A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Obamacare - tstone

[ In Reply To ..]
Pretty soon everyone will want a waiver and if they have any juice in D.C. they'll most likely get it.

As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, we will now have the cost of our health plans added to our income??? We will be taxed on what our employers pay for our health insurance. Is that correct? If so, I hope people rise up against that. It's ridiculous.

We cannot keep our health insurance if we like it because our employers are responsible for choosing what health plans make the most sense for them financially. If they choose another plan, we have to suck it up and go along.

Have you been listening to the mass e-mail - misinformation program

[ In Reply To ..]
Not true. There will be a reporting requirement that goes into effect in 2011 for health insurance. Why, you ask?

One, the reporting requirement will eventually assist the IRS in verifying that taxpayers have coverage. As you may be aware, there is a requirement beginning after 2013 that those who can afford coverage get it (help is available for those than cannot afford it on their own) if itâs not otherwise provided. Those that choose not to be covered will be fined. Exceptions apply.

Two, the so-called Cadillac tax on high-dollar insurance plans goes into affect in 2018. The new reporting requirement will allow the IRS to identify taxpayers who are covered under these plans. The thresholds for the policies are $10,200 for individual policies and $27,500 for family policies; these amounts will be indexed for inflation. Itâs important to note that the tax on these plans is on the insurer, not the insured, so that the amount of the plan will not affect the overall tax payable by the W-2 recipient.

Just the facts.

Your employer always has had the option of seeking whatever plan they choose. Be careful when you read those mass misinformation e-mails.

Just on the face of it, I have one big problem....I believe it is unconstitutional... - sam

[ In Reply To ..]
for the federal government to force Americans to carry health insurance if they do not want to. The only reason that was even put into the bill was because it was brought to their attention that Obamacare would not cover all Americans then, specifically the 30 million uninsured that they claimed was the WHOLE reason they were doing that in the first place. When faced with the statistics that, in fact, most of those 30 million were young people who preferred to roll the dice and take a chance they won't get a catastrophic illness. And even if they did...they could get care. No one has ever died in this country of a catastrophic illness because they were denied care. If there are any or statistics of any, please provide, as I have searched and cannot find any.

It is just another way to tether people to the government. If someone gets a check, foodstamps, and now the government is going to insure them too...at whose expense...OURS....where is there any motivation to get a job and contribute to the tax base? Bingo. There IS none.

Just for a minute, take off the Dem hat and think about this rationally. Where do you think that will lead?
Who pays for those who "roll the dice" and catastrophe - happens
[ In Reply To ..]
?
We do. The same as we always have...and without... - sam
[ In Reply To ..]
the help of a deficit buster like Obamacare. Why do you want to make a bad thing worse?
Who said that? I asked a question and you assumed yet again. - The jury is out
[ In Reply To ..]
you know no more than anyone else.
You asked a question and I answered it. I'm sorry... - sam
[ In Reply To ..]
if you didn't like the answer.

Let me ask YOU a question. Who do you think takes care of those catastrophic things when they happen? Well, for one, if a hospital gets any kind of state or federal funds (meaning not a private hospital) they cannot turn away someone who needs life-saving care. This is my GUESS...the hospitals have to eat some of it, the government helps with some of it, and you and I pay higher bills at those hospitals because of it. Which means, you and I (and insurance companies) pay for it. That would not change under Obamacare, if the uninsured by choice were allowed to remain uninsured.

We end up paying for ANYTHING the government pays for. That is what you need to keep firmly in mind. The government has NO money of its own. Every dime it has it gets from us in taxes. It is our money they are spending.

And right now they are doing a SORRY job at it. My opinion, of course.
No kidding? I thought the money magically appeared. - Thanks for
[ In Reply To ..]
the info. lol Just seeing if you realized that responsible people pay for the irresponsible now. If someone can afford health care insurance, they should not have the option of taking a risk at the expense of others.

By the way, here is an article by Kimberly Amadeo.

It is no different than responsible people paying... - sam
[ In Reply To ..]
for the irresponsible who are able to work but refuse to. So why don't we stop welfare to pay for the health care. If not, we are going to pay for the irresponsible who refuse to work as far as a wage and food, we are going to pay for their health care too.

