Jump to content

Obama Care


havending

yes or no  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think its a gool plan?

    • Yes
      3
    • NO
      17


Recommended Posts

Obama care what does it mean? I see a few good points in the plan but WOW look at all of the taxes and surcharges. 675 billion over the next 10 years who pays for it? Remember the federal government does not create any income they just spend ours when they collect taxes.

Investor’s Business Daily – June 29, 2012 – Taxation: The high bench has confirmed that ObamaCare’s individual mandate is a massive tax on the American middle class. But let’s not forget the 20 other new taxes that are embedded in the law.

Though President Obama never sold it as a tax hike, the Supreme Court ruled the mandate is exactly that. Unfortunately, the majority argued it’s legal under Congress’ taxing authority.

Forcing citizens to buy health insurance “is absolutely not a tax increase,” Obama insisted in 2009. Earlier, he assured the public that raising taxes on the middle class to support his health care plan was “the last thing we need in an economy like this.” “Folks are already having a tough enough time,” Obama added.

Indeed they are. But his plan, which subsidizes some 30 million uninsured, amounts to a $1.8 trillion whammy on working families. And that’s just for starters.

The court was silent about the 20 other different taxes hidden in ObamaCare, more than half of which affect families earning less than $250,000 a year.

The new taxes, which cost some $675 billion over the next decade, include:

• A 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of medical devices that’s already devastating the medical supply industry and its workforce. The levy is a $20 billion blow to an industry that employs roughly 400,000.

Several major manufacturers have been roiled, including: Michigan-based Stryker Corp., which blames the tax for 1,000 layoffs; Indiana-based Zimmer Corp., which cites the tax in laying off 450 and taking a $50 million charge against earnings; Indiana-based Cook Medical Inc., which has scrubbed plans to open a U.S. factory; Minnesota-based Medtronic Inc., which expects an annual charge against earnings of $175 million, and Boston Scientific Corp., which has opted to open plants in tax-friendlier Ireland and China to help offset a $100 million charge against earnings.

• A 3.8% surtax on investment income from capital gains and dividends that applies to single filers earning more than $200,000 and married couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000.

• A $50,000 excise tax on charitable hospitals that fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance” and other rules set by the Health and Human Services Dept.

• A $24 billion tax on the paper industry to control a pollutant known as black liquor.

• A $2.3 billion-a-year tax on drug companies.

• A 10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons.

• An $87 billion hike in Medicare payroll taxes for employees, as well as the self-employed.

• A hike in the threshold for writing off medical expenses to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

• A new cap on flexible spending accounts of $2,500 a year.

• Elimination of the tax deduction for employer-provided prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients.

• An income surtax of 1% of adjusted gross income, rising to 2.5% by 2016, on individuals who refuse to go along with ObamaCare by buying a policy not OK’d by the government.

• A $2,000 tax charged to employers with 50 or more workers for every full-time worker not offered health coverage.

• A $60 billion tax on health insurers.

• A 40% excise tax on so-called Cadillac, or higher cost, health insurance plans.

All told, there are 21 new or higher taxes imposed by Obama’s health care law — and 21 more reasons to repeal it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I see people cheering this sort of thing on, I almost wish the rest of us could just go on vacation for a few years and let them experience the dystopia they are trying to build. I do not, and will never understand people who will believe everything said to them, and then refuse to hear the facts because they upset them, or contradict their "moral high." I have family that won't speak to me thanks to that whole Scott Walker issue, and that is their decision. I have people I deal with every day that bemoan those "terrible conservatives holding us back". I see the news, and I get so tired of it all. Why should I have to suffer for a program I'll never see the benefits of? Why should someone who's on government assistance make more than I do collecting welfare? I don't get it... but I'm pretty much powerless. My vote in November doesn't even count for anything technically.

I cannot agree with the sentiment more H&A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It scares the crap out of me. 2000 plus pages of legislation. Yikes! I have no idea what I will pay or what will be covered. For the first time, I am scared of my government. Anyone who puts blind trust in the Health Care law is a fool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have paid my own health insurance for over 40 years. My policy now is geared more to catastrophic health issues with a really high deductible (saves a lot of premium money). I don't know what all is in the bill, my insurance guy and cpa will explain it to me. What I do know is that my policy has been high because it is I who have been supporting al the uninsured. People can pretend all they want about this bill but the fact is that for all of my working life hospital costs (thus insurance costs) have risen driven mostly due to non insured. I am NOT talking about medicade or medicare, I mean just what I say uninsured.

