House passed the Health Bill

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3249837
It's already subsidized....By your employer.
It is part of the compensation package. I fail to see a corrolation between me earning the 500 dollars or so a month my employeer pays for my families health insurance a government taking my money, then spending 1/2 of it to give it back to me...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3249936
Do you have school-aged kids? Is it the Federal Govt. or the State that mandates that all school children are required to have specific immunizations before they can be admitted to school. Some municipalities have even gone as far as rounded up parents and brought them to court, stating they either get their children immunized or face fines or even jail time. Do you have a problem with this law?
Our illustrious Governor Rick Perry of Texas tried to force all girls age 11 - 15 to get this Gardisil HPV virus immunization, whether the parents felt they needed it or not. Fortunately, there was enough public outcry, and he backed off. Why? Upcoming re-election. The same can be done with the health bill. If there's enough people who get out there and tell their Congressmen they disagree with this bill, and several of them are coming up for re-election this November, you would see changes made in this bill that people disagree with. I constantly read and see people whining and yelling about how bad this health care reform is, how we will become a Socialized country, how we will go bankrupt, yet they do it in the wrong places. The place to do it is at your local Congressman's office, their emails, their phone banks. Most importantly, AT THE VOTING BOOTH. Statistics have shown that less than 10% of the voting public in this country vote in mid-term elections. Most of the people who do vote, vote for the same candidate they've always voted for, vote strictly by a name, or vote by political party affiliation. They don't even bother to read or research the candidate's political views or campaign promises before voting for them. Until people change their attitudes about who they vote into office, and more importantly actually get off their couch and take 15 minutes to vote, then they or anyone else has only themselves to blame for whose running this country right now.
I saw a report today that said as of today 30 different states have planned legal action against this bill. If that is the case it is really amazing how far we have moved in a year. I think we may have the beginnings of a major revolt here. Could be a very good thing.

 

[reefraff]

Slightly off topic
You are driving down the road in your car on a wild, stormy night,
when you pass by a bus stop and you see three people waiting for the bus:
1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die.
2. An old friend who once saved your life.
3. The perfect partner you have been dreaming about.
Which one would you choose to offer a ride to, knowing that there could only be one passenger in your car? Think before you continue reading.
This is a moral/ethical dilemma that was once actually used as part of a job application. You could pick up the old lady, because she is going to die, and thus you should save her first. Or you could take the old friend because he once saved your life, and this would be the perfect chance to pay him back. However, you may never be able to find your perfect mate again.
YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS......................
The candidate who was hired (out of 200 applicants) had no trouble coming up with his answer. He simply answered: 'I would give the car keys to my old friend and let him take the lady to the hospital. I would stay behind and wait for the bus with the partner of my dreams.'
Sometimes, we gain more if we are able to give up our stubborn
thought limitations.
Never forget to 'Think Outside of the Box.'
HOWEVER...., The correct answer is to run the old lady over and put her out of her misery because Obama's health care won't pay for her hospital visit anyway, have your way with the perfect partner on the hood of the car, then drive off with the old friend for a few beers.
God, I just love happy endings!

 

[darthtang aw]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/yo...2consumer.html
A decent break down of what is suppossed to happen. This is the part I love...
"The first year, consumers who did not have insurance would owe $95, or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater. But the penalty would subsequently rise, reaching $695, or 2 percent of income."
So let's see......I can pay 95$ dollars and keep going to the emergency room for my care and skip the bill, or I can get insurance, pay about 4-10 grand a year instead....Gee.....let me think about that.........

