Seriously Nate that's you're argument, sharing costs, and picking
pockets? Did you read Joe Blow's comment about maternity being
a part of his plan. Dude, it's part of every companies plan (was not
invented by the ACA) and yes it's sharing cost because a single female has
no risk of getting prostate cancer, which is a very common form of cancer that
drives up cancer coverage costs.
@JoeBlow "Did you have a choice?"Of course I had a choice. I
was always free to opt out of my employer plan and look for something that
suited me better. You had that choice too. Before Obamacare, we could choose
plans that covered what we needed, and we paid only for what was covered by the
plan. Under Obamacare, the list of items requiring coverage has expanded. This
is why policies are now being canceled which have served adequately for years,
and with which people were perfectly happy. Obama lied to us when he said that
if we liked our health care, we could keep it.@pragmatistferlife
"It's how insurance works..it's called pooled risk."What about when risk is at zero? Then we are no longer talking about insurance
-- we're merely sharing costs. It is only insurance if there is some risk
of contracting the condition. Requiring a single male to pay for maternity
coverage is nothing more than a scheme to pick his pocket in order to subsidize
someone else's health care.@HutteriteSingle payer?
Health care is for people, not soulless government bureaucracies.
If we had the single payer system in place that we should, employers
wouldn't have anything to do with health care. It's health care, for
petes' sake, not a workboot allowance. Let's take this burden off
small employers. And large ones. Health care is for people, not employers.
Nate, anyone who is covered by an employers health care plan pays for a plan
that has all kinds of things they don't need. The closest you can get to
choosing your own plan is whether you pay for yourself, yourself and a spouse,
or a family. The family coverage has maternity, the single plan has maternity,
and the couple plan has maternity. It's how insurance
works..it's called pooled risk.
My mistake. The government claims appx 12 million and lets not forget the census
bureau has been cooking the books on that. When surveys have been made asking
How many members of your household are currently unemployed and are looking for
employment?"Not surprisingly, the answer we get differs greatly
from the government's data. This month's survey, completed Thursday
night, indicated that 47.9 million Americans are looking for work. No,
that's not a misprint: 47.9 million.Out of a workforce of 154
million, that yields a gross unemployment rate of 31%. Among all households, 26%
have at least one member looking for work.Oh but he got Bin Laden
but that leaves the Seals out of .the equation
Obama has given small businesses in America a terminal disease: Obamacare!
@ PaganThe stock market is being fueled by the feds printing
money.Phony!Real numbers; Appx 12 million people are unemployed.
Appx 50 million are on food stamps.Facts disprove your opinion
"Which single male among us needs maternity benefits? Which married couple
seeking to have children needs free contraceptives and abortion pills? Which
couple over 65 needs pediatric care?"And how is that different
from they way it is today? Most if not all insurance policy's
cover those things already, and have for years. Suddenly it is Obama's
fault?Mine does. It did last year, and it did 5 years ago. And I
was never given a choice which would allow me to lower my premiums. Does yours?
Did you have a choice? A better question might be why does
childbirth cost $30K in the US?Ever thought of that?
Will hurt small biz?? Really oh master prognosticator! It already has long
before and after its abizmal failure......And fitting that the
biggest bunch on nanny sissies pushed Obamacare through behind closed doors and
we were told we have to pass it first to see what is in it, while being PROMISED
by the Liar in chief "that we could keep our plans"!2014 and
2016 will be sweeps...get out the brooms!
Solution to all of business problems with Obamacare: Get business out of the
health care business of their employees. Prohibit business from interfering or
being involved in any way with the employee’s personal life. End or at
least lessen the imposed slavery of employment. Let each individual person be
the master of his own life as if were an independent contractor and a small
business owner of himself. If writers about the business world had
to give actual statistics and numbers to the implied information of their words,
it just might tell the reader of the ulterior motive behind the articles. I believe that the promotion, deification, coddling of Small Business is
I agree with Roland Keyser....and believe that Obamacare is more than "good
in theory" as some say. I just signed up for insurance for the first time in
seven years and am happy that I will be able to visit the doctor soon. I've
put up with no insurance and have done my best to be healthy by myself (and
usually been fine), but sometimes that's not enough. The leading cause of
going bankrupt is the fact that medical costs overwhelm a person. People that
have insurance often don't know how much it helps them. This new law
isn't perfect and will need changes as necessary, but it is a great start.
