After health reform decision: What’s next for employers?

Well unfortunately, anybody who thought that individual mandate/penalty is not a tax had no idea how the 1040 form works. Anything that goes on this form is either a credit that lowers tax or a tax. I doesn’t help me that I know individual and business tax laws. I am part of the crowd.
President said what was convenient for him to say to stupidify society even more, and if you look at those mindless crowds you will see how successful rhetorics do the job.
The truth is that society think that they can have something for free. There is no such thing, someone always pays!! Those dishonest working for cash “money under the desk” they learned how to scheme the system and report only enough income to have social security credits and received high enough Earn Income credit. Of course they don’t have to worry about individual mandate and insurance premiums – they won’t pay a dime! It is us who will have to pay!

PPACA was finally labeled what it really is and that is a “tax”, another broken promise but what else is new. Also, if you have been paying attention, both Social Security and Medicare are in trouble and there is question of the sustainability of both programs (more drawing out than paying into the programs = deficit). “Reasonable access to decent healthcare”, I don’t think anyone would argue that we would like access to “great” healthcare but “affordable” that it the big question. Bottom line it isn’t free and someone has to pay or how can it be sustained? I don’t have a problem with people having access to healthcare but do question how it can be affordable or how can we pay for it in the long run?

@Mimi You say: “The passage of the PPACA is a great piece of legislation, although it is being met with the same kind of negativity as Social Security and Medicare were when they were first rolled out.
I say: You are flat out wrong. SS and Medicare enjoyed 70+ percent public approval. The majority of Americans have been against Obamacare since the onset. (BTW, Both SS and Medicare are going broke and represent huge federal government failures with out-of-control unforeseen spending. I can’t help but wonder how Obamacare will end up since spending projections have already doubled and the big stuff has not even hit yet?)
You say:”America is the ONLY industrialized country that does not have health care of an affordable nature for all citizens.”
I say: Since America is the greatest country on earth, maybe they should strive to be more like us and we should strive to be less like them. (Anyway, since the act makes the healthcare supply less and the demand more, how exactly is it going to be more affordable? I beg for a straight answer from you on this).
You say”I for one couldn’t be happier that Justice Roberts voted not on his POLITICAL bias but on his LEGAL bias.”
I say: Roberts and the four liberals did not vote on the merits of the law, they rewrote the law (This can not be denied) most likely for political reasons. The law refers to the mandate 18 separate times as a financial penalty (not a tax).
You say: “I can remember when Justice Roberts was the fair haired boy of the GOP and right-wing, but apparently that was not based on his talents and lgal acumen, but on what was perceived as his political/conservative bias and how he would vote on cases bvefore SCOTUS. I guess if you vote my way your are my friend, but if you vote against my way, you are my enemy! So much for appreciation of out Founding Forefathers and their 3 branch form of government.”
I say: Conservatives liked Roberts in the past because he voted consistently with “the constructionists”. The side that adheres to the original intent of the founding fathers and writers of the constitution. The same people who believe in the principle of federalism. This decision and the judicial rewriting of the law represents an overreach of the judicial branch of government that you seemingly claim to appreciate. I am surprised you stand for it.

This ruling is long overdue; healthcare in this country has been broken for too many years to be fixed simply and quickly…this is a start. As for the tax, it’s estimated that approximately 1% of the general population will ever have to pay the penality or tax. It’s truely a penality for those individuals who can aford healthcare yet choose not to purchase it.

As a tax payer I welcome the fact that my tax dollars will no longer pay the medical bills for people who decide they just don’t want insurance. The exchanges will also give many of those people affordable options.

This whole concept of “This is the end of America as we know it” is absolutely rediculous! thank goodness Justice Roberts got it right!

@Wendy. Thanks for the insightful analysis. I think I see how it goes now, let me know if I got it straight. If conservatives and other believers in the constitution are upset that the ruling was wrong because it denotes judicial activism and we express our opinion, it is should be considered a tirade full of vitriol. But since liberals agree with the outcome and the judicial lawmaking re-write, you are free to casually dismiss the semantics between a “penalty” and a “tax” even though it makes all the difference in whether or not this entire law was ruled as constitutional. Your insight is truly eye-opening.
I was unaware there was a provision in the constitution (or anywhere else) that said once the U.S. achieved great “stature and wealth” it would be a crime not to have universal health care. I am curious, can you please tell me what other crimes are being committed by this country with great wealth ($15 trillion in debt), from a lack of taxing/penalizing people for existing? Is there any other freedom stealing laws we should activate to provide for the further redistribution of wealth?
You bemoan that “some state-run health programs, as fail-safe measures, were even more expensive than private insurance coverage.” Why is this surprising to you? Government programs are almost always more expensive than private enterprise.
You say:most fail to understand that coverage will be through private insurers, not through the government. This is far from a “government takeover!”
I say: Most (I am guessing you are one) fail to realize that Obamacare is only the first step. Obama himself said that he was “a proponent of a single-payer health care program,” and that is where he would like to take this moving forward.
I hope my vitriolic tirade was not too overwhelming for you.

What I am not seeing on either side of this issue is an answer to the real issue: Why is healthcare so highly priced in the U.S. as verus other countries? Why is it more costly to buy drugs here? Even with insurance, by the time we reach deductibles and maximum out of pockets we can scarce afford to be treated.

I don’t know the answer, but at least it is being seriously looked at.

@Wendy;It really does not matter nor do I care who you think is against the bill or what you sense about other peoples fears. What matters in that most are against this bill and that it may still result in repeal.

You say: I strongly suggest that people who are misinformed or relaying disinformation about the ACA read the provisions of the ACA.
I say: I am still waiting to see what’s in it, like Nancy Pelosi suggested. I am highly informed about the bill and I do not have the time or the energy to read the 2700 pages or tens of thousands of additional regulatory pages that are still coming out of the highly partisan law that was ramrodded down our throats. Are you trying to say you have done this?

I really don’t want to listen to lefties preach to me about partisan activist judges when their has not been a single supreme court judge who was appointed by a Democrat that has crossed party lines on a major vote since the Reagan administration. (maybe even prior to Reagan)The republican appointed judges have done so on many occasions. I will be happy to provide names and details if you don’t believe me.

