Tweet
Originally posted by lonewolf
View Post
-
Someone somewhere has paid for some service or the other I have enjoyed overtime... You and your family have benefited from education etc that unless you were home-schooled and have been self-sufficient from the beginning of time a collaborative effort has paid for. Can you with all honesty say your family and yourself have paid the full-cost of of every service you have enjoyed? If the answer is no then don't judge a system that is set up where every body accesses the services regardless of what they can afford. BTW the taxpayers of Canada generally don't mind helping to take care of those who cant take care of themselves. (yes I have not met one yet who thinks the way you do so while there may be some who do think so the majority are not griping like you.) -
umm, what is Medicaid, Medicare, The US Public Health Service, the Indian Health Service, the Veterans Health Administration and Tricare ?Originally posted by lonewolf View PostComment
-
Originally posted by R_C View Post
why bring up facts when we can live in tea-party fantasy land...
i agree with the concept of universal healthcare, but obamacare i don't believe is the answer...
america is just too mean & brainwashed to get a system that does not enrich the corporations at the expense of the common peopleComment
-
Then I assume you advocate for school fees and no free education K-12? No school buses? Kids taking cabs to school, like in Jamaica? Same thing. Just as schools are free, health care should be also.Originally posted by lonewolf View Post
With the exchange rate in Jamaica at 102.064 JMD to 1USD, costs of schooling in Jamaica is prohibitive. What's going to happen? Many more parents will not be able to educate their children, giving rise to a generation of under-educated adults. The trend of home-schooling in the US has already lead to that subset of ignorant adults.Comment
-
A whole thread can be started about the US public educational system leading to the trend of home schooling and with so much curricula available today it is much better than teaching to the test raising ignorant adults who know how to take a testOriginally posted by queenb View Post
but this is a subject to a different thread.If you don't fight for what you deserve, you deserve what you get.
We are > Fossil Fuels --- Bill McKibben 350.orgComment
-
Twiney;
Yes. We are not free loaders. Expect nothing more than what we pay for.Can you with all honesty say your family and yourself have paid the full-cost of of every service you have enjoyed?
There is a diference in CAN'T and those that WON'T. People that are old or physically not able to work should be taken care of, but those that abuse the system and have children out of wed lock with dead beat dads, drunks and druggies should not get a red cent of tax payers money.BTW the taxpayers of Canada generally don't mind helping to take care of those who cant take care of themselves.
Yes Canadians generally do care. Anyone that pays their hard working money into a system that gives it away to those that are not deserving do mind. It's human nature. Regardless of what you believe.
Really? Griping? Because I don't want to take care of lazy shiftless people? It's obvious that you must be one of the free loaders(yes I have not met one yet who thinks the way you do so while there may be some who do think so the majority are not griping like you.)
R_C;
They are safety nets. They are not designed for a life time of use/abuse.umm, what is Medicaid, Medicare, The US Public Health Service, the Indian Health Service, the Veterans Health Administration and Tricare ?
jah_yout ;
I don't belong to the teaparty. I realize that it is much easier for the simple minded to label and classify those that are free thinkers, because of their own limitations. Nope, not a tea partier, don't even like the taste of tea.why bring up facts when we can live in tea-party fantasy land...
I also don't believe in Obama care, so, that must make you a part of tea-party fantasy land?agree with the concept of universal healthcare, but obamacare i don't believe is the answer...
america is just too mean & brainwashed to get a system that does not enrich the corporations at the expense of the common peopleComment
-
Originally posted by jah_youtnot implying that you do, but your talking points are very consistent with tea-party doctrine---hence the mentionOriginally posted by lonrwolf
Originally posted by jah_youtfor different reasons...the tea party just yells out "socialism" or "communism" and espouses the idea that individuals can completely stand on their own & society can be divided into camps of money-earners & free-loaders....i oppose that philosophy regardless of who pushes it---so let's forget the tea party;Originally posted by lonrwolf
as far as "obamacare" ----i feel we can do better as a society to ensure more people have access to quality health care...i just don't think it's the answerComment
-
wtf?? No. This is absolutely not true.Employees that had some kind of health care through their employer have nothing because of Obama care.
