why disapprove of a us health care system

[Poopie]

Case and point. California. Pelosi. Liberal. BANKRUPT!

[zenfahr]

Case and point. California. Pelosi. Liberal. BANKRUPT!

More like. California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Conservative. BANKRUPT Dude you need to stop blaming others. Everyone has lent a hand in that direction.

Edited March 23, 2010 by zenfahr

[Poopie]

More like. California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Conservative. BANKRUPT Dude you need to stop blaming others. Everyone has lent a hand in that direction.

He's been there fighting big spending since he took office, and is trying to solve a problem. Nancy did her damage, and continues to do so on a much bigger scale....

Irresponsible spending....

Yes, I disagree with Government spending in general... Bush was no slacker when it came this spending as well.... Just shows that everyone in the ranks of politics needs some form of reform... possible revolt. Both sides of the coin are dirty, and need a little polishing...

[cerberusxp]

So I heard in the news that obamas plan to reform the american health care system has been past. I've also heard many people in the states are angry about this. As a canadian citizen, I'm used to everyone getting free health care, and to me helping the sick really doesn't seem like that big of a deal.In fact it just seems outright obscure that anyone would not be on board. That said I would like to hear from those that disapprove to understand why they think giving health care to the poor is a bad thing. - personally believe its just a matter of left wing right wing politics myself.

This is going to effect me in a most detrimental way. Beginning with being FORCED to buy health insurance for my wife nearly $3,000 a year, we just cannot afford. Plus my employment of 13.5 years will more than likely close it's doors. The simple truth here is that the tax credits given to employers are not going to be enough to be viable in business anymore. 10's of millions are going to lose jobs just over this piece of legislation. Especially truckers are vulnerable here because of the expense for being away from home. For instance $30,000 take out FICA which leaves $25,500, minus road expense, $8,000 to $14,000 doesn't leave very much in take home pay. The state I live in requires premiums to be based on gross income not net. I'm SCREWED!

[cerberusxp]

More like. California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Conservative. BANKRUPT Dude you need to stop blaming others. Everyone has lent a hand in that direction.

LOL if you think Arni is a conservative, man you have me rolling on the floor LOL.

[zenfahr]

He's been there fighting big spending since he took office, and is trying to solve a problem. Nancy did her damage, and continues to do so on a much bigger scale....

Irresponsible spending....

Yes, I disagree with Government spending in general... Bush was no slacker when it came this spending as well.... Just shows that everyone in the ranks of politics needs some form of reform... possible revolt. Both sides of the coin are dirty, and need a little polishing...

Now your starting to get it. Dont get me wrong, I like Arnold... I was only trying to make a point. He actually does not act like a conservative, or a liberal for that matter... He is doing what I think every politican should.... think for themselves, and act upon your personal convictions, rather than that of the party. We Hippies, like free thought, and still have hope that people will do the right thing.

[zenfahr]

LOL if you think Arni is a conservative, man you have me rolling on the floor LOL.

Thats just a fact. Funny or not I dont believe hes changed parties.

[S.Tx.Rocker]

So I heard in the news that obamas plan to reform the american health care system has been past. I've also heard many people in the states are angry about this. As a canadian citizen, I'm used to everyone getting free health care, and to me helping the sick really doesn't seem like that big of a deal.In fact it just seems outright obscure that anyone would not be on board. That said I would like to hear from those that disapprove to understand why they think giving health care to the poor is a bad thing. - personally believe its just a matter of left wing right wing politics myself.

One of the things I personally don't like is that our banks will have to give the government our bank account numbers to help pay for this "health care". I personally don't care about this bill, but this deduction should be taken out of our paychecks directly, just like they currently do with social security and federal withholding. Giving the government direct access to our bank accounts is one of the worst ideas of all time and I don't think this is going to improve anything.

[+Sherapy]

That would be my take on it as well. There are a few words you can shout to insight fear every time, IE- abortion and socialist. With that fear the capacity to reason or think for ones self goes out the window and you become a child in the arms of the fear mongers, willing to do whatever they tell you you should do to be "safe" again.

Indeed doll, Its a pattern. The need to be certain (safe) the thing is its this need that fuels the fear . IMO

If one has a realistic perspective they would know that there are no absolutes and that it's in embracing this understanding, one moves beyond fear as a way of life.

Generally the avenues used to squelch the fear are the cause...

Edited March 23, 2010 by S♥ ♥ ♥

[MissMelsWell]

Doesn't this new bill require business owners to provide insurance for their emplyees or be fined? And will we still be paying for insurance, so to speak, but it will be in the form of taxes instead of paying an insurance company? But, on the other hand they say you can be fined/jailed for not having health insurance like they can do with not having car insurance.

There is so much conflicting information out there I'm getting confused.

