Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 113

Thread: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

  1. #101
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You apparently dont realize that this is not necessarily true, as realizing anticipated results do not necessitate a well-designed plan...


    No, I fully inderstand that you will defend The Obama, regardless.
    Still editing out anything that might be harmful to your point I see. And I find it amusing you claim I will defend Obama regardless, when I have been critical of him, and when you have done nothing but search desperately to criticize him, up to and including just making crap up.

  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    The issue of rationing health care is bogus!

    In fact, it's the exact opposite.

    Right now, the only entity that does that is your insurance company.

    From my point of view, an advisory board is a tool to help keep health insurance companies honest because then they'd have someone looking over their shoulders.
    The notion that ANY existing Government program on the planet earth does not require rationing is absurd in the extreme.

    What you and others, who naively support Government run healthcare for reasons that anyone with a modicum of logic cannot begin to fathom, attempt to argue is that it must be BAD if Insurance companies attempt to control costs by negotiating with healthcare professionals on behalf of their insurers and whom may only allow certain levels of care but it is GOOD if faceless Government entities ration care by doing the EXACT same thing.

    FACT: You cannot provide 300 million citizens unrestricted health care without some form of cost control and rationing.

    FACT: Government controlled programs cannot be stopped, you cannot end them, fire them or even reform them because it is the GOVERNMENT; see Government history with exiting programs like SS, Medicare, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and veterans administration.

    FACT: Insurance companies can indeed be FIRED and you can CHOOSE to go elsewhere if there is competition thus maintaining quality as well as cost controls.

    I am stunned and confused how any educated intelligent being on this planet with a modicum of honesty can argue FOR Government run programs when there is so much evidence of how massively ill equipped they are to manage ANYTHING, particularly their own budgets.


  3. #103
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Still editing out anything that might be harmful to your point I see.
    Your red herrings, by definition, are not relevant, and therefore cannot be hamful to my point.

    And I find it amusing you claim I will defend Obama regardless, when I have been critical of him...
    Yes... which is why you so desperately refuse to ctiticize him for putting gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks on the road.

  4. #104
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Except you are ignoring that I stated the program did exactly what it was designed to do. That is a well designed program.
    clunkers, well conceived?

    maybe, maybe not

    but it sure appears to be HORRIBLY executed

    and EXECUTION is kinda the IMPORTANT part, no?

    i mean anyone can sit back in air conditioned offices and CONCEIVE of things, can't they?

    according to democrat joe sestak, ms pelosi and pals have only kicked out TWO PERCENT of the money they've promised to dealers who've stuck their necks out based on congress' promises

    and FOUR OF FIVE applications have been turned down for either this or that technicality

    pelosi is treating car dealers exactly the same way obama treats members of his party---stick your neck out for me, even if you might get your head chopped off

    Auto Dealers Paid for Just 2 Percent of 'Clunkers' Claims, Congressman Says - Political News - FOXNews.com

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Two for the price of one. Like I said, I had my own business for many years and became intimately familiar with insurance laws and practices. My sister has been a benefits manager at several major corporations for many years.

    It's not just BCBS. Do you think they would have this policy if they didn't have to??



    The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) has very specific requirements that health insurance companies and companies must follow.

    talloulou, your stepfather can have uninterrupted coverage as long as your mother has continuous coverage for 63 days.... no questions asked.

    I believe folks are raising a ruckus because they are uninformed. Asking your agent questions and doing a little research does wonders. This law has been in effect since 1996.
    I looked into this and you are absolutely right. I even called my mother to let her know all her "fear" about how they will ensure my stepdad if she ever lost her job is unnecessary. She apparently knew about this law. Her fear stems from the time limit. If she lost her job and didn't get a new one within a specified time period and her Cobra ran out then my dad would be a new subscriber and could be denied coverage by most insurers at that point. And she pointed out one also has to be able to lose their job while simultaneously affording to keep Cobra as long as possible.

    So I suppose it's still an issue, but not as big of one as I previously thought. I had no idea about this HIPAA law so thanks.

  6. #106
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Your red herrings, by definition, are not relevant, and therefore cannot be hamful to my point.


    Yes... which is why you so desperately refuse to ctiticize him for putting gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks on the road.
    SUVs and trucks that are more efficient than the ones replaced. No increase in gas demand as you claim. Go ahead though and look foolish. it's all on you.

  7. #107
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    SUVs and trucks that are more efficient than the ones replaced. No increase in gas demand as you claim. Go ahead though and look foolish. it's all on you.
    Looking foolish is not being able to uderstand that "better" mileage can still be "piss poor' mileage.

  8. #108
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    I looked into this and you are absolutely right. I even called my mother to let her know all her "fear" about how they will ensure my stepdad if she ever lost her job is unnecessary. She apparently knew about this law. Her fear stems from the time limit. If she lost her job and didn't get a new one within a specified time period and her Cobra ran out then my dad would be a new subscriber and could be denied coverage by most insurers at that point. And she pointed out one also has to be able to lose their job while simultaneously affording to keep Cobra as long as possible.

    So I suppose it's still an issue, but not as big of one as I previously thought. I had no idea about this HIPAA law so thanks.
    A friend of mine had a heart attack after losing her job then her Cobra ran out or maybe she could not afford it any more. I can not remember which but it hit her really hard when all this happened being uninsured anymore. She lost her truck her apartment. Everything is working itself out now. She moved in with a very generous long term friend and has since found work that provides insurance.

  9. #109
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Looking foolish is not being able to uderstand that "better" mileage can still be "piss poor' mileage.
    Better but still piss poor does not result in an increase in fuel demand as you claimed.

  10. #110
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: FACT CHECK: White House ignores health concession

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    While I appreciate the work you put into this post (and, understand that I am genuine asking for information), doesnt all of this assume that there -is- a reduction in premiums?

    Lets say you pay $10k for insurance per year, which nets you a $1500 savings in taxes. To break even, don't your premoums have to drop by $1500?

    How do you know that will happen?
    Actually, that concern reduces to zero.

    Assume that insurance premiums do not drop, and 100% of current premium cost is transferred to the worker's pocket instead of the employer's. Assume also zero opportunities for administrative efficiencies and similar indirect savings. Shifting the tax advantage on insurance premiums from employer to employee, with zero cost reduction, would equate to a transfer of premium cost to labor cost--payrolls would necessarily rise to match. The net compensation of the employee remains the same, the net income of the employer remains the same, and the tax burden remains the same.

    The worst case scenario, then, is for zero change in tax burden on businesses (employers) on direct expense alone.

    This oversimplification ignores administrative efficiencies, and even ignores the fact that some employees would prefer more disposable income to health insurance from their employer, both of which are indirect benefits of such a reform.

    Something that has at worst zero economic impact on businesses and provides greater flexibility and a broader market for health insurance is, even in the worst case, a net positive.

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •