Bluegrassrivals

Doesnt surprise me.
If I owned a private business I wouldnt even consider having health insurance, I would just pay the penalty. I couldnt blame my company if they ever chose to do so.

They dropped the workers under 30 hours. Since most of them make very little they should qualify for health insurance through other programs.

When people finally realize the breathtaking scope of the lies put forth by this administration it will likely be too late. Takers, already on the government dole from the most densely populated cities, voted to keep their checks coming in and liberals did all they could to get them out to the polls. Folks still willing to parrot Obama talking points with regard to health care should be particularly interested with the part talking about the expansion of Medicaid----"Labor and health care experts portrayed Walmart’s decision to exclude workers from its medical plans as an attempt to limit costs while taking advantage of the national health care reform known as Obamacare. Among the key features of Obamacare is an expansion of Medicaid, the taxpayer-financed health insurance program for poor people. Many of the Walmart workers who might be dropped from the company’s health care plans earn so little that they would qualify for the expanded Medicaid program, these experts said."

I have said it over and over, those who now pay for their own insurance will lose it, while still being forced to pay for those who already don't pay. The cost for health insurance for a family of four will top 16 thousand dollars a year by 2014. After dragging myself out of bed everyday for over 46 years during my career, I'll have to come out of retirement to pay for health insurance for slugs that will never turn their hand to feed themselves or their progeny littered across the nation in their wake of depravity. Just because Obama is in love with the sound of his own voice doesn't mean the laws that get passed under his watch will work. The government can't snap their legislative fingers and just declare everybody will get everything, somebody will have to pay for all this stuff. Anybody that works for their living will rue the day America turned her back on Mitt Romney. To put this into perspective, folks will still have to come up with a 40 or 30% copay for any health care they need to survive past the 16 thousand a year in forced premiums. If one had a $1,000 dollar a month mortgage payment that would fall between 4 thousand and 8 thousand dollars a month shy of your health costs. Welcome to the nightmare of ObamaCare.

^If they carried insurance on them before, why would they drop them? Did you realize what you just said about making so little that they qualified for government assistance?

TheRealVille Wrote:^If they carried insurance on them before, why would they drop them? Did you realize what you just said about making so little that they qualified for government assistance?

What an idiot! :lame:

can a mod please fix the spelling in the subject line, that's killing me lol..

WideRight05 Wrote:What an idiot! :lame:

I mis-read his quote. No need to call people idiots. I didn't read the link because I refuse to read an article that starts with the line, "It was a lie. He knew it was a lie." That tells me what kind of site it is, right off the bat.

^It get's pretty confusing when someone doesn't use the quote button, and then mix their words into the post before and after the quote.

TheRealVille Wrote:I mis-read his quote. No need to call people idiots. I didn't read the link because I refuse to read an article that starts with the line, "It was a lie. He knew it was a lie." That tells me what kind of site it is, right off the bat.

You should not have to read any newly linked articles to understand why businesses will be cutting employees' hours or dropping their healthcare coverage. Obamacare provides offers them incentives for doing so, and those of us who recognize Obama for the socialist that he is have been predicting that would happen and posting links to articles for months. Simply put, liberal Democrats see government dependence as a surefire path to absolute power - the more people who depend on the government for their basic needs, the more Democratic voters there will be - and they are right.

The problem with this cynical, intentional creation of a culture of government dependency is that this nation is not immune to the same sorts of problems that have befallen other governments who have attempted to purchase the allegiance of voters in the past. Printing money to pay for overwhelming government debt eventually leads to high inflation rates (or hyperinflation), which is predictably followed by severe austerity programs and violent protests by moochers who are suddenly booted off of the government dole with no marketable skills.

Ballers Wrote:can a mod please fix the spelling in the subject line, that's killing me lol..

We have people who's left side of the brain does not function and can't spell, this is to help them...

Walmart is in business to make money. Good for Walmart.

TheRealVille Wrote:I mis-read his quote. No need to call people idiots. I didn't read the link because I refuse to read an article that starts with the line, "It was a lie. He knew it was a lie." That tells me what kind of site it is, right off the bat.

:lmao:

TheRealVille Wrote::igiveup: :biglmao: Let's just focus on #6. There is a muslim temple on the "christian temple" site. You are a bigger moron than I first thought.

Israel still has deserts. Let's face it, none of those are provable true.

TheRealVille Wrote:Hoot's a moron. Anybody that reads this site knows this. Cotton comes to mind.

TheRealVille Wrote:You try to post that you are some kind of political genius, and everybody but your two or three cheerleaders, are political idiots. You think you and the conservatives have all the clues.


I have never spent a day thinking you are smarter than me. That is your frame of mind. I know you are a far right wing idiot. That has no bearing on any inferoirity complex. I know at the end of the day, I have compassion for people, and you have zero. I am far superior to you in most things of that nature. You don't care if people get help, as long as you aren't paying for it.

TheRealVille; 1309715 Wrote:You are a ****ing idiot.

WideRight05 Wrote::lmao:

You missed one with the highlighter. :biggrin:

[INDENT]

Quote:I know you are a far right wing idiot

[/INDENT]It is just a matter of time before RV will claim that he has never called anybody an idiot (again). He keeps forgetting about the pesky Search feature.

^Nope, but you will see that most of those quotes are old, the exception being in July. I never have said I didn't ever call people idiots, but anybody can see that I'm trying to refine my game. I did say that I misread TRT's quote. BTW, his last quote don't come up as me saying it. I don't think I would have typed it with the "****ing idiot", I pretty much would have typed the real word, seeing that it's not illegal here, and it doesn't come up in a search either way. I can't find the last one he has me saying.

TheRealVille Wrote:I mis-read his quote. No need to call people idiots. I didn't read the link because I refuse to read an article that starts with the line, "It was a lie. He knew it was a lie." That tells me what kind of site it is, right off the bat.

If you're not going to invest the time to understand what the thread is about maybe you should refrain from jumping in and blasting the integrity of my post. Even without the benefit of two minutes of reading the link provided on your part, I made my meaning known, when for clarity's sake I put in a lead in, followed by three hyphens and closed the quote in quotation marks. I mean, it isn't like I'm going to quote myself.

In any event, what Hoot says is true. We've been sounding the alarm about our nation's undeniably steady move towards socialism under this administration for at least the last two years. The state, once best characterized by the image of "Uncle Sam", now more closely resembles the nightmare political landscape of "1984". The 'Party', and the zealots that are the true believers, spokesmen and activists for the liberal cause, are in fact eerily similar in action and deed to the vision of George Orwell. Wilfully ignorant of the truth, they parrot the party line and are unilaterally complicitous in their efforts to destroy our two party system by destroying the credibility of the republicans. No invading army from the likes of Russia could ever do a better job of subverting our American traditional ideals than have the modern progressive/liberals. The assault on the constitution, our system of laws and the concept of self governance, have all but disappeared.

TheRealVille Wrote:^Nope, but you will see that most of those quotes are old, the exception being in July. I never have said I didn't ever call people idiots, but anybody can see that I'm trying to refine my game. I did say that I misread TRT's quote. BTW, his last quote don't come up as me saying it. I don't think I would have typed it with the "****ing idiot", I pretty much would have typed the real word, seeing that it's not illegal here, and it doesn't come up in a search either way. I can't find the last one he has me saying.

Here ya' go. I found it with the search feature. I am glad too see that you are trying to refine your game.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Here ya' go. I found it with the search feature. I am glad too see that you are trying to refine your game.

Thank you. Like I said, that one is also 2 years old. You have called me a moron, and other names, if I remember correct.

TheRealVille Wrote:Thank you. Like I said, that one is also 2 years old. You have called me a moron, and other names, if I remember correct.

