Our health insurance cost more, thanks Obama (lobbyist, lobby, military)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I think the chance is gone for now due to the economy. Obama blew it. Too much debt/deficit now is not exactly inspiring confidence that we can cover the cost. We'll have a hard enough time fixing the scheduled decrease in Medicare reimbursement (remember fixing it had to be dropped out of Obamacare as it made the plan run a deficit as per the CBO. Obama had promised Obamacare would be deficit neutral.)
Getting JOBS first would have been the smarter choice. People are more generous and would more likely consider an increase in their taxes when things are going well. When things are bad, they go into austerity and expect the govt to do the same.
Also IMHO the class warfare rhetoric Obama spewed has bit him. When its been repeatedly pointed out that only half of the people paid fed income tax, it makes those paying taxes to want the govt to spend even less.
Poor leadership.
Did it ever occur to you that businesses could afford to hire more people if they weren't saddled with the burden of paying for health insurance as a job benefit?
Tea Party should not have blocked Public Option. When will GOP voters learn that FOR-PROFIT means for the CEOs and shareholders , NOT for the patients? (duh)
Your posts never cease to amuse me. You do realize that the Tea Party was incapable of blocking moronic partisan legislation? (Rhetorical question since I find it hard to believe you're actually stupid enough to believe the BS you spew).
Also, for-profit is simply a tax status. All companies are in the business to turn a profit or they would simply go under and out of business. And, have you looked at the profit margins these FOR PROFIT insurance companies are raking in? It's OBSCENE. A 3-4% profit, oh the horror!
Did it ever occur to you that businesses could afford to hire more people if they weren't saddled with the burden of paying for health insurance as a job benefit?
Depends how much more their corporate taxes were raised to pay for public health insurance. Also businesses hire people based on what profit they can make from the work each worker produces. Money saved on healthcare would not necessarily be spent on hiring more workers.
The conversation in Congress regarding going universal coverage never even entered that very initial question: What percentage tax increase was needed to be paid by everyone to cover the cost? That makes me question how serious the Dems were about putting universal coverage in place after all. Was Obama care just a big handout to the donor insurance companies?
Depends how much more their corporate taxes were raised to pay for public health insurance. Also businesses hire people based on what profit they can make from the work each worker produces. Money saved on healthcare would not necessarily be spent on hiring more workers.
The conversation in Congress regarding going universal coverage never even entered that very initial question: What percentage tax increase was needed to be paid by everyone to cover the cost? That makes me question how serious the Dems were about putting universal coverage in place after all. Was Obama care just a big handout to the donor insurance companies?
Let me get this straight. "Money saved on healthcare would not necessarily be spent on hiring more workers." However, money saved by cutting taxes to corporations would be used to hire more workers.
Do companies have two pots where they put money saved? One pot contains money saved from healthcare benefits and the other contains money saved from lowered taxes? The money must never be interchanged for purpose of use!
Let me get this straight. "Money saved on healthcare would not necessarily be spent on hiring more workers." However, money saved by cutting taxes to corporations would be used to hire more workers.
Do companies have two pots where they put money saved? One pot contains money saved from healthcare benefits and the other contains money saved from lowered taxes? The money must never be interchanged for purpose of use!
I've never personally said that companies would definitely hire workers based on tax cuts. Each business would decide on their own where they would spend saved money, via either tax cuts, not paying health insurance for their workers, or any other sources of savings. Some may hire workers, some may purchase equipment, some may just bank it or give it away as dividends.
Workers are hired in the private sector when there is demand for them.
I've never personally said that companies would definitely hire workers based on tax cuts. Each business would decide on their own where they would spend saved money, via either tax cuts, not paying health insurance for their workers, or any other sources of savings. Some may hire workers, some may purchase equipment, some may just bank it or give it away as dividends.
Workers are hired in the private sector when there is demand for them.
Who says tax increases to companies will prevent them from creating jobs?
Your posts never cease to amuse me. You do realize that the Tea Party was incapable of blocking moronic partisan legislation? (Rhetorical question since I find it hard to believe you're actually stupid enough to believe the BS you spew).
Also, for-profit is simply a tax status. All companies are in the business to turn a profit or they would simply go under and out of business. And, have you looked at the profit margins these FOR PROFIT insurance companies are raking in? It's OBSCENE. A 3-4% profit, oh the horror!
Drats, those conservative Blue Dogs
Now imagine HR676 Universal Healthcare for ALL with NO PROFIT margin, PATIENTS come first, oh the horror http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9n21d3n5j8
Who says tax increases to companies will prevent them from creating jobs?
Again, companies will hire people when there is enough demand to justify the expense of hiring more people. More expenses (like taxes) will require more demand be present to justify hiring more workers.
If demand is high enough to offset the higher expense of increased taxes, it probably wouldn't effect hiring more workers.
Unfortunately, right now there isn't a great deal of demand for products in most businesses so even minimal increases in expenses make it less likely for the business to hire more people.
The best way to lower the cost of health insurance to make more procedures subject to a co-pay and raise it to $100 minimum. Also, every policy should have a $2500 deductible before insurance kicks in 100%.
....but Obamacare MANDATES first-dollar coverage with no co-pays for the most common exenses, and outlaws the prescription you suggest.
I like my health plan, but I cannot keep it, no matter that Obama said a thousand times the exact opposite.
The new faces in Washington had better fix this mess.
Health insurance premiums have been going up FOR YEARS.
Obamacare doesn't have anything to do with it. After the Republicans repeal or defund Obamacare, the premiums will continue to go up too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
)