Maybe that works for you...it doesn't for me. Obamacare as it stands stinks to the high heaven. They need to re-do it, add tort reform and introduce competition into the market place, and government-sponsored plan of any kind should NOT be part of it. Medicare should not be cut to help pay for it, other entitlement programs should help pay for it. Another of President Obama's campaign processes down the tubes...how he was going to look at ALL entitlement programs and kill the ones that don't work (would be about 90% of them). The way is NOT to kill "the responsible" among us and re-do the whole system just to take care of people unwilling to work or pay for their own insurance. I find that ridiculously stupid (my opinion of course). These gimmes have to stop somewhere. If we are already paying for the irresponsible ourselves, I would prefer to keep it at the level it is now, and not add trillions more to the debt. Thanks, but no thanks.

I will, however, read the article ASAP, and thanks for posting the link for me. There is always the chance that it could change my mind. Doubtful, but always possible. Willing to hear both sides...thanks again.

And by the way...this government has not been able to keep Medicare solvent. How are they going to manage health care for the entire country? And yes, that is where Obamacare is going...eventually private insurance is pushed out and we have universal health care where quality of care tanks and health care is rationed. And the feds have their feet on our necks.

Again...no thanks.
You may find this - interesting
[ In Reply To ..]
x
Very interesting, and unless the people who crafted the Obamacare bill... - sam
[ In Reply To ..]
are stupid (and I do not believe they are, we all know he told them what he wanted in it), they know it too. Which supports the supposition that the national exchange is designed to fail, opening the door for universal one-payor health care courtesy of your federal government, who could not even manage Medicare efficiently and without rampant fraud.

How people can just blithely skip along ignorning all that just because they see visions of a freebie (which is anything BUT) boggles the mind. That is me,me,me gone WILD.
Have you ever thought - about
[ In Reply To ..]
how frustrating it must be to be elected as president, to have all the information at hand and make decisions based on the massive educated input, and then to have millions of people who don't really know the score react.

Please explain how it would be unconstitutional. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
Forty-nine out of 50 states require their residents to carry car insurance. Could you please provide proof that it would be unconstitutional to require US citizens to carry health insurance? President Obama has studied and taught constitutional law...have you?
You said it yourself. 49 out of 50 STATES.... - sam
[ In Reply To ..]
it was not issued by the federal government.

This is the portion of the Constitution of the United States that deals with what Congress is allowed to do:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

There is nothing there that grants the Congress the right to make carrying health insurance mandatory. There was a reason the Founding Father sought to make more power at the state level than at the federal level, and this is an example of that. And again, the only reason Obama sought to do that is to end around when he discovered that the facts did not support Obamacare taking care of the 30 million uninsured because most of them were uninsured BY CHOICE. And the rest of the millions of people in the country who do have some kind of insurance and are happy with it, why rock that boat to insure 30 million uninsured. Why not just have those 30 million sign up for some kind of program and leave the 200+ million who are happy with the way things are ALONE.
Nice cut-and-paste job, but you didn't answer the question. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
How is it unconstitutional to require US citizens to carry health insurance.
I did answer the question. The constitution does not give that power to Congress. - sam
[ In Reply To ..]
and you should be glad it doesn't. What would be mandatory next? Think past Obamacare. Think what concentrating that kind of power at the top opens you up to. Think Venezuela; anybody who doesn't agree with us, we just shut them down (TV, radio). Hey, I think I just want to be President for life, so we will just pass that law.

THINK about it.
Please provide proof, not just your opinion. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
Show me exactly where in the constitution it states or even implies that you cannot require citizens to carry health insurance.
I did answer your question. Have you read the Constitution? - sam
[ In Reply To ..]
It is very explicit on the powers that Congress has. Founding Fathers intended it that way. The only thing the government can compel us to do is pay taxes, and they can't do that without representation.

Read it again. And YOU tell ME where the federal government(Congress) has the right to make ANYTHING but paying taxes mandatory. You can't, because it isn't there. Nice try at deflection.