@Sheila: The reasons for the high healthcare prices have not yet begun to be addressed. You have been fooled by the politicians and the media if you think it has been “seriously looked at.”

I suspect that the high cost of health care and prescription drugs is based on the principle that everyone has to make a profit. There’s nothing wrong with the concept of capitalism, but the greed can be overpowering. Doctors spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through medical school and end up seriously in debt. They then charge high fees to recoup their debts (and pay for malpractice insurance) and…make a profit. Hospitals charge high fees to recoup their bad debt writeoffs for those who don’t have medical insurance. Insurance companies charge high premiums to cover the negotiated rates with the hospitals and doctors. And prescription drug companies are in business to make a profit.
Government-run health care, similar to the European countries and Canada, is not-for-profit. By the way, just as many Americans go to Europe and Canada and even Latin America for their medical procedures as foreigners come here, so let’s not continue that argument! And many of us have to schedule medical procedures with American doctors months in advance, because they’re booked, so there’s a wait in this country too.
I know I opened the door to more sarcasm, so I’m done now.

There is absolutely no consumerism in healthcare to drive down the costs. We just go where we want and expect insurance to pay for it. We are also far less healthy than we have ever been. We don’t take care of bodies. It takes more to keep us alive. And eventhough we are far less healthy, we live longer than we ever have.

Thanks for having the courage to even broach an opinion on this site Wendy. CS never misses an opportunity to bash the current administration as anyone who has visited this site within the last four years, has discovered, no matter what the topic. It’s tiresome and dispiriting and undermines any real attempt to discuss topics useful to HR professionals.
CS, you say, “it really doesn’t matter who you think is against the bill or what you sense about other people’s fears”
I say “what makes you think anyone cares what you think?”
Joanna – I have never heard anyone on either side of the divide call Obamacare a free ride. Whether anyone has read the 2700 pages, or just happen to be “highly informed” as CS claims to be, one of the main criticisms of the bill is that everybody will have to pay. If you need an excuse to call people fools that’s pretty sad indeed.

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but it will take some time to address the numerous fallacies and misguided statements of the past week.

It is sadly funny how many of you expressed your feelings about greedy profiteers, change for changes sake, “fictional” affordability, or so called administration bashing, but no one seems to be able answer my questions or refute my points. Why is that?

Wendy, I will start with you since you opened the door so widely again. You like to say there is nothing wrong with capitalism, but continuously say “profit” like it is a dirty word.
You suspect the high cost of healthcare is based on the profit motive. Have you ever taken a basic economics course? How was the the U.S. able to produce everything under the sun more efficiently and at a lower cost than the Soviet Union when the U.S. economy was based on the profit motive (AKA greed by some) while the Soviets used central planning. You tell us that insurance companies charge high premiums to cover the negotiated rates with doctors and hospitals. Wow, all this time I thought the insurance companies were negotiating lower prices. It turns out that the negotiations were causing the prices to increase. Thanks for enlightening me.
You also say that prescription drug companies are in business to make a profit. Wow again, I am sure we were all unaware of this profit motive. Let me ask you the following questions, Did you know that the U.S. pharmaceutical companies produce 60% to 70% of all the worlds new drugs? How many of these drugs would have been produced if there was no profit motive. (Answer = close to zero). Finally, would you rather pay $250 a month for a prescription that will save your life or not have a prescription available because someone eliminated the profit motive?
You asked what alternative are the Republicans proposing? I am glad you asked. There are many uninformed people like yourself that are unaware that the Republicans currently have a couple of different alternatives on the table. The Republican solutions deal with enhancing “consumerism” and making insurance more accessible and affordable by enabling the purchase of insurance over state lines, tort reform, group pools and tax breaks that are currently unavailable to individuals and small businesses. These reforms would be far less expensive than Obamacare.
@Sheila You state the “insurance has been ripping us off for years.” and that “in my opinion, based on my own personal knowledge , at present the insurance companies make a lot more than they lay out.
Well thanks for the utterly useless, egocentric and purely anecdotal evidence. Part of the problem with your statement is that insurance companies profit margins are relatively small and insurance prices have not grown as fast as healthcare prices in general. You also seemingly fail to realize that even though the insurance companies have not paid out many claims for yourself, you may have a neighbor that just had a $100,000 hospital stay or a co-worker who just had a childbirth covered after a month of coverage.
You say “if Obamacare makes affordable insurance more available…” Why is it that you think health insurance is unaffordable now, but when it becomes Obamacare it suddenly becomes affordable? Most experts agree that Obamacare will only put more pressures on premiums.
You say you “appreciate the profit motive” Your other comments belie this statement. You say you “doubt Obamacare will solve the problem” On this we can agree.

Hi HR Colorado. You say: you are are upset with the amount of mis-information, but then immediately proceed to give 3 pieces of your own misinformation. 1)You say their are no “death panels”. Technically you are correct, but for all practical purposes you are wrong. Obamacare does not have any language that refer to “death panels” However, Obamacare does establish boards of bureaucrats that will make judgments on how and if people will be treated in regards to end of life matters. And yes, some patients will inevitably have treatment curtailed or eliminated as a cost saving measure.
You say: “no one is going to force you to give up the insurance company you already have”. Wrong again. Many have already had to give up their insurance because their employers were coerced into making changes they otherwise would not have had to do and this will happen a thousand times over as employers realize the penalty to not have insurance is far less than the cost to have insurance. 3)You state that: you will not be forced to carry your 26 year old son/daughter on your health insurance…” This is a staw-man argument. Please name me one prominent person who has ever claimed this.

@HRNY Are you H2R reincarnated with a new moniker? I only ask because I don’t know if I remember you, I have not heard from him in a while and your arguments and style are eerily similar.
You thank Wendy for ‘having the courage to even broach an opinion on this web site.” Is this what passes for courage nowadays from the left…posting anonymously to websites? At the time I am writing this I have seen an equal amount of pro and con arguments. Am I equally as courageous as Wendy?
You say I never miss an opportunity to bash the administration. Yes, I admit that I oppose many of the the ways that Obama says he is trying to “fundamentally change” America. Yes, I have had more than ample opportunities to accurately point out the administration’s lies, tricks, power grabs, over-spending and anti-business tactics… BTW, my comments are almost all in direct response to other posters and/or h.r related. Feel free to call it bashing if you will. I consider it honest commentary and rebuttal. I am sorry if that is so “dispiriting” to you. No one is forcing you to read them so please learn to deal with it.

