The line for the wall starts right behind her......
Options
Replies
-
Here is another issue. Adults with no children who don't qualify for disability cannot get Medicaid. So if they have no job, no money, and no health insurance, how can the government fine them under this new law? Will Medicaid now be expanded to cover everyone with no income who doesn't qualify as of now? Or will we have a debtor's prison for the uninsured who can't pay their fines?0
-
Can you explain to me what category Solyndra falls under? Education? Healthcare, or Social Programs?
It falls under etc., job creation and green energy. It failed, yes. And subsidies/loans should have stopped long before they did. But in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty minor.
My point is, there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to padding the pockets of big business and wall street. In addition, when it comes to reelection both parties will do whatever it takes to get your vote.
I am all for whatever social programs government wants to implement as long as those social programs are not paid with IOUs to China {or insert other lender here}. We are running a $1.3 Trillion deficit this year. Say what you want about the rich (top 1%) but even if you double what they are paying in taxes we will still have a $900 BILLION deficit this year. If you doubled the taxes of every person (that pays taxes) in the country we would still have a ~$200 BILLION deficit. The government has a spending problem. How about they fix that?
The US has been in debt a very long time. And it has continued to grow under every president. I agree that the number is really exhorbitant and kinda scary to look at. However, I believe that you are contending that we are unlikely to be debt free in one year or even a four year term. What i don't understand is why the urgency now. I do agree that it should be addressed and dealt with and plan should be put in place for it's systematic reduction.
But what makes it a priority now over job growth, health care, general economy, etc? And this is a true question, as it appears to be an important issue to you, why is it more important than the others? Could you be satisfied with a slower rate of growth versus an immediate reversal right now?
I just imagine if my husband was unemployed, we were struggling and our children were hungry, needed clothing, needed shelter needed to go to school etc, my first priority would not to use my savings and/or income to pay off all of my debt first. I would get basic needs met, make sure my husband had a job, then focus on paying OFF the debt. (
all of that hypothetical, and not sure if it is a good analogy, I just don't understand the hyperfocus on the debt all of a sudden) 0 -
Clearly the benevolent companies will give employees a raise based on the difference! :laugh:
Oh, well, in that case, I can stop worrying! Daddy Warbucks to the rescue! :laugh:0 -
Here is another issue. Adults with no children who don't qualify for disability cannot get Medicaid. So if they have no job, no money, and no health insurance, how can the government fine them under this new law? Will Medicaid now be expanded to cover everyone with no income who doesn't qualify as of now? Or will we have a debtor's prison for the uninsured who can't pay their fines?
They would not pay a fine. Only those who can actually afford to purchase insurance and do not. Those who cannot afford it would get assistance to help them. I certaily don't think it's fair that the cost of my healthcare shoud increase because someone does not want to purchase insurance and abuses the system.
Instead of the focus on repealing, why not focus on making it even better. (not sure if you are advocating that, just ageneral statement)
Maybe someone can take this up for me. Gotta get some work done, but will be back later. I think the Obmacare thread/debate has a link that breaks down the law really well. maybe that would help?0 -
Can you explain to me what category Solyndra falls under? Education? Healthcare, or Social Programs?
It falls under etc., job creation and green energy. It failed, yes. And subsidies/loans should have stopped long before they did. But in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty minor.
My point is, there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to padding the pockets of big business and wall street. In addition, when it comes to reelection both parties will do whatever it takes to get your vote.
I am all for whatever social programs government wants to implement as long as those social programs are not paid with IOUs to China {or insert other lender here}. We are running a $1.3 Trillion deficit this year. Say what you want about the rich (top 1%) but even if you double what they are paying in taxes we will still have a $900 BILLION deficit this year. If you doubled the taxes of every person (that pays taxes) in the country we would still have a ~$200 BILLION deficit. The government has a spending problem. How about they fix that?
You can't fix it until you grow the economy. It's as simple as that. And you can't fix the economy by cutting spending. It didn't work in the 1930s, it's not working in Europe now, it won't work in America. If your city is burning down, you don't stop fighting the fire in the middle of the job because you are afraid the water bill will be too high.
I pointed out earlier that one of the reasons unemployment is still as high as it is is because of the sharp cuts in public sector jobs across the country. Not only do you have the job losses, but also the reduced economic activity of those who are unemployed and the increased expenses for things like food stamps, etc.
