Sure you can have health insurance (not sure how you will pay for it).

[darthtang aw]

You seem to quit reading after the words "14% increase":
they get a 19% DECREASE in deductible (to $1,537) and a 35% DECREASE in out-of-pocket maximum, the maximum amount of covered health care costs they could spend (to $4,587).
The young shouldn't have an out by paying a penalty, period.  Extending the mandate for businesses is the typical political ploy to garner votes in the next election.  Republicans do it as often as Democrats.
And if I have to hear "and they didn't even bother to read the bill" one more time, I'm gonna puke Hannity Jr.  So did only Democrats decide to not read the bill, or did the Republicans not bother as well?  Sounds to me like they didn't do the job we sent them there to do, so why did you vote them back into office?
Where di you learn math?  The biggest portion of my wife's bi-weekly payment to her healthcare premium is for her.  As dependents, whether it's me or my two daughters, the amount she has to pay for us is the same.  I went step-by=step with her on every option she had for the various coverage's, and I saw the exact dollar amount for each person for each benefit.  I GUARANTEE you that if she didn't cover both my daughter's we would see an 81% deduction in her payment.  Not even close.  Are you sure you're not smoking some of that wacky weed when you're typing this stuff?
Missed this.
You seemed to not understand that decrease is AFTER the 81% increase. So in total it is 95% plan cost increase to get that decrease in deductible 35% decrease in out of pocket. Which young people will 99% of the time never use.
So you incarcerate someone instead for not having insurance? If there is no out...what do you do with these kids? Your only option is incarceration for no health insurance....which seems odd since you dont want to incarcerate for smoking weed....which further deters heath......:laughing:
No one read the bill. Ansd who said I voted them back in office?
as to your personal health insurance, I asked who you get it through, if it is a corporate policy or not. As this plays a huge factor in costs passed on to you. Most Corporation pick up 70% under the new law because their tax break is bigger now if they do so. The minimum requirement is to pay 50%. Hence why you may not have seen an increase. The corproration picks it up.
I am curious what your deductibles and total cost for your family is....especially the breakdown per person.

 

[darthtang aw]

And don't even get me started on the fact an obese person gets to pay the same as a healthy/fit person and less than a smoker.
Not only does obesity have more negative health consequences than smoking, drinking, or poverty, it also affects more people. Approximately 23 percent of Americans are obese. An additional 36 percent are overweight. By contrast, only 6 percent are heavy drinkers, 19 percent are daily smokers, and 14 percent live in poverty.

 

[darthtang aw]

And while I am at it, since this plan was to get the uninsured insured....
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304149404579326992266662838
Early signals suggest the majority of the 2.2 million people who sought to enroll in private insurance through new marketplaces through Dec. 28 were previously covered elsewhere, raising questions about how swiftly this part of the health overhaul will be able to make a significant dent in the number of uninsured. Insurers, brokers and consultants estimate at least two-thirds of those consumers previously bought their own coverage or were enrolled in employer-backed plans. The data, based on surveys of enrollees, are preliminary. But insurers say the tally of newly insured consumers is falling short of their expectations, a worrying trend for an industry looking to the law to expand the ranks of its customers...Only 11% of consumers who bought new coverage under the law were previously uninsured, according to a McKinsey & Co. survey of consumers thought to be eligible for the health-law marketplaces. The result is based on a sampling of 4,563 consumers performed between November and January, of whom 389 had enrolled in new insurance

 

[2quills]

And don't even get me started on the fact an obese person gets to pay the same as a healthy/fit person and less than a smoker.
.
I don't know where you're getting that from. How are these folks getting the same prices? Health insurance doesn't work that way.

 

[darthtang aw]

When you sign up through the exchange they no longer ask. They only ask if you are a smoker or nonsmoker.
I dont think blue cross asks on their website anymore either.

 

[2quills]

They must really be hurting for people to sign up then. Insurance companies here aren't giving it away cheaper to those people.
Although it probably doesn't matter if you're getting subsidized coverage anyway. Tax payers will foot the note for those folks with pre existing conditions regardless.