And you didn't answer MY question. What's next if you start allowing the federal government to make things mandatory? That is exactly what the Constitution was put in place to AVOID.

Are you just so obsessed with getting the biggest entitlement program in the country a reality that you are willing to open that door? Venezuela did and look what it got them.

Obviously you care more about getting Obamacare than you do about handing over the "mandatory" reins to the government.

And as long as there are people wanting to give it all to the feds, there will be some of us out here giving the warning where that might lead.
Looks like it is constitutional after all. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28620.html

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/298695

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2010/04/is-health-care-reform-constitutional.php

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2011510207_guest04jay.html

I could continue posting links, but I have wasted much too much time on the likes of you already.
None of those sources can change the Constitution. - sam
[ In Reply To ..]
I believe it will be repeated anyway before all that has a chance to kick in...because the majority of Americans want it that way. Like it or not, they don't want Obamacare. And it is attitudes like yours, the "the likes of you" condescending comments that make them even more dedicated to it.
I can see you are another one who did not learn a thing from this past election. And instead of really trying to understand it, you want to blame it on one little group of people and vilify them...exactly the kind of attitude that helped usher in what happened. Why does it make you so angry when someone disagrees with you?
None of your links prove it is constitutional - they are all opinion pieces - Obviously from the left
[ In Reply To ..]
All your links were opinion pieces. There was no proof in the articles that forcing individuals to purchase a product they do not want to have is constitutional.

In fact it is unconstitutional. What's next, they are going to tell us what kind of car we can buy, that we will all have to buy fruit and veggies once a month, that we have to wear dresses on Sundays. Where does it stop. Reading the constitution there is nothing in it that states government is allowed to force us to buy a product we do not wish to purchase. What part of the constitution do you not understand.

Here are some good links to read -

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/is-the-health-care-bill-in-congress-constitutional/1062761

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/23/health-bill-faces-constitutional-challenge/?feat=home_top5_commented

http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/Ensign-says-Senates-health-care-bill-violates-Constitution-79903362.html

http://www.believeallthings.com/3856/health-care-bill-constitutional/
Seriously? - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
You think the fact that a Federal judge ruled it constitutional is an opinion piece from the left? No use trying to have a reasonable discussion with the likes of you either!
And another federal judge said it IS unconstitutional - see message
[ In Reply To ..]
Listening to Judge Napolitano he has explained this many times and in perfectly clear terms...

"The Judge then pops the question: âWhere in the Constitution is the federal government charged with maintaining peopleâs health?â

Clyburnâs answer: âThereâs nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.â

The Judge charges back a bit later: âYou took an oath to uphold the Constitution. You canât go outside the Constitution because you think it is a good thing to do without violating that oath!â

Clyburn replies: âHow about show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?â

The Judge then, of course, cites the 10th Amendment. - Full article at the link below.

http://libertymaven.com/2009/09/08/judge-napolitano-pops-the-health-care-constitutionality-question/7163/

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

What that means for those who don't understand is - basically it means that any power not granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution is given to the individual states in the Union. This means that the individual states are free to make laws outside of the Constitution for their own jurisdictions. This amendment is sometimes referred to as the States' Rights Amendment.

That is basically why individual states have either filed to sue or are planning to sue. It is against the constitution. - AND a federal judge even says so.

I will stick with the law and what a judge says about it. If you wish to believe opinion pieces written from people on the left who are for the health bill because you agree with it then that is your prerogative.

Sound like there is no use trying to have a reasonable discussion with the likes of you then!!!

But then again you didn't wish to have a discussion, just cut down anyone that doesn't agree with you. I'm all for reasonable discussions, but obviously you are not.
As it stands...unless you have a degree in constitutional law - it is still
[ In Reply To ..]
just whatever you want to believe. None of us know whether interstate commerce will suffice as it has for many other issues. It is being stretched further than ever before this time. We shall see.

