Even More Obamacare Follies

#127
#127
utvolpj said:
this is a smart move only if the challenger in the races doesn't absolutely hammer their opponent on it. Any incumbent who voted for Obamacare should stand little chance against an organized attack. Of course I realize how likely that is to happen

someone has to put together the numbers on how this affects the cost of Obamacare though since you know they were all figured with 2014 as the date. If we just had a competent opposition this could be a backfire of epic proportions
Click to expand...


There are plenty of falsehoods, extreme and misleading exaggerations, and manipulated statistics from the far right out there already. Many mindlessly repeated itt. Take your pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#128
#128
lawgator1 said:
There are plenty of falsehoods, extreme and misleading exaggerations, and manipulated statistics from the far right out there already. Many mindlessly repeated itt. Take your pick.
Click to expand...

and everything released by the admin has been a lie. This is playing politics with something that affects people wallet and life. Of course you have no issue with it since you're a hack and the Dems told you it was a good thing
 
#130
#130
utvolpj said:
and everything released by the admin has been a lie. This is playing politics with something that affects people wallet and life. Of course you have no issue with it since you're a hack and the Dems told you it was a good thing
Click to expand...

The biggest complaint is that employers will have to buy health insurance, correct?

Do you understand, mathematically, what is wrong with that criticism?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#131
#131
lawgator1 said:
The biggest complaint is that employers will have to buy health insurance, correct?

Do you understand, mathematically, what is wrong with that criticism?
Click to expand...

wait, you're going to start talking math now? This from the same guy who can't grasp a profit % and believed the $900bil figure when it was released?

:eek:lol:

nothing in this truly forces anyone but the individual to buy more expensive health insurance using the threat of the IRS to back it up. It's all a game
 
#132
#132
lawgator1 said:
There are plenty of falsehoods, extreme and misleading exaggerations, and manipulated statistics from the far right out there already. Many mindlessly repeated itt. Take your pick.
Click to expand...

Far right? Has the far left figured out what is in the bill yet? I assume these falsehoods and misleading exaggerations would easily fade with some real stats and math.

It doesnt add up and it wont.
 
#133
#133
lawgator1 said:
There are plenty of falsehoods, extreme and misleading exaggerations, and manipulated statistics from the far right out there already. Many mindlessly repeated itt. Take your pick.
Click to expand...

Got any facts to dispute?

No, didn't think so. This delay is just a ploy in hopes they survive the mid-terms. Delay the pain.
 
#134
#134
lawgator1 said:
The biggest complaint is that employers will have to buy health insurance, correct?

Do you understand, mathematically, what is wrong with that criticism?
Click to expand...

no. That's the bullshiz media overlay. The biggest problem is that we're adding millions to the rolls, adding more government oversight and overhead, buying through exchanges and were sold this steaming pile on a premeditated and outright lie.

GTFO.

If you knew jack about it, you'd be spouting it. I know you're itching to pass along the lefty site talking points, but every single one of them is utterly idiotic and clearly stem from a WH marketing blitz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#135
#135
lawgator1 said:
The biggest complaint is that employers will have to buy health insurance, correct?

Do you understand, mathematically, what is wrong with that criticism?
Click to expand...

utvolpj said:
wait, you're going to start talking math now? This from the same guy who can't grasp a profit % and believed the $900bil figure when it was released?

:eek:lol:

nothing in this truly forces anyone but the individual to buy more expensive health insurance using the threat of the IRS to back it up. It's all a game
Click to expand...


Argument 1: The key argument from critics is that the Act will hurt hiring by small businesses because they don't want the burden of paying for health insurance for employees.

Fact: The Act only requires employers of 50 or more employees to provide insurance. That is not typically characterized as a small business.

_________________

Fall back Argument 2: Well, then, it will cause medium sized businesses with around 50 employees to freak out and stop hiring because they don't want to have to pay for all their employees' health insurance.

Fact: Employers of over 50 already offer health insurance. Indeed, 96 % of businesses with 50 or more employees already offer health insurance.


_________________

Fall back argument 3: Ok, fine! Pesky facts getting in the way..... How about this, then? Firms with like 45-49 workers will not hire more people because they don't want to go over the 50 mark.

Fact: The Act will impose a new requirement in terms of responsibility for purchasing health insurance on just 0.2 percent of all companies in the US. That's 0- point 2. Roughly 10,000 out of 6 MILLION companies will actually see any new requirement placed on them for something they don't already offer.



Indeed, the Act creates lower cost alternatives for small businesses that want to offer health insurance to be competitive, but have not been able to due to price. Does it guarantee it? No, of course not. But for all of you who ballyhoo small business as the growth engine for the economy, you would think you'd want these small businesses to have more options, at a lower cost, than they have now.