You ask what makes me think anyone cares about what I think? I really don’t know if anyone cares or not. If some do care, I am guessing it is because my comments are topical, poignant opinions or facts, not speculation on what strangers may or may not believe and why they may believe it.
One more thing. I don’t just “claim” to be highly informed about Obamacare. Any objective test would prove undoubtedly prove it.

Someone’s been listening to too much Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin.

Thank you Mimi, and Sheila, and many others who understand how we will all benefit from the ACA. For too long we’ve been at the mercy of the insurance companies, who denied coverage to those with pre-existing conditions (who doesn’t have pre-existing conditions?). It’s also been devastating to those job-seekers who had to turn down good offers because the companies didn’t provide group
health insurance.
The country is so polarized, and Congress is so polarized, that so little has been passed in the way of legislation. We finally have the ACA!

“Common Sense” again pontificates, and is condescending as usual, and I’d really like him/her to go into more detail about the Republican health plan alternatives – not one word descriptions, like “group pools,” and “tax breaks” (where have we heard that before?) and “purchase of insurance over state lines” and “tort reform.”
Unless any and all of these alternatives correct the significant barriers to accessible coverage where insurance companies can deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions, as long as they can drop coverage due to high claims, as long as there’s a cap on payments, I don’t believe there are any viable alternatives to the ACA “on the table.” Why have we not had as much coverage about these alternatives in the newspapers, or from the talk shows, from the “news” shows, or from expensive TV ads as we do about what’s supposedly wrong with the ACA? Their best defense: it’s the “liberal media” preventing the info from being disseminated. What liberal media? We’re bombarded by conservative talk shows and media outlets who repeat their retoric supported by huge sums of money. What’s the ratio, something like 48 to 1 (conservative over liberal) in the media?
It’s because they’re just “talking points,” with nothing concrete to work with. If there is, we all do want to hear about it. There are plenty of opportunities, but that’ll be specifics they’d have to discuss, and there aren’t any.
However, I’m sure there’s lots for the Republicans to discuss about “tax breaks.” We all know where that’s headed.

@HR Colorado Thank you for providing the all too predictable retort by a liberal who is losing a debate. The “I can’t possibly win on the merits of the argument so I will attack a possible third party messenger (E.g. Faux Noise)” argument.
@Sheila Why am I not the least bit surprised you laughingly agreed at this pointless comment.
My past experience tells me I can expect to be called a racist in the near future.
P.S. In an effort to understand both sides of political debates I have probably listened to 5x more Bill Press, Norman Goldman and Ed Schultz in the last 2 years than I have listened to Limbaugh, Beck and Palin, so try again.

@CS, You do realize that the ACA was signed into law on 3/23/10…over two years ago. Significant pieces of the plan have been implemented and are quite successful. The sky did not fall…what a surprise! It’s time to move forward.

I also listen to and read both right and left commentaries in order to understand both sides of the argument. (With Limbaugh I actually laugh out loud when driving in my car)

Conservatives and liberals are never going to agree on this subject. One can only hope that we don’t continue the argument for the next 40 years as in Roe vs Wade. It’s a waste of time that can be spent in much more productive ways.

@Wendy I honestly don’t know where to begin. I debated with my self whether or not to even respond to you since commentary was so ridiculous. I am not entirely sure if I am dealing with a person who is grounded in reality. When you said their was a “48 to 1 (conservative over liberal) bias in the media” I almost fell off my chair laughing in disbelief. However, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a typo. I beg of thee to tell me it was indeed a typo, if not please cite a credible source that even comes close to this number. I am sorry, but until you do so I can no longer assume I am dealing with a rational person. Don’t get me wrong on this. It is a free country and you are free to reject reality and substitute your own. But don’t expect me to treat you as a logical, rational or informed person. Your credibility is now at zero with me. I am sorry if that comes across as “condescending” but it is honestly how I feel.
Just so you know, there was a recent Pew Research poll that shows that 4 times more journalists identify themselves liberal than they do conservative. And according to an LA Times article “Bill Dedman at MSNBC did a massive research project, examining political donations by journalists over several years and found a similar overwhelming number of Democratic journalists (125 of 143 political donors while only 16 gave to Republican candidates and two others were bi-.” I can cite a dozen more statistics on this if you need me to.
I am sorry you are unfamiliar with conservative alternatives and you don’t know what is meant by “tort reform” “group pools” “tax breaks”… I am not your tutor, I don’t have time to detail every idea. If you really want to know you can research it yourself. I assure you it is far less daunting than the 2700 pages in the Obamacare tax law.
You sarcastically blamed the media for your lack of knowledge, but ironically you were partially right. The liberal media is to blame for some of this, the Republican messaging has also been awful.
One last thing, I am curious as to why you would be so bothered by individuals receiving the same kind of tax deductions that big corporations receive to help make healthcare more affordable.

You say: You believe I am opposed to Obamacare because a. anything accomplished by Obama is automatically something to be fought against and destroyed; b. it’s progress and there was nothing wrong with the way things were (at least for them, who had medical insurance through their employers or their spouses’ employers); c. it empowers the middle class.
You are right on all three accounts (Still looking for sarcasm font).
A)Even though I have listed a legitimate myriad of reasons why I am against the law, it was actually about just destroying Obama’s accomplishments. B) I did in fact think the state of healthcare was hunky dory and did not wish for any sensible reforms because I had mine. C) I can’t believe you figured me out. I am in fact completely against empowering the middle class. I have harbored an ill will toward all my middle class neighbors, friends and co-workers since I was a child. Your insightful analysis never cease to amaze me.

I’m sorry, Common Sense, that your anger has overtaken your ability to reason.
If you make a list of the conservative radio stations around the country, versus those who consider themselves liberal or progressive, you’ll find that ratio. If you make a list of the conservative TV stations around the country, ditto. If you make a list of the conservative-leaning newspapers, etc.

