Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare.

#252
#252
dreVol said:
oh no doubt. I'm interested to see if the TP rumbles to life based on the "largest tax in history" stuff
Click to expand...

That's stuff is overrated. In Alabama a couple of years ago newly elected republican governor Riley proposed the largest tax increase in AL history... Three years later He was promptly reelected to a second term.
 
#253
#253
vols-1 said:
That's stuff is overrated. In Alabama a couple of years ago newly elected republican governor Riley proposed the largest tax increase in AL history... Three years later He was promptly reelected to a second term.
Click to expand...

it's AL. who on earth pays taxes?
 
#255
#255
BigPapaVol said:
I have almost no doubt that we'll quit providing insurance, since the only upside is the guaranteed issue. With that gone, the pricing is about to get iffy and employers are best served to get out of that business.
Click to expand...


Comments like this make me cringe because they are based on such a huge mistaken assumption.

Right now your employer doesn't have to provide insurance. He/it/she does because its a benefit that attracts good employees. If your employer wanted to, they'd just stop offering it and be a less competitive employer to potential employees.

That isn't going to change because there is an option to pay the tax. I mean, they could have just stopped offering it, anyway. The law doesn't change that fact.

In fact, if anything, over time the law will have the effect of broadening the universe of people paying. Costs of insurance will go up because health care costs go up, but not as much as it would have if the pool of contirbutors remained small, and got smaller.
 
#256
#256
lawgator1 said:
Comments like this make me cringe because they are based on such a huge mistaken assumption.

Right now your employer doesn't have to provide insurance. He/it/she does because its a benefit that attracts good employees. If your employer wanted to, they'd just stop offering it and be a less competitive employer to potential employees.

That isn't going to change because there is an option to pay the tax. I mean, they could have just stopped offering it, anyway. The law doesn't change that fact.

In fact, if anything, over time the law will have the effect of broadening the universe of people paying. Costs of insurance will go up because health care costs go up, but not as much as it would have if the pool of contirbutors remained small, and got smaller.
Click to expand...
you have no idea what you're talking about and I am the employer. The competitiveness silliness is what I'd expect. Everyone working for us would take the savings from the company and be fine with getting their own insurance. They'd likely make better decisions with the money.

You're lost if you don't believe this law changes the facts. If you think the penalty isn't the best option, you haven't paid any attention. If it gets penal enough, people might provide care, but why make it good enough to overtake the gov't option and why spend money on it.

The idea that this will broaden the universe of people paying is dumber than dirt. The gov't will be eating the largest majority, so more will be shoehorned, thus limiting the players in the market and making alternatives not only fewer, but worse.
 
#257
#257
BigPapaVol said:
you have no idea what you're talking about and I am the employer. The competitiveness silliness is what I'd expect. Everyone working for us would take the savings from the company and be fine with getting their own insurance. They'd likely make better decisions with the money.

You're lost if you don't believe this law changes the facts. If you think the penalty isn't the best option, you haven't paid any attention. If it gets penal enough, people might provide care, but why make it good enough to overtake the gov't option and why spend money on it.

The idea that this will broaden the universe of people paying is dumber than dirt. The gov't will be eating the largest majority, so more will be shoehorned, thus limiting the players in the market and making alternatives not only fewer, but worse.
Click to expand...


You could have declined to pay for the insurance for your employees anyway. Don;t pretend you are going to stop because you can just pay the tax. That's utter crap.
 
#258
#258
lawgator1 said:
You could have declined to pay for the insurance for your employees anyway. Don;t pretend you are going to stop because you can just pay the tax. That's utter crap.
Click to expand...

again you have no idea what you're talking about. We'll have the discussion, as a group, regarding the financial implications of the new facts and we'll move. Given that most companies don't have you anywhere near their finances, they'll do something similar. The benefit will be passed to the employee. We won't be getting less competitive.

I know you like to believe that people won't be pragmatic so this looks like a better plan, but you're delusional. The leftist morons behind this know fully well that it's a step toward universal gov't driven care. If you don't think so, you're either dumb or naive or both.
 