 

[darthtang aw]

more
http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...means-for-you/

 

[lovethesea]

Speaking of fines....employers will only be fined $2000 per employee that they do not cover. Hmmmm, isn't that cheaper than supplying insurance for the employee? Won't this allow many companies to opt out of covering their employees and pushing them into public care?
I see them taking the fines versus rising premiums.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3249990
Slightly off topic
You are driving down the road in your car on a wild, stormy night,
when you pass by a bus stop and you see three people waiting for the bus:
1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die.
2. An old friend who once saved your life.
3. The perfect partner you have been dreaming about.
Which one would you choose to offer a ride to, knowing that there could only be one passenger in your car? Think before you continue reading.
This is a moral/ethical dilemma that was once actually used as part of a job application. You could pick up the old lady, because she is going to die, and thus you should save her first. Or you could take the old friend because he once saved your life, and this would be the perfect chance to pay him back. However, you may never be able to find your perfect mate again.
YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS......................
The candidate who was hired (out of 200 applicants) had no trouble coming up with his answer. He simply answered: 'I would give the car keys to my old friend and let him take the lady to the hospital. I would stay behind and wait for the bus with the partner of my dreams.'

Sometimes, we gain more if we are able to give up our stubborn
thought limitations.
Never forget to 'Think Outside of the Box.'
HOWEVER...., The correct answer is to run the old lady over and put her out of her misery because Obama's health care won't pay for her hospital visit anyway, have your way with the perfect partner on the hood of the car, then drive off with the old friend for a few beers.Stop with the "Death Squad" nonsense already. I know from previous discussions with you that you are capable of better than this.
God, I just love happy endings!

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3250020
Sometimes, we gain more if we are able to give up our stubborn
thought limitations.
Never forget to 'Think Outside of the Box.'
HOWEVER...., The correct answer is to run the old lady over and put her out of her misery because Obama's health care won't pay for her hospital visit anyway, have your way with the perfect partner on the hood of the car, then drive off with the old friend for a few beers.
Stop with the "Death Squad" nonsense already. I know from previous discussions with you that you are capable of better than this.
Hey, I don't write em, I just post em LOL
I got tjat as an e-mail

 

[bionicarm]

I haven't read the final bill, but it was my understanding this only affects employers who have 50 or more employees. Most businesses that size already have some form of health insurance available to their employees anyway. Also, the intent isn't for the businesses to completely pay for their employees insurance. Businesses are supposed to gain access to various insurance pools, that provide substantially discounted insurance plans. Also haven't read what percentage of the insurance costs the business is supposed to incur. So if a plan cost $5000/year per employee, and the employer is only responsible for 10% of that cost, then $500 is cheaper than the $2000 fine they would incur for not insuring those employees.
If the cost of this insurance becomes cost prohibitive for small-to-medium busineses, they will simply find a way around the system. I employ less than 50 individuals in my company, so as I understand it, this doesn't affect me. But let's say I had 100 employees. I provide professional services to my customers (get your mind out of the gutter). A majority of my employees are 'contract for hire', meaning I obtain their services from these companies who have contractors and temporaries on their staff that work for a set fee. As far as it looks on my books, they are independent contractors. I'm not responsible for their employment taxes or their benefits. They are paid by an agreed upon hourly rate. This rate is substantially higher than what I would pay someone who did in fact work for my company directly, and was on my payroll. The difference is enough that it affords the contractor the ability to obtain the insurance of their choice, and also allows them to decide what days they want to work -- they don't work, they don't get paid. It's a win/win situation for both sides. I don't have to deal with all the headaches that come with a full time employee, and they can work when they want and however long they want without being tied down to a specific company. Technically, they are not a head count on my books. I can walk up to one of my contractors tomorrow and tell them I no longer require their services, and they're out the door. My only fee is a recruitment fee I pay this hiring company. So if I had 100 employees on my actual payroll, I'd just put 55 of them on a 'contract for hire' basis, and I would then fall under the 50 employee minimum requirement.

 

[mrdc]