 

[beaslbob]

Quote:Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/40#post_3538962
They must really be hurting for people to sign up then. Insurance companies here aren't giving it away cheaper to those people.
Although it probably doesn't matter if you're getting subsidized coverage anyway. Tax payers will foot the note for those folks with pre existing conditions regardless.

IMHO one of the biggest lies was this pre existing conditions stuff.
1) you don't buy insurance after you get a condition.
2). most group plans cover preexisting conditions anyway.
my .02

 

[darthtang aw]

It is sort of like the no background checks at gun shows myth.

 

[2quills]

Well for one thing obesity is a health condition that some people can't control. Sure you can control your diet but it doesn't mean that your body metabolizes the same as someone else on the same diet. Smoking is a little different since its a choice as is drinking alcohol. But obese people were being denied access before and I'll agree that was a problem with the system.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/40#post_3538944
Missed this.
You seemed to not understand that decrease is AFTER the 81% increase. So in total it is 95% plan cost increase to get that decrease in deductible 35% decrease in out of pocket. Which young people will 99% of the time never use.
So you incarcerate someone instead for not having insurance? If there is no out...what do you do with these kids? Your only option is incarceration for no health insurance....which seems odd since you dont want to incarcerate for smoking weed....which further deters heath......

No one read the bill. Ansd who said I voted them back in office?
as to your personal health insurance, I asked who you get it through, if it is a corporate policy or not. As this plays a huge factor in costs passed on to you. Most Corporation pick up 70% under the new law because their tax break is bigger now if they do so. The minimum requirement is to pay 50%. Hence why you may not have seen an increase. The corproration picks it up.
I am curious what your deductibles and total cost for your family is....especially the breakdown per person.
You keep stating this 81% increase. How can they have an 81% increase if they didn't have health insurance in the first place?

Where in the world did I say you would incarcerate these people if they didn't purchase insurance? No, you do exactly as the plan states, either purchase the minimum possible plan, or you pay a penalty EQUAL to that amount. You choose. If you stick with this lame penalty, then they also have to sign a disclaimer stating they will receive NO free medical care period. You provide a waiver for these County hospitals and clinics stating that they are not legally required to provide any free medical services, regardless of their liability or Hippocratic Oath. The free ride is over.

It's BCBS Enhanced PPO through my wife's plan at her hospital. She pays $300/month for all four of us. If I recall, if she'd have just selected the two of us, the cost was around $225 or $250/month. We have Aetna Dental that costs $89/month, and the Vision Plan is $3/month.



Your Annual Price









Your Total Price $3,480.48









You and spouse and 2 children






In Network
$300 Individual; $600 Family
Out of Network
$2,500 Individual; $5,000 Family




Coinsurance percentage


In Network
85% covered
Out of Network
65% covered

>



Primary doctor office visit


In Network
85% covered after deductible is met
Out of Network
65% covered after deductible is met






Specialist office visit


In Network
85% covered after deductible is met
Out of Network
65% covered after deductible is met






Out-of-pocket maximum


In Network
$2,600 Individual; $5,200 Family; includes deductibles
Out of Network
$5,000 Individual; $10,000 Family; includes deductibles






Lifetime coverage limit



In Network
Limit does not apply
Out of Network
Limit does not apply




Prescription Drug Expenses





Prescription drug vendor


OptumRx






Prescription drug Web site


myuhc.com






Prescription drug member services phone number


1-877-468-0998






Annual prescription deductible


In Network
Not applicable
Out of Network
Not applicable






Annual prescription out-of-pocket maximum


In Network
$6,350 Individual; $12,700 Family
Out of Network
Not applicable






Rx subject to overall medical deductible & OOP


No






Rx subject to overall medical OOP max only (not medical ded)


No






Tier 1


In Network
$10 copay
Out of Network
65% covered; employee pays 35%; deductible does not apply






