Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-02-2013, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Cape Coral
5,503 posts, read 7,333,723 times
Reputation: 2250

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
Balderdash! There has, until now, been no requirement for employers to provide health care under any circumstance. Under current practice, employers can drop employee coverage any time they want and pay no fine at all. Do they do it? No, because it is a competitive factor in hiring. Nothing is changing except now it will cost certain employers even if they do not offer coverage.
It will cost employers much more to maintain the same coverage under Obamacare. It has already increased costs as much as 30%. We are just getting started.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-02-2013, 10:04 PM
 
17,468 posts, read 12,937,957 times
Reputation: 6764
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
They are not exempt. They still have to sign up.
Their issue was that they couldn't get the government subsidies and would have to pay the full cost.
They didn't want to pay the full cost.

So now taxpayers will subsidize their premiums.

It's all taxpayer money in the end..whether it comes from Obamacare or the General Fund.

Pretty sad isn't it when workers in Congress and Congress themselves don't want to pay their full premiums.
Most of them wouldn't have qualified anyway with the 400% FPL limit.

We are going to see the deficit SOAR next year with all the subsidies Obamacare is going to be paying.

400% of poverty line is a means tested program that will now include middle class making over $50K a year.
Who would have thought that $50K a year qualified you for a means tested program ?

And that is what Obamacare is..another means tested welfare program.
Would love to see President Obama's face when the whole middle class is signing up for his forced plan...he's in for one BIG shock. The ubber rich never get it, people only have so much money to give.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2013, 04:50 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,948,900 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl View Post
The difference is the new law said that they would have the same plan as everyone else, not have a subsidy that others don't get. Obamacare is a whole new ballgame. I can't have the same coverage or doctor that I had before so why should they get the same subsidy that they had before? Obamacare coverage and subsidies is about who you know in government. I don't know anyone, so I get screwed. They know people so they get a subsidy.
That's a complete characterization of the ACA.

If your employer had a health care plan with XYZ insurance company before ObamaCare, you will have a health care plan with XYZ insurance company after ObamaCare. There is nothing different unless your employer changes plans.

Congress and their staff has a had an employer based system for decades.

According to No, Congress isn’t trying to exempt itself from Obamacare :
Quote:
Here’s how it happened: Back during the Affordable Care Act negotiations, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) proposed an amendment forcing all members of Congress and all of their staffs to enter the exchanges. The purpose of the amendment was to embarrass the Democrats. But in a bit of jujitsu of which they were inordinately proud, Democrats instead embraced the amendment and added it to the law. Here’s the relevant text:

Quote:
The only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
Let’s stop for a moment here and explain why this is unusual. Large employers — defined in the law as employers with more than 100 employees — aren’t allowed onto the insurance exchanges until 2017, and only then if a state makes an affirmative decision to let them in.

But the federal government is the largest employer in the country. So Grassley’s amendment means that the largest employer in the country is required to put some of its employees — the ones working for Congress — on the exchanges. But the exchanges don’t have any procedures for handling premium contributions for large employers.

That’s where the problem comes in. This was an offhand amendment that was supposed to be rejected. It’s not clear that the federal government has the authority to pay for congressional staffers on the exchanges, the way it pays for them now in the federal benefits program. That could lead to a lot of staffers quitting Congress because they can’t afford to shoulder 100 percent of their premiums. (There’s also a smaller issue related to how retiree benefits might be calculated. But I’m only willing to go so far into the weeds here.)
...
But no one is discussing “exempting” congressional staffers from Obamacare. They’re discussing creating some method through which the federal government can keep making its current contribution to the health insurance of congressional staffers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2013, 04:52 AM
 
6,073 posts, read 4,752,027 times
Reputation: 2635
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
That's a complete characterization of the ACA.

If your employer had a health care plan with XYZ insurance company before ObamaCare, you will have a health care plan with XYZ insurance company after ObamaCare. There is nothing different unless your employer changes plans.

Congress and their staff has a had an employer based system for decades.

According to No, Congress isn’t trying to exempt itself from Obamacare :
except for the cost, which is the only thing that matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2013, 06:12 AM
 
Location: Maine
3,536 posts, read 2,858,898 times
Reputation: 6839
Default No Obama care for congress

What's good for the unwashed peasants is not good for it's masters apparently.
If Obamacare is so good for us then why is congress exempting themselves and there staffs from it?
Hill gets Obamacare fix - John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

bill
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2013, 06:26 AM
 
Location: The Beautiful Pocono Mountains
5,450 posts, read 8,762,566 times
Reputation: 3002
I'm pretty sure this congress has been speaking against it the whole time. The real hypocrisy lies in the senate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2013, 06:32 AM
 
12,265 posts, read 6,472,102 times
Reputation: 9435
No Obama care for me either. Does someone have a point here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2013, 07:27 AM
 
Location: DFW
40,951 posts, read 49,189,517 times
Reputation: 55008
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmagoo View Post
No Obama care for me either. Does someone have a point here?
The Affordable Care Act will not be so Affordable or provide a lot of Care.

Just another lie told by our Pres. But we've grown used to his lies and deceptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2013, 08:53 AM
 
Location: S.E. US
13,163 posts, read 1,695,729 times
Reputation: 5132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin View Post
The Affordable Care Act will not be so Affordable or provide a lot of Care.

Just another lie told by our Pres. But we've grown used to his lies and deceptions.
What was called "death panels" are now being called "ration panels". Not quite as alarming as the previous term but still means the same thing. Health care will be doled out based on what criteria is met, and the decisions will be made by non-medical bureaucrats, probably the same IRS employees who were deep in the muck and mire of the "phony" targeting scandal (until it was revealed).

Raise your hand if you think you can really trust the IRS to administer and enforce Obamacare. In fact, since the ACA regulations provide for the IRS to have complete access to all your financial accounts, you'd have to be really ignorant or stupid to trust them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2013, 09:57 AM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,975,567 times
Reputation: 16155
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
How so?
Taking more of my tax dollars to supplement healthcare that their bosses can control? How long should we all take that? Until we pay 100% of theirs?

Every penny from ME to THEM comes out of my household budget.

If every taxpayer just stopped paying taxes, that would send a message. They can't throw us all in jail, can they?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:53 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top