P.S. Even if we did have a degree in constitutional law, we would still undoubtedly interpret it differently as is happening with officials now.
That is correct - see message
[ In Reply To ..]
One judge says it's constitutional, another says it's not. People will believe what they want to believe. But to post opinion pieces and then claim it's constitutional because of opinion pieces someone reads, there are equally as many opinion pieces saying it's not, and with a judge to explain why it's not, not just a judge saying I believe it is.

It also boils down to political parties. People will always side with the group they favor.
Here's an article that explains why a federal judge believes it is constitutional - just for kicks
[ In Reply To ..]
x
Thanks for posting. One of the few I have seen that shows both sides. - sam
[ In Reply To ..]
I think it clearly illustrates what I was trying to say...give them an inch, and they will eventually expand that into SEVERAL miles. The Constitution narrowed the scope of government for a specific reason. They were trying to keep future generations from making the mistakes they fled England to get away from. It worked for awhile. Then people got complacent and let Congress do whatever the heck they wanted to do with no consequences, and here we are. I hope we have not been too late in waking up.

That's a good one...I don't listen to or read mass e-mails - tstone

[ In Reply To ..]
Glad to hear we will not be paying taxes on our insurance premiums.

My DH went to work for a nationwide company in June of 2009 and we now have insurance through his employer. Until then, I had been paying $1400/month to insure my family of 3 on an IC's salary. Granted, I make more working for myself than working for a big MT company, but $1400/month ($16,800/year) is a big bite out of anyone's personal income. It was not some Cadillac plan either - it was an HMO.

As for our employers, my point was that if insurance premiums rise, which they will and have under the proposed Obamacare plan, our employers WILL change health insurance plans when they might not have were it not for Obamacare.

Besides, what happened to health insurance premiums going down? Wasn't that part of Obama's pitch? Controlling the cost of health insurance? I still think they should just open up the market and let people buy insurance across state lines and they certainly should have explored some sort of tort reform.
Do you think health insurance premiums would go down - without the Affordable Health Care Act?
[ In Reply To ..]
They were going up as fast as they could get away with before, and they will push the limits until the exchanges go into effect. The Act is being phased in. Insurance costs will keep raising because that is what health insurance companies do. Should have had one universal payer and got rid off all of them. The nature of the beast.
Your last two points, spot on! - sam
[ In Reply To ..]
The "pubs" tried to get tort reform as part of Obamacare and of course they ran backward...because who are big contributors to the DNC? Trial lawyers. Now if they REALLY wanted to even the playing field and pull insurance companies into line, then they should have included the buying across state lines...meaning if I could buy a policy cheaper in Oklahoma then someone in New York should be able to buy that same policy at the same price. Insurance companies don't want to do that because of those infamous tables that show, because New York has larger population centers, more pollution, yada yada, more people get sick and use services, so they want to make that up by charging those people more. Not fair. In the famous "it will even out" it WILL, because the people in Oklahoma who are paying the same premiums as the New Yorkers but not using it as much would pay for the New Yorkers. That is how insurance was designed to work...the ones who don't use it end up paying for the ones who do, but if anyone paying it has an issue they are covered. And if insurance companies had to treat us all the same no matter where we lived and not refuse to sell in certain places or sell lower in certain places....but had to sell it to us all at reasonable rates...yes, I believe insurance companies need to be looked at, but I DON'T think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and I certainly don't think we need Obamacare. Good healthy competition in the health care market where one big company rules a region and no little ones can get in...NOT good. Competition works, and it is about the ONLY thing that brings prices down.

Good points!

Nice plagiarism - give credit next time. - tstone

[ In Reply To ..]
I found the article you posted in response to my post. Next time you decide to plagiarize you might think about giving credit where credit is due.

http://www.taxgirl.com/no-tax-on-health-care-benefits-for-2010-or-2011-or/

Posting links to back up "just the facts" would be a good thing.