Honestly, I'm confused too... I know my STATE already requires business owners with more than 4 employees to provide their non-exempt and exempt employees with a health care option (if you're a contract employee, no one has to offer you anything). It's VERY expensive for a small business because they can't get good group rates. The "group" isn't big enough to warrant much of a price break and insurance companies won't allow you to say partner with other small businesses to increase the size of the "group" for better rates. I swear, it such a scam.

I'm still trying to figure out how this might affect any business I open next year... I'm nowhere near figuring out what means to me as a shop owner yet.

[MissMelsWell]

One of the things I personally don't like is that our banks will have to give the government our bank account numbers to help pay for this "health care". I personally don't care about this bill, but this deduction should be taken out of our paychecks directly, just like they currently do with social security and federal withholding. Giving the government direct access to our bank accounts is one of the worst ideas of all time and I don't think this is going to improve anything.

And, after listening to my state's attorney general on the radio this morning, this is exactly the reason Washington was one of the first states to roll on the law suit we're starting to hear about. Washington is one of the most liberal states in the union. Most Washington residents are for UHC of some type, however, we're taking exception to exactly this problem. If we're going to have UHC, it probably does need to be handled more like SS, or FICA, or whatever. If I have to pay it (and I'm willing to) take it out of my check, do NOT make me remember to pay yet ANOTHER bill every month that I'll invariably forget. And, if I"m out of work, paying my insurance premium for my health would be the first expense I'd cut. I can't skip my car insurance, because that covers someone else should I do damage to them, it's not really for my benefit, it's for my fellow citizens who share the road with me.

[Michelle]

^^^Precisely, MissMel...

[MissMelsWell]

When I lost my job last year, I was offered COBRA. This is the government mandated plan that allows you for a certain period of time to purchase insurance at your former employers group rates. LOL. That's SO funny! Because I worked for a small company, my "group" rates would have taken about 1/3s of my monthly unemployment benefit! LOL. So, I could either pay for COBRA, OR I could buy some food, and keep my car, heat, water, and internet running so I could find a job. Which did I choose? LOL. Not COBRA.

I think this bill has legs, I really do, I still believe in it... however, there are OBVIOUSLY some kinks that need to be worked out.

Edited March 23, 2010 by MissMelsWell

[zenfahr]

When I lost my job last year, I was offered COBRA. This is the government mandated plan that allows you for a certain period of time to purchase insurance at your former employers group rates. LOL. That's SO funny! Because I worked for a small company, my "group" rates would have taken about 1/3s of my monthly unemployment benefit! LOL. So, I could either pay for COBRA, OR I could buy some food, and keep my car, heat, water, and internet running so I could find a job. Which did I choose? LOL. Not COBRA.

I think this bill has legs, I really do, I still believe in it... however, there are OBVIOUSLY some kinks that need to be worked out.

That is my hope as well.

[cerberusxp]

Thats just a fact. Funny or not I dont believe hes changed parties.

FYI conservatives are not far right wing. They are in the middle and consist of blue dog Democrats as well as middle right, little r republicans, independents etc.. Bush was a rhino, a republican in name only. See it has been the case for so many years we have only had the choice between the extremes. If you guys think everything is going to be OK you are blind and deaf. America is falling faster than a meteorite. We are going to default on the huge loans out standing and when that happens. WWIII Europe and China owns your worthless butt if you live in the U.S..

As a U.S. citizen you presently owe $180,660 of the National debt. You had better win the lottery or you are toast.

Edited March 23, 2010 by cerberusxp

[+Sherapy]

Honestly, I'm confused too... I know my STATE already requires business owners with more than 4 employees to provide their non-exempt and exempt employees with a health care option (if you're a contract employee, no one has to offer you anything). It's VERY expensive for a small business because they can't get good group rates. The "group" isn't big enough to warrant much of a price break and insurance companies won't allow you to say partner with other small businesses to increase the size of the "group" for better rates. I swear, it such a scam.

I'm still trying to figure out how this might affect any business I open next year... I'm nowhere near figuring out what means to me as a shop owner yet.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/21

Perhaps you can start here.

[Startraveler]

Doesn't this new bill require business owners to provide insurance for their emplyees or be fined? And will we still be paying for insurance, so to speak, but it will be in the form of taxes instead of paying an insurance company? But, on the other hand they say you can be fined/jailed for not having health insurance like they can do with not having car insurance.

There is so much conflicting information out there I'm getting confused.

Essentially, employers with more than 50 full-time employees who don't offer coverage will face penalties.

But the individual mandate doesn't carry with it the possibility of criminal penalties, only civil ones.