At a time like this, when the cost of credit for government borrowing is next to nothing, and the economy is still moribund, there are many economists who feel that it is irresponsible of anyone in the federal government to be talking about austerity measures--we have a golden opportunity to not only put people to work, but invest in badly-needed infrastructure rebuilding and repair.
It's not that deficits are not important, it's that we know there is no way to reduce deficits without restarting the economy. And by ignoring first principles and focusing on steps 2 or 3 before addressing step 1, you pretty much insure that the deficits will never be dealt with in a meaningful way.
Oh yeah--and ALL of the republican plans increase the deficit as well -- as much or more than any of Obama's budgets. So you end up in the same place (or worse) while continuing to destroy the middle class. Heckuva job, Paulie.0 -
Here is another issue. Adults with no children who don't qualify for disability cannot get Medicaid. So if they have no job, no money, and no health insurance, how can the government fine them under this new law? Will Medicaid now be expanded to cover everyone with no income who doesn't qualify as of now? Or will we have a debtor's prison for the uninsured who can't pay their fines?
They would not pay a fine. Only those who can actually afford to purchase insurance and do not. Those who cannot afford it would get assistance to help them. I certaily don't think it's fair that the cost of my healthcare shoud increase because someone does not want to purchase insurance and abuses the system.
Instead of the focus on repealing, why not focus on making it even better. (not sure if you are advocating that, just ageneral statement)
Maybe someone can take this up for me. Gotta get some work done, but will be back later. I think the Obmacare thread/debate has a link that breaks down the law really well. maybe that would help?
I missed the part where those who can't afford it won't be fined. That's good to know, anyway. I was having a nightmare vision of prisons filling up for a minute there. Unlike credit card companies, the government can put you in jail for not paying up.
I don't want repeal, the law does have some good points, especially no longer allowing insurance companies to refuse coverage based on preexisting conditions.
However, this law should mandate heavy fines for companies that drop their employee insurance, not minor fines that make it worthwhile for them to drop their coverage.
It should also force for-profit healthcare providers and drug providers to do business with our government so we can have lower rates (they'll still make plenty of profit, as contractors who work with our military know too well).0 -
So right now let's say McCorp offers insurance. They pay $100 a month to cover you, and you pay $100. Now McCorp drops your insurance and a government plan picks it up. Now who is paying that $100 that McCorp used to pay? Taxpayers. At least that's how I understand it will work.
McCorp will be taxed at a higher rate for not covering their employees, so it ends up a wash, which makes corporations less likely to drop insured employees.0 -
So right now let's say McCorp offers insurance. They pay $100 a month to cover you, and you pay $100. Now McCorp drops your insurance and a government plan picks it up. Now who is paying that $100 that McCorp used to pay? Taxpayers. At least that's how I understand it will work.
McCorp will be taxed at a higher rate for not covering their employees, so it ends up a wash, which makes corporations less likely to drop insured employees.
From what I read, the amount is less than the amount to cover those employees for most companies, which if you think about it is pretty much begging them to drop coverage.0 -
My point is, there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to padding the pockets of big business and wall street. In addition, when it comes to reelection both parties will do whatever it takes to get your vote.
I disagree there. It's one thing to provide subsidies for a segment that needs stimulation and growth, such as green energy, a segment that is practically non-existent in this country. (For example, compare the land size vs. solar power of Spain and that of the US).
It's another thing altogether to provide massive breaks for the wealthiest corporations in the world. There's a reason why those companies don't want Dems in office.0 -
So right now let's say McCorp offers insurance. They pay $100 a month to cover you, and you pay $100. Now McCorp drops your insurance and a government plan picks it up. Now who is paying that $100 that McCorp used to pay? Taxpayers. At least that's how I understand it will work.
McCorp will be taxed at a higher rate for not covering their employees, so it ends up a wash, which makes corporations less likely to drop insured employees.
From what I read, the amount is less than the amount to cover those employees for most companies, which if you think about it is pretty much begging them to drop coverage.
I haven't researched it recently, but I wrote a paper on the topic in 2011, and at that time, the plan called for any company who employed 50 people or more to cover their employees, or lose tax benefits that would cover the cost, so it would be a wash. It may have changed since then, but it was a provision previously.0 -
Yeah, I don't know about that... Because I'm pretty sure Democrats are pretty happy giving back to their big donors on Wall Street as well... And I'm pretty sure the new health care law is going to help big health companies WAY more than it's going to help all us little people... It's just a way to buy votes from the likes of us.
