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.
) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.
All this section is saying is that you have 5 years to get coverage once the law is passed. If, at the end of 5 years you don't have coverage, you may receive a fine of 7% on your tax return that will enroll you in the government supplied plan. The "benefit requirement" they are talking about is that the insurance you buy has to meet the minimum requirements of the government plan. ALL PRIVATELY OWNED INSURANCE WILL MEET THE GOVERNMENT PLAN AND MOST WILL EXCEED IT.
IF YOU HAVE YOUR OWN DAMNED HEALTH INSURANCE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE ON THE GOVERNMENT PLAN.
How hard is this to figure out people.
And most people with the income level who would actually receive the fine have enough money to pay for their own. Just like owning a car, you have to have insurance to drive it, they are making insurance mandatory, so the suggestion would be to buy your own, and not rely on the governments, if you can afford it. Hell, you'll probably find some thats cheaper than 7 percent of your income level.
No, that is not what it says. Read it again. It states that first you must already have insurance policy the day before the law goes into effect in order to keep your existing insurance policy. If you change that policy, for any reason, after the socialist government single-payer plan goes into effect, you immediately lose your option to keep your insurance plan and must enroll into the socialist government single-payer plan. Even if you do not change your policy, five years after the socialist government single-payer plan goes into effect, ALL insurance carriers must adopt the socialist government single-payer plan. Kiss your insurance policy goodbye.
Here is their financial info direct from the USPS website. They lost $2.8 billion in 2008 and over $5 billion in 2007.
USPS 2008 Annual Report: Connecting People and Business (http://www.usps.com/financials/anrpt08/pg66.htm - broken link)
USPS is different than UPS and Fedex in that they offer service to basically everyone. So if you want to send a postcard from Florida to Alaska or NY to Hawaii, you can send it for less than $1. Of course they lose money on these deals. UPS and Fedex will basically only take work that makes money, they would charge you $10 or $20 for that delivery. This is kind of like the taking pre-existing conditions situation, taking customers that will be at a loss.
No, that is not what it says. Read it again. It states that first you must already have insurance policy the day before the law goes into effect in order to keep your existing insurance policy. If you change that policy, for any reason, after the socialist government single-payer plan goes into effect, you immediately lose your option to keep your insurance plan and must enroll into the socialist government single-payer plan. Even if you do not change your policy, five years after the socialist government single-payer plan goes into effect, ALL insurance carriers must adopt the socialist government single-payer plan. Kiss your insurance policy goodbye.
I suggest you're the one who needs to read it again. If this is what you think it says, comprehension doesn't appear to be your strong suit.
As for the profitability of the USPS, I will concede that they are projecting a loss this fiscal year. That has not been the case in the 5 years referenced in the link I provided.
That still doesn't mean that that's even remotely similar to the actual words President Obama used. The OP, along with several of her subsequent posts, is highly disingenuous in that regard.
You keep talking about the UK
Am I on the wrong forum?
I talk about the UK because that is the UHC system that i have been brought up with and understand. There are many Other Countries with a UHC but i cannot comment as i haven't used them. My family in Canada use their system and are absolutely happy with it. To say that because a UHC works in the UK and the rest of the industrialised Countries ( China next) that it has no bearing on the USA is rather naive. Are you saying that America is too Elitist to implement a UHC or are you saying America is incapable of implementing a UHC. The fact that the USA is divided into 50 States that can each run their own health authority under a National UHC would indeed make it esier to set up and run than other Countries who have succesfully implemented a UHC.
As Henry Ford once said..... "Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, You're probably right"
Being asked? Being asked by who? That's an editorial with one person's opinion. She claims "many experts" say it's the best solution, but she doesn't say who those experts are, what they're experts in, or link to where these experts supposedly said such a thing. And the only part that addressed them actually being "asked" to do anything, was about the GAO, who issued a report with several recommendations, which included "speed up the streamlining" and cut the workforce. Again, where's the "asking" part, let alone asking them to privatize?
Did you think that if you misrepresented the content of that article that I wouldn't click the link and read it for myself, and that I'd just take you at your word that it said what you claim?
all you have to read is the first paragraph to see that the post office is badly run and losing huge amounts of money. if obama compares UHC to the post office, he is not helping his case at all.
the post office is on track this year for an operating loss of between $6 billion and $12 billion, debt surpassing $10 billion, and a $1 billion cash shortfall. For any business, those are some ugly numbers.
Yesterday during his lovefest in Portsmouth he addressed a concern of many of us. .......It appears that his very argument should be used by those of us opposed to this.
That was pretty funny. Not exactly the best way to support an arguemet for a bigger govt entity.
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.