Actually, you said that you were unable to find the quote, which implied that it might not exist. As to your second point, you are correct, although for the most part, I have simply lumped you in with all of the morons who have voted for Obama twice, as opposed to singling you out as an individual moron.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Actually, you said that you were unable to find the quote, which implied that it might not exist. As to your second point, you are correct, although for the most part, I have simply lumped you in with all of the morons who have voted for Obama twice, as opposed to singling you out as an individual moron.

I said I couldn't find it, which I couldn't, but I also said in the post above that most of what WR05 was posting was old stuff, just like this one.

Quote:^Nope, but you will see that most of those quotes are old, the exception being in July. I never have said I didn't ever call people idiots, but anybody can see that I'm trying to refine my game.

You do have a few words in the post I responded to that should be posted in the "Hostess" thread, but I won't go there, that thread is almost dead.

The only problem with using current projections for the cost of insurance is that they are based on the current and projected increased cost of health care.

The cost of healthcare for patients and insurance companies will drop dramatically when hospitals stop having to eat the costs for patients due to lack of insurance.

I know of a few cases off the top of my head where hospitals have eaten costs totaling over 500k for one patient, and those were just ones that I personally know of. The hospitals pass those costs on to the insured. Whereas if these patients had proper insurance, their healthcare costs would be less than a few thousand. However, due to the setup of the system, the only way to ensure these patients got their life saving treatment was to keep them in the hospital as admitted clients. Legally they were not allowed to perform the treatments on an outpatient basis, and the outpatient sites would not take them due to their lack of insurance.

So basically it came down to eating those costs and passing them on to the insured, or giving someone a death sentence in which they wouldn't make it but a couple weeks, if that long.

Now I'm sure there may be some of you who may say to kick them out, because they are "slugs", but I can promise you not all of these people are "slugs". I also doubt, even if they are "slugs", that you would be willing to walk into that room and tell that room full of family that due to their lack of insurance they have to leave and their family member is now going to die.

Trust me, having worked the ED, I have dealt with plenty of slugs. I doubt any of you despise these people more than I do. People who come to the ED by ambulance because they think it will help them get in faster and get their dilaudid. Never mind that the bus may have been needed elsewhere to actually save someone's life. I made sure those idiots waited for hours and hours to receive anything, and when they finally did, they may have received more saline than pain medicine, that's all I'm saying. Oh, and then they want the hospital to pay for them a taxi home, which may be who knows how far away.

I'll also never forget the time this lady came in complaining of a migraine (for the 18th time that year, I checked her visits) and of course all her tests we normal (about 10k worth) because no matter what you have to protect your license as a nurse, MD, NP, PA, or whatever. It was a very busy night, it was our trauma night, plus when you count all the other things like acute MI's, CVA's, OD's, and many other critical or potentially critical patients, it may take a few hours. Her boyfriend/husband had been to the desk at least 2 dozen times complaining, and of course I explained to him that the MD would be in to see her as soon as they could, and that we were very busy and the system doesn't work on a first come, first serve basis. I told him that I couldn't give her anything without an order, and that when I got one, I would immediately come give her the meds. So this idiot then says and I quote "I bet if she had a gun shot wound, she would get seen right away". I just kind of looked at him like he was a moron (he was) and walked away.

Anyways, kind of ranted a little bit there, but the point is, Obamacare is not perfect, but some of the things in it I believe are necessary. These reduced costs to insured clients will be reflected in decreased premiums, since insurance companies will be required to spend 85% of their revenue on healthcare costs. If premiums even drop to to 2005-2006 levels, companies would be able to insure twice the amount of employees they insure now for the same cost.

Personally, I think we will see drops even lower than that. As hospital revenues grow, costs will decrease as they compete for customers, they will actually be able to fully staff their units, improving the quality of care overall.

Also, this will not cause a shortage of doctors, well not more than there is now, there has already been large movements in the healthcare field to try and handle the increase in patients that will be seen as the baby boomers continue to age. I will gladly expand on that if anyone wants me to.

There are some things that are a part of the changes in Obamacare which I definitely disagree with, the main one being the following, and I will give a clinical scenario the help explain it better for those who don't have a medical field back ground.