Tier 2


In Network
75% covered; employee pays 25%; deductible does not apply; employee min $35; max $55
Out of Network
65% covered; employee pays 35%; deductible does not apply




Tier 3

In Network
75% covered; employee pays 25%; deductible does not apply; employee min $50; max $70br />
Out of Network

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/20#post_3538872
Yes they did. Do you read? I posted what the CBO stated clarifying their intent by their statement. The clearly stated it would be due to the need to reduce their pay to maintain being subsidized for their healthcare amongst other reasons. They gave several reasons for it actually..
Direct from the CBO website so you can read it AGAIN.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45096
The CBO states :
Q: Will 2.5 Million People Lose Their Jobs in 2024 Because of the ACA?
A: No, we would not describe our estimates in that way.
We wrote in the report: “CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor.” The reason for the reduction in the supply of labor is that the provisions of the ACA reduce the incentive to work for certain subsets of the population.
For example, under the ACA, health insurance subsidies are provided to some people with low income and are phased out as their income rises; as a result, a portion of the added income from working more would be offset by a loss of some or all of the subsidies, which represents an implicit tax on earnings. Also, the ACA’s subsidies effectively boost the income of recipients, which will lead some of them to decide they can work less and still maintain or improve their standard of living. Therefore, some people will decide not to work or to work fewer hours than would otherwise be the case—including some people who will choose to retire earlier than they would have otherwise, and some people who will work less themselves and rely more on a spouse’s earnings. (Many other factors influence decisions about working, including, for example, income and payroll taxes and the cost of commuting and child care. Moreover, under current economic conditions, a substantial number of people who would like to work cannot find a job.)
Because the longer-term reduction in work is expected to come almost entirely from a decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply in response to the changes in their incentives, we do not think it is accurate to say that the reduction stems from people “losing” their jobs.
Here’s a useful way to think about the choice of wording: When firms do not have enough business and decide to lay people off, the people who are laid off are generally worse off and are therefore unhappy about what is happening. As a result, other people express their sympathy to those people for having “lost their jobs” due to forces beyond their control. In contrast, when the labor market is strong and people decide on their own to retire, to leave work to take care of their families, or to cut back on their hours to pursue other interests, those people presumably think they are better off (or they would not be making the voluntary choices they are making). As a result, other people are generally happy for them and do not describe them as having “lost their jobs.”
Thus, there is a critical difference between, on the one hand, people who leave a job for reasons beyond their control and, on the other hand, people who choose not to work or to work less. The wording that people use to describe those differing circumstances reflects the different reactions of the people involved. In our report, we indicated that “the estimated reduction [in employment] stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply,” so we think the language of “losing a job” does not fit.
Ultimately, we project that the number of jobs in the economy will be smaller than it would be in the absence of the ACA because some people will choose not to work at all, but CBO did not estimate the size of that change separately from the effect of people choosing to work fewer hours. We wrote in the report: “The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024 … The decline in full-time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people not being employed at all and other people working fewer hours; however, CBO has not tried to quantify those two components of the overall effect.” To be clear, total employment and hours worked will increase over the coming decade, but by less than they would have in the absence of the ACA. In the next few years, as we wrote in the report, the ACA “also will affect employers’ demand for workers, … both by increasing labor costs through the employer penalty (which will reduce labor demand) and by boosting overall demand for goods and services (which will increase labor demand).”
There is a broader question as to whether the society and the economy will be better off as a result of those choices being made available. Even though the individuals making decisions to work less presumably feel that they will be happier as a result of those decisions, total employment, investment, output, and tax revenue will be smaller. (Those effects are included in CBO’s budget and economic projections under current law.) To be sure, the health insurance system in place prior to the ACA generated its own distortions to people’s work decisions, but many of the decisions to work less under the ACA will be made possible by government-funded subsidies, the burden of which will be borne largely by other people. Moreover, people’s decisions about work are also affected by taxes and benefit programs apart from those related to health insurance. Hence, whether voluntary reductions in hours worked owing to the ACA are good or bad for the country as a whole is a matter of judgment.
A tradeoff of this sort—although not necessarily of the same magnitude—is intrinsic in any effort to significantly increase health insurance coverage or to provide other types of benefits that are aimed at low-income people. As we wrote in the report: “Subsidies that help lower-income people purchase an expensive product like health insurance must be relatively large to encourage a significant proportion of eligible people to enroll. If those subsidies are phased out with rising income …, the phaseout effectively … discourage[es] work.” Again, the best way to address that tradeoff is a matter of judgment.
Did you read this?