Friday was the anniversary of Eisenhowers signing of the Half Trillion Dollar interstate highway bill. Every Airport in the nation functions because of the Federal Government. Every food crop now grown had its start in a USDA lab or associated Agricultural School. Hoover Dam, the TVA, the internet and on and on. Too many people labor under the misconception that government does no good because THEY HAVE NEVER KNOWN WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE WITH OUT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. Do you want to know what it would be like without our infrastructuure? It would be Somalia.

For all the posturing and whining about our government et all, we have but one real problem. We cut taxes to much. You heard me. All those crying about someone else getting a free lunch need to take a reality check. Our taxes are lower NOW than at any time in my life. I see a nation filled with avarice and contempt for the values that made it great. Thats right, this country was built on cooperation and sacrifice not throwing people to the dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the law will hold up any way because the supreme court deemed it a tax. And by law tax bills have to be written in the house and this one came from the senate. The key things about this law that I think about are its the largest tax hike in history and WE will still be carring the cost of under and un insured. And they are making people buy insurance of a gov. Approved plan. So slowly freedoms are going away. Cost will rise and coverage will decrease. And with added cost to companys products will began to rise.

They plan that you have now that works for you may no longer be government approved.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one huge problem with all govt. programs, waste. Typically 10% waste is considered a good record. Do I trust some govt. bureaucrat to care about my health care coverage? No, i do not. I want to be in control of my choices. A monstrous govt. program is not the way to fix health care. They would be taking over 1/6 of the US economy. No way that can be good. I am not a Socialist and I don't want Sociaiized medicine. I want freedom and free enterprise. This tax will further cripple the middle class, and could send the economy into a Depression. I hope it is repealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this HEALTH CARE TAX ever gets implimented every company will go overseas. there will not be any jobs. What would you do? ANSWER - GET MORE LOCATIONS WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THIS SLOGAN. I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is funny because of the amount of misinformation being presented as facts because they made convenient talking points for opinion pieces. The hyperbole completely prevents any rational discussion.

"Every company will go overseas. There will not be any jobs." - Does anyone honestly believe there will be 0 jobs and 0 companies in this country?

"10% of waste is a good record for the government" - Even if this is a fact, it would still be meaningless without an accompanying fact comparing private enterprise.

"This tax will cripple the middle class" - Which of these taxes creates a large increase on the MIDDLE class? 250k as middle class? If so, most people graduating college are begging for the opportunity to be lower class.

(Modified to form a shorter sentence) "Without infrastructure we would be in Somalia". I don't think anyone against the bill is saying lets destroy the government, the roads, and try to become Somalia.

"We will still be carrying the cost of the uninsured" - That is why there is a tax on people who choose not to participate. The same side is arguing "No one should force me to buy insurance. It's so expensive because of all these people who don't buy insurance!" This is akin to saying "No one can make me stop peeing in the water supply, it's not good for anything else since everyone is peeing in it."

"Contempt for the values that made it great" - No one will own up to this because each person will have a different view of which values made America great.

"Why should I suffer for a program that will never benefit me?" - Every person who chooses not to have kids suffers through paying enormous taxes to support schools for another child. All they will get is the spill over benefit that more children are educated. In the same way, they may gain the benefit of less uninsured leaving the hospital with the bill, greater competition between insurers leading to better offerings, and less children born into poverty because the mothers can get the care they need to make better decisions.

Look at the bold parts of the original post and ask yourself how many of those actually apply to you. I'd like to know what income brackets are hit with the medicare and medicaid tax increase.

I'm not for the package, and I'm not against it. I've taken quotes from almost everyone to prove that the tone of the debate is in no way conducive to creating consensus. The only thing gained from wild exaggerations and blanket statements is the opportunity to rant. Did you know that in international meetings the countries of the middle east all denounced terrorism? However, there was no agreement about what would qualify as terrorism. Only that they had all decided to use the word to refer to things they didn't like. Perhaps a few guidelines would help. If you actually disagree with any of these points, then say so. Otherwise try to avoid hyperbole.