.....and to the poster who wants a universal option - are you crazy? Do you have any idea what that would be like? You want universal healthcare where we would have to wait 6 months for an MRI or enter a lottery just to get a PCP? It's no wonder all the Canadians come to the U.S. for treatment.
Oh get your nose out of the air - Everyone copies and pastes
[ In Reply To ..]
I do not feel any responsibility to reference what I post. You obviously did not reference a source with your previous misinformation. I just did you a favor by looking it up and posting it. Saved you a click.
Nose in the Air? At least I don't..... - tstone
[ In Reply To ..]
post "facts" and then not give credit where credit is due. If you paid attention, you would have noticed that I did not state that we were paying taxes on our insurance premiums as a fact, did I? Therefore, I did not need to reference a source. As I recall, you cited "just the facts," but obviously they're not your facts. What is it with you liberals? You're always angry and defensive. Get over yourself. Maybe you're finding it a little difficult to defend this abominable thing they call healthcare reform. Keep on drinking the kool-aid.
If you answer a right-wingers question - you are defensive?
[ In Reply To ..]
Only in your world. And you did not dispute the facts, did you? I hope you will quit posting "misinformed" opinions.
You are defensive......your post - tstone
[ In Reply To ..]
proves my point.

You didn't merely answer my question. You purported that I was falling prey to misinformation and mass e-mails. In other words, I'm too stupid to figure things out for myself or too dense to have an opinion of my own. Then I ask you to post a link to support your facts, not just cut and paste, and you say I have my nose in the air. Yeah.....I'd call that defensive.

Your words...not mine.
Why didn't you post links to back up your statements - about UHC?
[ In Reply To ..]
What a hypocrite! lol

The arrogance of this plan is astounding.... - sam

[ In Reply To ..]
thanks for posting these facts. It solidifies my opposition to this debacle even more. Your facts are more alarming than anything I have heard to date.

Similar Messages:

Granting Work Requirement Waivers To States Through HHS.Jul 16, 2012
I can only find spotty information on this.  From what I can find, Obama has given HHS the authority to grant waivers to states to "relax" enforcement of the work requirement part of the 1996 welfare reform billl (TANF).   The part that confused me was this:  “The Secretary [of HHS] is interested in using her authority to approve waiver demonstrations to challenge states to engage in a new round of innovation that seeks to find more effective mechanisms for helping fam ...
Obamacare Meltdown Has Arrived. Tennessee Is Ground Zero For Obamacare'sOct 07, 2016
last month the state insurance commissioner, Julie Mix McPeak, approved premium increases of up to 62% in a bid to save the exchange set up under the Affordable Care Act. “I would characterize the exchange market in Tennessee as very near collapse,” she said. Then last week BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee announced it would leave three of the state’s largest exchange markets—Nashville, Memphis and Knoxville. “We have experienced losses approaching $500 million over the course of ...
Obamacare Is Failing From Behind... His Goals For ObamacareJul 20, 2016
1) Have it collapse so that single payer can be implemented amidst the ensuing chaos. 2) Have that happen on somebody else’s watch. Obamacare was designed to fail so the Democrats could “reform” it with complete government provided socialized medicine. That is the entire purpose for it. Obamacare is designed to collapse so they can backfill the vacuum with government run socialized medicine. Eventually, everyone will be on some form of Medicare. I believe that was one of Bernie’ ...
Everybody Is For Obamacare, Everyone Is AgainstMar 31, 2011
Read the complete article:  BTW it says Rasmussen is skewed.  http://www.thisweekinsociology.com/?p=225 Here’s a guide to what those polls actually say, beginning with a discussion of the basic mistake which almost all the polls make. Most of the major national polls on Obamacare choose to report findings on what percentage of Americans support the health care reform and what percentage favor its repeal. This simple distinction, braking public opinion into big blocs, immediate ...
ObamaCare Mar 30, 2011
American people still are buying it. They are not as stupid as Bill Maher tells them they are. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law   Health Care Law 58% Now Favor Health Care Repeal Monday, March 28, 2011 While voters still favor repeal of the national health care law, concerns that the law will force them to change their existing health insurance are lower than a year ago. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telep ...
ObamacareApr 14, 2010
ObamaCare, Death Star of the American Republic April 14, 2010 · 2 Comments A big h/t to beloved FellowshipOfMinds member FS for finding this extremely important and extremely frightening article. Remember what Nancy Pelosi said on March 10, which sounded utterly idiotic at the time? She said that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” It turns out Pelosi is not a moron. Au contraire, this woman knows exactly what she&rsq ...
Hopefully Obamacare A No-go (sm)Jun 03, 2013
Two thirds of Americans don't know if they will insure under Obamacare. link ...
How Will Obamacare Help ICs?Jul 11, 2013
I haven't exactly been able to figure out about the insurance.  ...
This Is My Take On Obamacare For Oct 03, 2013
So this is what I have learned.   After listening about the new health insurance, this is what I know. There are 3 levels of care/cost. They are trying to get the young people to join to keep the cost down for the older people. Well after listening to a question and answer discussion on line program coming out of Sioux Falls, South Dakota hospital systems, it scared me greatly. If all the young people join this program, it will not help the older people who live on a fixed inc ...
ObamacareNov 04, 2013
Is Obamacare going to be overturned and when? ...
ObamacareDec 31, 2013
When discussing the ACA or Obamacare, whichever you call it, remember that it is literally like comparing apples and oranges (and grapes, pineapple and maybe even potatoes).  Each state has different prices and different plans from the federal plan.  Some states now have only one company offering a plan through their state exchange.  Each plan has a different monthly cost, a different deductable and it goes on and on and on.  The requirements are different from state to state ...
Before Obamacare And After ObamacareJan 15, 2014
Just this week my medical reports have included: 1.  A suicide attempt by a patient who was despondent over the hospital bills that had accrued last year (before Obamacare).  Patient is still recovering from illness and was depressed about not being able to pay bills. 2.  A patient who was uninsured who had probably suffered a ruptured appendix a couple of months ago (before Obamacare) and went untreated.  Patient now admitted for an abdom ...
Obamacare.Feb 06, 2014
who said they wanted it to fail, but didn't think it would be this fast.  Problems they thought they could get by with for a longer period of time are now blowing up in their collective faces, and it couldn't happen to a better bunch. ...
ObamacareMay 14, 2014
More deceit and wasteful spending. Why am I no longer suprised? Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/13/serco-employees-obamacare_n_5317800.html ...
OBAMACAREJun 08, 2016
We have got to get representative to abolish Obamacare, insurance is no good for healthy individuals and we end up paying for illegals as well as Medicaid recipients, it is just not fair for the working class. ...
IC MTs And ObamacareJan 06, 2017
For those MTs on here cheering the repeal of Obamacare keep in mind that many of your fellow IC MTs are on Obamacare currently and with health issues.  They were unable to secure insurance prior to the ACA and today are covered for their health issues at an affordable rate.   You write of soaring premiums under Obamacare but fail to take into consideration the cost of individual health insurance rates in your "free market."  Those rates for me were over $1,200 per month for 1 ind ...
ObamacareMar 24, 2015