We wrote in the report: “The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024 … The decline in full-time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people not being employed at all and other people working fewer hours; however, CBO has not tried to quantify those two components of the overall effect.”

Which is exactly what I said. And as I also stated, the main reason there will be 2 million less by 2017 is because these individuals can now get alternative health insurance through ACA that won't break their retirement accounts, as opposed to pre-ACA where if they wanted to just quit their jobs and retire, or trim their work hours down just to ease into retirement their only alternative was to purchase private health insurance at ridiculous costs.

 

[darthtang aw]

Apparently you cant read. The article clearly states the same exact plans were 81% cheaper before ACA went into effect. Meaning it costs that percentage more to get insured. Through the exchange.
Your plan is subsidized by 70% through hospital. The total cost increase per month for kids would translate into near the numbers given. 75 dollars for the kids is only 30% of the true cost of the plan.
It is to difficult to answer by phone. I will rebuttal later on the other aspects.

 

[darthtang aw]

Did you read this?
We wrote in the report: “The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024 … The decline in full-time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people not being employed at all and other people working fewer hours; however, CBO has not tried to quantify those two components of the overall effect.”
Which is exactly what I said. 
This is what you said.

As to your argument about these "2 million decline in jobs", the CBO didn't quantify the reason WHY these people wouldn't be employed or chose to work fewer hours. It's called "de-coupling". You have millions of American workers that if they had the choice, they WOULD choose not to work or would work fewer hours. The reason they don't or can't is because prior to ACA, they either had to continue working in order to keep that cheap employee-sponsored health insurance, or retire and pay the outrageous premiums of private insurance or simply go without hoping they didn't get sick or hurt before they were eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. Now with ACA making "private" premiums somewhat reasonable, they CAN quit their jobs, work fewer hours, and actually RETIRE when retiring in your late 50's was the norm.

How can you quantify a why?
quan·ti·fy
ˈkwäntəˌfī/
verb
verb: quantify; 3rd person present: quantifies; past tense: quantified; past participle: quantified; gerund or present participle: quantifying
1.
express or measure the quantity of.
"it's very hard to quantify the cost"
2.
Logic
define the application of (a term or proposition) by the use of all, some, etc., e.g., “for all x if x is A then x is B.”
Regardless. When the CBO says they did not quantify, it means they did not attempt to put a number to the number of people that would reduce hours versus the number of people no longer working.
They did state WHY! It is right here.
“CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor.” The reason for the reduction in the supply of labor is that the provisions of the ACA reduce the incentive to work for certain subsets of the population.
and here
"For example, under the ACA, health insurance subsidies are provided to some people with low income and are phased out as their income rises; as a result, a portion of the added income from working more would be offset by a loss of some or all of the subsidies, which represents an implicit tax on earnings."
and here
" Also, the ACA’s subsidies effectively boost the income of recipients, which will lead some of them to decide they can work less and still maintain or improve their standard of living. Therefore, some people will decide not to work or to work fewer hours than would otherwise be the case—including some people who will choose to retire earlier than they would have otherwise, and some people who will work less themselves and rely more on a spouse’s earnings."
Then they also point out this problem...which EVERYONE seems to be glazing over.
"Even though the individuals making decisions to work less presumably feel that they will be happier as a result of those decisions, total employment, investment, output, and tax revenue will be smaller."
And as I also stated, the main reason there will be 2 million less by 2017 is because these individuals can now get alternative health insurance through ACA that won't break their retirement accounts, as opposed to pre-ACA where if they wanted to just quit their jobs and retire, or trim their work hours down just to ease into retirement their only alternative was to purchase private health insurance at ridiculous costs.
And that statement is false as well. By stating the "main" reason as such, you are interpretting the CBO as stating MOST will choose to reduce hours or retire for those reasons. When in actuality they said SOME. This is not Most, this is not Main. This is some....some could be as little as 1% all the way to 50%.
I suppose you could be saying this is not what the cbo quantified when you are referring to "why". But The cbo report clearly states they didnt quantify the number of people not work and the number of people reducing hours. They may have quantified the other aspects and they just aren't in the report as they are not sure of the numbers yet thus not releasing them..