No need to be hostile, Common Sense (or lack thereof.) You’re plain wrong, and when you respond so condescendingly, it shows up that much more clearly.

@Common Sense…I do agree with you on one thing, Roe V Wade seriously needs to be overturned. A law or precedent, no matter how long ago it was that it past, if it is an unethical/immoral law…needs to be done away with.

@hr Colorado. you say “this conversation would be down right funny if it wasn’t so scary that people actually think like you.”
By people like me, do you mean people who lay out rational arguments, quote facts and cite sources if the facts are disputed, people that are well read, have a sense of history, believe in the constitution and freedom, people who see the inherent dangers in government redistribution and overspending? People who call out the lies and inconsistencies of the president? People who call out your misinformation, like the statement you made that said only 1% of people will have to pay a tax for Obamacare or when you said no one will take away your current insurance? People who won’t stand for your snarky comments about who I listen to when you have no concept?
I can see why I scare you. I find it is scary to many liberals to have a well informed public that won’t roll over every time their liberties are threatened.
You feel sorry for me, please spare me your pity.

I am writing to apologize to any of you who have been reading my comments. As many of you well know, I try to be as accurate and as informative as possible possible when quoting my numerous facts. It turns out that I don’t always have the most up-to-date information. Yesterday I incorrectly said “Obamacare is still fresh and the cost projections have already nearly doubled”. It turns out that I was wrong. (There, I said it) But I am not so proud that I will not admit when I am wrong. I learned this morning that the cost projections have not nearly doubled, they have in fact nearly TRIPLED. The original ten year estimate was sold to the American public at $.9 trillion, the most recent figures actually project a $2.6 trillion cost. In two more weeks the CBO will re-score the law again and it is expected to rise even more. Please forgive me for my error. It was an honest mistake, not one of ill-intent.
Most reasonable informed people new the original projections were down right lies. But it was more important to to Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Durbin and other Democrats to ramrod the legislation down our throats with one of the biggest lies ever told to the American people than to be truthful. If the truth would have been told about the cost, this legislation would not have had a snowballs chance in hell of passing.

@HR Colorado I will not allow you to bait me any further into an abortion debate. I have already schooled you on healthcare and I don’t have time to waste on off topic discussions.

So sorry we’re wasting CS’s time, since he’s the one doing the baiting by condescending and confrontational comments.
I’m truly tired of hearing about the dire need to preserve tax credits for the wealthiest 2% in this country, and instead being bombarded with how much our needed public services cost or will cost. The cost of the unnecessary wars is not mentioned, only what we need to cut, cut, cut. Social programs are considered unnecessary. Our auto industry was ready to fold, and the far right’s attitude was “let them go down.” Health care coverage is considered unnecessary. Okay, so what’s necessary? The tax cuts for the wealthiest, and tax incentives for oil companies and other profitable industries. That’s where those who really do have common sense would tell us there’s something rotten here.

I have read with interest the comments and debates regarding the Affordable Health Care Act. I also approve of the act and think it is about time. People should not be denied health care because they have pre-existing conditions. I am a health care professional who deals with benefits daily. I have employees who can’t afford to pay for the insurance our company provides because of the pre-existing condition clause. Because of this act they will be able to have the insurance and get the care they need. Yes I agree that everyone should pay their fair share in taxes, if this was the case maybe we wouldn’t have as much debt as we do now. Several of you are against the Affordable Health Care Act that is your right. I cannot understand how you become so beligerent when someone else expresses an opinion for this Act that is different than yours. It has passed get over it.

@Wendy. Like I told HR Colorado, I will not allow you to bait me into off topic debates. I have already schooled you on healthcare and I don’t have time to waste on you on every other political issue.
P.S. Still waiting for your evidence.

@HR Colorado. Yes, yes, you big government liberals won the day with the completely partisan vote in the congress made possible through legislature trickery bribes, threats…. And you were able to do it despite the fact that the majority of Americans opposed Obamacare (very impressive). And yes, the Supreme court lefty partisans and Roberts breached their powers and re-wrote the law to try and make the law fit the constitution. Let me be the first to congratulate your side on the victories. (You must be so proud at how the whole thing went down)
P.S. I have called you out on your fallacious statements on multiple occasions. Your silence is deafening.

I was reading the various polls about people in favor of or opposed to Obamacare. In most of the polls people are opposed; however, in some they are tied or in favor. This seems to follow the polarized left and right thinking in this country on a host of issues. The matter of Obamacare, however, is complex and many people who oppose it, do so in part.

I think both sides can agree that the insuance/healthcare situation in this country needs reform. This same exact argument has been raging for several years now, only nothing substantive has ever been accomplished and the problem only continues to worsen. Our enemy is not the right or the left in this matter; our enemy is the constant gridlock of debate which has thus far landed us nothing except incresed premiums and decreased coverage of higher priced services.

I really don’t care who solves it. I don’t. I am simply fed up with the apparent status-quo where some wizard is going to come up with THE right solution. Meanwhile, NOTHING gets done. At least someone has shot a cue ball onto the clogged up pool balls in this game. It isn’t as if we will be unable to repeal and revise sections of this law as the actual impact becomes apparent. It isn’t as if this is the end of any other plausible ideas. It IS the end of the status-quo, and for many of us that means hope that reall change can finally start.

I would not be quick to dismiss the merits of this plan; nor would I be quick to accept that this one change is THE answer. There are no simple answers with such complexity. But to allow ourselves to simply not address the matter in ANY way shape or form because all of us cannot not agree on every single point pretty much leaves us in a log jam.

Left, right. Conservative, liberal. For far too long these have been the filters that we find our thought processes mired in to the point of inability to concede even the smallest of points to those who oppose us in our ideals. If we continue to back bite each other, tell me, what is accomplished? Doesn’t everyone want to move ahead and at least try SOMETHING other than this ongoing, prolonged status quo? Let it play out. Then make corrections. What we have now is simply not working.