I just wonder how what kind of sweet deals a lot of the dems got for their votes.
I was talking to an empolyer at the gym today and he is worried about what this is going to cost him. He says that he will more than likely reduce the employees' pay or fire someone to cover the cost.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3250028
I haven't read the final bill, but it was my understanding this only affects employers who have 50 or more employees. Most businesses that size already have some form of health insurance available to their employees anyway. Also, the intent isn't for the businesses to completely pay for their employees insurance. Businesses are supposed to gain access to various insurance pools, that provide substantially discounted insurance plans. Also haven't read what percentage of the insurance costs the business is supposed to incur. So if a plan cost $5000/year per employee, and the employer is only responsible for 10% of that cost, then $500 is cheaper than the $2000 fine they would incur for not insuring those employees.
If the cost of this insurance becomes cost prohibitive for small-to-medium busineses, they will simply find a way around the system. I employ less than 50 individuals in my company, so as I understand it, this doesn't affect me. But let's say I had 100 employees. I provide professional services to my customers (get your mind out of the gutter). A majority of my employees are 'contract for hire', meaning I obtain their services from these companies who have contractors and temporaries on their staff that work for a set fee. As far as it looks on my books, they are independent contractors. I'm not responsible for their employment taxes or their benefits. They are paid by an agreed upon hourly rate. This rate is substantially higher than what I would pay someone who did in fact work for my company directly, and was on my payroll. The difference is enough that it affords the contractor the ability to obtain the insurance of their choice, and also allows them to decide what days they want to work -- they don't work, they don't get paid. It's a win/win situation for both sides. I don't have to deal with all the headaches that come with a full time employee, and they can work when they want and however long they want without being tied down to a specific company. Technically, they are not a head count on my books. I can walk up to one of my contractors tomorrow and tell them I no longer require their services, and they're out the door. My only fee is a recruitment fee I pay this hiring company. So if I had 100 employees on my actual payroll, I'd just put 55 of them on a 'contract for hire' basis, and I would then fall under the 50 employee minimum requirement.
Only business with under 50 employees will be allowed into the "exchange" at first, however even at a reduced rate (and we have yet to see the cost of these premiums) it would be cheaper for the business to pay the fine or tax penalty instead of footing a good protion of the heathcare cost. This is the part most are ignoring.
Does this save those emplyees money, actually no...in fact it increases the cost of their premiums since the business is no longer pay a good portion of it. and the employee is now paying full "exchange" price instead of compnay reduced exchange price. And most people would rather pay the 95-1000 dollar a year fine instead of dropping 3-10 grand a year on insuraqnce.

 

[darthtang aw]

I was talking to an empolyer at the gym today and he is worried about what this is going to cost him. He says that he will more than likely reduce the employees' pay or fire someone to cover the cost.
Or no longer match a portion of 401K...there are a ton of things businesses will do...

 

[mrdc]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3250041
Or no longer match a portion of 401K...there are a ton of things businesses will do...
Yep and it will in the end the give the employees the shaft. I wonder what companies (like the one my brother works for) that quit making 401k contributions a year ago will cut out next to pay for this.

 

[bionicarm]

It all depends how expensive or inexpensive these exchange plans will be. Your basing the savings someone would receive by paying the fine instead of buying the insurance on their actual health situation. Someone young who rarely gets sick may benefit by just paying the fine, but all it would take is one major medical issue (major accident, minor surgery, etc.) and that 3 - 10 grand insurance cost would look like a real bargain. I personally wouldn't go without health insurance if I had kids of any age. There's too many diseases they can catch, and too many opportunities for accidental injuries to not have insurance.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3250053
It all depends how expensive or inexpensive these exchange plans will be. Your basing the savings someone would receive by paying the fine instead of buying the insurance on their actual health situation. Someone young who rarely gets sick may benefit by just paying the fine, but all it would take is one major medical issue (major accident, minor surgery, etc.) and that 3 - 10 grand insurance cost would look like a real bargain. I personally wouldn't go without health insurance if I had kids of any age. There's too many diseases they can catch, and too many opportunities for accidental injuries to not have insurance.
I agree with you on a personal level...but the complaint is the money lost through emergency room visits for common treatments by individuals that don't have health insurance. Like I stated 95 dollars a year is a small price to pay on your taxes for skipping out on a couple emergency room visits as so many do.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3250058
I agree with you on a personal level...but the complaint is the money lost through emergency room visits for common treatments by individuals that don't have health insurance. Like I stated 95 dollars a year is a small price to pay on your taxes for skipping out on a couple emergency room visits as so many do.
That's one law I've always had an issue with. I think it's ridiculous that someone can walk into an ER with a cold, claim they're having a heart attack, and get medical assistance on my nickel. Here in San Antonio, there's only two hospitals that will take patients who don't have insurance - Wilford Hall Medical Center (Air Force hospital), and the local County Hospital. If you had no choice but to go to those hospitals, you'd probably die before seeing anyone due the wait times because of all the freeloaders, most of them being illegals. That's something they should have included with this bill. Since it's mandated now that every AMERICAN is required to have health insurance, then there's no reason to provide this free medical care in the ER's.

