• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BREAKING -- Reconciliation bill will have to go back to the House

They wont. See a young guy working for me wont spend all that money on helthcare except for a catastrophy plan, while another may purchase a cadillac plan with it. They have the choice.....


NOW, it seems I got to find a plan for these guys where it doesnt cost me any more.


Some may get more than they need/want others far less....


Its rather pathetic that this provision is in the bill.

At my last job in Alaska, we were given an insurance stipend to do with as we pleased. In addition, we were given AFLAC coverage, paid for by the company, in the event we were sick enough to be out of work.

Of the seven of us, 4 of the guys just stuck their stipends in an account designated for health care spending, I bought a standard blue cross plan and only had to add 60 a month to cover the difference, and two others bought their plans through CIGNA or something...but they had I guess what is now called a cadillac plan.

That kind of freedom to choose what you need from the market is what is missing from this bill and exactly why most people don't support it.
 
At my last job in Alaska, we were given an insurance stipend to do with as we pleased. In addition, we were given AFLAC coverage, paid for by the company, in the event we were sick enough to be out of work.

Of the seven of us, 4 of the guys just stuck their stipends in an account designated for health care spending, I bought a standard blue cross plan and only had to add 60 a month to cover the difference, and two others bought their plans through CIGNA or something...but they had I guess what is now called a cadillac plan.

That kind of freedom to choose what you need from the market is what is missing from this bill and exactly why most people don't support it.

Um, you can choose whatever you want under this law. Probably more than when you get employer-sponsored insurance.
 
Um, you can choose whatever you want under this law. Probably more than when you get employer-sponsored insurance.

Did you even read the bill and think about the impact it has on business models like Rev is referencing? No? Of course not.
 
Did you even read the bill and think about the impact it has on business models like Rev is referencing? No? Of course not.

Which bill you talking about now?
 
Which bill you talking about now?

You're just gonna milk that for every tiny drop instead of debating for the next week, huh?

I looked at the wrong bill draft number one time. I confessed this. I am glad you are getting so much mileage out of such a small mistake. That still does nothing to aid you in making an argument as I was still referencing the exact same text despite the difference in drafts.

Resume your smug chortling and undeserved sense of satisfaction.
 
This is going to piss my employees off. We provide them with a "medcal allowance" to get health insuance on thier own....


Now I am going to b penalized for this? nope. The will get whatever plan we can get for what we are paying now..... Wont be nearly as good for most of them. :shrug:

WTF??! That's what my employer does. I get a $3500 annual amount to use as I please for health insurance. Now I'm going to be penalized for my employer giving me an annual stipend for insurance?

Jesus ****ing christ these ****tards piss me off. I just don't understand how anyone with a brain who enjoys personal choice and freedom can POSSIBLY find this bill a ****ing good thing. I want to go bitch slap idiots.
 
You're just gonna milk that for every tiny drop instead of debating for the next week, huh?

I looked at the wrong bill draft number one time. I confessed this. I am glad you are getting so much mileage out of such a small mistake. That still does nothing to aid you in making an argument as I was still referencing the exact same text despite the difference in drafts.

Resume your smug chortling and undeserved sense of satisfaction.

And you combined your simple, honest mistake with heaps of arrogant, obnoxious trash talk. You deserve what you get.

And then I begged you to give me the exact citation, and/or the language, again. And you ran off.

Show me the death panel. It's your chance to stick it to me, right here in public. Just show it to me.
 
WTF??! That's what my employer does. I get a $3500 annual amount to use as I please for health insurance. Now I'm going to be penalized for my employer giving me an annual stipend for insurance?

Jesus ****ing christ these ****tards piss me off. I just don't understand how anyone with a brain who enjoys personal choice and freedom can POSSIBLY find this bill a ****ing good thing. I want to go bitch slap idiots.

NO. That's NOT how it works.

Jesus, people, first you believe every idiotic thing the teabaggers said, and now you're coming up with new stupid rumors to get upset about?

Calm down and go read up on this before you all freak out. Some vague notes on a message board is not enough information.
 
And you combined your simple, honest mistake with heaps of arrogant, obnoxious trash talk. You deserve what you get.

And then I begged you to give me the exact citation, and/or the language, again. And you ran off.

Show me the death panel. It's your chance to stick it to me, right here in public. Just show it to me.

:shrug: I already told you. The text never changed. You want to keep smugly wagging your fingers in your ears over a difference in draft number despite the text being exactly the same from one to the next.

I already made my argument. Your rebuttal has been some nonsense about draft numbers and not a rebuttal of the text cited. Beg till you are blue in the face but don't expect me to cave to your dishonest antics and your whining and crying about what a big meanie I am. That's not debate. That's just you whining and crying.
 
NO. That's NOT how it works.

