Economy grows for the third straight quarter

[Vast LWC]

When it goes to directed stimulus, it provides capital to help business thrive.

You mean "survive"

Just like the Reagan tax cuts were supposed to help the economy by adding to the deficit, but increasing capital available for economic growth.

Look up the facts, tax cuts under Reagan did not add to the deficit. Federal revenues increased.

Not until after the recovery got into full swing, 2 1/2 years after Reagan took office. And by that point Reagan was already raising taxes again.

Over the long run, the stimulus will also raise revenues, in the exact same way.

1. Health Care was not "Nationalized", nor was there ever a plan for "Nationalizing Health Care" on the table.

Symantics. When the federal government takes control of the industry, that's nationalization. You will now be forced to purchase health insurance or you will be forced to provide it for others. How is that not a financial burden?

It is not "semantics". The federal government is not in fact "taking control of industry". Forcing people to be insured is in no way "taking control of industry".

2. How does the reform they actually did put in place "reduce corporate earnings", specifically?

Corporate Earnings Sink Due to Health Care Reform

That is not a reduction of corporate earnings...

That is a reduction of taxpayer contributions to corporations. And the taxpayer contributions in question were "double-dipping" at that.

Unless you consider money that taxpayers give corporations to be somehow "earned" by the corporation.

 

[Vast LWC]

It's pretty clear what Single Payer means.

Obama Supports Single Payer Health Care

Yes, it is clear. He was referring to everyone being in the health care insurance system, or "Universal Health Care".

Thus the line "everybody in, nobody out". Nowhere in that clip is "Nationalized health care" mentioned.

 

[boedicca]

That is not a reduction of corporate earnings...

That is a reduction of taxpayer contributions to corporations. And the taxpayer contributions in question were "double-dipping" at that.

Unless you consider money that taxpayers give corporations to be somehow "earned" by the corporation.

Yes it is. The corporations were give tax credits to continue providing prescription drug coverage to their retirees. The per beneficiary credit is approx. $600 per year. This credit saved the U.S. government money because the providing the benefit via Medicare is much more expensive by a factor of at least 2X.

As a result, these companies will eventually drop prescription drug coverage and dump their retirees into Medicare, driving that program towards insolvency a bit earlier than currently expected.

 

[Vast LWC]

That is not a reduction of corporate earnings...

That is a reduction of taxpayer contributions to corporations. And the taxpayer contributions in question were "double-dipping" at that.

Unless you consider money that taxpayers give corporations to be somehow "earned" by the corporation.

Yes it is. The corporations were give tax credits to continue providing prescription drug coverage to their retirees. The per beneficiary credit is approx. $600 per year. This credit saved the U.S. government money because the providing the benefit via Medicare is much more expensive by a factor of at least 2X.

As a result, these companies will eventually drop prescription drug coverage and dump their retirees into Medicare, driving that program towards insolvency a bit earlier than currently expected.

Even if this were the case, and I'm not saying that I agree that it is...

...How would this effect corporate earnings, as opposed to corporate welfare ?

 

[boedicca]

It's pretty clear what Single Payer means.

Obama Supports Single Payer Health Care

Yes, it is clear. He was referring to everyone being in the health care insurance system, or "Universal Health Care".

Thus the line "everybody in, nobody out". Nowhere in that clip is "Nationalized health care" mentioned.

Single Payer is Nationalized Health Care. It's from a single source of funding controlled and doled out by the government.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

It's pretty clear what Single Payer means.

Obama Supports Single Payer Health Care

Yes, it is clear. He was referring to everyone being in the health care insurance system, or "Universal Health Care".

Thus the line "everybody in, nobody out". Nowhere in that clip is "Nationalized health care" mentioned.

It's pretty clear that you have no idea what Obama said in that clip.

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[boedicca]

That is not a reduction of corporate earnings...

That is a reduction of taxpayer contributions to corporations. And the taxpayer contributions in question were "double-dipping" at that.

Unless you consider money that taxpayers give corporations to be somehow "earned" by the corporation.

Yes it is. The corporations were give tax credits to continue providing prescription drug coverage to their retirees. The per beneficiary credit is approx. $600 per year. This credit saved the U.S. government money because the providing the benefit via Medicare is much more expensive by a factor of at least 2X.

As a result, these companies will eventually drop prescription drug coverage and dump their retirees into Medicare, driving that program towards insolvency a bit earlier than currently expected.

Even if this were the case, and I'm not saying that I agree that it is...

...How would this effect corporate earnings, as opposed to corporate welfare ?

GAAP accounting requires them to take a charge now for the expected impact to their retiree costs. Right now, they are still providing the coverage, so the charge is for the loss of the tax credit.

The reason Waxman cancelled the hearings into this matter is because the four companies he was going to grill all had prepared internal analyses showing that they would be financially better off to cancel all employees health insurance, dumping them into state pools, and paying the ObamaCare fine. This is what all companies will eventually discover - which was the point all along. To drive out private insurance and force everyone into the Government Plan.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is not a reduction of corporate earnings...

That is a reduction of taxpayer contributions to corporations. And the taxpayer contributions in question were "double-dipping" at that.

Unless you consider money that taxpayers give corporations to be somehow "earned" by the corporation.

Yes it is. The corporations were give tax credits to continue providing prescription drug coverage to their retirees. The per beneficiary credit is approx. $600 per year. This credit saved the U.S. government money because the providing the benefit via Medicare is much more expensive by a factor of at least 2X.

As a result, these companies will eventually drop prescription drug coverage and dump their retirees into Medicare, driving that program towards insolvency a bit earlier than currently expected.

A credible link before folks start laughing at you.

 

[Immanuel]

Except that the "Private Option" was written in a way so as to make Private Insurance puppets of the U.S. Government and would have eventually put them out of business. No insurance company that was not an "approved carrier" or whatever the term they used, was forbidden to write new policies. That meant that they were puppets of the government or out of business.

The word option implies that there will be more than one choice. The public option does not offer choices, just a single choice.

Also, his comments did not seem to be speaking about the public option. It seemed to carry on a different meaning that what was offered. He promised a single payer system within 15 years. He got universal coverage in one.

Harry and Nancy indicated there would be more to come. We have not seen the end of this yet.

Immie

That is a subjective interpretation of the facts.

Do you have specific excerpts of the bill itself that prove your assertions?

And, again, what were those specific comments, and more importantly, WHEN were they made?

I believe the section of the original bill that had the public option was 201. By the way, the bill that passed, included that section stating that private insurers who were not approved carriers, passed.

As of five years after the passing of the bill, a private insurance company must be approved by the government or they cannot write new policies.

Here is the bill that I think passed.

H.R.3962: Affordable Health Care for America Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

The tab on the upper right downloads the bill.

Section 201 is the one dealing with what I am saying:

Here is what it says:

(a) Purpose- The purpose of this title is to establish standards to ensure that new health insurance coverage and employment-based health plans that are offered meet standards guaranteeing access to affordable coverage, essential benefits, and other consumer protections.

(b) Requirements for Qualified Health Benefits Plans- On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved:



(1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) Subtitle C (relating to essential benefits).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(3) Subtitle D (relating to consumer protection).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(c) Terminology- In this division:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) ENROLLMENT IN EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLANS- An individual shall be treated as being ‘enrolled’ in an employment-based health plan if the individual is a participant or beneficiary (as such terms are defined in section 3(7) and 3(8), respectively, of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) in such plan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE- The terms ‘individual health insurance coverage’ and ‘group health insurance coverage’ mean health insurance coverage offered in the individual market or large or small group market, respectively, as defined in section 2791 of the Public Health Service Act.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(d) Treatment of Qualified Direct Primary Care Medical Home Plans- The Commissioner may permit a qualified health benefits plan to provide coverage through a qualified direct primary care medical home plan so long as the qualified health benefits plan meets all requirements that are otherwise applicable and the services covered by the medical home plan are coordinated with the QHBP offering entity.

Section 202 has this:

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink


(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(b) Grace Period for Current Employment-Based Health Plans-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) GRACE PERIOD-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) 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 201, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 221.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS PLANS- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(i) Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including coverage under a specified disease or illness policy described in paragraph (3)(A) of such section.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

In no case shall an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the coverage or benefits described in clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- During the grace period specified in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health plan (which may be a high deducible health plan, as defined in section 223(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) that is described in such paragraph shall be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Nothing in--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering of excepted benefits described in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act so long as such benefits are offered outside the Health Insurance Exchange and are priced separately from health insurance coverage; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(B) this division shall be construed--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(i) to prevent the offering of a stand-alone plan that offers coverage of excepted benefits described in section 2791(c)(2)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (relating to limited scope dental or vision benefits) for individuals and families from a State-licensed dental and vision carrier; orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(ii) as applying requirements for a qualified health benefits plan to such a stand-alone plan that is offered and priced separately from a qualified health benefits plan.

That limitation on new enrollment in section 202 is what I am speaking about. If a non-qualified plan cannot enroll new policy holders then it will go out of business. Thus it either becomes a puppet of the government or it dies... that is plain and simple in my books. No new policies = No new revenue. Eventually your old policy holders are going to change plans and all non-qualified insurers will be history.

Immie

 

[DavidS]

Now you are being unfair here , EVERYONE know that Reagan was above real math. Reaganites are magically imbued with the power to reinvent any real numbers to prove Ronny was above all and saintly.

Did you benefit from the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s?

Are you ignoring my question as to whether or not you were happy with the progress of unemployment during Reagan's first term?

 

[Immanuel]

Are you saying he is not trying to bring about his version of an "ideal world"?

Immie

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

In a representative government, one must make compromises with people who do not see things the same way as you.

As you make those compromises, your expectations change, and you try to find a third way to get things done in an agreeable manner.

That is what has happened here.

In other words, you are saying I should not take his word for anything at all, since I commented earlier that this was the one thing I believed he would follow through on?

