Thread: Why Obamacare Is Already Good For America

All i know as a military retiree under tricare which is under medicare we are already getting new "co pays" we did not have before, operations that were covered just 2 years ago are not covered at all anymore and we have been pushed off for all ancillary treatments for they can not treat anyone on post. Finally there is talk and the admin pushed back a defense bill, for triple premiums for retirees and eventually due to the cut by healthcare reform to medicare thus tricare spouses having to be treated off post and no longer getting covered under military personnel's coverage and having to start paying premiums under tricare.

So i fully disagree not on politics, not on the presidents skin color and not on ideology .... This is already effecting me and my pocket book and why should my healthcare get jammed up and pretty much ruined so 30 Million people can have free healthcare? And BTW i have met no one that is eligible for this program, and I have 30 minimum wage workers in my division and none are getting this new programs benefits for they are not poor enough additionally your premise that it is not costing jobs is false... we laid off workers right after the decision by SCOTUS to save money and due to the fear that all companies have that the avalanche of taxes is going to kill our company. Additionally i know of no one who is using the 26 year old clause for their kids... most i know already have their own coverage as they should. So I ask you who the hell is benefiting from this?

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

There is nothing to fear with Obamacare but fear and/or ignorance itself. Mglbrown, a reader at the Washington Times, sums the sad situation up rather succinctly: "Individual Mandate (complete with Deadbeat Penalty/Fee/Charge/Tax):
- Initiated by conservatives (Heritage Foundation, 1988)
- Promoted by conservatives (Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole in 1994-5)
- Implemented by a conservative (Romneycare in Mass., template for Obamacare)
- Upheld by a conservative (Chief Justice Roberts)
..."

Yep. Democrats passed a Republican bill. Gee, thanks.

That doesn't concern you at all???

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

All i know as a military retiree under tricare which is under medicare we are already getting new "co pays" we did not have before, operations that were covered just 2 years ago are not covered at all anymore and we have been pushed off for all ancillary treatments for they can not treat anyone on post. Finally there is talk and the admin pushed back a defense bill, for triple premiums for retirees and eventually due to the cut by healthcare reform to medicare thus tricare spouses having to be treated off post and no longer getting covered under military personnel's coverage and having to start paying premiums under tricare.

So i fully disagree not on politics, not on the presidents skin color and not on ideology .... This is already effecting me and my pocket book and why should my healthcare get jammed up and pretty much ruined so 30 Million people can have free healthcare? And BTW i have met no one that is eligible for this program, and I have 30 minimum wage workers in my division and none are getting this new programs benefits for they are not poor enough additionally your premise that it is not costing jobs is false... we laid off workers right after the decision by SCOTUS to save money and due to the fear that all companies have that the avalanche of taxes is going to kill our company. Additionally i know of no one who is using the 26 year old clause for their kids... most i know already have their own coverage as they should. So I ask you who the hell is benefiting from this?

Hey Rak! Glad to see ya!

I believe you know how I feel....the military should be given full coverage with absolutely no co-pays and retired military should be covered free for life. Politicians, the scum of the earth that they are, are treated much better than the brave men and women who actually serve our country and it truly appalls me. I hope Heaven holds a special place for our soldiers and that Hell holds one for politicians!

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

All i know as a military retiree under tricare which is under medicare we are already getting new "co pays" we did not have before, operations that were covered just 2 years ago are not covered at all anymore and we have been pushed off for all ancillary treatments for they can not treat anyone on post. Finally there is talk and the admin pushed back a defense bill, for triple premiums for retirees and eventually due to the cut by healthcare reform to medicare thus tricare spouses having to be treated off post and no longer getting covered under military personnel's coverage and having to start paying premiums under tricare.

So i fully disagree not on politics, not on the presidents skin color and not on ideology .... This is already effecting me and my pocket book and why should my healthcare get jammed up and pretty much ruined so 30 Million people can have free healthcare? And BTW i have met no one that is eligible for this program, and I have 30 minimum wage workers in my division and none are getting this new programs benefits for they are not poor enough additionally your premise that it is not costing jobs is false... we laid off workers right after the decision by SCOTUS to save money and due to the fear that all companies have that the avalanche of taxes is going to kill our company. Additionally i know of no one who is using the 26 year old clause for their kids... most i know already have their own coverage as they should. So I ask you who the hell is benefiting from this?

