The Conservative Cave

Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: RobJohnson on June 09, 2009, 02:01:18 AM

Title: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: RobJohnson on June 09, 2009, 02:01:18 AM

(http://www.altergroup.com/alter-care-blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/obamahealthcare.jpg)


WASHINGTON – Senior House Democrats drafting health care legislation are considering slapping an unspecified financial penalty on anyone who refuses to purchase affordable health insurance, a key committee chairman said Monday.

In addition, officials said Democrats are considering a new tax on certain health insurance benefits as one of numerous options to help pay for expanding coverage to the uninsured. No details on the tax were immediately available, and no final decisions were expected until next week at the earliest.


Healthcare (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090609/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul;_ylt=Atg26HvOb_M2egksbtQ4rWSzvtEF;_ylu=X3oDMTMyZDVmaGFsBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC8yMDA5MDYwOS9hcF9vbl9nb19jby91c19oZWFsdGhfb3ZlcmhhdWwEY3BvcwM3BHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDYXBzb3VyY2VzaG91)



Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: thundley4 on June 09, 2009, 06:51:11 AM
If they end up taxing health insurance benefits provided by employees, they will surely manage to make it a tax only on the wealthy.  They are not going to tax the benefits of union members, because that is their base and it provides too much financial and ad support for the Dems.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: Karin on June 09, 2009, 07:09:56 AM
This whole thing is just fraught with unintended consequences, and it scares the hell out of me, and a majority of Americans, according to poll after poll. 
Over at gradegov.com, where you can grade & post letters to congress, there are some letters with less-than-veiled threats to the clowns.  "First time my kid can't get in to see a doctor, I'm coming after you, mother." 
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: Flame on June 09, 2009, 08:04:28 AM
I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate the way the cram this stuff through the senate and congress so fast.  No way to really read and understand all the language, get feedback from the people, etc. 

Scarey stuff.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: Celtic Rose on June 09, 2009, 08:14:26 AM
I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate the way the cram this stuff through the senate and congress so fast.  No way to really read and understand all the language, get feedback from the people, etc. 

Scarey stuff.

No Kidding!  It seems like every piece of legislation is emergency legislation and must be passed Now! 

Personally, I think that there should be a mandatory discussion period for any legislation, with the exception perhaps of authorizing funds for war in a true emergency situation.  One of the greatest aspects of democracy is the fact the both sides can discuss the issues, and hopefully pound out and resolve problems.

We've avoided major Federal involvement in healthcare so far, so is society really going to collapse if we wait a few more months?  I don't think so.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: thundley4 on June 09, 2009, 08:34:28 AM
I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate the way the cram this stuff through the senate and congress so fast.  No way to really read and understand all the language, get feedback from the people, etc. 

Scarey stuff.

That is exactly why they rush this crap through, they do not want anyone to read and understand the ramifications of the bills. We saw the same shit with the Porkulous bill.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: NHSparky on June 09, 2009, 11:14:45 AM
Seriously, what is it about "least common denominator" that these clowns in Congress willfully ignore?  If you nationalize healthcare, it's not going to give everyone the same HIGH quality of service--quite the opposite.  Average healthcare levels will decline rapidly, and in some cases will be denied as unnecessary.

Like euthanasia?  You better get used to it.  "Sorry, kids--the state says granny is too sick to keep alive economically."
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: Chris_ on June 09, 2009, 11:17:35 AM
Quote
...to help pay for expanding coverage to the uninsured...

*raises hand*

Um, I already pay for coverage for the uninsured through higher premiums.  Is the gubmint gonna lower those premiums?   ::)
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: NHSparky on June 09, 2009, 11:21:24 AM
*raises hand*

Um, I already pay for coverage for the uninsured through higher premiums.  Is the gubmint gonna lower those premiums?   ::)

I love how they stare at their feet when you ask that question...kinda like when we up here ask if our property taxes will go down if they implement a sales and/or income tax.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: TheSarge on June 09, 2009, 11:23:42 AM
In the military...we refer to this kind of choice as being "Volun-told" to do something.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: Peter3_1 on June 09, 2009, 12:48:01 PM
Obama will not tax anyone who's not "RICH"!  Who are the "rich"? ANYONE with an earned or unearned  income of ANY amount.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: RobJohnson on June 09, 2009, 02:49:19 PM
Obama will not tax anyone who's not "RICH"!  Who are the "rich"? ANYONE with an earned or unearned  income of ANY amount.

yup.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on June 09, 2009, 06:24:17 PM
The one really good point of this will be watching all the Progressive heads explode.  Well...the employed ones, anyway.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: Peter3_1 on June 09, 2009, 06:51:02 PM
employed and progressive? That happened when? Is it a national holliday yet? :evillaugh: :rotf:
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: Chris on June 09, 2009, 07:25:33 PM
I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate the way the cram this stuff through the senate and congress so fast.  No way to really read and understand all the language, get feedback from the people, etc. 

Scarey stuff.
That seems to be the Democrat's MO on everything.  We HAVE to confirm Sotomayor before the August court session begins.  We HAVE to push the stimulus bill though before anyone gets a chance to read any of it.  We HAVE to pass TARP funding to save homeowners before things get worse.  We HAVE to do something about health care, and this is the result.

I honestly hope Barack Obama turns out to be a one-term President, because I don't think we would survive a second term.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: Hawkgirl on June 09, 2009, 07:35:59 PM
Besides job losses, we really haven't seen the affect of his decisions with only 6 months into his term...I fear it will get really horrible and only then will people have no choice but to get him out in 012.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: Chris on June 09, 2009, 07:49:04 PM
Quote
While the 615-page bill, titled “Affordable Health Choices Act,” deals with dozens of reform issues, it sidesteps for now the controversial issue of whether employers should be required to provide coverage.