@Wendy The mere fact that you will not back up your facts and don’t challenge my facts, tells me everything I need to know. ( I am sorry if that sounds belligerent to you)
BTW, exactly how have I tried to quell your views? (This is another false allegation by you.). On the contrary, I have asked you to defend your arguments, to provide proof. I have disagreed, I have asked that you stay on topic, I have asked that you don’t pretend to know know what other people think without evidence. I have never once quelled your views or suppressed your speech.
P.S. I am still waiting for your evidence or an apology for misleading us.

I’m wondering if Wendy and Common Sense are married…..

CS: you need to check your facts and stop accusing everyone else in this post for using fallacious arguments. If I listened to FOX news every day I would probably be behind you 100% but I don’t because of the extreme Right bias and lies they spew. Now, don’t accuse me of saying you only listen to FOX, Limbaugh, and the other extremists because I never said that about you; you ASSUMED my comment was about you.
Once again, the law has been passed, not through trickery, bribes, and threats; but through the need for a change. I also work in healthcare and I see hard working employees who cannot afford health care for their families and children. I’ve seen people with full health insurance that costs them $800.00 a month out of their pocket, yet when they have surgery they still owe Dr’s and hospitals $30,000 or more. This type of healthcare is unsustainable. Believe me the insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
States that don’t get on board with the change will be left in the dust and their residents will be the ones who suffer.

Hi Colorado, You say: “Now, don’t accuse me of saying you only listen to FOX, Limbaugh, and the other extremists because I never said that about you; you ASSUMED my comment was about you.”

Now I was willing to let this go, but if want to rehash it, fine. Yes, I did assume that comment was about me. It was the only logical conclusion. Since you say that the comment was not directed at me, can I be so bold to ask who the comment was directed at? I only ask because you made a comment earlier in the thread, afterwords not single person expressed a conservative point of view except for me, then you responded with your limbaugh/Beck/Palin comment. So, if your comment was not about me, exactly who was your comment directed at and exactly what knowledge did you have of that person’s media habits and why? Are you intimately familiar with Christon, Joanna G or US Citizen 12′s listening habits. I don’t want to say your lying, I am just looking for a reasonable alternative explanation.

You say: “Once again, the law has been passed, not through trickery, bribes, and threats…” You guys are really making this too easy on me. Are you really as naive as that statement appears to make you seem? Please tell me you really don’t believe what you wrote? I am not trying to be belligerent, I simply can not believe what I am hearing.

The topic so hot like the Health Care reform can last for a very long time. We may agree on some points while totally rejecting others. It is sad that the discussion went so angry.
Whether reform will stay or not, either way it will be immensely costly for the entire nation.
For now, we as employee benefits ‘people’ must start dealing with employer’s penalties and calculation whether it will be less expensive to provide employees with benefits or to terminate coverage. Whichever way employer decides, he/she will end up paying some penalty, $2,000 or $3,000.
I thought you may find it helpful, the link is to the Kaiser Family Fundation – calculation on premium subsidy and powerty levels. Great resource and tool – J.G.
http://healthreform.kff.org/subsidycalculator.aspx#incomeagetables

WOW! What an amazing conversation! And yes CS I believe everything I’ve written in this post. I am far from being naive, I’ve been following political debates for many years, and I’ve watched this country go from both parties working towards what’s best for the general population to an almost complete disentigration of integrity and doing the right thing for US citizens. The nation is now almost as divided as we were before and during the Civil War.

My goal is not to bash you or decredit you but to hopefully get the word out to regular everyday citizens to fight for what’s right.

As far as getting information about the ACA, everyone should read the section on how the Act will be funded. The biggest complaint from everyday Americans was the fear that they would have to pay the tax if they don’t get health insurance. I repeat…only 1% of the general population will have to pay this tax and they are those that can afford insurance but choose not to purchase it. Yes, there are other taxes involved with paying for the ACA but by and large that will not afect the middle class.

We all have to pay taxes; our taxes go to fire departments, police departments, clean water, roads, bridges, clean air, safe food and drugs, ETC,ETC,ETC. I have been in countries where the peoples taxes only assist the wealthy and the rest of the people live in abject poverty. Is this the America you want to see in future?

Hi Wendy: You say “Correcting your errors because you were conservative with numbers you used to prove your point is not the same as admitting that you were wrong, because of the degree of sarcasm.”

Their was no sarcasm. I meant every word exactly as it reads. I was wrong and I admit it. I do indeed try to be conservative with my arguments (guilty as charged). I do this purposefully in order to retain future crediblility and so that I don’t have to eat my words later. I know that is not necesarily your way, but please don’t get mad at me for being different. You are correct, It is true that the new information bolstered my argument even further. Nevertheless, I don’t like to give inaccurate/outdated information if I can help it.
What concerns me is that you so easily dismiss the report of the new alarming $1.7 trillion dollar spending like it is “walking around money” and focus your attention on whether or not my apolgy was sarcastic. I have a feeling a report could come out tomorrow that said the revised cost are $10 trillion and you would not bat an eyelash.
As a Republican I saw these cost overruns coming from miles away. It was oh so predictable, I believe I have said so on this very site over a year ago, but to a Democrat this must have come as a complete surprise, especially since your noble trusted party leaders assured and reassured the American people that the cost would be under a trillion dollars. I can easily Imagine Obama, Reid and Pelosi (the book cookers) in a room right now trying to figue out the best way to apologize to the country for this completely unpredictable and egregious cost increase (FYI, since you have trouble deciphering what is and is not sarcasm, the last couple of sentences were laced with plenty of sarcasm).

Hi Websters Definition of Low, Sneaky Ways To Win Arguments: If that is your real name. Let me say how refreshing it is to hear from a completely fresh perspective. (Note for the sarcasm impaired: that was sarcasm) I am replying to you to let you know that you forgot the #1 most sneaky way to try and win an argument: If you ever find yourself out-reasoned on almost every point of an issue in a hotly contested debate and you happen to be debating online, simply re-logon on to the ongoing debate and present yourself as an unbiased neutral third party in an ill-conceived attempt to embarrass your opponent who has called you out on your multiple fallacies and mis-statements. You should try it some time, but be careful, if your opponent is clever he may figure it out and expose yourself as a manipulative fool. Good luck.

Am I to believe from your list that it is considered sneaky to let your opponent know when he/she is off-topic (aka speaking ‘beside the point”) and when he/she is comparing apples to oranges. If this is true, I am admittedly guilty of both.