[cerberusxp]

And, after listening to my state's attorney general on the radio this morning, this is exactly the reason Washington was one of the first states to roll on the law suit we're starting to hear about. Washington is one of the most liberal states in the union. Most Washington residents are for UHC of some type, however, we're taking exception to exactly this problem. If we're going to have UHC, it probably does need to be handled more like SS, or FICA, or whatever. If I have to pay it (and I'm willing to) take it out of my check, do NOT make me remember to pay yet ANOTHER bill every month that I'll invariably forget. And, if I"m out of work, paying my insurance premium for my health would be the first expense I'd cut. I can't skip my car insurance, because that covers someone else should I do damage to them, it's not really for my benefit, it's for my fellow citizens who share the road with me.

If you are working you pay for three health related insurances already! Medicare, medicaid and state industrial. So now we just add on UHC and what next? Another one to supplement that? Stop already. My wife and I are considering getting a divorce just so she can get on the UHC and we can still survive. I do not bring home much $ and the state and Gov. keeps taking more and more. According to the state I "make too much for assistance" even though I only net about $1,300 a month. OH and get this my tax returns for the past 10 years or so was around $800, this year, $133. whoop dee doo

[+Sherapy]

Essentially, employers with more than 50 full-time employees who don't offer coverage will face penalties.

But the individual mandate doesn't carry with it the possibility of criminal penalties, only civil ones.

This is the problem; the misinformation problem; for instance it's not 50 employees (in one of the bills working its way through congress ) its 25. (This is not aimed at you personally)

The link I provided is the resource for the health care bill and what it means . If we each do our part by passing on datum as accurately as possible, or take a sec to provide the link, perhaps this could be a giant step towards ending the fear mongering..IMO

"You know, some of the proposals have what we call an Employer Responsibility Requirement. That's aimed at medium and big firms and saying if you -- you know, we call it "pay or play." If you don't provide health insurance, there's a penalty. Well, the rule -- the bills, as they're working their way through Congress all have an exemption for small firms. For example, one version exempts any firm with fewer than 25 employees. They wouldn't face any of those requirements and that's about 91% of firms. And of course, the other 9%, the vast majority of them are already providing health insurance. The facts are very clear: the system doesn't work for small businesses now and reform is very much aimed at easing the burdens, making it easier for this crucial sector of our economy."

http://www.whitehous...realitycheck/21

[Startraveler]

This is the problem; the misinformation problem; for instance it's not 50 employees (in one of the bills working its way through congress ) its 25. (This is not aimed at you personally)

The law has been signed now, there are no more competing proposals (except for the reconciliation package but that won't alter this number). The law Obama signed today applies the penalty to "applicable large employers." What's a large employer?

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `applicable large employer' means, with respect to a calendar year, an employer who employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year.

A business with 25 employees is the upper limit for the small business tax credit to cover half the expenses of providing health care. Both are important numbers but for different reasons.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Startraveler

[AROCES]

From Forbes magazine

The overhaul gives an additional 32 million Americans access to basic health insurance by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The biggest change in the American health system since Medicare was enacted in 1965, the reforms are expected to cost $938 billion during the next decade. It is going to be paid for by cuts in Medicare, new taxes on investment income and fees on various industry participants--which certainly will be passed along to the general public.

As expected.

[+Sherapy]

The law has been signed now, there are no more competing proposals (except for the reconciliation package but that won't alter this number). The law Obama signed today applies the penalty to "applicable large employers." What's a large employer?

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `applicable large employer' means, with respect to a calendar year, an employer who employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year.

A business with 25 employees is the upper limit for the small business tax credit to cover half the expenses of providing health care. Both are important numbers but for different reasons.

Thank you for clarifying and not being offended; as this was not at you..

It seems we are on the same datum page..

Edited March 23, 2010 by S♥ ♥ ♥

[+DieChecker]

More like. California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Conservative. BANKRUPT Dude you need to stop blaming others. Everyone has lent a hand in that direction.

Thats just a fact. Funny or not I dont believe hes changed parties.

I doubt many conservatives would consider Arnold a Conservative. A conservative is not the same as a Moderate. A conservative is also not necessarily a Republican.

[+DieChecker]

One of the primary financing mechanisms (one that becomes more important as time goes on) is the excise tax on expensive insurance plans.

Do you think this might end up like a Tobacco Tax? Where the tax goes higher and higher over time to make up for less and less people falling under the tax? Or do you think they will just continue to lower the cutoff, so that eventually 10,000 per year will be Cadillac instead of 27,000 (Or whatever it is)?

[Caesar]

Canada's healthcare is sub-divided into Provinces.... not as a whole nation...... Look at your carecard.

Our healthcare is taking a pounding..... where the hell are you? My wife is a nurse in Victoria, BC..... Cut-backs has become the new C-word around here.

And thats how I think it should have been done in America, like Massachusetts. CA will have to come up with an extra $4 billion a year on top of its 20 billion budget gap.