like his idea better than yours. Oh that's right, you didn't have any ideas. None of your heroes had any either.

Your shoes fit really good.

I like his idea better than yours. Oh thats right, you didn't have any ideas. None of your heroes had any either.

Your shoes fit really good.

I have also called for tort reform on these pages years back. That wasn't the question you asked. You asked, "You didn't give a rats patoot before Obama was elected?"

I answered what you asked. Try and keep up.

Hello again,

Tort reform is PERFECT for right wingers... It TAKES away rights, and doesn't fix the problem. Right wingers HATE rights, unless it's their 2nd Amendment rights...

What tort reform IS, in the final analysis, is PRICE CONTROLS - a very LIBERAL idea. I thought the right wing LIKED the free market. Instead, tort reform sets a LIMIT on how much money a VICTIM can receive, no matter HOW badly they were injured... That's price controls no matter how you slice it.

Now, everybody who lives on EARTH knows, that when THEY'RE injured or their child is injured, they'll change their tune. Look at Rob Portman - A STAUNCH defender of DOMA until something happened to HIS family.

FIXING our health care problems on the backs of INJURED people AIN'T going to work. To think it would is mean spirited, un American, short sighted, and won't work anyway.

excon

I have also called for tort reform on these pages years back. That wasn't the question you asked. You asked, "You didn't give a rats patoot before Obama was elected?"

I answered what you asked. Try and keep up.

Tort reform doesn't stop your premiums from rising, but having the insurance companies return some of the money they didn't use for health care related expenses does and will.

I guess eliminating caps on coverage, and pre existing conditions doesn't help either. Or tax deductions for premiums that rise as the premiums rise was a lousy thing for consumers too.

My drug costs have come down the last year and so has my mom's on medicare. No more donut hole extra payments. That's a bad thing too huh?

Caught up yet?

Tort reform doesn't stop your premiums from rising, but having the insurance companies return some of the money they didn't use for health care related expenses does and will.

In other words, profits and investing are evil. If you had the same attitude about government we might get somewhere. Government takes and takes and takes to feed its voracious appetite and you guys b!tch about an insignificant cut in spending increases.

Profits on the backs of the poor are evil, just ask the new pope. If you had the same concerns about businesses and corporations that take and take from the consumer as you do the government, which could be more efficient, we could get somewhere.

... the government, which could be more efficient,

BWAHAHAHahahahahahah!!

Governments don't do efficient, ever. Have you never heard the old chestnut about an elephant being a mouse built to government specifications?

Governments (any of them) can SOMETIMES be more effective than private endeavors, but not more efficient.

Profits on the backs of the poor are evil, just ask the new pope. If you had the same concerns about businesses and corporations that take and take from the consumer as you do the government, which could be more efficient, we could get somewhere.

Could be more efficient is an understatement.

Could be more efficient is an understatement.

I know! Finally we agree on a point. Watch out world!!


BWAHAHAHahahahahahah !!!!!!

Governments don't do efficient, ever. Have you never heard the old chestnut about an elephant being a mouse built to government specifications?

Governments (any of them) can SOMETIMES be more effective than private endeavors, but not more efficient.

You may be right, so lets beat both their a$$e$ until they do what we want!!

Tort reform was only one of my plans. One of the others that I have mentioned here before is Direct primary care(DPC) for the vast majority of health care needs ,and having insurance cover only catastrophic care.
Direct primary care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_primary_care)

Tort reform was only one of my plans. One of the others that I have mentioned here before is Direct primary care(DPC) for the vast majority of health care needs ,and having insurance cover only catastrophic care.
Direct primary care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_primary_care)

Well Tom you are getting closer but such a system doesn't solve the real problem, which is, where do you go when you don't have the money

There are already government programs to care for the poor. There are already charitable organizations to handle the heath care needs of the poor.

there are already government programs to care for the poor. there are already charitable organizations to handle the heath care needs of the poor.

I don't think you have any idea about how many poor, that is, those unable to afford medical care there are, It isn't just the jobless, the unemployed, those on welfare, but poorly paid workers also

Yeah it sucks being poor.

Maybe we can seize everyone's bank accounts like the EU is doing to Cyprus ,so we can spread the wealth.

I think you miss the point of why that is being done, the Russians are using that country to launder money

And yes Tom it sucks being poor because the poor are more likely to need medical help and be less able to pay for it

But I already said there are provisions for the poor. That is not the problem. The real problem is that too many sheeple are used to suckling on the nanny-state teet.

You don't have nanny state, Tom

yeah it sucks being poor.

maybe we can seize everyone's bank accounts like the EU is doing to Cyprus ,so we can spread the wealth.

I wonder how much money is left in Cypriot banks today?

I know there was a run on the ATMs . Clete is wrong about Cyprus . It is the canary in the coal mine. If the EU gets away with it there ,then the PIGS are next . And then... (I see my 401-K threatened again)

Now, everybody who lives on EARTH knows, that when THEY'RE injured or their child is injured, they'll change their tune. Look at Rob Portman - A STAUNCH defender of DOMA until something happened to HIS family.

He's just evolving like Obama, Bill and now Hillary (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-hillary-clinton-now-supports-gay-marriage-20130318).

He's just evolving like Obama, Bill and now Hillary (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-hillary-clinton-now-supports-gay-marriage-20130318).

Do you tell your gay friends that you haven't evolved yet? Do you even have any? Would you go to your best gay friends wedding?

Do you tell your gay friends that you haven't evolved yet? Do you even have any? Would you go to your best gay friends wedding?

Nice gotcha questions. The question you should be asking is why are Obama and the Clintoons pretending to endorse gay marriage to advance their political aspirations? Clinton signed DOMA, Obama was publicly against gay marriage until the last election and Hillary telegraphed her likely evolution months ago:
(http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/gay-marriage-hillary-clinton-edition-150783.html)

But according to two sources, Clinton’s aides have privately indicated to people that she will end up where her husband and daughter, Chelsea, have emerged on the issue – in favor of same-sex nuptials.

Her circle has “indicated privately that she feels like … because of her role as the country’s chief diplomat that it was appropriate for her to stay out of this” over the last two years, said one source, who added that the message was also that as soon as she’s left Foggy Bottom “and she’s given the right opportunity, that she will end up with the rest of her clan.”

Yes, that sounds like the perfect time to have been convinced by your hubby and daughter to "emerge."

I know there was a run on the ATMs . Clete is wrong about Cyprus . It is the canary in the coal mine. If the EU gets away with it there ,then the PIGS are next . and then..................(I see my 401-K threatened again)

Good morning Chicken Little. I thought you would be able to recognise a tax when you see it, there are already moves afoot to limit the impact on small balances. Cyprus has become a Russian playground so the point is you can accept a tax or you accept a sudden devaluation of currency which will have greater impact, just how much purchasing power have you lost in your own currency since the GFC began, from the other side of the big pond I can tell you it is about 20% but you wouldn't have noticed it, well maybe.

They have frozen bank accounts which tells you they are serious if a little slow and the victims don't want their balances converted into stock. It might not be be think if this applied to the PIGS but how do you get a tax on all the money hidden in the mattress. A bank tax is very inefficent but it does focus on money. I'm surprised they didn't just implement a general transaction tax

Maybe they can try not plundering other people's money.

It not plunder if its legal. Didn't you learn that in 2007?

Guess not... you see here deposits are insured by the government... in the EU evidently deposits get plundered by the government.

Tom you know I have long said all taxation is theft, but what are you going to do, allow the Greeks and the Russians to use Cyprus to launder their money without taxation? I hear taxation in Cyprus is 10% so I don't think they should winge if they have to pay another 10% after all it might be the only tax they pay. Exit another tax haven

I know as a good Republican you hate the idea of a successful tax because such ideas are catching but you should be happy at such a low rate, after all they didn't repudiate the national debt and confiscate the balances

but what are you going to do, allow the Greeks and the Russians to use Cyprus to launder their money without taxation?
In my world laundering money is racketeering ;and a bank that does it is a criminal enterprise (hello HSBC) . But in my world banks are businesses that aren't above the law or 'too big to fail'... and yes , laundered funds should be seized . But what does that have to do with screwing the rest of the depositors ? The government in this case will be no different than the criminals .