The bill also proposes that the federal government reinsure those employers offering health care coverage to retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. The government would reinsure 80% of each claim of between $15,000 and $90,000.

Other provisions closely track a draft outline made available last week, including the elimination of annual and lifetime dollar limits on health care expenses plans cover and giving the states authority to set up exchanges where employers and individuals could select health care plans offered by insurers.

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090609/NEWS/906099972

From what I heard*, the private insurance companies will be required to provide coverage to anyone that applies for a policy.

*Glenn Beck
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: thundley4 on June 09, 2009, 07:50:41 PM
Besides job losses, we really haven't seen the affect of his decisions with only 6 months into his term...I fear it will get really horrible and only then will people have no choice but to get him out in 012.

I think we've seen other aspects of his presidency, if not exactly his decisions.  Hasn't there been an up tick in the actions of so-called enemy states, i.e. Iran and North Korea? Sure , these same things were going on under President Bush, but they were more spaced out , but now it seems that certain countries know they can act with impunity.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: Chris on June 09, 2009, 07:52:42 PM
I think we've seen other aspects of his presidency, if not exactly his decisions.  Hasn't there been an up tick in the actions of so-called enemy states, i.e. Iran and North Korea? Sure , these same things were going on under President Bush, but they were more spaced out , but now it seems that certain countries know they can act with impunity.

Obama is a pantywaist little boy when it comes to foreign policy.  Of course the Norks and the Mad Mullahs are making noise, because there's nobody that will stand up to them.  What's Barry gonna do, send Hillary Clinton?
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: Airwolf on June 09, 2009, 08:00:18 PM
Watch Nero as the country burns it's economy to ashes.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: TheSarge on June 10, 2009, 07:02:46 AM
Watch Nero as the country burns it's economy to ashes.

He's too busy on Date Nightstm with his wife in NYC and Paris on OUR dime to care.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: Chris_ on June 10, 2009, 07:16:29 AM
He's too busy on Date Nightstm with his wife in NYC and Paris on OUR dime to care.
Even his beloved MSM is nailing him on that one.  He's got to know he's out in '12, so he's getting all he can while he can.  I expect the WH to be stripped to the walls when he leaves.

Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: DixieBelle on June 10, 2009, 07:30:09 AM
How did that kind of plan work out for the state of Mass?

Ugh. He HAS to be a one-term president.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: NHSparky on June 10, 2009, 07:33:05 AM
How did that kind of plan work out for the state of Mass?

Ugh. He HAS to be a one-term president.

Two billion over budget so far.  Hawaii cancelled their program, Washington is scaling theirs WAY back, and doctors in CA won't accept MediCal--cash only.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: RobJohnson on June 10, 2009, 08:12:10 AM
I really don't want to see my medical benefits turn into taxable income.

I work for a big company, it's within the top 50 of the Fortune 500. My health insurance is a big part of my benefits package. Even the little bit of it that I pay  ($60 a month) is paid for with my pre-tax income. The estimated value of such coverage is $600 a month. That would be alot of extra tax for me.

So much for President Obama only wanting to raise taxes on the "rich."  Let's tax my benefits so we can pay for others.  :bird:

Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: thundley4 on June 10, 2009, 08:31:06 AM
I really don't want to see my medical benefits turn into taxable income.

I work for a big company, it's within the top 50 of the Fortune 500. My health insurance is a big part of my benefits package. Even the little bit of it that I pay  ($60 a month) is paid for with my pre-tax income. The estimated value of such coverage is $600 a month. That would be alot of extra tax for me.

So much for President Obama only wanting to raise taxes on the "rich."  Let's tax my benefits so we can pay for others.  :bird:



I pay about $40/week pretax also, and I still don't want to have to pay tax on my benefits. I haven't even met my deductible in over 10 years, so it would almost be cheaper to be with out the company insurance , if it weren't for the proposed fines on people without insurance.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: RobJohnson on June 10, 2009, 10:28:03 AM
I pay about $40/week pretax also, and I still don't want to have to pay tax on my benefits. I haven't even met my deductible in over 10 years, so it would almost be cheaper to be with out the company insurance , if it weren't for the proposed fines on people without insurance.

If benefits are taxed, I think more would opt out of coverage. Then of course we would see people being put in jail for not taking out health insurance. 
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: thundley4 on June 10, 2009, 10:54:02 AM
If benefits are taxed, I think more would opt out of coverage. Then of course we would see people being put in jail for not taking out health insurance. 

That's why the Dimrats want to have the insurance requirement. You have insurance or you pay a fine.   What gets me is that all this BS about uninsured in this country counts the illegal immigrants and also those of an age that think they are still immortal and invincible, (the 20 somethings).
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: Bluesuiter-Retired on June 12, 2009, 08:35:58 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqLNecbH0dcg

$600 BILLION in new taxes and a $400 BILLION reduction in medicare and medicade.
Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: RobJohnson on June 14, 2009, 12:05:55 AM
My mother was on the phone asking questions about her Medicare advantage plan. They were trying to up sell her....the lady on the phone told her that even though it would be an extra $85 a month right now, President Obama has a law in the works that is going to make it less expensive for "seniors"....of course even if this was true, it would cost me twice as much in taxes...

What type of sales pitch needs to include the word "Obama?"   :lmao: :lmao:




Title: Re: House Dems favor insurance requirement
Post by: NHSparky on June 14, 2009, 06:12:10 AM
What type of sales pitch needs to include the word "Obama?"   :lmao: :lmao:

Really bad ones.  I'm also guessing in about 3 1/2 years, the sales pitch will be, "And it'll overcome Obama's ****ups!"