Do you have Federal Medicare or the Advantage flavor?

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

All i know as a military retiree under tricare which is under medicare we are already getting new "co pays" we did not have before, operations that were covered just 2 years ago are not covered at all anymore and we have been pushed off for all ancillary treatments for they can not treat anyone on post. Finally there is talk and the admin pushed back a defense bill, for triple premiums for retirees and eventually due to the cut by healthcare reform to medicare thus tricare spouses having to be treated off post and no longer getting covered under military personnel's coverage and having to start paying premiums under tricare.

So i fully disagree not on politics, not on the presidents skin color and not on ideology .... This is already effecting me and my pocket book and why should my healthcare get jammed up and pretty much ruined so 30 Million people can have free healthcare? And BTW i have met no one that is eligible for this program, and I have 30 minimum wage workers in my division and none are getting this new programs benefits for they are not poor enough additionally your premise that it is not costing jobs is false... we laid off workers right after the decision by SCOTUS to save money and due to the fear that all companies have that the avalanche of taxes is going to kill our company. Additionally i know of no one who is using the 26 year old clause for their kids... most i know already have their own coverage as they should. So I ask you who the hell is benefiting from this?

What do you think has been happening to every company provided medical plan for the last 30 years?
What do you think Scott Walker has been doing to teachers in Wisconsin? What do you think Romney did to retirement plans when Bain Capital bought a company?
When Romney told the NAACP "I'm going to eliminate every non-essential expensive program I can find"? What is more non-essential than paying benefits to people who no longer work for you?

This has been, even at this early date, a campaign of desperation.

We see it in the real world where the sitting president calls his opponent a felon.

We see it here where his fan boys are desperate to run a victory lap type of campaign.

The problem for both of them is that too many people think they both suck:

The spark for these thoughts was Obama’s interview with CBS News, where he “confesses” that his biggest mistake was a failure to communicate, or, as he puts it, “to tell a story to the American people.”

“When I think about what we’ve done well and what we haven’t done well,” the president said, “the mistake of my first term — couple of years — was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”

Obama, as is his wont, has reality backward. His problem with voters isn’t what he did or didn’t say. The problem is what he actually did.

Voters don’t like it. In Madison Avenue terms, it’s not the fault of the advertising that the dog food’s not selling. It’s that the dogs don’t like the dog food.

Obama has trotted out the communication excuse before, and it makes no more sense this time. Most important, his minor concession to imperfection reveals he is unwilling or unable to grasp the facts of the economic crisis and his responsibility to fix it.

So we get navel gazing that would be considered indulgent even in the faculty lounge. In the Oval Office, with 23 million Americans out of work or underemployed, it constitutes evidence of malpractice on a grand scale.

Worst of all, his ignorance is willful. Starting with key gubernatorial races in 2009, every major election since he took office has repudiated Obama’s policies. The GOP landslide in 2010 was historic in size, as was the sweep in statehouses across the country.

Every poll for three years has shown that ObamaCare is unpopular, and that remains true even after it passed constitutional muster.

He sued the state of Arizona for enforcing laws against illegal immigrants, and, after the Supreme Court upheld the state’s key claim, more than 60 percent of voters nationwide said they wanted a law like that in their state. Similarly, voter-ID laws are popular, yet he is suing to block them.

Obama, and his fan boys are on the wrong side of policy, and the voters aren't buying it this time.

Read more: Goodwin: Obama’s “story” telling a fright to Americans - NYPOST.com

Obamacare good for America? Hmm, I'm not all that certain that it is. My reading of the points below is that they add and are valid concerns about the new 'tax', yeah, right when the economy is in a really good position to absorb yet another tax.