(i just love these completely WRONG 'facts' people just love to spew)
Where did you come up with this cockamamie idea? For the majority of employed people who already have healthcare through their employer, NOTHING CHANGES. I have my healthcare this way and it will remain exactly as it is now. There will be SOME changes by SOME employers, yes, but it's simply not true that all who have coverage through their employers, will now "have nothing".
Obamacare will not affect the majority of those who already have health insurance via their employer. The whole point of it is that those who are not able to get it through their employer, or who have not previously been able to afford to buy it privately, will now BE ABLE to afford to buy it via other avenues, like privately purchased plans that are much more affordable than they were previously - due to changes in the laws about what the insurance companies are allowed to do, and what they will be permitted to charge.
"The Biggest Myth About Obamacare"
I also outright reject your premise that the 'studies are in', and it is 'failing miserably'.
Horse hocky. It has not even started yet. It's not possible to study something that has not yet even begun. Come back in a year and THEN we can discuss how it has progressed, and how it is working, or not ..... after it has actually been put into production.
Last edited by sistacaf; 09-25-2013, 01:28 AM.Comment
-
Thursday, 19 September 2013 17:48 Home Depot Dumps 20,000 Employees Onto ObamaCare Exchanges
Written by Michael Tennant Tweet
Add The Home Depot to the list of companies dumping part-time employees onto ObamaCare’s insurance exchanges — and taxpayers’ backs. According to the Daily Caller, the Georgia-based retailer announced that it is dropping health coverage for approximately 20,000 patients the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
“Unfortunately, the ACA precludes us from offering the limited liability medical plan we’ve been offering the part-time associates,” Home Depot’s director of corporate communications, Stephen Holmes, told the conservative website.
Like many other companies, Home Depot currently offers a low-cost health plan with limited benefits to its part-time employees. Such plans, however, are prohibited under ObamaCare, which requires employers to offer unlimited coverage with numerous mandated benefits and shoulder most of the cost of that coverage. In addition, the ACA requires employers to offer such coverage to all employees working at least 30 hours per week. Thus, the law simultaneously bans plans that both employers and employees could afford and forces employers to cover more people at a higher cost, giving them a great incentive to cover only those employees they absolutely must.
Those Americans who lose employer-based coverage are not permitted simply to go without insurance, however. The ACA mandates that individuals who do not have coverage through their employers purchase it on a government-run insurance exchange, which “requires people to buy insurance for a government-designed set of health-care services, including services promoted by corporate lobbies,” notes the Daily Caller. “The insurance packages can be more expensive than sought by workers, especially younger workers, but the extra costs are partially offset by subsidies from other taxpayers.”
With Home Depot’s announcement, taxpayers will now be burdened with subsidizing coverage for an additional 20,000 or so people. (The company declined to state an exact figure.) This is on top of the thousands of others being dumped onto the exchanges by employers such as Wegmans supermarkets and Universal Studios Orlando. Other companies, such as Walmart, are refusing to cover new part-time workers, while still others are restricting employees’ hours to avoid having to cover them at great expense. These individuals, too, will be seeking out subsidized coverage next year.
This trend cannot be a good thing, the Daily Caller observes:
The accelerating shift of workers to Obama’s taxpayer-funded network will likely drive up costs to taxpayers, disadvantage companies that try to pay for their employees’ health-care and make more voters dependent on health-care decisions made by Democratic officials and legislators.
The switch is also making a mockery of Obama’s promise that Americans would be able to keep their pre-Obamacare insurance if they prefer.
“If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what,” he said in June 2009.