BTW, thanks for showing me all the other ways to be sneaky though. I may consider using them in the future for those rare occasions I find myself on the losing end of a debate.

You asked the question: Does “Anyone else recognize the strategies of a very boorish person that will argue to infinate [SIC] degrees that he is always right rather than let someone else voice their opinion?” At first I thought you may have been directing this question at me, but after careful consideration I have concluded that it could not possibly be me. As I have never argued that I am always right and have never denied anyone else from voicing an opinion.

P.S. If you are looking for sneaky ways to try and win arguments, I can give you a good example of time tested one I saw earlier. I am actually surprised it is not on your list. Simply fabricate statistics. It is so easy. Most people are uninformed and/or too shy and will never question you. On the off chance you happen to be called out, never (and I mean never) admit you were wrong. Just change the subject and accuse your opponent of being nasty.

Once again, CS speaks in generalities and assumptions. He/she mentions “bribes” (not worth commenting on, really) and fundamental changes to the US – what exactly are these fundamental changes? Does he/she mean the introduction of a National Healthcare policy as a fundamental change? If so, that’s long in coming. Hooray for that fundamental change. The Civil Rights Act was probably scary for folks like CS too. And Social Security and Medicare. They were likely terrified that these policies would ruin the country. Their followers probably still think that way. How misguided.
What else were fundamental changes that are ruining this country? CS is so righteous, so demeaning, so bullying by his/her comments – it’s my understanding that bullies cover up feelings of inadequacy and insecurity.

@Wendy…AMEN!

@bjh You say: We must not watch the same news programs if you think the rich pay their share in taxes. I agree, I watch plenty of news programs from multiple channels. Except MSNBC, my cable does not include it in my package. If you were unaware that the rich on average were not paying their fair share of Federal income taxes, I am guessing (just a guess mind you) that you may be devoting too much time to that particular channel.

More facts and sources for my truth and information deprived friends.
IRS Figures (statistics of income bulletin, Winter 2012)show:

Top 1% earns 16.9% of nations income and pays 36.7% of the federal income tax
Top 5% earns 31% of nations income and pays 59% of the federal income tax
Top 10% earns 43% of nations income and pays 70% of the federal income tax

The top 1% of earners pay an average tax rate of 24%
The top 5% of earners pay an average tax rate of 20%
The top 10% of earners pay an average tax rate of 18%
The bottom 50% of earners pay an average of just 1.85%

Now of course these are averages and I fight to end the loopholes that a some rich use to lower their taxes to unfair levels, but on the whole, it can hardly be argued that the rich don’t pay their fair share. Our tax system is more progressive than most of Europe’s. Exactly how much more would you propose they rich pay in order to make things “fair”? (Fact: Actually, Bush made it the more progressive than it has ever been).

I beg your pardon, I know exactly what I am talking about. You originally said: “I have employees who can’t afford to pay for the insurance our company provides because of the pre-existing condition clause. You did not originally say my employees cannot afford to pay for an insurance that will not cover their condition AND pay for their physician care at the same time.” I responded to your original comment, not your revised statement. Say what you mean and mean what you say. BTW, I don’t know what it is like where you are at, but where I come from, if you are providing group insurance, all of your employees would have pre-x conditions covered after 1 year. Anyone with prior coverage would have the pre-x clause waived. We also can offer HMO’s that have no pre-x conditions what-so-ever.

You say: “When I wrote about people being beligerent [sic]with their reponses [sic] I didn’t call any names it actually was meant for several who respond to others. If you took as I was meaning you then the shoe must fit.” Don’t play games, of course I understood your comment were directed at me. You were directing it only at the people who were against the ACA of which I have been the most vocal. Plus I have already admitted to being belligerent (By belligerent I mean: aggressive) when I am falsely attacked.

@Sheila…It’s been said that a crooked poor man will find a way to steal a chicken off a train, but a corrupt rich man will will find a way to steal the train…I guess it’s no different when it comes to taxes. LOL!

@HR Colorado: You say I have gone beyond the point of reason. I am sorry you feel that way. In order to be the most reasonable person I can be in the future, could you please tell me exactly where I was unreasonable. Was it when I:
1)Listed the Obamacare bribes that you denied took place?
2)Pointed out how the liberal arm of the Supreme Court and Roberts committed a breach of powers by re-writing the law?
3)Pointed out the lies used to sell Obamacare to the American public.(E.g. Price tag and taxes)?
4)Gave a partial list of the myriad of new taxes created by Obamacare imposed on middle class Americans?
5)Repeatedly used logic and reason backed with facts and sources to defend my point of view?
6)Repeatedly and fruitlessly asked you and Wendy to defend/correct/explain or apologize for your fabricated statements (about Obamacare and myself) only to be called a nasty, demeaning, belligerent bully…?

Any way I am glad you are “done”
I guess it is true what they say… Being a liberal means never having to say I’m sorry.

Common Sense: You are correct I did not state in my earlier post my employees could not afford to pay for their insurance and physician care if they had a pre-existing condition. Our insurance will not cover the pre-existing conditions if you have had a lapse in coverage over 56 days. Most of our employees have been out of the work force much longer than that.

Common Sense once again you amaze me with your one sided thinking. I do not depend on one type of news for my information. I watch several stations, read several newspapers, magazine articles and watch many debates on this topic and other topics. I then use this information to comprise my own opinion.

There are those who do pay their fair share of taxes but there are more who don’t. You cannot have a discussion with someone who has to always be right and refuses to see other points of view. You are very opinated which is your right, but it does not make everyone else wrong. Nor, does it make you right! You obviously have other issues going on to belittle and disagree with almost everyone. Remember no one is right 100% of the time and that includes you. As I said in my earlier post their are several who get upset and beligerent when responding to these post when I wrote that I was not just referring to you, but if it makes you feel better to think I was go for it.

@BJH I can not help but think that if you did not originally make the ambiguous statement “I have employees who can’t afford to pay for the insurance our company provides because of the pre-existing condition clause.” That this whole sidebar could have been avoided.

