GOP still spreading lies

Both sides spread lies.....

Your point? This has to do with the continuous fearmongering regarding health insurance promulgated by Republicans. Obviously you didn't bother to read the information. You didn't have time.
 
Both sides spread lies.....

Your point? This has to do with the continuous fearmongering regarding health insurance promulgated by Republicans. Obviously you didn't bother to read the information. You didn't have time.

Why bother? you think democrats don't lie and spread fear?

IF I wanted to talk generalities, I would have put this in the Politics forum. Once again, this has to do with all the lies about health care.
 
The other side lies so my slide lying is fine is very pathetic illogic.

No. I didn't say that. I don't have a "side", first of all. I just get tired of all the partisan hackery that goes on.

So do I, so do I. But when millions of Americans hear this crap coming from the right wing noise machine day in and day out, then parroted by elected leaders, it becomes a problem.
 
I find this curious then...Obamacare being the shining light for nanny staters...

Obama admin grants certain businesses health care waivers | The Moderate Voice

The issue of waivers has ALWAYS been a part of all drafts of health care reform, and included in the final enacted version. Oddly enough, that's something else the RWNM conveniently left out of all their rants for over a year, while they were busy telling everyone that the entire bill was "mandatory." Also not true. Additionally, states can opt out completely if they comply with certain bare bones standards. That's another fact that the talking heads on the right fail to mention.

McDonalds is one of those companies that offers employees so-called "mini-meds" because of their high turnover. Since mini-med insurance programs are cheap (and offer crappy coverage), applicants such as McDonalds asked for the waiver because paid premiums on those mini-med policies would increase significantly between now and 2014, in some cases doubling or more, as those insurers anticipated the company would begin enrolling in the exchanges in 2014 when much better health insurance is available.
 
I find this curious then...Obamacare being the shining light for nanny staters...

Obama admin grants certain businesses health care waivers | The Moderate Voice

you missed the boat on this one.

I posted this in another thread and it explains why these companies got "temporary" waivers:

Per: McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers - USATODAY.com

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees."

"Without waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014."

"The waiver program is intended to provide continuous coverage until 2014, when government-organized marketplaces will offer insurance subsidized by tax credits, says HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo."

"The United Agricultural Benefit Trust, the California-based cooperative that offers coverage to farm workers, was allowed to exempt 17,347 people. San Diego-based Jack in the Box's waiver is for 1,130 workers, while McDonald's asked to excuse 115,000."

"The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says."


so they are technically already providing coverage to both full time and part time workers at a subsidized costs. they are simply not being required to raise the minimum coverage level over $750,000. And this is actually only in affect until 2014 when the exchanges go online, and they employees will have access to the subsidized health care plans.

I dont see what the problem is here? these companies are already providing HC coverage to low income and low wage workers (a positive in my mind), at a reduced costs. and they simply requested a waiver to keep their costs low, until other parts of the health care bill come in to effect in a few years. They arent being exempted from the entire bill like the post leads people to believe. Im not sure what the argument is with this. Can you be more specific on what exactly you are disliking?
 


Regardless of anything written by anyone, the fact is that this thing was contrived by people who didn't know what they were doing, voted on by people who had not reviewed the result of the the work and will be imposed by those who are acting on the regulations, not the campaign promises of the liars who did this.

Proof?

I work with HR Mangers on a daily basis. Most of them are saying quite clearly that the penalties imposed by the new law on employers for not providing health care insurance are less costly than providing healthcare insurance.

This demonstrates absolutely that the morons who made this thing up were utterly and completely uninformed as to the actual costs of the very thing they were trying to reduce the cost of.

This bill will UNinsure the nation and bankrupt the Treasury because the morons who passed it just didn't know the truth or care about it. Morons!

Columbus planning:

He didn't know where he was going when he left, he didn't know where he was when he got there, he was prepared to claim credit if it worked and blame others if it didn't and he did it all with some else's money.

He discovered our country and we have followed his lead.
 
I posted this in another thread and it explains why these companies got "temporary" waivers:

Temporary until next year...Or whatever union is being squeezed by this unholy law...whichever comes first...hahaha
 
I work with HR Mangers on a daily basis. Most of them are saying quite clearly that the penalties imposed by the new law on employers for not providing health care insurance are less costly than providing healthcare insurance.

...this surprises them?

To quote from Mercer's press release from earlier this month:

While employers are encouraged to offer coverage under the new health care reform rules, they can choose not to and (starting in 2014) pay a penalty that may be less than what they currently spend on health benefits.

In a survey released today by consulting firm Mercer, employers were asked how likely they are to get out of the business of providing health care once state-run insurance exchanges become operational in 2014 and make it easier for individuals to buy coverage. For the great majority, the answer was “not likely.”

The survey results, a preview of findings from Mercer’s 2010 National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans to be announced later this month, will be released today at Mercer’s inaugural Innovation Conversation webcast, which begins at 3 p.m. Eastern Time (click on the following link to register: “True Health Care Reform through Innovation”). More than 2,800 employers participated in the annual survey, now in its 25th year.

Survey responses vary by employer size. Large employers remain committed to their role of health plan sponsor. Just 6% of all employers with 500 or more employees – and just 3% of those with 10,000 or more – say they are likely to terminate their health plans and have employees seek coverage in the individual market after 2014 (Fig. 1).

Employers have never been required to offer coverage. They do so to promote a healthy, productive workforce and to attract and retain employees, who place a high value on health coverage because it can be expensive to purchase as an individual and, especially for those with health problems, difficult to obtain.

“Employers are reluctant to lose control over a key employee benefit,” said Tracy Watts, a Partner in Mercer’s Washington, DC, office. “But beyond that, once you consider the penalty, the loss of tax savings and grossing up employee income so they can purchase comparable coverage through an exchange, for many employers dropping coverage may not equate to savings.”​
 
Last edited:
Your point? This has to do with the continuous fearmongering regarding health insurance promulgated by Republicans. Obviously you didn't bother to read the information. You didn't have time.

Why bother? you think democrats don't lie and spread fear?

IF I wanted to talk generalities, I would have put this in the Politics forum. Once again, this has to do with all the lies about health care.


The problem with neither side knowing anything about the issue and proving it on a daily basis is not important unless they decide to eliminate the funding to programs like Medicare, again postpone the reduction in payments to doctors in Medicare, lie about it during the debate, promise to change the "curve" of the expenses and fail, raise the hopes of the uninsured by lying about the coverage costs, and do it all for a cost of a Trillion dollars over current not counting the rates increasing.

The costs will rise and are doing so. Benefits will fall and are doing so. Government will pick and choose those that are penalized and rewarded under this and are doing so.

Companies will simply drop coverage and are planning to do so.

This was planned by people far away from the problem that have no experience in solving the problem and no stake in the solution they impose.

You cannot describe this without using the word "cluster".
 
The other side lies so my slide lying is fine is very pathetic illogic.

No. I didn't say that. I don't have a "side", first of all. I just get tired of all the partisan hackery that goes on.

So do I, so do I. But when millions of Americans hear this crap coming from the right wing noise machine day in and day out, then parroted by elected leaders, it becomes a problem.


If the "crap" was refutable, one might suppose that it would be refuted, mightn't one?
 

Forum List

Back
Top