|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 13, 2013 08:31 PM |
|
|
Gootch:
The government's source of money is tax dollars. Insurance companies' source of income is customers paying their premiums. If the government wants, it can offer free healthcare and force taxpayers to pay for it. Insurance companies can't do the same. However, force is outside of the market, and involving it in healthcare would be very much counter to what a free market is.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 08:55 PM |
|
|
What part of the government should be allowed to offer cradle to grave medicare in these upcoming insurance exchanges are you not getting? What part of without stupid amounts of overhead government can offer competitive, quality healthcare for its citizens at a fraction of the private sector aren't you getting?
Really, I'm tired of the morally bankrupt arguments of the self-serving libertarians. Snow you. See you at the voting booth.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 09:02 PM |
|
|
How can you be so sure that the American government can offer more cost-efficient healthcare than the private sector? Is there anything that suggests that would be the case, or is it just an assumption?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 09:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's because there's nothing past one's own self-interest.
That's too great a nonsense, even for a libertarian. Maybe you can visit the thing called outside world once in a while, just for reality check's sake.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 09:17 PM |
|
|
As I've stated before here and here and here and here (the new links-to-posts feature is awesome, Valeriy), I actually support significant government regulation of the healthcare industry and could even be talked into supporting an expansion of medicare - because medicare does a good job of lowering costs via legislation. What I don't support is the Affordable Care Act, which is a complete bloated abomination and will only raise costs in the long run. I support lowering costs by proactive regulations and legislation that brings costs down via tax reform (hospitals are still treated as "nonprofits" for some reason), tort reform, and requiring hospitals to be up front with their fees to both consumers and insurance companies. If hospitals want to remain tax-free, that's fine - but then fees for services should have standardized regulatory oversight to ensure that costs are reasonable and consistent from district to district (this is effectively what medicare does) and there should be regulations on how hospitals spend their money. A good place to start would be to eliminate the multimillion dollar salaries of hospital administrators, who aren't even medical personnel.
The key goal should be to reduce the costs of services, which are currently so ridiculously overinflated that it's no wonder nobody can afford private health insurance. The system is such a wreck now because you almost have to buy into a group plan, where the healthy subsidize the sick. If costs were brought down, people could afford their own private plans.
In the end, people also need to stop viewing health insurance as something that should pay for everything. Health insurance needs to be treated like other insurance - to protect individuals from catastrophic events. Car insurance doesn't cover oil changes. Why should health insurance cover trips to the pediatrician?
Well, right now of course they have to, because the cost structure is so messed up.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 03, 2013 12:52 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:03, 03 Jul 2013.
|
Obamacare continues to fall apart as studies show the average Joe will pay up to 4 times or more what he is paying now for health insurance for reduced benefits, higher deductions, and longer waiting times.
Additionally, Obama has now delayed requiring businesses to provide health insurance but individuals must still purchase health insurance or be fined taxed for not doing so.
Clicky
Quote:
(CNN) – The requirement that businesses provide their workers with health insurance - a key provision contained in President Barack Obama's sweeping health care law - will be delayed by one year, the Treasury Department said Tuesday.
The delay came after business owners expressed concerns about the complexity of the reporting requirements, the agency said in its announcement. Under the Affordable Care Act, businesses employing more than 50 full-time workers that don't provide them health insurance will be penalized.
"We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so. We have listened to your feedback. And we are taking action," Mark J. Mazur, assistant secretary for tax policy, wrote in a post on the Treasury Department's website.
He said the extra year before the requirement goes into effect will allow the government to assess ways to simplify the reporting process for businesses. Penalties for businesses not providing health coverage to employees will now begin in 2015.
Another health insurance company is to stop providing insurance in California.
Clicky
Quote:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – A second health insurer notified state regulators Tuesday that it will stop selling individual policies in California.
UnitedHealthcare announced it will no longer offer individual insurance plans after the end of the year. It will focus instead on its core business of group plans for large and small employers.
"Our individual business in California has always been relatively small and we currently serve less than 8,000 individual customers across the state," the company said in a statement. "Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members in California."
The announcement comes two weeks after Aetna Inc. said it also plans to exit California's individual insurance market. Both insurers avoided participating in the state exchange that is being established as part of the Affordable Care Act.
State Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones says the departure of UnitedHealthcare and Aetna is bad news for consumers.
"While both UnitedHealthcare and Aetna have a very small share of California's individual health insurance market, their departure means less choice, less competition, and more market consolidation by the remaining big three health insurers -- Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California, and Kaiser -- which means an increased likelihood of even higher prices from those health insurers downstream," Jones, a Democrat, said in a statement.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 08, 2013 08:57 PM |
|
|
This is what Obama is trying to prevent until after the midterms by declaring the Obamacare mandate for businesses to be delayed until 2015.
Clicky
Quote:
Under the Affordable Care Act, companies with 50-plus full-time employees must start offering them health insurance or face stiff penalties. The employer mandate had been set to kick in January 2014, but was pushed back a year.
Because a 30-hour work week counts as full-time under Obamacare, Fatburger fast-food restaurants had started cutting worker hours below that threshold, CEO Andy Wiederhorn said.
Some Fatburger owners even began "job sharing" with other businesses, teaming up to share a higher number of employees all working fewer hours. Someone could work 25 hours at one Fatburger, 25 at another one with a different franchise owner, and still not be a full-time worker under Obamacare rules.