 

[bionicarm]

here ya go...

 

[mrdc]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3250072
That's one law I've always had an issue with. I think it's ridiculous that someone can walk into an ER with a cold, claim they're having a heart attack, and get medical assistance on my nickel. Here in San Antonio, there's only two hospitals that will take patients who don't have insurance - Wilford Hall Medical Center (Air Force hospital), and the local County Hospital. If you had no choice but to go to those hospitals, you'd probably die before seeing anyone due the wait times because of all the freeloaders, most of them being illegals. That's something they should have included with this bill. Since it's mandated now that every AMERICAN is required to have health insurance, then there's no reason to provide this free medical care in the ER's.
Reminds me of my buddy who drives an ambulance. It seems that 95% of the calls he goes on are crap calls and the ones making them of course cannot pay for treatment. What really disturbs me is how many of his calls take him to repeat "customers". They can't ignore the call because then they would get sued.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3250072
That's one law I've always had an issue with. I think it's ridiculous that someone can walk into an ER with a cold, claim they're having a heart attack, and get medical assistance on my nickel. Here in San Antonio, there's only two hospitals that will take patients who don't have insurance - Wilford Hall Medical Center (Air Force hospital), and the local County Hospital. If you had no choice but to go to those hospitals, you'd probably die before seeing anyone due the wait times because of all the freeloaders, most of them being illegals. That's something they should have included with this bill. Since it's mandated now that every AMERICAN is required to have health insurance, then there's no reason to provide this free medical care in the ER's.
True, but there is a law on the books stating hospitals can not refuse medical service. If a person needs treatment they have to be seen in that ER. This law was NOT addressed in the bill...therefore the occurances will continue.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3250028
I haven't read the final bill, but it was my understanding this only affects employers who have 50 or more employees. Most businesses that size already have some form of health insurance available to their employees anyway. Also, the intent isn't for the businesses to completely pay for their employees insurance. Businesses are supposed to gain access to various insurance pools, that provide substantially discounted insurance plans. Also haven't read what percentage of the insurance costs the business is supposed to incur. So if a plan cost $5000/year per employee, and the employer is only responsible for 10% of that cost, then $500 is cheaper than the $2000 fine they would incur for not insuring those employees.
If the cost of this insurance becomes cost prohibitive for small-to-medium busineses, they will simply find a way around the system. I employ less than 50 individuals in my company, so as I understand it, this doesn't affect me. But let's say I had 100 employees. I provide professional services to my customers (get your mind out of the gutter). A majority of my employees are 'contract for hire', meaning I obtain their services from these companies who have contractors and temporaries on their staff that work for a set fee. As far as it looks on my books, they are independent contractors. I'm not responsible for their employment taxes or their benefits. They are paid by an agreed upon hourly rate. This rate is substantially higher than what I would pay someone who did in fact work for my company directly, and was on my payroll. The difference is enough that it affords the contractor the ability to obtain the insurance of their choice, and also allows them to decide what days they want to work -- they don't work, they don't get paid. It's a win/win situation for both sides. I don't have to deal with all the headaches that come with a full time employee, and they can work when they want and however long they want without being tied down to a specific company. Technically, they are not a head count on my books. I can walk up to one of my contractors tomorrow and tell them I no longer require their services, and they're out the door. My only fee is a recruitment fee I pay this hiring company. So if I had 100 employees on my actual payroll, I'd just put 55 of them on a 'contract for hire' basis, and I would then fall under the 50 employee minimum requirement.
I heard it was 50 or a payrol of 500K + If that is the case this will hit a whole lot of small businesses.