#259
#259
BigPapaVol said:
again you have no idea what you're talking about. We'll have the discussion, as a group, regarding the financial implications of the new facts and we'll move. Given that most companies don't have you anywhere near their finances, they'll do something similar. The benefit will be passed to the employee. We won't be getting less competitive.

I know you like to believe that people won't be pragmatic so this looks like a better plan, but you're delusional. The leftist morons behind this know fully well that it's a step toward universal gov't driven care. If you don't think so, you're either dumb or naive or both.
Click to expand...

I'll go with both.
 
#260
#260
BigPapaVol said:
again you have no idea what you're talking about. We'll have the discussion, as a group, regarding the financial implications of the new facts and we'll move. Given that most companies don't have you anywhere near their finances, they'll do something similar. The benefit will be passed to the employee. We won't be getting less competitive.

I know you like to believe that people won't be pragmatic so this looks like a better plan, but you're delusional. The leftist morons behind this know fully well that it's a step toward universal gov't driven care. If you don't think so, you're either dumb or naive or both.
Click to expand...

Hours ago you were going to stop. Now you are going to meet and discuss. The mandate doesn't change anything.
 
#262
#262
LOL@ GOP abandoning Roberts because he voted to upheld an Obama initiative.

The party that hates politics invading the Court can't stand it when they don't get the votes.
 
#263
#263
I was honestly afraid for GS health when the ruling came down. I thought he might do something crazy.
 
#265
#265
BeecherVol said:
More accurate.
Click to expand...

Funny, opponents say they don't like the act because its the gonvernment telling them what to do. Yet they support the government mandates on benefits and kids --- if that is it benefits them personally.

And I wonder if these same so-called conservatives say the same thing when government tells people how to marry, family planning, etc.

Doubt it
 
#266
#266
lawgator1 said:
Hours ago you were going to stop. Now you are going to meet and discuss. The mandate doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...

I didn't say we would stop. I said in all likelihood we'll stop. We'll give folks the option, but it will be couched such that they'll know the right route.
 
#267
#267
lawgator1 said:
Funny, opponents say they don't like the act because its the gonvernment telling them what to do. Yet they support the government mandates on benefits and kids --- if that is it benefits them personally.

And I wonder if these same so-called conservatives say the same thing when government tells people how to marry, family planning, etc.

Doubt it
Click to expand...

Mixing fiscal conservatives and libertarians with the idiots that want governmental social dictates is stupid and should be beneath you, but somehow it isn't.
 
#269
#269
lawgator1 said:
LOL@ GOP abandoning Roberts because he voted to upheld an Obama initiative.

The party that hates politics invading the Court can't stand it when they don't get the votes.
Click to expand...

who abandoned Roberts? He's had very few rulings by which to measure him and these last couple certainly don't lump him in the conservative or libertarian camps.

Surely you didn't just say that politics stayed out of the courts here. This was BS politics at its finest. When a chief justice goes out of his way to make this work, it's pure politics. He should be embarrassed with this law he just made.
 
#270
#270
BigPapaVol said:
who abandoned Roberts? He's had very few rulings by which to measure him and these last couple certainly don't lump him in the conservative or libertarian camps.

Surely you didn't just say that politics stayed out of the courts here. This was BS politics at its finest. When a chief justice goes out of his way to make this work, it's pure politics. He should be embarrassed with this law he just made.
Click to expand...


I'll play the Fox game:

"some say Roberts should be impeached for this"
 
#274
#274
Velo Vol said:
Great call. The bottom fell out of the markets today and the Dow collapsed a whopping 25 points.

You guys should run a hedge fund.
Click to expand...

Buy the dip, sell the rip. pretty simple.

500,000+ people are rolling off LT UE benefits every month, so always have that on your mind. Europe will drag on. Goldman Sachs just announced layoffs, they don't layoff people when the economy is bullish. The jobs number next Friday will be a disaster
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top