The law has already showed room for flexibility with the small business aspect
since they now don't need to do anything until next year.Hopefully,
more businesses will find a way to give insurance to their employees.Have
a happy Thanksgiving!
@JoeBlow "Who, in your opinion does not need or want insurance? Who among us
is not at risk for sickness or an accident?"Which single male
among us needs maternity benefits? Which married couple seeking to have children
needs free contraceptives and abortion pills? Which couple over 65 needs
pediatric care?Why can't we each decide for ourselves what our
family needs? Why should Barack Obama be in charge of making these decisions?
This is America, not some third-world dictatorship.The further we
let this crud go on, the less popular it will be. Obama will yearn for the day
when his approval rating was 37%.
I disagree that health insurance should cover only catastrophic events, and I
reject the notion that somehow catastrophic coverage would return insurance to
"what it should be." Early detection of risk factors can lead to lower
disease rates and cost of treatment. It also has the economic effect of reduced
employee absenteeism and increased productivity. It seems to me that callss for
catastrophic-only insurance coverage rely on the idea that people will go to the
doctor less if they are paying all of the costs out of pocket. Is that really
the result we want to encourage?
As a small business man, I would love for single payer. I would be able to
provide my employees' with the same health care as IBM. Medicare already
pays 42 per cent of health care.For a little over twice what I pay now my folks
would be covered. It would be good for me, my employee's, and the country.
My Canadian relatives think Americans are stupid to believe the horror stories
the right claims happens. They are FALSE.
Obamacare is destroying the health ins market and will continue to do so. This
will make premiums rise to rates we have never seen. Making healthy people pay
for sicker people means it spreads the economic cost curve. But what young 20
something is going to pay for super expensive health insurance? we already have
a problem with doing that before the ACA. This is just a death spiral as more
and more people drop coverage and soon you will have a problem with people just
choosing not to have insurance.The best solution is to Change most
plans to reflect HSAs and HDHPs and return insurnace to what it should be. It
will be far more affordable and insurance companies will lose their nuiance in
what they cover because any medical cost over the Deductible will be their
The Bait: "Let me be exactly clear about what health care reform means to
you," Obama said at one rally in New Jersey in July 2009. "First of all,
if you've got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan,
you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking
that away from you." The switch: Latest estimates project 160 million
Americans will lose their employer provided healthcare as the result of the
Obamacare employer mandate cancellations.
"it's simply wrong for the national government to compel us to buy
things we don't want or need. "Well Nate. Lets take a
closer look.Who, in your opinion does not need or want insurance?
Who among us is not at risk for sickness or an accident? People who do not have medical insurance are sticking ME with the bill.
They are causing MY costs to rise.Why is that fair?
@JoeBlow "Seemed good enough 'in theory' when the Heritage
Foundation proposed it. And good enough 'in theory' when Romney put it
in place in Mass."Well, it wasn't good "in theory."
It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now. I don't care who
proposed it.For one thing, it's simply wrong for the national
government to compel us to buy things we don't want or need. As far as the
scheme itself goes, its failure is guaranteed because it overtaxes young,
healthy Americans in order to subsidize older, less healthy Americans. It
attempts a transfer of wealth from people who haven't built up very much
wealth. They will simply pay the tax and sign up for health insurance only when
they need it. With the insurance pools over-represented by sick people, rates
will have to go up, discouraging even more people from signing up. It will
become a vicious cycle, and the whole structure will collapse.This
isn't a Republican or Democrat thing; it's 9th grade math.We need to repeal this, and never trust again the people who lied to bring it
@ Pagan; I thought you liberals didn't like the stock market! After all, it
only "evil rich people" who are making money in stocks. Poor people
don't have the money to invest! So if you love the stock market, you
support rich people and capitalism! A welfare state is more to your liking,
The Dow at 16,000 is fueled by the Fed printing $85 billion each month and does
to reflect "prosperity." Watch the Dow drop when Quantitative Easement
ends. The underlying principle is that Obamacare is preeminent. All other issues
are supposed to work themselves out even if it means disaster for individuals or
segments of the economy. There would be some logic in this if Obamacare actually
provided universal health care at a price that is affordable to individuals and
the nation, but it still leaves about 30 million uncovered. Warren Buffet's
advice was to scrap Obamacare and focus on controlling health care costs. With
truly affordable care, those 30 million could be covered.
Nobody in their right mind ever believed that Obamacare would make everybody
better off in every way. The purpose of the law was to fix some things that were
drastically wrong in America, such as 50 million uninsured, insurance companies
dropping the sick, and tens of thousands going bankrupt over medical expenses.
Yes, some will have to pay more, but we will certainly be much better off as a
country with Obamacare than without it.Those who propose a
market-based health-care system are living in fantasy land. We would soon have
100 million without health insurance and many thousands more going bankrupt
because of medical expenses. The market doesn't care about you if you
can't pay, and corporate America is making sure fewer and fewer of us can
afford the products corporations produce.
"No. It's not even good in theory."Seemed good enough
"in theory" when the Heritage Foundation proposed it.And good
enough "in theory" when Romney put it in place in Mass.As
much as some want to call the ACA night and day different from the 2 mentioned
above, the core components were the same.Mandatory insurance, with a
penalty for non compliance.Championed by Hatch and others.Biggest Difference? The proposal of this market based plan was pushed by
Obama.Nothing more, nothing less.
The economy is rolling and it will benefit everyone working for a living.
The Affordable Healthcare Act will sure help my cousin the freelance geologist,
by other cousin the silversmith, my former tenant the independent electrician,
my wife the non-profit consultant, and yours truly the real estate tycoon. The
ACA will be a boon to people like us who are realistically priced out of the
healthcare market. Would the pain simply be unbearable for the
DNews to print just some little, tiny, morsel of POSITIVE news about the ACA?
Re: "Diminishing growth in small companies will stall our economy’s
growth."Of course it will. That's what Obamacare was
designed to do, and it WILL do so very effectively.It was designed
to, and will, collapse the health care system. It was designed to, and will,
collapse the American -- and consequently, the world -- economy.And
it was further designed to foster perpetual and inescapable dependency on
government, to collapse the ability of Americans to be innovative,
entrepreneurial, or to do anything for ourselves.The fondest liberal
hope is that, when we re-ask ourselves Patrick Henry's question -- "Is
life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and
slavery?" -- a low-information America will, this time, answer
"yes," and will welcome the chains and slavery of our liberal
"saviors."Those "saviors" being, by the way, the
same socialist minions who killed our Nation and freedoms.Here's hoping real Americans are not as stupid as liberals hope we are.
You know sir if you employ over 50 people and can't, no let's say
don't provide health care for your employees that meets the minimum
standards of the ACA there's something wrong with what you're doing.
50 people is pretty decent sized. If you have that many people
working for you at over 30 hours a week and don't provide minimum health
care I think the term sweat shop isn't far off. Nationally the
number of people that work for firms that employ between 50 and 100 is only
around 7 million or so, and I'll bet that the closer you get to the 100
number the percent of employers providing health care is nearly 100%. Point being if this is a problem in Utah it probably has a particularly
pernicious employment environment or you're just blowing smoke.
@Devin Peterson "Obamacare is good in theory, but it needs to be
amended."No. It's not even good in theory. Essentially,
it's an elaborate scheme for wealth redistribution. If you look at it as a
tax (and you must, in order to find it constitutional), it is an extremely
regressive tax. It was passed through lies and bribery. It needs to be repealed.
Dow at 16,000 A new record. Facts disprove most Opinion.
Small businesses have a hard time offering decent health insurance to their
employees. This means that small businesses have a hard time attracting quality
workers. Obamacare will help small employers be competitive with larger ones on
this score. Europe actually has many more workers working for small employers
than we do, because the little guys do not have to compete with multi-national
conglomerates on the basis of healthcare. There are pros and cons to
Obamacare. Some people focus only on the negative, better to keep a balanced