Edit those Cypriotes banging on the bank doors today were not criminal depositors . The criminals are the nameless faceless bureaucrats in Brussels .

i But in my world banks are businesses that aren't above the law or 'too big to fail'.....

Really? Now I remember not so long ago some US banks that were too big to fail, but you don't learn the lessons of history easily. You see Tom your world is not the best of all possible worlds, even though the propaganda you have been fed all your life tells you it is.

Yes money laundering is a criminal activity and even in this far flung land the proceeds of crime are seized, but such concepts are new to Cypress, Greece and even to the EU. Good heavens, taxation is a foreign concept in Greece, you would be right at home there.

The ordinary citizen should have nothing to fear, they will become stock holders in some very successful banks, which is more than most of us get for our tax dollar

You have not read a word I've written about the banks since 2008 .You are the one who buys into the cr@p that banks are too big to fail. This move will not be isolated to Cyprus. I've been warning for months now that the US government wants to break faith with individual retirement savers. If bank accounts can be casually expropriated in Cyprus to pay for big spending governments and bailouts, there is no reason the $19 trillion in retirement accounts can't get the same treatment here. This Cyprus thing is a test case ;and the bureaucrats in Brussels and Washington (and probably Red Julia's minions too) are watching to see if they can get away with it .

You have not read a word I've written about the banks since 2008 .You are the one who buys into the cr@p that banks are too big to fail.

When have I ever said that, no I think the US banks should have been allowed to fail. It would have deepened the GFC, but the auto industry should have been allowed to fail too, and AIC. The problem is Tom your economy, any economy, can really only afford one industry to fail at a time, so your sub-prime mortgage industry was allowed to fail while others were provided with a soft landing, not my ecision.


This move will not be isolated to Cyprus. I've been warning for months now that the US government wants to break faith with individual retirement savers. If bank accounts can be casually expropriated in Cyprus to pay for big spending governments and bailouts, there is no reason the $19 trillion in retirement accounts can't get the same treatment here. This Cyprus thing is a test case ;and the bureaucrats in Brussels and Washington (and probably Red Julia's minions too) are watching to see if they can get away with it .

Ok Tom, I'll conceed the possibility that such a scenario might happen.

The Little Red Fox has already confiscated dormant superannuation accounts, another nice precedent for your forward thinkers particularly since your accounts match your national debt, what an opportunity to start again with a clean slate? You see Tom we are not as slow as you to start a trend, but we know that Julia's time is short where as you have many years of BO to suffer. You have long made the mistake of thinking that I lean a long way to the left, but this is only perspective since you are standing on that lofty right ledge, where as Julia is standing on the opposite lofty left ledge and I am standing in the middle on firm ground. I'm waiting for her to fall off, Tom, just as I'm waiting for you.

In the situation of Cypress I Think it is an innovative solution to tax those who are part of the problem, The Greeks sold the banks in Cypress junk bonds and deposited their money in those Cypress banks for safety. The banks lost heavily and wanted a bailout, just like they saw your banks get, but this time the EU saw through it and called the bluff

Please remember two pennith of nothing is nothing and so is 10%

We had our junk bond scandel in the 80's, Bush senior bailed out Jeb, and Jeb got his brother George, who bankrupted 7 companies and a baseball team, elected president. Now Jeb wants to be the third Bush to be president.

We have not recovered from the other two yet.

Wondering if excon is going to follow CVS' lead...


CVS To Penalize Workers Who Don't Disclose Weight, Body Fat (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/cvs-workers-insurance_n_2915006.html)

One of the country's largest pharmacy chains is asking its workers to find out how fat they are and then disclose it to their insurance provider.

Not only is that company, CVS Caremark, telling workers who use its health insurance plan to have a doctor determine their height, weight, body fat, blood pressure and other health indicators. It is also asking workers to give permission to the insurer to turn over that information to a firm that provides benefits support to CVS, the Boston Herald reports.

Workers who don’t take part in the voluntary “wellness review,” paid for by CVS, will have to pay an annual $600 penalty.

Obamacare could make such practices more common. The health care reform law allows employers to levy a higher penalty against workers who don’t participate in company wellness programs. In some cases, workers could also have to pay more if they don’t meet certain health targets like appropriate body mass index.

Ya know, besides not getting to keep your doctor or insurance as promised, and surrendering private health information now, Obamacare sure sounds to me like a big bully, too. I thought liberals hated bullying. If imposing penalties if you won't surrender your health info or because you're a little fat isn't intimidating and bullying I don't know what is.

Hello again, Steve:


Wondering if excon is going to follow CVS' lead... No. I'm going to continue to cover my employees and NOT inject myself into their personal lives.. CVS is within their rights to do so, though.

Besides, I don't hire FAT people.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

No. I'm going to continue to cover my employees and NOT inject myself into their personal lives.. CVS is within their rights to do so, though.

Besides, I don't hire FAT people.

excon

So it's OK to penalize them if they refuse to surrender their personal, private health info but not OK to make them buy their own contraceptives. What a twisted liberal world...

Hell

Besides, I don't hire FAT people.

excon

Up your nose with a rubber hose buddy

Hello Steve:

If they want ME to pay for THEIR health care, then you're DAMN right I'm going to have a SAY in how they take care of the BODY that I'm paying for.

excon

Hello Steve:

If they want ME to pay for THEIR health care, then you're DAMN right I'm gonna have a SAY in how they take care of the BODY that I'm paying for.

excon

Can I apply that principle to the contraceptive mandate?

We had our junk bond scandel in the 80's, Bush senior bailed out Jeb, and Jeb got his brother George, who bankrupted 7 companies and a baseball team, elected president. Now Jeb wants to be the third Bush to be president.

We have not recovered from the other two yet.

Jeb Bush in not high on my list of Republic contenders .

Caremark, and any other employers better be careful because I smell a lot of tort activity coming their way. Is a CEO a worker too?

Can I apply that principle to the contraceptive mandate?You mean like telling women that you hire that they are not allowed to use contraception while under your employ? Sure, go for it.

You mean like telling women that you hire that they are not allowed to use contraception while under your employ? Sure, go for it.

Obviously the hypocrisy escapes you. You really oughtta give up trying to humiliate me, dude.

Hello Steve:

If they want ME to pay for THEIR health care, then you're DAMN right I'm gonna have a SAY in how they take care of the BODY that I'm paying for.

excon

Well go put all the junk food companies out of business

Obviously the hypocrisy escapes you. How were going to apply the principle in a similar fashion to what ex wrote?

Ex thinks because he has to spend a dollar he has control of it, you gain more by giving people responsibility

you gain more by giving people responsibilityOf that there is no doubt, I think we all agree. But looking at the obesity rate in the US we see that they make bad decisions.

Of that there is no doubt, I think we all agree. But looking at the obesity rate in the US we see that they make bad decisions.

So you have to provide them with better alternatives but you have to get rid of the sugar purveyors who are using it to hook consumers

How were going to apply the principle in a similar fashion to what ex wrote?

Is it that hard to figure out?


If they want ME to pay for THEIR health care, then you're DAMN right I'm going to have a SAY in how they take care of the BODY that I'm paying for. -excon

Is it that hard to figure out?No, I mentioned it right here:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obamacare-2-0-a-730292-30.html#post3424525
But you got all butt-hurt. If that's not it then what was your idea to apply what he wrote?

Of that there is no doubt, I think we all agree. But looking at the obesity rate in the US we see that they make bad decisions.

Dude, your constant condescension toward your neighbor is annoying, but you really should realize we have access to what's going on in your own country.


It's time for government action on obesity

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/8011331.bin

You've heard it already: Obesity is epidemic in Canada and is contributing to an increased prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancer and other chronic conditions

Read more: It's time for government action on obesity (http://www.vancouversun.com/health/time+government+action+obesity/8011330/story.html#ixzz2OH8IS11h)


Looks like Canadians make poor choices, too. But why not when you pay for their health care, right?