Lets say you have congestive heart failure, left sided since that is the most common, (right sided normally occurs with left anyways). So you experience an acute episode, you are having severe SOB (shortness of breath), fluid is building up in your lungs, your heart rate and cardiac workload is increasing due to the decrease in lung efficiency. So naturally you come to the ED, and are admitted to the hospital. After some tests, EKG, blood work, etc, you are started on a diuretic, and in a day or two (usually) the symptoms resolve and you are sent home. Now, sadly, like most people, your symptoms are gone. So you think it is okay to quit taking the new meds or adhere to the medication changes that were made. In another week or two you have another acute episode, and back to the ED you come to do it all over again, or maybe you did take your meds, but since CHF is very tricky and unpredictable, it worsens anyways.

Well, under the new guidelines the hospital only receives a certain amount of money for your hospital stay under the diagnosis of CHF exacerbation. Since you have returned with the same problems as you did two weeks ago (within 30 days), the hospital will receive no money for treating you this time, as it will be considered the same visit. So this time the hospital is just going to have to eat the costs of your hospital stay. It doesn't matter that your symptoms were treated, meds changed accordingly, followups done, CHF exacerbation may still occur. I understand the logic of the policy, but it is a policy that just isn't viable in the real world, and will hopefully be removed at some point.

^ I had one lab charge my insurance 454.00, and settled, under their contract with my insurance for 27 dollars. The only reason I found out about the discount, is that between my insurance paying them, and the time they billed me, got crossed in the mail. I called the provider and confronted them, and their answer was that I didn't get the same discounts my insurance company got. This happened just this past week. I had one procedure done awhile back, a colonoscopy, that Pikeville hospital charged 12 thousand bucks for, and settled for 1400.00 through my insurance. Included in that 12k, I asked for a bottle of water, and they charged $212.00 dollars for it. That's the flagrant BS that needs to be stopped by medical providers.

Beetle01 Wrote:The only problem with using current projections for the cost of insurance is that they are based on the current and projected increased cost of health care.

The cost of healthcare for patients and insurance companies will drop dramatically when hospitals stop having to eat the costs for patients due to lack of insurance.

I know of a few cases off the top of my head where hospitals have eaten costs totaling over 500k for one patient, and those were just ones that I personally know of. The hospitals pass those costs on to the insured. Whereas if these patients had proper insurance, their healthcare costs would be less than a few thousand. However, due to the setup of the system, the only way to ensure these patients got their life saving treatment was to keep them in the hospital as admitted clients. Legally they were not allowed to perform the treatments on an outpatient basis, and the outpatient sites would not take them due to their lack of insurance.

So basically it came down to eating those costs and passing them on to the insured, or giving someone a death sentence in which they wouldn't make it but a couple weeks, if that long.

Now I'm sure there may be some of you who may say to kick them out, because they are "slugs", but I can promise you not all of these people are "slugs". I also doubt, even if they are "slugs", that you would be willing to walk into that room and tell that room full of family that due to their lack of insurance they have to leave and their family member is now going to die.

Trust me, having worked the ED, I have dealt with plenty of slugs. I doubt any of you despise these people more than I do. People who come to the ED by ambulance because they think it will help them get in faster and get their dilaudid. Never mind that the bus may have been needed elsewhere to actually save someone's life. I made sure those idiots waited for hours and hours to receive anything, and when they finally did, they may have received more saline than pain medicine, that's all I'm saying. Oh, and then they want the hospital to pay for them a taxi home, which may be who knows how far away.

I'll also never forget the time this lady came in complaining of a migraine (for the 18th time that year, I checked her visits) and of course all her tests we normal (about 10k worth) because no matter what you have to protect your license as a nurse, MD, NP, PA, or whatever. It was a very busy night, it was our trauma night, plus when you count all the other things like acute MI's, CVA's, OD's, and many other critical or potentially critical patients, it may take a few hours. Her boyfriend/husband had been to the desk at least 2 dozen times complaining, and of course I explained to him that the MD would be in to see her as soon as they could, and that we were very busy and the system doesn't work on a first come, first serve basis. I told him that I couldn't give her anything without an order, and that when I got one, I would immediately come give her the meds. So this idiot then says and I quote "I bet if she had a gun shot wound, she would get seen right away". I just kind of looked at him like he was a moron (he was) and walked away.