You say: “Remember no one is right 100% of the time and that includes you”. This is a straw-man argument that has been brought up several times in different variations now. So let me reiterate… I am not claiming to be right 100% of the time. Never had. Never will. (I am however beginning to think I am getting pretty close to 100%, otherwise you guys would not be arguing the point so much). As the matter of fact when I was younger I often argued for programs like Obamacare. I was the one fighting for less freedom and more taxes on the rich. But that was long ago. I tired of being wrong all the time. I grew weary of always having to twist the truth, ignore reality and the constitution to try and win an argument. I was losing sleep. So I admitted my errors and switched to the right side. Now I sleep like soundly.

You say you: “do not depend on one type of news for my information. I watch several stations, read several newspapers, magazine articles and watch many debates on this topic and other topics. I then use this information to comprise my own opinion.”
I think that is great. I applaud your efforts. However, it just makes me wonder even more why you failed to realize that the rich on average pay more than their fair share of taxes.

You say that I “am very opinated which is your right, but it does not make everyone else wrong. Nor, does it make you right!.
I agree, my opinions do not make me right or wrong, it is the facts that back my opinion (like the IRS statistics) that make me right.
Here is a perfect example you have just given me: You once again said “There are those who do pay their fair share of taxes but there are more who don’t.” Unless you are referring to the bottom 50%, the IRS numbers (not my opinion) illustrates why you are wrong.
Now I know “fair” can be a subjective term. So I ask you, how much more does the average “rich” guy need to pay to make things “fair”. How much less do the bottom 50% need to pay to be “fair” is the 1.58% too much.?

Actually don’t answer those questions. Consider it a rhetorical question as I no longer wish to be baited into this off topic conversation.

I think a better measure of who’s paying their fair share would be a comparison of wealth instead of income. Since 5% of Americans have 73% of the wealth in this country and 95% have only 27%, and wealth equals assets less liabilities – I propose that the wealthiest 5% also owe 73% of the country’s debt and the rest of us owe only 27% of the debt. Especially since those 5% are mostly responsible for 2 wars and billions in tax breaks for the already wealthy.

@Impersonator. I mean Webster… You say “I propose that the wealthiest 5% also owe 73% of the country’s debt and the rest of us owe only 27% of the debt.”

You do realize that these people (the top 5% and the bottom 95% both) have already paid taxes on their income. Now you are proposing that they should be taxed again on this same money simply because they have not squandered the money. This is called double taxation and is clearly unconstitutional (16th amendment). I know that matters not to many a liberal. Sure, Obamacare has weakened the constitution, but it still has meaning and it is still the document that is suppose to govern our laws.

It’s you, CS, who hides the pertinent data. If the top 10% pays 18%, and the missing 40% pay 25-30% (whatever that missing figure is, conveniently omitted), an 18% tax rate on the wealthiest represents a “fair share”? No, CS, the missing figure is critical to your argument. One cannot make a claim of fairness if a proper comparison cannot be made.
You like research, and you like statistics. Okay, how many radio stations around the country are “progressive,” versus conservative? How many TV talk shows/”news” shows around the country have “progressive” hosts? I never made the assertion that the ratio was 48 to 1. It was an open-ended question, such as, “What’s the ratio, maybe 48 to 1?.”
One conservative tactic is to take a statement, twist it into something that was never actually said, and hammer it/repeat the disinformation over and over again. Did I provide a statistic? no. Did I suggest a figure? yes. Do I have to prove anything? No, but you do, because you’re contesting my impression.

@ Wendy: I think you are confused. Not showing irrelevant pieces of data is not hiding data. If you wish to know about the other 40% you are welcome to investigate yourself. If you wish to report back on these 40% you are more than welcome. No one is stopping you. (not even me, the “bully”). Like I said the system is progressive. On average, the richer you are the more you pay. I will bet you dollars to dougnuts that when you find it, you will see that they pay a lower % than the top 10%.

Why are you asking me about radio stations? Why is it my burden to further disprove your bogus information about the media. Am I to believe that I am now responsible for breaking down each segment of the media also? You are the one passed along a statistic that said conservatives outnumbered liberals in the media 48 to 1, not me. I have already supplied strong evidence that the conservatives are under-represented in the media by large margins.
Let me see if I understand your liberal logic, you say “Did I provide a statistic? no. Did I suggest a figure? yes. Do I have to prove anything? No, but you do, because you’re contesting my impression.” What you are saying is you can now pass along wildly erroneous figures, since these figures are not actually statistics you do not have to defend them, it is now the responsibility of reasonable minded people to disprove your impressions.

I would suggest you stop writing (not that I am trying to “quell” your thoughts, I just think the less you say now, the smarter you will appear).

BTW, I heard that 1 out of every 48 liberals named Wendy have difficulty in dealing with reality. I heard that figure somewhere or “something like” that. I hope you don’t disagree. If you contest that asserted statistic (I mean suggested figure) than it is your burden to prove me wrong, because you would be the one contesting “my impression”. Good luck.

To CS: You have had nothing to say, so I have nothing to add. Like so many conservatives, it’s easier to criticize the comments and ideas of others than to come up with concrete solutions. And you’ve said nothing through all of these posts.

Hi again Wendy: You say “Like so many conservatives, it’s easier to criticize the comments and ideas of others than to come up with concrete solutions.”

Here is a website about the GOP’s pledge to repeal and replace. Many of them coincide with ideas I have mentioned earlier on this blog, but you decided to disregard those ideas seemingly because it involved giving individuals and small businesses the same tax deductions that most big businesses are able to use currently. You later dismissed them because the 48 to 1 “conservative” media has not talked about them one bit. The website has some of the concrete ideas you asked for, more will be forthcoming. I know it is not thousand of pages, but they are still working on it. I am sure in time the bill end up with at least 100 pages.

http://www.gop.gov/indepth/pledge/healthcare

I am sorry to hear that you feel as though I have said nothing through all these posts. I guess I was a fool to think you would have heard any of it. I will try harder next time to make myself heard.