No, I mentioned it right here:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obamacare-2-0-a-730292-30.html#post3424525
But you got all butt-hurt. If that's not it then what was your idea to apply what he wrote?

To "have a SAY in how they take care of the BODY that I'm paying for."

Duh.

Hello again, Steve:

I can't tell if you agree with me or not.. It IS a very conservative position, after all. It IS my money. I SHOULD have a say in how my "investment" is protected.

But, why then, shouldn't the PUBLIC have a say in how THEIR "investment" is protected? The same principal applies, does it not?

excon

Looks like Canadians make poor choices, too. But why not when you pay for their health care, right?What does Canada have to do with this discussion?

What does Canada have to do with this discussion?

I made that perfectly clear in my post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3424864-post308.html).

Hello again, Steve:

I can't tell if you agree with me or not.. It IS a very conservative position, after all. It IS my money. I SHOULD have a say in how my "investment" is protected.

But, why then, shouldn't the PUBLIC have a say in how THEIR "investment" is protected?? The same principal applies, does it not?

excon

Do you believe we shouldn't interfere with a woman's "health care" choices?

I see that but how does that affect ex's statement?

Do you believe we shouldn't interfere with a woman's "health care" choices?

Hell to the YES!! And that goes for bosses and churches. Its none of their business what my or anyone's health care needs are. No one has a right to discriminate for any reason, be it fat, gay, or they way YOU plan your family, and I don't care what the POPE says about it.

Even if you don't believe in gay marriage the solution is simple, don't marry a gay person. But don't tell me who to marry. You don't believe in family planning, then don't plan your family, but leave mine alone.

You righties love to stick your nose in everyone else's business, and holler you have a right to do it. YOU DON'T.

End of Friday rant... carry on.

Hell to the YES!! And that goes for bosses and churches. Its none of their business what my or anyone's health care needs are. No one has a right to discriminate for any reason, be it fat, gay, or they way YOU plan your family, and I don't care what the POPE says about it.

Even if you don't believe in gay marriage the solution is simple, don't marry a gay person. But don't tell me who to marry. You don't believe in family planning, then don't plan your family, but leave mine alone.

You righties love to stick your nose in everyone else's business, and holler you have a right to do it. YOU DON'T.

End of Friday rant... carry on.

OK, here's the quote again...


If they want ME to pay for THEIR health care, then you're DAMN right I'm gonna have a SAY in how they take care of the BODY that I'm paying for. -excon

So I'm confused, do you guys believe you should have a say or not, or just for men and not women? Or what is it here?

Do you believe we shouldn't interfere with a woman's "health care" choices?

That's the question I quoted and answered.


If they want ME to pay for THEIR health care, then you're DAMN right I'm going to have a SAY in how they take care of the BODY that I'm paying for. -excon

He has a right to say whatever he wants, just as you do Speech. We don't walk in lock step agreement on the progressive side, we just agree the far right has to be balanced and not interfere in OUR rights the way you are full hell bent to do.

The law is very clear, whether you agree or not, that there can be no discrimination. And there are legal remedies if there are.

Thats the question I quoted and answered.



He has a right to say whatever he wants, just as you do Speech. We don't walk in lock step agreement on the progressive side, we just agree the far right has to be balanced and not interfere in OUR rights the way you are full hell bent to do.

The law is very clear, whether you agree or not, that there can be no discrimination. And there are legal remedies if there are.


I was asking him.

Hell to the YES!!!!!!!!!! And that goes for bosses and churches. Its none of their business what my or anyones health care needs are. No one has a right to discriminate for any reason, be it fat, gay, or they way YOU plan your family, and I don't care what the POPE says about it.

Even if you don't believe in gay marriage the solution is simple, don't marry a gay person. But don't tell me who to marry. You don't believe in family planning, then don't plan your family, but leave mine alone.

You righties love to stick your nose in everyone elses business, and holler you have a right to do it. YOU DON"T.

End of Friday rant.................carry on.

Oh really?? Then you might want to check this out as its coming to your workplace soon. Thanks obamacare!!

CVS Ordering Workers To Reveal Weight, Health Info « CBS San Francisco (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/03/21/cvs-ordering-workers-to-reveal-weight-health-info/)

Wait until they see the surcharge for using recreational pot .

wait til they see the surcharge for using recreational pot .

Hey hey now. Its medicinal ;)

I know I'm late but happy(?) birthday Obamacare...


“Five Guys: Obamacare will boost burger prices” (http://www.nrcc.org/2013/03/20/washington-examiner-five-guys/)

“Any added costs are going to have to be passed on,” said Mike Ruffer, a Five Guys franchise holder with eight of the popular restaurants in the Raleigh-Durham, N.C. area. He will need all the profits from at least one of his eight outlets just to cover his estimated added $60,000-a year in new Obamacare costs.

What’s more, he’s iced plans to build another three restaurants until after the administration explains the exact rules and penalties employers will face. The law’s plan to have those available March 1 has been pushed back to October.

“I’m kind of in a holding pattern,” said Ruffer, a former Marriott executive who added that many franchise owners are in a similar situation.

Ruffer was the star witness at a Monday Heritage Foundation seminar on the impact Obamacare will have on small businesses. He is typical of many: Because he has enough full time employees to activate the law, he faces either coughing up the money to provide health insurance or paying a fine of up to $3,000 per worker.

Ruffer initially thought he would escape the law because he created each restaurant as its own company. But the law doesn’t recognize that distinction, so now he’s trying to determine if he can fire enough workers, or cut enough hours, to slide out of the grasp of Obamacare.

He said that “scorched earth plan,” however, would hurt his restaurants, so Ruffer is likely to either pay the fine or buy insurance. But spreading the costs over his basic menu of fries, drinks, burgers and hot dogs, could scare off customers, he worries. He said that the recent spike in gas prices cut into his profits since fewer people were stopping at his restaurants.

And the health care law isn’t only going to hit Ruffer. He’s quizzed his workers to ask if they understand that they will be fined if they don’t get health insurance. Just one of 20 workers were aware of the $95 tax penalty that rises to $695 by 2016.

Darn greedy business owners thinking they have to make a profit to stay open. I don't know why he has to take it out on the workers or pass the cost on to us, the bastard. But hey, burgers are bad for us anyway.

Hello again, Steve:

Instead of supporting your argument with some right winger saying the same things you do, link me to the part of the law that actually SAYS, what he says it says.. That would clear things up.

excon

Just pointing out again what the business community is saying. Do you really think they're just rebelling to make a point or watching out for their interests?

The fact that qualifying employers face a $3000 fine per full time employee if they don't furnish coverage, and that full time now means an average of 30 hours per week is pretty well known. Are you disputing that now?

Hello again, Steve:


Are you disputing that now?I never didn't dispute it. Show me a link, and I'll NEVER dispute it again.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

I never didn't dispute it. Show me a link, and I'll NEVER dispute it again.

excon

You can start at page 345.

Certified Full-Text Version (http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/patient-protection.pdf)

I have my own copy so why don't you specify and link the hardships of providing coverage to low wage workers. Those same pizza and burger guys have more options than paying penalties, or cuttiing hours, or firing workers.

For example a 35% tax credit for ALL his insurance costs, not just new ones.

Affordable Care Act Tax Provisions (http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions)

Small Business Health Care Tax Credit


This new credit helps small businesses and small tax-exempt organizations afford the cost of covering their employees and is specifically targeted for those with low- and moderate-income workers. The credit is designed to encourage small employers to offer health insurance coverage for the first time or maintain coverage they already have. In general, the credit is available to small employers that pay at least half the cost of single coverage for their employees. Learn more by browsing our page on the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit for Small Employers and our news release.

Your burger guy already passes most of the costs for health care to his low wage employees, and most do. So don't holler about his profits losses(?), and not even acknowledge the profits losses of those that help him make it.