Anyways, kind of ranted a little bit there, but the point is, Obamacare is not perfect, but some of the things in it I believe are necessary. These reduced costs to insured clients will be reflected in decreased premiums, since insurance companies will be required to spend 85% of their revenue on healthcare costs. If premiums even drop to to 2005-2006 levels, companies would be able to insure twice the amount of employees they insure now for the same cost.

Personally, I think we will see drops even lower than that. As hospital revenues grow, costs will decrease as they compete for customers, they will actually be able to fully staff their units, improving the quality of care overall.

Also, this will not cause a shortage of doctors, well not more than there is now, there has already been large movements in the healthcare field to try and handle the increase in patients that will be seen as the baby boomers continue to age. I will gladly expand on that if anyone wants me to.

There are some things that are a part of the changes in Obamacare which I definitely disagree with, the main one being the following, and I will give a clinical scenario the help explain it better for those who don't have a medical field back ground.

Lets say you have congestive heart failure, left sided since that is the most common, (right sided normally occurs with left anyways). So you experience an acute episode, you are having severe SOB (shortness of breath), fluid is building up in your lungs, your heart rate and cardiac workload is increasing due to the decrease in lung efficiency. So naturally you come to the ED, and are admitted to the hospital. After some tests, EKG, blood work, etc, you are started on a diuretic, and in a day or two (usually) the symptoms resolve and you are sent home. Now, sadly, like most people, your symptoms are gone. So you think it is okay to quit taking the new meds or adhere to the medication changes that were made. In another week or two you have another acute episode, and back to the ED you come to do it all over again, or maybe you did take your meds, but since CHF is very tricky and unpredictable, it worsens anyways.

Well, under the new guidelines the hospital only receives a certain amount of money for your hospital stay under the diagnosis of CHF exacerbation. Since you have returned with the same problems as you did two weeks ago (within 30 days), the hospital will receive no money for treating you this time, as it will be considered the same visit. So this time the hospital is just going to have to eat the costs of your hospital stay. It doesn't matter that your symptoms were treated, meds changed accordingly, followups done, CHF exacerbation may still occur. I understand the logic of the policy, but it is a policy that just isn't viable in the real world, and will hopefully be removed at some point.

Beetle, the problem with your position is that the costs will not go down, they will be increased and they will be shifted elsewhere. More people will be treated, at least that is the plan, under Obamacare and somebody has to pay for that treatment. Undoubtedly there be winners and losers under Obamacare, picked by federal regulators instead of a (more) free market, but costs cannot go down when more people receive care - unless quality drops sharply and services are rationed.

Think about the thousands of new jobs that Obamacare will create to administer the program. Those people will not be working pro bono - they will add to the cost of health care in this country.

Already we are seeing companies dropping employees from their health care insurance coverage. The federal government (i.e., taxpayers and this nation's creditors, the Chinese) will be picking up the tab for those people.

You may be right that a particular hospital, group of doctors, or some special interest group will see their costs drop, but it is not possible that overall costs of providing medical services in this country for tens of millions of additional patients will drop without the quality of the service taking a huge hit. The numbers just do not add up.

Just to settle disputes in the future, when you quote somebody and it has there name at the top of the quote, that little button beside there name will take you to the thread and post. If theyve messed with your quote you'll know it.

That little arrow button pointing toward the right will take you to the thread the quote is in.

RunItUpTheGut Wrote:Just to settle disputes in the future, when you quote somebody and it has there name at the top of the quote, that little button beside there name will take you to the thread and post. If theyve messed with your quote you'll know it.

That little arrow button pointing toward the right will take you to the thread the quote is in.

