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.
At first I did not see it this way, I thought the {R}s were throwing Obama a life line. Instead they are giving him just enough rope to hang himself. I think he is deserving with his no compromise attitude you reap what you sow.
And with the added bonus of forcing the pols to go on record about whether or not they support allowing people to keep their plans.
So you think it is perfectly fine and acceptable that up to 120 million people under the individual, as well as the employer, mandate will lose thier current insurance?
Without questioning the number you quote at all (...), why do you think someone would "lose" their current insurance? Does the current administration WANT people to stop getting healthier (by avoiding the doctor's office due to lack of insurance)?
Or, perhaps, is a person's current insurance going to be replaced?
That is to say, some number of people - 120,000,000 according to you - are going to have "better" coverage (for some definition of "better").
"Foolishness" is, of course, a mild word to use for the Insane Party's moves to continue to hurt the country.
So you think it is perfectly fine and acceptable that up to 120 million people under the individual, as well as the employer, mandate will lose thier current insurance?
What the hell are you people thinking? This is not the USSR- it is shocking that some presume the authority and right to run other people's lives. This concept of totalitarianism is a basic principle of liberalism that most liberals are very comfortable to admit, but free to promote in action.
I think is is foolish to throw out numbers like 120 million, when there is no conformation of that number even being close to reality as to what has or will happen.
To be even more correct, all policies end after the year coverage. Your deductible is based on a yearly period.
My employer didn't just change coverages yearly, but changed insurers every year to keep us in the lowest premium cost pool.
Last edited by Chimuelojones; 11-07-2013 at 06:54 AM..
Hundreds of millions are without plans. Insurance companies spent months reworking their plans for the upcoming year.
And Congress was well aware of what was going to happen way before it actually happened.
This is a "feel good" bill presented in Congress that will go nowhere....just like the bill to put full time back to 40 hours.
Hundreds of millions are without plans. Insurance companies spent months reworking their plans for the upcoming year.
And Congress was well aware of what was going to happen way before it actually happened.
This is a "feel good" bill presented in Congress that will go nowhere....just like the bill to put full time back to 40 hours.
Just like the new standards of coverage are changing the insurance policy coverage landscape, so to is the mandate for employer coverage. Bottom line, it creates a new definition for 'fulltime' work, 30 hours. You really ought to stop posting on this subject, until you are fully fluent. You will be less likely to be seen as a 'defend my President at all costs booster', versus a reasonable and thoughtful individual.
From, Investors Business Daily
"ObamaCare's impact on jobs is hotly debated by politicians and economists. Critics say the Affordable Care Act, with its employer mandate to provide health insurance, gives businesses an incentive to cut workers' hours. This year, report after report has rolled in about employers restricting work hours to fewer than 30 per week — the point where the mandate kicks in. Data also point to a record low workweek in low-wage industries."
You need to go do some reading on the Obamacare changes.
You were the one posting yesterday that the reduced hours under Obamacare was "good" because the workers could get subsidized premium money.
It has never ceased being full-time. What has changed is the definition NOT of "40 hours" but of "full-time".
Some people work, for example, 35 hours (or 25 hours or whatever) but are considered (for all sorts of reasons) to be "full-time".
Then maybe I was not clear enough, when did hours below 40 become full time?
39.59.59 hours and below were always considered not full time.
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.
