Health Care- Roy Blunts Admendment can really affect it! (Kansas City: homeowners insurance, condo)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Plainly apparent that you have not had much or any dealing with being ill or injured etc. How old are you? Seems pretty juvenile answer or just a troll.
Do you have health care insurance?
Hold on Versatile, I am not being a troll. There is no mandate for a company to require health insurance. I worked for 13 years without being offered health insurance. I had to buy my own, honest to god I did.
We are not entitled to health insurance. The idea of that is nice, it's utopian, and it's quaint. The U.S. happens to be a very humane society, too, relatively speaking. We don't outright deny anyone health care. I do not see anywhere, however, in our Bill of Rights, and correct me if I am wrong, where there is a 'shall' amendment that mandates that employers offer health insurance. Should fire insurance be offered? Life insurance? Flood insurance? Where to draw the line?
I am not trying to be mean, nor snarky.
The partisan political old arguments need to be shelved here. All politicians of every ideology have failed epically since the Great Depression. We must ask ourselves if this is what we really want, without the partisan arguments. And, if so, the ramifications behind it. i.e. increased costs of goods and services sold by the companies that insure, increased taxes and regulations brought on by government as a overseer. These are all considerations. Look, we've dealt with this societally very irresponsibly over the last 70 years.
I didn't change the conversation. I was questioning a very specific statement that araq6 made, which is why I quoted it. If you can't follow along, don't jump in.
And speaking of needing to create scape goats or enemies, I'm surprised you bring that up in light of the recent revelation that George Soros own media matters set out to target Fox news because they needed an enemy after George W. Bush:
Really? How do you define this election cycle? If I'm not mistaken, it was a very motivated base pissed off about Obama's runaway spending and Obamacare that led to a Republican landslide in Congress in November of 2010. I think the base is anything but apathetic.
Obama chose to pick a fight with the Catholic church with his latest edict. If anyone made it a wedge issue, it was him.
There have been a lot of low turn outs thus far -- so you probably could argue the base is relatively galvanized and maybe I could have said it better, but the middle is staying out of the race thus far and does not appear impressed with the potential Republican candidates. Obama's rising poll numbers are certainly of major concern to the GOP at the moment.
I very much believe that that is what is behind this second wave of "controversy" over this mandate. No one appears to control the bishops; they flip out about whatever they want regardless of what other Catholics care about, but when the majority of Americans agree with this policy I think it would be unfair to say Obama picked this fight -- he's doing what the bulk of the American public agrees should be done.
It should also be noted that the rules for employer-provided health care will be changing because of the new health care law (IMO thankfully)
A basic rundown of the changes:
•By 2014, employers who have more than 50 employees must offer health insurance benefits or pay penalties. Companies with 25 or fewer employees who meet certain wage requirements will also be able to get credits toward health insurance purchases.
•By 2014, small-businesses owners, the self-employed and those who don't get work-provided coverage can get benefits through Small Business Health Options Programs (SHOPs). These state-run marketplace exchanges will work with carriers to pool insurance options, with the hope that costs will be lower for a larger, more powerful, group.
Firms will get a one-stop source to find out about insurance, says Shawn Nowicki, director of public policy at HealthPass, a commercial health insurance exchange.
•By 2018, high-end health plans with premiums of more than $10,200 for an individual policy per individual and $27,500 per family — not including vision and dental — would be subjected to a "Cadillac" tax. (The average cost of a family plan in 2009 was $13,375, with employees on average paying $3,515 and employers paying $9,860, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.)
The excise tax would be paid by employers that self-insure (most large firms do) and insurance companies, but small-business experts expect these costs to be passed along to smaller firms via premium increases.
Hold on Versatile, I am not being a troll. There is no mandate for a company to require health insurance. I worked for 13 years without being offered health insurance. I had to buy my own, honest to god I did.
We are not entitled to health insurance. The idea of that is nice, it's utopian, and it's quaint. The U.S. happens to be a very humane society, too, relatively speaking. We don't outright deny anyone health care. I do not see anywhere, however, in our Bill of Rights, and correct me if I am wrong, where there is a 'shall' amendment that mandates that employers offer health insurance. Should fire insurance be offered? Life insurance? Flood insurance? Where to draw the line?
I am not trying to be mean, nor snarky.
The partisan political old arguments need to be shelved here. All politicians of every ideology have failed epically since the Great Depression. We must ask ourselves if this is what we really want, without the partisan arguments. And, if so, the ramifications behind it. i.e. increased costs of goods and services sold by the companies that insure, increased taxes and regulations brought on by government as a overseer. These are all considerations. Look, we've dealt with this societally very irresponsibly over the last 70 years.
Thanks for your update. Health insurance has been considered a Benefit offered by many companies for many years. It was 8 years before my company started paying mine. I consider it the same as my salary. I have earned it.imo.
Where will you be without health insurance if you cannot pay your premiums? Won't be long you will be overwhelmed by bills and the general populace will have to pick up the slack. Bummer you have to pay for yours.
Monday, February 06, 2012
While a majority of U.S. voters continues to favor repeal of the national health care law, the number who believes it will be good for the country is at an all-time high.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of Likely Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, while 41% oppose repeal. These figures include 39% who Strongly Favor repeal and 27% who Strongly Oppose it. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on February 4-5, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
For the record I trust Rasmussen polls as far as I can throw 'em, but I also question why they surveyed only likely voters? Those numbers are far different than they were a year ago, which seems odd.
Monday, February 06, 2012
While a majority of U.S. voters continues to favor repeal of the national health care law, the number who believes it will be good for the country is at an all-time high.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of Likely Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, while 41% oppose repeal. These figures include 39% who Strongly Favor repeal and 27% who Strongly Oppose it. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on February 4-5, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
But let me take up the other side of this debate. Say the health care bill that Aragx6 refers to is repealed: then what? Much like higher education and affordability, so too has cost of health insurance exploded, relative to cost of living adjustment. Clearly, this model is failed, broken, and needs repeal. I don't think anyone would argue this. So what is the remedy? I am no more for health care premiums outstripping wages any more than the next person.
I am not brilliant enough to offer up solutions, but I think 54% of those who are for repeal have not yet considered the alternative: how to pay for these costs? To wit: in September I had a minor ailment where I decided to see an after hours provider. I had a blood sample and a throat culture drawn. The total for a 20 minute visitation was over $460, once lab fees were calculated. I do believe in paying for something you purchase, however, that cost was simply inconceivable to me.
I didn't change the conversation. I was questioning a very specific statement that araq6 made, which is why I quoted it. If you can't follow along, don't jump in.
And speaking of needing to create scape goats or enemies, I'm surprised you bring that up in light of the recent revelation that George Soros own media matters set out to target Fox news because they needed an enemy after George W. Bush:
I didn't change the conversation. I was questioning a very specific statement that araq6 made, which is why I quoted it. If you can't follow along, don't jump in.
And speaking of needing to create scape goats or enemies, I'm surprised you bring that up in light of the recent revelation that George Soros own media matters set out to target Fox news because they needed an enemy after George W. Bush:
When you have to use "reportedly" in your headline (though I applaud them for doing something vaguely journalistic in that respect) it's not much of a story is it. I LOLed at "it's unclear to what extent" they actually did this -- if they'd done it it wouldn't be unclear would it?
Fox News doesn't need Media Matters to wage a war on them to look bad -- Murdoch does a fine job of that on his own, doesn't he?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ShareThis