Yup, and that wouldn't have happened if we went to a single-payer system, which was squashed across the board. Though I disagree that the new health care law will help big companies more than it is going to help little people. Health is pretty darn important. If it means that people won't die from curable diseases, I'd argue that it is indeed helping them more than Big Health.
I don't think anyone will disagree that health is important... but I have a really hard time thinking that a healthcare law that was praised by Big Health is going to do anything other than line the pockets of the corporations.... Big Health could regulate their profits on their own... yet they don't.... Big Pharma could either reduce their profit margins or refuse the massive government subsidies on their own (but right now they see both, large profits AND government subsidies).... but they don't... these companies could do more to help people without the regulations of the government, but they don't... And yet they are praising a healthcare law that is supposedly going to regulate them? How does that work?
And there is one thing that I do agree with Azdak on... we are not true captalist market and we haven't been for a while...0 -
So right now let's say McCorp offers insurance. They pay $100 a month to cover you, and you pay $100. Now McCorp drops your insurance and a government plan picks it up. Now who is paying that $100 that McCorp used to pay? Taxpayers. At least that's how I understand it will work.
McCorp will be taxed at a higher rate for not covering their employees, so it ends up a wash, which makes corporations less likely to drop insured employees.
From what I read, the amount is less than the amount to cover those employees for most companies, which if you think about it is pretty much begging them to drop coverage.
I haven't researched it recently, but I wrote a paper on the topic in 2011, and at that time, the plan called for any company who employed 50 people or more to cover their employees, or lose tax benefits that would cover the cost, so it would be a wash. It may have changed since then, but it was a provision previously.
The last analysis I read was that a $2000 per year fine per employee for refusing to cover employees was much less expensive than the cost of covering them.0 -
So right now let's say McCorp offers insurance. They pay $100 a month to cover you, and you pay $100. Now McCorp drops your insurance and a government plan picks it up. Now who is paying that $100 that McCorp used to pay? Taxpayers. At least that's how I understand it will work.
McCorp will be taxed at a higher rate for not covering their employees, so it ends up a wash, which makes corporations less likely to drop insured employees.
From what I read, the amount is less than the amount to cover those employees for most companies, which if you think about it is pretty much begging them to drop coverage.
I haven't researched it recently, but I wrote a paper on the topic in 2011, and at that time, the plan called for any company who employed 50 people or more to cover their employees, or lose tax benefits that would cover the cost, so it would be a wash. It may have changed since then, but it was a provision previously.
The last analysis I read was that a $2000 per year fine per employee for refusing to cover employees was much less expensive than the cost of covering them.
That's what I have read as well... Where I work it seems like it would be cheaper to be fined the $2000... I have super duper value plan... the one that qualifies to sign up with an FSA and HSA.... and my company pays $146 a pay period for just me... which is two weeks.0 -
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.0
-
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.
That's actually a lot of what got us into this insurance mess in the first place... the government (in this instance the States) telling insurance companies what is the minimum amount they were allowed to cover... Personally, I would rather see health insurance go back to medical insurance (and it only cover the major stuff like broken limbs or cancer or something) and people be able to find cheap affordable preventative and consistant care.... How did we all ever survive going to the family doctor for things before insurance was mandated to cover nearly every sniffle?
eta: My mom was the epitome of the working poor back in the early 80's and yet both of us kids got all our innoculations and yearly check ups... and we did this without state aid... because my mom, like many other single mom's... made too much money for state aid. How did we ever survive... since supposedly we shouldn't have?0 -
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.
That's actually a lot of what got us into this insurance mess in the first place... the government (in this instance the States) telling insurance companies what is the minimum amount they were allowed to cover... Personally, I would rather see health insurance go back to medical insurance (and it only cover the major stuff like broken limbs or cancer or something) and people be able to find cheap affordable preventative and consistant care.... How did we all ever survive going to the family doctor for things before insurance was mandated to cover nearly every sniffle?
The problem with that is, yearly checkups and going to the doctor before something becomes major saves everyone a lot of money over waiting until it's a big deal to go. And people who don't make a living wage are going to wait because they don't have the money to spend. Which goes right back to the horrible wrong of a country that allows any company to pay employees less than a living wage for their labor.0 -
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.
That's actually a lot of what got us into this insurance mess in the first place... the government (in this instance the States) telling insurance companies what is the minimum amount they were allowed to cover... Personally, I would rather see health insurance go back to medical insurance (and it only cover the major stuff like broken limbs or cancer or something) and people be able to find cheap affordable preventative and consistant care.... How did we all ever survive going to the family doctor for things before insurance was mandated to cover nearly every sniffle?