I find the Fox New and GOP complaints about the employer reporting provision being delayed to be hilarious. Because while the actual imposition of new requirements for buying health insurance for these companies is a huge lie, the bureaucracy in reporting is a cost and a regulation that ought to be streamlined as much as possible before implementation. Delaying it so that it can be made more efficient makes a ton of sens,e and ought to be welcome news to the anti-regulation crowd. Instead, the irrational stomp their feet that it is proof that the Act is a bad idea, when in fact it is proof that it is being implemented in a manner as least likely to cause reporting costs as possible.

The fact is that you have two groups in bed together with each other over this. The HMOs and some insurers, who stand to lose market share, and the GOP, which is trying desperately to position itself to win as many seats as possible in the midterms, and are relying on the poorly educated and ignorant of the facts crowd, like yourself, to scare people into thinking the Act is going to dramatically change things or cause a huge increase in expense for many people, when it really doesn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#136
#136
1) it is still a small business but they are unlikely to grow past the limit because of the cost associated with that 50th employee

2) already happening and your number mentions nothing about what % offer acceptable insurance as defined by Obamacare. What the regs have done is eliminate lower cost plans and required more be spent. They will pay the fine and the burden will fall on the individual to pay more

3) it is already happening. Hours are being cut and part-time/temp/contractors are becoming popular

this bill will cost everyone but the very bottom more money out of their pocket. It will be funded by those who actually produce in our economy. It is a complete disaster and that's why it is being delayed until after the elections
 
#137
#137
lawgator said:
Indeed, the Act creates lower cost alternatives for small businesses that want to offer health insurance to be competitive, but have not been able to due to price. Does it guarantee it? No, of course not. But for all of you who ballyhoo small business as the growth engine for the economy, you would think you'd want these small businesses to have more options, at a lower cost, than they have now.

I find the Fox New and GOP complaints about the employer reporting provision being delayed to be hilarious. Because while the actual imposition of new requirements for buying health insurance for these companies is a huge lie, the bureaucracy in reporting is a cost and a regulation that ought to be streamlined as much as possible before implementation. Delaying it so that it can be made more efficient makes a ton of sens,e and ought to be welcome news to the anti-regulation crowd. Instead, the irrational stomp their feet that it is proof that the Act is a bad idea, when in fact it is proof that it is being implemented in a manner as least likely to cause reporting costs as possible.

The fact is that you have two groups in bed together with each other over this. The HMOs and some insurers, who stand to lose market share, and the GOP, which is trying desperately to position itself to win as many seats as possible in the midterms, and are relying on the poorly educated and ignorant of the facts crowd, like yourself, to scare people into thinking the Act is going to dramatically change things or cause a huge increase in expense for many people, when it really doesn't.
Click to expand...

The bolded is a bald faced LIE!

I run a small/medium sized business and we do offer health insurance. As a matter of fact we pay 100% of the premium for the employee, our 2014 renewal estimates are going to force us to stop paying 100% for the employee. We cannot continue do so when facing 30-40% premium increases and stay competitive.

Who will this hurt? It will hurt the $15 hour single moms, the $20 hour techs, the exact people who this is supposed to help. It is taking money directly out of their pockets!
 
#138
#138
holy mother of made up lies.

The analysis of the true problems is pure garbage. The problem isn't about small businesses. It's about the cost of the program, moving further away from market conditions, forcing people into HC (particularly the young who are making the right choice in opting out) and having to provide for transient type workers in particular industries.

Your absurdity about the percentages of small businesses impacted is pure crap. Go ask another lefty site that isn't littered with morons, should one happen to exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#139
#139
utvolpj said:
1) it is still a small business but they are unlikely to grow past the limit because of the cost associated with that 50th employee


Really? How many companies with over 45 employees don't already offer health insurance?

Come on. Be serious.



2) already happening and your number mentions nothing about what % offer acceptable insurance as defined by Obamacare. What the regs have done is eliminate lower cost plans and required more be spent. They will pay the fine and the burden will fall on the individual to pay more


That's just false. The minimum requirements for the new plans, like the co-ops, are far lower than what is currently already out there.

3) it is already happening. Hours are being cut and part-time/temp/contractors are becoming popular

No, that's another bald faced lie. While it is correct that businesses are using a lot more part time type employees, that's because they don;t want to offer any benefits and want to pay on a 1099 basis as much as possible. The claim that its because of Obamacare is false. There is nothing but anecdotal claims from business owners that its because of Obamacare, and invariably such publicized claims turn out to be coming from political opponents of the president.


this bill will cost everyone but the very bottom more money out of their pocket. It will be funded by those who actually produce in our economy. It is a complete disaster and that's why it is being delayed until after the elections
Click to expand...


See above. All of your arguments are false claims based in politics, not reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#140
#140
hog88 said:
The bolded is a bald faced LIE!

I run a small/medium sized business and we do offer health insurance. As a matter of fact we pay 100% of the premium for the employee, our 2014 renewal estimates are going to force us to stop paying 100% for the employee. We cannot continue do so when facing 30-40% premium increases and stay competitive.