Other companies are not yet dropping coverage altogether but are taking other cost-cutting measures in anticipation of ObamaCare’s implementation. Illinois-based Walgreens, for example, just announced that it will no longer be offering health insurance to its 160,000 eligible employees in the traditional fashion. Instead, the company will make a flat contribution toward each employee’s purchase of insurance in a private exchange. The exchange will offer the employee a choice of plans from several different insurers. The employee will then be responsible for making up the difference between the premium for the plan he selects and the amount contributed by his employer — an amount not guaranteed to rise as fast as the premium in subsequent years.
According to Forbes, Walgreens is the 18th large employer in the country to adopt the private-exchange model. Companies are switching to this approach to help limit their share of ever-rising healthcare costs. While healthcare inflation long predates the ACA, Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey points out, “If employers like Walgreens expected ObamaCare to actually control costs, they wouldn’t be dumping employee coverage.”
Companies are, in fact, expecting the ACA’s mandates to drive costs even higher — another good reason to get out of the business of insuring their employees. “Aside from rising health-care costs,” writes the Wall Street Journal, “[Walgreens] cited compliance-related expenses associated with the new law as a reason for the switch.”
Businesses aren’t alone in foreseeing higher healthcare costs under ObamaCare. In its most recent forecast, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that federal healthcare spending would grow by 74 percent over the next 25 years. But considering that by the end of its first 25 years Medicare was nine times as expensive as originally projected, there is an excellent chance that the CBO is vastly underestimating how fast healthcare costs will increase over the next quarter century, especially with the advent of ObamaCare.
Shifting employees to private or public exchanges, therefore, would appear to be the wave of the future. No matter which exchange employers choose, someone — either the employee or the taxpayer — is probably going to pay more and get less. And in keeping with Ron Paul’s dictum that a law will accomplish the exact opposite of that which its name implies, that is precisely what one would expect from the Affordable Care Act.
Comment
-
Sistacalf;
See the above reported information that simply shows that YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG.wtf?? No. This is absolutely not true.
(i just love these completely WRONG 'facts' people just love to spew)
YOU don't know what you are talking about. Why do you insist of making a fool of yourself because YOU have not checked the facts. AND WHAT THE HELL IS A WRONG FACT? A FACT IS NOT A FACT IF IT IS NOT FACTUAL.
Oh, I see, because it does not change for YOU that makes it OK?Where did you come up with this cockamamie idea? For the majority of employed people who already have healthcare through their employer, NOTHING CHANGES. I have my healthcare this way and it will remain exactly as it is now. There will be SOME changes by SOME employers, yes, but it's simply not true that all who have coverage through their employers, will now "have nothing
Again, read the above post, and count the well know big companies that are dropping employees current health care to avoid paying the increased premiums.
Once again, YOU don't know what you are talikng about. There are states that are implementing Obummer care early, such as the STATE OF MARYLAND. That is the state in which I live. There are already repercussions and projected astronomical increases in cost to subscribers.I also outright reject your premise that the 'studies are in', and it is 'failing miserably'. Horse hocky. It has not even started yet. It's not possible to study something that has not yet even begun. Come back in a year and THEN we can discuss how it has progressed, and how it is working, or not ..... after it has actually been put into production.
Obamacare-Friendly Maryland's Insurance Rates Set to Skyrocket ...reason.com/.../obamacare-friendly-marylands-insurance-r - Cached - Similar
Apr 26, 2013... giant Kaiser of Obamacare's likely impact on insurance costs in Maryland, "an
important. ... plans could rise as high as 150 percent next year for healthy young
... Burrell said, mainly because of the rising cost of health care.
News for Md health care insurers raise cost because of Obama careDouble Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women Forbes - 53 minutes ago
... how much Obamacare will drive up the cost of health insurance for people who ... of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates ... Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, and Nevada. ... This approach artificially flatters Obamacare, because the median age of ...