The problem with that is, yearly checkups and going to the doctor before something becomes major saves everyone a lot of money over waiting until it's a big deal to go. And people who don't make a living wage are going to wait because they don't have the money to spend. Which goes right back to the horrible wrong of a country that allows any company to pay employees less than a living wage for their labor.
So then we should pay a McDonald's fry cook $15 an hour? I guess that's one way of getting this country off the fast food train. So then what should we pay an entry level, college educated technician?0 -
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.
That's actually a lot of what got us into this insurance mess in the first place... the government (in this instance the States) telling insurance companies what is the minimum amount they were allowed to cover... Personally, I would rather see health insurance go back to medical insurance (and it only cover the major stuff like broken limbs or cancer or something) and people be able to find cheap affordable preventative and consistant care.... How did we all ever survive going to the family doctor for things before insurance was mandated to cover nearly every sniffle?
The problem with that is, yearly checkups and going to the doctor before something becomes major saves everyone a lot of money over waiting until it's a big deal to go. And people who don't make a living wage are going to wait because they don't have the money to spend. Which goes right back to the horrible wrong of a country that allows any company to pay employees less than a living wage for their labor.
So then we should pay a McDonald's fry cook $15 an hour? I guess that's one way of getting this country off the fast food train. So then what should we pay an entry level, college educated technician?
Yes we should. If that's what it takes to live, we must. If we don't, your tax dollars cover it anyway. Who do you think makes up for the difference between a wage and a living wage? Taxpayers.0 -
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.
That's actually a lot of what got us into this insurance mess in the first place... the government (in this instance the States) telling insurance companies what is the minimum amount they were allowed to cover... Personally, I would rather see health insurance go back to medical insurance (and it only cover the major stuff like broken limbs or cancer or something) and people be able to find cheap affordable preventative and consistant care.... How did we all ever survive going to the family doctor for things before insurance was mandated to cover nearly every sniffle?
The problem with that is, yearly checkups and going to the doctor before something becomes major saves everyone a lot of money over waiting until it's a big deal to go. And people who don't make a living wage are going to wait because they don't have the money to spend. Which goes right back to the horrible wrong of a country that allows any company to pay employees less than a living wage for their labor.
So then we should pay a McDonald's fry cook $15 an hour? I guess that's one way of getting this country off the fast food train. So then what should we pay an entry level, college educated technician?
Yes we should. If that's what it takes to live, we must. If we don't, your tax dollars cover it anyway. Who do you think makes up for the difference between a wage and a living wage? Taxpayers.
Except then what do we pay the educated workers? The ones that spent money on college? On apprenticeships to learn a trade? If we pay McDonald's workers the same as we do an educated worker (be it a trade or college) then what's the point of being an educated worker (besides the under appreciated value of simply being educated)? If we raise the educated workers pay in step with the McDonald's worker, then we are right back where we started in the first place.0 -
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.
That's actually a lot of what got us into this insurance mess in the first place... the government (in this instance the States) telling insurance companies what is the minimum amount they were allowed to cover... Personally, I would rather see health insurance go back to medical insurance (and it only cover the major stuff like broken limbs or cancer or something) and people be able to find cheap affordable preventative and consistant care.... How did we all ever survive going to the family doctor for things before insurance was mandated to cover nearly every sniffle?
The problem with that is, yearly checkups and going to the doctor before something becomes major saves everyone a lot of money over waiting until it's a big deal to go. And people who don't make a living wage are going to wait because they don't have the money to spend. Which goes right back to the horrible wrong of a country that allows any company to pay employees less than a living wage for their labor.
So then we should pay a McDonald's fry cook $15 an hour? I guess that's one way of getting this country off the fast food train. So then what should we pay an entry level, college educated technician?
Yes we should. If that's what it takes to live, we must. If we don't, your tax dollars cover it anyway. Who do you think makes up for the difference between a wage and a living wage? Taxpayers.
Except then what do we pay the educated workers? The ones that spent money on college? On apprenticeships to learn a trade? If we pay McDonald's workers the same as we do an educated worker (be it a trade or college) then what's the point of being an educated worker (besides the under appreciated value of simply being educated)? If we raise the educated workers pay in step with the McDonald's worker, then we are right back where we started in the first place.
More, of course. I'm thinking we need to look back at a time when one breadwinner could support a spouse and several kids and find out what happened between then and now with wages and corporate policy. My guess is, outsourcing has done us a lot of harm. But it could be other factors, too.0