 

[beaslbob]

Quote:Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/40#post_3538973
Apparently you cant read. The article clearly states the same exact plans were 81% cheaper before ACA went into effect.
...

You mena those plans dictated by the federal government that noone wanted to begin with.
Which are much more expensive then the private plans the people originally wanted.
Thos plans are cheaper yet people are seeing premiums increase.
Must have been some reason they weren't being offered before.

 

[beaslbob]

;http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/40#post_3539021
Quote:Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/40#post_3538973
Apparently you cant read. The article clearly states the same exact plans were 81% cheaper before ACA went into effect.
...

.

You mean those plans dictated by the federal government that noone wanted to begin with.
Which are much more expensive then the private plans the people originally wanted and purchased before Obamacare. You know the plans and doctors you will keep. Period!.
Those plans are cheaper yet people are seeing premiums increase.
Must have been some reason they weren't being offered before

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/40#post_3539006
This is what you said.
How can you quantify a why?
quan·ti·fy
ˈkwäntəˌfī/
verb
verb: quantify; 3rd person present: quantifies; past tense: quantified; past participle: quantified; gerund or present participle: quantifying
1.
express or measure the quantity of.
"it's very hard to quantify the cost"
2.
Logic
define the application of (a term or proposition) by the use of all, some, etc., e.g., “for all x if x is A then x is B.”
Regardless. When the CBO says they did not quantify, it means they did not attempt to put a number to the number of people that would reduce hours versus the number of people no longer working.
They did state WHY! It is right here.
“CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor.” The reason for the reduction in the supply of labor is that the provisions of the ACA reduce the incentive to work for certain subsets of the population.
and here
"For example, under the ACA, health insurance subsidies are provided to some people with low income and are phased out as their income rises; as a result, a portion of the added income from working more would be offset by a loss of some or all of the subsidies, which represents an implicit tax on earnings."
and here
" Also, the ACA’s subsidies effectively boost the income of recipients, which will lead some of them to decide they can work less and still maintain or improve their standard of living. Therefore, some people will decide not to work or to work fewer hours than would otherwise be the case—including some people who will choose to retire earlier than they would have otherwise, and some people who will work less themselves and rely more on a spouse’s earnings."
Then they also point out this problem...which EVERYONE seems to be glazing over.
"Even though the individuals making decisions to work less presumably feel that they will be happier as a result of those decisions, total employment, investment, output, and tax revenue will be smaller."
And that statement is false as well. By stating the "main" reason as such, you are interpretting the CBO as stating MOST will choose to reduce hours or retire for those reasons. When in actuality they said SOME. This is not Most, this is not Main. This is some....some could be as little as 1% all the way to 50%.
I suppose you could be saying this is not what the cbo quantified when you are referring to "why". But The cbo report clearly states they didnt quantify the number of people not work and the number of people reducing hours. They may have quantified the other aspects and they just aren't in the report as they are not sure of the numbers yet thus not releasing them..
Nothing but semantics with you. You take anyone's argument you disagree with and cherry-pick phrases and words to suit your agenda. Bottom line - it's been shown that these phantom 2.1 million people that MAY or MAY NOT quit their jobs by 2017 are doing so because of the benefits of acquiring affordable healthcare from the ACA, as opposed to going directly to some insurance provider and paying 30% - 50% more. The CBO sounds like every other Conservative group that pulls some number out of their rear, make some prediction into the future using those values, and people like you take them to heart and turn suppositions into facts.