Who will this hurt? It will hurt the $15 hour single moms, the $20 hour techs, the exact people who this is supposed to help. It is taking money directly out of their pockets!
Click to expand...


The increase you are facing now is not Obamacare related. Indeed, the changes coming will lower the rate of growth of health insurance premiums, which will allow companies like yours to continue to pay all or a larger chunk of premiums for your employees.

I used to pay 100 % of my employees' premiums, too. Ended about five years ago, well before Obamacare passed or even mentioned, and that had to do with the double digit increases in premiums we have seen for the past decade.

Something has to be done to slow the growth of these premiums. The key is to spread the cost out across as many people as possible. This Act forces those who use the health care system, but avoid paying for it, to pony up.

That is why Romney proposed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#141
#141
lawgator1 said:
The increase you are facing now is not Obamacare related. Indeed, the changes coming will lower the rate of growth of health insurance premiums, which will allow companies like yours to continue to pay all or a larger chunk of premiums for your employees.

I used to pay 100 % of my employees' premiums, too. Ended about five years ago, well before Obamacare passed or even mentioned, and that had to do with the double digit increases in premiums we have seen for the past decade.

Something has to be done to slow the growth of these premiums. The key is to spread the cost out across as many people as possible. This Act forces those who use the health care system, but avoid paying for it, to pony up.

That is why Romney proposed it.
Click to expand...

Are you really that dense? Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, no co-pays for many procedures, ext ext hasn't led to premium increases?

Premiums will not decrease without major increases in deductibles and lower limits. Keep fooling yourself if you think premiums will ever decrease without extreme cuts in benefits.
 
#142
#142
lawgator1 said:
Indeed, the changes coming will lower the rate of growth of health insurance premiums,
Click to expand...

haha sounds like the Dems version of spending cuts. You are the kind of low-information voter they depend on for power

lawgator1 said:
Something has to be done to slow the growth of these premiums.
Click to expand...

ideas were put out yet Obamacare was still rammed thru and will add huge numbers to our debt. Using the market was never considered yet the admin still claims this is a hybrid approach

this is simply a redistribution scheme that is being put on the backs of the middle class. You know, the same middle class who were told they would never see a tax increase
 
#143
#143
lawgator1 said:
See above. All of your arguments are false claims based in politics, not reality.
Click to expand...

get the hell out of here. There isn't a single damn comparable policy even in the ballpark of cheaper. You know it intuitively, or are dumber than even you play on this site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#145
#145
BigPapaVol said:
get the hell out of here. There isn't a single damn comparable policy even in the ballpark of cheaper. You know it intuitively, or are dumber than even you play on this site.
Click to expand...


There will be plenty of lower cost options via the co-ops. People will always find ways to manufacture fake comparisons to make it look otherwise. Happened recently in California. They announced a co-op plan and the far right went ballistic, claiming that a cheaper version of the same thing was available from a private insurer. Turned out, yet again, to be a blatant lie by Fox and the GOP as the private plan in fact was not available at the price they tried to hoist up for comparison purposes..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#147
#147
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#148
#148
lawgator1 said:
That latter story was the one discredited as a complete GOP lie, I believe. that's the one where they used the fake private policy price to compare to the co-op.

Totally bogus and embarrassed Fox and others for promoting it. They have had to back off of that lie.
Click to expand...

link to it being discredited? Only claim you ever mustered was that their published rates were a lie but there was no evidence of that. I know how you like to always have a fact-based debate on the issues

also, no comment on the jobs part? That's the part you were trumpeting so loudly just a few posts ago
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#149
#149
lawgator1 said:
Argument 1: The key argument from critics is that the Act will hurt hiring by small businesses because they don't want the burden of paying for health insurance for employees.

Fact: The Act only requires employers of 50 or more employees to provide insurance. That is not typically characterized as a small business.

_________________

Fall back Argument 2: Well, then, it will cause medium sized businesses with around 50 employees to freak out and stop hiring because they don't want to have to pay for all their employees' health insurance.

Fact: Employers of over 50 already offer health insurance. Indeed, 96 % of businesses with 50 or more employees already offer health insurance.


_________________

Fall back argument 3: Ok, fine! Pesky facts getting in the way..... How about this, then? Firms with like 45-49 workers will not hire more people because they don't want to go over the 50 mark.

Fact: The Act will impose a new requirement in terms of responsibility for purchasing health insurance on just 0.2 percent of all companies in the US. That's 0- point 2. Roughly 10,000 out of 6 MILLION companies will actually see any new requirement placed on them for something they don't already offer.
Click to expand...

You are a masterful debater. In fact, I bet you win all the debates you have with yourself in front of a mirror, driving in your car, laying in bed, etc.
 
#150
#150
utvolpj said:
link to it being discredited? Only claim you ever mustered was that their published rates were a lie but there was no evidence of that. I know how you like to always have a fact-based debate on the issues

also, no comment on the jobs part? That's the part you were trumpeting so loudly just a few posts ago
Click to expand...

On the road. Look it up. Its all over the place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top