I have my own copy so why don't you specify and link the hardships of providing coverage to low wage workers. Those same pizza and burger guys have more options than paying penalties, or cuttiing hours, or firing workers.

For example a 35% tax credit for ALL his insurance costs, not just new ones.

Affordable Care Act Tax Provisions (http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions)

Small Business Health Care Tax Credit



Your burger guy already passes most of the costs for health care to his low wage employees, and most do. So don't holler about his profits losses(?), and not even acknowledge the profits losses of those that help him make it.

What's all this talk about hollering? Again, I was just passing along what the business community is saying. As many as we've posted about already - are they all just greedy liars?

And just once for the record, I am one of those employees that help my boss make a profit so enough of this pretense that I don't care about the workers. I care enough about the workers to understand without employers making a profit they won't have a job to worry about, and then we'll all be paying for their needs. It's really not that complicated, Tal, we can't just keep expanding the government payroll and welfare rolls - there ain't enough billionaires to pay for it.

P.S. As for your small business tax credit, it doesn't apply to the Five Guys dude so it's irrelevant to the point made. But hey, those small businesses that qualify for a tax break might be able to offset some of skyrocketing cost of premiums since the "Affordable" Care Act was rammed through.

Why doesn't it apply to hamburger guy?

I know I'm late but happy(?) birthday Obamacare...



Darn greedy business owners thinking they have to make a profit to stay open. I don't know why he has to take it out on the workers or pass the cost on to us, the bastard. But hey, burgers are bad for us anyway.

But that's the plan improve health and lower costs by driving fast food out of business, in the land of big business who wants small business expanding

Why doesn't it apply to hamburger guy?

I believe he would be past the limit.


To be eligible, you must cover at least 50 percent of the cost of single (not family) health care coverage for each of your employees. You must also have fewer than 25 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs). Those employees must have average wages of less than $50,000 a year.

Sorry Speech the burger guy has other options

http://www.mcdonaldhopkins.com/documents/news/McDonald-Hopkins-Special-Report-on-Health-Care-Reform-Practical-steps-for-employers-4208475.pdf

NFIB is Wrong on Obamacare: The ACA Should Actually Help Small Business - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/small_business/2012/07/nfib_is_wrong_on_obamacare_the_aca_should_actually _help_small_business.html)


And make no mistake, the health care bill is, all things considered, the largest income-redistribution program enacted in decades. It collects taxes from the prosperous and offers new Medicaid benefits to the near poor and provides sliding-scale subsidies to a broad range of families earning below the median income. There's plenty to like about that, but also plenty to dislike if you're the sort of prosperous person who owns or manages a small or medium-sized firm. The debate about the broad economic consequences of higher and more progressive taxes has raged for decades and will keep doing so forever. But there's no doubting the basic fact that people don't like being asked to pay more. The Obama administration's version of health insurance reform has asked the rich to do just that, and for most businessmen that reality will weigh heavily on their thinking about it. But viewed narrowly as a reform to the insurance market the law—and especially the controversial mandate used to enable people to get insurance without working for a large company—should serve small firms quite well.

Sorry Speech the burger guy has other options

http://www.mcdonaldhopkins.com/documents/news/McDonald-Hopkins-Special-Report-on-Health-Care-Reform-Practical-steps-for-employers-4208475.pdf

NFIB is Wrong on Obamacare: The ACA Should Actually Help Small Business - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/small_business/2012/07/nfib_is_wrong_on_obamacare_the_aca_should_actually _help_small_business.html)

"Should" being the operative word here. Reality is different.

And make no mistake, the health care bill is, all things considered, the largest income-redistribution program enacted in decades. It collects taxes from the prosperous and offers new Medicaid benefits to the near poor and provides sliding-scale subsidies to a broad range of families earning below the median income.
And who doesn't like Robin Hood. Except that analogy really doesn't work does it ? Robin Hood "robbed " the government of the taxes it confiscated from the people.

Yes and he is doing it again, what you don't like is they are your taxes and you have no say in what they do with them. Tom I don't like socialism but sometimes it has its uses, it focuses on disadvantage

Lets not get excited because every fast food owner who has objected before has come out and said they will look deeper into what they can, or cannot do under the new law. He does have until Jan. 1st 2014,

No Papa John's, maybe Five Guys: The Obamacare supporter's diet (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/18/no-papa-johns-maybe-five-guys-the-obamacare-supporters-diet/)



But the bigger picture is more complex, and businesses will have to make individualized decisions. Christopher Ryan, ADP's vice president of strategic advisory services, has been traveling the country talking to businesses about the Affordable Care Act. He offered the example of a boutique retailer he recently visited that initially thought it would have to rely on more part-timers because of the law. But then the owner looked at the business's cash register receipts by tenure. Turns out the workers who'd been there longer brought in more money than their less experienced colleagues.

“Health benefit is one of the strongest motivators for attraction and retention and is more likely to attract someone who is going to stay for a longer period,” Ryan said in an interview.

Initial reactions shouldn't be taken as facts at this point, its still a year or more away, and he does have options.

Initial reactions shouldn't be taken as facts at this point, its still a year or more away, and he does have options.

Yes if he is quick he can get a good price for the business

I doubt selling the cash cow is the answer, and he would actually lose much of his investment. It should be noted he may have been so afraid of the law that he made some bad decisions in trying to avoid it, more than a few have, and that includes states that used the money they were given for education, consulting, transition for lawyers to oppose the law.

Those that used the resources given (the states) are way ahead of the curve, as are the businesses, big and small who didn't just try to avoid the inevitable, but explored their options, and made smart business decisions and not knee jerk reactions.

Indeed the owner in question managing 8 million dollar (at least) franchise operations has many options he obviously hasn't explored yet.

And in typical liberal fashion you say that as if a guy with a successful business is too dumb to manage it or use lawyers, accountants and advisers, etc.Everything about Obamacare is a mess, the regulations (thus far) are taller than me, perhaps you can explain it all to him and every other business that's scrambling to protect themselves from government overreach.

Hello again, Steve:

As a fellow businessman, here's my advice... RELAX. The law is just NOW being implemented. If, in the future, we find out the insurance companies aren't playing fair (I don't think they are, and I can't believe somebody thought they would), then we should PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS.

excon

You sound just like Nancy "we have to pass it before we know what's in it" Pelosi, and as a businessman I would think you know that's a monumentally stupid position to support.

And like most conservatives your views comes from an agenda that puts your profits over your people that work hard to make you rich. Glad you finally brought out the fact that your poor rich guy has many resources to guide him. And maybe fight first and think later has not helped him. I mean dividing his 8 stores into separate companies to AVOID the law didn't help him, and he says it will cost him 60 grand.

My initial look into the structure of his franchise is to expand his coverage and increase his core of full time employees and take a tax credit for his reinvetment. Its possible to mitigate his 60 grand "loss of profit" by almost 40% before taxes. He knows that and so should his lawyers, and accountants.

It should also be pointed out while he hollers, his corporate owners of his chain have not. Like the pizza guy who was outraged and threatened to raise the price of his pies 14 cents. So how much does he raise his gourmet hamburgers?

He has options dude beyond what he is hollering about, and the help and resources to get her done. Most rich guys do.

Not surprised conservatives see the rich guy side, and ignore the working class side.

Wait until you find out that you can get an exemption from the penalty (oops I mean tax ) if you claim to be a smoker .
Smoking out a major flaw in Obamacare | NJ.com (http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/03/smoking_out_a_major_flaw_in_ob.html)

Tal has already forgotten again that I AM the working class side.

wait til you find out that you can get an exemption from the penalty (oops I mean tax ) if you claim to be a smoker .
Smoking out a major flaw in Obamacare | NJ.com (http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/03/smoking_out_a_major_flaw_in_ob.html)

Nice job Schmucky.

Now we get to pay for transformer operations
In shift, Medicare would pay for sex-change operations | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/in-shift-medicare-would-pay-for-sex-change-operations/article/2525782)

Transformer do we have extra-terrestial life over there? I thik you mean transsexual

Hello again, Steve:


now we get to pay for transformer operations OMG! That's got to be a violation of my rights somehow... I'm sure you'll find it, Steve. It's probably against YOUR religious freedom rights.. In fact, I'm SURE it is... Somehow...