Obamacare = 198% Increase in Georgia Health Insurance Rateswww.westernjournalism.com/obamacare-198-increase-in-georgia-health-insurance-rates/ - Cached
Aug 3, 2013 ... Obamacare = 198% Increase In Georgia Health Insurance Rates ... states) health
insurance premiums in Maryland would increase up to 25%, .... insurance costs
won't double or triple because “federal assistance” will come ...Comment
-
you lucky to bee in that sweet spot.Originally posted by lonewolf View Post
Pay enough to cover everything you use. not like the guy down the road who only pays haf as much tax as you do.
or you not overpaying like the other guy in your health plan who pays the same premium as you but hasn't been to the doctor in 6 years.
When its hot in the jungle of peace I go swimming in the ocean of love.....Comment
-
Thank you kind sir for your kind words. Yes a free loader I am if you say so. My kids go to public school and my family uses the provincial health care when necessary and I am really happy I don't have to full cost of the quality education and health care we have. You do realise as a firefighter you get paid by people who pay taxes who will never use the service, Maybe we should start paying firefighters based on the taxes paid by those people whose fires they put out eh?Originally posted by lonewolf View PostComment
-
I always wonder why they dont install sprinkler systems in new homes when they are built, eventually reducing the demand and need for firefighters. Not getting rid of them totally but reducing the numbers and thus saving taxpayers money.Originally posted by twiney View PostComment
-
No luck involved. Just careful planning of not living beyond one's means.RichD="you lucky to bee in that sweet spot."
[QUOTE=twiney;728091]Thank you kind sir for your kind words. Yes a free loader I am if you say so. My kids go to public school and my family uses the provincial health care when necessary and I am really happy I don't have to full cost of the quality education and health care we have. /QUOTE]
What did you expect? I answered with the same flippant kindness that you used to address me. And YOU cry foul? Why? (Your quote is below to refresh your memory of convenience)
You attacked me because I am voicing concern for health care changes in the US that will effect the quality of my life/families life?!?! It's a serious concern for me. The model system that Obummer and his screwy cohorts are forcing down the throats of the American people has been a failure in the state of Massachusetts, and Obummer and Pelosi (by her own admittance) don't have a clue of what was written (BECAUSE THEY DID NOT READ THE BILL) of how the system actually works.
If the Canadian system of health care works for you, that's great, I'm happy for you, but the US system is not based on the Canadian system, even though the Canadian system has it obvious warts and problems. ( I have read about same and researched on the net and talked to people that work in the Canadian health care system.)
TWINEY= QUOTE; "BTW the taxpayers of Canada generally don't mind helping to take care of those who cant take care of themselves. (yes I have not met one yet who thinks the way you do so while there may be some who do think so the majority are not griping like you.)"
In many states they do. And the state I work in as a professional fire fighter has passed such a law.My looh="I always wonder why they dont install sprinkler systems in new homes when they are built, eventually reducing the demand and need for firefighters. Not getting rid of them totally but reducing the numbers and thus saving taxpayers money."
If you did your home work before posting you would have known this...and YOU may be surprised, but I agree with you. It is a cost saving for the taxpayer. BUT! the cost of new home construction will rise because the system is very expensive. So, the taxpayer saves until a segment of the taxpayer population buys a new home where the cost is passed on to the consumer/taxpayer. ( add about $8000 dollars american to a purchase price of a new home in my rural area)
Maryland mandates residential fire sprinklers | Security Systems News
www.securitysystemsnews.com/.../maryland-mandates-residential-fire-sprinklers - Cached
May 21, 2012 ... PATTERSON, N.Y.—New homes built in Maryland will be required to ... So,
Alexander said, “this year the bill we introduced and was passed ...
Sprinkler requirements by state and community - Fire Sprinker Initiativewww.firesprinklerinitiative.org/.../sprinkler-requirements-by-state.aspx - Cached - Similar
NFPA's Fire Sprinkler Initiative tracks the adoption of sprinkler ...Comment
Comment