Click on the little arrow on the last quote of mine in WR05's post of all my quotes and you will see the cause of the initial confusion.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Beetle, the problem with your position is that the costs will not go down, they will be increased and they will be shifted elsewhere. More people will be treated, at least that is the plan, under Obamacare and somebody has to pay for that treatment. Undoubtedly there be winners and losers under Obamacare, picked by federal regulators instead of a (more) free market, but costs cannot go down when more people receive care - unless quality drops sharply and services are rationed.

Think about the thousands of new jobs that Obamacare will create to administer the program. Those people will not be working pro bono - they will add to the cost of health care in this country.

Already we are seeing companies dropping employees from their health care insurance coverage. The federal government (i.e., taxpayers and this nation's creditors, the Chinese) will be picking up the tab for those people.

You may be right that a particular hospital, group of doctors, or some special interest group will see their costs drop, but it is not possible that overall costs of providing medical services in this country for tens of millions of additional patients will drop without the quality of the service taking a huge hit. The numbers just do not add up.

We will have to agree to disagree on the costs. You say more people will be getting healthcare, I don't think those numbers will change that much, at least the change will be very minimal. However, the cost, for which people like me and you are already paying for, whether it be taxes (govt spending) or increased costs for insurance and medical procedures to offset the losses incurred by hospitals and doctors for treating the non insured.

I'm of the opinion, that if a person, who currently doesn't have insurance was able to go to the doctor on a regular basis, get medications, so on and so forth, would save us tens of thousands per person (hundreds of thousands per person in many cases) - versus when they reach a critical stage and then require very expensive health care.

Preventative care is the #1 way to reduce health care costs in this country.

Hoot, the bottom line is, as a nation we were not just losing a battle when it comes to the costs and quality of healthcare in this country, the war was lost. Something had to be done. Hospitals have been hemorrhaging money, jobs were being cut at drastic levels on the national level (on an already extremely understaffed field). Costs are/were skyrocketing and only going higher and higher.

The path we were on was not even remotely sustainable.

I don't think Obamacare is the full answer, but I believe many of the policies in it are a step in the right direction.

The free market/capitalist approach we were using is not feasible. Health insurance itself is socialistic down to it's core. The pooling of resources by many to cover the costs of everyone's care.

The only other approach is to flat out deny health care to tens of millions if not 100 million Americans. That is never going to happen, nor should it. Once you can come to grips with that realization, you can then approach the situation looking for another solution. That solution begins with offering preventative care to all Americans (cost reduction) and limiting profiteering.

I don't think anyone can sit back and look at the rises in the cost of healthcare and not wonder how those rises are not related to the double and tripling in profits of the insurance companies who function as an oligarch.

Unchecked oligarchs are what collapsed communist Russia. If we are going to allow these to exist in America, and they do, specifically in the Insurance, Banking, and energy industries, then as a nation we have to take steps to protect ourselves from them.

Beetle01 Wrote:We will have to agree to disagree on the costs. You say more people will be getting healthcare, I don't think those numbers will change that much, at least the change will be very minimal. However, the cost, for which people like me and you are already paying for, whether it be taxes (govt spending) or increased costs for insurance and medical procedures to offset the losses incurred by hospitals and doctors for treating the non insured.

I'm of the opinion, that if a person, who currently doesn't have insurance was able to go to the doctor on a regular basis, get medications, so on and so forth, would save us tens of thousands per person (hundreds of thousands per person in many cases) - versus when they reach a critical stage and then require very expensive health care.

Preventative care is the #1 way to reduce health care costs in this country.

Hoot, the bottom line is, as a nation we were not just losing a battle when it comes to the costs and quality of healthcare in this country, the war was lost. Something had to be done. Hospitals have been hemorrhaging money, jobs were being cut at drastic levels on the national level (on an already extremely understaffed field). Costs are/were skyrocketing and only going higher and higher.

The path we were on was not even remotely sustainable.

I don't think Obamacare is the full answer, but I believe many of the policies in it are a step in the right direction.