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

OMG! That's got to be a violation of my rights somehow... I'm sure you'll find it, Steve. It's probably against YOUR religious freedom rights.. In fact, I'm SURE it is.... Somehow....

excon

I have no idea what you're talking about.

transformer do we have extra-terrestial life over there? I thik you mean transsexual
Transexual sex change operation... transformer... what's the difference ?

Hello again, Steve:

OMG! That's got to be a violation of my rights somehow... I'm sure you'll find it, Steve. It's probably against YOUR religious freedom rights.. In fact, I'm SURE it is.... Somehow....

excon

I'm not Steve... But yes ,do you think every elective procedure should be paid for by someone else ?

Hello tom/Steve:

Some would argue that it's NOT elective at all. I'd be one of those.

excon

Hello tom/Steve:

Some would argue that it's NOT elective at all. I'd be one of those.

excon
Dear excon:

I agree, it's not elective. If your insides are screaming you are female, but you happen to have a teeny weenie, something is seriously wrong and needs to be corrected.

WG / Carol

Dear excon:

I agree, it's not elective. If your insides are screaming you are female, but you happen to have a teeny weenie, something is seriously wrong and needs to be corrected.

WG / Carol

>greenie<

So we should pay for a sex change for any guy who screams he's really a woman?

A man can't just scream he is a woman and get a sex change. He has to be diagnosed with a specific disorder by a certified clinician.

Sex reassignment surgery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_surgery)


Most surgeons require two letters of recommendation for sex reassignment surgery. At least one of these letters must be from a mental health professional experienced in diagnosing gender identity disorder, that has known the patient for over a year. Letters must state that sex reassignment surgery is the correct course of treatment for the patient.[13][14]


A growing number of public and commercial health insurance plans in the United States now contain defined benefits covering sex reassignment-related procedures, usually including genital reconstruction surgery (MTF and FTM), chest reconstruction (FTM), breast augmentation (MTF), and hysterectomy (FTM).[3] In June 2008, the American Medical Association House of Delegates declared that discrimination,[4] stating that the denial to patients with Gender Identity Disorder of otherwise covered benefits represents discrimination, and that the AMA supports "public and private health insurance coverage for treatment for gender identity disorder as recommended by the patient's physician." Other organizations have issued similar statements, including WPATH,[5] the American Psychological Association,[6] and the National Association of Social Workers.[7]

Funny how people think they are paying for other peoples stuff when we all pay our own premiums. The church has that idea badly.

Until Obamacare it was considered an experimental procedure not covered . I guess we should cover silicon implants for women with self esteem issues over itty bitties ;or for one of them suction devises for men who don't like the size of their weiner . Maybe we should pay for liposuction and collagen injections too. After all ;it's a psychological booster .

until Obamacare it was considered an experimental procedure not covered
You consider incorrect gender assignment a self-esteem issue?

until Obamacare it was considered an experimental procedure not covered . I guess we should cover silicon implants for women with self esteem issues over itty bitties ;or for one of them suction devises for men who don't like the size of their weiner . Maybe we should pay for liposuction and collagen injections too. After all ;it's a psychological booster .

We pay for nothing, insurance companies pay for covered procedure through their policy. Insurance companies base premiums on the coverage you BUY!

That's the business model for insurance, you know the risk/gamble thing. It was decide in JUNE 2008, BEFORE Obamacare, by doctors AND insurance companies to cover these procedures and those are facts.

No laws, no votes where needed to make this a medical issue and NOT elective surgery.

Incorrect gender assignment.. guess God made a mistake.

We pay for nothing, insurance companies pay for covered procedure thru their policy. Insurance companies base premiums on the coverage you BUY!

Thats the business model for insurance, you know the risk/gamble thing. It was decide in JUNE 2008, BEFORE Obamacare, by doctors AND insurance companies to cover these procedures and those are facts.

No laws, no votes where needed to make this a medical issue and NOT elective surgery.

You keep on doing that end around . We pay premiums based on the coverage ;especially MANDATED coverage . That means that WE are paying for the procedure ,because if I had a choice ;I would not be covering sex change ;condoms and abortion pills ,and any number of other procedures. I would not require ,my family would not require... and if I or they did ;I'd pay for it out of pocket.

incorrect gender assignment ..guess God made a mistake.
No other babies ever born have problems -- oh, wait, spina bifida, muscular dystrophy, Down's, autism, and on and on -- and it isn't because God is making mistakes. Read the first three chapters of Genesis for a moral story and explanation.

Show me the bill they sent you for a guy getting his penis whacked or a female getting a boob job. Show me a bill for birh controlpills or an abortion. Show me where you are charged for to carry these things on YOUR insurance and how much it affects your premiums.

Call your insurance carrier to clarify how they do buiness and let me know. Now you sound like a church, telling an insurance company how they are doing business.

Call Obama and congress and tell them to make universal heath care a law, and premiums based on income.

'incorrect gender assignment' is a very poor description of what you claim is a birth defect .

Show me the bill they sent you for a guy getting his penis whacked or a female getting a boob job. Show me a bill for birh controlpills or an abortion. Show me where you are charged for to carry these things on YOUR insurance and how much it affects your premiums.

They are not covered at this time . But you seem to think that these future mandates don't have any monetary consequences for the insured . That is nonsense ;and the growing costs of Obamacare is proving that true.

'incorrect gender assignment' is a very poor description of what you claim is a birth defect .
I have an autistic son and am married to a guy with Asperger's, so watch it with the "defect" comments.

I didn't say that Austism or Aspy is a birth defect so you should not take offense. Besides ;birth defect has a valid scientific definition.

Everything is about money in America, from anal cream to zygote transfer. The real issue would be does cost rise lower under Obama Care, because without it, the cost would rise any way,and has for decades.

Cap the costs if that's what you want, but stopping big business from making money by any legal means necessary is NOT a conservative idea, and one you have opposed in the past so what's the alternative?

they are not covered at this time.

You mean transgender operations? They are covered and have been since 2008. Wonder how many penis's you have paid to have removed?

Not in my state
Update: Cuomo administration now rejects Medicaid funding for transgender surgery | syracuse.com (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/new_york_considers_covering_tr.html)

And not my insurance carrier .
What insurance companies cover sex reassignment surgery (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_insurance_companies_cover_sex_reassignment_su rgery)

And the company I work for would not request it to be covered .
Nor is it covered by Medicare

Turns out it was an elaborate pr stunt. The Obots floated the proposal during this week's 'National LGBT Health Awareness Week ';and withdrew it without fanfare yesterday in the Friday news dump.

Transgender has nothing to do with homosexual.

LGBT=Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender

Transgender has nothing to do with homosexual.

Maybe it is. Maybe its just one being a more extreme for of the other. We don't know yet. For all we know at this point being (born) gay could just be a milder form of transgenderizm.

This is a screwed up world

Maybe we are just figuring out that humans not only have a wide variety of hues and characteristics, but mindsets as well. Some just don't fit in the old notions of normal. They are still human.

Hello again,

I'm watching my FAV on FOX News. Right wingers STILL believe they can repeal Obamacare. How NUTS is that?

excon

Yeah it's still not very popular is it?

Among some, no it will never be popular, neither was the old system we are replacing.

Hello again, Steve:


Yeah it's still not very popular is it?I don't know.. You guys live in a dream world. It's really impregnable too.

In your world, EVERYBODY had health care, so who needed it? Obamacare was shoved down your throats. The people hated it then, and they hate in now...

The only problem with that, is it's absolutely untrue.