....
Also, Republicans are challenging Obama on his claim he can alter aspects of the law himself, as that is the job of Congress.
Clicky
Quote:
House Republicans are escalating their scrutiny of the decision to delay a key part of the health care overhaul, questioning whether the Obama administration even has the authority to "ignore the law" without the approval of Congress.
The administration announced early last week that it was delaying by one year a requirement that large employers offer access to health insurance. Officials described the delay as a common-sense concession to businesses who complained the rules were too onerous, and maintained the Treasury Department was within its right.
A Treasury official told FoxNews.com that the move was "an exercise of the administrative authority" under the IRS code. The official said the department has "longstanding" authority to "grant transition relief when implementing new legislation" like the health care law.
A number of Republicans pointed to the sudden change as a sign of problems to come with the massive health care law. But, as lawmakers return on Monday from the holiday break, they're also challenging whether the tweak was an abuse of power.
"This action raises a lot of questions about whether the Obama administration can simply ignore the law when it's convenient for them," Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., said in a statement.
He said he's asked the Congressional Research Service to "investigate" that issue -- "because I don't think any president has the authority to pick and choose what parts of law to follow."
The matter will get an airing on Capitol Hill later this week. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of a House Ways and Means subcommittee, has set a hearing for July 10 which, in part, will examine the issue of the administration's authority to change the law.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, went a step further, describing the move as "another in a string of extra legal actions taken" by the Obama administration.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 09, 2013 12:56 AM |
|
|
The Obama Administration has been playing the legislator now for several years. Why should this surprise anyone?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2013 01:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The (place any "leadership" here) Administration has been playing the legislator now for several years. Why should this surprise anyone?
fixed.
the obama administration is no different from all of the administrations prior to it, or any that will come after.
(is it really just MY opinion, when there is so much evidence to back it up?)
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 09, 2013 04:50 AM |
|
|
The US Executive has been stealing power from the legislative branch for some time, yes, but the Obama administration has taken it to new levels... which is rather ironic because his main election platform was to undo a lot of the allegedly authoritative tendencies of his predecessor.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 09, 2013 12:33 PM |
|
|
|
All I remember is his campaign promise to end the practice of writing legislation behind closed doors. What promise are you referring to with that? And it was his major election platform 2008?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 09, 2013 07:20 PM |
|
|
Obama is requesting 107% more to pay for subsidies for Obamacare than forcast when the bill was rammed down America's throat. It will need more than that.
Clicky
Quote:
The cost of subsidies for those seeking government aid through ObamaCare has increased dramatically, critics say – even before a single dollar has been collected.
Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah wrote a letter to the administration asking why the president is already requesting 107 percent more than three years ago to pay for subsidies.
"They low-balled everything, and they knew they were not asking for enough money to actually do this," John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis said. "And so now they are coming along saying: 'Oh, we've just discovered we don't have enough money'. They should’ve known that from day one."
"I don’t think most of America will be shocked that a government project is coming in over budget," Jim Capretta of the American Enterprise Institute said. "It’s the typical story and so yeah it's probably happening in this case as well."
The remarks followed by days the administration’s announcement it was easing requirements on those seeking government aid through ObamaCare, making it easier to apply for subsidies.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2013 12:04 AM |
|
|
|
weirdly, when it comes to giving to richs, they always have enough money, and if they don't, they can always find it (most likely in citizens' pockets)
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2013 01:04 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 01:08, 10 Jul 2013.
|
Eh, at what point have they given money to the rich?
Honestly, the economic situation in the US shocks me. Don't americans realize that their country sits on a ticking bomb? You're becoming more like a wellfare state but don't seem to realize that a wellfare state exponentially increases in costs as citizen constantly demand more benefits from it and demographics change? I hear lots of complaints about "horrible socialist Europe" from over there yet european countries are the ones who are actually starting to fix their debts with massive austerity measures. And those are certainly not pleasant in the short term. In fact, many times the european political systems punish you much, much harder for austerity than the american system does. You aren't exactly getting nazi parties into your congress.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2013 03:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Don't americans realize that their country sits on a ticking bomb?
this one does.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2013 03:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Eh, at what point have they given money to the rich?
The most recent example that comes to mind is the bank bailouts.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2013 03:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Eh, at what point have they given money to the rich?
The most recent example that comes to mind is the bank bailouts.
exactly.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2013 03:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I hear lots of complaints about "horrible socialist Europe" from over there yet european countries are the ones who are actually starting to fix their debts with massive austerity measures.
from what I've heard, the austerity measures aren't fixing many things so far...
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 10, 2013 03:47 AM |
|
|
It is impossible for Hollande to throw out miracles when half of frenchies spend their days to complain and criticize instead of backing him. This is probably the most noticeable difference between US and many EU countries: Americans are all proudly standing behind their leader at difficult moments. EU ones are selfish and howler specialists.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2013 04:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Americans are all proudly standing behind their leader at difficult moments.
i don't think americans stand behind their leader(s) when the leader(s) in question are corrupt, sal. i think they stand behind their country, and the leader is backed by default.
i don't personally know anyone who liked either bush OR obama. but we all like our country. i think that is the difference, at least with americans. i can't speak for the french, i don't know any outside this forum.
____________
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