There will still be some jobs and companies in America. (Some = a number greater than zero)

There will be new taxes associated with the bill.

The bulk of the actual cost will fall on individuals or families making six figures.

It is entirely possible to raise a family on a six figure income.

Our corporate tax rate is one of the lowest in the industrial world because of the absence of a VAT.

If we announced tomorrow that all drug manufacturers would receive one hundred BILLION dollars, the cost of drugs would not go down significantly. - If you disagree with this, you can start with the sentence "I don't understand economics, but I like to pretend that I do and my favorite opinion news site is..."

People mooching welfare money and serving no purpose other than to turn food into manure should be more productive.

Cadillac health plans drive up the cost of health insurance by separating the consumption of services from the payment. They are like an all you can eat buffet of gourmet foods.

Adam smith was a great economist, and when his theories defined modern economics the power of corporations was vastly smaller and thus bargaining could be accomplished between equals. This does not imply that the balance of power has never shifted or is in any way fixed at a static level.

In order to further kill this thread by dropping a knowledge bomb, I'm going to introduce some simplified theories. If you were on a boat that sunk in the middle of nowhere and a fishing boat offered to save you in exchange for life long slavery, what would you do? If you say no, they can ensure no one else comes into the area while you drown. If you say yes, would you actually follow through? This is exploitation, and it is entirely possible under free markets so long as one side at the bargaining table holds vastly more power than the other. The Adam Smith theories explained in the wealth of nations were based on the premise that there would be some degree of relative equality in the bargaining positions of people such that each gained from a transaction and that no party would be able to gain an obscene advantage (like the fishing boat) because competition would ensure multiple sellers of any product. Clearly if there were twenty fishing boats, you would likely receive offers of being saved in exchange for helping with the fishing duties over the next few days until they returned to port. This barely begins to cover the economic advances we've seen over the past centuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some of the tax hikes are geared toward the over 250,000 group. But much of ot will either apply or trickle down to ever one.If a drug company or insurance company is hit with a big tax increase do you think that they will poll their coustomers and only trickle down the added cost to the ones making over 250,000? The fact is that its the biggest tax increase ever. I asure you that the fine/tax collected from the people not in the plan will far from cover the uninsured. An im sure that there will be wavers or free plans for the people with little to no income. Who pays that you and I do. I dont mind paying taxes heck I dont even mind paying school taxes even though my two go to a private school to the tune of 900 a month each. The most important thing here that the government is forcing your hand on the healthcare you choose. Whats next kinda car you drive, how many kids you can have, where you can shop? where will it end? wheres our freedoms?

That tanning tax bothers me my wife loves to tan ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is funny because of the amount of misinformation being presented as facts because they made convenient talking points for opinion pieces. The hyperbole completely prevents any rational discussion.

Okay, perhaps I'll rephrase my statement- I hate it when a government entity can dictate how I live my life. We have set a precedent that unpopular legislation can be ramrodded into reality, and that powerful people, left and right, can mandate unpopular change. In a time of economic CHAOS the last thing we need are NEW taxes, especially something hastily voted into being despite overwhelming resistance by the American people. Maybe this is the end of it, but do you really believe this is the last "takeover" bill? I certainly don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the law will hold up any way because the supreme court deemed it a tax. And by law tax bills have to be written in the house and this one came from the senate. The key things about this law that I think about are its the largest tax hike in history and WE will still be carring the cost of under and un insured. And they are making people buy insurance of a gov. Approved plan. So slowly freedoms are going away. Cost will rise and coverage will decrease. And with added cost to companys products will began to rise.

They plan that you have now that works for you may no longer be government approved.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

I'm pretty sure this is getting upheld. Whether you're for or against, I think Obamacare is here for good. Here's an excerpt from a recent article that provides a fairly lucid rationale as to why it's not likely to be overturned...