Excon

After the 2014 elections the Senate will be in Republic control. Like it was shoved down our throats through the reconciliation process;so can it be repealed through the reconciliation process with a 2016 Republic Presidential victory.
Democrats promised Obamacare would create jobs, lower health-care costs, and allow people to keep their current plans if they chose to. Those are now proven lies . That is why it continues to lose popularity .And it will continue to lose it because the Dems wisely exposed us to the low hanging fruit that people would likely to support .Now we are due to receive the bitter medicine that the Dems hid from us (we need to pass it to find out what's in it).
Also keep in mind that Dems have already defected on some aspects of Obamacare ;like the 34 Dem Senators who now want to repeal the medical device tax.
Many of the Dem Senators who are up up for reelection have seats in Red States ;and the people there are not going to forget how the Dems rammed this through. (West Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Alaska,. and some other places where open seats are being contested like Michigan and Iowa ,and perhaps New Hampshire).
And if the Repubics are smart (no guarantee there ) ;they will be able to frame the repeal in language about broader entitlement reform.
The strategery is to go after the mandate... SCOTUS called it a tax ;that means it's fair game in every budget debate . It also happens to be the least popular part of the plan ;and the part that is proving to be quite difficult to implement now that we are learning the true costs of implementation of that one aspect.. Most of the exchanges will not be ready by October... then what ?

Hello again, tom:


after the 2014 elections the Senate will be in Republic control. Like it was shoved down our throats through the reconciliation process;so can it be repealed through the reconciliation process with a 2016 Republic Presidential victory. Good luck with that.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno.. You guys live in a dream world. It's really impregnable too.

In your world, EVERYBODY had health care, so who needed it? Obamacare was shoved down your throats. The people hated it then, and they hate in now...

The only problem with that, is it's absolutely untrue.

excon

And all those repeated promises that we could keep our doctor and our insurance and it would make health care cheaper and wouldn't add a dime to our deficit were all true? Not only was it rammed down our throats it was sold on a foundation of lies, and both pi$$ me off. You apparently are OK with such deception to ram your agenda through.

And all those repeated promises that we could keep our doctor and our insurance
I still have my insurance and my doctor. What happened to yours?

Maybe we are just figuring out that humans not only have a wide variety of hues and characteristics, but mindsets as well. Some just don't fit in the old notions of normal. They are still human.

The problem is you have 2 sides fighting about what normal is. One side view it as a bell curve and the other seems to think it's a flat line that includes everything.


If its all normal then why not have a anything goes society ?

I still have my insurance and my doctor. What happened to yours?

Insurance company changed hands and the cost has more then doubled as well as out of pocket expenses have more then quadupled.

I still have my insurance and my doctor. What happened to yours?

The only thing promise about Obamacare kept was Pelosi's.

The problem is you have 2 sides fighting about what normal is. One side view it as a bell curve and the other seems to think it's a flat line that includes everything.


If its all normal then why not have a anything goes society ?

The law should apply equally to everyone as a boundary of good behavior. That doesn't mean that the greedy b@stards won't use anything the can to extract more profit, no matter what the law says.


Insurance company changed hands and the cost has more then doubled as well as out of pocket expenses have more then quadupled.

Hasn't that happened in the past under the old system? Who was to blame before ObamaCare?


And all those repeated promises that we could keep our doctor and our insurance and it would make health care cheaper and wouldn't add a dime to our deficit were all true? Not only was it rammed down our throats it was sold on a foundation of lies, and both pi$$ me off. You apparently are OK with such deception to ram your agenda through.

Why have you not blamed your insurance company since ObamaCare hasn't even started yet and you are crying foul. Why did your doctor dump you?

Hasn't that happened in the past under the old system? Who was to blame before ObamaCare?



Not in my years so far. There have been changes. But not a yearly doubling of premiums and the deductables were fairly stable. Now the exclusionary list reads like the yellow pages for meds not covered that were in previous years.

Have they said why they have changed? Is this private insurance, or company? Maybe your insurance company is gouging you while they can. They have a year you know.

Hello again,


In your world, Obamacare was shoved down your throats. The people hated it then, and they hate in now...
More Americans approve than disapprove of the Affordable Care Act, a new poll (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/pew-poll-public-approval-of-obamacare-above-water)from Pew Research Center shows.

The poll, released Thursday, shows that 47 percent of respondents approve of the legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010, while 43 percent disapprove. That marks only the second time since April 2010 — when Pew started tracking support for the law — that approval of the Affordable Care Act is above water.

Excon

Have they said why they have changed? Is this private insurance, or company? Maybe your insurance company is gouging you while they can. They have a year you know.

Yes its private through where I work. And all this insurance companies are doing it. That is why we had to switch in the first place. The old insurance company was doubling every year since the passage of obama care. Its been horrible for the consumer.

That is from July of last year. Also it shows that it has always had a high disapproval rating and if it were to come to a vote then it would be handily defeated.

Hello again,

I don't know WHY insurance company's raising their rates is the fault of Obamacare.. He doesn't control rates. Now, if he had TAKEN over healthcare, he could have. Maybe that's what we SHOULD do. Then your rates'll stay the same.. Actually, they'd go DOWN. That would be good, wouldn't it??

You're not going to answer. You just wish I wouldn't mention stuff like that. You just want to spew your hate of Obamacare and move on.

excon

Hello again,

I dunno WHY insurance company's raising their rates is the fault of Obamacare.. excon

Obamacare never was about healthcare. It's ALL about insurance. Why they're raising their rates is simple: they need their retirement package fattened up before some campaign contributor is promoted to take them over.

The Sebelius Coverup | The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/sebelius-coverup_664285.html)

Hello again,

I dunno WHY insurance company's raising their rates is the fault of Obamacare.. He doesn't control rates. Now, if he had TAKEN over healthcare, he could have. Maybe that's what we SHOULD do. Then your rates'll stay the same.. Actually, they'd go DOWN. That would be good, wouldn't it???

You're not gonna answer. You just wish I wouldn't mention stuff like that. You just wanna spew your hate of Obamacare and move on.

excon



Here is the part that you seem to be missing in the puzzle. Insurance is a regulated industry. As such they have a mandated amount of monies they must hold back from premiums in order to pay for the ongoing costs of healthcare in the system. Previously when they could deny cetain people and they would go to state programs or medicare the cost of the program remained steady and costs could be contained. But with new obama care mandates its more of a crap shoot then anything. So they must build this fund so they can pay out and still meet all the madates. If not they are forced to fold. That is why premiums are going up so fast. Obamacare doesn't even know what is going on and from what has been posted lately they won't know until August to November of this year with implimentation to begin in 2014.

Right now there is a uphill battle to cover the bases before the health care mandates fully kick in and force a irrecoverabe situation.

It won't happen... I expect the implementation to be delayed well into 2014 . There is no way that the combination of the state exchanges (which at this point is only 17 states participating ) ;and the alternate Federal exchange programs will be ready by the end of the year.

it won't happen ... I expect the implementation to be delayed well into 2014 . There is no way that the combination of the state exchanges (which at this point is only 17 states participating ) ;and the alternate Federal exchange programs will be ready by the end of the year.

At this point the administration is crossing its fingers that the exchanges aren't - and I quote - a "third-world experience."

Yeah saw that in a Forbes article that also answers why rates will jump through the roof.


I don't know WHY insurance company's raising their rates is the fault of Obamacare..


The real problem is that the blizzard of mandates and regulations that accompany Obamacare's exchanges will force many people to buy far costlier insurance than they've had to in the past. “In some markets,” said Aetna's CEO, Mark Bertolini, insurance premiums could increase “as high as 100 percent. And we've done all that math. We've shared it with all the regulators. We've shared it with all the people in Washington that need to see it. And I think it's a big concern.” Privately and publicly, most of Bertolini's peers at UnitedHealth, WellPoint, Humana, and Cigna have said the same thing.

What will cause the rate shock? A number of things. First, Obamacare forces young people to pay far more for health insurance, in order to mildly subsidize premiums for those in their early 60s, using a provision called “community rating.”

Second, the law forces insurance plans to have a higher “minimum actuarial value,” which makes plans more financially generous but also more expensive.

Third, the law's famous “guaranteed issue” provision forces insurers to take all comers, even if they are already sick: a great deal for the sick, but not for the healthy.