There has been a lot of going back and forth today about Obamacare and it seems there are a lot that approve of Obamacare and think its good for Americans. Some have said they have read the law pertaining to Obamacare. So for those of you that understand the law, and if it is so good for us then just why did our Congress and Senators and Representatives opt out of Obamacare? They continue to keep the insurance that they had previous to Obamacare. You know the insurance that they pay nothing for ...
ObamacareMar 27, 2015
Obamacare By The Numbers RELATED ARTICLES Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Costs Are Biggest Health Care Problem for Most, and Feds Can’t Help Voters Like Health Insurance But Not If It’s Mandated Voters Are Less Supportive of Government-Imposed Levels of Health Insurance Voters Complain More About Health Care And Aren’t Optimistic Sign up for free daily updates Thursday, March 26, 2015 President Obama yesterday celebrated the fifth anniversary of Congress&rs ...
ObamaCare BailoutApr 02, 2011
Here's a simple question:  Why on earth, after a year, are we STILL finding what's in it?  How long is it going to take to find all these "little-known provisions? Transparency - the promise that keeps on breaking.  Uncovered: New $2 billion bailout in Obamacare By: Byron York 03/31/11 11:02 PM Investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee have discovered that a little-known provision in the national health care l ...
Hello ObamaCare/bye-bye JobsFeb 10, 2011
Testifying today before the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed that Obamacare is expected to reduce the number of jobs in the labor market by an estimated 800,000. Here are excerpts from the exchange: Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “[I]t’s been argued...that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?&r ...
ObamaCare: 159 Agencies Between Pt., DocMar 21, 2010
Price: Obamacare Means 159 New Gov't Agencies Saturday, 20 Mar 2010 12:06 PM Article Font Size    The new government agencies that will be created as the result of Obamacare will worsen the quality of American medical care by restricting physicians and hospitals to use their best judgment, according to Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., a physician and chairman of the Republican Study Committee.In fact, he says, the bill would create 159 new governemnt agencies to regulate ins ...
ObamaCare QuestionsMar 21, 2010
1)  If this bill is so wonderful, then why have Obama and Pelosi resorted to bribes, threats, and arm-twisting to get the votes?  The "compassionate" Demonrats should be falling all over themselves to support it.   (This one's rheotorical; their actions speak for themselves.) 2)  If this bill is so great, why don't members of Congress volunteer to be the guinea pigs so we can all see how it works?  (ANSWER:  Because the "elites" [political class ...
Is This The Future Of Obamacare?Aug 20, 2010
"As discussed here, four Massachusetts hospitals now must cope with having thousands of patient records discovered in a public dump. And these records contain vital private information such as SSNs, health details, phone numbers, etc. In other words, everything required to have one’s identity stolen. Also, highly private personal medical details which could be harmful if disclosed in the wrong context. Already, overseas transcription services have been the basis for medical records extorti ...
MUST SEE! Obamacare CHARTAug 03, 2010
Good grief!  Take a look at this chart... If you think that this byzantine bureaucratic structure will result in anything but justification of expansion of government, you are smoking crack!   AMERICA'S NEW HEALTH CARE SYSTEM REVEALED UPDATED CHART SHOWS OBAMACARE'S BEWILDERING COMPLEXITY Washington, D.C. - Four months after U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously declared "We have to pass the bill so you can ...
ANOTHER ObamaCare Casualty. Jul 30, 2012
An Indiana company that makes medical devices has cancelled plans to build five new plants in the Midwest and may now build them overseas due to the abominable tax provisions that will hit medical device companies. In the case of Cook Medical, they estimate the added tax would be $15 to $20 million.  This is money that cannot be used for expansion (read, jobs). I'm so glad they passed Obamacare "so we could find out what's in it" (Empress Pelosi of San Francisco). Well, we' ...
Obamacare Vs Romneycare...smSep 09, 2012
 Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who promised early in his campaign to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, says he would keep several important parts of the overhaul.‘‘Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place,’’ he said in an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC’s ‘‘Meet the Press.’’ ‘’One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.’’Romney a ...
Here's A Thought About Obamacare.Sep 15, 2012
A lot of long-time MTs are middle-aged.  A lot of MTs would love to leave their MTSO jobs if they could find a better job in their community.  A lot of job-seekers are discouraged because they get little or no response on job apps with other employers.  A lot of age discrimination can happen discreetly, by either noting your "25 years" of experience at your last job (if not just by looking at you if you DO get called for an interview).   I've been told that one reason e ...
CBO: Obamacare WILL Hit YOU Right SmackSep 20, 2012
I think I know what Obama's doing today.  He's trying to figure out how he can discredit ANOTHER source of bad news when it comes to Obamacare.  The problem is that once again it's the CBO. Regulations are going to cost 20 times the original estimate. Average hit to the middle class rises. Barry, even Jimmy Carter - the worst President in American history - wasn't as much of a mutt as you are.  I'm sure he's breathing a sign of relief today. ...
Obamacare Or RomneycareNov 04, 2012
Obamacare or Romneycare, we will be screwed either way. They both are responsible for this horrific healthcare situation. In each case it is death care. Not voting for either of these crumb bumbs. ...
Thanks A Lot Obamacare. 7 New Taxes If You Nov 09, 2012
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Seven-new-taxes Mr. Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 is just another falsehood associated with this legislation. ...