Thanks... just what I wanted to hear. Now, I am convinced I should never trust a politician at all!

Immie

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Are you saying he is not trying to bring about his version of an "ideal world"?

Immie

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

In a representative government, one must make compromises with people who do not see things the same way as you.

As you make those compromises, your expectations change, and you try to find a third way to get things done in an agreeable manner.

That is what has happened here.

In other words, you are saying I should not take his word for anything at all, since I commented earlier that this was the one thing I believed he would follow through on?

Thanks... just what I wanted to hear. Now, I am convinced I should never trust a politician at all!

Immie

So in VLWC's opinion the healthcare law was "compromises with people who do not see things the same way as you." ???

I beg to differ.

 

[Vast LWC]

Immie,

First of all:

The purpose of this title is to establish standards to ensure that new health insurance coverage and employment-based health plans that are offered meet standards guaranteeing access to affordable coverage, essential benefits, and other consumer protections.

They're trying to make sure the private insurers meet a certain set of minimum standards pursuant to the laws described in the rest of the bill.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

 

[Vast LWC]

So in VLWC's opinion the healthcare law was "compromises with people who do not see things the same way as you." ???

I beg to differ.

Oh, really?

Well, if there was not compromise, and this is what Obama and the rest of the Democrats had in mind all along, then you are admitting that your previous accusations of them wanting "nationalized healthcare" are completely false, right?


So, which is it exactly? Are the Democrats trying to turn all healthcare into a socialist/nationalized system, or did they not compromise at all?

It can't be both.

 

[Vast LWC]

In other words, you are saying I should not take his word for anything at all, since I commented earlier that this was the one thing I believed he would follow through on?

Thanks... just what I wanted to hear. Now, I am convinced I should never trust a politician at all!

Immie

Compromise is the very essence of the Democratic system.

If Obama never compromises, then he would indeed be the fascist dictator the right makes him out to be.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So in VLWC's opinion the healthcare law was "compromises with people who do not see things the same way as you." ???

I beg to differ.

Oh, really?

Well, if there was not compromise, and this is what Obama and the rest of the Democrats had in mind all along, then you are admitting that your previous accusations of them wanting "nationalized healthcare" are completely false, right?


So, which is it exactly? Are the Democrats trying to turn all healthcare into a socialist/nationalized system, or did they not compromise at all?

It can't be both.

First of all...secret meetings, bribery and corruption is not compromise....secondly I never said a damn thing about "nationalized healthcare"...I said Obama wants "single payer" and that's an indisputable fact. Third...you just glossed over the article I posted a link to that showed the first step to achieving this goal. 4th you completely ignored the fact that your definition of "single payer system" is WRONG.

Now please clear these things up.

 

[Toro]

It is. We continue to have a significant debt problem, including the bailouts for subprime mortgages which are going to turn into future foreclosures.

Adding Debt to a Debt Crisis just makes it worse.

(I carry no balances on credit cards - just have a couple to use for convenience, and pay the bills in full each month.)

The economy must FAIL...

Please God....The Economy must FAIL

So it's acceptable to you to go thousands of dollars in debt to give the appearance that the economy is recovering?

Consumer debt is still falling. It is not rising.

 

[Immanuel]

Immie,

First of all:

The purpose of this title is to establish standards to ensure that new health insurance coverage and employment-based health plans that are offered meet standards guaranteeing access to affordable coverage, essential benefits, and other consumer protections.

They're trying to make sure the private insurers meet a certain set of minimum standards pursuant to the laws described in the rest of the bill.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Now wait a cotton picking moment!!!!!!

You just told me that I should not trust politicians and now you are telling me that I should take their word here?

Would you please make up your mind!!!!

Frigging left wingers!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, to be serious. There are many things in this bill that I have seen that I approve of. I am all for providing coverage for the needy. That is not my problem. I'm for that part. But there are other parts that I have problems with. Putting any non-compliant insurer out of business is one of those things.

I do not approve of the mandate for those who chose not to pay for coverage for whatever reason.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

So in VLWC's opinion the healthcare law was "compromises with people who do not see things the same way as you." ???

I beg to differ.

Oh, really?

Well, if there was not compromise, and this is what Obama and the rest of the Democrats had in mind all along, then you are admitting that your previous accusations of them wanting "nationalized healthcare" are completely false, right?


So, which is it exactly? Are the Democrats trying to turn all healthcare into a socialist/nationalized system, or did they not compromise at all?

It can't be both.

Compromise does not equate to giving in. It simply means one step at a time.

Immie

 

[Toro]

Higher taxes? What higher taxes? Taxes are lower now than they were last year.

Oh really? Then you jackass party members can NO LONGER COMPLAIN that the deficit and national debt continuing to increase exponentially is Bush's fault.

What kind of jackass Democrat president lowers taxes in a time of war??? How ******* stupid is that!!!!???

Wait, are you complaining about lower taxes? That's a change.

And officially, America is not in a time of war.

Bush lowered taxes during a time of war.