The free market/capitalist approach we were using is not feasible. Health insurance itself is socialistic down to it's core. The pooling of resources by many to cover the costs of everyone's care.

The only other approach is to flat out deny health care to tens of millions if not 100 million Americans. That is never going to happen, nor should it. Once you can come to grips with that realization, you can then approach the situation looking for another solution. That solution begins with offering preventative care to all Americans (cost reduction) and limiting profiteering.

I don't think anyone can sit back and look at the rises in the cost of healthcare and not wonder how those rises are not related to the double and tripling in profits of the insurance companies who function as an oligarch.

Unchecked oligarchs are what collapsed communist Russia. If we are going to allow these to exist in America, and they do, specifically in the Insurance, Banking, and energy industries, then as a nation we have to take steps to protect ourselves from them.

Ah, I see the real Beetle is back. You won't be disagreeing for long. Insurance has already gone up dramatically since ObamaCare got rammed through. And don't try to tell me the rise is due to the insurance company's greed or some other libertarian line of rationale. This was never about getting health care costs under 'control', rather it has always been about getting people under control. Additonally, social justice advocates have long felt that working folks should be forced to pay for non-working folks. The thoughts of the huddled masses assembling at the ER for care was just too much for them to live with. Just like the homeless guy found on the streets of NYC without any shoes. No matter how many acts of kindness bleeding heart liberals mete out, a few days later the shoes will be gone, and the barefoot guy will be barefoot again. Seriously, you can't recognize that over 30 million non paying people added to the insurance rolls won't drive up costs for those who do pay? Of course, if you actually believe the last paragraph I bolded from your post. It isn't much of a stretch to think you'd believe in the insurance santa too.

All this health care movement was ever about in the minds of the liberal goofs that came up with it in the first place, was leveling the field. The idea that people who worked and had insurance and therefore good health care was an intolerable, inequitable example of social injustice, in the eyes of liberals. Actually, people that refuse to work don't deserve to be treated special by social justice zealots using the government to pass laws to that end. But, that's what is going on. Those who pay for their own insurance will still have a 40% shortfall when it comes to bronze level coverage, for which they will have to come up with the other 40% in cash or payments. The no-works will still get free care, with no 40% shortfall because we paying citizens are being forced by the federal government to pay for all their care costs. The cost for insurance premiums for a family of four according to the CBO will be 16 thousand dollars a year, plus the 40% mentioned. If you take time to view the link provided in the thread starter and then read my post (#4) you will see it wasn't me that came to the conclusion that Obama's massive expansion of medicaid was intented to pay for poor people's health care.

I understand what Obama is trying to do here by trying to make sure employers provide health insurance for the employees. But there is a big loophole around this and we are seeing it here with Walmart among many, many other companies and corporations and even smaller businesses (ex: First Commonwealth Bank's in eastern Kentucky).

MiddlesboroAlumni Wrote:I understand what Obama is trying to do here by trying to make sure employers provide health insurance for the employees. But there is a big loophole around this and we are seeing it here with Walmart among many, many other companies and corporations and even smaller businesses (ex: First Commonwealth Bank's in eastern Kentucky).

Question. By way of cutting to the chase here, consider for a minute your local lawn service. What if the high school boy that mows your lawn during the summer months were to join a lawn care worker's union and, health care laws passed and enforced by the government demanded that you (as an employer) contribute to his health care costs? What would you do, drop the service and cut your own grass or pay hundreds of dollars extra to have your grass done for you? I know what Obama is trying to do too, he's trying to make people with money be responsible for people who don't have money. A sort of government mandated benevolence fund, where successful citizens are forced to pay for the lazy or citizens who have lack for whatever reason. That is not the way America works. Health insurance is attainable, but not for professional zombie killers on a diet of twinkies and mountain dew.

Logic dictates that some people are brain surgeons while some dig ditches, that is just how it is, and I find nothing unethical about that arrangement. I do find it to be inequitable to think that folks who do lawn work should expect to have all the amenities that the brain surgeon has though.

Wasn't you guys saying Obamacare isn't even in action yet?