"

First, the President has

no

authority to do that alone. Second, the Republicans would have to win the House and a 60 vote filibuster-proof member Senate, PLUS the Presidency to totally repeal the ACA. Even the Minority Leader of the Senate,

Mitch McConnell

admits repeal is

unlikely

. The main reason that repeal will not be so easy is that the "reconciliation" process applies only to budgetary items with financial impact, and there is much more in the law than just budgetary items. (

Read this

if you are really interested in the complexities of reconciliation). In addition, the

CBO

has said that repealing the ACA would add $210 BILLION to the deficit over 10 years. Despite the fact that the country is pretty evenly split about the ACA, people like the individual elements of the law and it would be tricky for Republicans to be associated with overturning some of the most popular parts of the law (see below and

here

)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory that a large tax on drug companies would cause a significant increase in the price of medicine for poor people suffers serious logical flaws. Often times those people are using other government programs to pay for medicine. The middle class might be impacted, but it isn't likely. If the company were able to completely pass off all new costs onto consumers, than the stock price of a company hit by a large tax would be completely unchanged. In the same way we would expect that if the government was handing out money to drug companies that prices would plummet and the consumers would be the winners. However, that won't happen. The companies would pocket the money and their stock valuations would go up. The increase in wealth would be reflected almost exclusively in the net worth of the individuals who have ownership interests in the company. Generally speaking, the middle class has a very limited amount of ownership interest. If they had a significant amount, they would cease to be middle class and become upper class.

The reason these taxes do not create the effect projected 200 years ago is that free competition requires an abundance of people on both sides of the market. What we are witnessing is oligopolies controlling the market. As a result they are capable of largely fixing prices. If they could get away with raising prices, they would. The profit motive ensures that they are already raising prices as quickly as they possibly can. A truly free market would see the weaker competitors destroyed under the pressure and the remaining companies able to restrict supply to the level at which the price would cover their new costs. An oligopoly already artificially restricts supply and drives prices up to their highest level.

The drug market can not help its nature. Our patent and trademark systems are entirely broken. They lead to enormous advantages for whoever can get the patent and survive the trials. Are those profits necessary? Some people say that they are--but it lacks a thorough consideration of the reasons that such a high return is required for investment to occur. A system with severely limited patents would decrease the drive for initial innovation, but it would open up every innovation to be rebuilt into a better system. It would restrict monopoly pricing by ensuring there were more companies in competition and that would drive down prices.

In short, the new tax on drug companies will not force a change in their pricing. Any immediate change shown is strictly for posturing. By raising prices and claiming it is economics they can fool anyone who has not done extensive studies on the subject. Maintaining popular approval by promoting bad economics is profitable, and therefore they are obligated to pursue that path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right about one thing. Cost will not rise for the poor or the people who choose not to better their self. The truley poor by no fault of their own is a small % of the people who use free health care. Many of the people who use free or low cost health care can find jobs where health care is provided or can further their education to help them get a better job with provided health care. The US soical programs have created generations of people who live off the "system" And this bill does not help that because the will still be free health care to a very large group of people who choose not to provide for their self.

One of the biggest problems with this law is the fact that people are watching the shell game Obama is showing them and acually think that their will be no cost to the middle class. To think that there will be billions in cost to the insurance companys and rates wont rise is crazy. I can promise you the money will not fall from heaven and the insurance companies will not suck up the cost. And the middle class is the largest group of the insured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is aware that health care costs have risen quite a bit over the last decade. Some are aware that the reason incomes have stagnated is because companies are paying for the increases in health care costs instead of toward income.

The big reason for this run up is all the technological advances that have become part of our health care industry. This has been a good thing for people, but again has been expensive. But that trend is slowing down, and could stop. The signs are already noticed by investors, and advisers, but the reason is that technology keeps getting cheaper. Just like that HD television is both better, and cheaper then it was a decade ago, the same is true of the MRI machines, and other medical technology.

Also there are quite a few drugs that are about to loose their patent, flooding the market with cheaper generics. So the health care costs are finally coming under control, and without the benefit of any changes in government rules or laws. One of the biggest positive effects on drug prices actually had to do with WalMart changing the rules, and offering many generics for $4.

It takes about $100,000,000 to bring a drug to market in America, and since only about 8% of drugs actually make it to market, the drug companies have to figure in the cost of the research into failed drugs into the successful ones.

The big reason for the high costs involved is the government involvement. Currently a drug approved in another country has already gone through tons of expensive research, but that research is not acceptable to the FDA and must be done again. Really there is no reason for this when these are already high quality studies. The bureaucracy, fees, expenses, and roadblocks introduced by the government slows down the research, and introduction of new drugs, and inflates the prices.