The 3 Biggest Ways Obamacare Kills Jobs
Alyene Senger
March 23, 2012 at 11:00 am
The 3 Biggest Ways Obamacare Kills Jobs

Obamacare’s provisions will result in significant job loss across America. Below is a summary of how Obamacare’s provisions will harm job growth:

• Employer mandate. Obamacare requires all businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide health coverage for their workers or pay a $2,000 penalty for each employee after the first 30 workers.The employer mandate creates incentives for businesses to avoid higher costs by, for example, hiring part-time employees instead of full-time employees, since businesses will not be penalized for failing to provide health insurance to part-time employees.In addition, as Heritage research shows, “Obamacare hurts less skilled workers. It raises the minimum productivity required for them to hold a full-time job, particularly workers with families.” The cost to an employer of hiring a full-time worker increases to at least $10.03 per hour and for those with family health coverage, it is at least $13.75 an hour. Research shows that “a third of uninsured workers earn within $3 of the minimum wage and therefore have a higher risk of losing their jobs because of an employer mandate.”Businesses can also avoid penalties by keeping the number of employees under the mandate threshold of 50, which further discourages creating new jobs.
• New taxes and regulations. Obamacare adds tons of taxes on employers. These additional costs reduce the ability to hire workers and could even prompt layoffs. One particularly damaging tax will be the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices. Research has shown that, “Under reasonable assumptions, the tax could result in job losses in excess of 43,000 and employment compensation losses in excess of $3.5 billion.”Obamacare also, for the first time, applies the Medicare payroll tax to high earners’ investment income, including capital gains. Taxing capital reduces economic growth and investment.
• Future costs and regulations are unpredictable. A recent study found that 33 percent of business owners cited new requirements in Obamacare as either the biggest or second-biggest obstacle to hiring. In addition, Dennis Lockhart, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said, “We have frequently heard strong comments to the effect of ‘My company won’t hire a single additional worker until we know what health insurance costs are going to be.’”

And also:

Economic Consequences. Consistent with respected economists‟ forecasts, the health care law contains a number of provisions that will eliminate jobs, reduce hours and wages, and limit future job creation. Specifically, the law:

• Penalizes employers for failing to offer coverage deemed acceptable by the government;
• Imposes burdensome mandates on small businesses, including new paperwork requirements; and
• Compounds the uncertainty employers and entrepreneurs are facing amid a challenging economic climate.

Fiscal Consequences. Studies of the health care law reveal that it will cost taxpayers more than originally estimated, and may exacerbate the nation‟s dire fiscal condition. Specifically, the law:

• Relies on accounting gimmicks that mask its true cost to taxpayers;
• Double-counts savings from Medicare that are widely viewed as unsustainable; and
• Requires additional government spending to direct its implementation.

http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker...CareReport.pdf

eohrnberger,
I know a good couple of guys or their friends who have 50+ employees; this is going to have a VERY small marginal effect on their profit.
Business owners can also play around with schedules and ensure their emplopyes work no more than 39.75 hours a week.
The guy who owns 15 McDonalds pays minimum wage and his employees work about 60 hours a week each.
They go to the Emergency room when they need care.
The owner also has several relatives in Puerto Rico, who have NOTHING to do with the business, on his payroll.

He'll survive and maybe the taxes we pay for ER services will go down.
Oh, USC, get real!

That rule could also ensnare smaller firms, though. A business owner who employs 50 or more at completely different companies -- say, 25 at a car repair shop and 25 at a restaurant -- would have to provide insurance at both, even if each falls below the threshold.

It could also affect married couples. Tax law generally assumes a person owns interest in their spouse's business, Condeluci said. That means small business owners who are married to each other should take steps to ensure the Internal Revenue Service, which will enforce the mandate, won't combine their staff.

"It's difficult to navigate the tax rules, and one misstep could pull them into the employer mandate," Condeluci said.

It's still unclear how the IRS will enforce the rules, according to Jennifer Kraft, a labor attorney with the Seyfarth Shaw law firm in Chicago. However, any prolonged battle would have to be sorted out in court.

Thus we are back to the uncertainty part of things...

The other way business owners are planning to deal with the law is a devastating one. They plan to cut staff and switch full-time employees to part-time, which the law classifies as less than 30 hours per week.

That's the reality for the 425 workers at David Barr's nearly two dozen KFCs and Taco Bells across Alabama and Georgia. Barr has already done the math.