Yes, it is a pledge. Some of the components of these pledges have been already been discussed in detail. (Eg. Detailed tort reform was offered several times by republicans as an idea for Obamacare, but it was dismissed because class action lawyers are a huge constituent of liberals and they had already bought off the Democrats.) Some of the components are reinstating good programs that were previously in place but nixed to help pay for the “hugely expensive” Obamacare. Others are still being hammered out. But don’t worry, you will find out soon enough that this pledge will have plenty of details. The Republicans are a little slower to create laws because they want to get it right the first time and not just ramrod a partisan bill down our collective throats.

You seem pretty upset, I am simply offering ideas and solutions to help fix the Obamacare mess, but like you said, to “so many liberals, it’s easier to criticize the comments and ideas of others than to come up with concrete solutions.” Did I quote you right on that? (Do I sense a little hypocrisy).

You say: To ensure that everyone can have access to coverage, “We will expand state high-risk pools, reinsurance programs and reduce the cost of coverage.” How, exactly? And how much would that cost???
Really? You have some gall asking these questions? Obamacare has been passed for two years and we still have no idea exactly what is in it. Pelosi said we had to pass the bill to see what is in it. Well, it has been passed and we still don’t know all the details. It is being left up to bureaucrats. The HHS is writing new rules everyday. We also know that the cost of Obamacare was a lie and the number changes all the time, but that is not a problem for you. You once again expect the Republicans to be held to a higher standard than Democrats. You want to know exact information on details and costs of Republican proposals before it has even been brought up to a vote, but you don’t blink an eye when Democrats double count savings when determining the cost of Obamacare.

Don’t you think it would be polite to thank me for hunting down the information you were badgering me for regarding the 40% of Americans between the 10% and 50% income range? The very least you could do was acknowledge I was right about the rich paying their fair share.

You say: “You know, we will never see “eye to eye,”” I agree. When two people talk politics and one person spews wildly erroneous statistics (I mean figures) , is blinded by ideology, disregards pertinent facts, refuses to apologize for her errors, lets emotion rule over logic, holds up her opponent to impossible standards, but has no discernible standards for herself, … it makes seeing eye to eye quite difficult.
Sorry you were so “unproductive”.

I’m just glad someone else has decided to “try” to deal with CS’s foolishness besides me.

Where did everybody go? Is it over?

For better or worse, there is little to be gained from debating back and forth over what has been passed. If it isn’t working, then adjust it. So far as the “pie in the sky” solutions offered in good faith over the years by both sides, it would be terrific if anyone could seem to move one tiny bit in any direction. Instead, all we have had is an ever worsening situation with healthcare in this country while everyone pontificates about how their solution is the superior one. The years we have wasted on this simply because no one can agree enough to take any course of action in any direction are both disturbing and frustrating.

I have little doubt that there will be problems with Obamacare, whether they are as great as we are being told, or whether they are minimal does not matter. What matters is that we can change this through legislation to adjust for problems. Just to see ANY sort of action in this area is frankly a relief to me. Not one of us in here is 100% right, nor are any of us capable on our own of solving this massive and complicated issue. What we are capable of is trying to work together to at least move in some direction other than the staus-quo. The status-quo is really not the status-quo though, because things are only getting worse.

So, for better or worse, I say lt us at least give Obama care a fair shot. If it is as problematic as we fear, then identify and correct. Just to blast every single thing out of the water because perhaps the party you favor does not support it only adds to the stasis we are mired in.

Bottom line: we know the damned system is broken. Why not at least entertain the notion that there may be some merit to this program above and beyond the current state of healthcare? It is only going to continue to erode if nothing gets done. The time has come to get off the pot.

Random Poll, for those arguing what age bracket are you (30s, 40s, 50s, etc.) Strictly curious because I am new to the field and want to get my bearings.

Mid 30′s.

In my 60′s

Pushing 55 in Sept., but suppose that’s better than pushing up daisies…

46 going on 65.

I agree with Sheila for the most part. If there had been any other reasonable resolution to this disaster in our country I’d have been willing to listern, but the legislation (although not perfect) is a step that needed to happen. I too have managed benefits in large and small organizations including in a number of healthcare organizations and I’ve worked for 2, so called, non-profit health insurance companies. I do have a fair idea of what is in the new healthcare plan. I feel US citizens are a bit too insultated from other approaches and often don’t address issues untill the crises is so far down the road that it requires Everest level repair– e.g., the recent housing crisis. I too worry about taxes, but in reviewing the legislation I don’t feel extremely worried about those individuals most impacted. Tax-wise my biggest concern is the potential tax on so called “cadillac” plans because the hurdle is set so low and because we are lifting the lifetime limits and pre-existing conditions (not a bad thing in itself, just will have financial impact) it is guaranteed costs will go up at least in the short run.

Still, I’d like to hear some real, concrete alternatives for providing healthcare to all citizens, for signficantly improving the health of our poputlation, and for improving healthcare outcomes (like why is it so expensive, but we still get such poor results?). Are we really civilized if we choose to take luxury trips and lounge in hot tubs while someone in our own town is dying a miserable death from a curable condition because they can’t afford medication and treatment? Does anyone think that this can be done on the cheap after we’ve dug ourselves so far in the hole? Well, maybe those are the same folks that thought they could buy a mansion on a salary of $30,000.

To whom it may concern (HRMorning Editors?):

I am curious as to why some of my comments fail to be posted. My character
was recently attacked without merit by a poster with the moniker of
“Ramona”. Ramona has no basis for her position and has no knowledge of my
personal habits. They are pure conjecture. They are false. Her comments have
been published for all to see and my defense remains unposted. Why is this
allowed?

There is another woman (Wendy) who claims I am a “skewer” of information and
that I am “twisting” her words. I have replied to her comment rebutting
these falsehoods on two separate occasions. My comment illustrated that I
have neither skewed information or twisted her words, but these replies
remain unposted also.

Readers are left with the assertion/impression that I am
lying/twisting/skewing my data. They are also left with the false assertion
that I need “counseling”. Why am I not able to respond to these unwarranted
attacks?

I did not start the vitriol. I have refrained from name calling, but I have
been called a nasty/bully/shill… Now I am left unable to respond to more
false attacks.

Why? Can you please post my last two rebuttals in order to defend my
character.

If you feel the need to end this discussion, I understand. But please don’t
do so after allowing them to spread false assertions against me unchecked.

Sincerely,

AKA Common Sense