Jesus, people, first you believe every idiotic thing the teabaggers said, and now you're coming up with new stupid rumors to get upset about?

Calm down and go read up on this before you all freak out. Some vague notes on a message board is not enough information.

That's exactly how it works per the bill. Read it.
 
NO. That's NOT how it works.

Jesus, people, first you believe every idiotic thing the teabaggers said, and now you're coming up with new stupid rumors to get upset about?

Calm down and go read up on this before you all freak out. Some vague notes on a message board is not enough information.

So it doesn't say this:

Penalties for employers whose employees receive subsidies in the new exchanges, rather than buying insurance through the employer.

?

My employer will be penalized, ergo, *I* will be penalized.
 
Well since he's obviously started his weekend early and I wouldn't want you to go through the weekend uninformed...

"Federal Coordinating Council for Effectiveness Research"

Have a GREAT one!
 
So it doesn't say this:

Penalties for employers whose employees receive subsidies in the new exchanges, rather than buying insurance through the employer.

?

My employer will be penalized, ergo, *I* will be penalized.

You know what...don't bother pointing out text to him because it's not gonna work. He's gonna find any excuse under the sun to ignore the facts and bitch and moan about something else.

Basically, he flings **** until something sticks no matter how irrelevantly.

That's why I have finally chosen to ignore it.
 
So it doesn't say this:

Penalties for employers whose employees receive subsidies in the new exchanges, rather than buying insurance through the employer.

?

My employer will be penalized, ergo, *I* will be penalized.




exactly. My employees are going to have a net loss on this. :no:
 
So it doesn't say this:

Penalties for employers whose employees receive subsidies in the new exchanges, rather than buying insurance through the employer.

?

My employer will be penalized, ergo, *I* will be penalized.

Do you take legal advice from vague shorthand notes on internet message boards?

Go read the actual bill.
 
NO. That's NOT how it works.

Jesus, people, first you believe every idiotic thing the teabaggers said, and now you're coming up with new stupid rumors to get upset about?

Calm down and go read up on this before you all freak out. Some vague notes on a message board is not enough information.

What?…. are we supposed to believe whatever a dick licker......uh, liberal on a message board tells us rather than what we have read for ourselves? :shock:
 
What?…. are we supposed to believe whatever a dick licker......uh, liberal on a message board tells us rather than what we have read for ourselves? :shock:

Uh, that's my point.

Read the bill, or better yet, get advice from a professional who understands it well.

Do not blindly trust anything you read from anyone on a message board, from anyone, especially quickie bullet points. It is more complicated than that. What you read may be true, but very very incomplete. Or not true.

And the language is immature.
 
NO. That's NOT how it works.

Jesus, people, first you believe every idiotic thing the teabaggers said, and now you're coming up with new stupid rumors to get upset about?

Calm down and go read up on this before you all freak out. Some vague notes on a message board is not enough information.




hazlnut is a "teabagger"?


Done and done.

220-207

End of the Thread.


  • Reductions in the penalty for individuals who fail to obtain insurance so that by 2016, individuals who do not have insurance would be fined $695 a year.

    [*]Penalties for employers whose employees receive subsidies in the new exchanges, rather than buying insurance through the employer.
  • Limits on the amount of money a low-income person or household would be required to pay out-of-pocket for health care.
  • A one-time, $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the “doughnut hole” during 2010, which will be phased out during the next decade.
  • Additional Medicare reimbursements during 2010 to physicians with lower-than-average practice costs.
  • More time for insurance companies to comply with the new regulations.
  • Scale back on the tax on high benefits and pushing the effective date on the tax to 2018.




FAIL
 
But you do know that the obstruction is not going to actually accomplish anything right? How does that benefit the country?

Avoiding something bad as long as possible is a benefit in and of itself.
 
hazlnut is a "teabagger"?

Didn't say that.


I think even hazlnut would agree that this is an extreme shorthand version of what it actually says.

You people really are amazing. Somebody posts something, and you guys take it as gospel. It could be wrong (I'm not saying it is). It could be misleading (not saying that either). It could be incomplete - which it most definitely is. Yet you guys don't even bother to actually go look at what the law says. You take some bullet point from somebody and get all freaked out about it.

It's really amazing how supposedly intelligent people can get so worked up over something they understand so little about instead of simply checking to make sure they have all the information. You are presented with a choice - either believe that something really really unlikely is true, or check to see if it's the whole story. You blindly pick the first choice. You are such sheeple sometimes.
 
Well since he's obviously started his weekend early and I wouldn't want you to go through the weekend uninformed...

"Federal Coordinating Council for Effectiveness Research"

Have a GREAT one!

Do you have something against effective researc? You prefer that quacks and worthless therapies be just as eligible for payment as proven ones?
 
Back
Top Bottom