Fourth, the law gives HHS the power to force insurance plans to contain all sorts of extra benefits that customers wouldn't otherwise pay for, driving up the cost of those plans.

Fifth, the law contains an utterly nonsensical premium tax that insurers will be forced to pay, and pass on to their customers in the form of higher premiums. It also contains taxes on pharmaceuticals and medical devices that will also be passed on in the form of higher premiums.

CMS on Obamacare's Health Insurance Exchanges: 'Let's Just Make Sure It's Not a Third-World Experience' - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/03/22/cms-on-obamacares-health-insurance-exchanges-lets-just-make-sure-its-not-a-third-world-experience/)

Well spoken by a supply side engineer justifying his raising prices. But isn't that the same thing business has always said in every sector of society for decades? Gas, food, toilet paper? They all have raised their prices because service means NOTHING and only the bottom line increasing is what matters.

Only a profit before people type could embrace such a business model. The question to ask this fellow is what justified his raising prices BEFORE ObamaCare become a law YET to be implemented. You know back when they collected premiums for YEARS, and terminated your policy when you got sick, or told your doctor what treatments or remedies he could prescribe. Death panels didn't start with ObamaCare, they have been around as long as Insurance companies have so don't be distracted by the broken business model. Of course any standard of care and service is challenged by those that profit like airlines and carry on luggage fees to meet the rising cost of fuel, and Golden Parachutes for execs, as they pass on the costs of doing business to consumers.

But my question, with cheap labor every where, why has the price of doing business NOT gone DOWN ever? Then they tell you costs would be even higher without cheap labor.

The business model is BROKEN, and they turned OFF the spicket of TRICKLE down economics long ago. Keep listening to the rich guy who tells you he can't afford to service you properly, and blames the government for rising prices, while he takes his perks, bonuses and parachutes to the bank.

And take your own aspirin and pajamas to the hospital with you, and watch them charge you quadruple any way. Oh that's right the insurance company pays for it, or do they? They did jack up your premiums didn't they?

By the way, did you know Obamacare could encourage you to ship jobs overseas?


A company that employs U.S. citizens working abroad generally would be subject to the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions only if the company had at least 50 full-time employees (or the equivalent combination of full-time and part-time employees), determined by taking into account only work performed in the United States (http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-Employer-Shared-Responsibility-Provisions-Under-the-Affordable-Care-Act). Accordingly, employees working only abroad, whether U.S. citizens, generally will not be taken into account for purposes of determining whether an employer meets the 50 full-time employee (or equivalents) threshold. Furthermore, for employees working abroad the time spent working for the employer outside of the U.S. would not be taken into account for purposes of determining whether the employer owes an Employer Shared Responsibility payment or the amount of any such payment.

Dude, they have been sending jobs overseas for DECADES. Why stop NOW? Where have you been?

Before you jump to another insurance company, investigate who the underwriters are.

By the way, did you know Obamacare could encourage you to ship jobs overseas?

An interesting question, and yes there is an incentive to employ people on the otherside of the border and not incur the cost but this is just an added incentive. All government regulation gives incentive for business to move that is why they have

They go where they get cheap labor and weak governments so they can visit the Cayman Islands and Luxemborg to visit their money. The Russians aren't as sophisticated.

They go where they get cheap labor and weak governments so they can visit the Cayman Islands and Luxemborg to visit their money. The Russians aren't as sophisticated.

No they enjoy the mediterranian and it costs them but then there are other considerations

Now a Federal Judge in Brooklyn has ordered the FDA to allow abortion pills to anyone at any age OTC . Geeeze ;why do we need to elect lawmakers ? Just let the unelected branch make all the rules for us !

Hello again, tom:


Just let the unelected branch make all the rules for us !There are some decisions that simply can't be left in the hands of the electorate. If we put the Bill of Rights up for a vote today, it would fail. Somebody needs to stand up for the Constitution...

Look. I don't like all the decisions the judiciary makes, but at least they have the Constitution as a guide instead of rigid political ideologies.

Excon

Judges are there to determine if a law is constitutional . Show me the constitutional requirement that young girls have a "right" to get abortion type drugs ,OTC, without prescription .Even Sebillius is being over ruled on this call .
Life saving drugs require a prescription; life ending drugs don't... progessivism in a nutshell.

Hello again, tom:

I'm not here to argue the case. I know nothing about it. I'm here to tell you the courts have a ROLE in our society.

Let me ask you this. If the Bill of Rights were UP for a vote, WOULD you vote to confirm them ALL? I would. I absolutely WOULD. If you tell the truth, I cannot imagine any right winger supporting a criminals right to have a lawyer at states expense, or his right to due process of law, or his right against cruel and unusual punishment, or his right NOT to be searched, or any number of rights that favor the accused over the government...

Come on. You can tell me. What right winger could, in good conscience approve of THAT bunch of liberal hogwash?

excon

You wingers make everything you don't like or understand a constitutional issue. Then you tell woman, minorities, and anyone different than you about the rights you think they should have and not have.

Can't you righties just mind your own business for a few decades or so and live and let live?

Hello again, tom:

There are some decisions that simply can't be left in the hands of the electorate. If we put the Bill of Rights up for a vote today, it would fail. Somebody needs to stand up for the Constitution...

Look. I don't like all the decisions the judiciary makes, but at least they have the Constitution as a guide instead of rigid political ideologies.

excon

Um, you whine about guns and defend giving murder-death-kill pills over-the-counter? Dude! Any pill designed to end life should not be available OTC, that's just warped as hell.

Dude! Any pill designed to end life should not be available OTC, that's just warped as hell.

Blah, blah, blah, I'm sick of hearing you guys talk about choices, you only defend the choice you agree with.

So now life begins the next day?

Dude, you need help NK.

As you know I used your exact words that you used a few minutes before my post. Kind of opens your eyes eh?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/right-wing-moving-further-right-2-0-a-742592.html#post3435847

So now life begins the next day?

No, at conception. So you're telling me this should be available OTC, and yet I have to practically give a kidney to buy Sudafed OTC


mifepristone - oral, Mifeprex (cont.)

SIDE EFFECTS: See also Warning section.Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, weakness, or dizziness may occur. If these effects persist longer than the first 24 hours after taking the second drug (misoprostol), seek immediate medical attention because they can be signs of a serious medical problem.Bleeding and cramping are expected during this treatment. Usually, the symptoms mean the drugs are working. However, sometimes you can have cramps and bleeding and still be pregnant. Therefore, you must return for all 3 of your doctor visits. Nausea and cramping may worsen in the 24 hours after you take the second drug (misoprostol). Your doctor may direct you to take other medication to help with these symptoms. If any of these effects persist or worsen, tell your doctor or pharmacist promptly.Bleeding and spotting may last up to 30 days and may be much heavier than a normal period. In very few cases, this bleeding will need to be stopped by surgery. Seek immediate medical attention if you bleed enough to soak through 2 thick, full-size sanitary pads each hour for 2 hours in a row, or if you are concerned about heavy bleeding.Remember that your doctor has prescribed this medication because he or she has judged that the benefit to you is greater than the risk of side effects. Many people using this medication do not have serious side effects.Seek immediate medical attention if you have any of these unlikely but very serious side effects: fever of 100.4 degrees F (38 degrees C) or higher, fainting, fast heartbeat, stomach/abdominal pain or tenderness.A very serious allergic reaction to this drug is rare. However, seek immediate medical attention if you notice any symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, including: rash, itching/swelling (especially of the face/tongue/throat), severe dizziness, trouble breathing.This is not a complete list of possible side effects. If you notice other effects not listed above, contact your doctor or pharmacist.In the US -Call your doctor for medical advice about side effects. You may report side effects to FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088.In Canada - Call your doctor for medical advice about side effects. You may report side effects to Health Canada at 1-866-234-2345.

Sounds like a potential clothes hanger in a pill to me. Who needs a doc's care for that?

As you know I used your exact words that you used a few minutes before my post. Kind of opens your eyes eh?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/right-wing-moving-further-right-2-0-a-742592.html#post3435847

No, your pathological behavior should open some eyes. Your stalking of me is really creepy.

Hello again, tom:

I'm not here to argue the case. I know nothing about it. I'm here to tell you the courts have a ROLE in our society.
I'd first like to discuss the case. Here is the facts (condensed version) the FDA said it was OK for the abortion pill to be OTC and then the Head of the Executive Dept that the FDA answers to said no . That was the decision of Sebellius and be extension the decision of the Chief Executive of the United States.
So now you have some putz judge in District Court in Brooklyn saying that is an unconstitutional decision?. and then he orders the FDA to make the pill available OTC ? I want to know what is the basis for this call ;and where in the constitution it says a judge can make law from the bench ?

Your stalking of me is really creepy.You flatter yourself. :D

You wingers make everything you don't like or understand a constitutional issue. Then you tell woman, minorities, and anyone different than you about the rights you think they should have and not have.

Can't you righties just mind your own business for a few decades or so and live and let live?

BS it was YOUR LIBERAL government that made the call (OMG they actually got one right )... then one of YOUR imperial judges who over-ruled a proper executive decision.
Yes I know that your side thinks the constitution is toilet paper to be used and discarded as needed . WE think it's an important restraint on the power of the government .

I know that your side thinks the constitution is toilet paper to be used and discarded as neededYou truly believe that 125 million americans view your constitution this way?

So when some creepo has sex with a 12-year-old girl he can now just go pick up a pill to try and destroy the evidence. Great logic in that decision judge.

You'd rather she get pregnant and carry the child to term?

Wow, you really have no clue do you?

It's your hypothetical, follow it through.

To answer your question I have lots of clues, do you? Ask Blue for a clue if you need one too.

Like I said, creepy.

Constantly thinking about 12 year old girls having sex is creepy indeed.

Do you really think carrying a child to term for the evidence value in a rape case is a wise move? I think its crazy myelf, and know there are other options not as draconian. And what happens to the evidence AFTER the trial? I don't think the constitution is toilet paper, I just question your interpretation.

Life begins when you are born since conception with the best science is subject to human error. The laws says abortion is legal in the first trimester. Anything else is outside the law and subject to tort.

The church is not the law. Nor is it above the law, tax breaks or NOT.

Constantly thinking about 12 year old girls having sex is creepy indeed.

Geez dude, you can get help for that. I'm sure your government will even pay for it.

Do you really think carrying a child to term for the evidence value in a rape case is a wise move? I think its crazy myelf, and know there are other options not as draconian. And what happens to the evidence AFTER the trial? I don't think the constitution is toilet paper, I just question your interpretation.

Really Tal, you think sexual predators should have otc access to the morning after pill?

Predators have no need but victims do.

Smh.

I'd first like to discuss the case. Here is the facts (condensed version) the FDA said it was ok for the abortion pill to be OTC and then the Head of the Executive Dept that the FDA answers to said no . That was the decision of Sebellius and be extension the decision of the Chief Executive of the United States.



Yes, but there is a lot of money to be made by the drug companies if OTC sales are as extensive as possible.




So now you have some putz judge in District Court in Brooklyn saying that is an unconstitutional decision ? ...and then he orders the FDA to make the pill available OTC ? I want to know what is the basis for this call ;and where in the constitution it says a judge can make law from the bench ?


This is what happens in complex systems. I think it is called unintended consequences.

Its not an insurmountable obstacle.(?)

Its not an insurmountable obstacle.(?)


Tal, have you got a different question?

I think part of the problem is that we have a genuine attempt at providing a non-political solution to the problem of government. Problems begin to arise when we attempt squeeze more and more highly charged political/ legal decisions from something that was never intended to function in this capacity.

Problems may be difficult and highly charged with passionate feelings, but that doesn't mean there is no solution. I mean how long did it take Roe v Wade, civil rights, the end of slavery, and the first gun ban? Nothing happens over night, you have to keep pushing for what you want.

So you don't think the right adjustments can be made? I do, but that's why the question mark in (). You have to want to solve the problem and that's something I am not sure of. When two sides cannot compromise, then nothing gets done. That doesn't mean the problem won't get solved.

What isn't an insurmountable problem ? A judge saying barely teen girls can get abortion pills OTC without parental consent creates an insurmountable problem. It's what that MSNBC moonbat was saying... parents don't "own" their kids . Our kids are nothing more than wards of the state. That same child is not permitted to take an aspirin or ibuprofen in school without teacher or nurse supervision... But she can pop an abortifacient like it's candy .

Yes Tom it's a mad world and you know where this stems from, this nonsense about rights. It is good that people have rights and they know about it, but teaching youth about rights has produced a society where they are responsible to no one. The emphasis should be on teaching them responsibilities, not rights. Telling someone who hasn't reached their developmental potential they have rights is setting a ticking time bomb

As tom noted one of the primary authors of Obamacare, Max Baucus, warned of the possibility (likelihood IMHO) of a “huge train wreck coming down” in ts implementation. Republican Sen. Mike Pompeo had some words for Baucus, it's your own fault, dude.


Dear Senator Baucus (http://pompeo.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=330089),

I was stunned, and also saddened, to read of your complaint that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is doing an insufficient job informing the public about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), otherwise known as Obamacare. My shock wasn’t because I disagreed: You’re right to say this legislation has led to great uncertainty for hard-working Americans, small business owners, and families. No, I was shocked because you wrote this bill. I was saddened because your acknowledgement of the harm caused by PPACA has come so late.

Unlike you, the American people have opposed this law from the moment it was first introduced in Congress. How hard was it to see that even the smartest government bureaucrats can’t competently plan something as complicated as America’s health-care sector?

President Obama’s proposal to rescind the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments for 2014 is an admission that this law will not work as written. The IRS is violating the clear language of this law by planning to spend more than half a trillion dollars and tax millions of employers and individuals without congressional authorization.

No one in the country bears more responsibility for the complexity of this law than you. When your supermajority couldn’t pass the bill using normal procedures, you and your Senate colleagues rammed through the final legislation by using parliamentary gimmickry. Then, in the House, Speaker Pelosi cheerfully urged members to pass the legislation “in order to find out what’s in it.”

This was not good policy-making, and now we’re seeing the consequences.

Implementation is still going full steam ahead despite numerous problems—with your support. Contrary to the legislation and the administration’s myriad promises, the SHOP exchanges have been delayed by a year. Officials have admitted that they’ve gone from worrying over the color of fonts on a website to just making sure that the exchanges aren’t a “third world experience.” Little to no information has been provided about how the exchanges will function.

Each one of these problems results from legislation you authored and your colleagues supported. And yet many Republicans, at every step of the process, issued warnings and condemnations based on exactly these inevitable problems. We warned that businesses would drop coverage. We warned that Americans would not be able to keep a doctor or plan that they liked. We warned that insurance premiums would increase.

Secretary Sebelius’s implementation of the law is certainly flawed, but the policy process produced a law that could not possibly be implemented successfully. As legislators, it is our responsibility to write bills that clearly explain our meaning and have achievable goals. By your own admission, this law is a disaster.

Make no mistake. Unless you act before it’s too late, the American people are going to hold you personally responsible for the failings of this law that negatively impact their jobs, their health, and their families. You drafted it, you twisted arms to get it passed, and, until now, you have lauded it as a model for all the world. Your attempts to pass the buck to President Obama’s team will not work, nor will they absolve you of responsibility for the harm that you have brought via this law.

Republicans have repeatedly offered legislation to repeal PPACA and replace it with more sustainable reforms that would have bipartisan support. Perhaps we can work together to fix this mess before it’s too late. We stand ready to repeal the law and put forward legislation that will truly benefit patients and their doctors.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Mike Pompeo
Member of Congress
Kansas 4th District

Legislate in haste, repent at leisure...

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/The_War_Wagon/DOHHH.jpg
Senator Max Baucus

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/The_War_Wagon/DOHHH.jpg


President Barrack Hussein Obama