It is nice that people want to help others out, unfortunately I cannot forget the old adage "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." There are actually some things in the bill I might agree with, assuming they are implemented right. But still the single biggest problem with all of this to me is that any control the Government has over the system turns into a political football. Special interests, and lobbyists gain a lot of power over the system, and then who really benefits? Do we really need our health care to turn into a political football?

My wife has her "preexisting condition". About a year ago I figured that without insurance we would be paying over $1K a month just for her medicine. (That may have dropped below $1K due to one or two of those drugs becoming a generic.) As a result, we stand to potentially benefit from this legislation, and I am still very much against it.

At the same time our insurance is often cheaper then what her coworkers pay. Unfortunately this is because they can't seem to do math. We are given a basket of options, and looking into what they offer, I try to find the break even point. The point where it is cheaper to have paid for the insurance then it would have been to have paid for the medical care. (And the next cheaper level of insurance.) And for the more expensive plans there is no break even point. You never recoup your increased insurance payments in saved medical care costs.

Many people do not realize that a big part of the expense in health insurance is actually the cheaper, more routine expenses. By not worrying about having the insurance company pay for these cheaper expenses, it costs less, and often much less then trying to cover everything and anything.

Research has shown that people with insurance are significantly more likely to receive unnecessary procedures. Other research has shown that people who choose $4,000 or higher deductibles are more likely to take care of their health. (I could easily write pages discussing this, so I am attempting to cut it short here.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is aware that health care costs have risen quite a bit over the last decade. Some are aware that the reason incomes have stagnated is because companies are paying for the increases in health care costs instead of toward income.

The big reason for this run up is all the technological advances that have become part of our health care industry. This has been a good thing for people, but again has been expensive. But that trend is slowing down, and could stop. The signs are already noticed by investors, and advisers, but the reason is that technology keeps getting cheaper. Just like that HD television is both better, and cheaper then it was a decade ago, the same is true of the MRI machines, and other medical technology.

Also there are quite a few drugs that are about to loose their patent, flooding the market with cheaper generics. So the health care costs are finally coming under control, and without the benefit of any changes in government rules or laws. One of the biggest positive effects on drug prices actually had to do with WalMart changing the rules, and offering many generics for $4.

It takes about $100,000,000 to bring a drug to market in America, and since only about 8% of drugs actually make it to market, the drug companies have to figure in the cost of the research into failed drugs into the successful ones.

The big reason for the high costs involved is the government involvement. Currently a drug approved in another country has already gone through tons of expensive research, but that research is not acceptable to the FDA and must be done again. Really there is no reason for this when these are already high quality studies. The bureaucracy, fees, expenses, and roadblocks introduced by the government slows down the research, and introduction of new drugs, and inflates the prices.

It is nice that people want to help others out, unfortunately I cannot forget the old adage "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." There are actually some things in the bill I might agree with, assuming they are implemented right. But still the single biggest problem with all of this to me is that any control the Government has over the system turns into a political football. Special interests, and lobbyists gain a lot of power over the system, and then who really benefits? Do we really need our health care to turn into a political football?

My wife has her "preexisting condition". About a year ago I figured that without insurance we would be paying over $1K a month just for her medicine. (That may have dropped below $1K due to one or two of those drugs becoming a generic.) As a result, we stand to potentially benefit from this legislation, and I am still very much against it.

At the same time our insurance is often cheaper then what her coworkers pay. Unfortunately this is because they can't seem to do math. We are given a basket of options, and looking into what they offer, I try to find the break even point. The point where it is cheaper to have paid for the insurance then it would have been to have paid for the medical care. (And the next cheaper level of insurance.) And for the more expensive plans there is no break even point. You never recoup your increased insurance payments in saved medical care costs.

Many people do not realize that a big part of the expense in health insurance is actually the cheaper, more routine expenses. By not worrying about having the insurance company pay for these cheaper expenses, it costs less, and often much less then trying to cover everything and anything.

Research has shown that people with insurance are significantly more likely to receive unnecessary procedures. Other research has shown that people who choose $4,000 or higher deductibles are more likely to take care of their health. (I could easily write pages discussing this, so I am attempting to cut it short here.)