He currently provides health care for managerial staff only, and it costs him about $125,000 to cover the 30 who take it. Extending that to every full-timer would cost him another $545,782 a year.

Health reform's creation of state insurance exchanges promises to bring down those costs, but Barr said any expenses even close to that will still outmatch his available cash.

"This business model isn't meant to support those costs," he said.

To minimize expenses, he'll fire workers and cut hours to reduce the number of full-timers to 60. Then he'll opt for the penalty instead of paying insurance. A $60,000 fine pales in comparison to the huge potential rise in health care costs.

Cashiers would be replaced by self-order kiosks, cooks with chicken breading machines. These options are too expensive now, he said, but they would make sense then.

Obama policies = anti-job creation

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/13/smal...oyer/index.htm

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

Obamacare good for America? Hmm, I'm not all that certain that it is. My reading of the points below is that they add and are valid concerns about the new 'tax', yeah, right when the economy is in a really good position to absorb yet another tax.


And also:

Companies hire workers because they have to to take care of business, not because they want to provide jobs to the community.
When companies have enough employees to take care of business, they don't hire, they may claim it's because their taxes are to high, or that they are uncertain about medical costs, but if a big order comes in that the current staff can't handle then they'll hire. They laid off plenty of people before there was ObamaCare. They'll lay people off when ObamaCare is fully implemented, employment is not related to the ACA.
When business needs workers they hire, when they don't need them, they lay off, and that is totally customer dependent.

Originally Posted by goober

Companies hire workers because they have to to take care of business, not because they want to provide jobs to the community.
When companies have enough employees to take care of business, they don't hire, they may claim it's because their taxes are to high, or that they are uncertain about medical costs, but if a big order comes in that the current staff can't handle then they'll hire. They laid off plenty of people before there was ObamaCare. They'll lay people off when ObamaCare is fully implemented, employment is not related to the ACA.
When business needs workers they hire, when they don't need them, they lay off, and that is totally customer dependent.

I'm not sure I agree with this .. A company will determine if the return in investment is adequate when comparing the additional overhead mandated by obamacare compared to revenue stream and forecasted profits. Any additional expenses will be passed on to the consumer.

For example, if a part time employee has the opportunity to work full time, but the additional cost of childcare, fuel and other expenses consumes the additional revenue .. It will most likely discourage the individual.

Originally Posted by jotathought

For example, if a part time employee has the opportunity to work full time, but the additional cost of childcare, fuel and other expenses consumes the additional revenue .. It will

most likely discourage the individual.

Good point in a thriving economy.
Unfortunately in today's economy I see a lot of part-time workers begging to to stay on as is.

Having not read this huge ACA Bill, I am ignorant as to what the long termed effects will be. I hear from one side we will actually save money, over the long haul. I hear from the other that this is a job killer. Unless it is repealed, I reckon we will surely see the benefits, or the lack thereof as time advances.

As some know, I am against ACA because it was a right leaning plan to begin with, and it mandates giving money to private, for profit insurance companies. Which is why some right wing folks concocted it in the first place, as a way for the private sector to make more money. Pro business and all of that. That the repubs are so feverish in rejecting this heritage foundation think tank healthcare plan is what is so hilarious. This shows the repubs up for what they are, making this issue purely political, and as a way to try to win more seats and the presidency. Too bad their presidential canidate used a model of ACA for his own state when he was gov'nor. But it has been nice to watch the repubs squirm as they try to explain why they don't like what the heritage foundation came up with, when generally they would have loved it, and pressed for it themselves. You cannot make this shit up folks!

I am hoping, personally, that the left wingers who said this was designed to eventually give us a single payer system, gov't run, are right in their accessments. We really do need to join the 21st century!

What is as funny is that most on the left embrace a right wing think tank solution, just because the dems and insurance drew up the fine details, and obama signed it. What surreal times we live in today. The Right becomes the Left, and the Left becomes the Right. Kinda all fucked up to this brain.

But I reckon the Left can say they chose a right wing plan, and because the right hates obama so much, they rejected their own plan so as to try to keep him to one term. And the left can say this factually, and truthfully.