 

[reefraff]

The only thing in my wife's plan that's changed that effects us since this disaster passed was the out of pocket cap increased from 3300 to 4100 dollars and he premium went up 4 times more than it had in the previous 3 years prior to the law change. What a great deal....

Single payer sounds great on paper. But do you want the same people who run Amtrack, The Post office, The department of veteran's affairs and the IRS, let alone 0bama care to run your health insurance?

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/40#post_3539021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397098/sure-you-can-have-health-insurance-not-sure-how-you-will-pay-for-it/40#post_3538973
Apparently you cant read. The article clearly states the same exact plans were 81% cheaper before ACA went into effect.
...

You mena those plans dictated by the federal government that noone wanted to begin with.
Which are much more expensive then the private plans the people originally wanted.
Thos plans are cheaper yet people are seeing premiums increase.
Must have been some reason they weren't being offered before.

My wife and I have checked the healthcare.gov plans for our state, and to get similar coverage's that we have today, we'd pay around $1031/month. Sure that's more than double what we pay now (because the hospital subsidizes the majority of our payments), but prior to ACA we looked at private insurance from the same providers, and it would've cost us anywhere from $1475 - $1700/month. That's one of the main reasons my wife continues to work where she does. Neither of us want to have to work into our 70's, but we also don't want to have to dip deep into our retirement money to pay for health insurance to cover us before Medicare kicks in, which if it still exists by then, we'd also have to purchase supplemental insurance to cover the things Medficare doesn't cover.

Is ACA perfect? Far from it. I see many areas that can be improved, and some things they should get rid of entirely. But at least it's some form of attempt to curve the outrageous healthcare costs that have been the norm for decades. Until every state gets on board with the plan (which will NEVER occur in the Red states), the costs will not come down. ACA was designed to have every state contribute to their own mandated plans to keep the overall costs down. That's the main reason the federal subsidy costs will continue to rise.

Just don't live in one of these areas:

http://money.msn.com/health-and-life-insurance/article.aspx?post=2c06c038-51bb-47a7-8497-c76d2283f11d

 

[darthtang aw]

Nothing but semantics with you.  You take anyone's argument you disagree with and cherry-pick phrases and words to suit your agenda.  Bottom line - it's been shown that these phantom 2.1 million people that MAY or MAY NOT quit their jobs by 2017 are doing so because of the benefits of acquiring affordable healthcare from the ACA, as opposed to going directly to some insurance provider and paying 30% - 50% more.  The CBO sounds like every other Conservative group that pulls some number out of their rear, make some prediction into the future using those values, and people like you take them to heart and turn suppositions into facts.
Cherry picking? Stones, glass house, and such.

Bottom line - it's been shown that these phantom 2.1 million people that MAY or MAY NOT quit their jobs by 2017 are doing so because of the benefits of acquiring affordable healthcare from the ACA, as opposed to going directly to some insurance provider and paying 30% - 50% more.

And how are they doing this? By being subsidized and thus working less to avoid making more money to avoid loosing their subsidy or having their subsidy reduced. It isn't reducing the actual cost of heathcare, in most cases it is increasing it. The government is just picking up the tab, or assisting with it.
I agreed something needed done. But this is a monstrosity and even the president is afraid to implement the entire thing. Hence the employer mandate....which means the tax payer cost and debt will get higher until that mandate goes into effect. Once it does, you may see a significant portion of people lose their heathcare plans that are partially paid by their employer and have to enroll on the governments dime.
You keep saying there are aspects of the bill you dont agree with and things that need changed. Yet nothing we have discussed you are against or dont like. So rather than continue down this path....I ask you. What do you feel needs changed and corrected?

 

[reefraff]

If companies are being forced to pay a fine for not providing health care for their employees employed persons who voluntarily quit their job to qualify for welfare subsidies should be prohibited from collecting them.