Good points Mage.

My opposition to this legislation is first and foremost on a philosophical basis. This country was founded on the basis of freedom from the tyranny of government. This legislation is, IMO, in direct opposition to one of the bedrock principles that led to the founding of this great country. Sadly it is only the most recent example of government overreach that began in earnest with FDR's New Deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Also there are quite a few drugs that are about to loose their patent, flooding the market with cheaper generics. So the health care costs are finally coming under control, and without the benefit of any changes in government rules or laws. One of the biggest positive effects on drug prices actually had to do with WalMart changing the rules, and offering many generics for $4.

the only generic drug i trust taking is painkillers , why? most people dont know that a generic drug doesn't have

the same stringent standards as the brand drug, even the FDA wont tell you but if you look at the regulation of these drugs

they are allowed to be approved even with a +/- 25% difference in plasma concentration of the brand. meaning that the drug levels in your blood could be 25% more or less than it would be with the brand. this is because often times the composition of the pills are different. this is important because many drugs have narrow therapeutic indices where even small differences can have a big impact. this was confirmed in real world studies showing that epileptics who take generic seizure control medicines have more seizures than

those taking the same branded medication.

It takes about $100,000,000 to bring a drug to market in America,

sorry that figure is BS propaganda by the drug companies. why? because advertising and marketing costs are included. just like any

other company look at a drug company's ledger and you see that the lions share of expenses are marketing expenses, only a tiny fraction goes to R&D ... which brings me to my next point.

The big reason for the high costs involved is the government involvement. Currently a drug approved in another country has already gone through tons of expensive research, but that research is not acceptable to the FDA and must be done again. Really there is no reason for this when these are already high quality studies. The bureaucracy, fees, expenses, and roadblocks introduced by the government slows down the research, and introduction of new drugs, and inflates the prices.

most basic research is funded by the NIH, a significant portion of drug development including clinical trials and orphan drug development is subsidized by the NIH . why do we not accept approval of other countries testing agencies, in one word? thalidomide.

thalidomide was approved by most of the western european nations but the FDA decided, despite intense pressure from the drugmaker, it required more testing. In that time it was discovered the drug caused horrible birth defects. Many American children were spared the horrors that befell thalidomide babies worldwide. Our process is not perfect but if anything the problem is corruption by the manufacturers to permit unsafe drugs to market, not the other way around.

the reason drugs costs are high, is because they can be. patents afford a legal monopoly so the drug companies charge

what ever they can. pharmaceuticals is the most profitable business on earth, more than ANYTHING else by a huge percentage

(oil, banking,computers, you name it) because the marginal cost of a pill is almost nothing. this is why they can sell aids medication in africa for less than a dollar while it costs thousands here.

Your right about one thing. Cost will not rise for the poor or the people who choose not to better their self. The truley poor by no fault of their own is a small % of the people who use free health care. Many of the people who use free or low cost health care can find jobs where health care is provided or can further their education to help them get a better job with provided health care. The US soical programs have created generations of people who live off the "system" And this bill does not help that because the will still be free health care to a very large group of people who choose not to provide for their self.

One of the biggest problems with this law is the fact that people are watching the shell game Obama is showing them and acually think that their will be no cost to the middle class. To think that there will be billions in cost to the insurance companys and rates wont rise is crazy. I can promise you the money will not fall from heaven and the insurance companies will not suck up the cost. And the middle class is the largest group of the insured.

the problem is people who work for very big co's will lose their insurance. myself included...this sucks, plain and simple

and is going to cost everyone a ton of money even with the rebates, theres no free lunch, the whole thing is a big sham,really

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the problem is people who work for very big co's will lose their insurance. myself included...this sucks, plain and simple

and is going to cost everyone a ton of money even with the rebates, theres no free lunch, the whole thing is a big sham,really

It all sounds more like a health care rationing plan. And your "Cadillac Health Plan" is no longer "appropriate".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a cadillac plan as defined by the law what it comes down to is the business can pay for insurance or pay a fine. A big company like where I work the fine is almost certainly less so the incentive is to dump everyone.

All heealthcare is rationed by definition the only argument is the method of rationing should it be ability to pay or need based.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...