Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
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 03-27-2010, 08:21 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,069 posts, read 44,895,573 times
Reputation: 13720

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
At least you admit you are pro-government involvement in businesses.
Why shouldn't there be when it's a symbiotic arrangement?

As for the government's draconian regulations and restrictions? Not so much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2010, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,682,616 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Finn, I did a bit of reading on this to understand it better and this part of the 2003 Prescription Drug Modernization Act was a good business move because it was a lower cost to the government to give companies credit than take on millions of new medicare patients at a higher cost.
I don't think so, because they had to subsidise for these plans on monthly bases whether or not the participant was using the services. I am glad this scam is seeing daylight because I don't think most people realized that these hand-outs even existed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 08:26 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,069 posts, read 44,895,573 times
Reputation: 13720
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
I think there is a bigger picture here..to completely cut health benefits from employment. Get everyone on a government plan over a period of time and then go single payer.

You can't do it all at once though since this is huge..got to get the pieces all lined up first. This is one piece.

The next piece happens in year 3 when these big companies can participate and move their employees to the government pool.

Then the taxpayer becomes fully responsible for any subsidies and the corporation has a small financial obligation to the government via "fees".
Why aren't more people objecting to government going down this road? Haven't they seen the CBO estimate that they're going to have to pay 12-19% of their annual incomes for the 30% co-pay Silver Plan? And that's just to start.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,548,114 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
I don't think so, because they had to subsidise for these plans on monthly bases whether or not the participant was using the services. I am glad this scam is seeing daylight because I don't think most people realized that these hand-outs even existed.
It was right there in the 2003 Act. That's why big business didn't object to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 08:28 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,069 posts, read 44,895,573 times
Reputation: 13720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
I am glad this scam is seeing daylight because I don't think most people realized that these hand-outs even existed.
Please honestly answer this question: what do you not get about the fact that the tax free subsidies were less costly to the government than having to pay the full expense of insuring those millions of retirees on Medicare?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,682,616 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
It was right there in the 2003 Act. That's why big business didn't object to it.
Or senior citizens. It was a major hand out to both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,548,114 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Why aren't more people objecting to government going down this road? Haven't they seen the CBO estimate that they're going to have to pay 12-19% of their annual incomes for the 30% co-pay Silver Plan? And that's just to start.
Because Obama said they would pay less. That's all they need to know.
2000+ pages should have scared anyone into thinking there's much more than meets the eye here.
And when you worry about IRS staffing over doctors and nurses then you know something else is up.

Revenue generator..we're broke and need immediate revenue coming into the government coffers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Texas
2,847 posts, read 2,520,791 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Why aren't more people objecting to government going down this road? Haven't they seen the CBO estimate that they're going to have to pay 12-19% of their annual incomes for the 30% co-pay Silver Plan? And that's just to start.
beyond belief
CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP - Washington Times
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,548,114 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Or senior citizens. It was a major hand out to both.
AARP was a big promoter of this bill. But the CBO estimates were so off and now we're stuck with a huge cost.

Drug prices are not regulated and that seems to be the root of the problem.
I can see the same happening with this current HC bill..insurance and drug prices are still not regulated or capped.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 08:57 AM
 
Location: West Michigan
12,372 posts, read 9,321,711 times
Reputation: 7364
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Another Obama apologist who doesn't get that the government was SAVING money by incentivizing employer-provided retiree coverage instead of having to pay the FULL COST of those millions of seniors on Medicare.
I don't get your point here. Employer provided retiree coverage doesn't effect what that retiree gets from Medicare in the way of payments on their health care costs. Retiree coverage provided by companies almost always drops to a supplement to cover what Medicare doesn't. Medicare never has paid the full cost and it still won't with the new health care bill.
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.

© 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